On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:17:52 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
rOn Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:48:21 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:07:35 -0600, cavelamb
wrote:
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:06:03 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:
"Ignoramus18994" wrote in
message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule
My question, though, is whether those who condemn torture are prepared
to justify their stance should the failure to gain information known
the detainee result in an atrocity such as the WTC?
Perhaps a statement such as "Yes I know that the failure to obtain
information known to the detainees may result in an atomic weapon
being detonated in Times Square resulting in 257,000 fatalities and
possible another 1/4 million dying in the following 12 months due to
radioactive poisoning, and I am prepared to accept that I am solely
responsibility, both legally and morally, should an event of this
nature occur"?
You are assuming the absence of other prevention methods.
Good intelligence and investigative law enforcement are what prevent crimes
of this nature.
Every single instance, for example, of prevention in the CONUS since 9-11
has been the result of coordinated intelligence collection and good old
fashioned police work.
I don't believe that anyone will ever know as Homeland has publicized
the fact that they have prevented several cases of terrorism - but
they are too secret to tell the people about.
Certainly good old fashioned police work didn't work too well in the
lead up to 9/11. According to the newspapers the FBI was alerted to
"somebody" taking flight lessons that looked funny, and nobody paid
any attention to it.
Homeland Security is something of a cock up. You can't give unfettered power
to an enforcement agency.
America should have followed the British model.
The effort undertaken by the States, individually but now connectedly, and
known as "Fusion Centers" is what has made the difference.
They have absolutely zero enforcement power but they collect and archive an
incredible amount of data in a searchable format.
They are an archive, for instance, of every call or report made to or by a
public agency in the areas they serve. This information is then entered,
shared and analyzed.The tools at hand to conduct such analysis are truly
amazing and get better every day. One of the advantages of this approach is
that there is little chance for "mischief", if you take my meaning.
The CIA was tasked with this responsibility for foreign activity and,
I assume, the FBI for domestic. Apparently it didn't work.
In other words, the dots get connected. That's what works, even in the face
of initial resistance at the federal level.
Far fetched, possibly, but 9/11 was unthinkable on 8/11....
Hardly.
Not only had it been thought of, it had been a genuine concern and was
outlined in a PDB on 8-12.
Cheers,
And to you.
One final thought. A famous American once said "Give me liberty or give me
death".
What he meant wasn't that he'd trade a modicum of freedom to save his own
skin.
That's what cowards do - betray their principals out of hand.
He meant he'd rather go down fighting, to the death if it came to that,
than do so.
America is either a country of men or of laws.
JC
And a little research shows that old Patrick was giving a rabble
rousing speech in an attempt to convince the state of Virginia to
support the revolution with troops. He was appointed as a colonel in
the Virginia Militia but seemed to have been in only one action, The
Gunpowder Affair, which ended in a face off with no fighting.
Although his speech expressed a noble sentiment he did not serve as a
fighting officer during the revolution.
Don't get started on the Homeland people. If I remember the
justification for the Central intelligence Agency was to coordinate
intelligence activities among the various government agencies. Now,
apparently someone thinks it didn't work so they form a new agency.
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)