The right has been quick to capitalize on the London attacks in numerous ways, one of the more disingenous is to say that this vindicates the PATRIOT Act and its pending reauthorization. Yet, London has in many ways become a surveillance society and the terrorists weren’t hampered by it at all.
How is a “surveillance society” responsible for the low death toll?
That is, how does a greater watchdog presence somehow muffle the effect of explosives?
Fifty people dead, hundreds more wounded. The fact that more of those wounded aren’t dead says less about surveillance tech and more about the organization of the QRTs.
“Weren’t hampered by it at all?” That remains to be seen.
I think it is very likely that the “surveillance society” in London is greatly responsible for the relatively low death toll, and will aid greatly in tracking down the organization responsible for the attack.
“This seems academic, at best. A successful attack is a successful attack, not to be quantified by body count. The idea is to prevent attacks from happening, not create an environment for the smallest attack possible.”
But since preventing all attacks from happening is impossible in a free society, we must work to make the attacks that do slip through the nets as small as possible. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
“How is a surveillance society responsible for the low death toll?
That is, how does a greater watchdog presence somehow muffle the effect of explosives?”
For one thing, it prevents the terrorists from using larger quantities of them. The IRA used a truck bomb against Canary Warf. Since then, the Brits have surrounded London with a “ring of steel” consisting of, among other things, the most sophisticated surveilance system of any major city. Terrorists are thus forced to use smaller amounts of explosives that can be hidden on a persons body, which results in lower death tolls when an attack is succesful.
This seems academic, at best. A successful attack is a successful attack, not to be quantified by body count. The idea is to prevent attacks from happening, not create an environment for the smallest attack possible.
We got video footage of the 9/11 hijackers and it meant nothing. Surveillance is a poor substitute for actual vigilance.
But are you not using the London explosions to make a political point here – against the Patriot Act. And we do know there were two more bombs that didn’t detonate. Maybe the “pressure” of the cameras saved lives. You may say I have no way of knowing that. Fine, but likewise you have no idea as to whether the cameras hampered the Ts.
Dugger
It’s not a political point. It’s fucking common sense. Bob Barr is against the patriot act too, did he suddenly become a far left agitator (while he was zealously leading the impeachment of President Clinton)?
But there’s no accurate barometer of what works and what doesn’t until something explodes. Clearly our own airport security was lax four years ago, and we paid for it, even though we were doing a good job of keeping bombs off airplanes.
Right now I feel like al-Qaida is one step ahead of us. Nothing about yesterday made me feel otherwise.
No, no, no Dugger, here’s the principle:
If an normally party-line Republican goes against their party, then that person is a perveyor of “common sense” and we should obviously follow their lead, no questions asked.
Of course, if the non-conformist was an otherwise solid Democrat, then that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
No, it means it isn’t politics, it’s common sense – an element in short supply betwixt your two man circle jerk.
“It s not a political point. It s fucking common sense. Bob Barr is against the patriot act too, did he suddenly become a far left agitator (while he was zealously leading the impeachment of President Clinton)? ”
So, if I get this right, since Bob Barr was for impeaching Pres Clinton and against the Patriot Act, then it must mean that that the terrorists in London weren’t hampered by surveillance cameras, and since… she weighs the same as a duck and is therefore made of wood and she’s. therefore, a WITCH!
Dugger
Ok. You win. The London attack does not vindicate or un-vindicate the Patriot Act. Its, uhh, not politics.
but
It, uhh, vindicates Bob Barr’s impeachment against Clinton? Right?
Dugger, He Just Don’t Get It
(who once had coffee with Bob Barr in the only West Cobb Starbucks – he bad!)
Oliver, you need to stop with the appeals to authority in order to strengthen your argument. So Bob Barr is opposed to The Patriot Act. So what?
That’s like me saying your position on torture is wrong. Why? Well, Alan Dershowitz supports torture and it’s not like the defense attorney who tirelessly defended Bill Clinton everyday suddenly became a far-right agitator.
And what does the use of surveillance cameras and their supposed “failure” to stop these attacks have to do with The Patriot Act?
Jay C. apparently has a jump on his weekend drinking schedule:
And what does the use of surveillance cameras and their supposed failure to stop these attacks have to do with The Patriot Act?
The so-called Patriot Act permits a far greater intrusion by the Govt. into the lives of American citiizens–the vast majority of whom aren’t terrorists or Karl Rove. This intrusion takes many forms: monitoring your phone and computer communications, your reading interests, your associations and, yes, monitoring and recording your movements and whereabouts.
Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I should follow that advice when dealing with a dimwit like Jadegold, but what the hell?
First of all, surveillance cameras were not installed in London in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. They were already there. Secondly, the cameras are used not to prevent terrorist attacks but rather to use to gather information about crimes after they’ve been committed. It has no correlation to The Patriot Act in any way. It’s absurd to say, “Oh well, because those surveillance cameras failed to stop the terrorists, it shows that the Patriot Act won’t work.”
Again, if Oliver wants to debate the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the Patriot Act, then he should do so. But he should leave irrelevant factoids out of it.
It may not be sacrificing liberty, but taking it away from people:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2005310398,00.html
(via Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2122288/ )
***
Those who fight a holy war in the name of Islam a twisted cause which so offends peace-loving Muslims should heed this:
In the name of New York, Washington, Bali, Nairobi, Madrid and now London, we shall have vengeance and justice.
Britain is crawling with suspected terrorists and those who give them succour. The Government must act without delay, round up this enemy in our midst and lock them in internment camps.
Our safety must not play second fiddle to their supposed rights.
***
The Sun is another Rupert Murdoch outlet.
If this had happened State-side, it would be the Washington Times and Fox News saying the exact same things.
An interesting point. England goes to great efforts to protect themselves from things as small as a nugget of bud, and keeps a wary eye on deviance as mild as a mailman smoking pot. But somehow, sinister angry people with satchels of explosives filter through.
We are well beyond the 80-20 rule in our efforts to prohibit drugs. Where in the heck are we going to end up using these techniques to form an ‘effective’ defense against terrorism?
And this will only get worse. The world has seen that the U.S. can win any formal combat engagement, and be defeated in the aftermath. The last time this kind of conciousness transformation took place was when the peoples of Asia watched the Japanese kick the supposedly superior white troops out in 1941-42, and the lesson was not lost on Asian observers.
Maybe it’s time to start thinking about the root causes that get people’s danders up.
One more, Jay C. is deeply into his cups, wondering what might have been if he only had an extra 50-or so IQ points.
The issue is not when CCTV was installed in the UK; instead, the issue is whether we need or want them in the US as part of far-reaching so-called Patriot Act. And the issue isn’t whether CCTV prevents terrorist attacks–iy doesn’t–but whether the lives of American citizens should be intruded upon using such cameras or the other provisions of the Patriot Act.
Jay C. is demonstrating a pretty typical wingnut MO: when you can’t rationally discuss the issue–change the topic. Of course, it might be the alcohol.
I just went and read the text of the Patriot Act. I see nowhere in there that calls for closed circuit televison surveillance of Americans, but maybe jadegold’s superior powers of deduction were able to find that in the text.
instead, the issue is whether we need or want them in the US as part of far-reaching so-called Patriot Act.
No dimwit, that is not the issue. Oliver is saying that the Patriot Act couldn’t possibly help in the WOT considering that London has surveillance cameras all over the country and that didn’t stop the attacks the other day.
And JD, Jadegold’s powers of deduction can’t extend far because his head is constantly up his ass.