Bruce Schneier: "Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat. And if we're terrified, and we share that fear, we help. All of these actions intensify and repeat the terrorists' actions, and increase the effects of their terror."

Comments

[sean coon]

angela's mother and i had an argument along these lines over dinner the other night.

i'm really upset about how all of these incidents are handled. i want leadership in this country that doesn't expose incidents, investigations, etc. and kick up a visible color-coded fear level. to me, that does nothing to protect us, it simply covers the career politician's corporate ass (which is exactly what sheila argued; that and that many americans are simply afraid and need to feel like something tangible is going on to protect us).

leadership vs. politics... as usual.

[Bubba]

Despite the disclaimer to the contrary, the linked article is just another in a series of efforts to play down the threat of terrorism.

Let's look at the other side of the story.

Key point:

"The further we get from Sept. 11th, the more temptation there will be to become complacent in the face of the terrorist threat. In fact, this is precisely why terrorism presents such a unique danger and why it is much more effective at dividing our country than more conventional threats we have faced."

One more thing: Who do you think will howl in righteous anger about how "our politicians failed us again" when one of these incidents is NOT stopped from happening, and results in a major attack with major damage?

We all know the answer to that question, whether we will admit it or not.

[word_worker]

I think there's a big difference between not stopping something, and not telling us about it. Whether we're told about a threat or not, the public will hold the people paid to protect us accountable. More so, in my opinion, if they tell us to watch out (and obviously know something) and cannot stop it.

[Ed Cone]

Schneier's point is much the same as the one Ze Frank made a couple of weeks ago -- that fear itself is a big part of the problem, and that it's not productive to remain in hyperreactive media mode. Hypervigilant, yes.

Proactive and serious, yes. Clear-eyed about the risks and costs while maintaining a sense of proportion, yes.

[Gate]

From a political standpoint, it would be foolish not to talk about threats regardless if the party is in power if the GOP or the current minority party.

Also, ignorance is bliss, but what would the reaction be if terrorism was never talked about and a big attack came? People would say the administration had done nothing and given no warnings. It is a no win situation.

[Ed Cone]

Nobody is saying that we should not talk about threats, plots, and results, just that we should talk about them more cooly and with more context.

The London plot was reported as if the bad guys were nabbed on their way down the jetway, when as Schneier points out they hadn't even bought their tickets yet and were planning something that may well not have worked in the first place.

The larger issue - the one raised by Ze - is that we live in an age of attacks on civilians, and that we need to internalize this risk factor (not ignore it, or minimize it) and get on with our somewhat more dangerous lives, much as the Brits, Israelis, and other terror-targeted societies did.

[sean coon]

can someone, anyone, please tell me of a time in human history where there weren't unmitigated viscous attacks on innocents as a means to an end?

from a homemade bomb strapped to the chest of a man walking into a cafe to a warring nation dropping napalm or white phosphorous indiscriminately over populated areas to people being rounded up by boxcar to be systematically exterminated, this world is chock full of examples of one person's righteous war and another person's funeral.

is it too much to ask that we simply recognize that we live in a world where safety can be managed to the umpteenth degree, yet rogue acts of violence are still an inevitability? just as much as a car accident... or food poisoning?

because if it is too much to ask, then i don't want to hear any more bullshit from either side, because the answer for change on this level ain't where we're looking -- color-coded terror charts, banning water from airplanes, the creation of a bureaucratic agency that can't focus on safety issues of our homeland outside of terrorism (levees anyone?), etc.

these are all placating moves to give the public a sense of managed comfort. and it's a ruse, pure and simple.

if we truly want to halt bloodshed -- here, there, everywhere -- then we, individually, need to start looking at the world through a much broader lens, holding our own thoughts and actions to a greater degree of accountability.

our government must take proactive measures to reduce the chance of plotted violence, but we need to think bigger and broader than that as a people.

my open question: is it possible for us to approach concepts, questions, concerns, culture, etc. as if we're human beings first and foremost? (sure, we're americans, but in the classification books, "american" is a definitive second to genus homo sapien.) for if, individually, we can't find this perspective on a consistent basis... why should we expect anyone else in the world to do the same?

i'd bet my rubber ducky boxers on that making a difference, somewhere, somehow. being that our society is prodded and persuaded through a mass media love affair, i doubt i'll live to see that degree of change in my lifetime though.

[Ed Cone]

Sean, violent death is a constant of human history, but it ebbs and flows from place to place and time to time, and certainly Americans face a real and different threat today than we did in the recent past. The challenge is to recognize the scope and scale of that threat, and not run around screaming all the time, but to get on with our lives.

[sean coon]

we're five years deep into a threat that was affecting people around the world for years prior to 9/11... how long does it take for a deeper perspective to sink in?

i'd argue your ebbs and flows perspective, but this isn't the thread to do so.

[Ed Cone]

A key part of the ebb and flow is the "from place to place" element.

Terrorist violence aimed at creating mass casualities on US soil is not a major issue 5 years ago. As of 4 years, 11.5 months ago, it is.

That's reality.

We can't ignore it, but we have to adjust to it.

[sean coon]

generally speaking about any number of operations leading to violent death of innocents around the world is not too far of a stretch from including in the conversation of specific threats of terrorism against americans.

or does your call for greater context not view these incidents as one chasing another's tail on some level?

sure, the general american public had a wake up call 5 years ago, but our government -- who has been knee deep in the ballgame of terrorism for years upon years -- has acted like a bunch of reactionary amateurs in the aftermath (or scheming, agenda-pushing fear mongers, depending on your world view i suppose).

leadership and courage. that's what i want.

i don't need a hand-holding. i don't want mamby-pamby alert levels that do nothing but stir up more general public fear. i do want aggressive investigative teamworks behind the scenes to stops plans in motion (like with red810).

period.

no touchdown celebrations, no press conferences -- no fodder for the worst of the mainstream and the 'sphere to create more memes of fear.

the only way i need to know that the government is doing their job in protecting us is by not reading about an incident in the paper.

unfortunately, that doesn't play well come re-election time.

imho, it's imperative that "we the people" and "we the government" operate in explicitly different ways on a day-to-day when dealing with this collective reality, otherwise, as individuals, we let the very idea of terrorism blacken our souls and destroy our sense of liberty.

why does our government operate otherwise? please, fill in that blank.

[meblogin]

Ed,

Your comment--Terrorist violence aimed at creating mass casualities on US soil is not a major issue 5 years ago.

I disagree--- What about the first attack on the Trade Centers? Who was in charge at the time and why did the USA not take the offensive then? If action had been taken, would our country have avoided the second attack? The first attack is very major to me.

Wouldn't it have been great if the 911 attackers had been captured weeks before they bought their tickets? Then again...if the attackers had been caught would there be a war on terror today? My guess...no.

Other thoughts---Without fear I really don't think people/nations rise up, take a stand and try to stop the problem. Fear perhaps keeps us safe on an individual and national level. So long as we as a nation are afraid of the bad guys we will go after them and make every effort to destroy them so as to not be afraid. (have to keep our youngins safe)

Now, why the press can not report all the facts regarding the difficulty with actually creating an explosive surrounding the liquid story is beyond me. Maybe the press has become a form of terrorist....creating needless fear in us so that we don't "touch that knob" or "change that channel". Much of the press is out of control and needs help. (imho)

thanks

[Ed Cone]

Meb, we should have paid more attention to the first WTC attack, but we didn't, and for almost a decade afterward there was not a terrorism attempt on US soil. It simply was not a front-of-mind issue for most people, the media, or the government. The post 9/11 perception of reality seems new because it is new.

I guess I'll quit trying to make this point after one more attempt, since people just won't stop talking past it: I'm not suggesting that we start ignoring the threats, or not taking action to counter them.

I'm suggesting that the most productive way to handle the new reality is to not freak out every time something bad almost happens.

The idea is that we are not going to stop attacks completely, and so we need to adjust our thinking and risk assessement to deal with the new reality, much as an Israeli might tell you that Tel Aviv is safer than New York, or an Englishman during the IRA years would keep a stiff upper lip.

We need to be cool, clear-eyed, and serious. The overreactions, stoked by a government that wants us to feel helpless, are really more of a pre-9/11 mindset -- it's a measure of how safe we still expect to be that we still freak out at near misses, and not so near misses.

[sean coon]

i don't think anyone has talked past your point, ed.

but are we, the non-government and non-media, really freaking out? i mean, without the instantaneous ban on ky-jelly, water and a powerbook, would anyone have flinched on 8/10?

i doubt it.

[sean coon]

thought you might find this interesting. i'm buying one.

[meblogin]

Ed,

Do you not believe that our miltary bases, embassies and ships are US soil regardless of their location? Is a ship docked in Norfolk different than one in some distant ocean? I believe you should reconsider "and for almost a decade afterward there was not a terrorism attempt on US soil". The slime attack where they can most easily have success. I wonder what Bush would have done after some of the above attacks??....may be a waste of time....but I can't help but wonder about the what ifs and would we have the Twin Towers today. And yes I hold the Clinton administration in low regard on this topic as I believe many do.

I guess I am suggesting or at least thinking about that there may be an equally positive approach with over reacting, being concerned/fearful for our families and self... and then possibly solving the darn problem.

Can we solve the problem of terror?? by "adjust our thinking and risk assessement to deal with the new reality, much as an Israeli might tell you that Tel Aviv is safer than New York" I say to hell with this new reality....fix it and move on... Our population could have chosen to live with the new reality of the late 1930's and early 40's. I am glad that the choice was made to fight hard. ...and yes...I equate today with the same challenge to our freedom as WWII.

Are we/you prepared to live with this new reality or do you prefer to fight with untold strength to maybe recapture the pre 911 innocence? Me....fight like there is no tomorrow in order to make a better world for our children! It matters little if I am afraid as this is incidental and my fear is probably beneficial to my decision to offer unconditional support to eliminate all threats. Those that would like to cause harm to us can either die or change. The decision is theirs and my position is simple and easy to understand. Do others disagree?

What much of the press is doing is sad unless they start reporting the FULL story which most times shortens the life of the story...which would conflict with their daily agenda. ...sigh..

I know that I have read way to much into what you said...but hopped up on the old soap box...and want to hear from others.

thanks

[Samuel Spagnola]

Well, I think we should have a policy where we don't talk about terrorist threats anymore, and instead talk obsessively about the big failure in Iraq. That will productive and will certainly do nothing to convince the insurgents killing soldiers and civilians that they are winning by dividing America. I think we should beat up the president daily over Iraq, and get pissed off at him everytime he mentions terrorism. Certainly we should go on with our daily lives obsessed with Iraq rather than terrorism. That seems like it will be productive. So let's make sure anytime there is negative news about Iraq, we highlight it, but let's ignore terror altogether. Really, who needs to be worried about that when we can worry about Iraq?

[Ed Cone]

Meb,

I think like any sane person that we should be making every effort to fight the people who attack us.

I think we should have figured out that we were in a fight long before it came to NY and DC.

But since we are in the fight, we shouldn't freak out and talk about how terrified we are all the time as if it was 9/12/01 and we are just figuring out the first two sentences of this comment.

Sam,

Your views on Iraq as expressed in other comments, that it is (as its harshest critics claim) not the central front on the war on terror, but in a large part a neocon side project taken on by Bush and marketed to the American people as essential to the war on terror...but hey that's just politicians doing their usual thing and anyway a protracted war is not really such a distraction from the actual war we really need to be fighting -- doom any attempt at sarcasm by you on this subject to fall flat.

[Bubba]

"Well, I think we should have a policy where we don't talk about terrorist threats anymore, and instead talk obsessively about the big failure in Iraq."

Actually Sam, we should alternate between those two, and add "The Vast Right Wing Culture of Corruption" thread to the mix, too. That way, when the critics run out of things to say on one topic, they can change the subject and start all over again, hoping the rest of us forgot what they had to say the last time we discussed the topic.

[Ed Cone]

No, Bubba, we should focus on terrorist threats.

That's why the war we didn't need to fight in Iraq was a mistake, and its incompetent management and bloody duration such a disaster.

I'm not really sure I get your point about corruption. That the rot has set in is a well-documented fact, and the fallout (Cunningham in jail, DeLay dethroned, Reed routed, Ney on the ropes) is just beginning. So you can't really be saying that nothing is happening, and you can't really mean it doesn't matter. Perhaps you are suggesting that corruption follows the party in power, which is true, but doesn't change the fact that the GOP is in power, and thus getting the lion's share of the spoils, and that people really don't like that very much.

[Bubba]

Here's a hint, Ed:

The content of the post to which you are replying uses SATIRE.

Satire a literary tool used to take certain people's arrogance and pompous self-righteousness down a notch or two. It also helps them develop a sense of humor, and teaches them not to take themselves so seriously.

The problem with using satire is that it gets people upset when you use it, and they tend to respond in tones and content like you just did.

Sadly, it's their idea of one-upmanship. No doubt it makes them feel better to do it, too.

[Ed Cone]

I was aware that Sam's comment was not meant literally, Bubba; as I said in my reply to it, the problem is that his actual views on the subject are so ludicrous that his comedic ventures in that realm cannot compare. As for your comment, I told you long ago that I find you hilarious on the subject of corruption.

[Bubba]

Predictable Ed response.

I repeat my previous comment:

"Sadly, it's their idea of one-upmanship. No doubt it makes them feel better to do it, too."

Since we're on the subject, is there anything else for which you feel the need to provide a retort, Ed?

You might as well get it all done in one session, don't you think?

[meblogin]

Ed,

Great thoughts and I agree.

The problem is that I also believe that most of America is fickle and changes it mind unless fed the information needed to sustain support for the right causes.
Unfortunately much of the press does not care about anything other than viewers/sponsors/money and therefore makes the government's job that much more challenging.

Exactly who are we fighting in Irag? Are we fighting the Iraqi or are we fighting terrorists, insurgents...imports....poor look alikes? If it is the latter then we are exactly where we need to be. If we are fighting the Iraqi for the most part then we need to get the hell out and let them fight their civil war. At the conclusion if Iraq is a terrorist country then we need to go back and lay waste. Iran...next!

Do others believe that Iran should have nuclear weapons? Do others believe that if Iran has nuclear weapons that the idiots will use them. My answer---no they should not have them and Yes they will use them if available.

thoughts?

[Samuel Spagnola]

What part is ludicrous, Ed? Did the neocons take us into war? Yes. Did/does the administration bolster the anti-terror aspect of the war to try to rally support for it? Yes. Did I ever say there was NO terror aspect to it? No.

What has happened here is you don't want the administration talking about terror because it is his strong point, whether you agree or not. You do want people talking about Iraq because it has become his weak point. When he talks about terror he's just "scaring people" and helping the terrorists. When you and your buddies rant about Iraq you're not scaring people or helping insurgents. Go figure that out, and while you're at it, remember we lost more people on Sept. 11 than we have in 3 years of war in Iraq. To act as if terror is some sidetrack when we should be more worried about what we're doing in Iraq is what is ludicrous. Both are important and we should all have as much information about what our government is doing in both areas.

Once again, you guys are playing politics. Good news on terror is bad news for Democrats, so let's not talk about terror. You could always put your head in the sand. Then when something bad does happen, you can bitch about how "Bush didn't warn anyone".

[meblogin]

Sam,

You and I must be reading two different Ed's.

Go back and read his responses.

thanks

[sean coon]

first of all sam, i'm not a democrat. so don't even try to pigeonhole me.

second of all, your statement: "What has happened here is you don't want the administration talking about terror because it is his strong point" is the exact type of political bullshit that's warping the reality of the situation.

i know this point is going be brushed aside, but we've killed more than 20 times the amount of civilians that died on 9/11 in the iraq war... all within a country the geographical size of california. think of it as five 9/11's in both SF and LA and a sprinkling of 10 more on the scenic trip up highway one... all over the course of 3 years.

but that doesn't matter, we're liberating them, right?

now i'm sure you have some kind of humanitarian proportionality response for that, just as i'm sure you believe to your core that we should hang our hats on this accomplishment as a part of this new "peace agenda" line the president is using.

see, i have a different take on the matter. i believe that what goes around, comes around and that we're planting tons of come-around seeds in iraq, lebanon and the rest of the middle-east.

have you ever considered the idea that osama bin laden might want both the near enemy (less fundamentalist sects of islam) and far enemy (the west) to be battling in a destabilized region? the nation-state of america engaged in a budget-draining, fear dripping war with shadows? well, thanks to our brilliant administration for not sticking with going after the homicidal maniac who planned 9/11, we're now helping him with his sick and twisted vision. we're 1800 days and counting beyond president bush's promise to nab him.

yeah, this administration's strong point is terrorism. that's quite possibly the dumbest thing i've ever heard.

now go on and tell me all about how osama bin laden means nothing in the war on terror, but remember one thing: you're not only speaking to me, you're speaking to the families of everyone that lost a loved one on 9/11.

[Ed Cone]

You misrepresent what I said, Sam. It's not that I don't want the administration (or the media, or the people) to talk about terror, it's the tone and content of that discussion that I would like to modify.

Your position on Iraq involves two gross falsehoods: that we can fight such a war without diverting enormous focus and resources from the central problem that we face, and that the clear and repeated statements by this administration that Iraq is the central front on terror can be wished away as routine spin.

Many Americans share your view that Iraq is not central to the war on terror. Few Americans share your view that it's pretty much OK to misrepresent the purposes of a war, or to divert attention from pursuing terrorists to fight it.

You claim to be serious about fighting terrorism, and berate others for their alleged lack of seriousness, but your position is as about as unserious as could be imagined, not just intellectually unsupportable but morally bankrupt.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Sean, you missed my actual point which wasn't about the relative worth of fighting terror vs. the war in Iraq. That part was sarcastic. My point was about the politics behind the original post as quoted by Ed:

"Our POLITICIANS help the terrorists every time they use FEAR as a CAMPAIGN TACTIC. The press helps every time it writes SCARE STORIES about the plot and the threat. And IF WE'RE TERRIFIED, and we share that fear, WE HELP. All of THESE ACTIONS INTENSIFY AND REPEAT THE TERRORISTS' ACTIONS, and INCREASE the effects of their TERROR."

I all capped the important parts, because to me the same logic could be applied to Iraq. The more we talk about what a failure Iraq is, the more it emboldens the insurgents over their. The problems in Iraq are also "fear" being used by politicians as a campaign tactic and reported in the media. The difference is the administration has been succesful since Sept. 11th, 2001 in combating terror, but not as succesful in Iraq. Bringing up terror only aids the terrorists, but bringing up Iraq doesn't aid the insurgents. I don't get it.

Ze's original post a few weeks ago that Ed refers to is the famous "Islamofacsist" remark made by Bush. Tell me, how is this campaign rhetoric, and Ed tell me how does the "tone" or "content" of that remark help further terror? How does that comment instill "terror" on our populace such that it aids in helping the terrorists achieve their goals? Usually, people are relieved when they hear that the bad guy got caught, but there are still more bad guys out there. I suppose this should not be spoken so as not to instill more terror or fear, yet it's okay to obsess about the problems in Iraq, because that won't have any effect on our enemies.

What it comes down to is that its all political rhetoric from both sides that is being spun. Talk about the war on terror helps Bush, talk about Iraq hurts him. It's rather apparent that the original post was a hollow call to mute the discussion or credit the president may get for his actions against terrorists, and downplay its significance for political reasons. Iraq, on the other hand, seems to be fine discussion for political rhetorical excess. The more it's in the news and hashed around in the blogosphere, the better. Anything to keep those Bush poll numbers down. It is politics. Both ways.

If anyone wants to have a serious discussion, like we eventually did last week on Iraq, they should put all the political posturing B.S. aside first.

[Bubba]

".....they should put all the political posturing B.S. aside first."

They can't. They would then have nothing left to say.

Cheap shots are too tempting for them to pass up. Just watch......

[Ed Cone]

I don't agree with your read on Schneier's column or Ze's remarks, Sam, and I know that I didn't link to them for the reasons you posit.

You seem to be suggesting that we should not discuss what's happening in Iraq, and what has happened, and why. I disagree with that as well.

You also state as fact that our response to terrorism has been so strong that there is no straightfoward way to critcize it. With this, also, I disagree.

[meblogin]

Sam,

My advice is that if you are going to use sarcasm, jokes..etc that you follow the statement with....smile...grin..etc.

Not quite...but one could almost deduce that you change your mind from post to post when your opinion either changes or is misunderstood.

Of course...then again...if your objective is to be misunderstood and change your mind without acknowledgement..then your goal is on target. ...smile...

[sean coon]

"Talk about the war on terror helps Bush, talk about Iraq hurts him. It's rather apparent that the original post was a hollow call to mute the discussion or credit the president may get for his actions against terrorists, and downplay its significance for political reasons."

sam, where have you been buddy? bush and co. speak of iraq as the central battleground in the long war against terror. how can you separate the two?

tell me, aside from iraq, what tangible aspects of bush's war on terrorism campaign do you want to focus on? i know you don't want to talk about afghanistan and bin laden...

