Bogus and ineffective terror alerts


MSNBC just ran a piece saying how the recent attacks in the UK mean a higher chance of attacks here. They then trotted out a “terrorism expert” who provided no hard facts on this except to attempt to scare viewers by saying copy cat attacks could occur. “Could.” Not “would”. With no supporting evidence given, either.

This is irresponsible reporting, scaremongering based on no evidence, designed to boost ratings and little else.

As for airport security, currently TSA security for those flying by private jet does not exist. That’s right. if you fly by private jet there are no security checks. If the government is serious about stopping terrorist threats, then *everyone* needs to be searched, including private jet passengers. Otherwise it’s just more pointless ineffective scaremongering.

I once had a client in Nova Scotia who lived near the Maine border. He had a bank account in Maine for paying in dollars. I asked him what security was like driving across the national border. He laughed and said, it was a road, no stops, no security, no checkpoints. So apparently it’s easy enough to get across national borders into the US.

No, I haven’t the slightest desire for myself or anyone else to get maimed or killed by a terrorist bomb. But banning toothpaste tubes above a certain size or scaring people with bogus ‘analysis’ is not the way to do it. Old-fashioned police work remains the most effective method, even if it is useless for scaremongering and propaganda purposes.

One comment

  1. As I’ve suggested in my posts on “National Insecurity,” the goal is not to provide security, but to LOOK like they’re providing security. Perception (i.e. keeping the voters happy) is what it’s all about.

    While the appearance of security might deter some loonies from performing “copy cat” attacks, a committed terrorist could easily find multiple ways to breach our so-called security.

    Coming from the “Live Free or Die” state as I do, I’d much rather incur some risk than live under the police state necessary to secure absolute safety. But the average voter wants to believe we live risk-free in the land of the free and home of the brave, thanks to the blood of a relative handful of soldiers somewhere in a country they couldn’t find on a map.

    (Did he just describe our losses of over 3,500 troops in Iraq as a “relative handful” of casualties? Yes he did. Consider: 60,000 casualties at Gettysburg in three days. That’s more than in all 25 years of the Vietnam War. In WWI, there were 106,708 American casualties, and in WWII, 407,300 American soldiers died. While I abhor the loss of life in Iraq, both military and civilian, I also believe that as a nation, we’ve forgotten what real war is all about.)

Comments are closed.