<i>The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless.</i><p>I agree. However, I believe the reason for this is more legislative laziness than anything else.<p>In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. The executive&#x27;s law enforcement and intelligence agencies typically have a wish list that they repeatedly ask the legislature to enact, because it would make their jobs easier. The legislature, under tremendous pressure to do <i>anything</i> and <i>fast</i>, does not attempt to really analyze the legislation, but rather uses every parliamentary trick to rush it through.<p>The executive uses these expanded powers to check off national security goals it already had in mind (see e.g. the hundreds of arrests during the French state of emergency.)<p>The end result is threefold:<p>First the executive is emboldened to at least look like they&#x27;re increasing security at home and abroad. At its worst, it either draws the nation into a war <i>on territory chosen by the terrorists</i> (see e.g. Afghanistan, the rock upon which the Soviet military machine shattered), or needless wars of choice which drain economic and military effectiveness (see e.g. Iraq)<p>Second, the country experiences an economic shock far out proportion to the actual attack, due to the fear of the populace, which directly and indirectly depresses multiple sectors of the economy.<p>Third, the country produces highly visible, although not necessarily highly effective, responses at the expense of sacrifice of civil liberties and personal convenience.<p>What&#x27;s more is that <i>terrorists count on this reaction.</i><p>They know that the costs of the response will  vastly outweigh the actual damage of the attack.These particular non-state actors are deemed &quot;terrorists&quot; for a reason. Because their most powerful weapons are not airliners, or bombs, or assault rifles.<p>Their most powerful weapon is fear.<p>They use that fear to cause nations to make poor decisions, then exploit those decisions to advance their causes. The only solution which I can devise is simply not let fear arbitrate our decisions.<p>We must announce, as one voice, that we are no longer afraid.