Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Minchia!

Gotta Love The Department Of Homeland Security....

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8080103030.html

I mean really! What will they think of next "to protect us from the terrorists"? Maybe we should all have our ears tagged with GPS locators! I wonder if they realize that every ridiculous measure they take to inconvenience us and rob us of our rights only demonstrates that the terrorists tactics have been successful.

P.S.

Sorry I haven't been posting lately, I have been utterly burried in work. :read:

edit - whoops forgot the link!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Benjamin Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing about the whole business is not that their practices are questionable and, in some cases, downright illegal and unethical.

The worst thing is that, in order to be objective, one also has to acknowledge that there has not been another 9/11.

The complexity of reality has that peculiar way of sucking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that there has not been another 9/11 may or may not have anything to do with our security policies. Lets not confuse correlation and causation. Besides, I would rather live in constant fear of my enemies than in constant fear of my own government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that there has not been another 9/11 may or may not have anything to do with our security policies. Lets not confuse correlation and causation. Besides, I would rather live in constant fear of my enemies than in constant fear of my own government.

Words to live by...

EDIT: recommended lecture: "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that it's a dumb move, but at least it shows that their heart is in the right place. Which can't be said of the Indian govt/intelligence agency. Human life has no value here. After *routine* bomb blasts, the prime minister's only job is to condemn the blasts, nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed that it's a dumb move, but at least it shows that their heart is in the right place. Which can't be said of the Indian govt/intelligence agency. Human life has no value here. After *routine* bomb blasts, the prime minister's only job is to condemn the blasts, nothing else.

I'm not so sure their hearts are in the right place though. The funny thing is, a lot of the people with whom I shared this article (as well as other infringments on our liberty by the DHS), instantly replied: "Big deal, if you've done nothing wrong, than there's nothing to worry about, is there?"

This is such a dangerous and naive position to take, as it assumes that the individuals that run your government always have your best interests in mind. We all know from history, that this is rarely the case. Blind acceptance of policies like this are not what the founding fathers had in mind. Fascist regimes have begun this way.

EDIT: I am not implying that you are one of those blind fools, Lab - it's just that your comment about having their hearts in the right places reminded me of that argument. Obviously, the Indian government is the other extreme and is in my opinion just as corrupt and flawed as ours here in the US - it's just on the other end of the spectrum. There has to be some balance between reactive and proactive security measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who's vacationing in the US these days? Who'd want to go there with the chance of some halfwit customs guy taking a fancy to your girlfriend, nicking off with your camera and laptop and searching out all your home-made porn of you and your girlfriend? :P

Your government sucks. Sucks worse than Bridgestones, even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that there has not been another 9/11 may or may not have anything to do with our security policies. Lets not confuse correlation and causation. Besides, I would rather live in constant fear of my enemies than in constant fear of my own government.

It is naive to think that security policies have no bearing on... security (for better and worse) or that the reason why the 9/11 attack was not stopped in time did not have to do with insuficient/inadequate security.

Moreover, unless you are 100% sure that another attack will not occur, you need the kind of security that you didn't have before... whatever that might be.

The point I made was not of "approval" of the measures taken which, in any case, I consider to be "questionable and, in some cases, downright illegal and unethical."

The point I did make was that, for the sake of objectivity, one is forced to acknowledge that there has not been a second attack... because it is a fact. If you deny causality, you do at the risk of your objectivity since that implies a _certainty_ equal to a leap of faith.

Lastly, you may live in fear of your government because they are a pain at airports and the such (your post). Other people are more... choosy. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that, again, a second attack has not taken place.

Thus, I see no value in ignoring that fact or think that acknowledging that fact prevents you from being equally critical of the measures taken. One may venture that being objective (and, perhaps, giving credit where it may lay) could actually strengthen your position...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is naive to think that security policies have no bearing on... security (for better and worse) or that the reason why the 9/11 attack was not stopped in time did not have to do with insuficient/inadequate security.

Moreover, unless you are 100% sure that another attack will not occur, you need the kind of security that you didn't have before... whatever that might be.

The point I made was not of "approval" of the measures taken which, in any case, I consider to be "questionable and, in some cases, downright illegal and unethical."

The point I did make was that, for the sake of objectivity, one is forced to acknowledge that there has not been a second attack... because it is a fact. If you deny causality, you do at the risk of your objectivity since that implies a _certainty_ equal to a leap of faith.

Lastly, you may live in fear of your government because they are a pain at airports and the such (your post). Other people are more... choosy. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that, again, a second attack has not taken place.

Thus, I see no value in ignoring that fact or think that acknowledging that fact prevents you from being equally critical of the measures taken. One may venture that being objective (and, perhaps, giving credit where it may lay) could actually strengthen your position...

