Skip to main content

View Diary: Rest assured about PRISM: Bush says he 'put that program in place to protect the country' (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is a difference between repelling invasion (10+ / 0-)

    and providing protection. The latter is being used as an excuse to lock up or tie up the population in a "secure" manner.
    "Protection" is a racket, whether it is being employed by the Mafia or a legitimate public corporation.
    Insecure people are susceptible to being seduced by the promise of security. But, it's a trap, a con game. It isn't possible to prevent or protect against one-off events. All we can expect is that there be no repetition, which only habitual offenders engage in.
    Although there were any number of airplane hijackings, the reason they were possible as late as 2001 is because the airlines did not secure the cockpit. Once that was corrected, putting passengers through invasive inspections serves no purpose but to generate revenue for the inspectors. (I write that as a person who has never traveled on a commercial plane and doesn't intend to in the near future. When I deliver passengers to airports or pick them up, I am offended by the sight of travelers being manhandled by strangers. Legalized assault, like legalized theft, is more offensive than the random criminal event).
    The shepherd "protects" the sheep from being attacked by wolves, so he can eat them later. Human husvpbandry relies on the same logic. But, humans exploiting their own kind to their detriment is inconsistent with the commitment to human rights and respect for the person.
    What we need is respect, not protection. The purveyors of protection are the modern equivalent of snake oil salesmen. It's a con job.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 10:31:47 AM PDT

    •  Glad you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave

      weighed in here Hannah. I have thought of your words a lot in the last weeks. It is a con job.

    •  After United 93 passengers fought back... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stevemb, hannah

      ...we don't even need secure cockpits.

      Let me explain.

      When the passengers found out that 3 other planes had been crashed into buildings, they knew they were next.

      Until then, hijackings had not been suicide missions, so it made sense to wait for some kind of resolution.

      Now, no hijacker will get the luxury of acquiescent  passengers or crew.  So they'll never do what the 9/11 terrorist did.

      The passengers were the immune system and it got activated with the phone calls they were able to make to their loved ones who were watching the news.

      Still secure cockpits makes some sense and it's not intrusive.  I once helped subdue a passenger who literally went crazy on a flight.

      Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

      by Shockwave on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:41:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site