Are we realy this gullible? by oldenglanddry

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor- I'm repeating myself because you're repeating yourself.

Quote:
No, we don't want to CONTROL them, we just want them to stop murdering everyone across the globe. Is that too much to ask?

Oh? Then what were we doing in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? Please go read up on it and tell me. I really do expect an answer because you're whole argument is predicated on the idea that "terrorists" just popped up de novo because of some defect in their religion and the rest of us are all innocent bystanders.

And, BTW, in your own words, we invaded three times in ten years. Now whether we justify it to ourselves or not- and of course we will always justify it to ourselves, even if we have to lie about it- none of our conquests are going to beat their breast saying "Yeah THANK GOD were were invaded! We deserved it" especially if we have not made a positive material difference in their lives. When the Romans invaded Gaul or Britain or Spain, they knew they were going to meet armed resistance. They didn't bother to get hysterial about it because it's part of empire- building. You, otoh, seem to think that our conquests should be thankful for the boot heel on their neck, and when that doesn't happen you mess yourself with fear.

But let's look at the history and result of our invasion of Afghanistan. You justified supporting the Taliban because of fear of communism. Then you justified the invasion because of the Taliban. And now people- but especially women are worse off in Afghanistan than under the Soviets. All those women doctors and lawyers and teachers that managed to graduate under Soviet rule are now back under the burka. Why? Because we funded the Taliban for years and they've developed a strong base. Because we're bypassing even our puppet leader (Karzai) and funding the petty warlords directly who in turn are developing a narco-state. And like Somalia, the people are going to become so tired of instability that they will WELCOME a return of the Taliban. And what do we do then? Re-invade? Overturn Karzai in favor of some bigger, meaner bastard who's killed his way up the ladder?

AND OSAMA BIN LADEN IS STILL ALIVE.

What about Iraq? For a while, we funded Saddam against Iran. Iran, as you may recall, rebelled against the Shah who we had installed after getting rid of Mossadegh. So sure, we got rid of Saddam Hussein on the pretext of WMD (which didn't exist). But now we have a theocractic Iran-allied government in power. How does THAT advance your so-called "war on terror"?

We've interfered with the Middle East and messed it up royally. I doubt that you would tolerate that kind of interference in the USA. If you saw Mexican tanks on the streets and Mexcian flags flying over four states you'd get all pissed off, wouldn't you? Of course you would.

It's the same with anyone who is occupied, whether its the Irish, Native Americans, Morrocans, or Tibetans. What I truly don't understand is why you lack the perspective to see that, and react with gibbering terror to our conquests as if they were our conquerers. In your case, I think the terrorists have won because you're in a state of terror.

EDITED TO ADD: Rap, I conclude that you're terrified because you keep reacting to situations in ways that are predictably self-defeating. I'll bet you supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which had the predicted effect of pissing off a lot of Lebanese and increasing Hezbollah's influence. And given what I've just said about the populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon reacting in predicabtly nationalistic ways to interference and invasion, what do you think would happen if we were to bomb Iran? Are we trying to line up everyone in the Middle East against us?

And it's working so well for us!

July violence in Iraq the deadliest since March 2003
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.main/index.html

Bin Laden still hugely significant
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/amanpour.answers/index.html

UN WARNS THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST AFGHAN WOMEN PERSISTS
www.azadiradio.org/en/dailyreport/2006/08/15.ASP

Hezbollah workers rush to help victims rebuild
www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-16-hezbollah-help_x.

--------------------------------
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:55 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Hitler was a fascist. In fact the term was invented to describe him.

Firstly Hitler wasn't strictly a fascist, he was a nazi. Nazisim is an offshoot of Fascism but not the same thing entirely, and facist was not invented to describe Hitler. Fascist was a term for a follower of fascism, which was the name of the movement that was headed by Benito Mussolini and ruled Italy from 1922. It's roots come from the Itallian word Fascio used in the 19th century to describe various political groups. It's inception has absolutly nothing to do with Hitler.

Quote:
Now the Islamic fascists are not Nazis, there's is a religeous rather then a racial/governmental fascism.

There being no religious component to Nazism is something you better take up with the Christians who supported Nazism to bring around a holy German Empire. You might also want to tell the Jews that the holocaust had nothing to do with them being Jewish.

Quote:
Like the difference between a Marxist and a Stalinist.

Not really, Marxism is a type of Communism, Stalinism is a type of Totalitarianism.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Citizen

I agree that Christian-Fascist works for Hitler. But the US media - more importantly the ultra-right wing version Unwrapped favors - would never :aghast: use that phrase.

I was just messing with his mind, trying to run it into the wall of his own internal contradictions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Citizen,

Just another comment. I also noticed the congruencies between OhReally!, Limp-baugh, Sean Insanity - and Unwrapped. What's WORSE, dubya, that pinnacle of intellectual acumen, is ALSO now quoting those sources. Could it possibly get any better.

Quote:
He's not the one ignoring realities, that would be you, but since you get all you're knowledge of the world from the partisan propaganda channel you probably think you're the only one who knows what he's talking about.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OK Zero,

I was kinda' waiting for Unwrapped, but I'm short on time.

So here' a little teaser for now:

Quote:
Because no person who truly understood the threat would be so obstructionist in opposing it.

I'm afraid to the core. Yes. Very, very afraid. I'm so afraid that Muslims will completely take over or destroy the entire non-Muslim world I'd do anything. Anything. I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer). I demand the US secure its borders. There are so many effective things to do and the US isn't doing any of them and I don't know why.

Satisfied?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:28 AM

DREAMTROVE

Hero,
Wrongo goof
Fascism = Benito Mussolini
Responding to your rants is probably a waste of time, and I see Citizen already pointed this one out. Well, Seriously, if you don't know jack, do yourself a favor and look jack up on the internet before posting. The fact that you never fact check before posting stuff you're not sure of is what makes us think you're a moron. No offense to the mentally challenged, apparantly they can be elected president, and then have people much smarter than they defend the idiotic policies which they know are wrong in exchange for a hefty paycheck.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:54 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just found this blog by Britain's former ambassador to Ubekistan on this recent terror plot.
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. . .

Don't know how much of this is true. But it does make one question, doesn't it, how easy it is to swallow the "next 9/11" story if enough media outlets repeat it?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Thanks for posting this.
Strangely though, it seems that Auraptor does'nt want to comment on it.
I suppose theres a first time for everything.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

YEAH !!

I want dubya to talk about 9/11 some more !

CBS 11-13
36 up
57 down
7 uncertain
-21

Newsweek 7-10
37 up
59 down
4 uncertain
-22

Fox 8-9
36 up
56 down
8 uncertain
-20

http://www.pollingreport.com/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:23 AM

ANTIMASON

Aurapter- i find the "pancake theory" a real stretch; i understand its believed that the temperatures from the Jet fuel melted hundreds of thousands of welds and trusses, simultaneously, to allow a perfectly level free fall of the proceeding floors, but its a mathematical improbability..especially to happen on both buildings as it did. why have other steel buildings, throughout history, burned for DAYS, and white hot temperatures, and remained standing..yet our buildings burn for a few hours, and the entire lower portions, which were intact let me remind you, pulvarize and implode perfectly? why did the firemen claim they could put the fires out? what about the explosions that they heard, which brought gag orders against them? why did Larry Silverstein imply that building 7 was "pulled"? i realize a plane hit each building, but Jet fuel does not melt and pulvarize and entire building, and bring it down next to free fall speeds, perfectly into its base! it just doesnt happen like that...especially when so many other pieces of the governments story is suspect. do you honostly believe American elements had nothing at all to do with this?>

and Christian fascism is an oxy moron. American fascism is more appropriate...yet is that not a threat aswell? why no fearmongering about that

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:39 AM

DREAMTROVE

Antimason,

9-11 official story doesn't work on about 100 different points. I find there's no point with even arguing with these apologists, they're right up there with holocaust deniers in the level of malicious misinformation they tout. They also sort of remind me of those trekkies who explain away the logical and technological inconsistancies so the writers don't have to do it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:44 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anything. I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer).

They've been at it alot longer because they are so ineffective.

Lets look at Lebanon for example. The UN urges...urges Lebanon disarm and deploys Peacekeepers to assist and by assist they mean do nothing as Iran and Syria ships ten thousand missiles to Hezbollah which then drives by the local UN outpost (waving) on their way across the border (and under the cover of a missile attack on an Isreali village) to kidnap Isreali soldiers. Then...time's up and they get ready to leave in the middle of a war they were put there to prevent. Then a ceasefire that aggrees to disarm Hezbollah...I mean urges them to disarm...again, maybe, they need to read it one more time to be sure...and sends 15,000 peacekeeper mostly French...I mean 10 officers and 200 unarmed French engineers to sit around and watch while Syria and Iran ship ten thousand new missiles to Hezbollah who, in a day, a week or perhaps a few months will drive by the UN outpost (waving) on their way across the border to capture or kill more Isreali soldiers. So I guess the answer to the original question is that you folk are as gullible as they come.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Zero,

WTF are you babbling about? Are you hallucinating again? You're not even close to what I was saying ...

This is what I was talking about. The Brits had the 'suspects' under police surveillance for nearly a year. They must be pretty good. Don't you think that if the British police have such good intelligence and capability that it would behove the US to cooperate with them? Another example: the Germans were suspicious of money transfers involving the supposed 9/11 hijackers. Don't you think that kind of information, if shared, would have been useful to the US?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Oh? Then what were we doing in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? Please go read up on it and tell me.

Gee. Hmm..what do all those nations have in common? Could it be....OIL? We weren't doing anything in those nations that every other modernized nation in the West wasn't doing. Building those Mid-East nations an entire infrastructure so they could pump oil and sell is to everyone on the planet. With out the West, that wouldn't have happened. You seem to be from the camp which thinks that " no blood for oil " is a nice little foreign policy that fits on a bumper sticker. But the hard fact of the matter is, Oil IS important, not just to those who USE it, but to the nations that PRODUCE it.

Now, never mind that fact that those nations eventaully stole all the materials and equipment from the companies which spent so much time and effort. But they had to have someone who knew how to work the machinery , so it all worked out. Sorta.

Quote:
'll bet you supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which had the predicted effect of pissing off a lot of Lebanese and increasing Hezbollah's influence. And given what I've just said about the populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon reacting in predicabtly nationalistic ways to interference and invasion, what do you think would happen if we were to bomb Iran? Are we trying to line up everyone in the Middle East against us?

Yep, I was completely for Israel protecting itself from the terrorist attacks of Hezbollah. Too bad they stopped before they accomplished their goal. Sadly, the Liberal leaders of Israel were swayed by the phony, biased news reporting out of Lebanon. Look for Act 2 to start production soon enough.

Who is going to bomb Iran? 'We' ?? Sorry, you really have me lost now.

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. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:

antimason wrote:
Thursday, August 17, 2006 09:23
Aurapter- i find the "pancake theory" a real stretch; i understand its believed that the temperatures from the Jet fuel melted hundreds of thousands of welds and trusses, simultaneously, to allow a perfectly level free fall of the proceeding floors, but its a mathematical improbability..especially to happen on both buildings as it did.

A 767 rams into a building and turns the impact site into what amounts to a kiln. There doesn't NEED to be a melting of " hundreds of thousands of welds and strusses, simultaneously,...blah blah blah " The outside of the WTC, unlike other sky scrapers, acts as a support structure in place of the walls and beams in the interior of the building which is so common in other designs. At the point of impact, from where the hottest temps were found , and at where the weight of the planes rested, THAT is the focal point of the structure failure. Remember... both towers were like steel tubes ? The collaps didn't have to occur as you described, because the exteriors of the buildings were essentialy in tact. Much like what happens when a screen door is punctured. There's a hole, sure, but the rest of the screen stays pretty much in the same place.

Quote:
why did the firemen claim they could put the fires out?

That's what Firemen do ? And possibly, they assumed the building's sprinkler system of be of some use. It wasn't. Also, no one had a clue as to how bad it was up there. Not at first. The firemen went up to fight the fire but also get people OUT

Quote:
what about the explosions that they heard, which brought gag orders against them?

Don't know of any 'gag orders',sounds like great internet tripe to me. But when major stress fractures occur, like in large buildings, there will be what sounds like explosions. Unless you think the TITANIC was also destroyed in like fashion. Survivors in the boats there also said they heard 'explosions', as the metal creaked and pushed to the limits, before finally breaking.

I'm guessing you're no architect, huh?

Quote:
i realize a plane hit each building, but Jet fuel does not melt and pulvarize and entire building, and bring it down next to free fall speeds, perfectly into its base! it just doesnt happen like that.

The evidence would suggest otherwise, for the reasons explained above.

Quote:
especially when so many other pieces of the governments story is suspect. do you honostly believe American elements had nothing at all to do with this?

Sorry, but you've not proven your case. Your ignorance of physics and the structural qualities of the WTC 1 and 2 don't in any way amount to a hill of beans on this matter.

And as for the 'demolition' angle, you've overlooked one last crucial element. In every demolition I've witnessed, there's always is a flash of light as each detonation goes off. Or a puff of smoke.... SOMETHING! But I dare you to find a sequential pattern , from top to bottom in any of the videos showing the WTC towers fall.

You can't do it, because there were no 'bombs' perfectly set to drop the building as you claim.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Gee. Hmm..what do all those nations have in common? Could it be....OIL? We weren't doing anything in those nations that every other modernized nation in the West wasn't doing.

Rap, why do you bother to answer? Not only don't you know what you're talking about, you won't even bother to google up simple facts before you post. How do you expect us to take you seriously?

Quote:
Any analysis of America’s position in the Middle East would be incomplete without a thorough understanding of the U.S. role in overthrowing Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected and revered Prime Minister

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml

Or, try reading this, which details decades of interference, provocation, and assasination plots involving Egypt and Syria.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zepezauer_Mark/Egypt_Boomerang.html

But, I'll but you won't read any of it, because your world view is so shaky it can't stand a few fdacts.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:59 PM

America loves a winner!

Sorry Sig, but I don't intermix facts w/ kooky, Michael Moore type conspiracy nonsense.

You can't deny anything I said, but you're more than willing to direct me to the holy internet to back up your so called 'facts', eh?

Nice try. Game over.

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. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Eh? HARVARD law school is a kooky conspiracy site??? Heck even the CIA admits to overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953!

And FYI I grabbed Third-World Traveler because it has everything all nicely summarized. But the facts can be verified individually using... yep, google. You should try using it sometime. You might learn something (snicker).

So, I'm going to reiterate- we've been messing around in the Mideast since whenever. No wonder the folks there are a might tetchy.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:00 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
So, I'm going to reiterate- we've been messing around in the Mideast since whenever. No wonder the folks there are a might tetchy

You seemingly missed my post where I admitted our interest in the region, but that it wasn't any more , and in fact far LESS than that of other Western European countries. Oh, and then there's Russsia, who blatently tried to annex a path to the Arabian Sea.

Funny, but wasn't it England who controled the lands of Israel and Iraq? Why the HELL aren't they doing mnore to solve these problems? After all, it was they who started all this mess. A bit of gratitude is due for the USA, in trying to clean up the mess that other's left behind.

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. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:37 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
WTF are you babbling about? Are you hallucinating again? You're not even close to what I was saying ...

You said we should coordinate with our allies, I pointed out the fallacy of relying on international action.

Here I'll make it simple.

You: We join world to solve world problems.
Me: We sit around till hell freezes over waiting for world to show up.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You seemingly missed my post where I admitted our interest in the region, but that it wasn't any more , and in fact far LESS than that of other Western European countries.

No, what you said was

Quote:
We weren't doing anything in those nations that every other modernized nation in the West wasn't doing. Building those Mid-East nations an entire infrastructure so they could pump oil and sell is to everyone on the planet.

Oh, yeah... and running coups, setting up secret police (like Savak), attempting assasinations, corrupting various governments and using Israel as proxy. And (your words) kicking Saddam out of Kuwait Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan

Quote:
Funny, but wasn't it England who controled the lands of Israel and Iraq? Why the HELL aren't they doing mnore to solve these problems? After all, it was they who started all this mess. A bit of gratitude is due for the USA, in trying to clean up the mess that other's left behind.

Also, don't forget Lawrence of Arabia. Sadly, the root of many of these problems traces back to the British empire. But I'm curious- in your mind, what constitutes "cleaning up the mess"? Or, perhaps to rephrase it a little differently- what do YOU see as "the mess" that needs to be cleaned?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You: We join world to solve world problems.
Me: We sit around till hell freezes over waiting for world to show up.

Hero, I don't normally jump in for Rue, but this is not what Rue said.

I had to drop a line of discusison bc of lack of time, but I'm going to pick it up again. You said

Quote:
If your talking to terrorists...you really can't be trusted and you should be tapped. Nobody else has anything to worry about.

You also said

Quote:
Also a person's right to privacy extends only to a zone in which they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a person making an overseas phonecall to Osama Bin Ladden have that reasonable expectation? I think not. How about a payphone to call the local Mafia boss to arrange a hit on PirateNews? Maybe. Talking to your lawyer? Definately. Sending a message via your lawyer to Osama Bin Ladden or the Mafia? No (and a great Law and Order episode).

Do I have a right to privacy calling my niece in Phoenix? My mom in France? Googling the internet for the decomposition temperature of ammonium nitrate and urea (to find out if we can safely dry them in an oven)? Do I have a right to be secure in my person and effects unless there is probable cause to think otherwise? Are invasions of privacy subject to law? Your statements seem to say "yes".

