Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Isn't It About Time?

More and more information is coming out that proves the government agencies responsible for national security had all of the tools needed to prevent the attack last September, but that there were institutional systems problems that precluded the information from being properly compiled and analyzed. Clearly, enough information was available that could have "connected the dots" but the FBI and INS are simply incompetent.

So, it seems, the problem really was not with airport security, lack of appropriate laws, lack of ability for surveillance, too much freedom of movement and access. Rather, the problem was one of how to properly use the laws and information that were already in place before the attack.

So, the question I have is...can't we simply use those laws and procedures properly to protect us -- they would have last September, after all -- and get rid of all of the excess airport security arrangements, demand back our freedoms from unwarranted serach and seizure, eliminate the Attorney Generalissimo's ability to pry into our private lives, and stop the Bush2 Administration's mad dash to deny our privacy rights?

We had all we needed last September. The government was just incompetent.

You are right. We can get rid of the long lines. But not for the reason you mentioned.

We know the murderers are young middle eastern men. They are the ones who should be scrutinized, searched and patted down, not anyone else. A separate checkout system for men who fall into this category should be set up, leaving the rest of us alone.

George

I am glad you are back; the forum has been like a newspaper with the comic section missing without you.

I do agree with you though that we had enough laws in place to prevent what happened on 911. But enforcing those laws, because of attitudes of people like you, was like walking a tightrope.

There was another incident that happened last year that contributed to the disaster. This couple with a rowdy kid were in the boarding area at an airport. The couple was letting their kid run rampant and the kid went into a restricted area. When the mother also went into the restricted area and an airport employee tried to stop her he was attacked by her husband. You all know the story, the husband was injured and he sued the airport, and won. If this were to occur today the man, wife, and kid, would all be arrested.

I spend a lot of time in airports, and there was a noticeable backing off on security and the freedom of travelers when the verdict was announced. With the same laws and rules in place why would the airline employee be guilty on 9-10, and the family on 9-12. I hate to think that because of this liberal court decision our security procedures were compromised enough to allow the terrorist to pass through. The Generalissimo is only enforcing laws that were already in effect, isn't that what you are asking for.

George I don't know what airlines you fly on, or what airports you go into, but I think that I fly more than the average person and I haven't experienced any of what you have. I have logged 51,000 miles so far this year, and 76,000 miles since 9-11. I have never been violated, fondled or unconvinced at any time by the security procedures or airline employees. I have said before that everything in life is a choice, and if your expectations are to high, try Greyhound.

Well, I don't fly nearly as much as either one of you seem to (only 4 times since 9-11), I did go through several major airports (Phoenix and Sea-Tac) and I must say that it was not nearly a bad as I expected. In fact, the last time, it was down right easy. I've never been a last minute type of person, so I am used to getting to airports with time to spare. The lines at security were not long at all, and even though I did have to take my shoes off at one checkpoint, I certainly did not feel violated. I did watch one guy get completely ticked off because they wouldn't let him through with his pair of pliers. Was that you, George? Jodi

I think that George was the guy I saw that had on high top lace boots with steel toe and shanks. He also had on a studded belt. He was bitching because he had to take off his boots.

I have been through security 70+ times since 9-11 and I have never set off any alarms.

It is just common sense.

lb

Pliers? Boots with steel toes? Those thing I understand. But when they tell me I cannot bring my machete on board, then I really get ticked! <g>

What do you mean because of people like me, lb?

George,

Would you rather be searched by airport personnel or sent to your horrible demise in an airplane crash?

I don't see it as an either-or, Brendan. In fact, the more that comes out, it is now obvious the attack on 9/11 would likely have been averted if the FBI had been doing its job. Which is exactly my point. Now that this information is being allowed to be released (or forced out because some FBI agents have more concern for the country than they do for the Bureau) it is clear that all of this foolishness at the airports, with email intrusion and everything else is far too excessive. The procedures, processes, laws and tools have been there from before 9/11. We simply need to use them -- not place additional burdens and deny our freedoms.

I don't think Sept 11 would have been necessarily averted if all the agencies had been doing their job. It might have been delayed a day or 2, but these guys were patient. There's probably not a single person in Israel that isn't doing their damndest to prevent suicide bombers, but some get through anyway.

