Foiled plots not a good metric for anti-terror

What’s really bugging me is Republi-Rats being co-opted into this senate shamnesty bill, but this just popped into my head. So, here we go.


CASE 1: The head of the NSA told congress that it’s a good thing he’s been collecting data on EVERY PERSON in America because as a result of that effort, dozens of terrorist plots have been discovered. In other news, Indiana’s head of highway safety told reporters that it’s a good thing he banned people from driving their cars because it has deterred 1,000s of accidents everyday.

CASE 2: The head of the NSA told congress that it’s a good thing he’s been collecting data on Muslims in America because as a result of that effort, dozens of terrorist plots have been discovered. In other news, Indiana’s head of highway safety told reporters that it’s a good thing he banned blind people from driving cars because it has deterred 1,000s of accidents.

Case 3: The head of the NSA told congress that it’s a good thing he’s been collecting data on suspicious people and their associates in America because as a result of that effort, dozens or terrorist plots have been discovered. In other news, Indiana’s head of highway safety told reporters that it’s a good thing Indiana has battery traffic laws to bring order to what would be a chaotic mess and cost 1,000s of lives if left to individual wants and desires.

In case 1 everyone is being held accountable for the act of a few. Most Americans deem that to be BS in everyday things such as driving a car, but if the government is acting outside the 4th amendment to keep them “safe,” even if they’ve never done one thing wrong, or maybe because they’ve never done one thing wrong, suddenly Americans are OK with the “everyone” rule.

In case 2 it’s obvious profiling Muslims for terrorist activity is every bit as reasonable as not allowing blind people to drive. We’re quite happy to do the latter but get the heebie-jeebies when anyone suggests the former. So, we default to case 1 where we hold everyone accountable. And even though it creates a mountain of information that is nearly impossible to strain for critical information thereby making us less safe than if we profiled likely terrorists, we think, yeah rounding up everyone makes much more sense. Better to round up everyone than take a chance of peeing off the Islamo-Terror-Fascists. Guess what? They are already PO’d.

Case 3 is the reasonable, common sense approach we’d all hope our government would adopt. As such, it is a non-starter. Besides, what if something slipped between the cracks? Oh you mean like a Ft. Hood shooting or a Boston bombing.

First, to say those events slipped through the cracks would be like the Rock of Gibraltar slipping through the #4 grade gravel screen at down at Irving’s aggregate. These events were there to be seen by anyone who wanted to see them. The fact is, had we been in a case 2 mode, Maj Hassan would have had a courts martial as a 2nd Lt. and the Tsarneav brothers would have been deported after the first warning from Russia.

But yeah, we set up reasonable safeguards, hire efficient people, give them adequate resources and let them do their job. If something slips through the cracks, we find out why and if necessary hold people responsible to account.

That’s another thing missing in government these days – accountability.