For many, the face of terrorism is only what they see on the evening news and read in the morning papers. Since we know from Cory that all media is fair and balanced, this site may or may not provide additional insight into what the terrorist networks have planned for us.

Site Institute (http://siteinstitute.org/index.html)

I think we're going about the whole security thing in a half-assed manner. Carrying the fight to the enemy is one part but not securing our infrastructure is a critical oversight. So far, we've been very lucky. It's only a matter of time before we're hit again and when it happens everyone will be very surprised at how easily a blatant vulnerability was exploited.

Ken, I agree that we need to protect ourselves at home. However there are a few things to consider. First you assume we are not because certain politicians state we aren't. Consider they may have some agenda or tie to an industry that would profit from 'further' measures. This is a tremendous country with vast areas that would make it impossible to protect in 'conventional' ways. For instance, our rail lines stretch for tens of thousands of miles. They cross into multitudes of urban and rural areas that cannot possibly be secured. I believe that both a proactive approach to hunting down these factions coupled with selective security measures and monitoring of communications between 'likely' subjects, has proven effective thus far. I also believe there is a learning curve to what we are doing. Vigilance is the operative word.

Ken, I agree that we need to protect ourselves at home. However there are a few things to consider. First you assume we are not because certain politicians state we aren't. Consider they may have some agenda or tie to an industry that would profit from 'further' measures. This is a tremendous country with vast areas that would make it impossible to protect in 'conventional' ways. For instance, our rail lines stretch for tens of thousands of miles. They cross into multitudes of urban and rural areas that cannot possibly be secured. I believe that both a proactive approach to hunting down these factions coupled with selective security measures and monitoring of communications between 'likely' subjects, has proven effective thus far. I also believe there is a learning curve to what we are doing. Vigilance is the operative word.

You should know that I don't pay any attention to what politicians say. :)

Security of our borders and other points of ingress is absolutely vital. We've done OK with the airlines but really need to improve security in our ports. It's a multi-billion dollar task, I know, but it needs to get done now. As someone responsible for security at work, I'm pretty paranoid and have a pretty good grasp on how to better secure ourselves. Vigilance IS most definitely the operative word but we also have to improve our systems end to end. Security isn't just preventing attacks it's also about surviving them when they happen. As it stands right now, we have far too many single points of failure that can be fairly easily exploited.

Security of the level we need to truly be secure will require some changes to what many take for granted. It could well mean that imported goods cost a bit more and take a little longer to get to the stores, for example.

I think we got real lucky with 9/11. They just targeted buildings for shock factor. Imagine what would have happened if they targeted infrastructure and communications instead or in addition.

Most importantly, I'm very confident that we can provide REAL security without compromising our core principles or liberties. You *can* have an open but still secure system if you do it right.

[QUOTE=KenB]
Most importantly, I'm very confident that we can provide REAL security without compromising our core principles or liberties. You *can* have an open but still secure system if you do it right.[/QUOTE

No you can't. That's why we haven't taken stronger measures to this point. Operating a terrorist group in Iraq and attacking the populace is a far cry from the same kinds of operations in a country like America. They won't have the support they get from factions of the population in the ME and our law enforcement is far better equipped and motivated to track them down and capture or kill them. We have seen these types on a smaller scale in the 60's and they were dealt with. There is no way we can guarantee we will now be attacked, I accept that we will be again, but a sustained operation isn't possible here. We cannot take stronger measures without infringing on what one segment of our population views as their right. Teh free flow of information and commerce and even our general population is one of the most basic of our freedoms. People have already tired of airport security measures.

We cannot take stronger measures without infringing on what one segment of our population views as their right. Teh free flow of information and commerce and even our general population is one of the most basic of our freedoms. People have already tired of airport security measures.

I agree.

I think what gets lost in the rights/security debate is that the United States isn't a collection of people. It isn't a strong economy with many world leading businesses. It's a system of government that should always be a shining light to the rest of the world. It's a system of government that allows people to be the best they can (or want) to be and allows businesses to flourish.

I hate to see the integrity of the US compromized. That's paltry solace to any American who has had a loved one killed in a terrorist attack though ... but it ought to be our guiding principle still.

and in my opinion Americans should be willing to die for that right. If you cave to fear and give up what it means to be American (the shining beacon of freedom) then the terrorists have already won. True it is of little solace but tis better to die a free American than to live a shell of what it once meant.

[quote=KenB]
Most importantly, I'm very confident that we can provide REAL security without compromising our core principles or liberties. You *can* have an open but still secure system if you do it right.[/QUOTE

No you can't. That's why we haven't taken stronger measures to this point. Operating a terrorist group in Iraq and attacking the populace is a far cry from the same kinds of operations in a country like America. They won't have the support they get from factions of the population in the ME and our law enforcement is far better equipped and motivated to track them down and capture or kill them. We have seen these types on a smaller scale in the 60's and they were dealt with. There is no way we can guarantee we will now be attacked, I accept that we will be again, but a sustained operation isn't possible here. We cannot take stronger measures without infringing on what one segment of our population views as their right. Teh free flow of information and commerce and even our general population is one of the most basic of our freedoms. People have already tired of airport security measures.
I disagree. I'm talking about securing our ports and borders. I see zero reason or conflict with the Constitutional liberties of the people in requiring full inspections of everything and everyone entering our country or in building redundancies into critical infrastructure.

The problem with airport security isn't the degree of the measures, it's the inconsistency in which those measures have been applied and the banality of some of the measures. We could provide far more security in air travel merely by putting an air marshal on every flight and making sensible rules so that those air marshals aren't blatantly obvious to everyone else on the flight.

These are just a few, non-infringing, things that can be done to significantly enhance our security. There are more. Some are already in place but poorly implemented or rendered useless because we don't have the rest of the holes plugged.

increase the number of security officers at our ports. install more radiation detection machines and x-rays at our ports. increase the numbers of cargo holders that actually get inspected. oh nevermind the Republicans voted this down in favor of increasing the star wars budget though our President doesn't think all the $$ we've spent over the last few decades would have guaranteed a hit on a single frickin' Korean missile.

or we could further our security on our nations rail system. nevermind, the annual budget is spent in less than 1/2 a day in Iraq.

I ain't MC ...

:cool: