Could 911 be prevented?

Yes and no. Let’s find out. Send me your Yes or No answer to the following out of the box hypothetical situation:

“President Bush issues an executive order on January 20, 2001 that requires all the people within the US  to swear loyalty to the US Constitution on their Bible, have a behavioral profile certified by trained psychologists, get psychological testing for criminal tendencies, carry on them a high-tech picture ID and show it on demand to police officers, traffic cops, FBI agents, airline agents, flight schools, financial institutions, trucking companies, insurance companies, medical companies, oil companies, nuclear facilities and government employers.” Osama Bin Laden hears about it and delays the 911 attack till Bush is out of office.

Question 1: Would you vote for Bush’s reelection as president in 2004? _____. Probably not. Would the American people vote for Bush’s reelection as president in 2004?_____. Probably not.

Question 2: Would those who lost loved ones on 911 vote for Bush’s reelection as president in 2004? Probably not.

Conclusion: Bush would save 3000 American lives in 2001 – and be defeated for reelection in 2004!  Needless to say, voters would call Bush a “Fascist” and defeat him in 2004 because the American people hate to show IDs to anyone! Osama Bin Laden orders the 911 attach in 2005 right after Kerry is elected president and Bush is defeated. 3000 Americans die. Could 911 be prevented?  Yes, but to prevent big problems in your life takes courage, wisdom, foresight and the willingness to look bad to good people.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Could 911 be prevented?”

  1. Kinarthy Says:

    It’s a flawed question, because an executive order that broad would be unconstitutional. You may be overestimating the President’s authority.

    There’s also the matter of the cost of freedom. It’s always been known that freedom carries risk. To live in a free society, there’s a chance you’re going to die by any number of methods. A human life, or 3000 human lives, of even the life of one’s son or one’s self is not worth giving up freedom.

  2. drkinarthy Says:

    The question may be “Flawed” but not the results, as WW2 emergency laws have demonstrated. There would be a constitutional crisis while the EO is being implemented to protect innocent people. About the “Cost of freedom” argument, there is an ethical and moral issue attached to laissez faire “free society.”

    1. A democratic system where leaders know that by not taking REAL preventive actions to save lives, they increase the probability of getting reelected – is ethically flawed!

    2. An Aztec-like family living in a “free society” that perceive dead children as “collateral damage” that comes with freedom – are morally flawed!

    The solution is to find a balance between freedom and responsibility. Obama did, Bush didn’t. Today’s American society is neither free nor responsible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: