Luke Mitchell's recent article in Harper's, "A Run on Terror", argues cogently that the war on terror comes out of misguided priorities, and is an overreaction to the actual threat posed by terror. Mitchell:
Terror, like ecstasy, tends to magnify perceptions. Just as affection becomes adoration in the physical act of love, so too does vigilance sometimes become morbid obsession in the face of spectacular violence.
He goes on to cite morbidity statistics from various causes of death. 2001 was peak year for American deaths from terrorism, when 2978 died. Still, this is less than the number of deaths by drowning (3247) and vastly less than that from suicide (30,622) and cancer (553,768).
Put this together with the story about British science advisor Ivan Rogers, who advised Tony Blair that global warming was a more serious threat than international terrorism, and received a gag order from Downing Street as a reward for his trouble. Add in the CDC report on preventable deaths and their numbers: smoking, obesity, poor diet, and physical inactivity are far and away the leaders. They are orders of magnitude greater than terrorism in their impact.
And yet, when 3000 people die in a fireball, it's an occasion to suspend due process; to intern people without trial, charge, or representation; to silence dissent in the name of "patriotism". Terror is no threat to our democracy. The response to terror is the threat.