7-22-12 Bad At It.

[NobodySpecial]

I'm sorry, any discussion of 'what went wrong' with law enforcement starts with the faulty policy of treating police forces like the US Army in miniature. That goes from the 'Thin Blue Line' nonsense to the militarization of components of the force (Seriously, look at your basic big city SWAT team - they are armed similarly and many of them now use military vehicles and the real cutting edge ones have stuff like LRAD's.) Add in that a lot of new hires are essentially combat veterans who in many cases haven't decompressed, and you get this.

(WARNING - this is not nice)

http://youtu.be/aq3KEX-G57U

[Mung]

But the police became militarized as a direct result of the War against SOME People who Use SOME Drugs. That's what it all goes back to - Prohibition II with all the same resultant problems as the first time around. Organized crime, gonzo police, graft, and on and on.

[bunnyThor]

But the police became militarized as a direct result of the War against SOME People who Use SOME Drugs. That's what it all goes back to - Prohibition II with all the same resultant problems as the first time around. Organized crime, gonzo police, graft, and on and on.

Not only do the police get paid bonuses to catch certain criminals (get busted selling, using, or possibly knowing someone who was thinking about drugs = asset forfeiture = the police get to keep anything they seize), but after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, local police departments are getting huge chunks of money to be spent specifically on tools to combat terrorism, AKA fun expensive toys, AKA military-type hardware. Right now, one of the few things keeping the more thuggish of them from becoming feudal warlords is the ubiquity of video cameras.

And yet the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Here's a crapload of charts and graphs that will just boggle your mind.

[Freemage]

Oh, thanks Bunnythor, I'd forgotten in my earlier list of alternatives:

4: Roll back the 'War on Terror' rhetoric and focus on limiting the damage. Small-scale attacks are nigh impossible to prevent, so just worry about the big stuff, and then, worry about it in a sensible fashion; ditch the Security Theater* concept.


*: Security Theater is an important notion. It's the idea that, where the authorities cannot actually prevent an attack, they must present a visible effort of doing something, even if what they are doing will have a negligible effect. The sole purpose is to remove the impression of impotence. Airport shoe-checks and other absurdity are, arguably, one of the best examples of Security Theater to-date. Most of these were instituted to "prevent another 9-11", but the fact is, there's only four things you need to do to prevent another 9-11: Keep the fuckers out of the cockpit, keep the fuckers out of the cockpit, keep the fuckers out of the cockpit, and of course, keep the fuckers out of the cockpit.** Beyond that, we lived for decades with the possibility of a plane being brought down by any of a dozen methods, without all this insanity. It's only the notion of a controlled crash that is actually of concern, and that's been dealt with, largely via invisible means such as background checks and construction techniques. But the Security Theater proponents insist on trying to make everyone 'feel safe'.


**: This is actually four different things, all working towards the same ends, by the way:
1: Design a secure cockpit, one that's pretty much unbreachable without the pilots having time to land the plane and/or dump fuel. Note that this was suggested back in the 70s, but the industry insisted that forcing them to make the cockpits into bank vaults would be too burdensome a regulation, and members of both parties killed the bill. This has improved considerably; I'm not sure how much more would need to be done, or if it's completed. I know they're at least considerably more difficult to get into already.
2: Thorough background checks on anyone seeking a commercial pilot's license. This is also pretty much handled; we can probably try to make it more efficient, though (maybe by freeing up all those TSA agents currently checking the gaps in women's bras).
3: Private aircraft inspections and background checks on those licenses, as well. A few incidents both before and after 9-11 made it pretty clear that a Cessna isn't going to bring down a well-built skyscraper, but it'd still be nice to have a bit more assurances that we aren't gonna send one up packed with an Oklahoma City-style fertilizer bomb on board. Again, this is pretty much being done, but intelligently rechanneling resources never hurts.
4: Make sure people remember the fourth plane--the one that did NOT hit its target, because the passengers figured out that they were going to die no matter what. It's highly likely that the box-cutter-wielding hijackers used on-board hostages to get control of the cockpits and keep people from revolting in the first place. However, that tactic fails if the people you're trying to scare off with it believe that they and the hostages are already going to die. So anyone attempting a similar approach now will face a good 80-120 passengers fully prepared to beat them to death with their own limbs, if necessary.

[Bardlp]

Security Theater

Hitchcock> Good evening. Tonight, on Security Theatre, a most disquieting tale...

[Freemage]

Security Theater

Hitchcock> Good evening. Tonight, on Security Theatre, a most disquieting tale...

*Snickers* Thanks--after I spew that particular rant, I tend to need a good chuckle.