I’d like to point out that none of us has actually seen the memo from the FBI to police, we’ve only seen one man’s interpretation of it, Ted Bridis of the Associated Press. AFAIK, every news agency has used his quotes and description. We don’t know what was really stressed in the memo, we only know what he decided to tell us. Before suggesting that this is Farenheit 451, I’d like to see what was actually said. Also, this memo was not made public, the AP reporter got hold of a copy of it and went to town.
Wring, with respect to your example, apparently the FBI thinks that maps and almanacs are something that should be considered when LEOs go about their business. In your example, pre-memo, the almanac won’t even make the list. I don’t believe that LEOs would normally think twice about someone carrying a map, nor would they bother to examine it even if they had ample time to do so. Now, they’ll at least take that second look, which I think is a pretty decent idea.
Why, thank you. Then I’ll know that at least one person reads what I post.
As for the rest - I didn’t call you anything. I never claimed you said anything, I was making a general observation, regarding some people who post on this board, that’s all. If I was throwing shit around, why did you feel it stick?
As for calling me racist - oh, please. It’s quite clear from the post that the word towel-head was used as an example of how some people talk.
I find Michael Moore to be a histrionic film maker, but I think that the theory he (and others) put forward about the ‘culture of fear’ is quite accurate.
Well, Age, I have some experience with what the FBI thinks is a rational response to threats, and it is my opinion therefrom that they’re mainly concerned with covering their asses.
An example: because of the anthrax scare, academic labs with fermentation equipment have to be secured. It’s not a big deal, but it means installing locked doors, and so on. A minor inconvenience.
But to what end? Is a terrorist going to sneak into a university lab and borrow a half-liter fermentation vessel to mix up some anthracis? When he could buy a carboy at a homebrew supply store and cook up 40 times as much in his own garage? Is the FBI regulating homebrew supply stores?
There are many other examples of similar actions. And the memo for law enforcement to “look out for [suspicious] people with almanacs” is more of the same. it makes it look like they’re being proactive, but is (if anything) a trivial contribution to security.
And here’s a clue tossed your way: you can disagree with people without being an asshole. (Or rather, most reasonably social adults can.)
Isn’t the point moot, irrespective of the logic or effectiveness?
Terrorists might not be geniuses. But they don’t all individually have to be. Now that this memo’s directive has been made public, atleast one media-alert person within each group/cell might alert the others not to use almanacs in public. Virtually all people hereon affected will be innocent bystanders. I say virtually to leave open the technical possibility that a terrorist might get caught, but I don’t think that’s plausible.
Another example: the INS program that required male immigrants, mostly from islamic countries, to register.
It may or may not have been a big deal to the individuals concerned. But has it been successful? Oly if you define success (as the INS does) as “knowing where 250,00 people are, who we didn’t know about before the program.” By the INS own reckoning, NOT ONE terrorism related arrest, or even SUSPECT was apprehended because of this registration.
Why are we wasting resources with stupid programs like this? Because, like the almanac memo and the fermentation equipment lockdown, it makes people think that the authorities are actually doing something.
I appreciate your patience in trying to explain this, but I think it comes down to a fundamental disagreement about the nature of law enforcement. If you’re telling me that you think LE can only keep one of those criteria in their heads at a time, then I fundamentally disagree with you. If you’re telling me that LE is going to use this memo to search every person they see with an almanac, thus expending valuable resources on what is likely to be a fruitless search, then I fundamentally disagree with you.
I think the best tactic is not to limit what we tell LE for fear that we’re giving them too much or too useless information. I think the best tactic is to give LE all information available, and let them assess each situation to make the best choice possible.
I’m not saying this is the breakthrough that will defeat terrorism. I’m not saying this tip will result in the arrest of any terrorists. I’m saying 1) it’s not a step toward Farenheit 451 or a police state; 2) it’s not going to hurt anyone or anything; and 3) it’s a good idea to make LE aware of any information we have on terrorists and their activities. If it helps, great; if it doesn’t, no harm done.
Because it was slung in my general direction. You said it shortly after my post, and it lumped everyone that shared my thoughts into a category of petty, small-minded people who were out to get “towel-heads.” You said, “What scared, petty little people you guys are.” Thus, you were addressing the people that were in this thread, not some illusory group.
If you don’t want people to be offended when you sling shit, then be careful with your aim.
I realize that locking and unlocking your lab is inconvenient for you, but I don’t think it’s out of line. Enterprising terrorists could buy many of the supplies needed to make anthrax from supply stores, but why would they when they can just waltz into your lab and grab them for free? After all, it’s so much easier when you’ve gathered everything together for them in one nice, neat group.
Simiilarly, people lock up their guns, despite the fact that criminals could buy one at the local sporting goods store. Is that an unreasonable precaution?
But the biggest reason that universities typically have to lock up their labs and materials is that their labs contain dangerous chemicals and diseases that aren’t available to the general public. Or did you think that the neighborhood supply store also sells botulinum toxins and anthrax spores?
Thanks for the tip. And here are a couple of clues for you.
You posted this in the Pit, not Great Debates. If you don’t want people to offend your delicate sensibilities, choose a different forum.
If you’re going to post outright falsehoods, please don’t be surprised when people react in an unfriendly manner.
If you think my posts are overly critical, highly emotional, and knee-jerk reactionary, then you know how I feel after reading your OP. Pot, kettle, black.
Another false statement? Quite possibly. After all, published reports indicated that the registration program resulted in the arrest and/or detention of hundreds of Middle Eastern Jewish and Muslim men.
Regardless, this statement is pretty dishonest of you. Of course there weren’t terrorism related arrests “because of this registration.” Terrorism related arrests arise from terrorist related activities. The failure to register is not a terrorist related activity, it’s a failure to register related activity.
The registration program isn’t supposed to lead directly to the arrest of terrorists. Why do we check people’s IDs at bars? We all know minors still get in using fake IDs or slipping in the back door or whatever.
The reason is as much for deterrence as anything else. If the minors know we’re checking IDs at the door, they’ll be less likely to attempt to come in. And if the cops come into the bar and announce that they’re checking everyone’s IDs, then we can narrow down our idea of who is a minor by figuring out who hides in the bathroom rather than having his ID checked.
I know it’s a flippant analogy, but the same principles apply here.
age - limited resources does not equal “police can only keep one criteria in their heads at the same time”. I’d really appreciate it if you would use my words vs. your interpretation of them.
The police have a limited amount of time, money etc. we cannot do complete, thourough background checks of every human being living in the US and attempting to enter. We need to select criteria that have some semblance of rationality behind it. “could use” does not reach that level.
You want to feel good about this, fine, the FBI has achieved their (to me, obvious) goal - that of mollifying the public letting them think they’re getting ahead of the game.