A valid argument - assuming a high confidence in the competence of the powers that be. I don't know the last time you graced an airport in the US and witnessed the festering ocean of diarrhea that is our Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but most of the people who are entrusted with the security of the traveling public, I wouldn't trust to sit the right way on a toilet seat let alone determine whether or not I am a security threat. I have seen more competent people serving me french frys at the local McDonalds. This illusion of security is just that - an illusion. It is nothing more than window dressing. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could (and probably will) perpetrate a devastating attack. It is just a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is there to stop them from putting data on your computer....... and then claiming it was already there.....

I assume that you would not be allowed to "accompany" your laptop to whereever they are taking it...??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A valid argument - assuming a high confidence in the competence of the powers that be. I don't know the last time you graced an airport in the US and witnessed the festering ocean of diarrhea that is our Transportation Security Administration (TSA), but most of the people who are entrusted with the security of the traveling public, I wouldn't trust to sit the right way on a toilet seat let alone determine whether or not I am a security threat. I have seen more competent people serving me french frys at the local McDonalds. This illusion of security is just that - an illusion. It is nothing more than window dressing. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could (and probably will) perpetrate a devastating attack. It is just a matter of time.

And you make a valid point but fail to follow through with it and ask the tough questions, namely, what kind of security would be adequate? That is, if not this, then what? How easy/difficult do you think is to prevent something like 9/11? What are the sensible measures?

There is no need to assume any level of confidence "in the competence of the powers that be" to acknowledge the fact that there has not been another 9/11. Unless, of course, you assume that 9/11 was a one-off and that no one has tried in any manner whatsoever to carry out another terrorist attack. Unfortunately, that certainty is not there... and such an assumption is only necessary if you need to dismiss data in order to charge against government policies, feeling that giving credit where it may be deserved weakens your argument...

I cannot assume that terrorism is a thing of the past or that the "motives" behind 9/11 are no longer "valid". I simply can't because the state of affairs says otherwise... let us not forget that, since 9/11, US has invaded two countries and "intervened" in a number of others. My thinking is that the probability that there are those that would like to carry out terrorist activities in US soil is quite high.

Yet, they have not succeeded. Why? The question merits consideration too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you make a valid point but fail to follow through with it and ask the tough questions, namely, what kind of security would be adequate? That is, if not this, then what? How easy/difficult do you think is to prevent something like 9/11? What are the sensible measures?

There is no need to assume any level of confidence "in the competence of the powers that be" to acknowledge the fact that there has not been another 9/11. Unless, of course, you assume that 9/11 was a one-off and that no one has tried in any manner whatsoever to carry out another terrorist attack. Unfortunately, that certainty is not there... and such an assumption is only necessary if you need to dismiss data in order to charge against government policies, feeling that giving credit where it may be deserved weakens your argument...

I cannot assume that terrorism is a thing of the past or that the "motives" behind 9/11 are no longer "valid". I simply can't because the state of affairs says otherwise... let us not forget that, since 9/11, US has invaded two countries and "intervened" in a number of others. My thinking is that the probability that there are those that would like to carry out terrorist activities in US soil is quite high.

Yet, they have not succeeded. Why? The question merits consideration too...

I think that sensible security measures should not involve eroding the rights of the people they are trying to protect. The government should spend more time on foreign intelligence gathering and improving inter-departmental communications (something that could have prevented 9/11 in the first place). I attribute the fact that we have not had a sequel to 9/11 not to the shambling mound of bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security (after all, they did such a outstanding job handling the aftermath of hurricane Katrina), but to the fact that the enemy is disorganised, distracted and financially stretched. I will, however, give credit where it is due - the two wars we are conducting overseas (as much as I hate to admit it) probably are responsible for this.

Only a miniscule fraction of shipping containers coming into this country are checked, there are vast swathes of our borders with Canada and Mexico that are totally unmanned and unmonitored, and there are too many completely unprotected "soft targets" throughout this country. I should know, I work in one every day (The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino) and the security is appaling. There are just too many holes in our national security to prevent another attack of some sort. So far, we have only been reacting, post hoc, to failed attempts at terrorism. (i.e. implementing manditory shoe inspections at the airport only after that guy failed to detonate his explosive shoe - or banning all liquids after a failed plot to use toothpaste and hair gel containers to create explosives on the plane).

The argument is moot anyway. Even if I am completely wrong and all of the security measures that the DHS are taking are totally effective in ensuring we are not attacked again, so what? If we turn into a police state, where all of the citizens are subject to random home searches, imprisonment without reason, and wire tapping, I'm sure we will probably be much more safe from terrorist attacks. That securtiy comes at too great a cost in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes Homeland security gotta lover it , I love my country its that dman government I don't trust !!!!1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes Homeland security gotta lover it , I love my country its that dman government I don't trust !!!!1

AMEN!

I love this country too and I will continue to love it until I am no longer allowed to disagree with the people running it. It is NOT unpatriotic to protest the actions of our leaders! Thats how this country was founded in the first place. Just because I don't swallow the metric tons of rhinoserous $hit that this administration spews out every day like all the other sheep do, does not make me a traitor! The government should fear its people, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMEN!

I love this country too and I will continue to love it until I am no longer allowed to disagree with the people running it. It is NOT unpatriotic to protest the actions of our leaders! Thats how this country was founded in the first place. Just because I don't swallow the metric tons of rhinoserous $hit that this administration spews out every day like all the other sheep do, does not make me a traitor! The government should fear its people, not the other way around.

I am a screw for the great and omnipotent George W Bush, and your comments have been recorded. Expect a knock on your front door. Any. Minute. Now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that sensible security measures should not involve eroding the rights of the people they are trying to protect. The government should spend more time on foreign intelligence gathering and improving inter-departmental communications (something that could have prevented 9/11 in the first place). I attribute the fact that we have not had a sequel to 9/11 not to the shambling mound of bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security (after all, they did such a outstanding job handling the aftermath of hurricane Katrina), but to the fact that the enemy is disorganised, distracted and financially stretched. I will, however, give credit where it is due - the two wars we are conducting overseas (as much as I hate to admit it) probably are responsible for this.

Only a miniscule fraction of shipping containers coming into this country are checked, there are vast swathes of our borders with Canada and Mexico that are totally unmanned and unmonitored, and there are too many completely unprotected "soft targets" throughout this country. I should know, I work in one every day (The Venetian Resort Hotel Casino) and the security is appaling. There are just too many holes in our national security to prevent another attack of some sort. So far, we have only been reacting, post hoc, to failed attempts at terrorism. (i.e. implementing manditory shoe inspections at the airport only after that guy failed to detonate his explosive shoe - or banning all liquids after a failed plot to use toothpaste and hair gel containers to create explosives on the plane).

The argument is moot anyway. Even if I am completely wrong and all of the security measures that the DHS are taking are totally effective in ensuring we are not attacked again, so what? If we turn into a police state, where all of the citizens are subject to random home searches, imprisonment without reason, and wire tapping, I'm sure we will probably be much more safe from terrorist attacks. That securtiy comes at too great a cost in my opinion.

Now you are closer to something reasonable.

Of course, it is absurd to claim that "all of the security measures that the DHS are taking are totally effective". The truth is likely to be closer to some measures and somewhat effective... so it is equally absurd to claim that they have no effect whatsoever...

The truth is that being the one of the people responsible for the security of an entire country MUST be incredibly stressful for you are demanded perfection from a next to impossible misison. Consider, for example, the issue with which you opened the topic. If you had knowledge that a detonator could be hidden inside a laptop and that current measures would not detected, what measures would you take?

The geography of the US, the large population, the inmense amount of legitimate travel through the borders, the enormous quantities of goods being shipped to and from the US, etc, etc. If you stop to consider how to prevent terrorist attacks, you realize that the job is, again, next to impossible.

And, to top it all, you need to reach a balance so that, as you say, individual and collective rights are not violated. The question is, is it even possible? If not, what has to be sacrificed? Again, where lies the balance?

To make matters worse, there are political maneouvers disguised as "security" such as (re)election campaigns.

And so, I repeat what I said in my first post in this topic (notice the bold):

The worst thing about the whole business is not that their practices are questionable and, in some cases, downright illegal and unethical.

The worst thing is that, in order to be objective, one also has to acknowledge that there has not been another 9/11.

The complexity of reality has that peculiar way of sucking...

Btw, I lived in the US for many years and consider it a second home. I agree with you both. While I have profound sympathy and appreciation for the American people, I am not at all fond of the American government.

I travel to the US several times a year on business and to see friends. After 9/11, it became a pain and I stopped doing it (my friends now come visit me). For my business, I delegate on a colleage, the most good nature fellow. He is African and, on every return from the US, he tells us with a shy, innocent smile how he was "randomly search at every checkpoint"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worst thing about the whole business is not that their practices are questionable and, in some cases, downright illegal and unethical.

The worst thing is that, in order to be objective, one also has to acknowledge that there has not been another 9/11.

The complexity of reality has that peculiar way of sucking...

Yes, good post. People have a tendency to not consider such unpleasant arguments.

EDIT: recommended lecture: "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein.

I will check her it out. Though I suspect I will disagree with it! :P

So who's vacationing in the US these days? Who'd want to go there with the chance of some halfwit customs guy taking a fancy to your girlfriend, nicking off with your camera and laptop and searching out all your home-made porn of you and your girlfriend? :P

:lol: Good job all my child porn is on DVD...

I love this country too and I will continue to love it until I am no longer allowed to disagree with the people running it. It is NOT unpatriotic to protest the actions of our leaders! Thats how this country was founded in the first place. Just because I don't swallow the metric tons of rhinoserous $hit that this administration spews out every day like all the other sheep do, does not make me a traitor! The government should fear its people, not the other way around.

Yes. It's strange how so many Americans seem to feel that their government is their country. In Europe we go to the other, equally ridiculous, extreme.

I travel to the US several times a year on business and to see friends. After 9/11, it became a pain and I stopped doing it (my friends now come visit me). For my business, I delegate on a colleage, the most good nature fellow. He is African and, on every return from the US, he tells us with a shy, innocent smile how he was "randomly search at every checkpoint"...

:lol:

I have a fairly open mind about these measures. Like Maure, I suspect that they might make at least some difference to security, and sometimes it is sensible to trade some liberty for some safety, contrary to Benjamin Franklin's statement, otherwise we wouldn't have speed limits, for example. Minchia is right that it would be foolish to argue that security policies have necessarily been very effective, as he says there have been plenty of terrorist attempts that were simply bungled. I'm sure it is not hard for terrorists to share information in ways other than putting them on a laptop that you hand over to a security officer, or for them to build detonators in other ways, after all they aren't complicated devices. Thousands of Mexicans enter America illegally every year, and you would think it is easier to sneak a detonator around the country than thousands of Mexican families.

On the whole I don't mind trading some degree of liberty in to the government, and I'm still in favour of the Iraq war. It's a pity other world leaders didn't do as Blair - in light of the surge, we can now see that the problem was too few troops, as well as poor management of the "peace". I think history will blame other countries for the failures there, along with the American government's incompetence. But my problem with America's actions in the "war on terror" is the way they have completely abandoned their liberal principles when it comes to suspected terrorists.

Indefinite internment without charge is completely against everything the West supposedly stands for. People don't even know what they are accused of, what evidence there is against them, and they have no lawyer, no chance to reply to the accusations they never hear, and virtually no access to healthcare. When you couple this with the torture that undoubtedly goes on at Guantanamo, never mind in (eg) Pakistan at America's bequest, it's not hard to see why so many people around the world see America and the West in general as a threat rather than somewhere as committed to liberty as Benjamin Franklin evidently wished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do nothing wrong, why must my government fear me?

I think that any government (in a democracy) should always be in fear of being fired by its own population for failing to perform. Look at the Bush administration for example: I would think that there are very few Americans that think we are better off today than we were 8 years ago. If America were a company and it's people, the board of directors, Bush and Co. would have been fired a long time ago for under performing. I know I am responsible to my financial backers to deliver results. When things look bad (regardless of whether or not it's my fault) it's my problem and I have to respond or risk losing my businesses. I think the govt. should live up to that standard. This administration in particular has forgotten that it works for us. It has abused and inflated executive power more than any admin. in the history of this country. I for one won't be sad to see them go.

Edit:

Unfortunately half of the board of directors at America Inc. are either uninformed or quasi-retarded. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that any government (in a democracy) should always be in fear of being fired by its own population for failing to perform. Look at the Bush administration for example: I would think that there are very few Americans that think we are better off today than we were 8 years ago. If America were a company and it's people, the board of directors, Bush and Co. would have been fired a long time ago for under performing. I know I am responsible to my financial backers to deliver results. When things look bad (regardless of whether or not it's my fault) it's my problem and I have to respond or risk losing my businesses. I think the govt. should live up to that standard. This administration in particular has forgotten that it works for us. It has abused and inflated executive power more than any admin. in the history of this country. I for one won't be sad to see them go.

Edit:

Unfortunately half of the board of directors at America Inc. are either uninformed or quasi-retarded. :P

I should have rephrased:

If I do nothing wrong, why must I be considered a terror suspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in this great nation of ours people are all to willing to gave up everything for peace of mind , they would rather call the cops then settle something , let the government handle it so that their purty hands don't have to get dirty , no one here wants to be a ditch digger , America was built on strong backs but , them backs have gotten weak and less sure of themselves , now they look to a black man with a Muslim name to make things right for them so the world will except them again as a great nation , that is pure BS , take action stop the madness , stand up for what is right and let the chips fall where they may , stop letting someone else do the dirty work , roll up your sleeves America .

PS I am all about change , Obama is the right choice for the next leader of America I just feel people are to worried about how the world views us and not how we view ourselves !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...