However, the Administration is saying that Bush can do anything now that he's King... er, I mean Commander in Chief in time of war... and that he isn't bound by law, apparently not even the Constitution. So, where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping? (I'm sure you're aware of yesterday's ruling). And why?

If you feel that warrantless wiretapping is -or should be- legal, what areas does FISA fail to address that should be remedied?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:25 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do I have a right to privacy calling my niece in Phoenix? My mom in France?

If they are terrorists, then...maybe?

If you know they are terrorists, then no, you have no expectation. If you don't know then, yes...YOU have the expectation. But since they certainly know then they have no expectation of privacy and while we can't use the call against you, we certainly can use it against them, after all we're not really monitoring you, we are monitoring them.

If they are not terrorists, then you have nothing to worry about, your call will not be monitored. Its the Terrorist Surveillance Program, not the Signy Calling His Mommy Program. And if you choose not to believe that, then there is really no argument you will accept.

Quote:

Googling the internet for the decomposition temperature of ammonium nitrate and urea (to find out if we can safely dry them in an oven)?

For what purpose? I'm no chemist, but if your purpose is benign, then any inadvertant monitoring does no harm.

Quote:

Do I have a right to be secure in my person and effects unless there is probable cause to think otherwise?

Certainly you do. Go be all secure. You have my permission, not withstanding stop and frisk, plain sight, plain smell (for the local drug dog...he's a good boy, yes he is), etc.

Quote:

Are invasions of privacy subject to law? Your statements seem to say "yes".

However, the Administration is saying that Bush can do anything now that he's King... er, I mean Commander in Chief in time of war... and that he isn't bound by law

Actually the President has some very clearly defined war making powers. For example, he can confiscate property (sorry sir, we need you house for a command post), blow things up, draft all the coal miners (you cannot strike against the public interest), gather signals intellegence and monitor the communications of the enemy (Hello Mr. Signy from Rhode Island, I have a long distance call from a Mister Admiral Yamamoto for you calling to discuss the upcoming surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, will you accept the charges?).

These powers are implied and have been identified through precedents stretching all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion (the most fun rebellion we ever had).

Quote:

So, where do you stand on warrantless wiretapping? (I'm sure you're aware of yesterday's ruling). And why?

I'm in favor of listening in on all international communication involving at least one party that is either a known or suspected terrorist or affiliate (or celebrity cause we need reliable gossip). Also good for non-hostile foriegn agents (ie spies). Just makes good sense. Purely domestic calls should require a warrant same as always.

Quote:

If you feel that warrantless wiretapping is -or should be- legal, what areas does FISA fail to address that should be remedied?

The authorizing legislation needs to be periodically revised to allow for changes in both technology and the efforts of the enemy to adapt their habits to better hide their activities. Kinda like moving the flashlight around to try and see all the corners.

I advise you check my thread on the ruling yesterday, but in the short, the ruling will fail on appeal because the petitioners lack standing to make a claim in that they have not been the subject of the program and thus suffered no harm (its like the bar claiming unfair harm from the State's DUI law). Also, I noted today that they apparently forum shopped to find a sypathetic judge and that one of the ACLU lawyers regularly represents accused terrorists and money launderers a fact he managed to both confirm and deny and seperate court filings.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm in favor of listening in on all international communication involving at least one party that is either a known or suspected terrorist or affiliate (or celebrity cause we need reliable gossip). Also good for non-hostile foriegn agents (ie spies). Just makes good sense.

Is tehre any reason that these should be warrantless as well? Doesn't FISA provide for 72-hour after-the- fact warrant? Seems to me that if someone is a suspected terrorist then a FISA warrant should be easy to get... and historically they have been extremely easy. Also, yes, it seems as if this is in another thread. I'll move my questions there.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas. uote]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Zero,
Let's see .....

I said: "I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer). I demand the US secure its borders."

you said: Blah blah blah "Lets look at Lebanon for example. The UN urges...urges Lebanon disarm and deploys Peacekeepers to assist and by assist they mean do nothing as Iran and Syria .. blah blah blah"

I said: "The Brits had the 'suspects' under police surveillance for nearly a year. Germans ... money transfers

you said: "I pointed out the fallacy of relying on international action.

In actual fact I talked about police work, England, Germany, the ICC and US borders. You talked about the UN, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. And then you tried to shift your debate to cover up your error, by pretending I said the US should rely on the int'l community. What I actually said was coordinate. You've mistaken my posts for someone else's. In fact, you've mistaken your posts for someone else's. Please let me know when you're ready to debate me and not some phantom poster.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:40 AM