To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 23106
23105  |  23107
Subject: 
"Homeland Security Advanced Reseach Projects Administration"
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:52:32 GMT
Viewed: 
306 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
   The Transportation Security Adminstration may be misnamed... there’s an “in” missing, as in “INsecurity”

http://tzaddik.us/lilpoh/archives/000789.html http://reason.com/0308/fe.bd.suspected.shtml http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy200401070913.asp http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/003874.shtml#003874

and there’s a great article in the Feb issue of Reason as well.

There was a good piece in yesterday’s Telegraph (UK rightwing paper) which covered some of this ground:

These measures are tiresome, expensive - and won’t work

“The new measure is like too many of the laws and initiatives introduced since al-Qaeda crashed passenger jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon: a transparently ill-thought-out reaction whose principal effect will be to soak up taxpayers’ money and increase government bureaucracy. Visas do not provide protection against terrorists. All of the September 11 hijackers were given US visas. Mohammed Atta, their leader, had been granted one even though he had been caught violating the terms of his earlier visa. Biometric data would have made no difference: the hijackers would have been allowed into America whether or not they had been required to produce passports with digital images and fingerprints. A biometric search would have yielded precisely nothing of value on any of them - unlike the fact that (for instance) a number of them were learning how to fly jet airliners, but not how to land them. This was something which the FBI knew at the time, but regrettably decided to ignore.”

...and later on the Homeland Security Bill: “Take the Act itself. The original Bill was just 35 pages long. By the time it had finished going through Congress, it had increased to 485 pages. A lot of the new material had nothing whatever to do with security. Consider, for instance, Section 601, which deals with the “Treatment of Charitable Trusts for Members of the Armed Forces and Other Government Agencies”. Reading this section, you quickly realise that it deals with a new way in which rich people can set up trusts so as to generate income and minimise their tax bills. A new tax dodge for the rich may be a perfectly good idea - but what on earth does it have to do with Homeland Security? A similar question could be asked of the section of the Homeland Security budget which provides for increased funding for animal and plant health inspections. Then there is the fact that the Act directs the $500 million in funding for “Homeland Security Advanced Reseach Projects Administration” towards universities in George W Bush’s home state of Texas.

To read the whole text one has to register with the site (a 30 second task); it is well worth the effort.

Scott A



Message is in Reply To:
  Are you being secured? (or ...TSA? no: TIA! )
 
The Transportation Security Adminstration may be misnamed... there's an "in" missing, as in "INsecurity" (URL) there's a great article in the Feb issue of Reason as well. (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

9 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR