On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 18 Oct 2008 8:38:30 am Gautam John wrote: >> Just saw this: >> >> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200811/airport-security > > There is a perception problem that is affectng security agencies in the US > (IMVHO of course). > > The US has never really faced concerted serious terrorist attacks within its > own heartland like India, or for that matter Britain, Germany and Spain. Or > Russia. > > With 9-11 and its aftermath, US security agencies took "certain steps" and the > US has not had any further attacks. This fact (that the US has not faced > further attacks) can now be used to feed the justification that the measures > that the US took were and are effective. > > IOW one can reach the conclusion that it is good and wise to check shampoo > bottles. > > Somehow, I suspect that lawyers in the US are inextricably intertwined with > this. I know for a fact that even doctors sometimes delay emergency medical > treatment in the US until a patient with a particular emergency is certified > by peers as suffering from a problem that has a specific code and that the > treatment necessary for that code is applied. If the treatment is given > without that code certification, the doctor can get sued. Succesfully. (The > antics that doctors in the US need to resort to to make sure they get > insurance to cough up and to keep themselves out of trouble is another story) > > So you can bet that US security agencies opeate under the same "cover your > ass" pressure that has less to do with what is humane or sensible and more to > do with what keeps them out of trouble. But I do admit that the line s very > fine. The more lax you are the more likely that some terrorist can slip > through. > > But that is only one half of the story. Training and indoctrination camps for > terrorists are a dime a dozen in Pakistan. In the last few weeks it has been > reevaled that a "Taliban commander" killed renectly by a US drone attack was > a Pakistani army officer. The US has paid Pakistan more than $ 14 billion in > the last 7 years, or which half has been for the Paksitani army. This figure > excludes covert payments and payments as rent for use of bases and other > faclities.
Not to mention the serious lack of foresight amongst agencies who dont know (or dont care or cant control) how the funds/money they gave for a seemingly just cause was thence misused. Not surprising at all.... Isnt there some story about creating a monster to destroy another but over time the monster grows and turns its attention to its creator. Or maybe its not their house that's burning so why bother.... .
