Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human Nature Trumps Homeland Security

Posted by Zonk on from the please-stop-with-the-ass-covering dept.

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? "

3 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. It is a no-win situation by El+Cubano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Causes, not symptoms by eviloverlordx · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
  3. Do not agree by scuba_steve_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.