Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 11, 2001, 08:03:00 AM
-
Whats your take on the mainstream press agreeing not to airwave any more Bin Laden video tapes on national TV? (due to the possibility of 'messages' to his minions)
-
Incidently, this is exactly what I was speaking of in a thread two weeks ago where I said I would be willing to make sacrifices in a "police state" world, such as extra security at airports(longer waits), National Guard at major land marks, permission to wire tap in suspected terrorist cases, and now, this.
-
bin Laden isn't an American citizen nor even on US soil so the 1st Amendment does not apply to his words.
Freedom of Speech/Press isn't the end all be all. There are some things you just can't and shouldn't say or air in the news. National Security comes first in this case.
-
I wasn't referring to his freedom of speech, I was referring ours in relation to the freedom of information act, related to the 1st amendment.
-
just posted in the US Congress thread concerning this ..
Problem is though Bush is 110% right on this issue, he ain't making no friends in the good ole media which will bite him in the arse in about 3 years...
Gotta love ole Arty, his press guy ..top notch! How many press secs did ole Slick go through 5 or 6? :)
-
hehe, then I want to use the Freedom of Information act to find out what really happened in Roswell!!!
Nat'l security still takes precedence over freedom of information. Media needs to shut up, and the people leaking info (obviously bin Laden's speech doesn't fit into that) need to be plugged up.
-
I am particularly interested in replies from our friends that are left of center, the FD-ski's, the Weazels, the Nash's, etc. Whats your take on this? National security issue or infringement on ones rights?
-
They didn't order them not to play the tapes. They requested that they use better judgement.
Basically... they just asked "Do you want to be the news company that is identified as a key weapon used against the US?" Stuff like that sends shivers up a CEO's spine.
AKDejaVu
-
Good point Deja. So, in your opinions...do you think the Gov't used good judgement in issueing such advice? Or is freedom of information more important?
-
Hello...
Well anyway, they are 1000 ways to inform or instruct your gang of terrorists, so why use this complicated Method with hidden messages in a tape???
Sure all of us should be much more carefully than in the past... but this now is a little paranoia, is not??? :rolleyes:
I mean to get the poeple frightened is also a main goal of terrorists, we should not give them a chance to spoil our lifes! ;)
JV44 (Andreas)
-
JV44, theres an old saying I've used for many years, and because of it, I've survived many an ordeal that could have killed me.
"Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean I shouldn't be."
:cool:
-
I think it’s a bit ridiculous actually. First of all, Bin Laden's messages will not sway American perceptions to any great extent (except, perhaps to make us hate him even more), so as a propaganda tool I don’t think it has a great deal of value either way. As far as sending strike orders – perhaps. I got that impression when I first heard the latest speech and before it became a public issue. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is only one source of information given the fact that there are numerous Muslim news sources and the Internet. We posted a transcript of his video on this board. And, I don’t think there is any way to fully stop the inevitable acts that will be committed here as the war progresses. Our Intel will let us stop some before they happen and others will be rolled up after the fact. In some ways, like with serial killers, we almost have to have additional attacks to open up information on new cells, etc.
I don’t think Bush is doing a particularly good job when it comes to PR (Ari is only the mouthpiece, these policy decision are made with a lot of input by the cabinet). First there was the “controversy” over Bush’s delay in returning to Washington on 9.11. The press was a bit ignorant up front, which is not unusual, but then you had Ari up there trying to spin it like there was ‘a potential attack on Air Force One…blah, blah, blah.’ All he had to say was the truth about realistic security concerns (plane crashing into the Whitehoue), and stick by it, but political habits die hard even in time of crisis. The press continued to follow up precisely because the spin was so poor and obvious. That was the only thing that gave me a laugh so early after the attack. This latest press issue seems to be wishful thinking and overreaction. Given the fact that the information is readily accessible seconds later on the Web, it would be better not to confuse people over possible “hidden motivations” behind such efforts.
The real security issues are related to operational information, which the press does a pretty good job of handling. Our elected leaders in both parties, wanting to appear in the know and on the ball when the cameras are rolling can be quite another issue. Still, there needs to be congressional oversight when we go to war because that is how or balance of power works, and has worked well.
Yeah, the press can be ignorant and overreacting, but without a free press it would be fairly easy for the government to do whatever it wanted and just tell the people what they wanted to hear. Democracy is sloppy, and there are many disadvantages with the system of governance. But once you start “simplifying” things it’s too easy to end up with fascism. After all, Nazi Germany had full control over the information it’s people received and a tremendous level of internal security, but it didn’t really serve their long-term interests.
The real issue that is probably bugging Bush (leading to knee-jerk reactions), is how do we get our message out as effectively to the Muslim world, so that we can maintain a “war on terrorism” supported by the moderate regimes in the Middle East instead of World War III with a mobilization not seen since 1945.
Charon
[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Charon ]
-
Originally posted by JV44:
[QB]...why use this complicated Method with hidden messages in a tape???[QB]
Who said anything about hidden messages?
Bin Laden makes speaches for americans to hear that have two main purposes:
1. Scare american public with threat of more attacks, demoralise us.
2. Inspire some muslims among americans to commit terror acts.
If Bin Laden loaded a plane with leaflets of his speach to drop on our cities, we would have shot it down. Fortunately for him he can rely on our own media to broadcast his speach for him.
Do you think in exchange Taliban broadcasts Bush's and Blair's speaches to their population?
All government did ws to ask media to excercise common sense. They did not issue any law or exacutive order to that effect.
miko
-
Good reply Charon, arguably the best one I've heard in relation to this.
-
Hello...
In press and TV are they spoken about the fear that the interviews and tape of Bin Laden & Co. maybe contains hidden messages for sleepers in US and Europe...
That was what I mean....
Jv44 (Andreas) :rolleyes:
-
What I read at CNN's web site was that they wouldn't air anything from Al Qaeda live. That they would review it and weigh it before airing it.
-
Yea my understanding is that they agreed to review and edit if necessary, but still might show stuff.
The Govt did not outright tell them not to show stuff, they asked them -- so in reality, the networks could have said "no". since nobody said "no", we'll never really know how far the govt would go to stop the networks.
I find it interesting to see what bin Laden et all have to say, but if someone feels there might be "hidden messages" in the tapes then I guess I won't be seeing many more of them. I'm not an expert, so I can't say if it's all smoke and mirrors or if bin Laden's double-blink actually means something.
-
This is the first thing that has happened since Sep.11 that has caused me to be embarrassed. Even the suggestion of chipping at our constitution, out of fear of some cave dwelling pigs. Is absolutely ridiculous.
The old, white, guys that invented this country, where some pretty sharp fellows. They knew that political trends would come, and go. That various types of threats, some unforeseeable, would plague us as years passed by. They wrote the constitution in such a way that it would give us continuity from one generation to the next. In this way, it protects us from any mistakes we might make in electing some nitwit, or even producing an entire generation of cowards.
It is no accident that American soldiers do NOT take an oath to defend the people of the United States. Or any individual. They take an oath to defend the constitution. That is what matters. This is what provides us that continuity. Our young troops are not fighting for us, although our survival is a byproduct. They are fighting for the Americans that will live a hundred years from now, and beyond. So that they might enjoy the same fruits of freedom that we always have.
The first amendment was the FIRST for a reason. If we chuck it out of fear. We don't deserve to have it. We might as well give the place to the pigs.
[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]
-
Steady, all.
No one attacked the First.
Clearly, instant access to world wide communications is an asset in battle. If you can broadcast your message to your troops in a nano second, that's a good thing for you, bad for your enemies.
Don't almost all military strategists encourage disrupting the communications of the enemy?
OK.
What they asked them to do was to be careful in this regard.. that's all. Didn't ban anything, didn't prohibit anything.
Many messages can be passed either in the speech or the actions of those filmed. That little bit like lifting a glass of water with the right hand and sipping at the end of the tape could be a signal.
I think it's a bit foolish to think broadcasts of this type CAN'T be used to communicate more than is on the surface.
No point in giving the enemy communications a free ride.
So, what to do? First, delay airing a while. Check it over; use common sense. Let some military analysts/FBI types go over it before it airs. Go from there.
Release news commentary on it but perhaps delay the actual airing until enough time has passed to make it "non-instant" communications.
This IS a war. Even the Justices of the Supreme Court have acknowledged that the Constitution gets bent and stretched in war. But it returns to its original shape when its over.
-
Sort of on-topic:
This is a letter written to all Americans from a Marine Corps pilot.
It is in response to that Canadian newspaper article that is flying around everyone's e-mail praising the U.S. This is his opinion but many in the military community can't help but agree with it. Read and pass on.
Remember John Glenn's famous quote when he was asked what it felt like sitting atop the rocket, ready to launch? "I felt about as good as anybody would,sitting in a capsule on top of a rocket that were both built by the lowest bidder."
(Senator John Glenn, Major USMC, Retired)
Dear Americans:
When I opened my e-mail this morning, I had about 20 forwards of the
article written by Gordon Sinclair, the Canadian who so eloquently praised
the United States. What most of you do not realize is that this commentary
was written many years ago. Those of us in the military service have known
about it for a long time. Now Americans are flooding the net with it as if
it were new. It is not. When it was written, most Americans didn't read it
because most Americans did not care. The tragedy that befell all of us on
September 11th shocked America.
America no longer feels safe. Many of you have said, "The government should
have known! Thirty billion dollars is spent on intelligence! What about the
military?!?"
Just a reminder America: you voted our government into office. For years,
you allowed some dishonest politicians and twisted television media
personalities to shape your ideas about the defense of our nation. Why?
Because most Americans were too lazy to look beyond the three-minute sound
bites on the evening news. Here's a news flash not being broadcast much:
"On September 11th, America had the exact level of protection, both
militarily and intelligence, that it was willing to pay for."
Only yesterday, the Congress and the Senate approved 40 BILLION dollars as
a "down payment" to fight this war. A short time ago, our politicians said
a 100 million dollar increase for the Navy budget was substantial. In that
same bill, they ordered the Navy to conduct an 85 million dollar study on
... missile defense? (No) desperately needed parts for our fighter
aircraft? (wrong again) training for Navy SEALs? (Nah) They wanted breast
cancer research. Yes, America, your elected officials decided that the U.S.
Navy needed more mammograms and less missiles. Was this an under-the-table
sneaky move? No, it was right out in the open. The Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of the Navy both opposed it. A New York Senatorial candidate
(yes, she's the one) was enraged that the military would be so sexist and
irresponsible to the needs of civilians and wanted the Navy to give the
money back immediately!
But the media paid it little mind. So America paid little attention.
Did anyone ever watch CSPAN? Particularly when the heads of our armed
services essentially begged OUR representatives to give the military more
money to fight terrorism and maintain a strong defense? Did you see the
debates by the heads of the intelligence services that terrorism was the
new threat? They told the committees of Congress that the CIA, the FBI, and
the military did not have the money to build the necessary intelligence
networks in the areas where terrorists were being harbored. They warned
again and
again that there was clear and present danger within America's borders.
America must have been watching one of the other 114 satellite channels.
The military said: "We need more money to maintain military readiness and
combat training." America answered: "What the military needs is sensitivity
training! You're all sexist homophobes! I saw it on 60 Minutes!"
The military said: "We need money to build ships, planes, and tanks and to
improve our technology. America still has credible threats throughout the
world. Terrorism will come to America's doorstep." America answered:
"You're all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. There is no more Soviet
threat! My Senator told me so! He/she says we do not need such a big
military! You're dinosaurs trying to hold onto the Cold War! We need social
programs!"
The military said: "We need to recruit more Americans into the military. We
need to increase our force." America answered: "You're not taking my kids!
We're going to shut down the ROTC programs at our high schools and
universities because you discriminate against alternative lifestyles! ROTC
teaches children (under 21) how to shoot guns! You just want another
Columbine! Rosie and Oprah say so!"
The military said: "We can't keep interfering in the civil wars of small,
insignificant countries. It wastes our time, expends our resources,
decreases training, and demoralizes our troops. The men and women of the
United States are warriors trying to defend OUR nation; we are not the
Third World's police force." America answered: "You heartless [Oops!]!
Can't you see the tear in the eye of that starving child?! There are flies
on her
face, for Christ's sake! Get moving! Jesse Jackson on CNN said that is what
we pay you for!"
The military asked: "Why isn't America enraged over the terrorist attack
on
the USS Cole that killed 17 AMERICAN sailors? How about the Air Force
barracks bombed in Saudi Arabia? the embassy staffs in Africa? the soldiers
mutilated and dragged through the streets in Somalia?" America answered:
"We
don't have time right now! We're busy defending animal rights! Our schools
are handing out automatic weapons! The federal government is discriminating
against cross-dressing Bolivian hermaphrodites!
The police are all members of the Ku Klux Klan! The lack of ozone is
ruining my tan! If they cut deeper into food stamps, those poor women will
have to move down to Size 18/20 Chanel dresses! AND THE WORST! Corporations
are raising the prices of their products sooo high that I might not be able
to afford the multi-disc DVD player for my 36" digital-ready TV!
Besides, YOU GUYS ARE PAID TO DIE!"
So - while you sit on your couch or around your office coffee pots and ask,
"Why did those terrorists kill innocent civilians? Why didn't they go after
the military?" - remember this, America: They already had gone after the
military - but America didn't care. These terrorists realized that they
needed to kill American civilians - and lots of them - before they could
have their desired reaction from the people of this country. Well, now
they have it.
Semper Fidelis
[/i]
[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
" But it returns to its original shape when its over"
And you base this on what?
Before WW2 federal income tax was more or less ignored. During the war the money was needed for obvious reasons. After the war ended did it go away?
-
Easymo, I think the author is saying that the military is constantly underfunded. In 1980, Carter, before giving the reigns to Reagan, had a state of the union address where he admitted that he should have increased military spending, specifically the Navy, after the failures in both preventing a substantial show of power with the invasion of Afghanastan by the Soviets and the Hostage situation over in Iran. We tend to do the same thing over and over again. We need to always make sure that our military is powerful, or things like what has happened recently, and in the past, occur.
-
Well, easymo, I base it on the Justices of the Supreme Court, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch.
The nation has to survive for the Constitution to survive.
Basically, I trust Justices to keep the other two branches straight on this. I rely on the checks and balances the old, really smart guys built in.
I believe that one of the Justices wrote a book on this issue just recently (published before the attack).