[Ed Cone]

Sean, I refer you to this thread, which is the basis for my summary of Sam's position on Iraq.

He wants to separate Iraq and the Bush "war on terror."

When I pointed to Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld all saying Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, he said "All politicians put the best spin they can on things and find the best way to sell their message."

I disagree with Sam's argument that Iraq is not central to the Bush administration's terror strategy, and I disagree that we can fight this war without seriously distracting ourselves from more productive strategies against terrorists, but to flippantly say "it's just rhetoric" about the main argument given to the American people for choosing to go to war is, as I said above, morally bankrupt.

[sean coon]

"All politicians put the best spin they can on things and find the best way to sell their message."

sounds like sam has been elected to office at some point of his life.

i agree. it is a morally bankrupt position.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Sean, we had that discussion last week, and I'm not getting into again now. Go back and read the posts.

Ed, maybe I don't understand what point you had in posting it. I have not suggested we not discuss Iraq, that the President not discuss Iraq, or the media not report on it. I was referring specifically to the post which contains the same arguments that could be made about Iraq, yet nobody is saying we need to cool the rhetoric on Iraq.

Let me put this out there to test the post, and Ze's original as well:

1) What evidence is there to support the proposition that the rhetoric about terrorism is bolstering the goals of terrorists?

2) If the effect is that the rhetoric is causing people to be unduly alarmed about terrorism and that is furthering the goals of the terrorists, what evidence do you have that this is even happening (people are becoming more fearful)?

3) If it is happening, what evidence do you have that people are caused to have an irrational fear? If the fear rational, the point you are trying to make falls apart.

4) What rhetoric has caused this fear, assuming the fear exists?

So you must show that 1) there is rhetoric, 2) the rhetoric causes fear, 3) the fear is irrational, and 4) this helps the terrorists accomplish their goal. Otherwise, the post means nothing unless it is a false argument that exists solely for political reasons,

Have fun.

[Samuel Spagnola]

...and thank you once again for taking what I said out of its context, Ed. Apparently, that's the only way you can position yourself to claim the moral high ground. You only hear what you want to hear, or only want others to hear what you want them to hear. Maybe one day you'll give me a bloody nose, but not today.

[sean coon]

sam, i guess you're not of the "give me liberty or give me death" school.

i'm guessing that you're fine with warrantless wiretapping and data mining, banning gel soles and bottled water on planes, code orange terror levels and the such.

i'm not.

i'd rather keep the rights i have -- the ones that distinguish me as an american -- instead of some watered down version of a constitutional republic wanna be.

i'd rather take my chances on an airplane with lipstick, bottled water and ipods, than buy into this panicked message that "everything is a potential terrorist weapon."

i'd rather our government make the most precise warnings they can about locations, times, events, etc., rather than throw up a color coded terror alert that implicitly says to joe smith in north carolina that he's as threatened as jill smith in nyc... when the real threat is in chicago.

and i'm getting very close to considering people that feel otherwise to be a bunch of pussies. (excuse the french, ed, but i'm about fed up)

[Samuel Spagnola]

Sean, maybe you should answer the previous questions I posed. Who is panicked, etc? I take your position to be that we shouldn't ban potentially dangerous objects from airplanes. What objects would you ban? I agree the terrorist color coded thing is weird, but we've only been at this for a few years. It's like hurricane forecasting and storm warnings. The methods get better as we know more.

Also, a lot of the stuff you are blaming on the government is actually coming from the media, like the Charlotte flight two days ago.

You talk tough, but I wonder how you would react if you were face to face with a terror threat, such as on a plane that has been hijacked with some household item used as a weapon or explosive. I kind of suspect you'd turn into a real pussy when you only have a few seconds to live and wonder why the government didn't protect you by banning said item from aircraft. Of course, I could be wrong.

The system is not perfect, but I do believe it will get better regardless of who runs the government as we learn better ways to protect ourselves while maintaining our freedoms.

[meblogin]

Sean,

knitting needles?
box cutters?
screw drivers?
sharpened keys? (these have not been banned and need to be...heard it here first)
fingernail file?
many others that kill the weak and the strong in the right hands

I can sharpen a small pocketknife so as to make a minimum 1 - 2" deep cut with ease..similar to a fishing filet knife...razor sharp. I am guessing that you can too.

