Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Did you know that there are gates one can walk through - similar to metal detectors - that can sniff explosives? Did you know the US STILL doesn't screen checked baggage - at all?

---

Quote:

---

Frem... wha..? Please elucidate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
What I mean is this:

What is the legal basis for murder laws if not in the Consitution? (since the Constitution only addresses the relationship of Federal government to people)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Cool. So this is my question - if the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government, and the States can pass whatever laws they like that devolve to them - how can the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality of any state law?

---

Quote:

---

What is the legal basis for murder laws if not in the Consitution?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution does more then address the government's relationship to the people, it also outlines the basic organizational structure and assigns power to the various parts...including the implied power to outlaw murder.

---

Quote:

---

if the Consitution only protects people from the Federal government, and the States can pass whatever laws they like that devolve to them - how can the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality of any state law?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was true until the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment was established. (Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what Hero and Rap can't understand is that we DO understand the threat- we're just not running around messing our pants because of it.

Seriously, five times more people are killed by air pollution- AIR POLLUTION- every year than were killed in the WTC. Ten times or more are killed by automobiles. 30,000 people are killed by guns. And cigarettes - even just secondhand smoke- will do you in more surely than terrorists. I could prolly say the same about Big Macs or food poisoning, except I haven't looked up the stats.

So it's not the possibility of death that troubles Hero and Rap, because there are plenty of risks in our lives, even risks that we didn't "choose" to engage. I think it's the whole idea that some people hate us SO MUCH that they see us as mortal enemy. Facing naked hate just seems to cause an awful lot of sphincter action.

Cheney, Rummy and all the big guys... they're not afraid like that. But they stoke that gut-roiling fear because it serves them well. It is far more to their purpose to pull out the bogeyman once in a while and make sure it plays big in the papers. SEE? WE SAVED YOU ONCE AGAIN!

And somewhere between the relentless fear-mongering and the cynicism that this breeds we have to find our own way to address the very real problem of terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

Folks who try to play the numbers ... lose what little credability they may have had.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Oh Unwrapped,

Quote:

---

Folks who try to play the numbers ... lose what little credability they may have had.

---

tsk, tsk tsk

Please find me any kind of quote where SignyM protested clubbing fur seals.

In one fell swoop, you lost all credibility by failing to come up with a coherent sentence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sharks being definned for SOUP??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frem:

...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Auraptor:

Liberal whining

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Folks who try to play the numbers game when comparing deaths from terrorist attacks to accidents, natural causes, or other lose what little credability they may have had. You're displaying, in great selective manner, your moral outrage at the senseless taking of innocent lives via an insane cult of death. Baby seals being clubbed to death for their fur? Lo! We MUST protest! But folks planning to indiscriminantly murder 1000's of civilians for no other reason other than to murder 1000's of civilians..... meh, folks die every day.

It's not 'fear mongering', it's called having a CONSCINCE

---

Quote:

---

But Bush is still a fear monger.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

---

Quote:

---

( I'll ignroe your petty ad hominems which you use to cover the fact that you have nothing supporting your view )

---

Quote:

---

Signy brings the statistics into the argument, not to say that terrorists should be ignored in favor of baby seals, but to refute the bizarre notion held by a whole lot of pseudo-cons like yourself that terrorists are a major threat to our nation and our way of life and therefore must be irradicated from the earth by destroying several Middle Eastern countries. They are in fact, a much lesser threat to American lives than traffic accidents and cigarettes and guns.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
From that I presume that states passed laws based on English Law and English Common Law.

---

Quote:

---

Despite the Fourteenth Amendment's recognition of federal “privileges and immunities,” and its guarantee of “due process” and “equal protection,” the Supreme Court majority held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cannot be enforced against states because the Supreme Court itself never said discrimination against older workers violates the Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

I'm a American, who is politically Conservative Libertarian. More times than not, I tend to vote Republican or Libertarian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
HK, Signy brought in stats sure enough, but I am right in that comparing the deaths of terrorists attacks and traffic accidents is a logical fallacy itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Which logical fallacy is that?

