On 2006-08-15, BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Personally I would be happy in a world with no terrorist or criminals, that
> isn't going to happen, so instead I would be happy for those who's job it
> is to protect us get access to what ever information their require to do
> the job safely (for them).
>
> If we deny them then we can't really grumble the next time aircraft are
> flown into buildings.
I'm okay with that. Seriously.
Terrorist attacks aren't that big a deal, relatively speaking. We'd
save a lot more lives (and money, BTW) by, e.g., increasing auto safety
standards, offering incentives to quit smoking, or spent the
anti-terrorism money on encouraging better diet and exercise.
Aircraft won't be flown into buildings again. Not because terrorists
wouldn't *like* to do it, but because they just can't. Screw air
marshals, regular *passengers* won't stand for a hijacking. Richard Reid
learned that. Smuggling *bombs* onto planes is still a viable strategy,
but there are ways to deal with that. Look at El Al's security measures,
for example. Nobody's gotten a bomb onto one of their planes in a *long*
time.
I don't worry about terrorist attack, any more than I dwell on the risk
of getting struck by lightning or consuming food that happens to have
botulism. Sure, they *can* happen, but the odds are so low that it's not
worth taking more than some simple, common-sense precautions. Like not
running around outside with a big metal pole during a thunderstorm or
cooking my food.
I'm *much* more worried about law enforcement officials invading my
privacy and starting witch hunts. We have kind of a history of that in
the US, none of it good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Career
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/cens17.shtml
There are reasons we have things like probable cause and warrants and
so forth, very good ones.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Does anyone really believe that terrorists can actually threaten
our survival as a nation? Killing large numbers of people is not
the same as threatening the entire country. It doesn't make sense
to restructure our entire legal system, giving up rights and
freedoms that people fought and died for, all to cut the odds
from 0.005% to 0.003% (and that's generous)." - Me
|
|
