your postal mail or your email?

cause do you really think they go through all your postal mail and then re-seal it all up so you don't notice its been tampered with?

or maybe they just go through your email...they could do that in a rather undetectable way

course i get dozens and dozens of emails every day, many of them spam

i don't know if the government goes through dozens of emails x millions of people every day

6/27/2006 1:28:46 PM

Quote :

"oh yea. would you rather have this program, or be dead? because those are your two choices."

Not sure if this is pure sarcasm or not, but I'd rather have some other program that is just as or more effective that doesn't have to trounce my privacy in the process.

Actually, if this government weren't controlled by money, corrupt, and generally ineffective in the areas that I think it is ineffective, then I personally wouldn't care how much of my stuff they went through, I'll gladly trade the one time loss of privacy for improvements in other aspects of my life.

6/27/2006 1:30:25 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather have some other program that is just as or more effective that doesn't have to trounce my privacy in the process."

like what? i mean what ideas or types of programs are you suggesting? i'm all ears, i just think in order to try and catch legitimate threats, ie terrorists, they are going to have to check almost everything

i mean you probably know how easy it is to create a hotmail or yahoo mail account...whats stopping the terrorists from creating new ones every day? and then how are we supposed to catch up to them...or if they get disposable cellphones, etc

6/27/2006 1:32:08 PM

I'd rather not think in reactive terms but rather in proactive. Sure, the people that already exist in our country we probably can't do much about, but we can damn sure prevent any potential new ones from coming in. Set up a system to where any immigrants to this country will have to submit to being "watched" for X number of years (5? 10?). Sure that could be expensive, but are we really putting a dollar figure on life?

I rather think that the two big natural buffers we have make it much easier to protect ourselves here with airtight processes/systems/regulations/controls and work faster than whatever we are trying to do in the middle east. We should have capitalized on the shock and awe and the worlds empathy (sympathy?) of having two buildings brought down to say "thats it, never again, we don't want to do it but we are errecting massive walls around the entire country to prevent people from crossing under cover of night into our land and hiding, and we are setting up extensive checks and restrictrive regulations on any potential new immigrants we let in". What respected world leader in their right mind in the weeks following 9/11 would have spoken out strongly against the US for attempting to protect ourselves through an open visible process (versus a guantanamo, nsa spying, using foreign lands to transport prisoners, etc).

I don't have the answers and I don't pretend to have them, but proclaiming a never ending war on a rather hazy target without any kinda real measuring stick for what kind of potential damage this enemy could do is just not a good way to go about this. I'm just extremely uncomfortable in no one really attempting to quantify the likeihood of another attack. We know where we stand with Iran, we know where we stand with NK. If we can't figure out where we stand in regards to another terrorist attack, then chasing down records "reactively" means we are always following, playing catch up. We should be able to put ourself in a position first to say, alright, these are our defenses, we can be 99.99% certain that we won't suffer another major catastrophe. Once those systems and controls are in place, then we can start chipping away with programs (and I no longer claim SWIFT as one of them, rather the NSA) that might border on privacy violation or whatever, programs where the urgency isn't there as much and due process (fisa courts) delays aren't such a tactical killer.

In re of proactive vs reactive, wasn't it known for many many years that hijacking a plane and turning it into a bomb was a real possibility? Why did it take 9/11 to get new security measures implemented when hijackings had happened before already? Why to this day 5 years later is it still pretty easy to blow up a subway if need be?

6/27/2006 1:57:56 PM

Quote :

". Set up a system to where any immigrants to this country will have to submit to being "watched" for X number of years (5? 10?). Sure that could be expensive, but are we really putting a dollar figure on life? "

the sad thing is that you're not joking.

6/27/2006 2:00:37 PM

You're right I'm not joking. Until there is an organized group of born citizens (modern day americans) from within this country to plan and/or carry out an attack, I think it makes perfect sense to heavily scrutinize any outsider. Maybe "watching" them is a bit extreme, but the screening process should be beyond rigorous - full factorial.

Anyway, I really don't see a problem with telling someone "we're sorry, but we don't trust you because we don't know you, and we're going to have to keep an eye on you for a few years until we have reason to believe you aren't playing for the other side".

6/27/2006 2:06:38 PM

Quote :

"You're right I'm not joking. Until there is an organized group of born citizens (modern day americans) from within this country to plan and/or carry out an attack, I think it makes perfect sense to heavily scrutinize any outsider"

Oklahoma City?

in regards to the govt knowing planes could potentially be used as bombs as they were on 9/11

think about this...in post 9/11...even some of the people who are skeptical of whether or not we'll get another terrorist attack on US soil know that its possible...9/11 brought down a "it cant happen to me" type aspect in almost everyone's mind...sure we saw the 1991 WTC attacks...we saw the olympic village scare and the oklahoma city tragedy...but none of them really hit home like the sept 11, 01...i dont think people wouldve gone for all the necessary prerequisites and steps necessary to efficiently secure the country before 9/11

i remember seeing an interview with a guy who's brother died on Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland...when the Libyans blew up that plane, his brother was killed...that hit home with him right then...he understood the issue before 9/11...but Dick Cheney, who at the time was not VP (cant recall his positition, but something govt), said the only way to get enough public support to make the necessary security and intelligence adjustments was to have some kind of attack on US soil...he basically said until Americans see that things like this CAN happen to us on our soil, we would continue to live in the "it cant happen to us" mentality...so that could possibly explain the lack of funding and resources dedicated to homeland security up until 5 years ago

6/27/2006 2:07:03 PM

Quote :

"Oklahoma City?"

Point taken. Though, just the same, we now know that anyone buying a shit ton of fertilizer, fuel oil, and blasting caps is probably up to something. The task now is just to think of all the ways a single person (or small groups) could manage to scrounge up the material needed to pull something like this off. Again, if we are really worried about these things, then just don't let trucks down city streets near big buildings. If people are just terrified of terror, move out of the big cities. It's kinda funny people will give up their right to privacy to gain some sense of security in a public place.

What are the odds a New Yorker will get mugged, die in a car accident, die from natural causes, or something else versus having a building fall on their head?

6/27/2006 2:21:25 PM

Quote :

"then just don't let trucks down city streets near big buildings"

have you been to new york city? are they just supposed to ban trucks from manhattan?

6/27/2006 2:23:18 PM

Quote :

"your postal mail or your email? cause do you really think they go through all your postal mail and then re-seal it all up so you don't notice its been tampered with?"

no they use xrays and CT's and super technologies, duh.

6/27/2006 2:52:06 PM

^^ Sherpas.

6/27/2006 2:54:32 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK All American 10394 Posts user info edit post I just wanted to thank everybody for not caling me an idiot. I've had some time to think about this (in the shower), and I think I may have posted too soon. I shouldn't have jumped on this as proof Bush "doesn't get it"--other policies still support that notion. There are some things I do want to add to this thread, but I don't want it to appear that I'm just reaching for more criticism since my first set of criticisms didn't pan out. So I'm gonna wait a little bit to come out with it. "

we're waiting...

6/27/2006 4:24:41 PM

Quote :

"have you been to new york city? are they just supposed to ban trucks from manhattan?"

Good to see we have such an outside the box thinker.

Set up a system where all trucks are searched/scanned/xrayed before being allowed to enter downtown areas. You could always say any system is hackable or fallible, etc (just like software), but I rather judge a system based on the percentages proactively than playing catch up to johnny terrorist.

I didn't say it would be easy or expensive, but what price do we pay? At some point do we erradicate all terrorism? How far will the government go to protect us, even if it means giving up all our liberties? Give me all the percentages and let me decide to live in a city or not.

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 4:29 PM. Reason : asd]

6/27/2006 4:28:55 PM

all i was saying was that banning trucks from downtown nyc would be ridiculous. there are trucks all over the place. the first time i went to manhattan i was struck at how many more trucks there were than i expected.

6/27/2006 4:34:22 PM

I'm just saying if the country wanted to protect us from terrorist, there are probably much more appropriate ways then trying to enforce democracy onto some folks that didn't ask for it or spying on your own citizens, etc. Oh wait, we went over to Iraq to free them from a tyrant. Wait, it was WMDs right?

6/27/2006 4:44:06 PM

that post hurts my head to read. but i think i might kinda be on the same page as you.

6/27/2006 4:49:06 PM

Searching all the trucks that enter manhattan is the type of ideas that only people that have never been to manhattan will think of.

6/27/2006 4:51:43 PM

^^^not to get into an argument about why we went to war in Iraq

but Congress supported 19 different reasons, 2 of which were dethroning a tyrant and thinking he had WMDs

6/27/2006 5:21:44 PM

The number of reasons means nothing to me and you can probably combine several of those to make the number smaller (btw, a quick google of '19 reasons for iraq war' doesn't reveal obvious links, strange).

As it is, terrorism, wmd's, him being a tyrant, and threats to our interest in the regions were the real biggies if I am not mistaken.

And I personally think the terrorism one and the him being a tyrant one should be thrown out as the terrorism one is probably overstated (I don't submit to the "do you want another terrorist attack on our soil" fear tactic) and I don't think we have any business overthrowing tyrants across the globe.

WMD's, well, thats been debated endlessly. And threats in the region? Why not just keep arming Israel if thats what it is really about.

6/27/2006 5:49:34 PM

Quote :

"I don't submit to the "do you want another terrorist attack on our soil" fear tactic"

what a coincidence

I don't submit to the "do you want all your liberties and freedoms and rights taken away and do you want to live in a police state, because thats what Bush wants" fear tactic

6/27/2006 5:52:24 PM

I think I'd be a little more comfortable with nefarious programs if the people running them had been a lot more straightforward (and a lot less religiously motivated in their actions) in all their other dealings.

That is, had the government done a bang up job handling Katrina, handling this, handling that, I'd be more than happy to overlook other less glamorous aspects of running and protecting the country. But when a certain person/group has a track record of botched jobs and mismanagement, I think they tend to get hammered on every little detail - it seems this happens to Bush.

6/27/2006 6:24:45 PM

still, regardless of what goes wrong, its easy to blame Bush...I could easily say that FEMA and local and state gulf governments did more wrong about Katrina...but Bush will ultimately take the blame

6/27/2006 6:40:34 PM

he, as the leader of the executive branch with sweeping emergency powers, COULD have taken drastic quick steps to help with Katrina, but did not until it was far too late.

this is not to say that other entities didn't screw up a lot.

6/28/2006 8:40:21 AM

so, it's OK for a newspaper to print classified information, but it's not OK for a newspaper to print the name of a CIA agent with no real bearing to anything?

got it

6/30/2006 6:26:11 PM

6/30/2006 6:28:22 PM

is that a self-portrait?

6/30/2006 6:39:09 PM

Thats your moms face.

6/30/2006 6:52:06 PM

wow, that's nice of you. It's a hell of a lot better looking than her real face

6/30/2006 7:04:18 PM