3 ms·

I don't get it. 9/11 was a disaster and humiliation for security agencies. Now they just do their job in the best way they can and their job is to ensure the se

by chmike 16y ago

I don't get it. 9/11 was a disaster and humiliation for security agencies. Now they just do their job in the best way they can and their job is to ensure the security of US citizens. Why making their job more difficult ? I would cooperate and help them focus on real potential threats. Are we talking about torture ? About secret detention for months ? About deprivation of elementary defense rights ? Organization defending citizen rights should be helped to focus on real threats and problems too, like this fishy 9/11 event. I'm not US citizen, don't live in the US and have no particular connections or interests in the US. I just wanted to let you know that the reactions to this incident where it seem defending peoples own right has priority over defending peoples security gives an impression of selfishness and short sighting. The other thing I don't understand is why the discovery and the device wasn't immediately reported to the police. It could have been put there by black hat people on to something on his behalf. According to his profile, this would be very plausible. Something like turning him into a terrorist, or whatever.

lsc 16y ago
>I'm not US citizen, don't live in the US and have no particular connections or interests in the US. I just wanted to let you know that the reactions to this incident where it seem defending peoples own right has priority over defending peoples security gives an impression of selfishness and short sighting. Eh, a lot of Americans feel like personal rights should be a higher priority than security. A very famous and admired American once said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." So yeah, I guess that is selfish, but it is also a very American value; when you get down to it, we are a selfish people, and to some extent we are proud of that selfishness and independence. I strongly disagree that it is short sighted. The thing is, governments have a way of getting out of hand if the citizenry doesn't keep it in check. I think that long term our distrust of our government will serve us well. In general, I think in any organization, listening to the dissenting voices is good for the health and long term viability of the organization. Edit: Yeah, we probably are a little bit different than the rest of the world in this regard; part of that, i think, is that it's been so long since any other country posed anything like a credible threat to us. We have to worry about our government like everyone else does, but unlike everyone else, there's really no realistic chance of anyone else posing anything like a credible threat to our safety.
- chmike 16y ago
  I agree with our analysis and opinion. There must be a mean to check people who check people, and make them accountable for what they do. This is obvious to me. My point is that I don't think this incident is a significant citizen right threat and while you focus on it, all the other much more dramatic threats to your democracy and nation ideal gets unnoticed and go on.
  - lsc 16y ago
    >There must be a mean to check people who check people, and make them accountable for what they do. In this case that mean (means as in a 'way' or man? either way, something) is us. well, the news media and us. In a democracy, the ultimate "watchers" are "the people" This watcher is certainly not perfect, but it's what we've got. To understand the American you must understand that he is deeply suspicious of authority. Yes, the government has it's own checks and balances... but I trust them about as far as I can spit. As for this particular incident, well, most Americans consider their car to be the most private of property. Some places you'll get shot for messing with another man's truck. It's just not something you do. Regardless of what some court says, nearly every American on the street would consider attaching a tracking device to his car a major violation of his privacy and dignity.
    - chmike 16y ago
      Ok. This is indeed a significant cultural difference with the one I have living here in France.
thwarted 16y ago
Rights have to have priority over security, for without rights, there is no security. The rights are, despite there being debate about how to interpret them (that's what the judicial branch is for), spelled out, whereas anything can be done in the name of security, including attempts to take away rights.
loewenskind 16y ago
There is no security threat. It's almost all nonsense. 9/11 was a legitimate terrorist attack just like the previous world trade center bombing was but there is no global terrorist network and there never was. It was just a tool to get more control of society. Look at what laws have changed since 9/11. Have you ever noticed these things get passed by people saying "don't worry, it's just to fight terrorism" but it's always actually used against citizens for non-terrorist activity? If there really is some global terrorist network I think it's safe to say at this point that they're so hopelessly incompetent as to not be worth worrying about. There are countless vulnerabilities in the US [1], why would terrorists be so stupid as to only attack our hardest point? Criminals don't act that way. A mugger doesn't walk past 100 old ladies with gold jewelry to rob the most dangerous looking person he can find. [1] For example, US sea ports. They check every hundredth container if that (Walmart wont tolerate delays on shipping).
- mootothemax 16y ago
  If there really is some global terrorist network I think it's safe to say at this point that they're so hopelessly incompetent as to not be worth worrying about. There's one other issue that stops them: the suicide-bombing-kind of terrorists who are actually capable of pulling off an attack can only do it once. I mean, really, it's not a strategy for long-term success is it?
- lzw 16y ago
  Not only is there a global terrorist network, they are so elite that they broke into CIA head quarters, rifled all their files until they found one market "Top Secret" that was a list of mujahadeen fighters in afghanistan in the 1980s that were on the CIA payroll, and decided that this was really cool. So they looked on the file and saw that the code name for this list of fighters was called "Al Queda" and so they decided to name their own organization using this top secrete CIA code word for mujahadeen fighters! Aren't they so elite, to have done all that? Their very name is proof of their eliteness! (or the gullibility of americans.)
  - loewenskind 16y ago
ugh 16y ago
Since 1990 3,179 people were killed and about 8,000 were inured in 20 terror attacks on US soil [1]. Three major terror attacks [2] were the WTC bombing (6 dead, 1042 injured), the Oklahoma City bombing (168 dead, 680+ injured) and of course the 9/11 terror attacks (2977 dead, 6000+ injured). 10 attempts failed or were foiled [3]. That’s all in all about 160 deaths per year. In 2007 accidental discharge of firearms killed 613 people in the US. Accidental drowning killed 3,443 people. Accidental poisoning killed 29,846 people [4]. Law enforcement should of course try to prevent terror attacks but given those numbers I don’t see why US citizens should give up much of their liberties in return. [1] I used the list of terrorist incidents on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents) as a source which means that those numbers are not necessarily exact but close enough for the purpose of this comment. [2] Responsible for more than 99 percent of the dead and more than 97 percent of the wounded. [3] That number seems very low. Has anybody better numbers or can anybody confirm that number? [4] All numbers: Jiaquan Xu et al. (2010): Deaths: Final Data for 2007. In: National Vital Statistics Reports, Table 10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (PDF: http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf)
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Voted back up (to zero). This point of view is asinine. However, it's very common, and it's the position that the authorities themselves hide behind. If we want to win this battle to preserve our rights, we need to listen to, and understand, what those who would throw away our rights are thinking. And I'll throw in a favorite Ben Franklin quote as my own comment on the parent post: Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
dpatru 16y ago
More than 200 years ago America broke off from England because Americans believed that the English government was violating their rights. The replacement government that the Americans set up has in its Constitution safeguards to ensure that government does not violate their rights. Since the founding Americans generally have softened and allowed their government to encroach on many of their rights but some Americans still make a fuss when they see government commit a particularly egregious violation. The violation in this case would be of the Fourth Amendment, which basically forces the government to obtain a warrant before conducting most searches. Although courts have ruled that GPS tracking of cars is not covered by the Fourth Amendment, not all Americans share this view. I don't agree that putting rights over security is selfish or short-sighted. The biggest threat to most people (especially Americans) comes from their own government. Without constant vigilance and assertion of rights, governments tend to act in their own best interests to the detriment of their people's interests. Law enforcement needs to be specially watched because it's much easier to search and arrest to get evidence (this is a violation of rights) than to get evidence first and then search and arrest (this is legal) and this is especially hurtful to liberty.

