The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Too many politicians.
Too few statesmen.
Too many politicians.
Too few statesmen.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
- Thread starter Old Pio
- Start date
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWY2NWFhMDA3Y2IyZWQ1OGYxOTg4YWY3NTU0ZDNkZDc=
More well deserved praise for our esteemed Homeland Security secretary. IMHO, "blithering idiot" is the appropriate designation for this hack. Is it asking too much that we have a secretary who actually has some security expoerience? Is it asking too much that we have a secretary whose first priority is protecting the fllying public and not covering the administration's arse? Evidently.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWY2NWFhMDA3Y2IyZWQ1OGYxOTg4YWY3NTU0ZDNkZDc=
More well deserved praise for our esteemed Homeland Security secretary. IMHO, "blithering idiot" is the appropriate designation for this hack. Is it asking too much that we have a secretary who actually has some security expoerience? Is it asking too much that we have a secretary whose first priority is protecting the fllying public and not covering the administration's arse? Evidently.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Technically, isn't she interim secretary? I thought I read somewhere Obama's choice is being held up by a GOP senator.
Edit: My mistake - the TSA chief is being held up, not homeland seceurity.
Technically, isn't she interim secretary? I thought I read somewhere Obama's choice is being held up by a GOP senator.
Edit: My mistake - the TSA chief is being held up, not homeland seceurity.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
It's a political position. I doubt she has to know her own first name to be qualified for it.
It's a political position. I doubt she has to know her own first name to be qualified for it.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Protect the flying public? You think they need more security theater, too?
The system clearly broke down here, but I don't really see why that should be a news story (except to those trying to exploit it), as the system breaks down all the time.
The very notion that a security screening system can provide safety is ludicrous. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much in the way of productive criticism - instead, it's just talk about more profiling and more technology, without a serious conversation about the inherent limitations of such screening or the inherent trade-offs between openness (for convenience, commerce, and civil liberties) and security (for screening, etc.). Instead, we assume more is better and end up with no actual improvement and a lot more hassle.
It's funny to see Rich Lowry decry the fact that citizens and travellers are part of the 'system', when it's quite obvious that telling passengers to fight back in the event of an incident like this is one of the most effective things you can do. Arguably, it's the only effective change (along with strengthening cockpit doors) that's been implemented since 9/11. To dispute this and simultaneously expect complete security in the air is to set an unattainable goal.
Again, this isn't meant to defend the system here - merely point out that such accusations aren't helping the case for a rational discussion of how security works.
Protect the flying public? You think they need more security theater, too?
The system clearly broke down here, but I don't really see why that should be a news story (except to those trying to exploit it), as the system breaks down all the time.
The very notion that a security screening system can provide safety is ludicrous. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much in the way of productive criticism - instead, it's just talk about more profiling and more technology, without a serious conversation about the inherent limitations of such screening or the inherent trade-offs between openness (for convenience, commerce, and civil liberties) and security (for screening, etc.). Instead, we assume more is better and end up with no actual improvement and a lot more hassle.
It's funny to see Rich Lowry decry the fact that citizens and travellers are part of the 'system', when it's quite obvious that telling passengers to fight back in the event of an incident like this is one of the most effective things you can do. Arguably, it's the only effective change (along with strengthening cockpit doors) that's been implemented since 9/11. To dispute this and simultaneously expect complete security in the air is to set an unattainable goal.
Again, this isn't meant to defend the system here - merely point out that such accusations aren't helping the case for a rational discussion of how security works.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Amen. I was thinking the same thing. Some posters' attitudes seem to be that you can get on board with a nuclear bomb or 15 AK-47's. The very fact that this guy had to hide his weapon in his shorts gave the passengers the time to subdue him.
I would imagine the announcing of new restrictions is probably to keep potential threats off balance. Same thing with random searches. Its not that granny herself is the problem, its the idea that you might get caught that is. Catching these guys alive, and then subjecting them to interrogation, must be a pretty big risk for terrorist networks. With Special Forces already operating in Yemen, I'm thinking his backers aren't going to be walking the Earth for much longer once the guy squeals (and he seems to be a talker). So, while there are inconveniences and technology needs to continue to improve to detect potential explosives, the bottom line is that the country hasn't been attacked since 9-11 despite repeated attempts. That can't all be by luck.
Lastly, passengers are part of the system. 280 people on plane. One trying to bring it down. That means if somebody's got a lighter in one hand and is trying to light his draws on fire, all able bodied men, women and teens need to jump on that person and beat the stuffing out of them.
Amen. I was thinking the same thing. Some posters' attitudes seem to be that you can get on board with a nuclear bomb or 15 AK-47's. The very fact that this guy had to hide his weapon in his shorts gave the passengers the time to subdue him.
I would imagine the announcing of new restrictions is probably to keep potential threats off balance. Same thing with random searches. Its not that granny herself is the problem, its the idea that you might get caught that is. Catching these guys alive, and then subjecting them to interrogation, must be a pretty big risk for terrorist networks. With Special Forces already operating in Yemen, I'm thinking his backers aren't going to be walking the Earth for much longer once the guy squeals (and he seems to be a talker). So, while there are inconveniences and technology needs to continue to improve to detect potential explosives, the bottom line is that the country hasn't been attacked since 9-11 despite repeated attempts. That can't all be by luck.
Lastly, passengers are part of the system. 280 people on plane. One trying to bring it down. That means if somebody's got a lighter in one hand and is trying to light his draws on fire, all able bodied men, women and teens need to jump on that person and beat the stuffing out of them.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
All people expect is to never be inconvenienced, never see somebody else inconvenienced, never have to wait and never have their plane blow up. How hard could that be?
I already don't like having to wait while the family with the combat boots takes 15 minutes getting them off and then stands there putting them on while stuff piles up on the conveyor...I'm really not going to like the 'underwear in the tray' policy.
All people expect is to never be inconvenienced, never see somebody else inconvenienced, never have to wait and never have their plane blow up. How hard could that be?
I already don't like having to wait while the family with the combat boots takes 15 minutes getting them off and then stands there putting them on while stuff piles up on the conveyor...I'm really not going to like the 'underwear in the tray' policy.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
It's hard for me to understand that you can't understand why the attempted murder of nearly 300 people is a news story. If the terrorist's bomb had worked as intended, there would be no opportunity for anyone to have done anything. Boom. End of story.
We all admire the courage of the passengers on United 93 who fought back. Two points, those terrorists wanted to fly the plane into the capitol building, not merely blow it out of the sky. And everyone on board perished.
By "exploit" do you mean trying to figure out how to avoid future mass murder?
Hardening cockpit doors and arming pilots are useful in preventing another 9/11 style incident. They wouldn't have helped here if the bomb had worked. As I understand it, there's a bill pending in the Senate (having already passed the House) that prohibits the use of "full body" scanners on privacy grounds. Peronally, I'm prepared to undergo the humiliation of revealing that Dirk Diggler's got nothing on me to find the next dude with a bomb sewed into his jockey shorts.
You're right, there's no absolutely perfect solution to this problem out there. However, 100% effectiveness is ALWAYS an unobtainable goal, and the inability to provide it shouldn't stop us from trying.
Yes, of course, people are trying to take political advantage of this incident. However, Janet Napolitano is a cabinet secretary, and the person charged with maintaining/improving our safety in the air. She is the one who will do anything to avoid use of the word "terrorist," except when discussing some right wing nut job. She also is the one who coined the phrase "man caused disaster." Who does she, and by extension her boss, think she's kidding?
You're begging the question here: that improving security has to be 100% effective and must involve more mindless inconveniences for innocent passengers. Neither suggestion is true.
As to the lack of substance in the public discussion of "improvements" to the system, do you find that unprecedented? That's how we do things in the US. Politicians posture, talking heads talk, etc. But somehow we frequently (usually?) figure out what to do. That which is politically expedient isn't automatically bad policy. These concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
For me, a good way for this administration to show it's serious about the war against Islamic terrorism would be to defenestrate Janet Napolitano.
It's hard for me to understand that you can't understand why the attempted murder of nearly 300 people is a news story. If the terrorist's bomb had worked as intended, there would be no opportunity for anyone to have done anything. Boom. End of story.
We all admire the courage of the passengers on United 93 who fought back. Two points, those terrorists wanted to fly the plane into the capitol building, not merely blow it out of the sky. And everyone on board perished.
By "exploit" do you mean trying to figure out how to avoid future mass murder?
Hardening cockpit doors and arming pilots are useful in preventing another 9/11 style incident. They wouldn't have helped here if the bomb had worked. As I understand it, there's a bill pending in the Senate (having already passed the House) that prohibits the use of "full body" scanners on privacy grounds. Peronally, I'm prepared to undergo the humiliation of revealing that Dirk Diggler's got nothing on me to find the next dude with a bomb sewed into his jockey shorts.
You're right, there's no absolutely perfect solution to this problem out there. However, 100% effectiveness is ALWAYS an unobtainable goal, and the inability to provide it shouldn't stop us from trying.
Yes, of course, people are trying to take political advantage of this incident. However, Janet Napolitano is a cabinet secretary, and the person charged with maintaining/improving our safety in the air. She is the one who will do anything to avoid use of the word "terrorist," except when discussing some right wing nut job. She also is the one who coined the phrase "man caused disaster." Who does she, and by extension her boss, think she's kidding?
You're begging the question here: that improving security has to be 100% effective and must involve more mindless inconveniences for innocent passengers. Neither suggestion is true.
As to the lack of substance in the public discussion of "improvements" to the system, do you find that unprecedented? That's how we do things in the US. Politicians posture, talking heads talk, etc. But somehow we frequently (usually?) figure out what to do. That which is politically expedient isn't automatically bad policy. These concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
For me, a good way for this administration to show it's serious about the war against Islamic terrorism would be to defenestrate Janet Napolitano.
Last edited:
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
You seem to be subscribing to the Napolitano Theorum: if nobody dies then no big deal. This incident WAS an attack on the United States. An unsuccessful attack to be sure, but an attack nonetheless. IMHO, "trusting to luck" isn't a strategy. The guy's bomb malfunctioned. Is it reasonable to presume that's going to happen next time, or the time after that? Is it reasonable to assume that there will always be alert, brave passengers who can intervene in time to prevent a catastrophe? If his bomb had performed as intended, there would have been no time for anybody to have intervened.
You're absolutely right, we've done a pretty good job in stopping subsequent attacks. Seems like the bigger threat now is the lone wolf, self-radicalized dude ("Dr". Hasan) who may or may not have gotten some training/indoctrination from Al Qaeda, rather than the more spectacular event like 9/11.
You seem to be subscribing to the Napolitano Theorum: if nobody dies then no big deal. This incident WAS an attack on the United States. An unsuccessful attack to be sure, but an attack nonetheless. IMHO, "trusting to luck" isn't a strategy. The guy's bomb malfunctioned. Is it reasonable to presume that's going to happen next time, or the time after that? Is it reasonable to assume that there will always be alert, brave passengers who can intervene in time to prevent a catastrophe? If his bomb had performed as intended, there would have been no time for anybody to have intervened.
You're absolutely right, we've done a pretty good job in stopping subsequent attacks. Seems like the bigger threat now is the lone wolf, self-radicalized dude ("Dr". Hasan) who may or may not have gotten some training/indoctrination from Al Qaeda, rather than the more spectacular event like 9/11.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
That's not what I said - no doubt the incident is a news story, but the focus on the security system is what's out of whack.
No, that shouldn't stop us from trying. It also shouldn't blind us to matters of cost-effectiveness. It shouldn't make us act on emotion rather than reason.
Yet, that's basically what people are asking for.
Terrorism preys on the openness of our society. Let's say we can make airport screening 100% foolproof. Then what do you do when a suicide bomber walks into a packed queue and blows himself up?
I'm saying that people calling for action on emotional grounds are the ones who end up pushing for more inconveniences (either intentionally or unintentionally) based on the idea that we have to do something.
That's not what I said - no doubt the incident is a news story, but the focus on the security system is what's out of whack.
No, that shouldn't stop us from trying. It also shouldn't blind us to matters of cost-effectiveness. It shouldn't make us act on emotion rather than reason.
Yet, that's basically what people are asking for.
Terrorism preys on the openness of our society. Let's say we can make airport screening 100% foolproof. Then what do you do when a suicide bomber walks into a packed queue and blows himself up?
I'm saying that people calling for action on emotional grounds are the ones who end up pushing for more inconveniences (either intentionally or unintentionally) based on the idea that we have to do something.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
There's evidently a good deal of reciprocity (at least among European nations) in the security business. But you raise a good point. However, if our boy didn't have an entry visa, we can assume (hope) that he wouldn't have been allowed to board.
There's evidently a good deal of reciprocity (at least among European nations) in the security business. But you raise a good point. However, if our boy didn't have an entry visa, we can assume (hope) that he wouldn't have been allowed to board.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
The idea that we can stop any and all attacks against the US (or even in the narrower scope of Aviation Security) is at odds with the very nature of the system - the whole reason for it to exist - travel - by nature introduces huge vulnerabilities to the system.
The idea that we can stop any and all attacks against the US (or even in the narrower scope of Aviation Security) is at odds with the very nature of the system - the whole reason for it to exist - travel - by nature introduces huge vulnerabilities to the system.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Like so many areas in our society, we're left relying on "experts" to help sort this out. The pressure to "do something" is enormous. Thus we get insane (apparantly temporary) restrictions on blankets, books and peeing. And we get doofus passengers, interviewed in terminals, saying they "understand" the new regulations and approve.
So we've got major areas of agreement here. Treating passengers like folks on their way to Buchenwald is not the answer. Application of technology that would significantly increase the liklihood of successfully detecting the next bomb seems more promising.
And this whole issue of "no fly" lists and who gets visas and who doesn't is another matter. And it's where I have the greatest concern. We had piles of information on "Dr." Hasan, and nothing was done. We had information on this dude, and nothing was done. We've got to get better.
Like so many areas in our society, we're left relying on "experts" to help sort this out. The pressure to "do something" is enormous. Thus we get insane (apparantly temporary) restrictions on blankets, books and peeing. And we get doofus passengers, interviewed in terminals, saying they "understand" the new regulations and approve.
So we've got major areas of agreement here. Treating passengers like folks on their way to Buchenwald is not the answer. Application of technology that would significantly increase the liklihood of successfully detecting the next bomb seems more promising.
And this whole issue of "no fly" lists and who gets visas and who doesn't is another matter. And it's where I have the greatest concern. We had piles of information on "Dr." Hasan, and nothing was done. We had information on this dude, and nothing was done. We've got to get better.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
I believe I made it clear that stopping "any and all" attacks is unobtainable. You are arguing against a position I haven't taken.
I believe I made it clear that stopping "any and all" attacks is unobtainable. You are arguing against a position I haven't taken.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Oh, no doubt. We've got to get better. But we also need to understand the limits of how we get better.
For example, take the whole-body scanners. I think there are legit concerns about privacy there, but also legit solutions (I think one software package (pardon the pun) interprets body parts as stick figures or Ken-doll like shapes, rather than distinct images of your genitals). At the same time, they can't tell what's in your body cavities.
No matter what the technology, there will be weaknesses. For example, they keep making IDs harder and harder to counterfeit, but people can still counterfeit them - because the IDs (by requirement) must be mass-produced, therefore the technology to reproduce them will be readily available.
Oh, no doubt. We've got to get better. But we also need to understand the limits of how we get better.
For example, take the whole-body scanners. I think there are legit concerns about privacy there, but also legit solutions (I think one software package (pardon the pun) interprets body parts as stick figures or Ken-doll like shapes, rather than distinct images of your genitals). At the same time, they can't tell what's in your body cavities.
No matter what the technology, there will be weaknesses. For example, they keep making IDs harder and harder to counterfeit, but people can still counterfeit them - because the IDs (by requirement) must be mass-produced, therefore the technology to reproduce them will be readily available.
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
I didn't mean to assert that you directly had taken such a position, but most of the kind of rhetoric I've seen in criticism of the government's procedures and response clearly implies such a standard.
It's a tricky message to craft, because clearly politicians want to make it seem like they're doing something, but they also want to make it seem like what they've done works - while the overarching reality is that a future attack is a matter of when, not if. And, given that reality, it might be prudent for the politicians to manage the expectations of the public a bit.
Again, this is what terrorism does - it seeks to exploit open societies.
I didn't mean to assert that you directly had taken such a position, but most of the kind of rhetoric I've seen in criticism of the government's procedures and response clearly implies such a standard.
It's a tricky message to craft, because clearly politicians want to make it seem like they're doing something, but they also want to make it seem like what they've done works - while the overarching reality is that a future attack is a matter of when, not if. And, given that reality, it might be prudent for the politicians to manage the expectations of the public a bit.
Again, this is what terrorism does - it seeks to exploit open societies.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Kind of makes the whole war thing pointless, doesn't it?
Kind of makes the whole war thing pointless, doesn't it?
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Yup. I read a piece this morning about the several "full body" technologies out there. But as I understand it, the ones that reveal more than most of us would be comfortable revealing, great steps are taken to protect the passengers. The images are reviewed in a remote location and the operator can't see the passengers nor their faces which are electronically masked. The operators actually feeding the passengers through the system don't see the images. And the images can't be copied or retained. Assuming all of that to be true, it seems unlikely these images would be abused (although we can count on some people trying, especially for celebrities).
Nothing is perfect. That shouldn't stop us from trying.
Yup. I read a piece this morning about the several "full body" technologies out there. But as I understand it, the ones that reveal more than most of us would be comfortable revealing, great steps are taken to protect the passengers. The images are reviewed in a remote location and the operator can't see the passengers nor their faces which are electronically masked. The operators actually feeding the passengers through the system don't see the images. And the images can't be copied or retained. Assuming all of that to be true, it seems unlikely these images would be abused (although we can count on some people trying, especially for celebrities).
Nothing is perfect. That shouldn't stop us from trying.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Fear Not America, Janet Napolitano Is On The Job
Dude, you're not really that naive, are you?
I'm sure someone (DOJ, Michigan ACLU) had him "lawyered up" before the hatch on the aircraft was opened in Detroit.
He doesn't have to, and won't, say squat. And his attorneys will tell him that continually.
Dude, you're not really that naive, are you?
I'm sure someone (DOJ, Michigan ACLU) had him "lawyered up" before the hatch on the aircraft was opened in Detroit.
He doesn't have to, and won't, say squat. And his attorneys will tell him that continually.