View RSS Feed

Sentient Void

On the Risks of TERRORISM

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
Sen. Rand Paul and TSA: It's Personal Now (almost sounds like the title to a movie, doesn't it)...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...9uLQ_blog.html

First, some context... Hot on the heels of 'the Rand Paul Incident' today where Rand was demanded of (which he utterly rejected and was ultimately detained for) a full body search and pat-down by the TSA due to an 'anomaly' in his scan (personally, I believe the 'anomaly' to be brass balls... clearly something that runs in the family) - debates once again raged across the internet in regards to 'the War on Terror' and it's many tentacles throughout our 'federal' government.

One such debate took place on a friend's wall on facebook, between me and one of his buddies. My friend began by bringing up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Before I 'get to the point', here is how the event unfolded (with some commentary)...

Quote Originally Posted by Friend
Personally, I think the 4th amendment makes all of us exempt. Also, as a Senator, he may be exempt from being detained while on official business (Article 1, Section 6), which is why they're being so careful about how they word their statements.
Quote Originally Posted by Neocon
Yeah, No that's false.
Also, the idiot probably just left his boarding pass in his pocket. Or a coin.
Quote Originally Posted by Friend
Which is false?
Quote Originally Posted by Neocon
Whatever bull shit 4th amendment shit your talking about.
If you want to fly, your gonna be screened in some way.
Yes, apparently the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are 'bullshit'. Nice.

Whatever.




Quote Originally Posted by Me
By the same logic, [name omitted] - all the State has to do is require the same TSA screening for subways as they do in airports - based on the threat of 'terrorism' and that it's a high traffic, high population area and are a target and a threat (they often are already) - like airports.

It's a logical slippery slope. Try to see more than 3 inches in front of your face and take the blinders off.
Quote Originally Posted by Neocon
That's true, and when terrorist start targeting subways and trains, and hundreds (or thousands) of people are dead, we'll see what happens then.

The bottom line is Terrorist are out there, and sure enough they want YOU dead, and for every one terrorist attack, failed or otherwise,domestic or international, that you heard about on the news or some other source, there is four or five that you don't hear about. Happy flying, guy
Quote Originally Posted by Friend
Let me ask you this, how far should government be allowed to go in the name of security?
Quote Originally Posted by Neocon
Let me answer your question with a question
Equivocation.

How far are terrorists going to going[sic] to insure that you die?
Let's translate this from Neocon-speak to some straight-talk...

Quote Originally Posted by Neocon (translated)
I feel very uncomfortable explicitly stating how far I'm willing to advocate going - so I'm going to attempt to loosely imply it, instead. But ultimately, I'm willing to advocate that there is no degree in the reduction of our liberties that I consider 'too far' to protect against those who would die for their cause.
Much better.

Who 'Neocon' is, is irrelevant. The point is that *this* is absolutely the mindset that Neocons (and for sure many so-called 'conservatives' and Republicans) have. This is what we're dealing with. Complete disregard, if not even pure disdain, for the US Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and seemingly even *loosely* defined notions of freedom.

Aside from their arrant contempt for the Rule of Law - this fear of terrorists is absolutely, completely, irrational. Statistically speaking, your chances of being killed by a *police officer* are significantly higher than being killed by a terrorist. You are much more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by a terrorist... more likely to drown, to trip and fall and die... and on, and on, and on.



Well, then! I guess that means we should ban the police. I better also permanently cage myself indoors. I better not think of walking up my stairs! Lock me in a padded room - its the only way to protect me from the horrible, unescapable danger and risk of the world!

No thanks.

Of course, some try to make the claim that it is *because of* the interventions of the TSA, DHS, and other alphabet soup agencies of our 'federal' government, that we haven't had any major terrorist attacks in the first place. For that - I have a story for you...