However, I think all of the supposed extra airport security is not working either. Someone well trained in the martial arts will walk through airport security with their weapons in plain sight (hands and feet) and not be stopped! When I practiced judo we learned strangleholds that will render a person unconcious in seconds (never practiced it!). There was a cartoon in Saturday's paper implying that anyone in the US can arm themselves with the gun of choice..............except airline pilots! I still think every person boarding an aircraft should be given their choice of a can of mace or pepper spray or a Tazor. Sure beats the official suggestion of throwing pillows or you laptop at the hijacker.

Agreed. Nothing is guaranteed. The question for me is how big is the risk and how much, if any, of our freedom is it worth giving up for. Yes, in a free society, attacks can happen. Unless we give all of our freedom up, we cannot be completely invulnerable. But most attacks can also be averted if people do their job right. Witness the stopping of the terrorists for the Millenium Celebrations. Apparently the FBI did not do its job at all leading up to 9/11. And, of course, from all the other snafus over the past few years, it appears they haven't been doing it right for a long time.

George

People like you as opposed to people like them or people like us. It was just a generalization.

People that post here for the most part are only known by what they post. They are judged not only by what they say and how they say it, but by the interpretation of the reader and whatever prejudices they may have. I was recently called a rude elitist SB. This was a lot more definitive than just "people like you". This judgment was based not on what I have, since no one knows what I have, but on my being comfortable with what I have and an erroneous interpretation of what I said.

To clarify my statement of "people like you" concerning you, I think that you are a critic, but your criticism is not the constructive kind. It is only meant to evoke controversy. You do not have the passion in your arguments that would indicate that you really believe in what you are saying. You and pique have posted very similar opinions on certain subjects, but I would never categorize you together. She exhibits the passion in her post to indicate that she deeply believes in what she is saying and I have respect for this no matter how different her views are from mine. You on the other hand seem to post just to create controversy without a firm belief in what you are saying. I think that this is counterproductive and I have no respect for these kind of people.

I may be wrong though, but I seldom am.

Keep Smiling

lb

I, on the otherhand, get very tired of peope who wear their passion on their sleeve. They are the ones who get offended at any hint of "disrespect" for what they believe in. It is people like that who have given us all of this politically correct crap. They of course are usually women, who too often wear all of their "feelings" on their sleeves until they find out they can make money by suing someone who made them feel uncomfortable.

Give me someone who can generate controversy for the sole purpose of controversy anytime. It makes for great arguments and a lot of fun. heck, the sports industry makes millions off of generating controversy between fans of opposing teams for no reason at all. Politicians make a mint doing the same thing. Look at how TV uses the creation of controversy to make itself financially successful. Some of the greatest entreprenuers in America are people like Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura who make millions by creating controversy where none need exist. Why do you think there are no successful liberal talk show hosts? They get offended too easily because they actually believe their passion is worthwhile and can't stay focused enough on generating controversy to succeed.

If you are right and George writes what he writes just to cause controvery, more power to him. It makes for good reading, gets people thinking, makes them angry (a passion in itself) and, if he is smart, he might even find a way to make it profitable.

Pllayerpiano9,

Gross generalization, don't you think?

playerpiano9

I see by your profile that you are a musician and a political activist. Your name on the forum is playerpiano9 and that proves something, it takes a player piano to make a musician out of a political activist.

Your crude remark about women also proves something, but I can't post it here. I have 6 sisters, and I would be willing to bet that any one of them have the ability to put you under the table in any field. :p

At least Georges post's are humorous in their ludicrousness, even if he has no conviction for them.

lb

lb

You are joking, aren't you? You spent several paragraphs to declare that you have absolutely no respect for someone on this board, and you are criticizing me for attacking? LOL!!!!

Yes and no.

Most women I know feel it is a strength they have that they bring their feelings (passion) and their logic together to make their arguments. I happen to disagree. I think feelings have no place in most discussions of issues. They are illogical and have no bearing on anything other than that one person's viewpoint.

As far as suing for money when they feel the were made uncomfortable by something? I think we have seen enough of those lawsuits to know they are not that unusual. You don't see a lot of men suing because someone told an off-color joke in the workplace. But you do see women suing for exactly that.

