BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!

Subject: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,Peace Matriot
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 10:02 AM

Despite the evidence mounting since last summer, pre 9/11, that the FBI is wholly incompetent, the Bush administration response is to...give them MORE POWER!

Doesn't that make perfect sense, oh yes!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 10:18 AM

We were discussing yesterday, here at home, how was it that the FBI got the job of hunting own terrorists in the first place, and then got the lucky job of taking the hit for the failure to do so? What's more likely?

So say a US covert operation got derailed in another country... It would be their law enforcement folks who'd nabbed our gang? Like the thing is merely crime, and not an act of war or espionage? I don't think so, although law would be brought into play, maybe, once they were nabbed, to make a propaganda opportunity (AKA "trial"). And I don't think we'd ever hear it covered accurately on the news on our side, either, whatever had happened. It would be deny, deny, deny.

So whose job is it, actually, to know what the other side is up to within our borders? And how (and what) are THEY doing? *G* How is slamming the FBI helping them?

And how come we didn't see Tom Ridge showcasing the new, improved FBI, out in front of the reorganization and new guidelines? What the heck has be been doing? If the FBI is getting increased powers, how is that sitting with local law enforcement, and how does that affect the delicate balance ol' Tom was said to be tinkering on?

So did I miss somehting in the news coverage, working as I have been on a huge music project, or is it a little odder than usual at the moment?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 11:06 AM

You may be interested to read about a recent European vote on something similar:

Europe votes to end data privacy
Law will allow police to spy on phone and net traffic

Stuart Millar
Guardian

Friday May 31, 2002

European law enforcement agencies were given sweeping powers yesterday to monitor telephone, internet and email traffic in a move denounced by critics as the biggest threat to data privacy in a generation.

Despite opposition from civil liberties groups worldwide, the European parliament bowed to pressure from individual governments, led by Britain, and approved legislation to give police the power to access the communications records of every phone and internet user.

The measure, which will be approved by the 15 EU member states, will allow governments to force phone and internet companies to retain detailed logs of their customers' communications for an unspecified period. Currently, records are kept only for a couple of months for billing purposes before being destroyed.

Although police will still require a warrant to intercept the content of electronic communications, the new legislation means they will be able to build up a complete picture of an individual's personal communications, including who they have emailed or phoned and when, and which internet sites they have visited.

From mobile phone records, police will also be able to map people's movements because the phones communicate with the nearest base station every few seconds. In urban areas, the information is accurate to within a few hundred metres, but when the next generation of mobiles comes on stream it will pinpoint users' locations to within a few metres.

Tony Bunyan, editor of Statewatch, said: "This is the latest casualty in the war against terrorism as far as civil liberties are concerned. The problem with wanting to monitor a few people is that you end up having to keep data on everybody."

The British government, which played a key role in driving through the new measures, has already introduced such powers as part of the anti-terror bill rushed through in the immediate aftermath of September 11, although the data retention measures have yet to be implemented.

UK civil liberties groups had hoped that if MEPs rejected data retention, it would open up the possibility of a legal challenge to the British legislation on the grounds that it was incompatible with European data protection law. After yesterday's vote they now expect the government to press ahead with implementing the act.

The measure is contained in an amendment to a bill originally intended to improve the security of e-commerce transactions. "Looking at the results, it amounts to a large restriction on privacy and increases the power of the state," said Italian independent MEP Marco Cappato, the bill's author who tried to prevent the amended clause being added.

Last night, the Home Office welcomed the result. "The UK is very pleased that the [European] council and parliament have reached agreement on a text that will ensure that the fight against terrorism and other crime will be given the appropriate weight. It is, of course, very important to protect people's fundamental rights and freedoms, but, as the tragic events of September 11 show, this must be balanced with the need to ensure that the law enforcement community can do its job."

But critics said the move amounted to blanket general surveillance of the whole population. The communications industry has also opposed data retention, questioning the feasibility and cost of storing such vast amounts of information.

John Wadham, director of Liberty, said: "This violates a fundamental principle of privacy, which is that data collected for one purpose should not be used for another.

"The police and other authorities will be able to trawl through all the details of the communications of millions of innocent people merely because there is a possibility that they might come across something suspicious."

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 11:36 AM

The FBI has no power over me...

So I really couldn't care less...

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 12:08 PM

And pigs fly...

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 03:52 PM

I am reminded during president Regans words during his innaugural speech, "I consider international terrorism to be the greatest threat to world peace and security" History will prove his words to be succintly prophetic. In order to combat such violence, it may be neccessary to allow the FBI and CIA to co-operate with different organizations in ways that were not though possible before. Revision of traditional roles will require modification of mandates. Are you all so paranoid that the elected officials and organizations that fight to secure your laws and liberty are not trusted? The world has become a dangerous and violent place, hopefully they will be better able to protect us; failure to do so may be catastrophic.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 04:09 PM

"Are you all so paranoid that the elected officials and organizations that fight to secure your laws and liberty are not trusted?"

No, I'm not paranoid. But anybody who thinks that elected officials and organizations, especially those that "fight to secure your laws and liberty" are to be trusted implicitly shows an abysmal ignorance of history. One way to find out what a "dangerous and violent place" the world can become is to give such officials and organizations autonomy.

You'd think this lesson would have been well learned by now, but obviously not.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 04:16 PM

Speaking of trusting our see-all, know-all, stay-on-top-of-everything agencies, did you see what Newsweek is saying?

Evidently the CIA knew for almost two years that two of the operatives, whom they had identified as terrorists tied to the al Quaeda and who eventually crashed the planes were in this country living, traveling and attending flight schools. And they never notified either the FBI or the Immigration people.

Oh, yes, we can trust them. All of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 07:09 PM

See my post yesterday on this, "the FBI and the Peace Feather"... Bush has taken our right to freedom of religion, and well, his bad. Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,DW at work
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 07:51 PM

Trust poor communication to be at the bottom of it all. You'd think with all the media available, someone would maybe, pass a message to the other team?

Clinton: you may just regret that one day, my boss doesn't take kindly to that kinda talk.

DW

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Jun 02 - 11:08 PM

Who's yer boss there DW?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Devilmaster
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 12:02 AM

if you want a good book that looks into the fbi to a certain extent, look for 'No Heroes' by Danny Coulson.

Danny used to be in charge of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team or HRT.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 12:05 AM

They got only one team for hostage rescue?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 04:36 AM

Are there two questions here?

