Homeland Security is not as "tough" as it claims to be?

[Chibibar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/national/main5953494.shtml

That is pretty sad and funny at the same time. You would think something like a warrant would show up on THEIR database on employee background check (assuming they did one)

 

[Hailey Knight]

That means they slipped up, not that they're not tough. My job means I see some of the shit DHS does.

 

[Chibibar]

That means they slipped up, not that they're not tough. My job means I see some of the shit DHS does.

True, but you would think they would have better screening for their employee. If they can't do that, how in the world they can "screen" the U.S.?

I mean a warrant is not as "secretive" If it was a spy or something, then yea. I can see a slip in the system.

 

[@Li3n]

Competent, that's the word you where looking for...

 

[Reboneer]

So why is this in Media Madness?

 

[Soliloquy]

Well, he saw it via a medium, and truly, this is madness.

 

[bhamv3]

Madness?

 

[@Li3n]

No there's an effective homeland security...

 

[SpecialKO]

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html

Apparently, DHS sent a memo around that people are laughing at them. :bush:

 

[Le Quack]

Being "Tough" and being "Efficient" are completely different things. Our security is "tough," but really not "efficient."