Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] Iowa results

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Mike Miller wrote:
> >
> > > You can't have really strong borders without lots of armed guards or 
> > > some kind of sensing system and a pretty large number of guards.  I 
> > > doubt that it is worth the effort.  It is a delusion to believe that 
> > > we can block out all the bad guys at the border.  They come in on 
> > > tourist visas, student visas, etc., or they are born here!
> >
> > Well all those MinuteManHG emails I receive have convinced me that we 
> > can do better than we currently do.  Perhaps it is delusional to 
> > believe that we can completely block it out, but then again it is 
> > delusional to think that we can completely stop crime - but we still 
> > have a police force, and we still try our level best to keep crime to 
> > a minimum.
> >
> > If we combine a sane immigration policy (like that Bush has suggested) 
> > with firm borders, I really do think that the problem can be greatly 
> > reduced.  It might not be impossible to stop terrorists, but we can 
> > certainly make it a lot harder for them.
>
>
> Maybe delusional was too strong of a word.  Here's my strongest 
> position, which could be wrong:  Border security does *nothing* to 
> prevent terrorist attacks.  That could be wrong, but consider this -- 
> has any terrorist ever illegally crossed one of our borders to enter 
> this country and then committed some terrorist attack?  I think not, and 
> it certainly isn't because our security has been good.
>
> We are very easy to attack and it's going to stay that way.  I was just 
> reading in a NY Times blog how easy it should be to sneak a bomb or 
> somesuch into a commercial jet in cargo:
>
> http://jetlagged.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/look-out-below/
>
> If this hasn't happened before, it probably isn't because it is so hard 
> to attack us in that way, it's probably because no one wants to do it 
> all that badly.

I really don't accept this kind of argument (or rather the way you are 
using it).  It now seems to be universally agreed that we could have 
stopped 9-11 if only the various policing forces could have talked to 
each other, and if only key people in key places would have acted more 
forcefully.

Also, terrorist attempts HAVE been made since this date, but have been 
stopped.  An example of this was the attempt a year or so back to put 
explosives in the form of liquids on trans-atlantic flights.

Obviously we would all like more checks against terrorist attacks.  But 
just because we are only making a (lets say) 75% effort to stop it, 
doesn't mean that it is already far better than a 25% effort.

One of the assumptions in the article you cite is that terrorists could 
plant a bomb via a "known shipper."  But this already presents 
considerable difficulties for the budding terrorist, because they have 
to discretely figure out which "known shipper" might be willing.  And if 
they get it wrong one time, the shipper they approach might easily talk 
to the FBI, and help set up an elaborate sting operation.

Again, none of us like old ladies being searched at airports, or mothers 
not being allowed to take milk for their babies on airplanes.  But on 
the other hand, we just don't know which precautions are going to stop 
the terrorists, and which are not.


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion