Bruce Schneier Blasts Politicians, Media 562
An anonymous reader writes, "In his latest newsletter, security author Bruce Schneier delivered a scathing critique of politicians and the media for promoting fear and ultimately doing exactly what the terrorists want. Citing several cases of false alarms, Schneier writes: 'Our politicians help the terrorists every time they use fear as a campaign tactic. The press helps every time it writes scare stories about the plot and the threat... Our job is to think critically and rationally, and to ignore the cacophony of other interests trying to use terrorism to advance
political careers or increase a television show's viewership.' Are the terrorists laughing at us?"
Are the terrorists laughing at us? (Score:4, Interesting)
Have they bothered attacking us in the last 5 years or so? Not really. They attacked some airplanes in other countries that were headed here, but that's about it.
I think that in itself tells us something. Either they are Running Scared, or Pleased As Punch.
They believe it is their duty to terrorize us, so I seriously doubt they are scared at all.
No, I think they are probably tremendously happy at how they've made us all cower in fear and totally redirected the majority of our President's efforts towards a completely unfruitful campaign against them and a huge backlash on us denying us the very freedoms we are supposed to be fighting for.
Go us! Whoo! -sigh-
parcel post (Score:3, Interesting)
Just the other day I went to Ausatralia Post to send a small packet. The postal folk wanted me to show them some photo id before they couold sent it. No, they didn't copy it or anything, just looked at it.
How absurd is this? Do they seriouosly beleiove any self respecting terrorist would not have some sort of photo id - even, just possibly, fake? And what in heck was mildly annoying millions of people sending parcels going to achieve?
The mind boggles.
I'm flying to London next week. Let me see
The irony of it is... (Score:1, Interesting)
And thank God, because we're all safer now than before 9/11 when we weren't afraid.
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
- Ben Franklin
Bruce is our canary (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The terrorists don't care about that (Score:2, Interesting)
Good luck - without nationalism, you don't have a country to move forward anymore.
Re:Machiavelli (Score:2, Interesting)
Security grandstanding (Score:4, Interesting)
No kidding. 6 months after 9/11, I accidentally left a box cutter in my jacket pocket on a flight to LA. Jacket went through the airport X-Ray scanners - it had nothing else at all in it. I left the airport, reached in think I had may wallet in that pocket, and found my box cutter. But, then again, I'm white.
The more you panic, the less effective you are. Thanks to fear-mongering politicians, our society is in a state of constant muted panic.
That whole "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is actually right.
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in America we just seem to roll over now and give up every bit of freedom we have. I mean, the airport screening officials even tried to get J.K. Rowling to put her only copy of the manuscript to the final Harry Potter book in checked luggage. Imagine if they 'lost' that or it ended up getting leaked out early? At least she stood up to the security people in the US at the airport, but she is not American and a celebrity, so she isn't the best example. Why doesn't anyone stand up to these things today in our country? What on earth is happening to this country?
Re:Possibly. (Score:5, Interesting)
And here is the irony of Franklin's dictum; it cannot be proved that we actually have some more saftey as a result of giving up rights, since giving up rights merely transfers the source of the threat from one party to another.
I have many friends and acquaintences who were blacklisted during the McCarthy era, a few of them even cited for contempt of Congress. I have lived through the hottest phase of the cold war and the social termoil of the 60s; and for the first time in my life I find myself actually afraid on a day to day basis , not of the external terrorists, who are no more a real threat to me than they ever have been (and I'm a native New Yorker) , but from the internal terrorists.
KFG
Re:The terrorists don't care about that (Score:2, Interesting)
I really don't see that changing anytime soon. Destroying nationalism is most likely just going to shift the loyalty hierarchy downwards, back to clan and family - entities that are notoriously difficult to "move forward". Why? Well, loyalty to everyone is loyalty to no-one. And that tends to be kind of a hard sell.
"filthy foreigners"
Well, Swedes are kind of well-showered and all, but I find standards of hygiene to be perfectly ok in most of the industrialized world.
I'm laughing (Score:3, Interesting)
If they're not, I am. As others have said, every time we go apoplectic whenever someone leaves their briefcase lying around an airport or someone gets antsy because because the guy next to them doesn't have white skin and looks funny, I just shake my head.
It's one thing to be vigilant and try to prevent attacks. But when you force herds of people into lines waiting to pass through the metal detectors, you're just giving anyone whow wants to cause havoc a juicy target to hit. Forget the planes. I'd be worried about someone around Thanksgiving strapping themselves with explosives and standing in line with me.
Re:The terrorists don't care about that (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, sorry, I may be a moron, but I see no substantial difference between a clan and a nation.
Or a football[1] club, for that matter.
Nationalism cannot be "destroyed" - but it can be grown out of. Just as soon as people realise that many conflicts would be resolved more quickly if people weren't bickering like kindergarten kids about who started it.
Given the history of religions... no, nationalism will almost certainly never be destroyed. Or grown out of.
Except by the enlightened few.
</idealistic rambling>
[1] Soccer for you Americans.
We are the enablers, no question about it. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think it is so much that terrorists are laughing at us as they are pleased that the United States makes them relevant. We are the enabler.
Terrorist groups want to affect foreign policy, but that's not always about "do what we want or I'll blow myself up in a crowd of people." Much of it seems to be long-term thinking, which is to say that terrorist attacks even if they don't result in a change of policy at least result in the issue terrorists consider to be important staying in the news. In order to stay relevant, it is absolutely critical to terrorists that we treat damage and death caused by terrorism as disproportionaly mroe important than other types of tragedy.
If (a) the United States curtailed its neo-colonial economic protectionist foreign policy (which actually cares little or nothing about citizens of the world as long as its economic interests are protected) and (b) we treated death or damage from terrorism proportionate to its actual risk, we would be much better off as a country. We could free up tax money to return to people, or at least stem the damage we're doing to the future economy when the bill for all our current actions comes due.
I point the responsibility... (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggested to my mother that Iraq might very well be the victim of a strong power vaccuum once (or if) the US ever removes its presence completely from the region. My mother countered by saying that wont happen if we set up their democracy correctly. I asked her why we're setting up their democracy for them. She said it was because they deserved it. I said that may be well and true, but you can not lead someone who lacks their own motivation into a battle and then leave. The will and effort to change the government has to come from the people oppressed by that government, not someone else egging them on for change. That is not a true foundation for that people's government.
Also its my mothers belief that democracy will eradicate all terrorist activity. She said once all countries have a democracy that everything would be harmonic and peaceful. I countered by asking about countries with democracies that chose not to go to Iraq with the US and she countered by saying those countries didn't know any better. I then suggested that a government such as ours and a democratic but Muslim-faith-based government may never see eye-to-eye. She retracted to her previous point of democracy being able to eliminate all internal terrorism. I then name-dropped Tim McVeigh as proof of that theory.
My mom is one of many people who believe warrantless wire-tapping is fine. She says she has nothing to hide. I asked her to tell me her current checking account balance. She got angry and told me no. I asked why she would give me that information and she replied it was none of my business. Then I asked her to tell me about all the phone calls she made last month to anyone who wasn't in our family. She told me again it was none of my business. I asked her why it was none of my business yet she had no problem letting the government know all of that information?
She got this nasty look on her face and told me GWB is going to save this country.
Yay.
1 ticket to Canada, please.
Apologies for spelling and grammar.
Re:But the problem is: (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm, didn't we just recognize the fifth anniversary of not catching those guys?
Re:But the problem is: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who did?
``When the bad guys don't pull off such an attack for a few years and all we have is warnings, we demand that the government "stop trying to scare us."''
Who demands that?
I think you will find that these are different groups of people. I, Bruce Schneier, and others have been warning against blowing the threat out of proportions since the get go. We've also been warning against restricting civil liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism (but without actually accomplishing that) from the beginning. It's mostly people who don't see things the way we do that clamor for more stories about terrorism, more power to the government and the police to fight it, etc. etc.
