Slashdot Mirror
The Hi-Tech Security at the Super Bowl
Hugh Pickens writes "As millions of fans sit glued to their sets next Sunday, one part of the game they will not see is the massive deployment of federal and local law enforcement resources to achieve what is being called the most technologically secure Super Bowl in history, an event that has been officially designated as a National Security Special Event (PDF). At the top of the list are gamma-ray cargo and vehicles scanners that can reportedly see through six inches of steel to reveal the contents of large vehicles. 'We can detect people, handguns and rifles,' says Customs and Border Protection Officer Brian Bell. 'You'd be a fool to bring something into that stadium that you shouldn't. We're going to catch it. Our goal is to look at every vehicle that makes a delivery inside the stadium and inside the secure perimeter.' Next is the 51-foot Featherlite mobile command center for disaster response that will support the newly constructed $18 million Regional Operations Center (ROC) for the Marion County Department of Homeland Security that will serve as a fusion center for coordinating the various federal agencies involved in providing security for the Super Bowl. One interesting security measure are the 'Swiveloc' explosion-proof manhole covers (video) that Indianapolis has spent $150,000 installing that are locked down during the Super Bowl. In case of an underground explosion, the covers lift a couple of inches off the ground — enough to vent gas out without feeding in oxygen to make an explosion bigger — before falling back into place. Finally the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI has installed a network of cameras that will be just a click away for government officials. 'If you had the right (Internet) address, you could set up a laptop anywhere and you could watch the camera from there,' says Brigadier General Stewart Goodwin."
Welcome to democracy. Most of us are quite willing to spend a few tens of millions of dollars to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from being murdered on national television.
You're entitled to your own views. You are not entitled to force them on the majority.
Once again provide facts not your ridiculous assertions.
Remand or bail issues are determined by the court based upon the charged offense. This has been SOP and part of the judicial system for a long time. There are limits on how long you can be held without a formal indictment of charges being presented against the accused. Any first year law student knows this and would leverage it to get their client released. Prosecutors or law enforcement officials can petition the court for additional time to file an indictment but this is also part of the legal system that has been around for a long time and is open to the defendants legal representatives to challenge the request before the court.
"We trained the Taliban and gave them weapons"
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and England provided the majority of weapons, money, and training. The CIA probably contributed something to the cause but most of the money and support supplied by the US was for the refugee camps in Pakistan, And it was Britain who divided up India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan during their colonial days which sits at the root of all the problems in that region. I just wish the US would pull out of Afghanistan and let the locals kill one another in peace as long as they keep it local and don't come looking for trouble in the US.
There has been an on-going narrative that states the US is responsible for just about every bad thing that happens in the world. However, when you ask for details about how the US was responsible for this or that the arguments tend to become a little fuzzy. One example would be the 1953 incident in Iran. The US is blamed for removing one leader and installing the Shah but no one can provide any details about how this was done. In 1953 the US along with the rest of the world were still recovering from WW2 and actively fighting in Korea. The British were the ones who were fighting Iran over the nationalization of their oil companies. Britain went as far as attempting a naval blockade to prevent Iran from exporting any oil to build up a political crisis to remove the incumbent President who was supporting the nationalization of their assets. While this was going on the Iranians were not just standing around waiting on England or the US tell them what to do. Like any other country on the planet there were different political factions amongst the Iranian population and any action taken to remove a leader and install another one would have had to be agreed to and implemented by a sizable number of Iranians. Did the US tell Iran if you don't do this we will invade? Or did the US offer favorable trade deals to those who supported the Shah? Did the US assassinate the old leadership to put someone new in power? You hear people describing the Shah as brutal and he may have been but no one ever asks who that brutality was targeted against. Iran was becoming a modern western orientated country and the Islamic extremists were the ones fighting this trend. Imagine that, Islamic extremists being upset and needing a good kick in the head to keep them from killing anyone who doesn't agree with them. Every US foreign relationship requires cooperation by the foreign country representatives the US is engaging with. During the cold war the US supported some questionable foreign leaders but those little 3rd world countries had a potent negotiating tool that went something like "Support us and give me what I want or we will ask the USSR". I am sure the Soviets had to contend with the same type of demands in reverse. So I will gladly acknowledge US interference that can be factually supported. Every time someone says the US did this or did that in dealing with foreign governments they should provide at least some details and acknowledge that there it always takes a minimum of 2 parties to forge an agreement. If the US bribed a foreign country official to get certain demands met you also have to acknowledge that it was up to the foreign officials to accept the bribe.