Human Nature Trumps Homeland Security

netbuzz writes "Security expert Bruce Schneier suggests this morning that 'there might not be a solution' to our post-9/11 penchant for making domestic anti-terrorism decisions based on the basic human desire to cover one's backside. He might be right. But shouldn't we at least try to figure out a better way? For example, wouldn't 'Commonsense Homeland Security' be a winning political banner, not a risky one? "

Comments

Causes, not symptoms

[Dirtside]

Like it or not, the only reason we have anything to fear from Islamic terrorists is because we've spent decades interfering with their politics. You can't fight an idea, but you can arrange things so that people don't have any motive to blow themselves up.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[eviloverlordx]

Exactly. You don't see terrorist bombings in Norway, because Norway isn't sticking their collective noses in other peoples' business.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[CRCulver]

As far as I know, most every state around that time was pretty keen on invading their neighbors. And I'm fairly certain that a long time has passed since then. Do you judge modern Christianity by the actions it took during that period?

The difference here is that there is continuity between those actions and the present. Islamic extremists look back to the early waves of expansion and say, "That's just, we need to keep it up." Meanwhile, it's hard to find any Christians who are trying to bring back the Byzantine Empire.

Are you denying that US actions have any impact on Muslim attitudes towards us?

I don't deny that Muslims feel wronged by the U.S. However, it seems likely that there would be strong impulses towards violence from certain sectors in that society regardless of what the U.S. was doing. Thailand and the Philippines have problems with Muslim insurgencies even though they are not meddling superpowers.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[gurps_npc]

I prefer to be honest. We have not been 'interefering with their politics".

Instead we let Republican Presidents (yes, it was ALWAYS Republicans that did this, Carter and Clinton did not make this mistake) search out and finding the most vicious, obnoxious, totalitarian, Facists we can find, giving them large amounts of aid, helping them to gain power. Then when we looked at who are friends were and what they were doing, we abandon them, often when they have grown dependent on our aid. This pissed them off, and either they declare us traitors, or they get thrown out of power and the revolutionaries hate us. We did it with Iran (Shah/Khomeni), Panama (Noreiga), Iraq (Hussein), and Afganistan (Bin Laden)

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[spun]

You, sir, are either an idiot or deliberatly trolling. The point is that we were NOT sitting at home leaving them alone on September 10th. We were fucking with them. Learn some history before you embarass yourself again. Who supported the Shah? Who supported Saddam? Who supported and supports the brutal Saudi monarchy? Who sends billions in "aid" to Isreal?

Are you really that uninformed?

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[CRCulver]

They only really got sectarian after they were attacked by Christians, who were involved in campaigns to kill any group who didn't join them.

All I can say is, pick up a history textbook. Muslim armies sprang out of Arabia and overran the Empire before the Christians had ever heard of this new religion. The Byzantine Empire had been tied up for two decades at that part in a war with the Persians, none of the Empire's attention was on the Arabian peninsula. The pagans there, and subsequently the early Muslims who then subdued the pagans, lived in isolation and were unmolested by the Empire. Sorry, but as many examples of Christian violence you might be able to point to in the years to come, the Muslims really did strike the first blow here.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[krotkruton]

There haven't seen terroist bombings yet in Norway, though they have been directly threatened.

That sounds a lot like the US administration when they try to scare the public by saying that just because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, doesn't mean that the terrorists won't attack tomorrow...

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[Savage-Rabbit]

Exactly. You don't see terrorist bombings in Norway, because Norway isn't sticking their collective noses in other peoples' business. Sure they do, Norwegian claims to fishing grounds in the North Atlantic are quite aggressive to the point of where you could classify them as a comic form of miniature Imperialism and they cause constant friction in Norway's diplomatic relations with it's neighbors. The reason you don't hear about armed clashes in the region is simply that North Atlantic costal states such as Russia, Norway and Iceland have long since abandoned such futile methods as conventional warfare for solving disputes about fish in favor of consuming large amounts of alcohol and then mooning each other from the bridge wings of their trawlers. The tactic gained popularity after it worked wonders against the destroyers and frigates of the Royal Navy during the cod wars of the 1950's and 70's.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[servognome]

That sounds a lot like the US administration when they try to scare the public by saying that just because we haven't been attacked since 9/11, doesn't mean that the terrorists won't attack tomorrow...

The US administration is right, some terrorist group will strike the US; the problem is that people don't put terrorism in perspective.
20,000 people die each year from the flu, perhaps there should be some sort of war on virii declared - maybe we'll get universal health care funding :)

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[bnenning]

Many of the most vocal commentators against Islam in the so-called "neo-conservative" are atheist or agnostic.

Yep. As an agnostic conservative/libertarian, I condemn all forms of religious extremism, and it's blatantly obvious that the Muslim world has a particular problem in that area. (And no, the rare abortion clinic bombing by a deranged lunatic doesn't remotely compare to government-sanctioned stoning of homosexuals). It's amazing how so many on the left will defend the most illiberal regimes on the planet, in order to avoid admitting that conservatives might have a point. If Bush being pro-life upsets you, you should be absolutely infuriated with the treatment of women under Muslim theocracies. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[db32]

And here is key point number one that I hate dealing with. Disagreeing with the US draconian system, the fast erosion of freedoms, the destruction of the constitution, the paranoia, the fear, the christian dogma plaguing our government and school systems(Note: I don't have a problem with christianity, I have a problem with christians as 90% of them just don't seem to get what Jesus spoke about), doesn't mean I am defending anyone elses insanity. My problem is that we need to clean up our own problems before we go off as Team America to save the world from those heathen religious extremists with our "crusade" (Excellent choice of words Mr. President, they certainly won't be bothered by a reference to the last time westerners slaughtered their friends and family in their homeland). We have mucked about and played stupid games with all the governments over there for ages. We have played them against each other and we have played them against the russians, and we have an excellent track record of not even giving a second look to a country with nukes that breaks the law, only countries trying to get nukes that we don't like. France and Russia were HUGE violators of selling Iraq arms...did we care...nope. N. Korea and Iran see this clearly and obviously want whatever it is that keeps the other violators from being invaded. We played Iraq vs Iran, and then attacked Iraq later when we changed our minds, is there any reason for Iran to trust ANYTHING we say since we told Saddam he was our great buddy for killing Iranians and then turned on him? In that famous little 7 day war everyone likes to talk about with God protecting Israel...noone mentions that with no intel of their own they were able to conduct precision strikes against Egyptian forces, nor does anyone talk about how the US negotiated with Egypt to not strike first when they closed their canal and Israel went berserk. We begged and pleaded with Egypt, don't strike, let us calm them down...and then Israel struck and we looked the other way and likely gave some form of support (questionable, but that part of the world believes without doubt that we assisted)

To paraphrase the man who everyone claims is on their side when they justify this horrific foreign policy. How can you tell your brother he has a mote of dust in his eye when you have a log in yours? We got ourselves in this situation...and fighting through it won't make it any better. Cure the disease, not the symptoms. The current state of affairs are just symptoms of our unbelievably awful international policy. Fix our behavior and many of the problems will start to lessen if not disappear over the years. This isn't appeasement like the ultra conservatives like to claim, its called setting the example. We are supposed to be the beacon of light on the hill, lets act like it for a change.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[krotkruton]

Actually, you were just supporting the argument. You (or at least your post if you don't actually believe what you said), along with most people, don't put terrorism into perspective. You're saying that shutting down the NYSE and air travel along with 2,973 deaths in a single event is more important than 20,000 deaths each year along with lowered productivity and missed days at work which have a significant economic impact. I'm not saying that I think we need a war on the flu, but if you think that your statement is a good counter to the parent's, then you've missed the point and have become a perfect example of it.

Re:Causes, not symptoms

[Sique]

First of all: Terrorists are a quite minor thread to your life. Don't feed the trolls, and don't cry about possible terrorist threads. Terrorism is effective because of the terror it causes, not because of the number of deads or the cost of repairing the damage. Every terrorist who causes a new security measure put in place or an old being reinforced knows he was effective beyond all dreams.

Second of all: If we would wage war on every potential killer of yours, we would have to concentrate the forces first on you, then on your mother, then on your stepfather (if you have one), then your biological father. Those four persons are the most probable to take your life. They are responsible for about 50% of all homicides. (I am not sure, but I think either your husband/wife or your own children come next.)

Third: There is no direct relation between cause and effect in terrorist attacks. The most recent attempt to a terrorist attack in Germany I know of was a man who planned to carbomb a bank. Not for political reasons, but because of bad service. What's next? Battle against the Customer?

That's why I think the idea of an 100 percent protection against terrorist attacks is just silly. You never know what or who causes the urge to attack someone, and you can't foresee the method they will be trying. That's why there is the call for Common Sense. Eliminate the foreseeable threads by protecting infrastructure that causes much havoc if attacked and is a quite easy target.
Don't try to thwart every single plot that has been discovered or can be thought of individually. We are back to the old problem: "Enumerating badness" is never complete and seldom a sensible way to deal with threads. Try to be secure by design, not by eliminating threads.

I gotta blame

[$RANDOMLUSER]

the media for this CYA security. Every time A Bad Thing(tm) happens, the media (TV) is all about "How can we prevent this from ever ever ever happening again?". Nothing is ever a fluke, every time something goes titsup, we have to take action, dammit!

It is a no-win situation

[El Cubano]

But shouldn't we at least try to figure out a better way? For example, wouldn't 'Commonsense Homeland Security' be a winning political banner, not a risky one?

Scenario 1:

1. $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS say "this is overblown, go back about your normal business"
2. Terrorist attack happens
3. People howl that $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS did nothing when they had the chance

Scenario 2:

1. $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS do everything that they can to prevent anything even resembling a terrorist attack
2. No terrorist attacks happen for a short time
3. People howl that $PRESIDENT and $EXECUTIVE_BRANCH_POLITICIANS only want to take away people's rights and institute facism

With options like that, it doesn't matter what they do, as they are always going to be wrong.

No

[MrHanky]

Being perceived as "tough on terrorism" is far more important than having a workable plan. Politics is mostly about posturing while having your way with an unrelated issue at the same time.

We can't have any more politician politicians

[superpulpsicle]

There should be a few new rules to be a president/VP of the U.S.

#1. If you start a war, you send your kids to the frontlines of whatever country you are attacking.

#2. Your kid stays there till your term is over.

#3. You cannot own any companies or be a shareholder of any.

Do not agree

[scuba_steve_1]

I do not agree...at all.

Certainly, we are not without sin, but the current rift is more complex than you portray. At the very least, it is due in part to a clash of cultures and religions that are almost diametrically opposed to one another. Freedom of speech, expression and, yes, religion are basic tenets of American society. We have grown so used to these basic freedoms that we assume that they are universally true...and they are not...regardless of how much we (or others) would like them to be.

I am not attempting to flame, but I think that it is fair to say that some societies (especially some of those in the Mid-East) hold a specific religious dogma to be of principal importance to their society. All other laws and rules of behavior flow from that religious dogma...or, at the very least, cannot conflict with it. I think that it is also fair to say that the level of tolerance for conflicting beliefs is fairly low. Doubt it? Try carrying a stack of bibles into Saudi Arabia and see how far you get through customs. I'll tell you how far - to the line that leads to jail:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE2300220 00
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1 012.html

In America, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I worked in Japan for some time and realized that a somewhat similar Japanese phrase crystallizes the difference between our two cultures - the nail that sticks up gets hit. The clash of philosophies between Islam and the West make the differences between the US and Japan look trivial.

Political Banners

[flaming error]

> wouldn't 'Commonsense Homeland Security' be
  > a winning political banner

Nope. The media won't understand it. That banner has too many words.

not a new problem

[trb]

This is, unfortunately, not a new problem. Israel addresses the problem in a more sensible way than the USA does. I see that other references to Israel in this thread are mostly anti-Israel jingoism (so far) but I won't address that.

Israel's approach is borne of being surrounded by enemies and inundated by non-friends. They deal with it by having intelligent people working in their security forces, including at the airport. They frisk you (usually with a metal detector wand) when you enter any gathering place - restaurant, bus station, theater, museum, post office, etc. They use profiling, political correctness be damned. Their security practices seem intelligent - you don't have to take off your shoes when you run their usual airport security gauntlet, and a grandmother traveling with her family isn't going to get run through the same ringer as a suspicious young person.

Israel deals with real terror threats every day. They defuse real attacks every day. Maybe they know what they're doing.

Can a people remain free and be 'protected'?

[Initi]

There has arisen a contention between civil liberties and 'homeland security' (a term i loath) precisely because a people cannot remain free and 'protected'. Freedom requires that the coercive and intrusive capabilities of authority are limited and restrained; 'protection' requires that they are not. Can these two interests be balanced appropriately?

I, for one, believe not. Perhaps for this reason that free people seem reflexively aggressive in foreign relation (US and GBR for example); the inability to sufficiently balance these two interests lends itself to the use of external direct force. As a free people desire that their authorities protect their interests and shield them from harm (via police, fire and rescue squads, ambulance services, and yes military) they will only allow so much intrusion upon their liberties (civil rights and liberties, privacy, dignity, &c). In order to achieve its mandate to 'protect' the citizenry the authority applies direct, sometimes extreme, force upon the external threat (be it a criminal, foreign power, bomb chucking anarchist, &c).

Unfortunately, authorities in the US have evidently determined that we have enough of neither. Rights, liberties, and simple human dignity is being lost while simultaneously a rather large and significant amount of external force is being applied.