Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Curval on August 16, 2004, 09:35:11 AM
-
USA (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1963&e=1&u=/ap/20040816/ap_on_el_pr/gop_convention_security_1)
Under the guise of preventing terrorism it seems that the legacy of J. Edgar has the potential to live on.
-
No. Nothing that hasn't been done in the past (over 1/3 of the US population has some sort of FBI profile)
-
I don't think they can be too careful when it comes to protecting the President when it comes to public events, especially in an election year.
I can think of many assasinations around the world that might have been prevented had the police and other organizations been more rigorous in their duties.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, JFK, Gandhi, et al.
-
Yawn, I wonder if the Canadiens will worry about this too?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Yawn, I wonder if the Canadiens will worry about this too?
Yes. (Curval is a Canuck citizen)
-
The Secret Service has always has advance teams that either detain or or surveil possible threats to the President before a visit. Pretty much SOP.
-
Police state? Yes/No?
No...
-
Make sure the VP's hands are visible at all times.
-
Curval, you think this is specific to Democratic protesters? Think again...
In the last few weeks, beginning before the Democratic convention, F.B.I. counterterrorism agents and other federal and local officers have sought to interview dozens of people in at least six states, including past protesters and their friends and family members, about possible violence at the two conventions. In addition, three young men in Missouri said they were trailed by federal agents for several days and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury last month, forcing them to cancel their trip to Boston to take part in a protest there that same day.
Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information.
-
The post wasn't to point fingers at the GOP...just to show how easy it would be for the US to RETURN to a Hoover-like environment using threats of terrorism, or in this case "trouble"(whatever THAT means).
You say 1/3 of the US has an FBI file on them. I say that smacks of a police-state in and of itself. No slam against the Repubs or democrats in particular.
-
Originally posted by Curval
You say 1/3 of the US has an FBI file on them. I say that smacks of a police-state in and of itself. No slam against the Repubs or democrats in particular.
Prevention is always viewed as police state by those who think most people are inherently good.
Assassinations and Attempts in U.S. Since 1865
Lincoln, Abraham (president of U.S.): Shot April 14, 1865, in Washington, DC, by John Wilkes Booth; died April 15.
Seward, William H. (secretary of state): Escaped assassination (though injured) April 14, 1865, in Washington, DC, by Lewis Powell (or Paine), accomplice of John Wilkes Booth.
Garfield, James A. (president of U.S.): Shot July 2, 1881, in Washington, DC, by Charles J. Guiteau; died Sept. 19.
McKinley, William (president of U.S.): Shot Sept. 6, 1901, in Buffalo by Leon Czolgosz; died Sept. 14.
Roosevelt, Theodore (ex-president of U.S.): Escaped assassination (though shot) Oct. 14, 1912, in Milwaukee while campaigning for president.
Cermak, Anton J. (mayor of Chicago): Shot Feb. 15, 1933, in Miami by Giuseppe Zangara, who attempted to assassinate Franklin D. Roosevelt; Cermak died March 6.
Roosevelt, Franklin D. (president-elect of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Feb. 15, 1933, in Miami.
Long, Huey P. (U.S. senator from Louisiana): Shot Sept. 8, 1935, in Baton Rouge by Dr. Carl A. Weiss; died Sept. 10.
Truman, Harry S. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination unhurt Nov. 1, 1950, in Washington, DC, as 2 Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to shoot their way into Blair House.
Kennedy, John F. (president of U.S.): Shot Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald; died same day. Injured was Gov. John B. Connally of Texas. Oswald was shot and killed two days later by Jack Ruby.
Malcolm X, also known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (black activist): Shot and killed in a New York City auditorium, Feb. 21, 1965; his killer(s) were never positively identified.
King, Martin Luther, Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot April 4, 1968, in Memphis by James Earl Ray; died same day.
Kennedy, Robert F. (U.S. senator from New York): Shot June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan; died June 6.
Wallace, George C. (governor of Alabama): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 15, 1972, at Laurel, Md., by Arthur Herman Bremer. Wallace paralyzed from waist down.
Ford, Gerald R. (president of U.S.): Escaped assassination attempt Sept. 5, 1975, in Sacramento, Calif., by Lynette Alice (Squeaky) Fromme, who pointed but did not fire .45-caliber pistol. Escaped assassination attempt in San Francisco, Calif., Sept. 22, 1975, by Sara Jane Moore, who fired one shot from a .38-caliber pistol that was deflected.
Jordan, Vernon E., Jr. (civil rights leader): Shot and critically wounded in assassination attempt May 29, 1980, in Fort Wayne, Ind.
Reagan, Ronald (president of U.S.): Shot in left lung in Washington by John W. Hinckley, Jr., on March 30, 1981; three others also wounded.
-
I guess the Soviets really thought the inherant nature of man is good...they did alot of "prevention" too.
...and that list reads like a poster for gun control.:aok
-
Bush is safe
think the nutbags want Chenney on their arses??
-
Originally posted by Curval
...and that list reads like a poster for gun control.:aok
[lazs]Silly Curval, guns don't kill....people do.[/lazs]
-
Nice attempt to divert the conversation away from your original post's intent of painting the US as a "Police state", Curval. ;) I don't think you'd have the right to bear arms in a "police state" ;)
-
To be fair, Ripsnort, the 'state' is busy working on removing that right. The anti-handgun lobby (who has the ear of many a politician) has said as much, essentially that they know people will object to sudden seizure of weapons, so they're doing it slowly, just like boiling a frog.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nice attempt to divert the conversation away from your original post's intent of painting the US as a "Police state", Curval. ;) I don't think you'd have the right to bear arms in a "police state" ;)
This is what I wrote:
Under the guise of preventing terrorism it seems that the legacy of J. Edgar has the potential to live on.