1. Should any law enforcement body need this much power?

2. If somebody is going to have it, should it be a bunch of stumblebums like the FBI?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 06:08 AM

Well, one other question. For most of our history, the Society of Friends was a victim of religious persicution, from which we had a short respite, and has now been reintroduced by this president. Let me assure you ... it IS an abridgement of my religious freedom to have the FBI infiltrate our religion and come to worship gatherings, not to worship - but to spy. There can be no clearer abridgement of the first amendment than to say, in order to practice our religion, we should accept an FBI file. Socialist Workers Party v. the Att. Gen, is only a few decades old, the Surpreme Court spoke to this issue, and like Andrew Jackson, this "president" now says, "The Supreme Court has decided, now let them enforce that descion..." same on us for accepting this.
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 11:16 AM

Larry, I don't understand. Are you saying that the FBI is attending your meetings? Officially? On what premise?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 12:45 PM

"Are you all so paranoid that the elected officials and organizations that fight to secure your laws and liberty are not trusted?"

Guest, are you old enough to remember the Viet Nam War? Are you old enough to remember that the FBI spied on Martin Luther King because he was obviously against the establishment? Do you remember terms like "establishment" and "body counts"? There are reasons for the restrictions on the FBI. I had hoped to live long enough not to see them unleashed again.

"Trust poor communication to be at the bottom of it all"

I work for the US Federal Government but not in this line. I know that any reorganization is only for show. There are fiefdoms and rice bowls to be protected and a real reorganization would upset all of that. So they will rename some offices, add another layer of bureaucracy to the mix and submit it as a whole new agancy. But, the same people will be in charge and the same agents will be out there not talking to one another.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 01:56 PM

The reason these super-hot security agencies didn't pick up on the impending attack was that they were too busy fighting turf wars. You're saying, Guest, that we should trust these twits!??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 03:21 PM

The FBI, when it was legal to do so, inflitrated the Quakers, we are told, by agents, because they concidered us to be equivalent to ... or in actuality a comunitist front group, shows you the lack of savey and education of these guys, eh? So, in the past, our religious gatherings where attended for the purpose of spying. Bush has declared he has the power to do that again, in an executive order last wends., in spite of the Sup. Ct. saying the contrary, not very long ago.
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 03:27 PM

Here is a little more light on the subject... Larry FBI's New Authority Draws Criticism

By PETE YOST .c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is drawing sharp criticism from civil libertarians and others for new terror-fighting guidelines that will allow FBI agents to monitor Americans at religious services and in other public meetings.

Attorney General John Ashcroft on Thursday freed the FBI to visit Internet sites, libraries, churches and political organizations as part of an effort to give the beleaguered agency new tools to pre-empt terrorist strikes.

``Our philosophy today is not to wait and sift through the rubble following a terrorist attack,'' Ashcroft told a news conference.

But critics said the new guidelines were just another erosion by the Bush administration of Americans' constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism.

``The administration's continued defiance of constitutional safeguards seems to have no end in sight,'' complained Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

``It only serves the purpose of heightening the scare in the society and the paranoia against Muslims,'' said Shaker Elsayed, secretary general of the Muslim American Society.

The FBI is under scrutiny in Congress for possibly missing hints about threats of suicide hijackings prior to Sept. 11. Partly in response to such criticism, FBI Director Robert Mueller has announced a broad reorganization of the agency designed for a new proactive approach to terrorists, spies and computer hackers.

The guidelines announced by Ashcroft represent a loosening of restrictions laid down in the 1970s. They will allow FBI agents to enter any public place for the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities.

In the realm of computers and the Internet, the revisions authorize the FBI to use commercial data mining services and to engage in online research, even when it isn't linked to an individual criminal investigation.

The revised guidelines will push the decision-making for an array of investigative steps away from FBI headquarters in Washington and down to individual offices around the country. The special agents in charge of each office will hold the keys to setting investigative steps in motion.

President Bush and Ashcroft insisted that the revisions weren't a threat to civil liberties.

``We intend to honor our Constitution and respect the freedoms that we hold so dear,'' the president said. Ashcroft said agents in the field ``are frustrated because many of our internal restrictions have hampered'' their efforts to move quickly.

Under present guidelines, Ashcroft said, agents ``cannot surf the Web, the way you and I can,'' and cannot simply walk into public events to observe people and activities.

Ashcroft said nothing in the guidelines would permit the FBI to routinely build files on people or organizations.

Critics disputed that.

``Apparently, Attorney General Ashcroft wants to get the FBI back in the business of spying on religious and political organizations,'' said Margaret Ratner, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. ``That alone would be unconstitutional, but history suggests the FBI won't stop at passive information gathering.''

``They are using the terrorism crisis as a cover for a wide range of changes, some of which have nothing to do with terrorism,'' said James X. Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Dempsey predicted that one new tool, the power to mine commercial data, will be used in drug and child pornography and stock fraud and gambling and ``every other type of investigation the FBI does.''

Nicholas Graham, a spokesman for America Online, said, ``If law enforcement asks for our cooperation, we absolutely do cooperate with them in a criminal investigation. We have always been careful to strike a careful, reasonable and appropriate balance between protecting our members' privacy and their safety while working with law enforcement.''

Stringent guidelines on FBI activities were put in place in the 1970s because of the FBI's domestic surveillance of prominent Americans, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., whose private life was subjected to electronic surveillance.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the lifting of restrictions could renew abuses of the past.

King's ``persecution by law enforcement is a necessary reminder of the potential abuse when a government with too long a leash seeks to silence voices of dissent,'' ACLU legislative counsel Marvin Johnson said.

Others, however, were much less critical of the revisions.

``The impact is far less significant and far less subject to abuse than what was enacted into law'' by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, said attorney Raymond J. Gustini, who chairs a subcommittee of the American Bar Association on electronic privacy and co-chairs an ABA task force on financial privacy.

The new anti-terrorism law put in place new legal authority in such areas as money-laundering, e-mail monitoring, detention policies and domestic surveillance by the CIA.

``The FBI really needs this right now,'' Gustini said. ``They're under a microscope now more than any other player other than the president. It's very important for the FBI to deliver.''

On the Net: FBI site: http://www.fbi.gov

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 08:01 PM

Why do I have a vision of crew cut guys in bad suits rubbing their hands together and licking their chops over the chance to finally show the world how the US is riddled with pinkos, n-----lovers, and queers.

