First, a small note: People have been asking where the new banner shot came from. It's mine :)

So today is paranoia high alert day. I woke up with this horrible, sky-is-about-to-all, duck and cover feeling. I know it has more to do with my insonmia (and the fact that when I do sleep, I have nightmares) than anything else, but that doesn't make it go away. Not even talking about animated frog penises makes it go away.

Anyhow, this all leads to today's discussion on the war on terror. Yes, for one day only, news blogging is back at ASV.

Let's look at this story:

British police say more members of the public could be shot in error as they escalate their battle against terrorism and hunt for four men who tried to set off explosions on London's transport system last week.

And then, Jay Tea, over at Wizbang:

They played the odds, ran the numbers, and chose in instants whether they would risk one dead innocent or countless dead and injured innocents -- and they shot him. One innocent man is dead, but the message is clear: the police are ready and willing to kill to stop terrorists. And the fact that it took over two weeks for an innocent (or anyone, for that matter) to pass the threshold of "reasonable certainty" and merit shooting gives me faith in the police.

A compendium of my thoughts, gathered from the comments at Wizbang plus some thoughts I left on message boards I frequent:

I understand that the victim's behavior was supsicious, but for anyone, especially the London police, to insinuate that his death was just a necessary step in the war on terror, - and that something like this might happen again - is almost inhumane.

The cavalier attitude towards innocent people being killed in error is horrifying. It's like giving carte blanche to police to kill first, ask questions later all in the name of public safety.

That's not how civil societies behave.

You want to check my backpack when I get on the LIRR? Fine, I have no problem with that. You want to give police permission to just shoot down anyone they suspect may be a terrorist, in an "ask questions later" manner? And then try to justify that by saying it's all part and parcel of the war and terror and we should just expect it - and like it? No. I'm not down with that.

Yes, I know the guy was running and he didn't stop. I'm not saying he's completely absolved of any blame in his own death and I'm not passing judgment on that particular event; I take issue with the cavalier attitude toward the mistaken killing of an innocent person and the insistence by some that this kind of thing is not only ok, but necessary. My reaction is also to to the myriad of quotes I've heard and read from seemingly intelligent people this weekend all saying, in effect "innocent people need to be sacrificed if we are to fight terrorism."

Uhh..tell me again who's winning this thing?

[file under, posts I will regret]

A Gray Line dispatcher called 911 and told cops the men had backpacks and their pockets "stuffed" - a possible warning sign of suicide bombers, said NYPD spokesman Paul Browne. By the time the bus neared Times Square, cops carrying heavy weapons decided to cordon off Broadway and stop the vehicle, a decision police officials defended as appropriate.

That's a sign of terrorists or a sign of tourists? Is there a difference anymore? The police ordered everyone, including two little girls, off the bus with their hands up.

It's going to be one crazy summer and I don't mean that in John Cusack kind of way.