The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Ghoulish Delight]

It is fiction to imagine that intelligence agencies can sort out every single possible scenario, warning, plea, threat, etc. and know ahead of time with accuracy who is and isn't going to turn out to be acting on those warnings on any given day. They have limited resources and have to make judgment calls as to what seems the most likely.

After the fact, everything is crystal clear. With a definite endpoint, the path there is obvious. But that's an illusion. Like I said, I would be willing to bet the intelligence community has stacks of testimonials from dozens of people's family members warning them of radical rantings or whatever. It's only AFTER one of them actually does anything that their particular warning suddenly stands out from the crowd as "an obvious sign".

Does, "I'm worried he's starting to become radical" really sound like a pressing warning that would indicate cause for concern in the short term? Does someone who seeming just began to explore "radicalization" with no previous history really seem like someone "obviously" about to blow up a plane? Not to me it doesn't.

I'm sick of people trying to sell the myth that if we just "fix" our intelligence agencies, we'll be safe. As long as due process and freedom remain ideals here (and perhaps even afterwards), there is no 100% "fix" for the problem. And only in hindsight will the particular signs and warning for that particular person seem "obvious", while hundreds of others with various combinations of those same "obvious" signs will continue to be impossible to sort out from each other until one of them actually tries to act.

[Alex]

And interesting byproduct is that this will probably be viewed as a greater intelligence and security failure since it failed than if he'd been successful in crashing the plane.

[Ghoulish Delight]

How do you figure? Is your theory that if he had crashed the plane, politicians and pundits would be less willing to blame it on failed intelligence, which would have the side effect of making the people who are the targets of that blame party to the murders?

[Alex]

1. We wouldn't know all the details we know now.

2. The details learned would have come out over a longer period of time and with less certainty. It would be quite a while before it was even a certainty there'd been a bomb, how it was snuck in, etc.

I guess a better way to have phrased it is that if he'd been successful the response likely would be less hysterical and less specific.

Similarly, if Richard Reid had been successful we'd probably still be able to wear our shoes through security.

[wendybeth]

Time had a rather simplistic essay about this subject this week, but I liked the gist of it, which was that we need to stop worrying about 'intelligence failures' and the apparent inability of the government to afford us complete safety, and focus on the obvious: fellow civvies stopped Reid and this guy, and we need to recognize that ultimately the solution lies in ourselves. Stop waiting around like sheep for the farmer dude to come and kill the wolves, and do the deed ourselves. Be aware, and don't be afraid to take action when and where you need to. I realize the government doesn't like this mode of thinking- they might spout concerns of vigilantism, etc, but really- they just want us to need them. Thank God the survival instinct usually kicks in and people seem to be able to get real when they need to, but I know there have been instances where people have remained inactive while waiting in vain for the Calvary to swoop in. (Katrina, etc).

[Betty]

Have any of you read The Hunger Games?

Got it for my teenage daughter - it's a 3 book series (I'm on book 2).

It's an interesting sci-fy look into the future where, after famine, flood and war, the US is now called Panem and the Capitol city rules ruthlessly over the other districts to prevent an uprising. They put on the Hunger Games every year - it's a reality show where children fight to the death.

Great books. Easy reading. And with a fair amount of things to think about polically in addition to the whole reality show entertainment at the expense of others.

[Alex]

Have not heard of it before this.

Try out Battle Royale if you want kids fighting to the death. It is a Japanese novel/movie where, to deal with ruffianism every year a school is selected and all the students dumped into an only-one-can-survive (and explicitly detailed) free-for-all.

Probably not appropriate for a young teenager, though (if you're of the opinion there can be a book inappropriate for kids).

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Time had a rather simplistic essay about this subject this week, but I liked the gist of it, which was that we need to stop worrying about 'intelligence failures' and the apparent inability of the government to afford us complete safety, and focus on the obvious: fellow civvies stopped Reid and this guy, and we need to recognize that ultimately the solution lies in ourselves. Stop waiting around like sheep for the farmer dude to come and kill the wolves, and do the deed ourselves. Be aware, and don't be afraid to take action when and where you need to. I realize the government doesn't like this mode of thinking- they might spout concerns of vigilantism, etc, but really- they just want us to need them. Thank God the survival instinct usually kicks in and people seem to be able to get real when they need to, but I know there have been instances where people have remained inactive while waiting in vain for the Calvary to swoop in. (Katrina, etc).

Yeah. This.

[Ghoulish Delight]

**** yeah, John Oliver

"They were children! They were all fvking children! It was a 'better, simpler time' because they were all 6 years old. For children, the world is always a happy, uncomplicated place."

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm liking John Oliver more and more. He was on NPR the other day and he was funny there, too.