I have a bad feeling about this.... Where is the force when you need it?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 08:12 PM

I think you are all very strange people. You dont trust em but complain that they dont stamp out terrorists. You would condem Bush for trying to do something, and not offer any alternatives to his actions. In other words you are petty minded and very narrow minded individuals. Stick to music, you might actually know something about that.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 08:19 PM

This leaves the residue of uncleanliness in the olfactory faculties, or to put it another way: This stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 03 Jun 02 - 09:38 PM

Well Guest... as far as offering other options for Bush, you haven't read much on mudcat if you don't think we (on both and all sides) have not offered alternatives. As to sticking to what we know, I worked for one of the three and with two of the lawyers who prevailed on the case Socialist Workers Party v. the Att. Gen. - the case offended my this executive order. You will find a rather broad degree of expertise on the part of folks on this board of all political persuations. Get a life, get a name, Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 04 Jun 02 - 02:58 AM

This can't be the same Guest who posts in all the other threads. He's making too much sense.

Listen up folks. It's all of our jobs to fight terrorism. Let's say the FBI had tapped the phones or searched the apartments of some suspected terrorist. Let's say they had put flight school students of middle eastern descent under increased scrutiny. Who would have excoriated them for being fascists? Who would have hollered racial profiling, and gleefully leaped to the defense of the poor maligned flight student who just happened to be middle eastern?

Who?

It's not hard to know who.

The very same snot-nosed dribbling shit-ass sons of bitches who are now accusing them of "dropping the ball."

You can't blame somebody for dropping the ball if you never let them leave the bench.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Airto
Date: 04 Jun 02 - 04:08 AM

As far as I know, the article from the Guardian posted by DmcG above is relevant to Americans as well. The new snooping powers being introduced in Europe are part of a co-operation agreement with the US and, I think, Canada. Does anyone else know more?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 04 Jun 02 - 06:37 AM

Hi Lephrichan... I am not against the FBI doing it's job. In fact, if they had not screwed up, and had the CIA not screwed up, well, who knows. The concern is infliltrating WITHOUT probable cause. With the existing rules, if they did their job well, they might have stopped the highjacking, but the FBI is asking for greater power, not being held to a standard of greater effectivness. It seems if the FBI did it's job well, it could do its job without treating minority religions like mine, as the enimy.
Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 04 Jun 02 - 10:50 AM

And what I'm saying is they don't need greater power. They need to stop having hate groups from both ends of the spectrum dictate how they do their jobs. If they had stopped the hijacking, would you have said, "Good job. You averted a tragedy." No. You would have said, "The evil FBI spooks are picking on an Arab man and violating his rights." Each move every FBI agent makes every day has the potential to be scrutinized by people who are predisposed to examine their work in the worst possible light. For that reason, the standard for action is always substantially more than probable cause. It's that attitude from a part of the public that slows down the investigations. It's that attitude that makes the bureaucracy a necessary defense against the inevitable accusations of bad faith.

The job of a defense attroney is to twist the evidence into plausible lies to help his client get away with a crime. Before the FBI agent makes a move, most of the potential lies have to be countered. I'm not an FBI agent, but I work with some. By the time I arrest somebody, I have a mountain of evidence against them. I don't make my move until I know he can't escape. But I knew he was guilty months or even years before. I know who, where, how, what, and sometimes why. The hard part is knowing when.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 04 Jun 02 - 10:57 AM

LEP! The Supreme Court is hardly a hate group! And in fact, I have praised FBI members on occation, for example I had a grand talk with a young agent who had discovered criminal tampering during a case by the Assist. US. Dist Att.. I did, however tell him, I did not think much would happen to the DA, and in fact that was the case. She was not prosicuted, the USDA's office claiming that she had a split personality, and so - she only went into private practice, and was not even disbarred, fined or anything else that would have happened to a member of the defence bar.
I understand your perspective on defence lawyers, and it is well put in Ullivar's book, Tempered Zeal, which argues, forcefully that we don't need defence lawyers, that a well meaning investigatory system would work. It follows a case, here in the 9th precinct of New York.
His point is a little undermined by the fact, a friend of mine, overturned the conviction, mentioned in the case, which was based on a typed unsigned confession. My friend not only proved the fellow innocent, but they latter caught the murderer, so the defence lawyer, doing his job, actually aided the police. SO! Please don't put words in my mouth, old pal, I assume your good intentions, so please assume mine.
Giving more power without oversite is not a good recipie for a safe society.
Stay well, good luck...
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 04 Jun 02 - 10:44 PM

"The job of a defense attroney (sic) is to twist the evidence into plausible lies to help his client get away with a crime." Which for my side of the argument can be changed very slightly to read: "The job of a prosecuting attorney is to twist the evidence into plausible lies to help his client (the State) convict the innocent."

I am not saying the FBI or the CIA dropped the ball. The bureaucratic process did that.

All I am saying is that the restrictions on the CIA and the FBI are in place because those agencies have abused their trust in the past. I do not trust them to be any better in this day and age so the restrictions should stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 04 Jun 02 - 11:56 PM

It looks to me like lots of people are against the FBI doing their jobs. This one was a can't win situation, if you want to lend any credence to the inevitable bashers. If we arrest, or even dare to look at somebody BEFORE they actually commit a crime, the hate groups are ready to pounce. Apparently we expect the FBI to predict the future so accurately they can stop somebody who isn't doing anything overtly illegal yet. As long as they can do it without offending our libertarian sensibilites.

That's a Catch-22.

The police and the prosecuting attorney (will that do?) are limited to that part of the truth they are allowed to bring before a jury. The defense has a whole universe of plausible lies to choose from after they read the reports, see the evidence, and suppress whatever part they can.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 12:17 AM

Behave yourself, and you have nothing to worry about. :<) DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 01:28 AM

I wouldn't want the FBI to be the ones to decide whether I am behaving myself!

In Auatralia, we've just had the spectacle of backbench members of the Government (Liberal) party watering down proposed legislation which would, among other things, have inverted the need for the prosecution to prove guilt, so that the accused would have to prove innocence. Fortunately, this bit was deleted, but the Government is still trying to give the Attorney-General the authority to declare any organisation a terrorist organisation.

