Why has terrorism surveillance been reduced when the number of potential terrorists has grown?
In the wake of the bombing in Manchester, England, the media is reporting that, despite an increase in the number of potential terrorists, there has been a decline in terrorist surveillance. People are returning to the United Kingdom from fighting for terrorists, and the government is permitting them to enter the country. At the very least, the government needs to make sure that these returnees don’t commit acts of violence. But that’s not what’s happening. According to the Express, “Around 3,500 suspected terrorists in UK – but powers to monitor used LESS than in 2015.”
Around 400 ISIS-trained fighters are believed to have returned from war zones in Syria and Iraq.
Despite being on red alert for more attacks on home soil like today’s carnage in Westminster, new statistics show the number of arrests, stop and searches, and examinations of suspected terrorists at ports and airports dropped in 2016 on the levels seen in 2015.
This comes at the same time that the number of people arrested on suspicion of plotting terror strikes on British soil has grown by eight per cent.
This seems inexplicable but it makes sense from an economic point of view. The government claims a monopoly on maintaining security within its borders. When you have a monopoly, the quality of your product declines and your prices go up. Thus, governments tend to leave their citizens less safe while demanding higher taxes or going deeper into debt.
This process may have resulted in the bombing of the Ariana Grande concert:
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com