A nation racked with fear. [Archive]

Moonliner

05-23-2005, 02:56 PM

There must be someone, a group, a website, an organization, someone out there. Who are they?

Someone must feel the same way I do. Fear is gripping this country, fear is driving policy, fear is percolating throughout our society and it's all a bunch of hogwash. There are not Al-qa’ida bugaboo's hiding under every rock. We are not "at war". This nation was "attacked" by a grand total of 19 people. Hell that's not even a full platoon. Hardly an invasion force worthy of the "war" cry. We do nothing but give them strength by running around like a bunch of stirred up ants and for what?

The reaction of this country is just loony, we are spending vast amounts of money as a placebo for security. Money that will not be spent, improving roads, on medical research, superfund cleanup, etc.. How many untold thousands will die because a bridge collapsed, a new drug was not developed or toxic waste seeped into that playground?

Has all this airport security had any effect? I don't think so. Given that all the new security has caught exactly ZERO terrorists, and no more planes have fallen out of the sky you have to conclude there simply has been no threat.

Bag checks at sporting events and amusement parks? What a bunch of hooey. Much more stringent measures than that have had little effect on the suicide bombers in Israel. Again, I've never heard of a single case where someone was stopped with a bomb or some such at a bag check and yet nothing has blown up. So again we are left to conclude there just is no threat.

In Minnesota, the school had metal detector plus a security guard. What happened? The psycho kid just shot the security guard first then walked into the school anyway. Killers and Terrorists have a funny way of not following your rules so the type of “security” being used is pointless.

It's time to put some sense back into this country. Yes, we need an effective intelligence service that is free to operate overseas, yes we need some freedom for the FBI to peruse potential criminals here in the US but we don't need an entire economy driven by fear.

Gn2Dlnd

05-23-2005, 03:50 PM

There must be someone, a group, a website, an organization, someone out there. Who are they?

Someone must feel the same way I do.

I'm right there with you.

And so are:

http://www.airamericaradio.com/

http://www.harryshearer.com/

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

http://slate.msn.com/

http://mediamatters.org/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Let the flamers flame. Like I give a sh*t.

Motorboat Cruiser

05-23-2005, 03:57 PM

I couldn't agree more. Fear wins elections. This is why there have been no terror alerts since then. No need now.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

Let's see how airport security is...

Last week, reports from several government departments confirmed what most business travelers and other frequent fliers already knew: after spending more than $5 billion in federal funds on the agency, airport security is hardly any better now than it was before 9/11.

Created to impose tight federal control over commercial airport security after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the agency continues to get failing or barely passing grades. Covert screening tests by the Government Accountability Office and the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security showed virtually no improvement in overall screener performance since similarly poor performance reviews last year, said Representative John L. Mica, the Florida Republican who is chairman of the House aviation subcommittee.

And the borders and ports security? Well, that hasn't been paid much attention to either. In my mind, this only leaves two options. Either there isn't much of a threat and the administration is just making crap up to scare people into keeping them in power, or this administration is completely inept at handling the security of this nation. Either way, they don't come out looking very well.

scaeagles

05-23-2005, 04:15 PM

I see no "nation racked with fear". I really don't. I don't see this - "Fear is gripping this country, fear is driving policy, fear is percolating throughout our society".

I agree that money being spent is not being spent wisely or well. Airport security is a joke. It is the attitude of "we have to look like we're doing something". I think it's all a CYA thing so that if something happens they can say "we were doing everything we could".

Well, they are doing what they can without taking any real stands.

How can a free and open society really be "secure"? It cannot happen. The only thing I really think could be done better is border security, and that is even a painful and unpopular thing internationally. The only thing I can see to do is to utilize imminent domain and purchase all land along the border in order to build a wall - one that cannot be tunnelled under easily not scaled over easily.

As far as monitoring ship yards - it is an impossible task. How many millions of containers come in here a month? They cannot all be gone over. Spot inspections doesn't do it.

I am amazed how those who say "nothing is being done" scoff at the Patriot Act. The phrase "trading freedom for security" implies that freedom is usually without it. Impossible things are expected. Protect us but take away no rights and do not interfere with the free and open society. I say that is impossible.

Though not the "expressed reasons" for going to war in Iraq, the fact is that Al Qaeda is now doing their fighting and plotting there in a survival effort rather than launching offensives at the US.

Do not take this post as meaning that I am satisfied with what is happening security wise. I am simply being honest in the assessment that it isn't possible. The only thing that can realistically be done better is border security, but we have one hell of a lot of borders (north, south, the two oceans, and the gulf of Mexico) to control. Not even that is possible.

scaeagles

05-23-2005, 04:18 PM

no more planes have fallen out of the sky you have to conclude there simply has been no threat.

Cannot agree with you here. Intelligence works in such a way that it is usually not possible to report on successes or plots stopped. It has the possibility of giving away too much of how our intelligence is gathered.

SacTown Chronic

05-23-2005, 04:42 PM

I know lots o' folks who voted for Bush because they perceived him to be "strong on terror". Whatever the hell that means. Keep telling people the sky is purple and eventually a fair chunk of 'em will start to believe it.

wendybeth

05-23-2005, 05:21 PM

I stopped being afraid a long time ago. Now, I'm mostly just reallly pissed. So are more and more people- this whole environment of fear that is being perpetuated by the powers that be so that they may remain in power will eventually fail, and result in the inevitable backlash. I've no doubt that there are many who wish us harm, but those threats have always been there, in one form or another.

Moonliner

05-23-2005, 05:30 PM

Cannot agree with you here. Intelligence works in such a way that it is usually not possible to report on successes or plots stopped. It has the possibility of giving away too much of how our intelligence is gathered.

I'm not talking about the intelligence folks, they are our best security.

I'm talking about the TSA and all the purse checking dullards that work at baseball games and theme parks. You know you'ed hear about it if a screener at DFW or JFK found a passenger with 30lbs of cimtex strapped to their tush.

Name

05-23-2005, 06:06 PM

I've been racking my brain the last couple days to weeks pondering what has really changed on sept 11th, and I don't mean perceptions.

It has occured to me that nothing that was true on sept 10th wasn't true on sept 11th(except the blatently obvious that planes flew into the towers). On sept 10th, Al Qaeda was a threat, on the 11th it was realized, and on the 12th and all days after they were(and are) still a threat, no change at all.

On the 10th we had homeless and unemployment problems, and we still do.

On the 10th we had people dying of diseases that with research we could find a cure, and we still do. etc etc. But in reality, absolutely nothing changed on the 11th, nothing, nada, zero, except a threat was realized, and many more people became aware that there was a threat out there(a threat that has been out there for years, if not decades).

And as it was on the 10th, and the early morning of the 11th, the threat is still out there, and no matter what the US govt tries to do with security regulations, they will probably be in vain. The threats against us seem to be pretty smart puppies, and odds are, no matter what regulations the govt imposes on us to try to prevent another similar event, its always possible that the threat could find a loophole or workaround.

I think its best to just hope that the intel community is able to detect an impending attack before it happens, cause forcing stupid laws on the american people isn't going to prevent anything.

just my opinion.

Moonliner

05-23-2005, 06:14 PM

I see no "nation racked with fear". I really don't. I don't see this - "Fear is gripping this country, fear is driving policy, fear is percolating throughout our society".

Well there are load of examples of "percolating" every time a plane crashes, a building colapses or a train derails, what's the first thing you hear? "Was it terrorists?"

Even the disney themed boards we visit are laced with posts about potential threats that in reality just don't exist. 1 (http://www.micechat.com/showpost.php?p=24613&postcount=18) 2 (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showpost.php?p=484612&postcount=1) 3 (http://mousepad.mouseplanet.com/showpost.php?p=462604&postcount=20)
(I especially like the last one where the poster thinks that a mall bag check will stop a nuclear device....)

Policy, from the "patriot act" to the creation of the homeland defence bureaucracy is also all around us.

€uroMeinke

05-23-2005, 09:43 PM

Gemini Cricket

05-23-2005, 09:56 PM

www.americablog.org
and
www.slashdot.org

are good ones, too.

:)

scaeagles

05-24-2005, 05:52 AM

Last week I was in Philadelphia and thought I'd swing by to see the Liberty Bell on one of my breaks. But the lines for security and baracades were to much to deal with, so I passed it by, smirking at the "new liberty" of the post 9-11 world.

Security measures always looked overdone until something happens and everyone says "why weren't we more prepared to stop this?". That's the catch - we have to protect everything we consider historical or important. Terrorists only have to hit one thing to make an impact.

Moonliner

05-24-2005, 06:12 AM

Security measures always looked overdone until something happens and everyone says "why weren't we more prepared to stop this?". That's the catch - we have to protect everything we consider historical or important. Terrorists only have to hit one thing to make an impact.

However the point is, none of these "precautions" are going to stop a damn thing. Really now, can you see this exchange in front of the Liberty bell?
"Excuse me sir, I need to search that backpack", says security. "Of course", say's visitor. "I'm sorry sir, but you can't visit the Liberty bell with a backpack full of C4 Explosives". "Damn, foild again", says visitor. Of course not.

It's like the no parking rule in front of airport drop off spots. It makes perfect sense from a traffic management standpoint but from a anti-terrorist point of view? Come on. A car bomber is not going to worry about getting a ticket and the damage will be done long before a tow-truck can remove the car. So why vale everything in this cloud of security? Call it what it is. A traffic patrol.

We live in an open society and if the price of that has become that we might need to rebuild the statue of liberty, or glue the liberty bell back together then so be it. It's worlds better than generations of Americans growing up not able to see the view from Ms. Liberties crown or pay a visit to the liberty bell.

The next time "something happens" on US soil, all it's going to show is that some of the billions we spent on homeland security were a waist of time and money.

€uroMeinke

05-24-2005, 06:14 AM

we have to protect everything we consider historical or important. Terrorists only have to hit one thing to make an impact.

See, this I'm not so sure about - the thing is an object, an artifact - what it represents exists beyond the thing itself. While the Liberty Bell is cool, I don't think it's loss would end liberty any more than World Trade stopped with 9-11.

Somehow locking up the Bell seems a greater win for the terrorists than blowing it up - at least to me anyway.

Stan4dSteph

05-24-2005, 06:22 AM

I was in NYC over the weekend and there's one thing I know - there are no rental lockers available since 9/11. This means I had to haul my backpack of clothes into the concert with me because the Amtrak bag check closes at 10 PM and the concert didn't let out until almost midnight.

Seriously people, if you wanted to blow shtuff up, you wouldn't stuff it in a locker. You'd walk into the middle of the freakin' place and detonate the mofo.

scaeagles

05-24-2005, 07:06 AM

I agree in principle with what is being said here. But part of security is feeling secure. To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better. Is it logicial? No. But they can say "we're doing something" and be secure in that. Is it logical? No.

Really, though, beyond having an increased presence and visilbility of normal day to day security, what can be done? Nothing. As has been stated, if someone really wants to do it, they probably can.

But this brings me to another point. Why has there been no campaign of car bombings in the US? Or blowing up stores or malls? Would that not have a huge impact for anyone wanting to disrupt our way of life? It makes me wonder if (a) the terrorists are incapable of doing it here for some reason, b) security is doing more than we know, or (c) our intelligence community is doing one hell of a job that we just don't know about.

scaeagles

05-24-2005, 07:09 AM

Somehow locking up the Bell seems a greater win for the terrorists than blowing it up - at least to me anyway.

Could be. But not psychologically to the average American. If the treasures and history of our country can be attacked and destroyed, i think that damages our way of life more than heavy security surrounding them.

Gemini Cricket

05-24-2005, 08:05 AM

When I went to DC in October, I felt the same way about all the security checks. Instead of actually looking for terrorists, this administration has decided that we're all terrorists and treat us like that at every monument, museum and government building with security checkpoints.

At the Smithsonian, the security checkers refused to let me stand next to Ralphie while he checked in his bag. They made me move 20 feet away before they resumed his check. I had no bag, but some how I was a threat to him and the checker. (???) The next couple that came in (man and woman), the woman's bag was checked and the empty-handed man got to stand next to her. (I even believe they were holding hands.) By the time I got in to see Old Glory, I was so pissed off that I looked at it for maybe 2 minutes and left the building.

With construction around all of the major buildings in DC, they're keeping us away from them. Like denizens in their castles surrounded by moats. What's even more distressing is that all the construction scaffolding and fences have been there since 9/11 and little to no construction is going on. They're scared, too. I have friends who live on Constitution Avenue and they pass the Capitol every day to go to work. They see these construction obstructions and know they haven't moved in ages nor have there been work actually done to a lot of these buildings.

What's more, we're not going to be able to go inside the Capitol for much longer. They're building a visitor center away from the Capitol for 'our convenience'.

If you're really concerned about this country, don't get mad, don't let them scare you, don't be afraid. Laugh at the idiots and get them out of office. Personally, I'd rather see our country go away than see what is stands for errode any further.

Ghoulish Delight

05-24-2005, 08:18 AM

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
-Benjamin Franklin

Moonliner

05-24-2005, 08:20 AM

I see no "nation racked with fear". I really don't.

To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better.