This is only fifty years after the Liberal party's attempt to have the Communist Party proscribed was overturned by the High Court. The Liberals have never had any sense of or memory for history, and they keep showing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,ozmacca
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 02:14 AM

Hrothgar, I have to add that the Liberals have never shown much sense of any kind, historical or otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't see much hope across the floor in the Opposition benches, with their declared intention to remove themselves from Union attachments, and their past record in kow-towing to big business and the economic rationalists. The Democrats seem to be more interested in playing silly buggers (but may have lost the rules), and the Greens want to stop any development of any kind, and are prepared to stop anybody selling major organisations ... sometimes.

It's not the FBI having power that should worry us. They are simply a tool of the govt. A tool might get out of hand from time to time, but if you want to do any job, you'd better have the tools to do it with. What bugs me is that political parties are prepared to do anything at all , not for the benefit of the country, but to hang on to the benefits they've struggled so long and so hard for. And it seems that the same thing goes in the UK and US as well as in Oz. We seem to get reports of conspiracies at every corner and radicals and reactionaries under every bed. Just remember friends... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

My firm belief is that we should abolish the party system altogether and have an elected government that has a set number of seats - not constituencies, but a real national representation - no nominations, no candidates and no fund-raising. Everybody who is eligible to vote is also eligible to be voted for, and first past the post puts you in office for a fixed term. No extensions, no exceptions, unless you die, go insane, or move abroad. Oh, and probably most important - Pay to be fixed at the national average income level.

Let's see the time-servers and party puppets survive then, where each person has to produce results to prove himself worth re-electing, and not just be the lesser of a number of evils.

I'll climb down off my soap-box now.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 02:38 AM

Here's a thought..... if you follow closely the teaching of many of the world's religious leaders and figureheads (love one another, share what you have, do unto others as you would have them do you, if a man asks to borrow your coat, give him your shirt as well, Allah requires you to feed the poor, etc, etc), then you are probably living the communist ideal. All communities (spot the root word here) living and sharing equally, as many Christian, Quaker, Muslim, Bhuddist, Taoist and Shinto religions do, are a commune, thus are communists. Jesus was the perfect communist. Communism in theory is the perfect balance of 'to all according to their needs, from each according to their means'. It's only when humans forget the teachings of their prophets and messiahs and greed takes over, that things go wrong.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 02:41 AM

Absolutely spot-on Liz. There's a very neat line "The Prophets agree, the followers differ" that puts it perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 04:31 AM

Larry - I've had defense attorneys help me out too. Some of my best informants were referrred to me by their defense attorneys. I had a federal defense investigator help me break a case with information from a defendant. We actually have some honest defense attorneys in our town.

Doug R says, "Behave yourself and you have nothing to worry about." He's absolutely right. And that advice should apply to FBI agents and law enforcement officers. However, it's quite possible the rules and procedures I use to arrest somebody today will be changed by the time he is brought to trial. The moving goal post syndrome.

Neamanson's sic little switcheroo doesn't work in the real equation. A prosecutor or an investigator who gets an innocent person convicted is doing a piss-poor job in anybody's book. A defense attorney who gets a guilty person off is doing exactly what they are expected to do. So even in the most ideal scenario of our legal culture, the tool of the prosecutor is the truth, and the tool of the defense attorney is other than the truth.

Remember that guy that lost every case to Perry Mason? How did that sucker keep getting elected District Attorney?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 08:06 AM

In a perfect world, Lep, you are absoultly right, as our dear Liz would be... but the court room has to deal with the world as it is at the moment. Problem is the pressure on DAs to show a high instance of winning, and few DAs advance their carreer through the use of procicutorial descretion. Problem is that there is a total failure of morals in the law schools. The culture promotes the idea of win at all costs, so that, for example in the case of a certain ex-football player, things are so tampered with, that the trial cannot be an equal playing field (no pun intended). WHen you have terms in the police force here in New York like Testilieing, where one conforms the facts to the needs of procicuting the defendant. I saw a perfect instance of this in a trial, where we had a truely innocent defendant, finally cut free by a panel of judges in spite of a conviction - because his innocence was so evident, well two police officers testified to completely different fact patterns, one officer who had retired used to classic fact pattern at the time of his being on the force, the second, who was still on the job, the fact pattern was the contempory one... win at all costs, hide exculpitory evidence, it is not just the defence who choose what part of the truth is shown.
That is just the real world, it is not the good guys against the bad guys, it is humans on both sides with all the warts, and that is why we have the protections of the Constitution, so well meaning governments will not billet troops under your roof, use that army to influence elections, search through your private life, and cause you to worry wether gointg to church will give you an FBI record which may inflence your rights.
Liz you are right, and that must be our best aspiration.
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 10:00 AM

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt, British Prime Minister (1759 - 1806)

I have this statement as a sign on the door to my office on a military base. I have been told it is unpatriotic to display those words. The sign remains. I believe it is patriotic to question the moves of our government and make people think about what we are doing.

You know, my point is that if humans are involved the system will be abused at some point. Liz said it and many more as well. The restrictions on our various law enforcement organizations are there for good reasons. As Larry has pointed out, from experience, lying occurs on the prsecution's side. As Leprechaun has pointed out, also from experience, lying occurs on the defendent's side as well.

Our legal system assumes innocence until guilt is proven. Therefore it becomes the prosecutor's place to prove guilt.

Conservatives, in MY experience, are generally leery of people who do not conform to their standards. Law enforcement agencies and the military, once again in MY experience, include a large proportion of conservatively minded individuals. Thus, the humans in those organizations MAY err on the side of their concerns and abuse their office to uphold their world view.

On the other side the liberals may fight hard to upset the plans of those conservatives. The same logic applies.

There is no middle to that road. Those of us who consider ourselves liberal MUST question the acts of a government that would rein in our freedoms in the interest of "preserving" our way of life. What they would do in the name of preserving our way of life would be to destroy our way of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 11:49 AM

Well said, Naemanson!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 11:55 AM

My son in law is a prosecutor so that, as he said, he wouldn't have to lie for his clients. Our legal system (maybe everyone's legal system?) is imo the most cynical of all cynicism. Outcome has very little to do with truth and justice.

If I didn't commit a certain crime and the courts find me guilty of having committed it, I am still not guilty. And vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 01:30 PM

I have no objection to the protections built into our Constitution. In fact, it's my sworn duty to defend them. Same goes for every FBI agent. Within that framework I'm still able to put deserving people in prison. But I don't do so recklessly. I pick my targets. I build a rock-solid case. In a target-rich environment I don't have time to waste investigating innocent people. As long as I'm acting in good faith, I generally have nothing to fear.

But there are those out there in the hate our government world who are predisposed, extremely predisposed, even blindly predisposed, to deny that I am acting in good faith. And you know who you are. Much of the bureaucracy now in place, the procedural rules that go beyond constitutional protections, is there to protect well-meaning investigators from those who automatically would twist their motives to satisfy their paranoid, belligerent worldview.

Prior to 9-11, if the FBI had yanked Mousa-whoever out of flight school and searched his apartment and seized his computer, how many of you would have supported them? And how many would have demanded the public pillory for any FBI agents responsible for persecuting poor Mousa-whoever?

This "the FBI could have prevented the 9-11 attacks" Monday morning quarterback session is pure unadulterated HORSESHIT. And it is perpetrated by the very self-same individuals who would certainly have screamed for the pillory.

The FBI doesn't need more power. It needs the support to do the job without being intimidated and sabotaged by anti-government hate groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 02:17 PM

The reason we are paranoid about the FBI not acting out of proper motives is that it is your good faith, and very little else (or so it seems to us), that prevents this country turning into a police state or worse. The power to spy on US citizens is highly suspicious because it's so incredibly abusable, and abuse of that power can lead to a situation none of us would want, but once in place none of us could fight.

Anybody who's read any history of the Stalin-era Soviet Union can spin you yards and yards of horror stories about internal investigation agencies with too much power and not enough good faith. Some of us would very much like to avoid that sort of thing happening here -- it almost did during the McCarthy era, and our entire nation hung on a razor's edge until someone had the nerve to stand up to McCarthy and tell him off to his face (I never remember the guy's name) and his reign of terror fell like a house of cards.

Next time we might not be so lucky.

Thus, we think, better to handicap the FBI (et al.) up front, than try to fight them on the back end should they become corrupt (or worse).

Maybe this is irrational, maybe it's counter-productive. But the one thing it's NOT is unamerican.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 03:34 PM

With all due respect, leprechaun, what bothers me is the kind of mind-set that allows someone to say "In a target-rich environment I don't have time to waste investigating innocent people." It sounds to me that you have decided who is innocent and who is guilty before you do your investigating. Without being able to demonstrate probable cause ahead of time, you run the danger of harassing innocent persons. That crosses the line between prosecution and persecution.

I don't doubt your integrity, but I do question your statement.

During the McCarthy era and well into the Sixties, I was not particularly politically active. In fact, I often took a dim view of what I considered to be the excesses of some of the things I saw going on around me. Nevertheless, many people (including the FBI) automatically assumed that I and many of my friends were communists or communist sympathizers. Why? Because we sang folk songs, that's why! I notice that same kind of mentality is operating in this thread. If I voice any misgivings about trusting government agencies to always do the right and just thing, there are those here whose knee-jerk reaction is to assume that I—and anyone else who shares those misgivings—is some kind of flaming liberal. If you doubt this, reread some of the posts above. I believe that more than amply demonstrates the prudence of those misgivings.

There are many people who are condemned, not for what they are, not for anything that has actually been proven against them, but for what other people think they are.

I believe the Founding Fathers had a few cogent things to say about whether or not one should trust the government. Before someone starts making accusations, they should learn a little history.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 05:02 PM

"Prior to 9-11, if the FBI had yanked Mousa-whoever out of flight school and searched his apartment and seized his computer, how many of you would have supported them? And how many would have demanded the public pillory for any FBI agents responsible for persecuting poor Mousa-whoever?"

Not me. That's because the FBI would have requested a search warrant based on the information on hand. They would have probable cause that the suspect was planning some criminal act. They would have discovered evidence to indict the suspect and the case would follow based on that body of evidence. And we would have been grateful.

Now after 9/11 we have people of middle eastern descent being yanked off the street for detention and questioning based, as far as we (the rest of the US citizens) know, on no evidence or probable cause.

The first case makes the FBI heroes. The second makes them villains. Can you see what I see in that?

Like Don I do not question your integrity. But your own statements indicate a predisposition could be considered dangerous. I have seen it many times in the past.

I used to work for the Justice Department myself. I saw my co-workers automatically assume the people we dealt with were "dirty" even though the vast majority of our interactions were with people who were breaking no laws and being no threat.

I now work for the Department Of Defense. I see my co-workers automatically seeing enemies lurking in every corner. But it just ain't so! People don't understand the statistics of the situation. There are plenty of people in this world who love the USA. Yet the news only covers the few incidents caused by those who don't.

I say keep the restrictions in place and make the FBI and other investigatory agencies do their jobs under those restrictions. Spend serious money on upgrading their ability to communicate and training them to abandon their culture of secrecy that makes them keep information within their own agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 05:09 PM

"Give us the tools and we shall finish the job" and "In harsh or melancholy epochs, free men may always take comfort from the grand lesson of history, that tyrannies cannot last except among servile races. The years which seem endless to those who endure them are but a flick of mischance in the journey. New and natural hopes leap from the human heart as every spring revives the cultivated soil and rewards the faithful, patient husbandmen." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Give the FBI the tools to finish the job, then if they abuse them remove them.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 06:14 PM

Leprechaun, I think it's easy to fall into the 'us versus them' kind of thinking. And in this mode, it is you who is us and we who are them. (Follow that?)

You assume that we would cry foul and worse if 'you' were to pluck the investigated suspects off the street. (The operative word here is 'investigated'.) I don't believe that to be true. If the FBI, et al, had arrested anyone, whether Muslim or Buddhist, and told us what they found and on what grounds they had suspected villainy, I believe we would support them.

Look at Robert Hansen- we, the people, accepted the premise that he stole secrets for profit from his own country, because we were informed of the trail of evidence that led to him. I don't see much difference in our willingness to support them now.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 08:15 PM

In this thread we are speaking about two groups, Religions, like mine, and the Supreme Court, so again, I have to ask my dear Lep, which is the anti government hate group, the Quakers or the Supreme Court (or the defense bar???) Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 09:19 PM

first of all I wouldnt agree with if you behave yourself nothing will happen to you.. case in point. Peter a good buddy of mine, 18 years old traveling for the first time ends up in a small town in Texas. Of course being a guitarist in the 70s hes got hair down to his butt. Gets picked up by the cops for vagrancy. Apparently theres a law that if you dont have a hotel key in your pocket, youre a vagrant. (It doesnt matter that he has $300 US cash on him, which would easily have covered any hotel room in that town). He got off with (an ironic) $300 fine and never went to Texas again. 2nd case. CIA experimented with LSD on unsuspecting people in Winnipeg in the 1950s (those people certainly committed no crimes.) One of them was even the wife of a Member of Parliament. They sued and later won a settlement from the CIA. $3billion US spent on counterespionage per year and the only reason that last flight didnt hit the Whitehouse was because there was a football team on the plane. (QUoted from NewYorker) Im not opposed to some more investigative power, but there need to be checks and balances.

Even 6mths after 9/11 some of the hijackers received their student visas to attend flight school - now that kind of crap shouldnt happen. Petr

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 09:39 PM

There is a very easy to understand reason that the FBI didn't stop the terrorist attacks on 9/11. It has nothing to do with incompetance. The FBI doesn't hire fools. It has nothing to do with plots or sinister plans. It is a simple process of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

I have worked for the government for 23 years and I see it every day. Here is the picture. Here is how it works. Agency A has a plan to do Action A. Action A will impact Department Z and Agency B. The head of Agency A tells the head of Department Z and Agency B of the plans over lunch. They in turn tell their subordinates. However, the subordinate in Department Z doesn't think this is a good idea. He tells his department head who turns a deaf ear. The Department Z subordinate determines he is not going to cooperate. As a consequence, when Action A is implemented Department Z is not in place. No is done about it unless a disaster results. Then memos circulate, fingers are pointed, and the media has a field day.

So the head of the various departments, in a show of support for each other determine that a reorganization needs to happen so this disaster will never happen again. They meet in serious discussion and finally draft a plan to reorganize their organizations.

And when the dust settles, Department A is now called Agency C with the same people in charge doing the same work but usually getting paid better than when they worked for Department A.

Agency A is now called Department C with the same people in charge of subordinates doing the same work but usually getting paid better than when they worked for Agency A. Department Z is now called Agency D also with the same people in charge of subordinates doing the same work but usually getting paid better than when they worked for Department Z.

And in reality nothing has changed. This is called bureacracy. It is eternal. It is immune to any and all forces. It only grows. Not even the President Of The United States Of America can affect it.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 10:13 PM

Naemanson! You're brilliant! Now we know how to fight the war on terrorism! All we have to do is get the terrorists set up with a really cumbersome bureaucratic system like ours, and they'll never get anything done ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 10:50 PM

But, CarolC, how does one teach something like that!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Jun 02 - 11:04 PM

Oohhh! Good question. Naemanson, how do we do that?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 06 Jun 02 - 12:34 AM

Back to basics - the FBI are those wonderful people who gave you J. Edgar Hoover.

Or was it the other way around?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Jun 02 - 02:04 AM

You're right, Hrothgar. I believe the FBI was Jedgar's baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 06 Jun 02 - 10:38 AM

Hmm, TEACH bureaucracy.... What a horrible thought.

I think you have to plant bureaucracy. It's like kudzu. It takes root and grows on its own.

I was listening to NPR earlier and they were talking about the FBI's request for more funds and staff to be able to do their jobs better. Does this sound familiar?

Think about education. Way back when Congress was talking about funding education the Republicans argued that throwing more money at a problem was not the solution. They said schools needed to do their jobs more efficiently.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 01:23 AM

For me a target rich environment is one where I have thirty different people I could indict next week if I only spend six hours writing the affidavit, two hours putting together the operations plan, one hour briefing the team, and four hours searching the house, then six to twenty hours examining the evidence and writing the arrest report. That's a minimum of seventeen hours, not counting the hours my teammates spend helping me, for which I have to reciprocate on their cases. And they each have thirty people they'd like to arrest on their case loads. So ten investigators times thirty targets times seventeen hours or more, and we have only forty hours a week to do it. A lot of well deserving, truly evil targets get left out. And I'm supposed to take a break from that to spy on Quakers? Don't flatter yourself, I need something that will keep me awake.

But what if I get there, knock and announce, wait the required twenty to thirty seconds, kick in the door, handcuff everybody, and then I don't find anything. Maybe they sold it all yesterday. Maybe they burned it in the fireplace. Maybe they flushed it while I was waiting the federally required twenty to thirty seconds. Maybe it's all at one of their other houses. Or buried in the mountains. I can have all the probable cause in the world, but if my timing isn't right, the evil person not only walks, but they get to accuse me of violating their rights.

That's OK. I expect that from evil people. They can sue me, but I think my affidavit will stand.

But the aforementioned blindly predisposed folks are out there. They can get themselves on TV, they can get themselves on a jury, they can write letters to the editor, they can even be the editor. I will not get a fair shake from them.

And if one of those twenty-nine other people I knew about but didn't get to this week happens to sell heroin to somebody's daughter and she overdoses; if one of those twenty-nine other people gets all cranked up and beats his girlfriend's four year old to death, if one of them puts together a meth lab that blows up and burns down an apartment house; who's the first one to sceam about me not doing my job?

You know who.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 01:28 AM

SOMEbody has a persecution complex.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 07:05 AM

Alex. You just heard the truth from someone who knows. The situation is, all our law enforcement and military agencies are charged with dealing with a multinational guerrilla organization, which does not follow any acceptable rules of engagement and levels of force. No one wants to infringe on civil liberty, but they will at some point need to have defined tools (which may temporarily exceed their present mandates) in order to combat an unconvetional form of warfare. If the American Gov. does not give them the ability to respond it will lead to a no win situation for them. Personally, I hope they get what they need. semper fi

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,Neil
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 07:37 AM

More like caveat emptor.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 10:26 AM

Neil, I forget the Latin term (maybe a resident leagle beagle can post it) but in French it would be Client,qui va en profiter? Buyer,Who benefits?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 10:58 AM

If you're not doing anything wrong, but you think the FBI is following you around, then you have a persecution complex.

Try muzzling your guard dog, locking him in the basement, and beating him when he barks. Then beat him some more when the coyotes raid your henhouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 12:14 PM

And everybody knows that NOBODY is ever arrested, convicted, or executed in this country who isn't guilty.

No wait. I guess we don't know that.

Maybe merely not doing anything wrong isn't good enough.

Naaaaaaah.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 12:37 PM

Alex... Doing nothing will be disasterous..

