2 ms·
Yes, of course, but now for Obama that possibility of blame for not stopping another terrorist attack can seem less important than the actual blame, now, for th
by graycat 13y ago
Yes, of course, but now for Obama that
possibility of blame for not stopping
another terrorist attack can seem less
important than the actual blame, now,
for the NSA spying on US citizens, that is,
will so seem to Obama if enough people
raise heck over the NSA spying.
If I were the POTUS, then I'd have
my staff draft a short statement
and use it to address the nation.
The main point would be that the US
actually is vulnerable to an attack
by terrorists, and even if we totally
lock down our country, turn the US
into a 'surveillance' state and a
police state, trash most of the Bill
of Rights, damage our domestic
economy, shoot our international
trade in the gut, etc., we will still
be vulnerable. We can't be 100%
safe.
I'd mention that often there are
several courses of action, with
some safer than others but none
100% safe. E.g., from B. Schneier,
after 9/11 so many people were so
afraid of commercial air travel
and drove cars instead that
the fact that cars are much less
safe than air travel resulted in
more deaths of US citizens than
9/11 caused.
Might also mention that a goal of
UBL was not to defeat the US
via force but just to trick the
US into a response so absurd and
wasteful that the US would
bankrupt itself, and here UBL
has had a lot of success.
Then I'd ask the US citizens
to go to a special, nationwide
referendum on what to do, (1)
return to the US as it was before
9/11 with some prudent and legal
improvements to stop terrorists
or (2) trash much of what is great
about the US and still be vulnerable
to terrorists. In this choice, we have to
notice that the terrorists are
not totally stupid and will avoid
confronting the defenses we do put
up and, instead, exploit ways in
which we are still vulnerable.
A review of the track record of
just what good all our anti-terrorism
hysteria -- NSA, 'militarization'
of local police, trashing the Bill
of Rights, the wars in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Libya, the TSA
trashing our domestic transportation
industry, excesses by our Customs
units,
the money,
etc. -- actually accomplished.
E.g., we should note the Boston
bomber -- the NSA, etc. didn't
stop him.
Then let the US citizens decide.
Good way for Obama to play CYA
and also get the US back to
a sane country away from some
national neurotic hysteria from
a few wackos with airline tickets
and box cutters.
- prawn 13y agoI wonder if it's possible that the NSA did have awareness of the Boston bombing in advance but couldn't stop it preemptively without giving up the info that they were tracking anything and everything. Remember the security detail looking guys Reddit excitedly found when scouring photos? Perhaps they wanted to catch the bombers in action but failed?
- graycat 13y agoThe real situation was much worse than that: The Russians nicely enough told us that the guy was a dangerous wacko. So, the Boston police investigated and then dropped the matter. The NSA could likely have had a really tough time using their electronics to get a lead as solid as that the Russians gave us. Net, the NSA electronic data is just not very effective against such a wacko; our police departments aren't either. Maybe the hope of the NSA is catching another UBL planning another 9/11 and do so by grabbing cell phone data. Well, the terrorists know now to assume that telephones and e-mail are not secure; knowing that, the NSA will be even more useless than now. The NSA is just a bureaucracy gone totally out of control because no one with authority wants to say "Stop" and then risk being blamed the next time something goes "Boom!". Any reasonable evaluation of costs and benefits would say that the NSA should be cut way back, say, to their original mission of arranging secure communications for the State Department. Then, maybe let them try to listen in on efforts to make loose nukes. Otherwise, save the money and the US Constitution.