You then brought up the 1/3 of people have an FBI file on them, which I said "smacks of a police-state in and of itself".
You did a much better job of "painting" than I did.;)
-
It actually is a Canadian issue.
Parot Act (http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovince/news/story.html?id=afddaded-d3b5-41e9-9b00-ede9fc1bf525)
Rip
Are you saying then that Iraq was not a police state under Sadam? The individual Iraqi was far better armed then the individual American.
-
I think you're making a giant leap from what's in the article to J. Edgar Hoover / police state stuff. Trying to pre-emptively avoid problems, especially when the president of the US is involved, just makes sense. But that's not to say we don't have problems... I'd continue, but I looked at a pic of a woman showing her breasts that was posted on the FDB BBS last night, so I'm probably on Asscroft's watermelon list now - I'd better tread lightly.*
*If your handle is Eagler and/or you have your house decorated in a montage of Bush / Cheney / Asscroft / Crying Eagle posters, please relax your sphyncter, and understand that I know this was simply sarcasm and a gross exaggeration of our state of affairs. I apologize if your panties got all atwist. Carry on.
-
no
-
Based on that article? No.
Based on other things, appear to be well on our way.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Rip
Are you saying then that Iraq was not a police state under Sadam? The individual Iraqi was far better armed then the individual American.
I knew I should have written the last part of that sentence..let me clarify...
"I don't think you'd have the right to bear arms written into a constitution in a "police state"
And regarding Iraqi's being far better armed..there are quite few countries that rivals the U.S. for gun ownership:
Europe's gun culture rivals US
| By Honor Mahony
The UK's Independent picks up on a report that Europe's gun culture is giving the US a serious run for its money.
It quotes figures from the Small Arms Survey which show that Europeans own a total of 67 million registered guns - a number, the survey argues, showing that some nations have developed a gun culture that bears comparison with the United States.
"Contrary to the common assumption that Europeans are virtually unarmed, an estimated 84 million firearms are legally held in the 15 member states of the EU. Of these, 80 per cent - 67 million guns - are in civilian hands", the report states.
The Survey also shows that there are major differences between countries.
Germans are buying almost as many new firearms per capita as Americans.
Finland, with its strong hunting tradition, has the most legally registered guns in the EU at 39 per 100 people, the UK has 10 - one third of the German and French figures - and the Netherlands has two.
Gun laws are tightest in the UK, the Netherlands and Poland.
Aaron Karp, co-author of the report told the Independent: "Citizens of most European countries are more heavily armed than they realise, with an average of 17.4 guns per 100 people in the 15 EU countries alone."
Not such a great difference between the United States and Europe.
Source: http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=11931
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Based on that article? No.
Based on other things, appear to be well on our way.
-SW
Why not based on that article? All the FBI needs to do is brand you an anarchist, then they start a file. Simple really.
-
Yes, Curval, as simple as this (http://www.blackhelicopters.com)
-
You don't have to worry. Anarchists have scruffy hair apparently. They aren't after you. ;)
-
Because surveillance of potential threat groups has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, with the new rules for America (or "laws" passed in the name of the war on terror) - you are now a potential threat if you are outspoken and disagree. Funny how that works, its paranoia at its greatest. Paranoia is a great weapon, it invokes fear. Fear is wrought by terror. Etc.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Because surveillance of potential threat groups has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, with the new rules for America (or "laws" passed in the name of the war on terror) - you are now a potential threat if you are outspoken and disagree. Funny how that works, its paranoia at its greatest. Paranoia is a great weapon, it invokes fear. Fear is wrought by terror. Etc.
-SW
I guess we could just do nothing and risk this scenario as the next attack...
(http://pages.zdnet.com/sartre65/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/new-york-nuked.jpg):rolleyes:
-
I ain't paraniod - are you?
-
Oh boy! Now thats sensational Rip!
Maybe you should read more carefully, between that post and the "black helicopters" I really don't think you are paying attention.
Eagler, the state of America would suggest the majority of the population IS.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Oh boy! Now thats sensational Rip!
Maybe you should read more carefully, between that post and the "black helicopters" I really don't think you are paying attention.
Eagler, the state of America would suggest the majority of the population IS.
-SW
Heres the bill on the internet..go ahead and dissect it. Show me the part where it says that you are now a potential threat if you are outspoken and disagree and BE SPECIFIC!
I doubt you've even read the bill, so here it is. There will be a test in 30 minutes.
http://www.pfir.org/2002-hr5005
-
"I knew I should have written the last part of that sentence..let me clarify...
"I don't think you'd have the right to bear arms written into a constitution in a "police state"
And regarding Iraqi's being far better armed..there are quite few countries that rivals the U.S. for gun ownership:
"
I was just refuting your whole point about being able to detect a police state based on gun ownership. Consider it refuted.
The rest of this is just you changing the subject.
The sad truth is that a given person is far more likley to be a victim of goverment violence then violent against thier goverment. That is true in any coutnry and at any time. That is why rights are worth defending and people that curtail the rights of the individual or support same sound so shallow.
The founders of your country knew this only too well. You seem to forget it for political expediancy.
-
What the **** are you going on about now? I think you should just go back to being angry with MiniD about bird pictures, atleast you were somewhat paying attention to his posts.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
What the **** are you going on about now? I think you should just go back to being angry with MiniD about bird pictures, atleast you were somewhat paying attention to his posts.
-SW
Nice debate on your issue you raised! I'm done with ya, I can have a more interesting debate with the bum standing down on the freeway gathering coins.
-
It was my issue, which you then turned into a bill I never referenced.
I will not have a debate where someone insinuates what I meant, and then claims I haven't even read it.
There never was a debate here, you DO argue like the homeless - with yourself.
-SW