Gov. throws up a warning before the arrest not afterwards....you think they should warn the terrorists with precise location? Do you have other ideas?

Sam,

After reviewing Sean's site...I suspect he would either die fighting or win and hope that you would do the same. Why would you say silly stuff like that?

[sean coon]

"I take your position to be that we shouldn't ban potentially dangerous objects from airplanes. What objects would you ban?"

my objection to this liquid ban is that if these objects could be used to blow up a plane, they could be used to blow up buses, trains, stadiums, schools, etc. so, even though the government is only restricting these items on airplanes, the message they're sending to americans is that "you're not safe anywhere."

and man, do those tv pundits love to reach out into homes and diners everywhere to stretch that meme for what it's worth.

quick google search... this daily show segment hits the nail on its head.

look, i'm not trying to come off as some kind of a tough guy. if i were caught up in a terrorist plot, i'm sure my knees would tap more than a few times. but that wasn't where i was going with that comment.

i understand that, statistically speaking, i have a better chance of getting hit by lightning that by being killed in a terrorist plot. so, for me, all of this fear mongering is noise. and the ones who spread it, amplify it and let it truly affect their sensibilities are assholes, opportunists and pussies, respectively.

hope that was more clear.

but now this "noise" is tangibly affecting my civil rights as an american citizen. the airplane ban is more of a symptomatic annoyance. i think it's dumb and an overreaction and makes big, subtle waves into other areas of fear mongering, but i can filter that out. (which was the point of the article ed pointed to, btw)

i'm much more concerned with the no-warrant wiretaps and incoming/ougoing phone number mining.

for us to not care about such transgressions -- especially after the latest aol fiasco showed how simple it is to cull together a profile and an actual identity from disparate search queries -- well, it just blows me away. it's as if a good chunk of americans believe that we're battling something that's 24/7 dreadful coming out of the blue, like... the black plague. we're dealing with people, who make arrangements with one another to carry out a plot. unless terrorists step up to using esp, their planning stages are tangible (read: a warrant will do just fine).

our system will only get better as politicians lead instead of politicking. in other words, don't hold your breath.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Meglobin, what silly stuff?

[meblogin]

"I kind of suspect you'd turn into a real pussy when you only have a few seconds to live and wonder why the government didn't protect you by banning said item from aircraft."

I find the above statement to be silly.

[sean coon]

meb, i agree that all sharpies should be restricted -- though if a plane is hijacked with a nail file, there's something seriously wrong with that crew. i can't even keep a nail file straight in my hand while filing my nails, let alone warding off a flight crew.

as for the early announcement... you make a good point. it would only be precision-based panic... but warning all of america (does that include hawaii and alaska?) with a terror raise to level red -- while attempting to stop a threat -- does nothing but incite a blanket state of panic and unrest.

if our gov is going to use such a system, i say either be precise about it (and save the 99.9% of the population the "mystery fear") or do what bruce schneier is saying: make no announcement and simply focus on stopping the threat.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Sean, you really aren't safe anywhere. I don't like seat belt laws or the 55 mph speed limit which are safety measures. As I've suggested above, we are still only 5 years into this process so I'm not suprised that there is some overreaction by the government vis-a-vis airplanes. I would suggest that airplanes are a little different because 1) they were used on Sept. 11th, 2) many of the plots we have uncovered involve the use of airplanes, 3) you have a lot of people in an enclosed flying missile which threatens not only them but the people on the ground and there is no hope of escape if the thing crashes. I don't favor overreactions either, but I think erring on the side of caution until we can get all this sorted out makes sense. I believe sometimes it is necessary to make sacrifices in personal liberty for the greater good. The alternative is anarchy. Even our Constitution balances personal liberty and freedom with state interests involving the common good.

I wouldn't whine too much about not being able to carry a water bottle on an airplane. 70 years ago, we didn't even have commercial airplanes, so I don't see that as a huge sacrifice in liberty and it's such a small thing anyway.

It's also not only about you and your chance of being killed in a terrorist plot whether it involves airplanes or anything else. My chance of being flooded out or blown away by a category 5 hurricane in Greensboro, NC, isn't likely either, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about the strength of the levees in New Orleans. I don't think the people there consider such concern "noise".

