I can't remember where, but I know I have been at a few airports where you had to get your luggage scanned before entering the airport. I think that is what is going to start happening everywhere. I actually thought about it when I was going through O'Hare a few days ago. We are all packed in the security line and everyone with a large carry on bag. I was thinking it would be a great place for an attack.
But won't there always be this problem? If you move the security checkpoint to outside the airport, then there will be a big line of people (with both carry-on and checked luggage) there. I understand the instinct to try to expand the security perimeter, but the security check will always be a chokepoint. The only way to fix it is to drastically expand the number of security lanes to minimize lines.
Exactly. And the truth is that you just can't eliminate locations with crowds of people. In a free society, in cities, there will always be large congregations of people, whether that's at an airport, subway, shopping mall, school. You can't eliminate targets. All you can really do is increase security presence and try to hunt down these terrorist networks before they can carry out attacks in the first place.
But won't there always be this problem? If you move the security checkpoint to outside the airport, then there will be a big line of people (with both carry-on and checked luggage) there. I understand the instinct to try to expand the security perimeter, but the security check will always be a chokepoint. The only way to fix it is to drastically expand the number of security lanes to minimize lines.
Exactly. And the truth is that you just can't eliminate locations with crowds of people. In a free society, in cities, there will always be large congregations of people, whether that's at an airport, subway, shopping mall, school. You can't eliminate targets. All you can really do is increase security presence and try to hunt down these terrorist networks before they can carry out attacks in the first place.
Which is why I side with the us govt on the apple case. (Though it now sounds as if the us doesn't need Apple anymore to unlock the phone.)
Exactly. And the truth is that you just can't eliminate locations with crowds of people. In a free society, in cities, there will always be large congregations of people, whether that's at an airport, subway, shopping mall, school. You can't eliminate targets. All you can really do is increase security presence and try to hunt down these terrorist networks before they can carry out attacks in the first place.
At the same time, you need to work on why people are radicalized to begin with.
1. Strive for more integration. And this isn't just educating immigrants on how to be Belgian/French/German whatever, but educating the European populace on some history, cultural practices, and bias and how that is harmful to all of society. The goal of integration can't be to get immigrants to give up their own religion and culture, but to get both sides to understand more of the other and to be respectful of the other.
2. I'd have some HUGE rewards set up for anyone that gives good intelligence on terrorists. Give the people in the community a selfish reason to speak up that may override any anger or suspicion they have at the host country.
3. Jobs. I think you take away a lot of dignity from a person when you relegate them to only having shit jobs, if any. It seems that discrimination in some countries is quite bad and it makes people desperate. It's not an excuse for those people to lose their humanity and do heinous things, but we can't ignore the fact desperate people are more likely to be radicalized.
4. Do any laws need to be reviewed and changed? Immigration, housing, labor, equality, etc?
This stuff isn't sexy and won't work immediately, but a more holistic solution needs to be proposed rather than increasing security. We can't have 1/2 of the population working in security.
I agree. Europe is not great with integration, to say the least. And so many terrorists are involved with crime and drug rings at first it seems. There seems to be something that can be done there.
Exactly. And the truth is that you just can't eliminate locations with crowds of people. In a free society, in cities, there will always be large congregations of people, whether that's at an airport, subway, shopping mall, school. You can't eliminate targets. All you can really do is increase security presence and try to hunt down these terrorist networks before they can carry out attacks in the first place.
Which is why I side with the us govt on the apple case. (Though it now sounds as if the us doesn't need Apple anymore to unlock the phone.)
Another rotten day for the world.
I can't with this today, but giving up freedoms, forcing people to do stuff....this is how terrorism wins. We can't give up things to give us the feeling of safety.
Exactly. And the truth is that you just can't eliminate locations with crowds of people. In a free society, in cities, there will always be large congregations of people, whether that's at an airport, subway, shopping mall, school. You can't eliminate targets. All you can really do is increase security presence and try to hunt down these terrorist networks before they can carry out attacks in the first place.
At the same time, you need to work on why people are radicalized to begin with.
1. Strive for more integration. And this isn't just educating immigrants on how to be Belgian/French/German whatever, but educating the European populace on some history, cultural practices, and bias and how that is harmful to all of society. The goal of integration can't be to get immigrants to give up their own religion and culture, but to get both sides to understand more of the other and to be respectful of the other.
2. I'd have some HUGE rewards set up for anyone that gives good intelligence on terrorists. Give the people in the community a selfish reason to speak up that may override any anger or suspicion they have at the host country.
3. Jobs. I think you take away a lot of dignity from a person when you relegate them to only having shit jobs, if any. It seems that discrimination in some countries is quite bad and it makes people desperate. It's not an excuse for those people to lose their humanity and do heinous things, but we can't ignore the fact desperate people are more likely to be radicalized.
4. Do any laws need to be reviewed and changed? Immigration, housing, labor, equality, etc?
This stuff isn't sexy and won't work immediately, but a more holistic solution needs to be proposed rather than increasing security. We can't have 1/2 of the population working in security.
I agree with this too. None of it will eliminate terrorism, but it could certainly decrease support for it and the willingness of locals to aid and shield terrorists. And honestly, I think that this is part of why we have fewer issues here in the US with communities that are hotbeds of terrorism - Muslim immigrants in the US are much better integrated into society. Not all of that is for reasons that are under our control, of course, but overall I think the US does a better job of this than most European countries.
Which is why I side with the us govt on the apple case. (Though it now sounds as if the us doesn't need Apple anymore to unlock the phone.)
Another rotten day for the world.
I can't with this today, but giving up freedoms, forcing people to do stuff....this is how terrorism wins. We can't give up things to give us the false feeling of safety.
Tef, I FTFY in the last sentence. Because turning over everyone's personal data - in addition to what is already scrutinized and watched by the government - isn't going to keep us safe. We're talking about a government who still has little to no legislation centered around drones, cybersecurity, etc.
Which is why I side with the us govt on the apple case. (Though it now sounds as if the us doesn't need Apple anymore to unlock the phone.)
Another rotten day for the world.
I can't with this today, but giving up freedoms, forcing people to do stuff....this is how terrorism wins. We can't give up things to give us the feeling of safety.
We can't give up anything to be safer? I don't agree with that.
It's always a balance. We have to give up some freedoms to be safer. Is anyone comfortable with having zero security checks at airports? We give up the freedom to take anything we want on an airplane in exchange for a safer flight. We allow police to search people's private homes and even their bodies in the name of safety - remember that the Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure.
The question is, and always will be, where do we draw the line? It is not, and will never be, a simple or easy question to answer. But I don't believe simplistic one-liners like "we cannot give up freedom for safety!" are helpful.
At the same time, you need to work on why people are radicalized to begin with.
1. Strive for more integration. And this isn't just educating immigrants on how to be Belgian/French/German whatever, but educating the European populace on some history, cultural practices, and bias and how that is harmful to all of society. The goal of integration can't be to get immigrants to give up their own religion and culture, but to get both sides to understand more of the other and to be respectful of the other.
2. I'd have some HUGE rewards set up for anyone that gives good intelligence on terrorists. Give the people in the community a selfish reason to speak up that may override any anger or suspicion they have at the host country.
3. Jobs. I think you take away a lot of dignity from a person when you relegate them to only having shit jobs, if any. It seems that discrimination in some countries is quite bad and it makes people desperate. It's not an excuse for those people to lose their humanity and do heinous things, but we can't ignore the fact desperate people are more likely to be radicalized.
4. Do any laws need to be reviewed and changed? Immigration, housing, labor, equality, etc?
This stuff isn't sexy and won't work immediately, but a more holistic solution needs to be proposed rather than increasing security. We can't have 1/2 of the population working in security.
I agree with this too. None of it will eliminate terrorism, but it could certainly decrease support for it and the willingness of locals to aid and shield terrorists. And honestly, I think that this is part of why we have fewer issues here in the US with communities that are hotbeds of terrorism - Muslim immigrants in the US are much better integrated into society. Not all of that is for reasons that are under our control, of course, but overall I think the US does a better job of this than most European countries.
I honestly agree with this. If you truly integrate you see people as human beings while celebrating your differences.Then maybe we can stop all this senseless violence. I wonder how the US does a better job . Thoughts anyone?
Yup, that's right. Let's all give up our personal freedom for a false sense of security.
I agree with you. I do not think that laws against privacy, free travel etc are the solution. I read somewhere that people were joking about the fact the police is not allowed to break into homes (when there is no urgency) between 9 pm and 5 am. This is a law that protects me as well.
As a lawyer, I'm really reluctant when new laws are put in place to respond to a crisis. These laws could also create a police state when the crisis has resolved.
Exactly. And the truth is that you just can't eliminate locations with crowds of people. In a free society, in cities, there will always be large congregations of people, whether that's at an airport, subway, shopping mall, school. You can't eliminate targets. All you can really do is increase security presence and try to hunt down these terrorist networks before they can carry out attacks in the first place.
At the same time, you need to work on why people are radicalized to begin with.
1. Strive for more integration. And this isn't just educating immigrants on how to be Belgian/French/German whatever, but educating the European populace on some history, cultural practices, and bias and how that is harmful to all of society. The goal of integration can't be to get immigrants to give up their own religion and culture, but to get both sides to understand more of the other and to be respectful of the other.
2. I'd have some HUGE rewards set up for anyone that gives good intelligence on terrorists. Give the people in the community a selfish reason to speak up that may override any anger or suspicion they have at the host country.
3. Jobs. I think you take away a lot of dignity from a person when you relegate them to only having shit jobs, if any. It seems that discrimination in some countries is quite bad and it makes people desperate. It's not an excuse for those people to lose their humanity and do heinous things, but we can't ignore the fact desperate people are more likely to be radicalized.
4. Do any laws need to be reviewed and changed? Immigration, housing, labor, equality, etc?
This stuff isn't sexy and won't work immediately, but a more holistic solution needs to be proposed rather than increasing security. We can't have 1/2 of the population working in security.
In addition to all of this, I also think we need a slick social media campaign to reach those who might be sucked in by ISIS.
They are breaking out the big and sexy guns to entice young and marginalized people into their fold and we need to create something just as big and sexy to help combat that.
What we've produced so far has not been effective.
I can't with this today, but giving up freedoms, forcing people to do stuff....this is how terrorism wins. We can't give up things to give us the feeling of safety.
We can't give up anything to be safer? I don't agree with that.
It's always a balance. We have to give up some freedoms to be safer. Is anyone comfortable with having zero security checks at airports? We give up the freedom to take anything we want on an airplane in exchange for a safer flight. We allow police to search people's private homes and even their bodies in the name of safety - remember that the Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure.
The question is, and always will be, where do we draw the line? It is not, and will never be, a simple or easy question to answer. But I don't believe simplistic one-liners like "we cannot give up freedom for safety!" are helpful.
Where did I say anything? I said freedoms. No, I do not think we should because then what do we get? We are forced to give up things to feel safer on planes and they still have items taken on. We are forced to go through xray machines. The government tries to infringe on us by chipping away at our freedoms on a regular basis (thank you continued Patriot Act). At what cost? I refuse to live in fear and we have oversight on police. We do not have the same with the government. I am not trying to be helpful with a one liner, but I will also not give in to fear and not fight back against the thought(s) that oh, Apple should just do x because the government is totes trustworthy. No. That is my line. I do NOT believe the government will stop at one person. They show time and again they can not be trusted. But, if you, or others, are okay with that then I can't stop that thought, but I sure as hell will rail against it.
I can't with this today, but giving up freedoms, forcing people to do stuff....this is how terrorism wins. We can't give up things to give us the feeling of safety.
But I don't believe simplistic one-liners like "we cannot give up freedom for safety!" are helpful.
This makes no sense to me. You do this often in gun discussions.
I agree with this too. None of it will eliminate terrorism, but it could certainly decrease support for it and the willingness of locals to aid and shield terrorists. And honestly, I think that this is part of why we have fewer issues here in the US with communities that are hotbeds of terrorism - Muslim immigrants in the US are much better integrated into society. Not all of that is for reasons that are under our control, of course, but overall I think the US does a better job of this than most European countries.
I honestly agree with this. If you truly integrate you see people as human beings while celebrating your differences.Then maybe we can stop all this senseless violence. I wonder how the US does a better job . Thoughts anyone?
Some of it has to do that the US is much more difficult to get into.
In Europe, immigrants were asked to come here in the 50' to do the work nobody wanted to do: mining and heavy industry. They invited their family to come over and these people remained here. Without having a job lined up.
Over the last decades, immigrants get into Europe and have to wait for years until their application to stay has been treated. Most of them do not get permission to stay and receive the order to leave the country. Which they do not do (of course). But they do not get a job, because there are none.
I agree with this too. None of it will eliminate terrorism, but it could certainly decrease support for it and the willingness of locals to aid and shield terrorists. And honestly, I think that this is part of why we have fewer issues here in the US with communities that are hotbeds of terrorism - Muslim immigrants in the US are much better integrated into society. Not all of that is for reasons that are under our control, of course, but overall I think the US does a better job of this than most European countries.
I honestly agree with this. If you truly integrate you see people as human beings while celebrating your differences.Then maybe we can stop all this senseless violence. I wonder how the US does a better job . Thoughts anyone?
I read one article that said one key aspect of this (not Muslim-specific, but more generally about integrating immigrants) is that the children of immigrants in America almost always become fully American, absorbing American values and culture and language, and their peers usually accept them as American regardless of where their parents came from, while this is not the case in European countries.
Also, our educational system gives kids lots of second chances, instead of shunting lower-achieving kids to the vocational track and leaving them there.
I agree with this too. None of it will eliminate terrorism, but it could certainly decrease support for it and the willingness of locals to aid and shield terrorists. And honestly, I think that this is part of why we have fewer issues here in the US with communities that are hotbeds of terrorism - Muslim immigrants in the US are much better integrated into society. Not all of that is for reasons that are under our control, of course, but overall I think the US does a better job of this than most European countries.
I honestly agree with this. If you truly integrate you see people as human beings while celebrating your differences.Then maybe we can stop all this senseless violence. I wonder how the US does a better job . Thoughts anyone?
That was one thought which was (IMO) beautifully shared this morning on a local radio station. A military consultant talked about how neighborhoods and communities in places like Michigan have immigrant populations, and neighbors need to get to know one another. When we do that, we reduce the potential for isolated radicalism to build because we want to be involved with each other's lives.
We can't give up anything to be safer? I don't agree with that.
It's always a balance. We have to give up some freedoms to be safer. Is anyone comfortable with having zero security checks at airports? We give up the freedom to take anything we want on an airplane in exchange for a safer flight. We allow police to search people's private homes and even their bodies in the name of safety - remember that the Constitution protects against unreasonable search and seizure, not all search and seizure.
The question is, and always will be, where do we draw the line? It is not, and will never be, a simple or easy question to answer. But I don't believe simplistic one-liners like "we cannot give up freedom for safety!" are helpful.
Where did I say anything? I said freedoms. No, I do not think we should because then what do we get? We are forced to give up things to feel safer on planes and they still have items taken on. We are forced to go through xray machines. The government tries to infringe on us by chipping away at our freedoms on a regular basis (thank you continued Patriot Act). At what cost? I refuse to live in fear and we have oversight on police. We do not have the same with the government. I am not trying to be helpful with a one liner, but I will also not give in to fear and not fight back against the thought(s) that oh, Apple should just do x because the government is totes trustworthy. No. That is my line. I do NOT believe the government will stop at one person. They show time and again they can not be trusted. But, if you, or others, are okay with that then I can't stop that thought, but I sure as hell will rail against it.
So do you think we should not go through any security in airports? I don't understand what you are saying here.
This makes no sense to me. You do this often in gun discussions.
Example?
Where did I reduce the entire complex issue to one simple argument? I have never said that the issue is as simple as "take away everyone's guns."
Maybe not you, but that's what the whole argument boils down to. Or at least most of the arguments here. We should pull up the last couple of threads regarding gun violence.
Some people here strongly believe that the nanny state of the government is going to make lives better for everyone. Give the government access to our phones. Let the government dictate if we can smoke in our own homes. Allow the government to restrict our travel. On and on and on...
Where did I reduce the entire complex issue to one simple argument? I have never said that the issue is as simple as "take away everyone's guns."
Maybe not you, but that's what the whole argument boils down to. Or at least most of the arguments here. We should pull up the last couple of threads regarding gun violence.
Some people here strongly believe that the nanny state of the government is going to make lives better for everyone. Give the government access to our phones. Let the government dictate if we can smoke in our own homes. Allow the government to restrict our travel. On and on and on...
Does anyone on here believe the government should be able to access our phones without a warrant? From the discussions I've been following, those who have been siding with the government in the Apple case believe that access should only be granted with a warrant (which is what I believe as well). Personally, I don't see why everything you have, even your own intimate body cavities, can be legally searched with the proper warrant, but not your iPhone.
I honestly agree with this. If you truly integrate you see people as human beings while celebrating your differences.Then maybe we can stop all this senseless violence. I wonder how the US does a better job . Thoughts anyone?
I read one article that said one key aspect of this (not Muslim-specific, but more generally about integrating immigrants) is that the children of immigrants in America almost always become fully American, absorbing American values and culture and language, and their peers usually accept them as American regardless of where their parents came from, while this is not the case in European countries.
Also, our educational system gives kids lots of second chances, instead of shunting lower-achieving kids to the vocational track and leaving them there.
Anecdote alert: MH's best friend from college is a very devout Muslim. He was born here and his parents came from Palestine, but return fairly frequently. He even let them pick his bride from Palestine. He went over one summer, and they had some options for him basically. But outside of that, he is so Americanized. I was genuinely surprised that he was willing to do that because the idea of doing that is so opposite of how I would react to that and in pretty much every other way, he's just like me and MH.
Ironically he is from Gary, Indiana, and received a Trump foundation scholarship for college.