Benjamin Franklin famously stated "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Security in general only makes sense if what you spend to provide security is worth less than what you are protecting. Exceeding that is pointless.
That brings me to the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS was created as a presidential cabinet department in response to the 9/11 terror attacks. It has been expanded to protect Americans from terrorism, man-made accidents, and natural disasters. Like most programs implemented by the Federal Government, it fails. A lot. The DHS employs around 200,000 people, including agencies like INS, Secret Service, Coast Guard, FEMA, and TSA.
 |
| DHS Motto: Preserving our Freedoms, Protecting America (squeeze, squeeze) |
While each agency has its flaws, the one most people seem to be concerned about these days is the Transportation Security Administration. While their task is to screen passengers for safety and security in airports, we already have a solution to airport security. It's called the 2nd amendment. Why does that right somehow magically disappear when we fly? It would be more than enough to dissuade potential terrorists, knowing they would be at the mercy of armed law-abiding citizens if they tried anything.
Additionally, I see no reason why our foreign-deployed military cannot perform the exact same role as the Department of Homeland Security. Instead of wasting lives and money in the Middle East, I'm sure our servicemen and women would prefer deployment here in the states, have much more discipline and respect for our freedoms, and would eliminate $55 billion annually in extraneous government expenditures. I wonder how today's politicians would react to a suggestion like that?
This is an interesting topic as well when you consider the differences in the levels of Americans' fear. For example, while one American may never worry about terrorism, another American may worry about it often. In this case, how would you balance what security from terrorism is "worth" monetarily in terms of spending through the DHS. Considering now a more random comparison... I wonder how colonial Americans or early day Americans would weigh in on this subject. In facing disease, the wilderness, Indians defending their land (rightfully so, but still a dangerous situation), criminals, and other threats, the early Americans had themselves, guns, and lots of kids that also knew how to shoot. In fact, I feel like in a survivor show-down, the early day Americans may beat most Americans today. lol.
ReplyDeleteIt's called "security theatre". The tech doesn't even always work (Google for information). What we're doing is merely reactive (not an effective approach). Shoe bomber = everyone must take off shoes. Underwear bomber = backscatter machines. Our enemies will continue to exploit other weaknesses until the barrier to entry is too high, at which point they'll just focus on something else anyways.
ReplyDeleteThe money should instead be invested in human intelligence which has a track record of proven successes.
ReplyDelete