The police are funded by the government, but operate independently. The government cannot dictate police policy or behaviour.
Doesn’t matter. They’re still an instrument of the state.
Saying something over and over doesn’t make it any more meaningful. Your statement that
in the context of the London bombs is simply wrong.
Okay, you win. Whatever. Feel free to substitute ‘police’ for ‘government’ wherever you see fit. It changes my point not one iota.
I didn’t know Switzerland was a hotbed of terror attacks. 
Actually, when I think of Switzerland and counter-terrorism, I assume the emphasis is on the financial aspects, eg, cracking down on money laundering and whatnot. But beyond that, I’m not sure you can apply a small-country model to places like the US or Canada. If I’m missing something please enlighten me.
Tax breaks and other economic incentives bring a new dimension to this debate. I don’t know about Canada, but I’m a little wary of government using fear mongering, or a siege mentality, to justify increased spending for some of these projects - especially in areas where the possibility of a terror attack is practically non-existent. We’ve seen that in the US.
Are you expecting an imminent attack over there? Look, nothing wrong with learning useful crisis skills, and every large building should have an evacuation plan - there are emergencies besides terrorism, after all.
Since the advent of cell phones there has been a dramatic increase in the number of 911 calls for any particular incident. At some point, this works against efficiency. As far as I can see we are already doing “more of that”. In some cases more than is needed. Do you really believe there is a lack of people prepared to respond to emergencies? In my experience, it’s more likely that volunteers will be turned away due to the large volume of the response.
It changes the point completely! The government are elected representatives, with a vested interest in presenting information that shows them in a positive light. The police are independent, and are concerned with identifying and highlighting the truth of the case, and not endangering the public by false accusations, scare-mongering, and dissemination of incomplete information. The fiction you’re describing is the kind of scenario prevented by not allowing direct governmental control of the criminal investigation.
As a follow up to the police and public thing try this :-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668675.stm
Did you lose sight of the original point somewhere along the way? What I was talking about was moving the control of information out of the hands of a few ‘gatekeepers’ and more into the public sphere so we can leverage the strength of our democracy.
Here’s an example of that, which the Bush administration tried and got hammered for: A ‘futures market’ in terrorism, like Tradesports. The idea is that an open market like this tends to encapsulate the best information we have about our vulnerability. Then you get not just the information sifted by the ‘professionals’, but information collected by the night watchman on the dock who sees security holes that no one else knows exist. Now, I can see the flaws with this, but I use it as an example of out-of-the-box thinking that attempts to leverage the myriad skills and knowledge of the public. Let’s figure out a way to use our strengths, which is that we are a free and open society in which information travels freely and flows to those who need it. Instead, the government’s instinct is to lock it down, keep information to themselves, and dole it out only when THEY think it’s needed. It’s an informational bottleneck. Now, there are plenty of cases where they need to do this - to protect operational security, to avoid revealing sources of data gathering, etc. But there are plenty of ways in which the public can become involved.
That was the original point? I thought you seemed to be arguing for mob justice, and that the public know how to investigate crimes better than the police. Clearly I’m missing something.
That would be 19 April 1995.
And your point is…? The Oklahoma City bombiing was an isolated incident. The question is: is there not a pattern with terrorist attacks against the US, of which OC was one?
Nonsense. It is obviously difficult to provide conclusive evidence about the likely result of something which has not yet been attempted, but it is certainly possible, and necessary, to consider the available evidence from similar historical scenarios, relevant mathematical models, etc.
To illustrate by example, nobody has yet tried to build an elevator from the surface of the earth to geosynchronous orbit. By your argument, somebody proposing to do so by planting magic beans should be taken just as seriously as somebody proposing to do so by building an orbital carbon-crystal assembly plant – since it is, after all, “completely disingenous” to insist that the former produce evidence of his position’s efficacy.
Huh? It was quite clear to me that Sam’s proposals were directed toward having government serve as a facilitator for individual action, or at least getting out of the way, not toward conscripting people. The former is most certainly compatible with a free society – more so that existing policies, actually.
I agree with his points, and would add that the TSA bureaucrats who have been obstructing the armed-pilots program need to be out on the street with “WILL SHUFFLE PAPER FOR FOOD” signs.
Clearly. If all you got out of everything I said was “mob justice”, then we’re not even speaking the same language.
As has been explained, making all evidence (and potential evidence) fully available to the public, as you suggested in post 291, would result in (a) false accusations, (b) vigilante attacks, and © the impossibility of prosecutions under English law.
(B) is the mob justice part, the others are just good reasons for letting the people trained to solve crimes, errrr, solve the crimes.
I am not aware of anything that would point to evidence. My guess is that those in charge of security in Israel would probably be able to supply some strong evidence.
Amen.
I am quite simply baffled by these statements. Who do you think the police work for?
Er, the fact that the perps might, oh, I dunno, start their escape as soon as they confirm the success of their mission?
Is there some doctrine in British law that allows suppression of evidence because it’s become public knowledge? If so, I’ve never heard of it (and it frankly sounds ridiculous on its face).
The public. Is this such an outlandish concept?
My read is that Sam Stone’s proposal is not to release specific footage labeled “bombers”, but rather simply making the entire camera system publicly accessible.
The jury selection argument does have some validity, but I don’t think it’s a show-stopper – it courts can manage to seat juries for media-circus celebrity trials, I think they can manage to do the same in these cases.
Everybody works for “the public” (if the public ain’t buying what you’re selling, you won’t have a job, at least not one that pays the bills, for very long).
The police work for the government (which, in a free society, is an agent of the citizenry).
I’m afraid I have to agree with Sam Stone’s opinion that your distinction is mere nitpickery.