by chmike 16y ago

lsc 16y ago

>I'm not US citizen, don't live in the US and have no particular connections or interests in the US. I just wanted to let you know that the reactions to this incident where it seem defending peoples own right has priority over defending peoples security gives an impression of selfishness and short sighting. Eh, a lot of Americans feel like personal rights should be a higher priority than security. A very famous and admired American once said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." So yeah, I guess that is selfish, but it is also a very American value; when you get down to it, we are a selfish people, and to some extent we are proud of that selfishness and independence. I strongly disagree that it is short sighted. The thing is, governments have a way of getting out of hand if the citizenry doesn't keep it in check. I think that long term our distrust of our government will serve us well. In general, I think in any organization, listening to the dissenting voices is good for the health and long term viability of the organization. Edit: Yeah, we probably are a little bit different than the rest of the world in this regard; part of that, i think, is that it's been so long since any other country posed anything like a credible threat to us. We have to worry about our government like everyone else does, but unlike everyone else, there's really no realistic chance of anyone else posing anything like a credible threat to our safety.

chmike 16y ago
I agree with our analysis and opinion. There must be a mean to check people who check people, and make them accountable for what they do. This is obvious to me. My point is that I don't think this incident is a significant citizen right threat and while you focus on it, all the other much more dramatic threats to your democracy and nation ideal gets unnoticed and go on.
- lsc 16y ago
  >There must be a mean to check people who check people, and make them accountable for what they do. In this case that mean (means as in a 'way' or man? either way, something) is us. well, the news media and us. In a democracy, the ultimate "watchers" are "the people" This watcher is certainly not perfect, but it's what we've got. To understand the American you must understand that he is deeply suspicious of authority. Yes, the government has it's own checks and balances... but I trust them about as far as I can spit. As for this particular incident, well, most Americans consider their car to be the most private of property. Some places you'll get shot for messing with another man's truck. It's just not something you do. Regardless of what some court says, nearly every American on the street would consider attaching a tracking device to his car a major violation of his privacy and dignity.
  - chmike 16y ago
    Ok. This is indeed a significant cultural difference with the one I have living here in France.

thwarted 16y ago

Rights have to have priority over security, for without rights, there is no security. The rights are, despite there being debate about how to interpret them (that's what the judicial branch is for), spelled out, whereas anything can be done in the name of security, including attempts to take away rights.

loewenskind 16y ago

There is no security threat. It's almost all nonsense. 9/11 was a legitimate terrorist attack just like the previous world trade center bombing was but there is no global terrorist network and there never was. It was just a tool to get more control of society. Look at what laws have changed since 9/11. Have you ever noticed these things get passed by people saying "don't worry, it's just to fight terrorism" but it's always actually used against citizens for non-terrorist activity? If there really is some global terrorist network I think it's safe to say at this point that they're so hopelessly incompetent as to not be worth worrying about. There are countless vulnerabilities in the US [1], why would terrorists be so stupid as to only attack our hardest point? Criminals don't act that way. A mugger doesn't walk past 100 old ladies with gold jewelry to rob the most dangerous looking person he can find. [1] For example, US sea ports. They check every hundredth container if that (Walmart wont tolerate delays on shipping).

mootothemax 16y ago
If there really is some global terrorist network I think it's safe to say at this point that they're so hopelessly incompetent as to not be worth worrying about. There's one other issue that stops them: the suicide-bombing-kind of terrorists who are actually capable of pulling off an attack can only do it once. I mean, really, it's not a strategy for long-term success is it?
lzw 16y ago
Not only is there a global terrorist network, they are so elite that they broke into CIA head quarters, rifled all their files until they found one market "Top Secret" that was a list of mujahadeen fighters in afghanistan in the 1980s that were on the CIA payroll, and decided that this was really cool. So they looked on the file and saw that the code name for this list of fighters was called "Al Queda" and so they decided to name their own organization using this top secrete CIA code word for mujahadeen fighters! Aren't they so elite, to have done all that? Their very name is proof of their eliteness! (or the gullibility of americans.)
- loewenskind 16y ago

ugh 16y ago

Since 1990 3,179 people were killed and about 8,000 were inured in 20 terror attacks on US soil [1]. Three major terror attacks [2] were the WTC bombing (6 dead, 1042 injured), the Oklahoma City bombing (168 dead, 680+ injured) and of course the 9/11 terror attacks (2977 dead, 6000+ injured). 10 attempts failed or were foiled [3]. That’s all in all about 160 deaths per year. In 2007 accidental discharge of firearms killed 613 people in the US. Accidental drowning killed 3,443 people. Accidental poisoning killed 29,846 people [4]. Law enforcement should of course try to prevent terror attacks but given those numbers I don’t see why US citizens should give up much of their liberties in return. [1] I used the list of terrorist incidents on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents) as a source which means that those numbers are not necessarily exact but close enough for the purpose of this comment. [2] Responsible for more than 99 percent of the dead and more than 97 percent of the wounded. [3] That number seems very low. Has anybody better numbers or can anybody confirm that number? [4] All numbers: Jiaquan Xu et al. (2010): Deaths: Final Data for 2007. In: National Vital Statistics Reports, Table 10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (PDF: http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf)

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Voted back up (to zero). This point of view is asinine. However, it's very common, and it's the position that the authorities themselves hide behind. If we want to win this battle to preserve our rights, we need to listen to, and understand, what those who would throw away our rights are thinking. And I'll throw in a favorite Ben Franklin quote as my own comment on the parent post: Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

dpatru 16y ago

More than 200 years ago America broke off from England because Americans believed that the English government was violating their rights. The replacement government that the Americans set up has in its Constitution safeguards to ensure that government does not violate their rights. Since the founding Americans generally have softened and allowed their government to encroach on many of their rights but some Americans still make a fuss when they see government commit a particularly egregious violation. The violation in this case would be of the Fourth Amendment, which basically forces the government to obtain a warrant before conducting most searches. Although courts have ruled that GPS tracking of cars is not covered by the Fourth Amendment, not all Americans share this view. I don't agree that putting rights over security is selfish or short-sighted. The biggest threat to most people (especially Americans) comes from their own government. Without constant vigilance and assertion of rights, governments tend to act in their own best interests to the detriment of their people's interests. Law enforcement needs to be specially watched because it's much easier to search and arrest to get evidence (this is a violation of rights) than to get evidence first and then search and arrest (this is legal) and this is especially hurtful to liberty.