In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Where do we draw the line? (Privacy and Security)
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Where do we draw the line?
Americans are uncertain if they want full privacy. Many accept cameras on the street, but what about neighbors spying on them?
By Kim Campbell | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Here's a talking point for your next debate about privacy: What if no absolute right to privacy exists because we don't really want one?
Scholar Alan Westin once observed that "the individual's desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is an equally powerful desire."
That statement from his 1967 book, "Privacy and Freedom," was written long before reality TV shows proved his point. But the observation is worth thinking about as the line between the public and private persona is increasingly blurred for everyone.
Newspapers and pop culture are full of reminders that privacy issues are pressing on Americans like a persistent telemarketer - asking them to consider where they end and society begins.
To fight the war on terrorism, the government is proposing a data-collection system where citizens, such as repairmen, report any suspicious activity they observe while on the job.
The Monitor reported earlier this week on a retirement complex in Wilmington, N.C., where residents can watch feeds from the building's security cameras on their TV sets.
Last month, the Supreme Court approved random drug testing of public-school children who participate in extracurricular activities to help curb abuse.
Moviemakers are provoking more thought, too. "Minority Report" features outdoor ads that scan your retina and pitch you products as you walk by. Not only do you give up your anonymity in this futuristic vision, but clairvoyants see crimes before they are committed and help the police arrest potential criminals.
If that seems far-fetched, consider this: The cover story in the July issue of PC Magazine includes talk of new software that aims to determine the likelihood of employees committing crimes or becoming violent by analyzing words and phrases they use.
We want privacy - but how much?
In simpler times, monitoring your privacy meant pulling down the shades at night. But today it's an idea - a value, actually - that permeates everything from e-mail to grocery shopping to airport security. The majority of Americans, ambivalent about the issue even a decade ago, now overwhelmingly say it matters to them.
The growth of the Internet is fueling some of the interest. But so is the gathering and sharing of information for medical purposes and fighting crime.
Legislators are responding to the heightened awareness of their constituents by trying to set rules that will govern privacy.
"The pace of legislation has accelerated in the last decade and it continues to accelerate," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant. "There are dozens and dozens of bills before Congress and the states."
Not all of those will make it into law, but they suggest a struggle to define what privacy is and how much of it people want.
In many ways, Americans have been trying to figure that out since the Founding Fathers first put pen to paper. American and English society saw a use for laws about privacy long before the Bill of Rights was created. The framers acknowledged privacy in the Constitution, but not as an explicit right, leaving the courts to interpret how much of it should be extended to citizens in modern times.
But today, privacy concerns go beyond government intrusiveness. James Madison likely never envisioned a time when an employer could potentially use a person's DNA to determine if they should be hired based on their future health.
And yet, Americans still seem to be sorting out how private they want to be: They are willing to be searched at the airport to fly safely, but keep marketers at bay who want their personal information. They are willing to be followed around by cameras for entertainment, but are still getting used to the idea of cameras catching them running red lights. They are willing to buy things online or order from catalogs, but don't want that information sold to solicitors.
Much of the discussion about privacy has to do with tensions - often between those who control the information and those who don't.
Consumers often see protecting privacy as something they can't count on others to do for them, but that they must do for themselves - through unlisted phone numbers, caller ID, and even encryption technology that protects their electronic information.
"When it comes to protecting your privacy you are on your own," says Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, an advocacy group in San Diego. She also notes as many experts do, that "the desire for privacy is highly situational."
If Mr. Westin is right, then, people just choose the level of privacy they are comfortable with and go on with their lives.
Many ways of practicing the same right
But it is precisely because people are comfortable with so many different levels of privacy that political scientist Priscilla Regan suggests there needs to be a clear societal value assigned to it. She sees something akin to freedom of religion - which is a right generally agreed upon by society, like the right to privacy.
If privacy isn't assigned a value, it's more difficult for legislators to weigh its importance, she suggests.
"We do tend to look at it more as an individual value. So if it comes into conflict with, or needs to be balanced against some other value that clearly has more collective importance, it tends to be treated with less value. It's always fighting for a position," says Regan, author of "Legislating Privacy" (1995).
Others nuance that idea, suggesting, in an echo of Westin's dueling-desire idea, that individual privacy and societal needs should be equally balanced.
In his 1999 book "The Limits of Privacy," sociologist Amitai Etzioni argues that too much emphasis has been placed on individual rights. US society is built on principles that support that idea, of course. But Mr. Etzioni suggests a different concept of privacy is needed, one that "puts privacy on equal standing with the common good without privileging either value."
His litmus test post 9/11 is straightforward: "If you have a major safety gain and a minor violation of privacy, such as if you could stop terrorism by reading the e-mail of non-Americans, let's say, I would say that's a good trade off," he says in an interview.
But Americans should not be expected to give up privacy to the private sector, he says. As he and others note, there's no Constitution to protect them there.
What experts advise moving forward is vigilance. Sharing information but asking questions of the people who want it - why they need it and what they are going to do with it. That way, says Ms. Givens, "We can have some modicum of privacy, while at the same time being highly involved in society."
That's what Westin says people want in the first place. But as technology presses on, the question remains whether one desire will outweigh the other.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0725/p12s01-ussc.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - Josey1 on 07/26/2002 07:34:25
Americans are uncertain if they want full privacy. Many accept cameras on the street, but what about neighbors spying on them?
By Kim Campbell | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Here's a talking point for your next debate about privacy: What if no absolute right to privacy exists because we don't really want one?
Scholar Alan Westin once observed that "the individual's desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is an equally powerful desire."
That statement from his 1967 book, "Privacy and Freedom," was written long before reality TV shows proved his point. But the observation is worth thinking about as the line between the public and private persona is increasingly blurred for everyone.
Newspapers and pop culture are full of reminders that privacy issues are pressing on Americans like a persistent telemarketer - asking them to consider where they end and society begins.
To fight the war on terrorism, the government is proposing a data-collection system where citizens, such as repairmen, report any suspicious activity they observe while on the job.
The Monitor reported earlier this week on a retirement complex in Wilmington, N.C., where residents can watch feeds from the building's security cameras on their TV sets.
Last month, the Supreme Court approved random drug testing of public-school children who participate in extracurricular activities to help curb abuse.
Moviemakers are provoking more thought, too. "Minority Report" features outdoor ads that scan your retina and pitch you products as you walk by. Not only do you give up your anonymity in this futuristic vision, but clairvoyants see crimes before they are committed and help the police arrest potential criminals.
If that seems far-fetched, consider this: The cover story in the July issue of PC Magazine includes talk of new software that aims to determine the likelihood of employees committing crimes or becoming violent by analyzing words and phrases they use.
We want privacy - but how much?
In simpler times, monitoring your privacy meant pulling down the shades at night. But today it's an idea - a value, actually - that permeates everything from e-mail to grocery shopping to airport security. The majority of Americans, ambivalent about the issue even a decade ago, now overwhelmingly say it matters to them.
The growth of the Internet is fueling some of the interest. But so is the gathering and sharing of information for medical purposes and fighting crime.
Legislators are responding to the heightened awareness of their constituents by trying to set rules that will govern privacy.
"The pace of legislation has accelerated in the last decade and it continues to accelerate," says Robert Gellman, a privacy consultant. "There are dozens and dozens of bills before Congress and the states."
Not all of those will make it into law, but they suggest a struggle to define what privacy is and how much of it people want.
In many ways, Americans have been trying to figure that out since the Founding Fathers first put pen to paper. American and English society saw a use for laws about privacy long before the Bill of Rights was created. The framers acknowledged privacy in the Constitution, but not as an explicit right, leaving the courts to interpret how much of it should be extended to citizens in modern times.
But today, privacy concerns go beyond government intrusiveness. James Madison likely never envisioned a time when an employer could potentially use a person's DNA to determine if they should be hired based on their future health.
And yet, Americans still seem to be sorting out how private they want to be: They are willing to be searched at the airport to fly safely, but keep marketers at bay who want their personal information. They are willing to be followed around by cameras for entertainment, but are still getting used to the idea of cameras catching them running red lights. They are willing to buy things online or order from catalogs, but don't want that information sold to solicitors.
Much of the discussion about privacy has to do with tensions - often between those who control the information and those who don't.
Consumers often see protecting privacy as something they can't count on others to do for them, but that they must do for themselves - through unlisted phone numbers, caller ID, and even encryption technology that protects their electronic information.
"When it comes to protecting your privacy you are on your own," says Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, an advocacy group in San Diego. She also notes as many experts do, that "the desire for privacy is highly situational."
If Mr. Westin is right, then, people just choose the level of privacy they are comfortable with and go on with their lives.
Many ways of practicing the same right
But it is precisely because people are comfortable with so many different levels of privacy that political scientist Priscilla Regan suggests there needs to be a clear societal value assigned to it. She sees something akin to freedom of religion - which is a right generally agreed upon by society, like the right to privacy.
If privacy isn't assigned a value, it's more difficult for legislators to weigh its importance, she suggests.
"We do tend to look at it more as an individual value. So if it comes into conflict with, or needs to be balanced against some other value that clearly has more collective importance, it tends to be treated with less value. It's always fighting for a position," says Regan, author of "Legislating Privacy" (1995).
Others nuance that idea, suggesting, in an echo of Westin's dueling-desire idea, that individual privacy and societal needs should be equally balanced.
In his 1999 book "The Limits of Privacy," sociologist Amitai Etzioni argues that too much emphasis has been placed on individual rights. US society is built on principles that support that idea, of course. But Mr. Etzioni suggests a different concept of privacy is needed, one that "puts privacy on equal standing with the common good without privileging either value."
His litmus test post 9/11 is straightforward: "If you have a major safety gain and a minor violation of privacy, such as if you could stop terrorism by reading the e-mail of non-Americans, let's say, I would say that's a good trade off," he says in an interview.
But Americans should not be expected to give up privacy to the private sector, he says. As he and others note, there's no Constitution to protect them there.
What experts advise moving forward is vigilance. Sharing information but asking questions of the people who want it - why they need it and what they are going to do with it. That way, says Ms. Givens, "We can have some modicum of privacy, while at the same time being highly involved in society."
That's what Westin says people want in the first place. But as technology presses on, the question remains whether one desire will outweigh the other.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0725/p12s01-ussc.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - Josey1 on 07/26/2002 07:34:25
Comments
If you were a conscientious citizen and you saw the makings of a bomb on someone's work bench or a plan for a terror attack on a computer screen, what would you do? Most people would report their suspicions to someone who could do something about them.
If that's what sensible people would do -- on their own -- then why does the Bush administration believe it needs an organized network of citizen-informers, controlled from Washington, D.C.?
The TIPS program (Terrorism Information and Prevention System), run by the Office of Homeland Security and the U.S. Justice Department, officially gets underway this summer. Using unions and large employers, it aims to recruit millions of delivery drivers, cable installers, utility repair people, mail carriers, and others who have access to your home or business. The federal government wants them to spy on you.
Now the truth is that the police have quietly used such people for decades. Investigators without enough evidence to get a warrant might arrange a convenient power outage so a friendly technician can be sent into your home. There he might "just happen to spot" evidence that you've been growing medical marijuana or collecting "illegal" weapons. In the small town where JPFO is located we've personally seen the sheriff go to the counter and ask for information on suspects. (The clerks never say, "Show me your subpoena"). Postal clerks have also been required for years to report various kinds of "suspicious" activity, mostly involving purchases of money orders.
So in that sense, TIPS is nothing new. And don't believe it if a Postal Service spokesperson says her agency has declined to participate. The P.O. changes its position daily on TIPS, it seems, but the fact is, postal workers are already spying on you.
DANGEROUSLY STUPID PERSONS ON PATROL
But think about what happens when millions of men and women with access to American homes are actually recruited and encouraged to spot "suspicious activity" everywhere they look. Think about what happens when the government creates a giant secret club with the meter reader as a member and you as an outsider.
Think about the TV-addled thousands who've always thought it would be cool to wear a badge and kick down doors but who didn't have the brains to get the job. Think about busybodies. Think about people who don't like you, your lifestyle, or your politics. Think about people who lead lives of quiet desperation, starving for the kind of drama and celebrity they normally get only from the National Enquirer. Think about well-meaning but misdirected Barney Fife's feeling responsible for the nation's "security." Think about people who are just plain, hysterical fools without an ounce of sense in their heads.
These are all DSPs -- Dangerously Stupid Persons. They may be harmless when left to their own devices. But when a government actively encourages them to fulfill their fantasies -- watch out.
Suddenly, these folks get to see themselves as Junior G-Men, Official Deputized Tin-Star Agents of the Guys in the White Hats.
And YOU are Bonnie and Clyde and Pretty Boy Floyd and Machine-Gun Kelly, all rolled into one. Not to mention Osama bin Laden and the head of the Cali cartel.
If you've enjoyed airport security checks conducted by arrogant, semi-educated, quasi-official agents of the government, just think how you're going to love it when they bring their "I'm with the government, I'm here to do whatever I want" act into your home or office. These people don't understand the Bill of Rights. They weren't taught about in their government schools. And they don't care two cents if they violate it -- or violate you.
YOU MIGHT BE A TARGET IF ...
Is there a reloading press on your work bench when the furnace repairman arrives? Does the telephone technician recoil upon seeing a shelf full of books from Loompanics or Paladin Press? Does the UPS driver get spooked by a disassembled AR-15 you're cleaning at the kitchen table? Does the mail carrier think you're getting too many military surplus catalogs? Do you fiddle with electronic equipment, homeschool your children, practice a non- mainstream religion, have unconventional political views or an unusual sex life?
Then you'd better be aware, beware, and be wary.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (hardly a friend to gun owners) has pointed out that something as innocuous as possessing a gun magazine or a copy of the Koran could cause a TIPS volunteer to denounce you.
You may still think TIPS sounds innocuous. But what's being introduced now is just the TIPS of the police-state iceberg. Remember this axiom: If it's a government program, it grows.
The income tax was never going to take more than a few percent from the very richest people. Social Security was a fully funded insurance program for workers. The Great Society was going to spend a few billion dollars to wipe out poverty. And on and on.
Here's one familiar escalation example. First the government asks us nicely to wear a seatbelt. Then officers ticket you for being unbuckled, but only if they've stopped you for some other offense. Then being unbelted becomes a stopable offense by itself. And then they start throwing a few people in jail for failing to belt up. (See The State vs. the People, pps. 66-67) What next? Seize your unbelted children and throw them into foster homes?
Need more examples? Just ask a cigarette smoker where he's allowed to smoke these days. Ask a parent what happens if you don't believe in vaccinating your child. Think about the folks now angling to make it more difficult for you to buy an SUV or eat fatty foods. Or the school administrators who've had children not only suspended, but in some cases arrested, for pointing fingers and saying "bang."
This is what happens when government fosters and encourages hysteria "for your own good." This is what will inevitably happen with TIPS. But it gets even worse.
DSPS WITH GUNS
Others have noted that the TIPS program establishes a Stasi- like network of informers. (In Communist East Germany so many people were denouncing each other that the shelf space required to hold the information was measured in miles.) This is true. TIPS is the stuff of a police state.
It's also fairly obvious that thousands of foolish tips could overload investigators and cause them to overlook the next real threat.
But the most immediate danger is simply from DSPs. DSPs with badges. And DSPs who fantasize about having badges.
If you want to see a preview of the War on Terrorism, U.S.A. under the TIPS program, just look at the War on Drugs and the way drug warriors misuse informants.
In Houston, a drunk trying to save himself from being busted, tells police he can show them the home of a big drug dealer. Without further investigation, the cops smash in and kill Pedro Oregon Navarro, an innocent man. (See The State vs. the People, pg. 216)
In Dinuba, California, a rural town with a SWAT team but very little crime, an informant tells police a weapon used in an attempted murder might be in a certain house. In the middle of the night, Dinuba's finest burst in and machine-gun 64-year- old Ramon Gallardo to death. The informant was lying. (See The State vs. the People, pg. 309)
We could recount incidents like these all day -- incidents in which police act without checking, without good sense, and without mercy, egged on by self-interested, self-glorifying, payoff-seeking citizen informants.
Now think about what happens when TIPS expands to _pay_ citizen informants for providing evidence of terrorism (as is now done in the Drug War and by the IRS, among other notorious instances). Think about someone who doesn't like you or who wants to make a buck planting evidence in your home or on your computer. Think about some repairman spotting a controversial item in your possession and shaking you down ("Hey buddy, a hundred bucks and I'll forget I saw a thing.") Think about some busybody selling information about you to the police or FBI. History and reality say it'll happen -- and it'll look very familiar when it does.
War on Terrorism? War on Drugs? Who cares what you call it, as long as it beefs up the budgets of law enforcement agencies, builds government power, demolishes that pesky and inconvenient Bill of Rights, and pumps up the egos (and perhaps eventually the wallets) of a nation of citizen-informants.
AND WAIT'LL THEY GET BOMBS AND AIRCRAFT
Now the Bush administration proposes to junk, or at least weaken, the Posse Comitatus Act, the 124-year-old law that keeps the military out of domestic law enforcement (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1503195). The major difference between the military and the police is that police are trained (at least in theory) to protect and serve citizens while soldiers are trained to kill the enemy. Remember Kent State?
Consider what happens when TIPS is combined with domestic military operations. You don't have to look far. Just look at Afghanistan.
U.S. airstrikes in that sad country have killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Last month an airstrike wiped out 50 people at a wedding party. This isn't merely a tragic, but unpreventable, side-effect of war. This is a combination of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality and the uninformed use of informants. One Afghani warlord with a grudge comes to the Americans and tells them, "Oh, big Al Quaeda operation going on here" -- when in fact it's merely a rival warlord's family reunion. Boom! The Americans roar in with full firepower.
Shall we say, "Coming soon to a neighborhood near you?" It might if the Bush administration gets its way on Posse Comitatus and someone has a grudge against you or misinterprets your actions.
TIPS ON TIPS: EDUCATE YOURSELF TO REDUCE YOUR RISK
Whether your greatest fear is short-term danger from deputized busybodies or the long-term (and ever increasing) danger that your beloved country is becoming a police state, TIPS is a step in the wrong direction.
Even if the program is officially killed by Congress, chances are, it won't go away. To avoid falling victim to some Junior J. Edgar, cross your fingers, use a lot of common sense, and take simple precautions like these:
Don't buy a lot of money orders for cash (at the post office or any financial service company)
Clean house regularly. Don't leave cartridges, controversial books, firearms, political pamphlets, religious tracts, knife collections, electronics, storage foods, or anything more controversial than a picture of your Aunt Nellie in plain sight -- or hidden where a repair person might stumble across it.
Become as energy self-sufficient as possible so utility workers will have little reason to come to your home.
Install your own phone lines so the phone company has no reason to be on your property.
Receive mail and packages at a post office box or mail service so no delivery person ever has to come to your home.
Behave yourself with impeccable discretion in all public places, including on public transportation, in taxis, and .... well, everywhere.
Do maintenance checks on your home and replace old or faulty equipment to reduce the need for emergency calls to plumbers, electricians, firefighters or anyone else.
It isn't pleasant to have to live this way. But as long as DSPs are turned loose upon the nation by government mandate, sensible people have to act extra sensibly to survive.
Unfortunately, things may have to get much worse before they get better. As long as Americans can fool themselves into believing that unjust accusations, midnight raids, detentions without charges, and all abuses of freedom happen only to "the other guy," they'll tolerate anything. Only when their own ox is gored -- as the TIPS program may eventually gore it -- will a majority stand up and demand restoration of a Bill of Rights culture.
As Ben Franklin said, we have a republic -- if we can keep it. We should all look in the mirror and ask ourselves how much we really want to keep it and what we're willing to do to prevent it from being taken away by DSPs and their government handlers.
To learn more about TIPS, visit JPFO's Unpopular Speech Page (http://www.jpfo.org/unpopularspeech.htm). Scroll down and read "I'm Happy to Spy for America," by Charles Laurence, "Yes, A Million Tipsters Can be Wrong," by J.R. Labbe, and "Monitor Thy Neighbor," by Rep. Ron Paul.
To get the big picture on what's happening to our once-free America, read The State vs People by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman (http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm)
"Are the FBI's New Guidelines Police-State Policies?" Consider the article by Richard W. Stevens, attorney at law, and decide for yourself. (http://www.jpfo.org/fbirules.htm)
Did our parents fight fascism so we could establish a police state on our own shores? Read "An Open Letter to Our Fathers and Grandfathers: You Won the Battle but Lost the War." (http://www.jpfo.org/veterans.htm)
America is in distress! "The Upside-Down Flag" shows one way you can alert your friends and neigbors to our danger. (http://www.jpfo.org/alert20020628.htm)
What would America be like if it had a real Bill of Rights culture? Hope by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith will inspire you. (http://www.jpfo.org/hope.htm)
The Liberty Crew
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20020724.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
from "Terrorism"
by Michael Bragg
You know it really amazes me how easily so many people are scared into submission. Even more than that, I am dumbfounded at how easily the masses are led astray with phantom fears of "nonspecific, uncorroborated but credible" threats of further terrorist attacks on our soil.
Having a day gig in sales requires me to spend a considerable amount of time behind the wheel of my car, and to break the monotony I often listen to the radio. One particular early morning talk show I sometimes listen to is a local station in this area. The hosts of this particular show have the tendency to not only conveniently leave out much data when forming their opinions, but even worse, they sometimes exaggerate, embellish and dare I say outright lie about facts to support their conclusions. It is fun however to call them once in a while (usually after a blatant error) and correct then in their faulty allegations.
One that really burns me up is that of so called "potential" terrorist attacks. After listening to these two men rant for an hour about how scared they were, and how they are willing to give up almost any and all Liberties just to be safe from these ghostly threats, (and even worse hearing their callers agree with them) it's a wonder that I myself was not shaking in my boots and ready to show the soft side of my underbelly to the nearest FBI agent I could find. However, being the logical, reasoning and levelheaded (LOL) person that I am, I have decided to simply assess the situation and really find out exactly where the REAL threats lie. More importantly, I will look at solutions for overcoming the small threats we face that not only facilitate MORE FREEDOM -- NOT LESS, but the success of these solutions depend on that freedom.
SAFE SKIES
After the horrendous attacks of 9-11, I find it very hard to believe another commercial airliner will be commandeered and flown into targets of opportunity. First of all, I believe if one were to fly off its flight plan and be unresponsive to radio communication it will simply be shot down. It does not matter if it were actually hijacked or not. It could be something as simple as navigation or instrument failure or even communication failure, but I firmly believe it will be shot down by our own F-16's. But, for the sake of this example, let's look at the scenario a little closer.
Let's say Abdullah Mohammed al-Azrwi Sheik DaDa and a merry band of his misfits decided to attempt commandeering a given airliner. You are probably only looking at 5 to 8 individuals at the most against 60 to 80 or more passengers and crew aboard the flight. Number one, I find it hard to believe that that many people on the plane will simply sit there and let the plane be taken over. Even after the FAA has violated the 2nd Amendment and disarmed the passengers, it is my strong belief that they WOULD in fact defend themselves and their plane. Moreover, prior to 9-11, if our Imperial Federal Government had performed its duty and set up emergency procedures in the event of an attempted hijacking --a hijacking that they knew was not only a possibility but highly likely, -- there would have been 3000 people who would not have died that day. All they would have had to do was add a little more to their preflight safety instructions. For example: "Passengers, this is your Captain. If one or more persons attempts to commander this flight, you are instructed to apprehend and subdue these perpetrators by any means necessary up to and including death. This means you take off your belt, shoe, pencil or pen, pillow or anything else you can find to use as a weapon to defend this plane. The control of this plane WILL NOT be given to anyone but the pilots who will safely take us to our respective destinations".
Now granted a .45 would be much more effective than a #2 pencil, but we 'aint too likely to be able to pack heat in the air any time soon. Hell, even though it has passed in the House, we are not very likely to see the pilots carry guns as a last line of defense so what do you think OUR chances are?
Note to Bush/Ashcroft regime: I am still waiting for an explanation as to why a locked and loaded F-16 with orders to terminate a flight is LESS dangerous than a pilot with a 9mm or H K Special Ops .45.
The only real danger I see in the sky is either a bomb hidden in baggage, or a land-based shoulder fired missile such as our "Stinger". There are many that believe that the infamous TWA 800 Flight that went down on July 17, 1996 was an act of terror done with these very weapons. I wonder where those Stingers came from? Could it be that we gave them to Islamic extremists years ago? Oh yeah, I forgot.they were "freedom fighters" then. How silly of me.
Solutions for flight safety: I have already mentioned arming the pilots so I will not belabor that point. However, I would be remiss if I did not at least mention letting passengers arm themselves would also greatly reduce the threat of hijacking. But, due to the demonization of firearms by the Misguided Mom types, I do not believe this would ever be a viable solution. I personally would like to see PRIVATE armed flight attendants, hired, trained and equipped by the people whose property we are renting to take us from point A to point B.
BIOTERROR
While Stephen King's "The Stand" has always been one of my favorite works, the doomsday scenario of an infectious virus with a communicability rate of 98% decimating the world is highly unlikely -especially from terrorists. According to The Journal of The American Medical Association, "a global campaign, begun in 1967 under the aegis of the World Health Organization (WHO), succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1977. A WHO expert committee recommended that all laboratories destroy their stocks of variola virus or transfer them to 1 of 2 WHO reference laboratories - the Institute of Virus Preparations in Moscow, Russia, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga. All countries reported compliance." However, "a former deputy director of the Soviet Union's civilian bioweapons program" has stated that "beginning in 1980, the Soviet government embarked on a successful program to produce the smallpox virus in large quantities and adapt it for use in bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles; the program had an industrial capacity capable of producing many tons of smallpox virus annually." Furthermore, Alibek reports that "Russia even now has a research program that seeks to produce more virulent and contagious recombinant strains." It is also feared that "because financial support for laboratories in Russia has sharply declined in recent years, there are increasing concerns that existing expertise and equipment might fall into non-Russian hands." The JAMA also reports on weapons grade anthrax that, "several countries are believed to have offensive biological weapons programs, and some independent terrorist groups have suggested their intent to use biological weapons. Because the possibility of a terrorist attack using bioweapons is especially difficult to predict, detect, or prevent, it is among the most feared terrorism scenarios."
While these two nasty little critters are certainly scary, and the consequences of their release on a large city or populated area are even more frightening, there remains one difficulty anyone attempting to use them has to overcome: the delivery system. From everything I have been able to find, anthrax is very difficult to contract. According to George Jaresko, assistant professor of clinical pharmacy and co-director of the anti-infective research study group at the School of Pharmacy, "despite the publicity on the deaths of postal workers . [and] although anthrax has the potential to be extremely destructive, it is difficult to contract the fatal type of inhalation anthrax. The amount of exposure required to contract the disease is quite high. You would have to inhale roughly 10,000 to 50,000 spores." To be able to disperse large enough amounts of the stuff for people to inhale it, contract inhalation anthrax and die is highly difficult.
However, it is my opinion based on everything I have read and researched that smallpox is one of if not the biggest threats we have. As The Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies at Johns Hopkins University reports "An aerosol release of smallpox virus would disseminate readily given its considerable stability in aerosol form and epidemiological evidence suggesting the infectious dose is very small. Even as few as 50-100 cases would likely generate widespread concern or panic and a need to invoke large-scale, perhaps national emergency control measures."
"Several factors fuel the concern: the disease has historically been feared as one of the most serious of all pestilential diseases; it is physically disfiguring; it bears a 30 percent case-fatality rate; there is no treatment; it is communicable from person to person; and no one in the U.S. has been vaccinated during the past 25 years. Vaccination ceased in this country in 1972, and vaccination immunity acquired before that time has undoubtedly waned."
So, anthrax is not really that big of a deal, but smallpox could be, so what do we do? I like what David Hackworth proposed in his article "A shot in time saves lives" at WND.com. He writes:
Bet on it - Health honcho Tommy Thompson and his whiz kids will screw up a vaccination program faster than you bought Cipro. There are countless layers of government functionaries committed to allowing little, if anything, to be done fast and efficiently. If a kid were drowning in a neighbor's swimming pool, you and I would leap the fence, outrun the dog and dive in - while our government reps would still be debating a procedural vote. No way should we allow these bureaucrats to be responsible for our families' health, especially when the worst-case scenario envisions millions dying before the rapid-spreading epidemic can be brought under control.
What we should do:
Vaccinate first-responders - medics, firemen, police, warriors - ASAP.
Store vaccine in our family doctors' offices immediately. The 300 million smallpox immunizations should be available locally - it's flat nuts for us all to rely on assurances that the red-tape-wrapped Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is capable of getting the vaccine to outbreaks at five or 5,000 places across the nation in time for effective administering.
The CDC should also be ready to announce timely warnings of smallpox so nonimmune citizens can hole up, reducing their exposure. Because when our docs have the vaccine, it should be up to each of us to weigh the health risks of being inoculated - not some Washington types whose track records concerning terrorism at airports, controlling our borders or handling aliens and anthrax since 9-11 have been so bad that a good Army top kick would have inflicted maximum pain on most of these losers.
So, while I do not agree with Hack on many issues, I have to say he is pretty much right on this one. Put the vaccine in the hands of the medical professionals - NOT THE GOVERNMENT. We must be free to CHOOSE to either take the vaccine or not. We cannot rely on the CDC to make the right decisions for us. Simple solutions requiring MORE FREEDOM -- NOT LESS, made painfully difficult by a government hell bent on its own lust for power and control.
Next in the series we will look at the threats of nukes, dirty bombs, foreign invasion and small-scale suicide bombings such as are routine in Israel.
http://libertyforall.net/patrioticus.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - A Senate committee, worried about creating a powerful new spy agency, decided Wednesday to tone down legislation that would have granted broad intelligence authority to the proposed Homeland Security Department.
The legislation would still create an intelligence division whose analysis would cover all aspects of American life. President Bush's plan focused on crucial industries, public works and transportation systems.
On a voice vote, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee removed provisions that senators and aides feared would give the department unprecedented power over key intelligence functions now handled by the CIA, FBI and others.
"We're not being hasty or haphazard here," said the committee chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose amendment was approved. "We're moving forward with a justified sense of urgency and purpose."
The committee was expected to approve the overall legislation today and the House planned to begin debate on its version. Lawmakers were rushing to create a 170,000-employee Cabinet agency dedicated to safeguarding Americans at home by the fall.
Meeting with Democrats and Republicans at the White House, Bush kept up the pressure for swift action on the bill.
The original bill said the new department "shall be supported" by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. The revised version says the Homeland Security secretary will "communicate, coordinate and cooperate" with intelligence bodies.
ONLINE: Congress: thomas.loc.gov http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/nation/3730791.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
AP
President Bush took time out from a speech on medical malpractice to stress the need for flexibility in the new Department of Homeland Security.
Friday, July 26, 2002
WASHINGTON - As President Bush traveled to North Carolina to discuss medical malpractice, the White House warned that the president might have to veto one of his top legislative priorities - a bill to create a Homeland Security Department.
"The president is very concerned that the substance of the Senate's proposal so far on homeland security is a step backward, not forward, in protecting the country," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with the president. "The president remains hopeful and optimistic that these provisions can be fixed without a veto. But he does feel strongly about it."
Both the House and Senate have started negotiations on the creation of a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security that would take 170,000 employees from 22 agencies and put them under an umbrella department responsible for securing the homeland and receiving intelligence.
Lawmakers in both chambers have added as many as 100 amendments to each version of the bill and debate continues over whether to include the Secret Service, U.S. Customs Service, Coast Guard, and Federal Emergency Management Agency into the new bureau.
Disputes have also arisen over provisions that would reduce the level of civil service protections, allow the president to transfer as much as 5 percent of the agency's budget to security programs that need more attention, and require confirmation of the president's assistant on homeland security issues, currently former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge.
Fleischer said that because the bill doesn't give the president the flexibility he seeks to move money and personnel around, limiting the president's leeway to hire, fire and transfer personnel, the bill has too many bureaucratic constraints.
While in North Carolina, where he was to also attend a fund-raiser for Senate candidate Elizabeth Dole, the president intended to discuss what he regards as excessive medical malpractice suits. But he took the time to repeat his argument that he must have more flexibility to get around bureaucratic constraints if homeland security is to function effectively.
"I just want to make sure Congress understands that when we do create this department, I've got to have the ability to manage the department in a way to make the homeland more secure."
Bush said the bill does not allow a line-item approach on its contents, and argued that he must have at least a little more flexibility in matters of hiring, transferring and firing than civil service rules generally allow.
"I readily concede I didn't run for office saying, 'Vote for me, I promise to make government bigger.' And so, I'm not interested in something big, I'm interested in something that works," Bush said.
One key Democrat expressed surprise that the White House would talk veto and seemed not to believe it.
"Eighty-five to 90 percent of the bill our committee is going to be approved is agreed on by the White House," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "I can't believe frankly that the president would veto the bill over this."
Unions representing many of the workers who would be part of homeland security say the president has all the power he needs and is just trying to circumvent civil services protections.
Bush's homeland security chief said it wouldn't work unless the administration can deal quickly with personnel, such as getting rid of non-performers.
"I think the president, as we're looking at not only rewarding people, would like to review the notion of how you deal with non-performing people. We are at war. These are our soldiers. Some are going to perform above and beyond the call. Some may not meet the standard. And it's really about trying to get the best people in the right place at the right time in order to enhance our security for this country," Ridge said.
If the final bill that emerges does not grant that flexibility, and if the Senate insists on making the White House's director of homeland security a position subject to Senate confirmation, Fleischer said the president will have no choice but to veto.
"He will receive a recommendation from his advisers to veto this if the president's concerns are not addressed," Fleischer said.
Fox News' Jim Angle and James Rosen contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58748,00.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878