So yes, it is a generalization because not all women do this. But no, because the comment is based in reality. If women do not like being seen this way, then they had better get all of their "sisters" to stop doing this -- the same as the Arabs in this country who do not like being looked at with suspicion. Perhaps they would do well to get the Arab countries to stop supporting those Arabs who blow up buildings here.

Thanks guys for arguing over whether I am to be disrespected or if I am just ludicrous!

As they say in Hollywood, at least they are talking about me!

I vote for ludicrous George, I would never disrespect (exactly how and when did this become a verb?) you.

About the same time "gifted" was introduced as a verb.

Maybe we need a poll.

1. Should George be "disrespected"

or

2. George is just ludicrous

3. George should be respected for his ability to make frequent ludicrous assertions(?)

I find George neither "disrespectable" (my spell checker does not like this word!) nor ludicrous.

What George IS really good at is staking out extreme fringe positions in order to make a point which is generally more toward the center. It is a very effective strategy, as witnessed by the fact that many of those who disagree quickly reduce their arguments from attacks on his positions to attacks on the poster.

The minute they do this of course, they expose the weakness of their counter argument.

Bravo!

Steve,

I often disagree with George but do not recall ever attacking him personally. I believe the arguments I make are a bit more thoughtful than that. As to his so-called strategy, there is nothing middle of the road about George. He cannot be pigeon-holed as liberal or conservative or left or right as his opinions can be from either side of the spectrum depending on the issue. That is because he thinks the issues through for himself. The kind of independent thinking that the world could use more of. His views are, however, often extreme and, I believe, genuinely so.

As to your point about exposing our counter-arguments, mostly he just does not address them and simply throws up different arguments in their place. Arguing with George is like returning a different ping pong ball with each serve. Sometimes several at once. But the same argument never comes back unless it is after several (quite different) others and, even then, never gets around to addressing your counter-arguments.

<sigh>

this thread is like a grisly accident: you don't want to look, but you can't help yourself.

i think frank needs to open yet another section at piano world called "the barroom," where those who like their exchanges bare-knuckled or fired from twenty paces at high noon can swagger it out without the rest of us getting lured in by ambiguous thread names.

LOL,
Pique, So true, however it's good to see you are still around.

"this thread is like a grisly accident: you don't want to look, but you can't help yourself."

No, Pique - I disagree. I think, for the most part, people are being civil and keeping a sense of humor in this thread. Jim does seem to be ticked off at women (or at least at some woman in his past/present), and I never know WHAT to expect when I read lb's posts, or for that matter, George's - but at least it's interesting. (and believe me, with all this sorting through junk I am doing at the moment, I am DESPERATE for "interesting" ) Keep it up, all!

OK, armchair quaterbacks. Define the purpose of the FBI.

Are they a law enforcement agency? Law enforcement generally only acts after the crime, most law enforcement is not pro-active, but reactive.

Are they a drug enforcement agency?

Should they be tasked with the mission of combatting organized crime?

Are they an intelligence gathering agency?

Should they help local law enforcement with their crime lab or expertise to solve the seemingly un-solvable crimes?

Should they concentrate on interstate crime only?

Are they a national SWAT anti-terrorism force?

I am somewhat concerned that we as a nation are going to pull 500 federal cops off of the beat, and concentrate their efforts on pre-empting terrorism. I would prefer to give that job to the CIA and the NSA, who are better at intelligence gathering intelligence, anyway.

With the added bonus that the CIA guys are more experienced at "wetworks". OK, George, I admit I was just funnin' on the last statement.

But what should be the role of the modern day FBI?

In the past, we have been reluctant to allow the CIA to operate inside our borders as we did not want to see the same tactics they used overseas to be applied to our own citizenry. However, the CIA has been so sanitized over the years that not only have they lost effectiveness at overseas intelligence gathering but they would probably fit in at any Sunday school.

The FBI, on the other hand, with its HRT unit has already given us Waco and Ruby Ridge and has become far more efficient at abusing our citizens and covering up afterward so that I doubt that you could really tell the difference if they are set loose to conduct anti-terrorism.

Yes there is a lot of work to be done and I am not sure that redefining the roles of these agencies is the answer.

One of the problems that has led to the current fiasco in intelligence is that the FBI is reluctant to share information with the CIA for fear that the CIA will embargo it and render it impossible to use in court. The FBI's primary mission, after all as Jolly stated, is law enforcement.

