AP asks - Post 9/11: We Live... But is the Cost Too High? [ArthurK]

AP is sort-of happy that the US hasn't suffered another major terror attack since 9/11. Is The Cost Too High?! Have the terrorists won after all?!?!

Times Square ... another spectacle: helmeted police with machine guns...

In other words - the same cops we had before but with helmets instead of hats and with guns equivalent to what terrorists use. I'm more scared of OSHA inspectors and the Guitar Wood Gestapo. They're staffed with the guys who weren't good enough to be cops.

Ten years after the September 11 attacks of 2001, the United States has altered the balance between freedom and security, turning an open and casual society into an ever-vigilant one.

Vigilance = Price of Freedom.

The country has not suffered another attack,...

But at what cost in lost liberty and dollars? Civil libertarians fear the era of surveillance and circumspection could become permanent.

Eat me. Eat Me, Bitch.

The United States has spent an additional $400 billion on security plus $1.3 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

Or $170 billion a year.

The president and police have more power, claiming more authority to snoop into the private lives of citizens with less oversight from the courts. Airport security are much more thorough.

I'm not saying I'm happy about this. In fact, it sucks. But there are worse things and we will never live in a perfect world.

...the U.S. government resorted to two controversial practices in response to threats from abroad -- extraordinary rendition -- the illegal transfer of foreign suspects captured abroad to a third country for detention and interrogation...

Illegal? Says who? Has anybody been charged, indicted, tried or convicted of renditioning?

And if this article is about the cost to us... renditioning some jihadist has No Cost to me (except for a tiny financial one).

"Ten years later, if we are still in this emergency mindset, then this is now who we are. This is the new normal," said Susan Herman, president of the American Civil Liberties Union. "At some point if you don't reverse that process you really have moved yourself into an Orwellian state."

And what point is that? You know, if weren't screaming 1984 over every govt. security action then we might pay attention if you called out the govt. when they approached the At some point. But you've lost credibility with your crying wolf on everything.

GROWTH FOR SECURITY INDUSTRY

5 paragraphs that have nothing to do with the alleged focus of the story. I think they were included because if somebody is making a profit that's proof that something evil is occurring.

The invasion of privacy is more unsettling, especially for Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent who face discrimination and have been caught up in the security net.

I was tempted to take a cheap shot at the Muslims here but that would be wrong. Instead, MAD PROPS to our American Muslims who have done a pretty good job narcing on the terrorists who try to infest their mosques. We certainly would have had more mass casualty attacks if they hadn't stepped up the plate when it mattered.

One prominent civil libertarian blames President Barack Obama for expanding the growth of executive power. Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University's law school, called Obama a "nightmare" who betrayed civil libertarians after campaigning against Bush's approach.

You Mad, Bro? You're still gonna vote for him Nov 2012 you SCOAMF-sucking whine-o-crat.

Conclusion.

You know, there is another way to deal with this problem that would let us go back to the good old days with no airport checks and loosey goosey security. But the same people who complain about today's security went batshit crazy when Bush43 tried a more proactive approach. If you don't solve the problem you gotta deal with the problem. We're dealing, not solving. Thanks for nothing.

[published by ace]

posted by Open Blogger at 07:17 PM

| Access Comments