---

AUCitizen

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Libertarian should be 'l' libertarian. Not the Libertarian Party. I think we need a new word.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm not convinced there was no al qaeda involvement at all

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

If it wasn't for those meddling kids...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I'm a librarian.

---

Quote:

---

I think what Hero and Rap can't understand is that we DO understand the threat- we're just not running around messing our pants because of it... it's not the possibility of death that troubles Hero and Rap, because there are plenty of risks in our lives... it's the whole idea that some people hate us SO MUCH that they see us as mortal enemy. And somewhere between the relentless fear-mongering and the cynicism that this breeds we have to find our own way to address the very real problem of terrorism.

You're displaying, in great selective manner, your moral outrage at the senseless taking of innocent lives via an insane cult of death. But folks planning to indiscriminantly murder 1000's of civilians for no other reason other than to murder 1000's of civilians..... meh, folks die every day. It's not 'fear mongering', it's called having a CONSCINCE

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Which logical fallacy is that?

---

If you're too stupid to work it out YOURSELF why should I complete YOUR education for you, you pinhead.

YOU use ad hominims because YOU are too STUPID to let your lies stand on their own! YOU hate America with YOUR ASSumptions and terrorist LOVE.

You're a moron, and you'd never find ME stooping to the levels of Ad hominims!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen, the adults are trying to have a conversation. Go play in your box.

---

Quote:

---

Wow, I guess I hit a nerve. You missed the part where I said we must address terrorism. I just want the fear dial turned down.

Rap, in my experience hate based in fear. You hate Muslims because you're terrified that they'll destroy our way of life. (Your own statements demonstrate your fear I'll prove it to you .... later) On the other end of this rope, I daresay that many Muslims hate the West from the very same fear. It's not an entirely unfounded fear, altho to be quite honest I think they have more to fear from us than the other way around.

The dangerous aspect of fear and hate is that people who essentially have nothing to fear from each other can be induced into total hysteria by simply mirroring each other's actions and upping the ante slightly each time.

Now here comes the kicker: THE LEADERS ARE NOT AFRAID LIKE WE ARE. Bush, Cheney, ObL, Olmert, Nasrallah use our common fear to climb even higher on our backs. Nasrallah points to Olmert, Olmert points to Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad points to Bush, Bush points to Nasrallah, and it goes round and round while we're all whipped up in a frenzy that does nobody (except our collective fearless leaders) any good.

---

Quote:

---

The Islamo-nutcases ( not ALL Muslims )

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor:

Nasrallah & Ahmadinejad have stated specifically that Israel should be wiped off the map.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
Auraptor,

i hate to call you out, but i thoroughly disagree with you about 9/11, the WTC, and the entire war on terror scenario.

for starters, you need to understand..i am not a "liberal", simply because i disagree with Bush and his agenda. i realize its hard for one to wrap their head around the concept that humans are free-thinking beings, who share common truths..but its something you should consider.

in order to believe the government, you have to assume a number of things which have been proven false:

-the government knew nothing of the attacks planned, and did everything possible to stop them.

---

False - First, there are thousands of potential threats, coming from all manner of sources, some crack-pots, others serious, and others unknown. Second, there were those in the Gov't ( which is a giagantic bureaucracy )who thought there were warning signs a plenty, but partly because of the WALL between the CIA and FBI ( thank you Amy Gorelick and the Clinton Administration ), the info was muddled. And for 3 1/2 yrs AFTER OBL decalred war on the West, no attacks succeeded.

Quote:

---

-our government had no prior envolvement with al-qaeda, and previously did everything within their power in the past to detain BinLaden.

---

We both know that's not true. OBL was wanted for, among other things, the attacks on the 2 US Embassy bombings. President Clinton had a chance to GET OBL, but opted not to - TWICE!

Quote:

---

-NORAD and FAA were justified in their lack of response, and its perfectly normal to lose track of 4 planes at once, and customery to send military craft from the farthest possible bases to respond to incidents.

---

You're talking about 2 seperate operations, the FAA definatly working w/ out-dated equipment, thrown into a chaotic, previously unrehersed situation. Sure, there was some confusion, but grounding every single plane as quickly as they did was quite an accomplishment. I'm of the opinion that 1 or more planes carrying terrorist landed during this time, and thwarted another attack.

Quote:

---

-there is no such thing as PNAC, or the Downing stree memos, nor a prior agenda to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria prior to 9/11.

---

Those things have been taken WILDLY out of context. Fact is, Bill Clinton, not Bush, made it official US policy to push for regime change in Iraq.

Quote:

---

- its just a coincidence that: the CIA was running an identical simulation to the 9/11 attacks, the very same morning; that Bushs bro Marvin headed the WTC security company; that Fema just happened to arrive on 9/10; that rumors on the street warned employees not to show up that day; that CIA insider trading on wall street took place the morning of; the firemen and eye witnesses just "heard" explosions, and believed that they could put the fires out; its normal for 3 steel framed buildings to collapse, by fire, within hours of burning, at FREE FALL SPEEDS.

---

Internet rumors, kooky conspiracies and wild assumptions. I wish I could spend time on each whacko point, but there's just too many, so I'll stick to ONE.

Your ignorant claim that 3 buildings came down ONLY by fire omits a mountain of factors. WTC buildings 1 & 2 were built w/ unconventional means... — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. Both towers were built to withstand an impact of a large airliner..and they did! But what WASN'T figured into the equation was the inferno which followed. The impact of a fully loaded 767( traveling at 300-400mph ? ) and fire knocked the thin insulation off of the girders and exposed them to heat. After that, it was only a matter of time. The buildings were doomed. The enclosed area became a furnace, fueld by the contents with in. Time + heat + the weight of the planes acted to weaken the inside of the buildings. Once that starts, gravity takes over. If there's nothing to support a weight, guess what ? It collapses!

Why do you think the North Tower, which was hit first, was the second tower to fall? Physics ! The South Tower was hit lower down, which means there was more weight above the impact site. Since a greater force was exerted above the weakened structure, it fell sooner after it was hit.

As for # 7 building, who knows ? Between the fire caused from falling debris and two 110 story buildings with all that material coming down right next to it, seems that's all it took.

All 4 remaining buildings were heavily damaged, and were eventually demolished.

Sorry, the 'controled demolition' conspiracy simply makes no sense, nor does it hold any water. It takes a team of experts weeks to set up and prepare a building for demolition. Internal dismantaling of specific points, charges set at EXACTLY the right place, miles of cables.... there was absolutely zero of that invovled here. You'd kinda think that SOMEBODY would notice both buildings being massively worked on. There were no such teams, there was no such demolition.

All we have is EXACTLY what we saw on t.v. Buildings burned from the inside out, causing the floors above to collapse on to the ones below, and if there's nothing below to bear the weight, down is the only direction the WTC could fall.

Occam's razor, my friend.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Quote:

---

I do think there are PLENTY of things in Western culture which are destructive to {I'm sure you meant to say "their"} society. There is a very real threat from Western thought that, intentionally or not, does potentially challenge the cultures found in the Mid-East. Whether it's Wal-Mart or Women's Rights, OUR way of life does challenge the control of the Theistic State.

---

Quote:

---

But it seems what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. We allow muslims to freely practice their religion in the West.

---

Quote:

---

You're still not getting it. The Islamo-nutcases ( not ALL Muslims ) want not just to convert you, me and everyone else in the world, but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal. What has got me so aggitated ( sorry, not scared, as you falsly paint it ) is this passive ignorance that so many are displaying.

---

Quote:

---

It's as if you're more afraid of the P.C. nazis than what the Islamo-terrorist have blatently stated they WILL do. Your naive description of all the leaders using the actions of each other is so disconnected with the CAUSE of all this.... Islamic Fundamentalism... And rest assured, you and I might not agree as to what is good or bad for society, but I'll bet the house that what ever we think 'should' be acceptable, the Islmo-fascist would sooner cut our heads off than accept what freedoms WE have grown accustomed .

---

Quote:

---

Now here comes the kicker: THE LEADERS ARE NOT AFRAID LIKE WE ARE.

---

Quote:

---

The Islamo-nutcases (not ALL Muslims) want not just to convert you, me and everyone else in the world, but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal.

---

Quote:

---

this passive ignorance that so many are displaying.

---

Quote:

---

It's as if you're more afraid of the P.C. nazis than what the Islamo-terrorist have blatantly stated they WILL do

---

Quote:

---

Your naive description of all the leaders using the actions of each other

---

Quote:

---

is so disconnected with the CAUSE of all this.... Islamic Fundamentalism

---

Quote:

---

the Islamo-fascist would sooner cut our heads off than accept what freedoms WE have grown accustomed.

---

Quote:

---

Nasrallah & Ahmadinejad have stated specifically that Israel should be wiped off the map ... There's nothing remotely close that either Olmert or Bush have said in comparison in regards to Iran or Hezbollah.

---

Quote:

---

but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal.

---

Quote:

---

Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?

---

Quote:

---

Hmmm, and how many Muslim civilians have we killed in order to impose "our way of life" on them??? You know, there's only so many times you can poke someone with a sharp stick until they get pissed off. If we had been messed with as much as they were, we'd be doing the same. Heck, we ARE doing the same, only with bigger weapons and less provocation.

---

Quote:

---

So, if they're THAT dangerous, why were we arming the muhajedeen... re-named into so-called "freedom fighters" to make them more palatable for the West... in the '80s? I do a slow boil when I read yet another horror story of Sharia law, and it was very clear who were were funding. And Saddam, whatever else he was, was NOT an Islamic fundamentalist. So if Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest threat, why did we invade Iraq? And why are trying to impose a fundamentalist, Iran-linked government there?

Your thinking is clouded by fear of communism, of WMD, of Islamic fundamentalism. What will you be afraid of tomorrow?

---

Quote:

---

Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?- Signy
Overt invasions? Like kicking Saddam out of Kuwait ? Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Puppet Gov'ts ? Please, that piece of Leftist rhetoric is as old and tired as Fidel Castro- Rap

---

Quote:

---

Hmm...guess we've not killed enough then, have we? Certainly we've not killed as many Muslims as they have killed THEMSELVES! You realize you're taking the side of OBL, w/ the trumped up claims of us 'messing' with them. That's a load of horseshit.

---

Quote:

---

It all comes down to power.

---

Quote:

---

They want to control us,

---

Quote:

---

They want us out of there? Fine, have them petition their Gov't and get us out. Don't blow up Marine barracks or fly planes into buildings.

---

Quote:

---

Because , at the time, those in charge thought that giving the Soviet Union a piece of the Middle East wasn't such a great idea. You see, taking Afghanistan would have put the Soviets closer to the Mid East oil fields, as well as control of a warm water port. Somthing they DIDN'T have too much of in those days. Oil + open ports = HUGE financial gains for the Soviety Union. Fact is, the Iron Curtain might not have fallen had they succeeded. We opted to help the locals in Afghanistan, mainly to stop the Soviets, and also w/ the hopes that some gratitude would be shown our way. Boy, were WE wrong! Hell, not even helping the muslims in Bosnia during the 90's granted us any favors!

Why did we invade Iraq? You honestly don't remember the 10 + yrs of broken cease fire agreements by Saddam from the Gulf War? The 17 U.N. resolutions, the 15-0 Security Council vote ?

---

Quote:

---

Read the entire article here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled. . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rue:
First question - why do you specify "Islamo"? Hitler was an xtian who also wanted to remake the world to his liking - and he was willing to kill those who either wouldn't or couldn't conform. But you would not call him a Christian-fascist, would you?

---

Quote:

---

Oh, you mean that our control should be so complete that they should just spread their legs any time we decide to invade? Would you not even "allow" them some feelings of nationalism? Does any act of self defense on their part become a terrible threat? Where is your perspective, man?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yawn, all you can do is repeat yourself, as you ignore the realities of the world. Why am I wasting my time ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hero,

Laura can't win. She's too chappaquiddicky.

---