Is it Ethical for the Government to be Hapless About Security?

Has the USA learned anything about Perimeter Security in the Past Decade?


Case #1: The USS Cole -- a man in a small boat who has not been identified in any way approaches to within 10 yards of the USS Cole. He looks like he might be delivering vegetables. But actually his boat contains a bomb. Many US lives are lost.





Case #2 Ten years later a man approaches a CIA Camp in Afghanistan. He is unidentifed, but he is wearing the uniform of the Aghanistan Army. He's allowed into the camp. Under his uniform he's wearing an explosive vest. Many US lives are lost.





Now, you may be thinking, yes but why didn't you tell the government about perimeter security right after the USS Cole incident. I did, as a consultant to NCIS, at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, I did.





Since that time the methods available for very reliable biometric identification have gotten cheaper, simpler and faster. They rely on the veins in the hand, which are just as distinctive as the iris of the eye, or the structure of the face.





That CIA camp in Afghanistan only had a few dozen people who were authorized to be in the camp at all. Let's say 100 people. Well, that data could be stored in .0000000001% of a chip, in a very small battery power machine. It's not a budget buster for the US government to get that done. With such a machine, and a single gate, there would be no need to speculate about somebody's identity based on their uniform. Any person gaining ingress into the camp would be positively identified. Total cost, amortized over say 10,000 hand scans, about 17 cents per scan.





Hillary's got $100 Billion to drop on the enviros at Copenhagen, but we can't find 17 cents to keep patriots and heros safe from harm. In 10 years we have learned nothing, nada, nihil, zip, zilch about perimeter security. We can't keep bombers off our planes, crashers out of White House dinner parties. We are hapless, lame, feckless.





We accept this because we are not very political people. Most of us just don't care. In a more mentally alert nation, like Switzerland for example, the kind of failures we routinely have would be corrected. Someone would take steps -- fixes would be put in place. If I gave my perimeter security presentation to the Swiss, they would have done something about it. Caring is actually important to getting things done.|||Your question stands as a tragic "Exhibit A" to your central thesis that SOME Americans are not mentally alert. Have you tried coffee?|||Is it ethical for a government to ignore threats to the men and women who serve it? NO. Could have the navy stopped the Cole bomber --- perhaps not, since it was custom for ships to allow small vessels to approach, especially in a friendly port. However, if another boat approaches a Navy ship without authorization -- then the government should (IMO) be held liable.





As to Hillary offering a $100 billion ANNUALLY for the Gore wackos -- she could if she could pay for it but Congress still has to authorized those monies. Actually Hillary could not say that without Obama's blessing just as she promised the rebuild of Hamas' command and control centers, and other military infrastructure --- That was only $900 million --- where is she getting these funds?





It is possible that an administration could see the losing of the lives of American Service men and women good political tactics. Politics is a blood sport --- sadly the political players NEVER risk their blood or fortunes --- I doubt if any current Democratic Party member would sign any document that contained the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence:





"...And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."





Does anyone believe that any of the leaders (Pelosi, Clinton, Reid, Boxer, Feinstein, Frank, Obama, Emmanuel, et al. ) would sign any bill with that sentence attached?|||Would scanning device help in the case of US Cole? Absolutely NOT.


Would it help in second case? Possibly, but I doubt it - bombers would try to infiltrate base prior attempting actual bombing. No scanning device can tell about intentions.


Also, you are comparing numbers badly. You comparing actual investment that tries to save lives of bilions (though not only americans) with single use of device that might or might not save life of couple people. To make actual mathematic proof of concept, you need to calculate total amount of devices needed in all USA bases in afganistan through a year and divide it with number of causalities that happen in US Bases (or close to them) during a year that could be prevented by scanning.


To make it worser, you need to understand that scanning will not reduce bombing attempts, but only reduce casualities - people, that perform that scanning will surely die anyways.