Friday, June 04, 2004
You don't say?
How sweet the irony:
You could also add critics of the Administration here, at home, to those European critics.
As a variation of the saying: The US criminal justice system is the worst in the world, except for all of the others.
European governments have deeply criticized the Bush administration's decision to keep hundreds of terrorism suspects out of the civilian judicial system and put them instead in the custody of U.S. military or intelligence agencies in places such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Such tactics are gross human rights violations, many officials here say. But their own approach has produced few convictions.
You could also add critics of the Administration here, at home, to those European critics.
As a variation of the saying: The US criminal justice system is the worst in the world, except for all of the others.
New York Times: "Cost/Benefit Analysis minus Benefit==Cost!"
The New York Times addresses the most definitive, least corruptible method of identification that would arguably stop terrorists cold from falsifying their identification by providing every conceivable reason to poo-poo it.
The reasons it gives? It begins with the claim that the "government doesn't know how to buy software..." It questions the cost. It questions false positives and negatives, which are disputed by Homeland Security Department officials.
One factor left out of the discussion is the cost analysis of not implementing the most effective deterrent to ID falsification. Can you put a price on the cost that 9-11 incurred? Can that cost be compared to the cost of a biometric ID that would likely have prevented or helped apprehend some of the highjackers?
The NYTimes seems to have a slightly faulty method of "cost/benefit" analysis. Seems they forgot to factor in the "benefits." It could happen to anyone, really.
The reasons it gives? It begins with the claim that the "government doesn't know how to buy software..." It questions the cost. It questions false positives and negatives, which are disputed by Homeland Security Department officials.
One factor left out of the discussion is the cost analysis of not implementing the most effective deterrent to ID falsification. Can you put a price on the cost that 9-11 incurred? Can that cost be compared to the cost of a biometric ID that would likely have prevented or helped apprehend some of the highjackers?
The NYTimes seems to have a slightly faulty method of "cost/benefit" analysis. Seems they forgot to factor in the "benefits." It could happen to anyone, really.
