smash, you and i do not see eye to eye on many subjects, but on this one i will agree with you 100%. i dont like the idea fron 9/11 commssion, kerry, or bush.
if the intelegent agencies would cut out half of their management, then more intell could get to those who are in possition to make the decisions.
without that happening, you end up with a lot like what we have now.
as much as i hate to say this the KGB had an extreemly good setup so far as getting action taken on their intelegence. the information was gathered, analized, then presented to the single director, who then presented it to the main man in the USSR whom ever it was at the time.
most of the middle mng was/is not there and they had an effect spy organization.
the US could learn from that.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A "National Inteligence Director" is a bad, bad, i
A "National Inteligence Director" is a bad, bad, iFollow
Heh. Singall. The model used by the KGB, and the efficiency of said organization is also one of the arguments *against* having that sort of system...
It really is a matter of picking your poison. Historically, we American's would rather we get caught with our pants down then allow our government free reign in terms of privacy violation.
I think the knee-jerk reaction from 9/11 is making the public foolishly clamor for more security. But I think as usual, that's a reaction from people who haven't thought through the cost of the saftey. I have a feeling that as the government attempts to comply with the demands of the public and they realize that "really! the only way for us to really know if your neighbor is a terrorist is if we allow our government to put surveilance on people who've so far commited no crime", we'll start to see the opinion on this turn.
It's doubly annoying because most "smart" people already know that the whole process is a waste of time. But we have to go through it because public opinion is fickle and follows a herd mentality. We wont be able to get the public to understand that they really don't want the kind of actions that would need to be done to make them safe, until we go through the motions. If we just argue that we can't do what they want without removing many freedoms, they'll just keep clamoring that we need to protect them.
So we have to go through the steps of writing up deliberately bad legistlation, and creating ill-concieved organizations, and letting the courts hash out the constitutionality of it all, until the public gets enough message about the dangers of that, and starts to forget the dangers of terrorism, and things return to "normal". Once that happens, they'll demand that they be free from survielance and government intrustion on their privacy, and much of that stuff will end up being removed.
It's all just part of the process.
It really is a matter of picking your poison. Historically, we American's would rather we get caught with our pants down then allow our government free reign in terms of privacy violation.
I think the knee-jerk reaction from 9/11 is making the public foolishly clamor for more security. But I think as usual, that's a reaction from people who haven't thought through the cost of the saftey. I have a feeling that as the government attempts to comply with the demands of the public and they realize that "really! the only way for us to really know if your neighbor is a terrorist is if we allow our government to put surveilance on people who've so far commited no crime", we'll start to see the opinion on this turn.
It's doubly annoying because most "smart" people already know that the whole process is a waste of time. But we have to go through it because public opinion is fickle and follows a herd mentality. We wont be able to get the public to understand that they really don't want the kind of actions that would need to be done to make them safe, until we go through the motions. If we just argue that we can't do what they want without removing many freedoms, they'll just keep clamoring that we need to protect them.
So we have to go through the steps of writing up deliberately bad legistlation, and creating ill-concieved organizations, and letting the courts hash out the constitutionality of it all, until the public gets enough message about the dangers of that, and starts to forget the dangers of terrorism, and things return to "normal". Once that happens, they'll demand that they be free from survielance and government intrustion on their privacy, and much of that stuff will end up being removed.
It's all just part of the process.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
...Once that happens, they'll demand that they be free from survielance and government intrustion on their privacy, and much of that stuff will end up being removed.
What are you smoking? You talk as if you understand human nature, which I am beginning to doubt you do after reading your diatribe on this topic. Look, it's simply a power grab to maintain control and ensure that blame can be shifted away from the government when the next 9/11 happens. One of the reasons the administration and even congress is talking about implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission so quickly is because they don't know when the next attack will take place. If the next attack happens this summer and they failed to start on the recommendations then the Bush Administration and the Republicans are going to be dead in the water. You state that:
Quote:
I think the knee-jerk reaction from 9/11 is making the public foolishly clamor for more security. But I think as usual, that's a reaction from people who haven't thought through the cost of the saftey.
What portion of the public is clamoring for more government control? Show us proof that over 55% of the public is asking for the government to do this. One of the biggest problems is that the government thinks that people are ignorant enough that by providing an additional layer of security the terrorists will change their minds about attacking us. Please. give the average American more credit and intelligence than what you have. Mind you I'm sitting in the middle of the country and do not live through the daily reminder of 9/11 by not seeing the twin towers on the skyline, so the sense of needed additional security is not as strong as a New Yorkers.
What needs to be done is more human intelligence on the ground not only in the middle east but through out the world. Heck, even giving our current assets the authorization to do business with "shady" characters would be a better step than adding more administrative layers. I can go on but I have already created a monster post, so have a nice day.
What needs to be done is more human intelligence on the ground not only in the middle east but through out the world. Heck, even giving our current assets the authorization to do business with "shady" characters would be a better step than adding more administrative layers. I can go on but I have already created a monster post, so have a nice day.
Repealing a few dozen NSAM's that seemed like a good idea at the time would be a good start, but Bush has shown that he's sensative to polling data regarding doing that and is hesitant.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
8 posts
Correct me if i'm wrong I thought Homeland security was setup for that purpose.
Which I think is a bum rap anyway because they said that all current agencies had no one to report too! What about reporting to the president. Oh yeah I forgot -- he's got another agenda -- OIL like all Texas born presidents.
Which I think is a bum rap anyway because they said that all current agencies had no one to report too! What about reporting to the president. Oh yeah I forgot -- he's got another agenda -- OIL like all Texas born presidents.
Farhab Stoneheart
Recent Visitors: 270
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (270)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- A "National Inteligence Director" is a bad, bad, i
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC