I don't quite agree with Trevor's phrasing but I agree with his main point. That much should be obvious from my posts.
I don't, however, believe those who disagree to be cowards; at least not necessarily.
For my part, my view stems from a personal preference: that liberty and freedom are essential to my own happiness. I would of course love safety as well, but, like any reasonable person, I have priorities and safety is somewhat further down the list than freedom.
What follows is selfish - I want a society that protects what is essential to my happiness and quality of life, even if it must lessen the surety of my safety to do so.
@Titus evidently has a different personal preference; to him, safety is evidently more important than liberty and freedom and thus he wants a society that preferences the safety of its citizens even at the cost of their freedoms.
When I promote and argue for a society that preferences freedom over safety, I am promoting a society that accords with my personal happiness but is in opposition to Titus's personal happiness.
So how do we resolve this?
From an objective standpoint, treating both safety and liberty as equally important, you have to ask yourself which will be the harder to regain if it is lost?
My answer, as well as Trevor's and a great many people on this forum, is that liberty and freedom are by far the harder to regain. History (as well as contemporary events) has shown us that when a people lose their freedoms, the only way to regain them is either a violent revolution or a long, drawn-out conflict; neither without loss of life.
In places like Egypt and Syria we have seen just how much bloodshed can result from such conflicts. And, while hard information is difficult to come by, some reports estimate up to 200,000 people interred in North Korean 'labour camps' - often for life, which, in the conditions is often not all that long, with a terrible attrition rate due to starvation, frostbite, illness, etc... Many of the people in these camps are political prisoners.
The point is that whatever safety you gain in abandoning freedom and liberty, you will lose far more safety in trying to regain those freedoms and liberties.
As a parting thought, let me address one of your (@Titus) statements:
"That said it is still my opinion that the most effective defense against terrorism is police action supported by effective intelligence.
That opinion is valid and you are entitled to it, but is largely beside the main point, which is that the goal of 'defen[ding] against terrorism', however important, is not more important than defending against the loss of freedom and liberty.
To quote Shep Smith (Fox News) when discussing torture: "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not f%$king torture!!"
Easily adaptable to this situation. The message is that 'effective[ness]' is not the sole criterion when determining the best course of action. As someone above said, it would be even more effective to put cameras and microphones in every room of every house, apartment, store, office block and public toilet. We could also implant every person with tracking devices that monitor their movements and everything they say, do and see. That would be more effective but that doesn't mean it's the right thing.