LONDON -- Since 9/11, the United States and other democratic countries have given priority to security, often at the expense of freedom, justice and human rights. Governments reckon that if they fail to take all possible steps to defend their citizens they will be rightly accused of dereliction of duty. But to some observers there is now a serious imbalance between security and freedom.

Leaders such as U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair no doubt believe passionately in democracy and the rule of law, but after the failure of intelligence related to the mistaken suspicion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the launching of the attack on the Hussein regime without specific U.N. approval, the botching of the occupation, and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, many people in the U.S. and in Britain no longer trust the judgment of their leaders.

Attention has rightly been focused on the right of all those detained in U.S. prisons at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to a fair trial. Of course, whom to admit to U.S. soil is solely a matter for the U.S. government to decide, but many Americans think that the obstacles to entering the U.S. are harming U.S. interests by reducing the number of foreign students at American universities and by deterring business visitors and tourists. Terrorism threatens the lives and liberty of all, but the response must be proportionate to the risk. If we let the risk become an excuse for repressive measures, we play into the hands of terrorists.