> dana tierney wrote:
>> I don't pretend to have all the answers for national security. But
>> improving intelligence would seem to be critical. Otherwise the US simply
>> drowns in data about people who pose no threat at all and deserve to be
>> left in peace.
>
> Perhaps "intelligence" could use an injection of intelligence. <g> We
> don't know where Osama is (intelligence?)
Perhaps it would be wise not to get mixed up in so much hotspots before intelligence is measured by quality instead of quantity.
> Much of the do about national security is just that, Where the questions
> keep coming up is how much individual liberties must be given in the name
> of "intelligence" Another is the extreme unevenness of judgment calls as
> to who should be more closely examined and who should be allowed to pass.
> US citizens have been accustomed to absolute freedom to travel and move
> about. In order to create the perception that "We are safer" changes have
> been put in place to change that freedom. I think only time will tell,
> whether actions taken in the guise of perception, as opposed to substance
> will actually do the job.
Which job? Security or reelection?
Jochem
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
