Just for the record, I have no problem with security I most certainly do have a problem with using security as an excuse for a quick power and liberty grab.

We are spoonfed a diet of fear and color coded threats, that we are told from one side of the governmental maw that are serious and we must prepare and buy ducttape and pastic sheeting ... while the other side of the gaping maw ever hungry for the love of money that all is well, vacation, buy SUVs and ignore the terrorist threats we just mentioned.

The TSA and Homeland [in]Security department has done nothing to produce real security, rather than the venier of security ... but scratch the surface and it is just a plain power grab (floating terrorism as a way to cancel elections, etc).

The idea that we are engaging in anything that resembles security is a joke. If you want security, then you will need to pony up at the bar, turn your head and cough everytime you enter or leave any public space.

I mentioned my 911 experience not for oneupmanship, but because I am sick of people using it as an excuse for their cause celebre… for more info, read this post

See the idiocy here? We are engaged in a security perception as opposed to a security exercise.

I have no problem with reasonable, consistent and intelligent security measures, but the typical knee jerkoff reactions we have received that infringe on the Liberties we are trying to defend are pointless…

Lets tear up the Constitution, create extra-governmental agencies and do it all just incase someone else tries to do it…

feh!

Why are lighters confiscated, but I was able to bring a cigar cutter on board?

The whole idea of well, lets give up XYZ so that the big strong daddy figure we know as the government can protect us from ourselves is bullshit.

How much are you willing to give up for a false sense of security?

The beautiful thing is we are still allowed to disagree… we are still allowed to criticize the government, until a new sedidion act is ramrodded down our throats all in the name of patriotism

... back to work ...

I guess you’re right, Rob - King George didn’t have the terrible destructive power of the nail clipper!. 

You can take gas lighters onboard but not ones that have a wick, or this guard will let you have knitting needles while another one won’t.  A photography student in Seattle gets the hard-ass treatment for taking pictures of a tourist attraction, while a guy from Pakistan sneaks across the Cdn border illegally, is jailed for one night, and released because of lack of funding. Other Pakistanis living and working legally in this country for years are arrested and deported apparently without reason, leaving their distraught families behind.  A guy from Vermont gets fined for crossing an unguarded border on a weekend to go to church.  It just doesn’t make any sense.

I’ll try to make this as clear as I can:  no one is against appropriate security measures being taken.  They need to be driven by sensible policy, and carried out in a professional and correctly focused manner.

But there’s no additional security to be had by security measures that fail to distinguish between a terrorist threat and normal activity.  It doesn’t make anybody safer.

My own feeling is that security issues in the US are so confused and bungled precisely because we are NOT in nearly enough danger to take it seriously.  We are not good at it; we don’t know how to prioritize effectively; the population in general doesn’t understand it (on the abstract OR the visceral level).  Our way of life really HASN’T changed since 9/11, people.  We’re a little more hysterical, but then again, we Americans tend to get that way about everything. 

As Rob pointed out, if you really want to see what terrorism looks like, you have to look somewhere other than the US, like Israel.  (I lived in Mevasseret Zion and Ramat Aviv.) When you have terrorist attacks going on REGULARLY, and you know what real threats and destruction are, then you get a population that knows what the RIGHT security is and cooperates with it. 

We had one really big domestic terrorist attack, and one really big attack by foreign terrorists.  That’s been it for YEARS (3).  We’re spending all our time biting our nails, imagining the next spectacular event while at the same time still happily driving our SUVs, going on picnics, shopping at the mall, and debating about carbs.

Now, if we ever got to the point where we were afraid to take the bus, where we stopped letting our children go to certain public places, where we had to inspect every abandoned shopping bag in EVERY neighborhood in the country, THEN we’d really be under the threat of terrorism.  And Bush, Ashcroft and co. would never be able to get away with just instituting “political security.”

("other")

From what I’ve read about security in Israel, it is carried out by very highly trained people in a very professional manner.  It’s a combination of behavioral profiling (that is, distinguishing between normal and dangerous behavior) and keeping track of dangerous people. They say: “Americans look for weapons.  We look for terrorists.”

GeekMom, since you have lived in Israel, you are now the only person I’ve met (though virtually) who knows if this is true.  Can you elaborate? Thanks.

Security in Israel is, by no means, always conducted by the highly trained professionals you meet, say, when boarding an ElAl flight or when entering the Knesset.  For example, Hebrew University (where all guns by *all* individuals are strictly prohibitted, rather rare in Israel), pedestrian gate security is often done by old Eastern European grandpas, which often take some glee in inspecting cute females purses.  But, for example, if your children’s school class are going on a hike in this or that reserve, it’s so unheard of to have them escorted by well armed (and well-trained) 20-somethings.  Keep in mind that HU has excellent security and literally almost surrounded by a radar-army base, and a nature reserve while hiking often not so close.  Thus, the different calibar in personell.

Trust me, some of the complaints i’ve read here and elsewhere concerning inconsistent and unprofessional security certainly do happen in Israel.  I’ve had security guirrellas quiz me on the contents of my address book (i was impressed, actually), but also had some completely miss a belt-buckle-ala-knife.  When you’re dealing with such large volumes, errors shall happen.

Also…
One has to seriously ask themselves why we have *not* seen any major attacks here since 9/11.  I’m often reminded of an account from someone who met with UBL before the event.  BinLaden was raising funds amongst some saudis and was describing their larger agenda concerning the US homeland:

In describing the future attackS, he held up his arm and pointed to the first digit in his index finger and said (i paraphrase, of course), “This is the first event [9/11]”.  Then, pointing to his wriest said, “This is the second action.” And, then pointing to his elbow, “This is the third event.”

This gives you a sense of severity, and 9/11’s fairly conservative nature.  9/11 was conservative.

If suicide bombers had shown up at our malls frequently, we would have security at all malls.  Instead, they wait for one grand day, so as to avoid any security measures.

.rob adams

I can’t claim to be terribly up to date on Israeli security, especially since the intifadas, but I can tell you that it’s not all based on strategy (although El Al has had decades in which to hone theirs to unbelievably fine levels).  As Rob mentioned, it’s also pervasive and participatory.  Mothers help out with “guard duty” in front of kindergartens.  (Not that they’re armed, or trained to do much; it’s the surveillance and coverage that count.) I have to laugh at people here who see uniformed, armed National Guards on ONE subway platform ONE TIME and freak out and scream that we’re living in a police state; in Israel there are armed soldiers on nearly every block, and you make friends with the ones you see every day, because you know they NEED to be there and you appreciate what they do.

When everybody is equally under threat, everybody participates in security.  I think the reason there is so much controversy over security measures here in the US is that deep down, people really don’t feel the measures are necessary—and in fact we may never reach that critical mass of terrorism on US soil that causes them to change their minds.

Having said that, security is also often a thankless job.  If you do it right, it looks like you weren’t needed after all, because nothing bad happens.  You need a certain level of bad stuff actually happening, and a demonstrably comparable level of threats being caught (and publicized) to convince folks that security is both necessary and reasonably effective.

Bin Laden may well have to adopt that “make it big, make it count” strategy because the US is such a large country, and the amount of travel involved makes it impractical to implement pervasive terror.  (Why would you spend days trying to smuggle explosives into Nebraska for just one hit?) But that also means he has to put some really large eggs into one basket, and large eggs are a lot harder to hide. 

("recent")

Rob, GM, thanks for the first-person info. I’d like to see more of that in newspapers.  You’re right that most Americans have limited experience with terrorism. 

I waited a few days to distill my thoughts on this:  What bugs me about the Patriot Act is that terrorism seems more like the pretext than the reason for it.  It seems clear to me that the act was already mostly written when 9/11 hit.  Pols signed it without reading it because they saw that they had no politically expedient choice.

Another thing we Americans have not experienced first-hand is intelligent security.  We know that terrorists aren’t afraid of a show of force.  A schoolyard bully with a tin badge does not make us feel any safer. We want the security to be at least as intelligent as the terrorists trying to break it.

DOF, you’re absolutely right.  We don’t want overtly political measures, especially ones that seem to dovetail so conveniently with the goals of the ruling party.  We want to understand the threat; we want to see specific measures that target those threats; we want to know that inconveniences (and let’s face it, most security is inconvenient) are both necessary and effective.  We want to know that it’s not causing or supporting other wrongs (such as racism).

None of these things have been addressed by this administration.  No wonder we don’t trust it!