Errr?? :confused:

But this brings me to another point. Why has there been no campaign of car bombings in the US? Or blowing up stores or malls? Would that not have a huge impact for anyone wanting to disrupt our way of life? It makes me wonder if (a) the terrorists are incapable of doing it here for some reason, b) security is doing more than we know, or (c) our intelligence community is doing one hell of a job that we just don't know about.
Honestly I think it's a combination. Yes the intelligence community is doing some good, but I think in the minds of Bin Laden and company things are already going to plan. The US (by which I mean Bush) has pissed away the goodwill and respect of the world that was evident when we went into Afghanistan. Pissed it away on a war of aggression to satisfy the personal vendetta of one man and whether you personally feel that's true or not (I'm guessing not :) ) I don't think you can deny that is how most of the world looks at it. Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush. So why stir a pot that's already boiling?

Also just to clarify, I'm not arguing for no security anywhere. I'm arguing for effective security. Tracking down terrorists where they live is good. Disneyland is using "security" to get rid of banner towing small aircraft circling their park. Sports stadiums are using "security" to keep people from brining food into the park so they can sell you hot dogs for $6 each.

Gemini Cricket

05-24-2005, 08:23 AM

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
-Benjamin Franklin
Good man. They made 'em smarter back then. ;)

Ghoulish Delight

05-24-2005, 08:30 AM

My impression is that car bombings are carried out, in general, by the terrorist masses. And while they are truly terrifying, they are not particularly damaging (most kill no more then a handful of people). Even pre-9/11, it was no small feat to get terrorists over. It took planning and expense. They're not going to waste that effort on one guy to go blow himself up and take out a few people. That's like saying, "Assault rifles are really effective weapons, why didn't we just send a guy over to Iraq with an assault rifle?" Car bombings are an effective tool for them in their local area because it's quick, dirty, and cheap. If they are going to go to the trouble of doing something over here, it's going to be something big, a-la 9/11.

SacTown Chronic

05-24-2005, 08:31 AM

But part of security is feeling secure. To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better. Is it logicial? No. But they can say "we're doing something" and be secure in that. Is it logical? No.

Agreed, but I resent spending tax dollars, and giving up a measure of our freedom, to pacify Joe Moron. Better to spend that money on education and maybe break the cycle of stupidity that exists in Joe Moron's family.

wendybeth

05-24-2005, 08:48 AM

Could be. But not psychologically to the average American. If the treasures and history of our country can be attacked and destroyed, i think that damages our way of life more than heavy security surrounding them.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I am far more disturbed by the loss of civil liberties than I would be if the Liberty Bell were blown up. The Liberty Bell is a symbol of the freedoms that are being eroded, so it would be ironic indeed to value that symbol more than the ideas that it represents.

scaeagles

05-24-2005, 08:52 AM

Errr?? :confused:

Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush.

Sorry for the confusion. I think one reason why I don't see a nation racked with fear is that security forced, no matter how ineffectual they may be, are almost omnipresent now, and that contributes to a feeling of security. I think if there was no evidence of trying to do something there would be much more angst evident.

I dispute Radical Islam being on the rise faster than Democracy and that being as a result of Mr. Bush. 9/11 happened before any Afghanistan or Iraq policies were implemented (so obviously it was already on the rise), and we are well on the way toward functioning democracies for 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are these the only two since the fall of the wall? I think they are, but I am not sure.

scaeagles

05-24-2005, 08:55 AM

I couldn't disagree with you more. I am far more disturbed by the loss of civil liberties than I would be if the Liberty Bell were blown up. The Liberty Bell is a symbol of the freedoms that are being eroded, so it would be ironic indeed to value that symbol more than the ideas that it represents.

How is extra security around the Liberty Bell a loss of civil liberties? We've debated this before, but I don't know anyone who has lost civil liberties. The only thing I can think of which comes close (well, two now) are the Guantanamo detainees (and only if they are US citizens) and a provision proposed in the new Patriot Act taking away judicial oversight on certian warrants (which I oppose).

I just don't see civil liberties being eroded.

Gemini Cricket

05-24-2005, 08:56 AM

Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush.

I thought we were supposed to blame Newsweek for that...
:rolleyes:

wendybeth

05-24-2005, 09:20 AM

How is extra security around the Liberty Bell a loss of civil liberties? We've debated this before, but I don't know anyone who has lost civil liberties. The only thing I can think of which comes close (well, two now) are the Guantanamo detainees (and only if they are US citizens) and a provision proposed in the new Patriot Act taking away judicial oversight on certian warrants (which I oppose).

I just don't see civil liberties being eroded.

You know perfectly well I was referring to such things as the 'Patriot Act' and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects, etc. I suppose as long as it doesn't affect you it's alright? That provision in the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to rifle through your records and not be answerable to anyone is frightening and is a huge blow to our civil liberties. The only reason the Act got passed was because of this climate of fear that the OP wrote about.

scaeagles

05-24-2005, 10:05 AM

You know perfectly well I was referring to such things as the 'Patriot Act' and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects, etc. I suppose as long as it doesn't affect you it's alright? That provision in the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to rifle through your records and not be answerable to anyone is frightening and is a huge blow to our civil liberties. The only reason the Act got passed was because of this climate of fear that the OP wrote about.

