By By Brian Bohl

They who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety – Benjamin Franklin.

The fine line between civil liberties and national security was blurred one morning in a London subway train. Jean Charles de Menezes did not have any ties to extremist groups, but nonetheless he needlessly died as a casualty in the war on terror.

Menezes was a Brazilian electrician who had being living in England for the past three years. The 27-year-old legal resident of Great Britain paid the ultimate price due to an overzealous and disconcerted police force. On the heels of two terrorist attacks in less than a month, undercover officers in Stockwell chased Menezes into a train believing him to be a suicide bomber.

Perception trumpeted reality on this occasion, as five bullets were shot into Menezes’ head, killing him instantly. The action of the police has been attributed to a recently adopted shoot-to-kill policy. With suicide bombers needing only seconds to complete their mission, many law enforcement officials say there is not enough time to adequately assess the guilt or innocence of the suspects.

But when an innocent person is killed because of a wrong decision-those involved must be held accountable. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, initially said the man was “directly linked” to anti-terror operations and he was “connected” to four suspected copy-cat bombers, according to the Daily Telegraph.

This was quickly proven false. Shortly after, the Metropolitan Police Service issued a release: “For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets.”

Regrets ring hollow when an innocent life is lost. Blair should immediately be removed from his post and the officers involved be subjected to a thorough investigation. Killing innocent people under the pretext of ensuring national safety is not only inexcusable, but also sets a dangerous precedent that can have dire consequences in the future.

A strategy recently adopted by many nations has been to fight terrorism on the offensive. While there are benefits to this type of policy, the risks involved are also very high. Taking violent action without knowing the facts might work in certain circumstances, but often can lead to tragic mistakes. Societies in the United States and Europe are faced with a difficult decision: are people willing to accept increased police powers and restrictions on freedoms for larger security presence? As evidenced by the invasion in Iraq, wars fought on the offensive also incur a large number of civilian deaths. At what point does the sacrifice of human lives become too much?

Another disturbing example of increased police vigilance took place in New York City. Five men were arrested on a sight-seeing bus because a representative from the Gray Line Bus Company reported that they looked “suspicious.” According to the New York Times they were later released because they “did not pose a threat.” So five men were placed under arrest simply because of the way they looked. Welcome to the new America.

Is the western world ready to give up individual rights in exchange for safety? In the future will deaths like Menezes be accepted as necessary setbacks in the quest to eradicate the threat of terrorism? So far no police action in this country has resulted in a tragedy like Menezes’ death, but with an environment that emphasis preemptive action; it’s only a matter of time.