5 ms·
Picture Congress grilling someone in hearings, and then demanding they be fired. A few dozen times. Then there's an attack, and the President gets to lecture
by VikingCoder 11y ago
Picture Congress grilling someone in hearings, and then demanding they be fired.
A few dozen times.
Then there's an attack, and the President gets to lecture us about weakening security. Then everybody hangs their heads and lets the agencies do whatever they want again.
I personally believe our representatives in Congress are terrified of being the one blamed for weakening our security.
- coldtea 11y agoPicture the attack being something agencies knew for months but decided to let happen to teach people a lesson and revamp their operations... (Yeah, that would never happen...)
- CWuestefeld 11y agoThis, of course, makes the assumption that such monitoring actually does make our security stronger. But there's a lot of reason to doubt this. Most recently, the shooting at Garland, TX. It seems the FBI knew about this ahead of time, and did a spectacularly bad job of warning the local authorities. But the attack was averted anyway, and according to the police chief there... What does this all mean? Not much says Police Chief Bates, "Please note that the contents of that email would not have prevented the shooting nor would it have changed the law enforcement response in any fashion." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/texas-police-were-warned-about-gunmen-at-muhammad-cartoon-event-and-they-werent http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/11/406025002/tex...
- VikingCoder 11y agoNo, it makes the assumption that the public can be convinced that monitoring makes our security stronger. There's an enormous world of difference between those two things.