Originally Posted by TonyR
So what do you suggest, cut? Dismantle the intelligence apparatus that's trying to avoid another 9/11? What's funny is that if Obama had done that all you same people who are calling this a "scandal" would be banging out threads and posts bashing him for harming the security of the country and not being tough on terror. In other words, you're also frauds.
Almost everything we've done since 9/11 does almost nothing to prevent the next 9/11. Do you really think with how many people have been known to slip things on planes (accidentally or intentionally) without being caught that a jihadi couldn't slip something as threatening as a box cutter on a plane again?
The biggest reason 9/11 couldn't happen again (the way it happened) is because people are wise enough to no longer allow a jihadi or two with box cutters to hijack a plane. Most of that was psychological that day. The old model was hijack a plane. Fly around and make demands. People didn't understand they were being hijacked by suicidal crazies. Now they do. The whole dynamic changed.
What does TSA's security theater do to improve that? Nothing.
What does all this surveillance do to improve that? Next to nothing. The really serious threats know how to avoid this. And they're not using gmail or ****ing facebook. You might catch a kook or two doing that. But they're not the kind of kooks who are going to bring down skyscrapers.
One of the best things I've read since this whole CF came out.
Living in an Era of Unprecedented Bull****
Let’s begin at the top: Our president (who once boasted of having taught Constitutional law), decried, way back in 2007 when he was contemplating a run for the White House, what he correctly labeled the Bush-Cheney administration’s “false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.” Fast forward to the president today, after his all-encompassing monitoring of all the phone and internet communications of all Americans, and here’s what he’s saying now (speaking last Friday in San Jose) after the humongous pervasiveness and intrusiveness of the spying was exposed in the U.K Guardian newspaper and the Washington Post:
“I think it’s important for everybody to understand … that there are some trade-off’s involved. You can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society.”
Jacob, quick! The bull**** repellent!
Where to start? A security-for-liberty trade-off, he says? Where’s the security? We just had a bombing in Boston that would have been spotted in a minute if the FBI were monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers‘ websites (assuming they are the guilty parties). But the FBI claims it “stopped” monitoring Tamerlan Tsarnaev after interviewing him several times, and “closed” his case, despite his having travelled to Dagestan, a former Soviet struggling with separatist Islamic rebels, and despite warnings from Russian intelligence. This is the kind of “100 percent security” we get in return for handing over 100% of our privacy on the phone and online? What incredible BS!
Most ironic thing is that the PC police in charge of Big Brother will work day and night to ensure that only the liberties of the most possibly suspect are protected. Every warning sign with guys like this and a guy like Hasan was completely ignored. Why? Because it tweaks some people's sense of political correctness when suspects line up with stereotypes. In essence, they're only reinforcing it in the negative. But they don't care.
Because when they miss the most obvious of obvious cases, they'll hide behind "Well we have to respect their civil liberties! Innocent until proven guilty after all!" Then you ask them why they're reading your email? "Oh, for your protection of course."
Bull****. All this Bull**** buys us nothing, yet costs us everything.