Thread: Homeland Security, is it going too far?

Of course I am different in my opinion than most. I don’t believe that freedom is given by government. I personally feel that people, like animals and other creatures of this earth, are naturally free and it is the giving of government and security forces power over us (authority) that we lose our true freedom.
[/quote]


You bring up a very interesting social contract theory (we are all in a state of nature and only give power to the government to provide us with security, etc--). The is a notion discussed in detail by "john locke" who, interestingly, is the philosopher that the founding fathers used when starting the United States (or, articles of confederation). In fact, most of the declaration of independence is taken directly from locke. So, the issue becomes, what have we given up to the government in order to have it provide security and stability for us? Has the recent developments (post 9/11) changed our allocation of power to the government to control our actions?

eh, I've found that the respectfullness of cops is directly proportional to how high the crime rate is.

example:
When I lived in rich white suburbia in north DFW, the cops were inhuman monsters.

When I lived in a nasty ghetto in the piney woods, the cops were outstanding human beings.

The difference? The ghetto cops had plenty of real crime to deal with. If you weren't trying to shoot them, you were their friend. A cop who just caught a murderer the previous day prolly won't feel the need to be rude to the guy he's giving a speeding ticket to. The cops in the rich, crime free area were bored out of their minds because there was almost nothing for them to do, apart from writing parking tickets and lecturing at elementary schools. So they were "looking for an excuse" and would harass people with little or no provocation.

Just what I've noticed, ymmv.

The problem with Homeland Security is they don't know how to, or wont, secure the home land. We are paying these bozos and getting VERY LITTLE bang for our buck. Its like the defense spending we shell out our HARD earned tax dollars to fund. If we go to war, why don't we win? Are we going simply to spend tax dollars we have not yet collected? Why isn't the war won? Are we a stupid people with lots of money to throw away? Why is the enemy still standing? I thought the reason our country would go to war would be to vanquish the enemy. If this is so, why have we not won? Are we unable to win with all our resources? Rest assured Osama Bin Laden, if he had our resources, would have won years ago. Have we no warriors in our country?

Originally Posted by geoffreyt

The problem with Homeland Security is they don't know how to, or wont, secure the home land. We are paying these bozos and getting VERY LITTLE bang for our buck. Its like the defense spending we shell out our HARD earned tax dollars to fund. If we go to war, why don't we win? Are we going simply to spend tax dollars we have not yet collected? Why isn't the war won? Are we a stupid people with lots of money to throw away? Why is the enemy still standing? I thought the reason our country would go to war would be to vanquish the enemy. If this is so, why have we not won? Are we unable to win with all our resources? Rest assured Osama Bin Laden, if he had our resources, would have won years ago. Have we no warriors in our country?

I would agree that homeland security is not giving us a good return on our investment. However, with all due respect, to say we should have won the "war" because we spend a lot on defense is a bit of a simplistic view. Where to start? For political reasons, we are not allowed to operate in the ungoverned area of Pakistan. The enemy has a safe haven with plenty of support there. That is not a military issue. Its political. In Iraq, if we wanted to flatten the country, we could. That would end the war, but there are other considerations. This is a guerilla war where the enemy mixes with the population and when you consider how few combat troops we actually have there and the size of the territory, I think the military does a very efficient job. Our military is primarily built to fight conventional, large scale wars - that's where most of the money goes. If Homeland Security strip searched each passenger, they would secure each flight 100%, but like the war, the ends don't justify the means.

PS: Osama would have won because, as he has shown, he is willing to kill whoever he has to to win. We don't do that.

Jordan

Originally Posted by geoffreyt

The problem with Homeland Security is they don't know how to, or wont, secure the home land. We are paying these bozos and getting VERY LITTLE bang for our buck. Its like the defense spending we shell out our HARD earned tax dollars to fund. If we go to war, why don't we win? Are we going simply to spend tax dollars we have not yet collected? Why isn't the war won? Are we a stupid people with lots of money to throw away? Why is the enemy still standing? I thought the reason our country would go to war would be to vanquish the enemy. If this is so, why have we not won? Are we unable to win with all our resources? Rest assured Osama Bin Laden, if he had our resources, would have won years ago. Have we no warriors in our country?

forked here:
http://straightrazorpalace.com/showthread.php?t=20679

altho it looks like someone beat me (partially) to the punch while i was typing up the new thread :-P

Here is a little peek at Homeland Security http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352378,00.html
I think it says at the end "we let him go"

My way to end the war on terrorism is to make terrorists afraid of the USA. So afraid that the will go out of their way to make sure nothing happens to us. Sort of like Japan in WWII. Terrorists understand terrorism. Do we?
I realize I'm nobody in the scheme of things and my thinking might be a little off color. But, I would venture to say terrorists think "off color" also.

Originally Posted by geoffreyt

Here is a little peek at Homeland Security http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352378,00.html
I think it says at the end "we let him go"

My way to end the war on terrorism is to make terrorists afraid of the USA. So afraid that the will go out of their way to make sure nothing happens to us. Sort of like Japan in WWII. Terrorists understand terrorism. Do we?
I realize I'm nobody in the scheme of things and my thinking might be a little off color. But, I would venture to say terrorists think "off color" also.

I agree with you to a large extent. I just don't think it has to do with resources. Its policies and politics. So, to answer your question, no many of us and our allies do not.

Please move this to Jockey's new thread if appropriate.

Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

PS: Osama would have won because, as he has shown, he is willing to kill whoever he has to to win. We don't do that.

Jordan

Let me refer you to the ending of WWII Jordan

Originally Posted by geoffreyt

Let me refer you to the ending of WWII Jordan

I should have said we don't do that anymore....


Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

I should have said we don't do that anymore....


Jordan

And that is why we dont win anymore