The CIA is reluctant to share information with the FBI for fear that it will become public in the course of court room testimony and compromise sources and methods.

There has to be a way to allow intelligence gathering on shore without the bueaucratic turf battles and still maintain our freedom.

Here is one idea

LOL

well, then, jodi, my friend, we'll have to agree to disagree. i don't see anything civil about making ad hominem attacks, in the vein of "people like you," etc. to me, that is when it turns ugly. when i read that stuff, i just want to take a shower. ugh.

but then, we all know that i'm one of those faint-hearted milquetoasts who is oh, too sensitive!

all in all, i think george held up admirably, with grace and good humor, but he deserves better.

Does George deserve better? Do any of us?

Civility is a matter of perception. What might constitute civil behavior or wording for one person may not be the same for the next.

I don't see overt name calling. I don't see profanity. I don't see statements about one's lineage or about their Mother. This is pablum compared to a good rmmper room discussion.

George knows exactly what he is doing. He walks in, swings a allegorical dead cat in a crowded room, and waits for the fun to start. Nobody holds a gun to his head to make him post his thoughts or holds a gun to mine to elicit a response.

Always good to see you back, pique. Wade in whenever you want.

But these are political discussions.

And politics ain't beanbag!

An excellent question, and one that allows me to reply to two threads in one post!

I recently finished reading "The Arms of Krupp", the story of the Krupp steel family of Germany. It deals largely with Krupp's function as an arms manufacturer from the times of the early steel cannons and on through WW11.

In it, the author points out that whenever there is a change in the nature of warfare, the group that is in power at the time of the change will be thrown from power shortly thereafter. He offers as reason the fact that military complexes become rooted in doing things the way they have always done them, and are unable to change when the nature of war changes. It has happend over and over throughout history.

I believe we are seeing that now, and the signs (Korea, Viet Nam, Iran) have been there for some time. The US has been caught flatfooted by the recent to shift to terrorism as warfare, and if some major changes are not made - quickly - this could be the dawn of a whole new age.

Not a vision I care to contemplate.

Terrorists. This latest style of warfare is so foreign to our military that they can not even declare it as a war. They have no clue how to fight it, and if the goal was to capture the leader, they have failed. Small scattered bands of terrorists hide out in caves, and the best solution they can come up with is bombers - WW2 techonology trying to adapt to Y2K warfare. It's not going to work, especially on terrorists located on our home soil.

But what will work? How will the US military adapt quickly enough to combat this latest threat?

Perhaps the FBI will be the solution, if it can be reorganized, staffed, trained and deployed quickly enough. If not the FBI, than some other organization. Perhaps a new style of organization altogether. Can it be done?

I sure hope so, because you can not stop a suicide bomber with an aircraft carrier.

An excellent point, Steve.

There is change afoot. Can we adapt quickly enough? Let's pray to God we can. Because your point is well taken, we will not be successful if we do not. One of the reasons we lost in Viet Nam was because we had no idea how to fight the type of war the Vietnamese forced us to fight.

And we will lose in this one as well, if we allow the dinosaurs to argue that their way worked in the past so it will work now.

Jody
I have been married for 38 years. My wife thinks just like you, she doesn't know what I will say or do next.

Pique
Good to see you back. Just as the body needs all its components, like the appendix and tonsils, to function properly the forum needs people like you.

George
We didn't lose the Vietnam War in Vietnam, we lost it at home. We were fighting a war on two fronts and didn't realize it. We are still engaged in that second front war and if the opposing forces were acknowledged you would have the rank of at least El Capitan :p

lb

Steve,

There are many in our Defense Department who are keenly aware of the point you are making. As we speak, there is a struggle underway the outcome of which will determine how we structure our forces for the new types of conflicts we are, even now, facing. One example of this struggle is the Crusader cannon which the civilian leadership wants to kill and the Army brass, as well as certain members of Congress from Oklahoma, are trying desparately to save. I hope the civilian leadership wins on this one because the Crusader is exactly the type of outmoded weapon system we could do without. I am confident that our military will adapt itself to this new type of warfare if the old guard inertia can be overcome and Congress can keep their pork barrell mitts out of it.