The answer to our surveillance dilemma lies in targeted surveillance, a warrant process overseen by the judiciary, an annual parliamentary public scrutiny of the security services, legislated protections for the professional privileges of doctors and lawyers and, most of all, a proper and lengthy public debate void of vague and fear inducing inferences to terror plots and criminal gangs.
It is inevitable that the Western world is still recovering from the horrific images of British aid workers and American journalists being beheaded in orange jump suits, by a masked executioner with a London accent. But as difficult as it may be, there must be a genuine attempt in creating a nuanced approach to understand what leads individuals like Adebolajo and Emwazi to resort to such extreme measures.
Last week the Home Secretary once again advanced the argument for granting the intelligence services new powers, reigniting the debate over the proper limits of state surveillance. It's a familiar contest made more important by the legacy of the Snowdon intelligence leaks, and more urgent by recent events Iraq.