("around")

deadscot…

First of all, Mauritius is situated approximately 2000 kilometers off the south-eastern coast of Africa and lies east of Madagascar on 20 S, 57.5 E.

It is a democratic country.

I don’t know what you’re specifically referring to with regards to Australians not enjoying free speech, but would be interested to hear an example.

In keeping with concrete examples to support an argument, I’d like to point out the recent case where a member of the US House of Representatives (Corinne Brown from Florida) made a statement on the floor, which characterized the Republicans’ theft of the election as a coup d-etat.  She offered the opinion that the US should invite the UN to be obervers at the next election to make sure that the 2000 fiasco in Florida is not repeated.  Instead of engaging in a lively debate on the proposal, the Republicans ordered that the Rep’s comments be stricken from the record.

It strikes me as censorship when an elected member of the government cannot voice an opinion without the governing party ‘erasing’ those comments from the official record.  A remarkable lack of freedom of speech, I’d say.

Do you really expect me to believe that the US is not one of the most ‘free’ places in the world?  I stipulated that each free country has its difficulties and with that I would say that the US easily ranks in the top 5 of all countries and number one as a developed nation with extreme ethnic diversity.  Sorry about the mix-up with Mauritius.

I don’t know what you’re specifically referring to with regards to Australians not enjoying free speech, but would be interested to hear an example.

What I wrote was that Australia has no law totally protecting free speech.  Censorship is allowed in Australia on a Commonwealth and Territory level.  States are allowed to censor articles, and force the removal of websites that do not comply with local ordnances for decency and/or material that they find objectionable. Electronic Frontiers AU

In keeping with concrete examples to support an argument, I’d like to point out the recent case where a member of the US House of Representatives (Corinne Brown from Florida) made a statement on the floor, which characterized the Republicans’ theft of the election as a coup d-etat.  She offered the opinion that the US should invite the UN to be obervers at the next election to make sure that the 2000 fiasco in Florida is not repeated.  Instead of engaging in a lively debate on the proposal, the Republicans ordered that the Rep’s comments be stricken from the record.

It strikes me as censorship when an elected member of the government cannot voice an opinion without the governing party ‘erasing’ those comments from the official record.  A remarkable lack of freedom of speech, I’d say.

I think you misunderstand how congress functions.  Having watched Corrine Brown’s statement over at MSNBC I can easily make an argument for both sides.  Some of the main purposes of the ‘taking down’ process are to prohibit escalation of an unfruitful argument, restrict retaliation and to maintain civility on the floor.  Below is an excerpt from the Public Policy Center:
[Quote] By curtailing the offending member’s right to speak until it is determined whether his words will be struck from the record, the rules also dampen the likelihood that the tensions will escalate. The process of taking down the words focuses the House’s attention on the nature of inappropriate discourse; striking words from the record expresses collective disapproval; requiring the consent of the body before the offending Member is permitted to re-enter the debate establishes a formal mechanism for reincorporating those who have breached decorum into the deliberative community.
This process also minimizes the likelihood that a person attacked will respond in kind. By focusing debate on the topic under consideration rather than on the advocates themselves, the rules depersonalize the discourse of Congress. So, for example, speakers do not address each other but rather the chair ("Mr. Speaker"), they speak of each other as representatives of a state ("the gentlelady from...") not as spokespersons for a party or a position; the person recognized by the Chair determines whether, if, and to whom he or she is willing to yield.
The taking down process makes institutional sense only if the Chair is perceived as even-handed and consistent and the Members of both parties are presumed to share an interest in maintaining comity. By contrast, if the Members of each party treat the taking down process as a partisan act, the process becomes a meaningless exercise that will inevitably produce a result consistent with the wishes of the Majority party. Depending on what suits its interest, the majority party can successfully appeal any ruling of the Chair or table any motion to appeal a ruling. If a Member of the minority objects to striking the words, the majority has the votes to strike.[/Quote]
Corrine Brown has already issued a Government Press Release restating what she said on the House Floor.  She can surely present her arguments before congress at a later time in a more suitable fashion if she so chooses.  One of the beauties of residing in a free country.

captcha = ‘steps’ Two steps forward one step back.

deadscot, I recall reading someplace that the United States ranked around about 13th on the Freedom Index. I’ve been trying to locate where I read it previously, but I’ve been unable to do so which is why I hadn’t mentioned it before. As it turns out there’s all manner of “Freedom Indexes” out there ranging from Freedom of the Press to Economic Freedom so trying to nail down how “free” any country is has been tricky.

Point taken.  I’ve seen the various studies also and based the majority of my previous arguments on the freedom of economy, freedom of press and freedom of religion.  Freedomhouse.org has some interesting studies posted on their website along with some analytical background of each study.

Most economic studies I have been able to find place the US in the top 10 for economic freedom.  The US also ranks consistently in the top 5 for freedom of the press and interestingly falls out of the top five when it comes to freedom of religion.

Granted statistics in this area are highly subjective but I will stand by original argument:

This country still has more personal freedoms than most any other.  Stupid people will come and go but as long as there is an America there will be bastards like us trying our damnedest to disabuse them.  If our liberties ever cease to exist they can effectively rename the country from USA to Bushland.

This guy had a bad experience.
A few months old but worth a re-read.

Hi deadscot… I’ve been away so just saw your post.

I appreciate your point of view and the manner in which you present it.  I love the civility of this place.

I’m not slamming the US.  I find that the Freedom slogan used so frequently in the US over the past couple of years, is presumptious.  The Land of the Free (self-annointed), the home of Freedom Fries, may not actually be the ‘free-est’ country on earth.

As I acknowledged in my first post, you only said ‘more freedoms than most’…

Just my observations lately.

Wouldn’t you agree that the US has become less free since 9/11?  Don’t you think the Patriot Act (just to return to the subject of this thread) infringes on the rights of the citizens in the US? 

The Act dictates that the goverment can approach any individual, company, agency, organization, at any time to investigate any person for any reason that it deems fit.  The body that provides the information for the investigation can be ordered to not disclose the incident to any other person/organization/agency. 

That means that you personally could be the subject of an investigation, have personal information collected on you, have your friends, neighbours, employers, family members interrogated about you, and you can not be informed about it.

You could go to the police about the suspicious person in the van outside your house, and the guy digging through your trash, and they cannot help you.  You could go to the FBI about the wiretaps on your phones, and the fact that someone is intercepting your mail, and they can’t/wouldn’t help you.

Anyone who tells you about the investigation could be arrested for threatening homeland security.

No court is needed to authorize this investigation.  You could be arrested, detained and interrogated, without ever being told why.  Upon release, you could feasably never be told why you were arrested, why your property was confiscated.

You are obviously well-read and well-informed.  Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the faults in my reasoning?  Or would you agree that the Patriot Act is eroding the freedoms that you enjoy as an American.

Thanks for the engaging discussion.

Chris

BTW- the people of Mauritius forgive you.

Welcome back to the mix -

I’m not slamming the US.  I find that the Freedom slogan used so frequently in the US over the past couple of years, is presumptious.  The Land of the Free (self-annointed), the home of Freedom Fries, may not actually be the ‘free-est’ country on earth.

Agreed.  The US has been banging the drum loudly.  Keep in mind though that ‘Freedom’ is our rallying cry and 9/11 struck a central nerve in this country.  It is a shame that is has been turned into political marketing tool over the past few years and ‘Freedom-Fries’ is definitely one of the low points.

Wouldn’t you agree that the US has become less free since 9/11?  Don’t you think the Patriot Act (just to return to the subject of this thread) infringes on the rights of the citizens in the US?

I agree but it still doesn’t’ move the US out of the top ten.  We are headed in the wrong direction and hopefully our tried and true system will prove to be self-correcting in that regard.  The ‘Patriot Act’ was a government knee-jerk reaction to a very serious event that demanded some sort of immediate action.  I’ve argued time and again that the ‘Patriot Act’ won’t stand the test of time.  Americans will not allow it too.  We are seeing the ‘Patriot Act’ misused on a regular basis and the authors of the document are harshly criticizing law enforcement agencies for showing poor judgment.  Only time will tell.

As far as your notes of the ‘Patriot Act’ itself, I would say that you have been subjected to a lot of the misinformation that surrounds the act.  Much of what you have stated is what I would call an ‘old-wives’ tale.  Some of it is unfortunately true but I would recommend going over to Patriot Act FAQ and reading through the District Attorney’s notes on the matter.

I don’t know where else in the world where my freedoms across the board would be as equally high and as equally well balanced with my lifestyle.  Economic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, and democracy.