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 01:14 PM

And that's how it is too, isn't it? All or nothing. Either we give away every last freedom we still have, or we sit and do nothing. No middle ground. No -say- attemping to bridge the communications gap between various federal agencies. Just give them all the power they ask for, and then we'll all be safe.

alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 02:45 PM

"If you're not doing anything wrong, but you think the FBI is following you around, then you have a persecution complex."

Really? In 1957, after (presumable) investigating me and apparently finding me to be relatively innocuous, two FBI agents came out to my house several times and tried to persuade me to tell them everything I knew about a long list of my friends and acquaintances. They also offered me "compensation" to attend certain meetings—and parties, including hootenannies—and keep tabs on certain people. Among the people they wanted me to watch and report on were three Quakers (one of whom was Walt Robertson, a Conscientious Objector who got drafted anyway), a teen-age girl whose grandfather had been a member of the IWW, and the daughter of a University of Washington philosophy professor whom Washington State's infamous Canwell Committee had tried to get fired for being, in their minds, too liberal in his views. I declined, telling them that all I wanted to do was get on with my music, and on the fourth visit they thanked me for my time and didn't come back.

Shortly thereafter, several new people showed up on Seattle's folk music scene. The scene was growing anyway, but one couldn't help but wonder which one (or more) of these new people. . . ? Is it really a "persecution complex" when you know damned well that you're being watched?

What was I doing wrong at the time that the FBI would want to investigate me in the first place? I was learning folk songs, I was taking lessons from a classic guitar teacher, I was earning a little spending money by giving guitar lessons, I was making arrangements to change my major at the U. of W. from English Lit. to Music, and I was singing everywhere I got the chance. The only organization I belonged to at the time was the YMCA, so I could go swimming. Oh, yes! I did vote for Adlai Stevenson!

I've been there and seen them in action. And I have no reason to believe that things have changed that much since then.

Now, I know that law enforcement is a hell of a nasty job. And I'm grateful that there are people out there who are willing to do it. But I've seen what "a gun and a badge" (even if only figurative) can do to the outlook of a lot of people (and not just the aforementioned FBI agents) who take up the profession, and this convinces me that the constitutional protections that private citizens have must never be eroded, no matter how expedient it may be in special circumstances like those we are under now. If we let those protections go, we'll never get them back.

And if that happens, the terrorists will have won.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 02:52 PM

Keep talking, Don Firth. Education is the only way we will learn- and keep on learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:25 PM

Don, I can understand your concerns because you feel your rights were trampled on, but that was then, this is now. As Guest pointed out, this is a different enemy and were are not talking about hootenannies, we are talking about folks who want to kill us.

The FBI has far more important things to do these days than harrass folksingers.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:31 PM

And you say WE live a dream world DougR???????
Thanks Don... holding you in the light for doing the right thing,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:37 PM

Regardless of the enemy, the constitutional protections of our freedoms (what we have left of them, anyway) are not to be traded away to "get" the bad guys. The right to a trial by peers, for instance, or habeas corpus, weren't meant just for the innocent. They were for everybody.

Shrubmeister and his flunkie Ashhole have done everything they could in the short time they've had to undermine personal freedoms and sell our country to the oil industry (that latter mentioned to acknowledge that the undermining of freedoms hasn't been their only goal). The "war" against terrorism is a ready-made excuse to take yet more of our precious freedoms away.

Rollerball, anyone?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 03:55 PM

My goodness, this discussion has gone on while I was away. We have Leprechaun whose over whelming paperwork keeps him from protecting us though he is in a "target rich environment". We have Don Firth whose experience is that the FBI wasn't all that concened with criminals but was concerned with watching the subversive elements of nonconformity. And we have Guest who apparently believes we should unleash the FBI so they can protect us from those evil Islamic terrorists. Does that about sum it up?

Where to begin? Let's combine Larry's concern about the FBI checking out Quaker meetings with Guest's determination that the law isn't concerned with a few Quakers. After 9/11 he's probably right. Quakers aren't likely to oppose anything but violence and the FBI's resources are stretched tight. BUT the FBI does want to attend meetings of Islamic groups. Isn't that like checking up on the Quakers? Only we all "know" that every Muslim in the USA is out to emulate their brothers and knock down another tower. So it must be all right to spy on them. Hey! That's a target rich environment.

But it ain't so. Some of those "evil" ones are really just American citizens being persecuted because some people who share a similar religion went way too far. Others are people visiting this country for good reasons, rational reasons, and would be horrified to be invited to participate in such actions.

And a very tiny percentage of those who follow Islam are truly evil.

So here we go, persecuting a whole segment of the population of this country to find a few bad apples. Does that sound right to you? Reawaken Joe McCarthy and his cronies to ride again.

And, before you justify it with some vague arguments please note that the SECOND worst terrorist act in the USA was commited in Oklahoma City by... a US citizen! And that one took people by surprise too.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 04:02 PM

Naemanson. You trivialise what was being said, a cheap attempt at demonising the responders. There is a big difference between unleashing the FBI and what I suggested as giving them some tools to respond to the current threat. Unconventional warfare requires greater liason and cohesion of the various civil and military agencies. Bureaucracy can be painfully debilitating and destructive to this process. some mandates (US military) will require significant changes to allow it to respond when requested. These powers are to be held in check by the elected officials of your country. If you have no faith in the ability of your military, and elected officials to govern, I think you should become a refugee and leave.

FBI agent says bureaucracy hurt war on terrorism Last Updated Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:26:55 WASHINGTON - An FBI agent told U.S. politicians Thursday that bureaucracy is hampering the war on terrorism and some agents are so afraid of criticism from headquarters that they aren't doing their jobs properly.

INDEPTH: Target Terrorism:US Homefront

Colleen Rowley Coleen Rowley has become the best-known whistleblower in the United States since she wrote a 13-page letter to her boss last month, accusing FBI bureaucrats of fumbling opportunities that could have prevented the terror attacks last September.

"I really do care about the FBI. I've invested almost half my life in it," she told a Senate judiciary committee.

Last August, her request to investigate Zacharias Moussaoui was ignored by FBI headquarters.

Moussaoui was supposed to have been the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 terror attack. He's in jail awaiting trial.

Robert Mueller (file photo)

Earlier in the day, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the committee that the failure to act on Rowley's memo was one of the reasons the FBI has to be shaken up from top to bottom.

