On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 17:41 +0100, Tim Bedding wrote: > Lowell > > > Y’ know. It’s rather interesting that the folks that wrote the > > US Constitution already thought about that “balance” between > > privacy and safety and wrote it into our 4th Amendment. > > I do not know how familiar you are with Babylon 5 but in > season 4 of that sci-fi show, John Sheridan felt obliged to > call in the "first ones", very powerful alien beings, to > tackle a Vorlon planetkiller. > > The Vorlons had decided to destroy settlements and planets > aligned to an opposing ideology.
An opposing ideology that included the hostile conquest and elimination of any other ideology. Not merely a minor quibble, that. > What has this to do with terrorists? > > Well, the Vorlons were acting as ideological terrorists > like Al Quaeda. Actually that was the other group. Remember the Shadows? The Vorlons were the ideological response to them. The Vorlons destroyed Shadow worlds and Shadow military targets. The Shadows did otherwise. Watched this season's Stargate SG1? > Sheridan was not willing to let billions die on Coriana 6 > simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. > > So, he applied force. The intelligence services are another > kind of weapon and one that can be applied to attempt to > avoid a terrorist attack. > > The Libertarian page I mentioned did not give a pragmatic reason > for opposition to covert surveillance. It spoke in terms > of rights. Those are the point, you know. Want to speak pragmatically? Invading my privacy would not have prevented 9/11. Period. NONE of the "tools" put in place post-9/11 would have. How is that for pragmatic? The best kept secrets are right in front of you, right under your nose (like a booger). Checking up on people's library habits would not have done a damned thing to prevent 9/11. Nor would they have stopped your subway bombers. Sneak and peek would not have prevented 9/11. Freezing finances would not have prevented 9/11. Asking stupid questions like "did someone else pack your bags" would not have prevented 9/11. have you looked into how they carried out their operation? I have. I am also trained in the use of cell networks. Absolutely nothing in the Patriot Act would have prevented 9/11. Zip, zilch, nadadamnthing. Not even the creation of a DHS would have. So tell us, is it pragmatic to waste a buttload of time, money, and effort going down paths you KNOW don't lead you where you want to go, and violate people's rights and destroy lives, not to mention create and foment mistrust among the populace in the process? How does creating paranoia about your own government help you fight terrorism? Trick question; it doesn't. But that is what things like the USAPATRIOT Act do. Its a shell game, and terrorists don't play it. They play a different game. It's like changing the rules in baseball to make football less interesting. It doesn't work. We were shown *exactly* what would have prevented 9/11 on 9/11. Passengers who were not coddled into thinking someone else would save them. Decades of airline attendants and passengers being taught to go along with a hijacker rather than risk your life. That us ultimately what led to the possibility for 9/11 to happen. Complacency and an unwillingness to take mortal risk when it is appropriate. We the people are our first and last best hope. No amount of legislation or invasion or privacy and destruction of individual rights will ever change that. You wanna talk pragmatics about security practices? Bring it on. I'm equipped and prepared for an intelligent, informed discussion of the facts, are you? If so, lets have a go. Pragmatism isn't just a word or an excuse. You have to back it up. -- Random Fortune of the moment: Humor in the Court: Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? A: Yes, I have been since early childhood. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