You may not be concerned about what other people carry on to an airplane, but the other 150 passengers might. Some people are afraid just to be on the plane period, regardless of terrorism. I'm not afraid to fly and don't get tense, but I sure as hell am on the lookout for strange behavior on a plane a lot more than I was before Sept. 11th. I think that's all the government is asking from us- to be a little more vigilant. To pay a little more attention, and to not make their job harder by making a few sacrifices. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have for now.

I also think some of your expletives are not being used correctly. I usually find that pussies don't want to make any sacrifices. That's why they're pussies. A sacrifice involves inconvenience and a little bit of extra work, things pussies are too wimpy to handle.

As far as assholes, well, let's just say I've addressed that topic before.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Meglobin, you take the remark too literally. I was only using Sean's words to illustrate a point. You did a good job making a similar point in your post.

[Samuel Spagnola]

Sean, it wasn't just us that announced the foiled terror plot- it came from Scotland Yard. I think the government is perfectly capable of fighting terror while simultaneously announcing that a terror plot has been foiled. Further, if you actually read Schneier's links about the science of the recent plot, they actually say the opposite of what he claims. I am still waiting for the data supporting the number of American's suffering from terrorist hysteria as a result of the news that a terrorist plot was foiled. That seems to be his point, which makes no sense and does not seem to be factually supported either. Last I checked, the airports were still filled with people getting on planes, and the airlines aren't cutting rates to get more passengers.

[sean coon]

let's get something straight off the bat.

i lived in nyc on 9/11. as a matter of fact, i interviewed for a position in tower 2 just 18 days prior. i met potential colleagues who died that day and i have friends who scrambled down to escape just in time... thank god no one i loved perished that day.

when the flight ban was lifted, i was one of the first passengers to take to the skies again, heading back to the grind on the gig in houston that could very well have saved my life... and i didn't pause for a second.

you have no idea how 9/11 affected me... still affects me. and i don't expect you to be able to. but i know what i know and know what i feel to be real.

now why don't you go ahead and tell me another story about sacrifice and seat belts.

[Samuel Spagnola]

I don't see how that comment has anything to do with your previous comments. I also had an acquaintance working in Tower 2 on Sept 11th, who luckily was late for work that day. Sept 11th effected everyone differently, but that's not the issue. The issue was what we should do to combat terror and whether it is reasonable.

In fact, your response is also curious considering that Bush and Guiliani were telling everyone to live as normal a life as possible immediately after Sept. 11th:

"Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat... I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle... It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass." GWB Speech to the Nation, Sept. 20, 2001.

Regarding seat belts & sacrifice, you said "i'd rather take my chances on an airplane with lipstick, bottled water and ipods, than buy into this panicked message that "everything is a potential terrorist weapon."

If you can't see the analogy about seat belts and speed limits and apply it to your statement, I don't know what else to say. I'd rather take my chances at 85 mph without a seat belt on the highway because I don't buy into the whole "speed kills" logic, but I don't get to take all the chances I want to for my own personal convenience. That would be anarchy.

[sean coon]

i was 100% behind the president until he fucked up the chase for bin laden while planning, pushing and lying to stray into iraq for some whacko neo-con dream about a regional makeover behind the barrel of a gun.

i want the head of the man that is responsible for 9/11.

you assume i have some kind of blind hatred for bush. i don't. it's precise and full of facts. you are the one turning me into a faceless "left/democrat" voice on this thread, imagining my bias without even knowing who i am.

as for sacrifice... sacrifice isn't about simply going on with our lives with a few distractions. sacrifice is what our volunteer army of citizens is doing right now. sacrifice is tightening our belts, not loosening them, to support our soldiers.

stripping close to naked and leaving nail files and water at the security counter is just unnecessary stupidy.

look at wwII for an example of government leadership regarding state and citizen sacrifice and try to tell me that this administration and republican *owned* house (i'm not giving democrats a free pass, but they're not steering any of the ships in the harbor) has done anything *close* to creating a culture of beneficial sacrifice for our troops.

why are soldiers parents collecting money over the web for body armor? why hasn't the government opened up dead mills in PA and NY for people to *sacrifice* their time to help our kids survive oversees?

i'd say because our president is a CEO president and feels that the market will take care of our troops. fdr would've laughed at that "strategy."

what was that you were saying about seat belts, again?