4 ms·
It really was. At least once, known al-Qaeda terrorists did a trial run prior to 9/11. And for a month up to the day before 9/11, Agent Samit was desperately tr
by gareim 13y ago
It really was. At least once, known al-Qaeda terrorists did a trial run prior to 9/11. And for a month up to the day before 9/11, Agent Samit was desperately trying to stop Moussaoui by getting a warrant to search his laptop, but a breakdown in communication at the FBI let Moussaoui pretty much get away with it. Then we all know what happened 9/11.
This really presents an interesting problem, I think. Reading the effect of secret government surveillance from the past century, it's hard to not believe that that surveillance won't be abused. It's been abused in so many other countries and so often in this country (where we hold ourselves in such high regard). At the same time, the power to terrify and commit mass murder has become much easier as technology advances. So what to do?
- DanBC 13y agoI think I would prefer to spend some of that security money on making transport safer or on Mental health programmes or on better energy use or etc etc. All of those things cause far more problems than terrorism has.
- gareim 13y agoYes, I completely agree with you that security spending can be trimmed if we make it more efficient. And yes, that money definitely should go to public programs that improve on our well-being (less attacks then!). However, I just want to state that we can't completely ignore security either. If bombs are going to go off around us (we cannot make 100% of people non-violent), it's not as if we could stand still and take no action either.