``We can't have it both ways.''
and we don't _want_ to have it both ways. Just some people want it one way, and other people want it the other way.
``Maybe that's false security, but I'll take it. It's better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are no bad guys, as Schneier evidently suggests.''
First of all, "burying our heads in the sand and pretending there are no bad guys" is not the only alternative to security theater. For example, we _could_ invest all the money and effort than now goes into theater into things that actually do work. Secondly, if you seriously read Schneier, you will find that's exactly what he's advocating: stop wasting resources on things that don't work or are even counterproductive, and start doing the things that do help. He's not advocating burying our heads in the sand at all.
Re:I point the responsibility... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, there are still issues that you from the U.S.A. may find surprising. Such as a maniac marching up a Montreal street and into a school, shooting innocents as he goes, while the entire free public runs squealing before him.
I daresay that there are some areas of the U.S. where he would have been dropped in his tracks by some free citizen who cares enough about his freedom, and the freedom of other innocent citizens, to legally carry a weapon.
But in Canada, the government has succeeded in stripping virtually every free citizen of the capability to exercise what I believe is their responsibility to protect the innocent, even if they are able (it is my understanding that the use of lethal force is illegal unless you are being personally attacked).
So, if you don't believe that attempting to protect the innocent is worth dying for, you might just fit right in. After all, who cares if Afghani girls ever get to have an education? And if they have the temerity to admin that they were raped, why not just let the males in their family slaughter them in an "Honour Killing"? After all, its their culture -- who are we to judge? Just give the country back to the Taliban! After all, they were there first, and they did choose their own government...
Re:Machiavelli (Score:4, Interesting)
The only down side is that being stuck on a plane for 7 hours with the lavatory out of operation would have been quite far away from fun; particularly if there were small children on board.
what are y'all complaining about? (Score:3, Interesting)
American voters evidently like to be scared, and Bush is delivering. Boring politicians that merely want to take sensible defense measures, fix budget deficits, deliver health care, fit into the international community, and do not too much damage to the environment don't stand a chance in comparison.
Re:Machiavelli (Score:5, Interesting)
You obviously don't live in New York.
The USA can never kill all the terrorists without creating more, the terrorists can never seriously damage the USA, and neither side is likely to back down any time soon.
You can shove your little NYC victim mentality right up your arse. It's exactly that mentality that has allowed Bush and his cronies to drag the world into a "war" that's unwinnable by either side and results in wars, hatred, and an authoritarian wet dream.
This whole Buttle/Tuttle confusion was planned (Score:5, Interesting)
by Robert Blumen [lewrockwell.com]
[amazon.com]We are living in Brazil. The future as foretold by Terry Gilliam's 1985 rich and multi-layered film masterpiece Brazil [amazon.com] is upon us. First released fifteen years ago, Terry Gilliam's Brazil was astonishingly accurate in forecasting political trends. In a previous essay [lewrockwell.com], I examined the film as a critique of socialist central planning. In this piece, I will discuss how Brazil portends Bush's War on Terror.
The world of Brazil shows a totalitarian society in which freedom has been forfeited for a false promise of protection from terrorist attacks. Gilliam shows how the threat of terrorism is manipulated by the state as a means of political control over the population. The threat of terror is created by the internal security police in order to generate public acceptance of totalitarian police powers.
Gilliam's exposition raises some important questions: Is the terror created by the power of the state in the alleged pursuit of terrorism worse than the terrorism itself? And are they really any different?
The ministers of state in Brazil have succeeded in creating a society organized around a continuous response to the threat of terrorism. Random bombings occur regularly. The protagonist Sam and his mother must go through a security check in order to enter a restaurant. And then during their meal a large explosion blows out the back of the dining room; they continue eating while bodies are dragged away.
As in modern America, there is some doubt about whether Brazil's "War on Terrorism" is really working. At the opening of the film Minister Helpmann, the Deputy Minister of information (the internal security agency), appears on TV immediately after a bombing takes place:
INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?
HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.
INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year.
HELPMANN: Beginner's luck.
Now in the US, we are told by the Bush administration that the war on terrorism will become a more or less permanent state of affairs.
U.S. war may last decades [chron.com]
Military pushed to think broadly
By KAREN MASTERSON
WASHINGTON - The U.S. war on terrorism may rage for decades and has forced Pentagon strategists to think more broadly than they've had to since World War II, a top military official said Sunday.
"The fact that it could last several years, or many years, or maybe our lifetimes would not surprise me," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday on ABC's This Week.
The film has been reissued on DVD with commentary by the director in which he states that it was his intention to convey that there were so many government plants, double agents, agents provocateurs, moles, infiltrators, etc. that at some point even the government did not know for sure whether there were any real terrorists or whether all of the terror was fabricated by the police as part of their anti-terror campaign.
In a conversation between Sam and Ministry of Information office Jack Lint, Lint reveals how he - as a key member of the internal security department - understands the events that are taking place:
SAM: You don't really think Tuttle and the g
Re:Machiavelli (Score:3, Interesting)
> definition practically unwinnable. And the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth claiming the blitherings of a man
> hiding in a cave constitute a creditable attack on our world-spanning civilization. Neither is interested in victory.
> Both are interested in pervasive warfare and fear. That is what secures their own power-base.
This is well-described in the book 1984, by George Orwell. But I object to some details of your description.
Osama bin Laden died in Balochistan in 2001, according to President Mussharaf of Pakistan, at the time. After
a discussion with the U.S. ambassador, he changed his mind, but Osama remained dead. Moreover, at that time, Osama
had already won the war, although he did not know it: The U.S. left Saudi Arabia, as he had demanded all along, in 2003.
The war is thus over. bin Laden won the war. Now the global campaign to stamp out Islam and secure global petroleum
supplies will continue for a while, but the original two-sided conflict is over.
Poor reasoning (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, it starts off listing various events where planes were diverted or passengers forced to disembark. This means to imply that it is an overreaction to the bombing threat. However what it ignores is the media tendency to report on stories that have a news hook. Remember a few years back all we heard about was shark attacks, when in fact shark attacks were not any worse than at other times. In the same way, airline disruptions due to security threats are routine and happen all the time. It was just that they were being reported that week when otherwise they tend to get ignored. So right off the bat we are exposed to a false premise in this article.
Then we have his claim that by adding scrutiny at airports we are helping terrorists to win. Others here have debunked that well. The idea that a terrorist would think he is pleasing Allah by making Westerners take off their shoes unnecessarily is not only ludicrous, but actually insulting to terrorists.
This leads to this utterly bizarre claim:
Imagine for a moment what would have happened if they had blown up ten planes. There would be canceled flights, chaos at airports, bans on carry-on luggage, world leaders talking tough new security measures, political posturing and all sorts of false alarms as jittery people panicked. To a lesser degree, that's basically what's happening right now.
To compare what is happening now to what would be happening if ten planes had been blown up is beyond comprehension. If that attack had happened we would see a reaction commensurate with what happened after 9/11. The disruption and effects would be 10 or 100 times worse than what we see today. People would be rounded up and arrested all over the world. New legislation would be passed that would make the Patriot act look like it was sponsored by the ACLU. President Bush would get his secret prisons, his torture laws, his secret police, his NSA surveillance. The world would be unrecognizably different from what it is today, just as much as things changed after 9/11. Suggesting that basically the same thing is happening now shows a total lack of appreciation of the magnitude of such an attack.
I'll mention one other issue. He says it's "doubtful their plan would have succeeded." But in the very next essay, he writes, "However, the threat was real. And it seems pretty clear that it would have bypassed all existing airport security systems." So which is it? Was it a real threat that would have bypassed airport security? Or is it doubtful that the plan would have succeeded? It seems that he shifts his position as needed to make his political points.