After all the whining & b*tching, look what the Dems did

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The big issue with the patriot act were that court orders were not required.

Terrorism isn't new, BY. I grew up with it.

You can't stop someone who is committed from causing mayhem - and you don't need a suitcase nuke to do it. Not even close. A few pounds of homemade explosive on a subway or crowded commuter train will do the trick - and it is virtually impossible to prevent an attack of that nature.

[Ali G. 37]

The big issue with the patriot act were that court orders were not required.

Terrorism isn't new, BY. I grew up with it.

You can't stop someone who is committed from causing mayhem - and you don't need a suitcase nuke to do it. Not even close. A few pounds of homemade explosive on a subway or crowded commuter train will do the trick - and it is virtually impossible to prevent an attack of that nature.

IRA is not the same as people who are determined to kill as many Americans as possible. The whole point of such measures is to attempt to prevent attacks.

To discredit any proactive law enforcement measure as hysteria is lunacy. One suitcase nuke in Washington would close to collapse the country. Then, like it or not, it would force the military to impose martial law. I'd rather prevent such a scenario from happening, than buckle to the baseless paranoia about the government spying on me.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Booyah

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Talking about suitcase nukes is hysteria.

[Ali G. 37]

Talking about suitcase nukes is hysteria.

Not at all. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it would have been easy for someone to stash away a small amount of plutonium. Furthermore, with so many rogue nations having their own weapons, it doesn't take much for someone with the right money and connections to acquire it. Not to mention the use of biological weapons. I'd rather be proactive than dead..

You also realize that only a fraction of shipping containers entering the US are actually checked..

Edited February 25, 2010 by Booyah

[William33 110]

Not at all. When the Soviet Union collapsed, it would have been easy for someone to stash away a small amount of plutonium. Furthermore, with so many rogue nations having their own weapons, it doesn't take much for someone with the right money and connections to acquire it. Not to mention the use of biological weapons. I'd rather be proactive than dead..

A stretch indeed.....unaccounted plutonium in a terrorism plot? Not likely.....Biological weapons are the likely possibility....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We seemed to manage OK before 9/11. What changed?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You also realize that only a fraction of shipping containers entering the US are actually checked..

A frighteningly small percentage.

[Ali G. 37]

We seemed to manage OK before 9/11. What changed?

For starters, more people hate our guts.

What are you actually arguing here? That the threat of terrorism is overblown or something?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You also realize that only a fraction of shipping containers entering the US are actually checked..

And so are most airline passengers - you think that they search every piece of luggage? They don't - not even close. For example, people can (and have) gotten knives on planes even after 9/11.

You realize that most mass transit doesn't (and can't) have airport style security? You realize also that Al Qaeda attacks are generally low-tech?

[Ali G. 37]

I highly recommend people watch 'Day after Disaster' on the History Channel.

Or would that be mass media hysteria too Pike?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You can get Xanax for that, BY

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I think a bigger fear than a suitcase nuke is the suicide bomber. As a man I know who is on the bomb squad has said, it's not a case of if, but a case of when. There really is no defense against this.

[Ali G. 37]

You realize that most mass transit doesn't (and can't) have airport style security? You realize also that Al Qaeda attacks are generally low-tech?

Doesn't matter what they did in the past, what they are attempting to do in the future is all that counts. I don't put my life or that of anyone else up to chance. Times have changed and access to such weapons are getting easier.

America would simply not recover from a nuke on DC or any other major city, like NY. That is why we must prevent it from happening at any cost.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Booyah

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Doesn't matter what they did in the past, what they are attempting to do in the future is all that counts. I don't put my life or that of anyone else up to chance.

America would simply not recover from a nuke on DC or any other major city, like NY. That is why we must prevent it from happening at any cost.

America would recover and then do what needed to be done. There would be a lot of civil liberty types pissed of and profiling would become more prominent. We would surely lose some of our freedom that anything goes. Restrictions would be implemented. It took 9/11 to beef up airline security and a future disaster will do the same. I'm with you, I'd rather do my damndest to prevent it in the first place.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmm...

Thought the Republicans wanted the Patriot Act. The Dems wanted to have bipartisan compromise. Whereas, the Republicans don't want bipartisanship. They want the absolute agreement. This serves as an example that the Dems want to work with the Reps. Lets see if the Rep will do the same.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Niels Bohr