As far as the Income Tax... it wasn't War 2. The Sixteenth Amendment was theoretically ratified in 1913. Still there's another argument that the 16th granted Congress no new powers that it did not already have.
http://www.taxableincome.net/other/16thamend.html (http://www.taxableincome.net/other/16thamend.html)
Thus, at least in that argument, the Income Tax is moot. The bastiges will get our bucks one way or the other.. it has nothing to do with war or stretching the Constitution, since they already had the power to "indirect tax".
-
Eagler:
Gotta love ole Arty, his press guy ..top notch! How many press secs did ole Slick go through 5 or 6?
Ari has already lied a number of times. His first day on the job he makes a slander lie regarding the outgoing administration trashing AirForce 1 and the Whitehouse. He’s got a thing for Air Force 1.. another was the President’s plane targeted. You might think Ari is top notch, but to me he’s not exactly the bastion of confidence.
Asks NBC not to air interview with former President Clinton... what are they afraid of?
Requests news orgs to not show interview with Osama... As what was pointed out above, the news orgs said they would review tapes sent to them and not air them live. But they will certainly not be ordered or told what to show.. Last time I checked we still had a strong free press in this country.
Today they request.. tomorrow they will order.
Wants to chip away Constitution a little bit at a time. Roving wire taps/ warrentless searches what not. Since who is a terrorist is not really defined, anyone can be a terrorist... music terrorist, liberal spew terrorist. Some kind of barefoot tree hugger terrorist.
Wants to give security info to only 8 members of Congress. This is to add plausible deniability in case spook ops go horrorable wrong . Luckily, that got shot down right away. Congress threatened to hold back conformations. Checks and Balances? Bah! why not just appoint Chenny dictator and be done with it.
What President Channey wants here is a canned pre-packaged war. They don’t want anyone interviewing the families of the UN mine disposal crew that were killed in air attacks etc.
Question: Have the Republicans softened their stance on federalizing security at airports/bus and train stations?.. I know the Demos have been trying to get that through for years but it keeps getting blocked. The Republicans say it would be too inconvenient and expensive.
-
Toad. If I read this right. You are saying that we will trust politician to control there own need for power. Trust Politicians? Are you insane?
The point of my post was not about tax's. It was about how politicians wittle at our rights. Before WW2 very few Americans paid income tax. Politicians are not fools. They know if the stand up and say " Hey! we have decided to take a huge chunk of you money" Their career would be over. So they ease into it. Bit by bit taking more. It is the same with all our rights. Including the First amendment. If they can set this precedent, from now on who is to decide what constitutes a national emergency? The Presidents? We will be another banana republic in no time.
They don't move all at once. Its chip, chip, chip. The more power people have, the less their leaders have. Why do you think these people go into politics in the first place? To serve? Please. If you want to serve you go into the armed forces. They are interested in power.
The bill of rights are there to protect us from our own politicians. Make no mistake about that.
-
still paraniod 10bears? :)
Ah, the White House was trashed,Air Force One was vandalised as were items that belonged to the White House taken by the hillbillies when they ran back to their rock.. I'm aggravated this admin didnt make the big deal of these issues or the criminal last minute pardons but Bush was just trying to get along ...
I want the airport safe whatever it takes. I think the private sector can do it as well if not better and definitely cheaper the the gov but they need STRICT and enforced guidelines read rules with HEAVY $$ penalties if they are not followed. THe airlines need to get off their wallets and do their parts too.
THe media has to be put in its place.. There are extremes at both ends and they are way out on the "freedom" side now ... Do you really think they care about the issues, informing us little ppl or getting the eyes for their latest and greatest talk soup news show they can charge hundreds of thousands of $$ for the next 30 sec Nike spot???
I guess it's all in who you trust...
-
I think OBL's messages should be closely looked at before they are aired...who know's what a certain gesture, string of words or facial expression actually MEANS to the terrorists of the world. On the military...the Bush administration is and was doing a good job. MUCH to the dissapointment of our Military Leader's, Bush's first move to improve the military was to make sure THE PEOPLE were taken care of first with a substantial pay raise, which I have no problem with. We have enough weaponry and platforms now..although spare parts would be nice. I'm sure Bush had planned to better fund R&D at a later date.
Tumor
-
I am particularly interested in replies from our friends that are left of center, the FD-ski's, the Weazels, the Nash's, etc. Whats your take on this?
I'm no fan of the mainstream media and distrust them about as much as politicians.
In this age of instant information <internet,etc> I find this policy as laughable as the putz in the white house.
Ah, the White House was trashed,Air Force One was vandalised as were items that belonged to the White House taken by the hillbillies when they ran back to their rock.
Wasn't this proven to be a LIE after a few weeks passed?
Oops - I forgot...the shiney white knights in the Republican party would NEVER stoop to lying. :rolleyes:
-
What are you people afraid of? A hand full of guys with pocket knives? We are far safer now than we were before Sep, 11. We were wide open then. A setting duck. Now we have our garde up at least. Chucking our first amendment rights for these clowns is absurd.