There is a man who hangs around day in and day out, ringing a bell in the middle of town.
Another man walks up to him and asks, "Excuse me, sir - I can't help but notice that you're always here, ringing that bell. Why?"
The man with the bell shrugs, "It's to keep the elephants away."
The other man is taken aback. "What are you talking about? There are no elephants here."
The bell-man responds proudly, with a smile on his face. "Exactly."

Hopefully, the point is clear.

Not to mention, police statism simply does not work. These people have either never heard of the 'underwear bomber', or have conveniently forgetten about it. He got by the TSA and other security measures without a hitch. Meanwhile, we're having senators stripsearched (okay, that's kind of funny), along with 5 year old girls, grandma, and the extremely disabled. Clearly, doesn't work. We have not achieved safety - we've only given up liberty.

If someone is willing to *die* for their cause, they will *always* find a way(s) around even the most stringent security measures unless we completely transform the country into a ubiquitous, fascist, totalitarian police dictatorship (hell, they can't even keep drugs out of a prison). Yet, this *still* won't protect us - and then the crime(s) to won't be from the terrorists - it'll be from the government, against the people. Our lives will be devoid of freedom.

Is that what they want? Is this their fantasy, realized?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

... and they often end up with neither.

So why do 'they' hate us anyways? Why do they want to kill us?

It's not because we're 'free' or 'prosperous' (does that mean that they're starting to like us, now?) - it's because we're over there, meddling with and puppeting their governments - and have been intervening in their business for over 60 years. Read the official 9/11 Commission report (this is a *federal government* report). Read 'Imperial Hubris' and 'Marching Towards Hell' by Michael Scheuer (who was the head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit). Listen to what Osama Bin Laden himself has said as why they hate us so much and are willing to die for their cause.

I am not justifying these actions at all. I'm not saying we should 'take our marching orders from Al Qaeda' (a quote from Giuliani to Ron Paul in the 2007 Presidential Primary Election). This knee-jerk response is absurd and counter-productive. It is imperative that we understand the motives of our enemies and realize the blowback of the miserable failures our foreign policy in blood and treasure.



If you want to solve the problem of terrorism - don't ask for more government to attack the symptom (terrorism) of the root problem (blowback from a failed and broken foreign policy). This will get us nowhere - it's like trying to cure a rash on your skin by painting over it.

The answer to *all* of our economic and social problems is always *more freedom* and *less government* - not the other way around. Responding to problems in the a backwards manner in which we are conducting ourselves now always results in a vicious cycle of where we keeps asking for more government to try to 'fix' the issues that government creates in the first place. This is true whether we're talking about domestic or foreign policy.



We desperately need to change our foreign policy, stop meddling in overseas affairs and trying to maintaining an empire for what is ultimately the benefit of special interests, at our expense - and we need to stop trampling the constitution and enforce it by getting the government out of our lives here at home.

If we are to forge a true and sustainable solution to the risk of terrorism, it *must* be through more freedom - both here, and abroad. Not more government.

I'm going to end this with an amazing Ad from the R[evoL]ution PAC on terrorism and our foreign policy. It puts everything in a great twist of perspective for those who advocate for imperialism, the wars, et cetera. It's particularly good because it doesn't start out with Ron Paul's voice, so people are more apt to listen and think about it as opposed to having a knee-jerk reaction to shut it out - but then near the end it changes to how it was a speech given by Ron Paul on the House floor.

If you haven't seen it - then prepared to be blown away.



IMAGINE if this Ad played during the Super Bowl, and the impact it would have?

Updated 01-24-2012 at 04:08 PM by Sentient Void

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Wesker1982's Avatar
    Great post.

    Of course, some try to make the claim that it is *because of* the interventions of the TSA, DHS, and other alphabet soup agencies of our 'federal' government, that we haven't had any major terrorist attacks in the first place.
    I saw a Reason video on youtube where they point out that in order to justify the amount of money they spend, they would have to stop three major terror plots on U.S. soil.... a day. I would like to see someone claim that without this money spent, that there would be 3 major attacks a day. LOL.