9 ms·

Wow whoever came up with the whole 'in the name of terrorism' is a goddamn genius. Pretty much a free card to get access to anything and everything for the sake

Wow whoever came up with the whole 'in the name of terrorism' is a goddamn genius. Pretty much a free card to get access to anything and everything for the sake of 'security'.

Karunamon 10y ago
Indeed. Anytime you hear the words "children" or "national security" or "terrorism" being bandied about, you should crank up the sensitivity on your bullshit detector.
- mosdave 10y ago
  > you should crank up the sensitivity on your bullshit detector. mine has been turned up to 11 for about 15 years now.
pigpaws 10y ago
yeah, it scares the people on the right, while "... for the children." is whats used to scare the left. How ANY of us made it to adulthood is amazing.
- Jemmeh 10y ago
  Eh, I've heard "for the children" on left and right. "Gay parents are bad for the children" "Spanking is bad for the children"
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Until a few years ago a disciplinary spanking of a child was allowed in New Zealand and a woman was found not to have broken the law when she used a horse riding crop. TLDR an NZ style spanking is bad for the child.
    - Jemmeh 10y ago
      Not surprising. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but growing up they used leather belts where I'm from. Pretty sure it's legal. To me that's worse than a riding crop.
jwally 10y ago
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. -- Rahm Emanuel
- mrhistory 10y ago
  That's actually a misattribution. Rahm stole it from Winston Churchill.
excalibur 10y ago
I don't remember the Bush Administration containing a lot of Rhodes Scholars. Of course the tactic predates them, but they don't know that.
peteboyd 10y ago
Using "terrorism" as a threat is simply the new "communism" arguments from the 1950s-1980s. It's just that this new era has no foreseeable end in site. There has been, and always will be, some type of terrorists. So its a perfect opportunity to use this threat (whether real in some cases and not in some cases) to get something approved that you could not normally. At least with the end of of the USSR, most of the old Cold War communism scare tactics went away. Unfortunately, I don't really foresee and end in the use of terrorism threats to get funding for some new technology or bill to erode more rights.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  That's the thing. "Terrorism" like "communism" previously is described as threat where regular laws are not strong enough and here needs to be an exception. Communism went away but terrorism will most likely never go away.
  - TallGuyShort 10y ago
    In fact if we end up patrolling Muslim neighborhoods as some presidential candidates have suggested, I suspect we'll only end up increasing terrorism.
    - zaroth 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure that's the whole point. Politicians are generally asses, but not dumbasses.
- dpc59 10y ago
  The part of the US government that does this bullshit has no endgame except "more power". It's quite ridiculous.
  - th0waway 10y ago
    "the part", like it's just one part of the government.... News Flash: no organization will ever willingly give power.
Esau 10y ago
I agree; it's even better than "think of the children".
kahnpro 10y ago
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Hermann Göring
- sdoering 10y ago
  Didn't know this quote. Just saved it into my quote-book.
  - jevinskie 10y ago
    It is even more interesting, today, when you see the statement that prompted Göring to respond as such. > "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." [0] It is funny how quickly Congress delegated that power to the executive. [0]: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
lostlogin 10y ago
Standing in a security queue a couple of years ago at LA airport after a long haul flight listening to someone say "I can understand why they are like this after what happened" is as close to homicidal as I've ever felt.
krapp 10y ago
That would be the Bush administration.
- atom-morgan 10y ago
  You misspelled government.
  - krapp 10y ago
    "government" in general didn't decide US law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to make terrorism a top priority, and it didn't decide the US needed "extrajudicial" options for dealing with terrorism, such as torture, kidnapping and indefinite detainment in a death camp in Cuba, and didn't decide to wage a war against "terrorism." All of these things are the direct result of the Bush Administration taking advantage of post-9/11 fears to push the PATRIOT Act, and the "new normal" that terrorism posed such a grave and existential threat that nothing, not even the Constitution or the rule of law, should be allowed to get in the way of fighting it.
    - giancarlostoro 10y ago
      You're missing some of the things that have been done before the Bush Administration. Operation Northwoods is alarming as it is, and that's back in the early 60's.
      - krapp 10y ago
        Sure, but the FBI demanding warrantless access to browser history in order to fight terrorism, and expecting to get it, is a direct result of Bush administration policy.
        Turing_Machine 10y ago
        The FBI is an executive branch agency, under direct control of the President, who, for nearly the last 8 years, has been Barack Obama.
chrismcb 10y ago
Almost as good as "think of the children"

Wow whoever came up with the whole 'in the name of terrorism' is a goddamn genius. Pretty much a free card to get access to anything and everything for the sake of 'security'.

Karunamon 10y ago

Indeed. Anytime you hear the words "children" or "national security" or "terrorism" being bandied about, you should crank up the sensitivity on your bullshit detector.

mosdave 10y ago
> you should crank up the sensitivity on your bullshit detector. mine has been turned up to 11 for about 15 years now.

pigpaws 10y ago

yeah, it scares the people on the right, while "... for the children." is whats used to scare the left. How ANY of us made it to adulthood is amazing.

Jemmeh 10y ago
Eh, I've heard "for the children" on left and right. "Gay parents are bad for the children" "Spanking is bad for the children"
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Until a few years ago a disciplinary spanking of a child was allowed in New Zealand and a woman was found not to have broken the law when she used a horse riding crop. TLDR an NZ style spanking is bad for the child.
  - Jemmeh 10y ago
    Not surprising. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but growing up they used leather belts where I'm from. Pretty sure it's legal. To me that's worse than a riding crop.

jwally 10y ago

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. -- Rahm Emanuel

mrhistory 10y ago
That's actually a misattribution. Rahm stole it from Winston Churchill.

excalibur 10y ago

I don't remember the Bush Administration containing a lot of Rhodes Scholars. Of course the tactic predates them, but they don't know that.

peteboyd 10y ago

Using "terrorism" as a threat is simply the new "communism" arguments from the 1950s-1980s. It's just that this new era has no foreseeable end in site. There has been, and always will be, some type of terrorists. So its a perfect opportunity to use this threat (whether real in some cases and not in some cases) to get something approved that you could not normally. At least with the end of of the USSR, most of the old Cold War communism scare tactics went away. Unfortunately, I don't really foresee and end in the use of terrorism threats to get funding for some new technology or bill to erode more rights.

maxxxxx 10y ago
That's the thing. "Terrorism" like "communism" previously is described as threat where regular laws are not strong enough and here needs to be an exception. Communism went away but terrorism will most likely never go away.
- TallGuyShort 10y ago
  In fact if we end up patrolling Muslim neighborhoods as some presidential candidates have suggested, I suspect we'll only end up increasing terrorism.
  - zaroth 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's the whole point. Politicians are generally asses, but not dumbasses.
dpc59 10y ago
The part of the US government that does this bullshit has no endgame except "more power". It's quite ridiculous.
- th0waway 10y ago
  "the part", like it's just one part of the government.... News Flash: no organization will ever willingly give power.

Esau 10y ago

I agree; it's even better than "think of the children".

kahnpro 10y ago

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Hermann Göring

sdoering 10y ago
Didn't know this quote. Just saved it into my quote-book.
- jevinskie 10y ago
  It is even more interesting, today, when you see the statement that prompted Göring to respond as such. > "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." [0] It is funny how quickly Congress delegated that power to the executive. [0]: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

lostlogin 10y ago

Standing in a security queue a couple of years ago at LA airport after a long haul flight listening to someone say "I can understand why they are like this after what happened" is as close to homicidal as I've ever felt.

krapp 10y ago

That would be the Bush administration.

atom-morgan 10y ago
You misspelled government.
- krapp 10y ago
  "government" in general didn't decide US law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to make terrorism a top priority, and it didn't decide the US needed "extrajudicial" options for dealing with terrorism, such as torture, kidnapping and indefinite detainment in a death camp in Cuba, and didn't decide to wage a war against "terrorism." All of these things are the direct result of the Bush Administration taking advantage of post-9/11 fears to push the PATRIOT Act, and the "new normal" that terrorism posed such a grave and existential threat that nothing, not even the Constitution or the rule of law, should be allowed to get in the way of fighting it.
  - giancarlostoro 10y ago
    You're missing some of the things that have been done before the Bush Administration. Operation Northwoods is alarming as it is, and that's back in the early 60's.
    - krapp 10y ago
      Sure, but the FBI demanding warrantless access to browser history in order to fight terrorism, and expecting to get it, is a direct result of Bush administration policy.
      - Turing_Machine 10y ago
        The FBI is an executive branch agency, under direct control of the President, who, for nearly the last 8 years, has been Barack Obama.

chrismcb 10y ago

Almost as good as "think of the children"