Please don't repeat the ghosty story's of the newsweenes. If they had nukes/biological/ect. They would have used them before Sep,11.
-
easymo
I just don't want to watch another sand monkey screaming death to america on the news. I think a quick still shot of those morons with a cliff note voice over is enough coverage, anything more than about 10 seconds is more than they deserve or warrant ..
I think it's just feeding their head wrapped egos. As someone else pointed out, I doubt they broadcast Blair or Bush everytime we say something about them.
The next time I want to see a Talban leader or Obin on the set is with a crosshair on his ass, about tens secs, just enough time to see the hollow point enter his right eye ...
-
Eagler. I understand your preference.
As for myself. I like seeing the talking pig on TV. When they drag his corpse out for viewing. It will make it all the sweeter.
-
Good point Deja. So, in your opinions...do you think the Gov't used good judgement in issueing such advice? Or is freedom of information more important?
There is still freedom of "the press"... it has not been replaced. It has not been restricted. I don't think that the U.S. Government nor the media want to try to debate this issue right now. The government was moderate, and the press will/won't respond apropriately.
On a side note... I find several things about "freedom of information" quite amuzing right now. I watched a few minutes of "60 Minutes" when they were interviewing the doctor that was detained for two weeks before being released.
The gentleman being interviewed provided the reasoning behind his intitial detainment:
- He'd recently been to both Boston and N.Y.C.
- He'd recently wired a sum of money to the middle east
- He'd recently called someone in Afghanistan with the last name "Ladin"
- He'd recently booked 5 seats on another flight (dunno if one way or not)
The gentleman explained how he was transfered from one detaining center to another before the F.B.I. interviewed him. At one center, he actually feared for his life based on the looks the guards were giving him.
Here is the truly ironic part: This was all because of the media. The F.B.I. had not released any information on this individual. The media dug up basically what was shown above (some of it anyways) and presented some pretty incriminating stories. This was brought up by the interviewer as if it were "matter of fact"... not really the issue.
The gentleman was then asked about his "interogation" to which he responded "The F.B.I. acted with complete professionalism. I was quite impressed. I consider them to be friends. They asked me the questions and I answered (with my lawyer present) and they were satisfied. They then let me go."
In situations like that... who is the beast? Who is running out of control? Who is not using the better side of discretion? Who is pushing the limits of their rights and coming the closest to violating someone else's. Quite the paradox.
AKDejaVu
-
News flash folks..
Item.. if a towel head wants the latest terrorist news and secret handshake info, he can get it direct via the internet off the Arab TV website. I believe its also available live and direct via the Dish Network.
So, I might add; can we.
This messed up situation where we start tearing and ripping at each other while wailing about percieved encroachments to our 'civil rights' is a made to order benefit for the terrorists, who, surpise; suprise, are no strangers to the concept of 'divide and conquer'.
Lets focus on trashing the Terrorists, not each other.
I suspect that when it's over, "ends justifies means" will be sagely nodded to.. and any infringements upon our 'civil rights' will be restored. To accomplish the looked for 'ends' it seems wize that we ALL insist terminoligy like "for the duration of this crisis" should be appended to any legisilation or executive orders (and requests) that may in FACT suspend or abridge those rights.
And in the meantime, look through the posturing of our politicians, spin doctors and meadia twits for REAL threats. Frankly; poppin a muzzel on our elected officals regarding classified military and defense issues would be just as welcome as corking the talking heads blathering away in the media...
"...for the duration of this crisis."
-
It always comes back the the same question. Are you willing to trade your free society for security?
My answer is. diddly no. Nuke me, I would rather be dead.
BTW. Hang. As long as there is one of these pigs left in the world. The goverment can argue that its no over. This could go on for generations.
[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: easymo ]
-
Ripsnort, since you asked..
Whole thing is quite amusing as far as i'm conserned.
I can think of millions of better ways to communicate without depending on news agencies to air your speach in entirety :)
What if they deemed it too long and turned it into soundbites ? Mass suciside of terrorists since the message was corrupted..
It's a joke.
DofJ already asked for sweeping powers due to "terrorist emergency" but in the end, they will stay long time from now and will be used against people like you and me.
I thoght you reps were afraid of the big government, weren't you ? Now you want it bigger and more powerful ?
How about this ? Terrorist buys a gun and shoots 10 people with it before he's nailed.
Possible scenario, isn't it ?
Would you agree with "suspending" 2nd ammendement for a while ?
And how would you react of this sort of changes to constitution were being carried out by Gore ?
I know Cabby would have a fit :D
-
You really think Osama needs the US media to send messages? Comeon what BS, just take a moment to think how many ways you could order someone halfway around the world to strike or not... Newspaper Classified section .. easy to place a code... So let us, everyone see the thing.. bet any dweeb can find it on the net anyway.
-
Reasonable precautions vs credible threats.
Is it reasonable to force all americans to stand in lines for 2 hours min to fly to the next city?
Is it reasonable to have your commute into the city extended by 2 hours every day.. in EACH direction?
There's a hunderd more examples of financial and functional sacrafices being made right now to accomodate the war on terror.. and it would seem we're goin along with it; semi-willingly; grudingly, grumbling, but "yeah; ok... if we gotta; we gotta.."
The number of encroachments into our ALL our 'personal libertys' are running signifcantly higher than those that we here in NY are feeling already.. your emails are being read, your cell phones and land lines are monitored for 'flag' phrases and words, soon you will have a national identity file and identity card, your finances and personal movements will be monitored and recorded, .. itsa DONE DEAL folks. All it's gonna take is time.
There's a policy change in the wind.. the government is posturing to act on info before a crime is committed.. a complete reversal on previous policy.
And they say they are gonna do it without infringing on the constitution.. I dunno how that can happen.. but I just heard Ashcroft insist that thats the plan.
Basicly, they say they're gonna enforce policy first, then 'the law'..........
The lunatic ravings of my maniacal mind.
-
The terrorists atacked yer way of life. Now you're ready to change it?
I've been under the impression that the most *ardent* defenders of constitutional rights (well, when it suits their goals) have been Republicans.
And I am left with the feeling that had it been Clinton saying the same things, there'd be great wails and screaming.
Might just be me though.
So: no. Don't infringe on the rights of the individual. The Constitution is not a thing that can, or should, be tinkered with to fit the current political climate. *Especially* as it would be admitting a defeat: USA 0, Terrorists 1.
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
The terrorists atacked yer way of life. Now you're ready to change it?
I've been under the impression that the most *ardent* defenders of constitutional rights (well, when it suits their goals) have been Republicans.
And I am left with the feeling that had it been Clinton saying the same things, there'd be great wails and screaming.
Might just be me though.
So: no. Don't infringe on the rights of the individual. The Constitution is not a thing that can, or should, be tinkered with to fit the current political climate. *Especially* as it would be admitting a defeat: USA 0, Terrorists 1.
Exactly, the right wingers are going to get their police state.
-
10bears said "Question: Have the Republicans softened their stance on federalizing security at airports/bus and train stations?.. I know the Demos have been trying to get that through for years but it keeps getting blocked.The Republicans say it would be too inconvenient and expensive.
Unfortunately, money talked to Al Gore, this was the result:
But within days, according to Victoria
Cummock, a whistleblower commission
member, the airline industry jumped all over
Gore with concerns about costs. As a result, 10
days later, Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist
Carol Hallett promising that the commission's
findings would not result in any loss of
revenue.
The Democratic National
Committee received
$40,000 from TWA the next
day. Within two weeks,
Northwest, United and
American Airlines ponied
up another $55,000 for the
1996 campaign. In the next
two months leading up to the November
elections, American Airlines donated $250,000
to the Democrats. United donated $100,000 to
the DNC. Northwestern contributed $53,000.
Other reports suggest even more airline money
was poured into the election campaign that
year.
[/b]
Here's the article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24840 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24840)
Fdski/StSanta:
Conservatives are for bigger military primarily. Less intrusion on our lives Governmentally, however, in a case of War, I believe most don't mind alittle intrusion if our lives at our stake, think about that.
One thing is certain, those armed (2nd amendment) sleep alittle more comfortably at night than those not armed ;)
-
Weazel, there's a big difference in a police state as you think of it and terrorism reality we live in today. Extra security at the airport, allowing wire tapping on suspected terrorists I don't have a problem with if it means making the area I live in that much safer. I haven't seen any Jack boots marching to brass bands down mainstreet yet. ;)
-
StSanta: The Gov't just asked the media to put a cap on it, they didn't require it like Hitler and Gobbels did. The media complied, or in some cases, they will review the tapes thoroughly prior to showing them. Its outside the scope of 1st amendment rights when its a Nationaly Security issue, unfortunately, Gov'ts in the past have taken advantage of that, but I just don't see that happening in an open society that a Democratic Gov 't provides.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Weazel, there's a big difference in a police state as you think of it and terrorism reality we live in today. Extra security at the airport, allowing wire tapping on suspected terrorists I don't have a problem with if it means making the area I live in that much safer. I haven't seen any Jack boots marching to brass bands down mainstreet yet. ;)
Pull your head out of the sand then go back and read Hangtimes post, the reality of the situation is BIGGER more intrusive government.
All the lies Bush told in his campaign were just that.
You may believe the rhetoric they spew...I don't.
You right wingers crack me up, if you were in the mens room with dubya and he unzipped and told you it was the right thing to do would you gobble his cock?
<visualizes cabby with a glassy eyed drooling slack jawed expression on his face>
Your guns are the next thing you will lose... they can be used for terrorist attacks.
[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]
-
Originally posted by weazel:
and he unzipped and told you it was the right thing to do would you gobble his cock?
LOL Weazel....all your hyberpole aside, you got the wrong Pres. It was the previous occupant that did that!
-
yeah, bush lobbied tax cuts in the election run, ya, he lied about that! ;) (Rip counts the $600 bills laying in front of him, knowing that the other $600 was stolen by the Dems when they petrified his tax proposal)
-
Yeah what was that all about fishing around in Clinton’s trousers for years.
Study after study has urged the federalization of airport security, for pretty much the same reasons city governments take responsibility for firefighting. Maybe we don't expect airport security personnel to put their lives on the line, but we do place our lives in their hands. To that list of reasons has been added another: the need to share sensitive information about potential terrorists. Did recent events finally persuade the doubters?
Not a chance. Representative Bob Barr, Republican of Georgia, put it this way: "To me as a conservative, I look at a problem and ask, Is this a federal function?"
Think about that for a minute. Terrorists board planes in Boston, and use those planes to kill thousands of innocent people in New York — and Mr. Barr still can't see why airport security is a federal function? What would convince him that a federal role is warranted? One suspects that if the U.S. Army didn't already exist, he would oppose its creation — maybe he would argue that state militias, assisted by a few independent contractors (that is, companies of mercenaries) could do the job.
And Mr. Barr is by no means exceptional in his views. Congressional Republican leaders have declared themselves dead set against any proposal to federalize airport security, on the grounds that it would create a new federal bureaucracy — they have even denounced federalization as "socialism." And they have reportedly told the Bush administration that they would prefer no airport security bill to one that creates any new federal functions.
The story here is bigger than airport security. What's now clear, in case you had any doubts, is that America's hard right is simply fanatical — there is literally nothing that will persuade these people to accept the need for increased federal spending. And we're not talking about some isolated fringe; we're talking about the men who control the Congressional Republican Party — and seem, once again, to be in control of the White House http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/10/opinion/10KRUG.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/10/opinion/10KRUG.html)
Heheh I don’t ask questions if I don’t already know the answer Rip.... Just checking to see if you do. Oh this from the New York Times not worldnettomdelay
From Hang
There's a hunderd more examples of financial and functional sacrafices being made right now to accomodate the war on terror.. and it would seem we're goin along with it; semi-willingly; grudingly, grumbling, but "yeah; ok... if we gotta; we gotta.."
The number of encroachments into our ALL our 'personal libertys' are running signifcantly higher than those that we here in NY are feeling already.. your emails are being read, your cell phones and land lines are monitored for 'flag' phrases and words, soon you will have a national identity file and identity card, your finances and personal movements will be monitored and recorded, .. itsa DONE DEAL folks. All it's gonna take is time.
There's a policy change in the wind.. the government is posturing to act on info before a crime is committed.. a complete reversal on previous policy.
Hang don’t you know this was the plan all along. Corporations prefer a fascist government consumers are much easier to control that way. Before fascism became a bad word in ww2 there was a plot in 1933 to overthrow Roosevelt and install this form of government.
Ripsnort wrote: Weazel, there's a big difference in a police state as you think of it and terrorism reality we live in today. Extra security at the airport, allowing wire tapping on suspected terrorists I don't have a problem with if it means making the area I live in that much safer. I haven't seen any Jack boots marching to brass bands down mainstreet yet
Rip, the problem here is that who is a terrorist is not clearly defined. You remember the Rico laws were created to catch mob bosses. Then we have the war on drugs, they used Rico laws to nab the girlfriend of the corner crack dealer and give her 15 years in prison.
Give these guys too much power they abuse it.
What’s to stop John Ashcroft from claiming rap music, gay activists, tree huggers, that cute hippy girl Judy Butterfly.... a terrorist?.
Weazel wrote: sniped...
Jihad stop stirring up the rednecks... you too Nash. You start calling people names they automatically win the debate
Rip again: yeah, bush lobbied tax cuts in the election run, ya, he lied about that! ?(Rip counts the $600 bills laying in front of him, knowing that the other $600 was stolen by the Dems when they petrified his tax proposal)
I used the $300 to pay off my credit card debt so my interest rate wouldn’t go up. Which would be a good idea for America so ALL our interest rates don’t go up... Rip, I’m missing about $6,000 in work due to the slowing economy caused in part by the tax cut... I hear your employer is fixing to lay off about 20,000 workers. Which is better a tax cut or employment?
Oh one other thing, Bush said during the campaign he would change the direction of the country.... that was no lie.
10Bears
-
10bears, NYTimes is to the left what Rush Limbaugh is to the right. ;)
Also, please explain to me how an economy that began slowing drastically in March of 2000 was affected by a tax cut, which historically injects health into an economy?
Boeings layoffs are due directly to the date 9-11-01,nothing more.
