Larry Gude
Strung Out
I'd like to take the opportunity presented by the State of the Union speech and the Democratic rebutal to discuss 'homeland security'.
What is it? What should it be?
Pelosi and Co. point out all the holes in the system; un-inspected overseas cargo containers, porous border, lax security for private and cargo planes and so on and so forth. Ya da, ya da, ya da effing da.
Others point out what has to be the bigger issue; given all these apparently effortless points of infiltration, we have not been attacked since September 11, 2001. Not attacked once. By people willing to die in the process. Suppossedly desperate, commited, unwavering enemies.
For me, I view this, terror, like crime; if motive and opportunity are greater than the risk, then crime is more likely. If the converse is likely, crime goes down. And terrorism is just that, a crime.
Criminals don't, by and large, want a death struggle with the cops. They want something tangible. Money mostly.
Terrorists do not, obviously, want a death struggle with us because they've stopped. They want something tangible, in this case, Islamic Holy rule and what they are/were doing is not working.
In our free society, you are suppossed to be able to prepare and plan to rob a bank as long as you are not breaking the law in the process; gathering illegal weapons, explosives et al. We don't arrest people for what they think and write. The law intervenes AFTER you have commited your crime. Thought and preperation, means and opportunity enter the equation once you are suspect. Now they are evidence, not free speech or expression.
Nowadays, WMD's enter into the equation, like hard drugs, explosives, drunk driving, watching 'Survivor' and machine guns; the idea of the potential violence and/or damage being too great to wait until something actually happens.
Enter the Patriot Act. It's essential function is to move terrorism into the class of acts that allow and require pre-emptive action. FBI agents knew foreign nationals were taking flying lessons without learning to land. They were told they can NOT wire tap or hack into the laptops of the perps. They had not crossed the legal threshold. The Patriot Act fixed that.
Where I am going with this is do we really want to persue homeland security to the extent where we will be inspecting every last possible avenue of attack? Do you want to be ID checked as you enter the grocery store? Do you want to be frisked entering your kids high school basketball game? Do you want to pay hundreds and thousands fold more to inspect EVERY container thoroughly? To seal the borders? To have every incoming overseas package opened and tested?
There is nothing in the Homeland Security plan, now or ever, that can stop an Islamic terrorist from waltzing into your local high school at lunch time with homemade explosives in his jacket.
Or do we persue what I think the administratrion has persued; making the cost of the crime far to expensive and therefore, far less likely to happen. Something is keeping us safe from machine gunnings at the local mall and IED's on the beltway.
I submit that no matter what extent we go to in terms of homeland security there will ALWAYS be a way to cause mass murder and proerty damage when you are talking about perps who are willing to die in the process. Isn't that a given? Doesn't that make the vast majority of any Homeland Security plan mostly show?
So, take away their motivation. Make their actions enemies of their cause and forget becoming a 'safe' police state.
Osama Bin Laden, whatever his real intentions, has brought about a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Iraq. Zaqarwi in Iraq has done more to make the Presidents case for invading Iraq than the administration ever could. I don't think that is what he had in mind.
We are winning. Freedom is winning. The Afghani and Iraqi people are winning. If Osama and the rest were right, we'd have daily mass bloodshed on a Biblical scale, right here at home as thousands upon thousands of true believers answered his call to arms. It ain't happening. The reverse is happening.
I say frisking my wife, however much of a thrill that may be, is useless in terms of domestic security. It's hunting mosquitos at 100 yards with a shotgun; if you hit something it's an accident. Same for inspecting containers and sealing the border.
The effort (manpower and money) should go into using the Patriot Act, developing usable evidence and acting on it, evidence that used to not be enough. Use a scalpel to cut out cancer. Let's build a larger military to support projecting our national interest and to ease the burden on those who have already given so much. Take some of that Homeland security money and give it to the family of a fallen soldier. He did far more for us than any cargo inpsection.
I think all of that is obviously happening and should continue.
So, what of de-emphasizing the fantasy of finding all the bad guys and their weapons which, to satisfy Pelosis criticisms, would turn us into a massive police state, and instead re-emphasize global security through democracy and liberty?
Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood did not die for oil or Halliburton or so the US can annex Iraq. We all know that. That is not what the US does.
Sgt. Norwood died for Safia Taleb al Suhail, the woman who would not let go of Sgt. Norwoods mom, who, in turn, would not let go of Safia.
He died so that one day Safia's son might stand in defense of his home, a home with rights and freedoms worth dying for.
He and those like him are our real Department of Homeland Security and a whole bunch of erstwhile bad guys have gotten the message.
What is it? What should it be?
Pelosi and Co. point out all the holes in the system; un-inspected overseas cargo containers, porous border, lax security for private and cargo planes and so on and so forth. Ya da, ya da, ya da effing da.
Others point out what has to be the bigger issue; given all these apparently effortless points of infiltration, we have not been attacked since September 11, 2001. Not attacked once. By people willing to die in the process. Suppossedly desperate, commited, unwavering enemies.
For me, I view this, terror, like crime; if motive and opportunity are greater than the risk, then crime is more likely. If the converse is likely, crime goes down. And terrorism is just that, a crime.
Criminals don't, by and large, want a death struggle with the cops. They want something tangible. Money mostly.
Terrorists do not, obviously, want a death struggle with us because they've stopped. They want something tangible, in this case, Islamic Holy rule and what they are/were doing is not working.
In our free society, you are suppossed to be able to prepare and plan to rob a bank as long as you are not breaking the law in the process; gathering illegal weapons, explosives et al. We don't arrest people for what they think and write. The law intervenes AFTER you have commited your crime. Thought and preperation, means and opportunity enter the equation once you are suspect. Now they are evidence, not free speech or expression.
Nowadays, WMD's enter into the equation, like hard drugs, explosives, drunk driving, watching 'Survivor' and machine guns; the idea of the potential violence and/or damage being too great to wait until something actually happens.
Enter the Patriot Act. It's essential function is to move terrorism into the class of acts that allow and require pre-emptive action. FBI agents knew foreign nationals were taking flying lessons without learning to land. They were told they can NOT wire tap or hack into the laptops of the perps. They had not crossed the legal threshold. The Patriot Act fixed that.
Where I am going with this is do we really want to persue homeland security to the extent where we will be inspecting every last possible avenue of attack? Do you want to be ID checked as you enter the grocery store? Do you want to be frisked entering your kids high school basketball game? Do you want to pay hundreds and thousands fold more to inspect EVERY container thoroughly? To seal the borders? To have every incoming overseas package opened and tested?
There is nothing in the Homeland Security plan, now or ever, that can stop an Islamic terrorist from waltzing into your local high school at lunch time with homemade explosives in his jacket.
Or do we persue what I think the administratrion has persued; making the cost of the crime far to expensive and therefore, far less likely to happen. Something is keeping us safe from machine gunnings at the local mall and IED's on the beltway.
I submit that no matter what extent we go to in terms of homeland security there will ALWAYS be a way to cause mass murder and proerty damage when you are talking about perps who are willing to die in the process. Isn't that a given? Doesn't that make the vast majority of any Homeland Security plan mostly show?
So, take away their motivation. Make their actions enemies of their cause and forget becoming a 'safe' police state.
Osama Bin Laden, whatever his real intentions, has brought about a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Iraq. Zaqarwi in Iraq has done more to make the Presidents case for invading Iraq than the administration ever could. I don't think that is what he had in mind.
We are winning. Freedom is winning. The Afghani and Iraqi people are winning. If Osama and the rest were right, we'd have daily mass bloodshed on a Biblical scale, right here at home as thousands upon thousands of true believers answered his call to arms. It ain't happening. The reverse is happening.
I say frisking my wife, however much of a thrill that may be, is useless in terms of domestic security. It's hunting mosquitos at 100 yards with a shotgun; if you hit something it's an accident. Same for inspecting containers and sealing the border.
The effort (manpower and money) should go into using the Patriot Act, developing usable evidence and acting on it, evidence that used to not be enough. Use a scalpel to cut out cancer. Let's build a larger military to support projecting our national interest and to ease the burden on those who have already given so much. Take some of that Homeland security money and give it to the family of a fallen soldier. He did far more for us than any cargo inpsection.
I think all of that is obviously happening and should continue.
So, what of de-emphasizing the fantasy of finding all the bad guys and their weapons which, to satisfy Pelosis criticisms, would turn us into a massive police state, and instead re-emphasize global security through democracy and liberty?
Marine Sgt. Byron Norwood did not die for oil or Halliburton or so the US can annex Iraq. We all know that. That is not what the US does.
Sgt. Norwood died for Safia Taleb al Suhail, the woman who would not let go of Sgt. Norwoods mom, who, in turn, would not let go of Safia.
He died so that one day Safia's son might stand in defense of his home, a home with rights and freedoms worth dying for.
He and those like him are our real Department of Homeland Security and a whole bunch of erstwhile bad guys have gotten the message.