Wendy, I'm not trying to be a jerk. All FBI searches involved in the Patriot Act do require judicial warrants. There are provisions making it easier to get certain warrants and it does eliminate some redundancy, but there is judicial oversight. If someone will point out to me even one person, beyond the guantanamo prisoners who are US citizens (I do not include those who are not because non-US citizens have no gaurantee of rights under our Constitution - I completely agree that those US citizens being held there are being denied their rights, and in fact, judicial oversight ordered their release. Forgive me if some of my details aren't exact.), who has had their civil liberties compromised, that would be great. I honestly do not know of anyone.

If you are referring to the library records thing that was a big deal a while ago, I never had a problem with it because it is called a "public" library. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

wendybeth

05-24-2005, 10:30 AM

Well, for starters, here is this little item: Patriot Act reviewed in closed door session. (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18256&c=206)

This article (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/20/ramasastry.patriotact/) lays out many of the alarming aspects of the Act, and why the author considers them detrimental to our civil liberties.

I have a very long list of others I could post, but a simple keyword search will garner you the same results.

Oh, and Padilla is one detainee that comes to mind. There are many others who have 'disappeared'- granted, these are not very nice people, but that does not excuse our flouting of international law.

Prudence

05-24-2005, 10:57 AM

If you are referring to the library records thing that was a big deal a while ago, I never had a problem with it because it is called a "public" library. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Is the use of the word "public" the kicker? If so, does[should] that also apply to school records? Public schools are open to children living within district boundaries and supported by public funds, much as public libraries are open to residents living within district boundaries and supported by public funds. Should parents have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regards to their children's school records? [Bonus question: what about their public school library records?]

Also, if I recall correctly, the "library records thing" also applied to bookstores, which can be privately owned establishments. Should they be exempt, or are they public in the sense that the public is welcome within the establishment? In which case, is there a differentiation between a bookstore which is open to the public and a community hospital which is open to the public?

And I'm not just trying to be pedantic. If there's going to be a set of interactions and records that are protected/private, and a set that aren't, I'd like a clear understanding of which is which.

Although frankly I think that particular provision is a load of horse pucky. If national security is truly threatened by books checked out of the public libraries, librarians across the country deserve enormous pay increases as front line warriors in the Fight Against Terror. I have no problem with traditional warrants, reviewed by the judicial system. I *do* have a problem with secret warrants forever hidden from view. It allows less scrupulous law enforcement officials to take advantage of the system, target the least experienced librarian, and prevent him or her from seeking counsel from an administrator on the legal limits of the search. And it would be lovely if I could give you some statistics or particulars on that, but anything I know is stuff I shouldn't legally have been told anyhow.

I'm also concerned about a curtailment of scholarly activity. I did once have a citation for this, and I'll try to dredge it up, but I read an article about a faculty member doing legitimate research on public water systems. But because of the Patriot Act, he was afraid of being targeted as a terrorist based on the types of materials (mostly maps) that he checked out of the library. So he stopped checking them out. Not that he stopped borrowing them, he just didn't check them out first -- just walked out with them.

Not a particularly secure system.

And frankly I think it's mostly misdirection. Don't worry about that deficit/social security/homelessness/hunger/education/elder care/etc...

scaeagles

05-24-2005, 11:15 AM

Is the use of the word "public" the kicker?

And frankly I think it's mostly misdirection. Don't worry about that deficit/social security/homelessness/hunger/education/elder care/etc...

That is a good question. I suppose I don't know where the line is. However, I suppose i would be one to suggest that if the government funds something that is optional for use, as in a public library, privacy should not be expected. Something that is mandated, as in going to school, would be more protected. I will firmly admit that I don't know where the line is as far as what is fair game. However, I am sure this is not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052400746_pf.html

"The FBI on Tuesday asked the U.S. Congress for sweeping new powers to seize business or private records, ranging from medical information to book purchases, to investigate terrorism without first securing approval from a judge."

That is something I cannot support.

Everything the government can do has the potential to be abused. The Patriot Act (original) is no different.

As far as misdirection.....In don't know. Social Security reform is at the forefront of what Bush wants to accomplish this term. We've been waging the "war on poverty" forever, transferring trillions of dollars from the haves to the have nots, and yet there is still poverty and there always will be. Etc, etc, etc.