And, if a Gov't did nothing in the wake of 9-11, do you think they would be critisized more or less than doing *something* in regards to the police state part of this thread?
[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
give me a couple of hours Rip Im fixing a car.
You want to start a new economy thread I'll fetch graphs and charts.
-
I just want to say this, most stock analysts I talk to on the BMW board, and most meaning 9 out of 10, agree that the way to get an economy back on track is to get people to spend money. Its a simple concept, people spend money, companies post larger profits, stock value goes up, you follow the meaning...now if you give more money to people to spend (think tax cuts), what are the people going to do? Spend money! Rinse and repeat. ;)
Now I realize that the economy is a much more complicated animal than I posted above, but this is the simplest way to get it jump started.
[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
Originally posted by weazel:
Your guns are the next thing you will lose... they can be used for terrorist attacks.
[ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]
Nice comparision, ask the media to half way control itself and the confiscation of personal firearms ...yep - same thing, Identical. :rolleyes:
I think you forgot, goron lost. THey b the ones who want to disarm us..
-
Lets Elect the Media President next time around, they control everything anyway. :p
Heard on NPR, I think it was, about a fella who distrusted the US Goverment (not that I can't blame him... they do have history)
Now he says he has complete faith in the goverments actions... odd change I think
I don't see these lines of security that are building inside the US, anything but a self-impowering Govement;with branches that already break the constitution, as I understand it. (IRS can seize property with no trial,DEA can seize property for 'suspected drug dealing')
Any of you ever heard inoccent until proven
guilty?
This is what worries me about wire taps and other such crap. Now some people seem to want racial profileing too?!?
i think i'm adopting a new motto roadkill
Well it's pointless we can be right till were dead, but most people aren't educated or smart enough to see or care. So guess we better just put the media in charge
And btw being a texan ... you can have my guns when you get em' from my cold, dead hands. (besides you have to have lines you won't let your goverment cross, and this is a good one with a valid point. We should proably have more 'lines')
I'm rather amazed the FBI got blowen up before the IRS. :rolleyes:
I love the USA but i just don't trust the goverment .. and would have to be crazy; or maybe have a rat trying to claw my eyes out, to make me think otherwise.
Besides how can you like people or orginaztions who outlaw'd grass to get rid of mexican's ... I mean tacos are good!
hehe
Something else, i looked at it once if i was to follow goverment regulations to the letter I'd have to charge 15,000$ for what would cost 4,000$ in business. Wouldn't get many customer's that way.
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
Nice comparision, ask the media to half way control itself and the confiscation of personal firearms ...yep - same thing, Identical. :rolleyes:
I think you forgot, goron lost. THey b the ones who want to disarm us..
Are you so ignorant you can't figure out the logical conclusions?
IF the media had told the government to kiss their bellybutton do you think they would pass an anti terrorism decree to shut down the medias RIGHT to report newsworthy items?
I bet they would, and if freedom of speach is curtailed what's to stop them from confiscating weapons from citizens?
Welcome to the police state, all you right wingers will feel all fuzzy and warm about it....until they knock on your doors.
-
Hey rip, in mny previous posts, republicans have used the "slippery slope" argument, fallacious as it is. As now demonstrated, it's not a fun one to fight against, since there's no real defence against preditions - except waiting and seeing if they happen.
Seems small chips here and there on yer freedom isn't that bad? I dunno; government reading my mails, listening in on my phone calls.
COMMUNIST TERRORIST AMERICAN SATAN
Let's see if they react on that one.
-
Eagler why do you sugercoat your words by saying sand monkeys, towel heads, etc to describe Arab people instead of just coming out and saying SAND cupcakeS, when it's what you really think?
Although I'm caucasion go ahead and add me to your list of subhumans and enemys of the state if it makes you feel better.
[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: weazel ]
-
I guess one has to be on guard that we retain our freedoms during this crisis. What I find disturbing is what seems to be a very vocal political thought in the USA that 'if you aren't supporting the war, you aren't American.' It closely resembles Bushes, "If you are not with us, you are against us" statement, and goes against the grain of the Bill of Rights. I also read that the government is 'encouraging' schoolchildren to say the pledge of allegiance now. I have nothing against the pledge of allegiance, but it bothers me that the government finds it important to suggest the reinforcement of children's political behavior.
Now remember, I do support our country's actions against bin Laden & the Taliban, but I don't see why there is any need to insure that everyone thinks of 'like' mind. That is the strength of the USA, to have a system where people think as they choose, believe as they choose, so long as they abide by the laws of this land. Rather than try to 'suggest' patrioticly correct behavior upon American citizens, it would be much wiser to remind all Americans that freedom doesn't come for free, and so we must act responsibly as citizens for the good of all.
[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: leonid ]
-
Hm, am hearing from other American friends that some professors and other people critical of the US position on this have been removed from their positions.
Scary.
Will see if I can provide you with concrete info: this sure ain't right, no matter if these guys are nuts.