"The need for change was apparent even before Sept. 11. It has become more urgent since then,'' he said.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: How have the events of September 11th affected your life?

And he agreed the agency's structure is a problem. "The bureaucracy is frustrating," he said.

Mueller said the FBI needs to devote more of its resources to prevention. He has announced a major restructuring of the agency.

FROM JUNE 3, 2002: CIA accused of Sept. 11 intelligence error

FROM MAY 30, 2002: FBI changes to fight terrorism

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 05:25 PM

All of Neamanson's hyperbole ony serves to demonstrate why I need to spend so much time writing that affidavit, and collecting the evidence beforehand. Mere probable cause will get me the warrant, but I'd be stupid to go for mere probable cause. I'm not going to bet my job on mere probable cause. I better amass a mountain of evidence before I act.

Mousethief is absolutely right about innocent people getting convicted in this country. That could very easily include an FBI agent who secures a search warrant for Moussaoui's apartment and computer, and then finds himself in court for violating Moussaoui's civil rights. Indeed, all they would have found was a little information about crop dusting and aviation. (plausible lie ahead) Of course the only slightly illegal immigrant was merely trying to learn things to help the oppressed people in his native land. As a defendant in a civil rights trial, how do think that FBI agent would fare with Mousethief, Naemanson, Inobu, Peace Matriot and Don Firth on the jury?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 05:31 PM

Can an FBI agent or any other law inforcement officer be convicted of civil rights abuse if he or she has a legally obtained search warrant prior to conducting the search?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 06:17 PM

That's not a good way to ask the question. Let me rephrase:

Can an FBI agent or any other law enforcement officer be convicted of civil rights abuse for conducting a search of a home or computer for which he or she has a legally obtained search warrent?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 06:37 PM

I wouldn't think so, Carol C, but I'm sure some of our lawyer friends can best comment on that.

Leprechaun: I wouldn't give that FBI agent much of a chance with the jury you named.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 08:02 PM

You're missing the point, Doug. Whether it's then or now makes no difference.

Back then, the Powers That Be perceived the threat of the government being overthrown by force and violence as just as real as the threat of terrorist attacks today. To forestall this, they kept tabs on people they regarded as suspicious. Just like today.

Both then and now, the Powers That Be insist that they be released from constitutional restrictions so they can be free to pursue the country's enemies more effectively. Back then it was a college student with a guitar. Now it's a dark-haired, dark-eyed young man who attends a mosque regularly. Both then and now, it's a "target rich environment."

Right now, and for who knows how long into the future, we are under threat—from terrorists and God knows what other kind of crazies that are out there (somebody mentioned Timothy McVeigh). Again (still) the Powers That Be are demanding that they be released from the constitutional restrictions so they can track the terrorists down and stop them. And if we do drop the constitutional restrictions, how long they stay down? Until we know for certain that the terrorists and the crazies have been rooted out, of course!

And when will that be?

The point of terrorism is to spread terror. Looks like they're doing a pretty good job of it. Especially if they can induce us to destroy our own system.

And, leprechaun and DougR, where the hell do you get off presuming to think you know my mind and how I would vote on such a jury? I see that you've both condemned me already, which goes a long way toward proving my point!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 08:08 PM

By the way, if the FBI agent in question had obtained a search warrant prior to his search, then he would be acting legally. And on that basis, I would vote to acquit.

I say again, you prove my point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 09:39 PM

I would be honored to be on that jury with the ones you mentioned and some other 'Catters you haven't mentioned, leprechaun, because I would know that these are thinking people who are aware of the futility of some of the 'solutions' to the problems that have historically beset us and are looking at fresh ways of thinking, and asking questions, and judging and just plain seeing.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 07 Jun 02 - 11:25 PM

Guest

"Naemanson. You trivialise what was being said, a cheap attempt at demonising the responders."

I'm not trying to either trivialize or demonize. I am trying to contribute to a reasonable discussion on the power needed to protect us from terrorists. We quite obviously do not agree so I am trying to explain my misgivings to you to show why freeing the FBI to hunt down the evil ones is a bad idea.

"Unconventional warfare requires greater liason and cohesion of the various civil and military agencies."

I couldn't agree more. If you want to increase funding to allow all the law enforcement agencies to better communicate amongst themselves then by all means go for it. Even I would vote for that legislation. I would argue that it would be easier for each aganciy to do their job if such a system were in place. So that is not where we disagree.

"These powers are to be held in check by the elected officials of your country. If you have no faith in the ability of your military, and elected officials to govern, I think you should become a refugee and leave."

Well, I'm not going anywhere just yet. Running is unpatriotic. I will stand and raise my voice against the restrictions of freedom and the persecution of the innocent. That is patriotism of the highest degree. I trust the ABILITY of the military to do its job. I work for a military agency and the people I work with are fine human beings and wonderful Americans. But the military is run by the civilian we elected to the highest office in the land. And I don't trust our "elected officials" to do what's right unless they know the people are watching them. To that end I require full and open disclosure of the process of government. As long as their actions are in the public eye they will be reasonably honest.

leprechaun:

"All of Neamanson's hyperbole ony serves to demonstrate why I need to spend so much time writing that affidavit, and collecting the evidence beforehand. Mere probable cause will get me the warrant, but I'd be stupid to go for mere probable cause. I'm not going to bet my job on mere probable cause. I better amass a mountain of evidence before I act."

I think what I am hearing is someone who believes his job is nabbing the bad guys but not doing the paperwork. There is a tone that indicates that the paperwork is difficult and has a negative impact on the job. Yet, how do you prove that the person in your cell is the real bad guy? Just because you believe him to be bad doesn't justify taking him out of circulation, or investing in a secret investigation.

You HAVE to gather the evidence to do that because he is innocent until you prove him guilty. Our nation is built on the belief that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty. If you want another form of law enforcement, such as the person is guilty until proven innocent, then you need to go to another country. I think France is, or was, under that system...

And, if I were on that jury the FBI agent, having used a legal search warrant, and having treated Mr. M with some modicum of human dignity, would not have anything to worry about. Actually we would not need that jury to try the agent. What you are failing to see is that we are not concerned with the FBI doing its job as long as they stay within the rules. And the rules are there because the FBI, and other agencies, once abused their power and needed to be reined in.

Spend money on the system. Improve communications. Give them computers and databases and guns and anything else they want to do their job. But DON'T, please God, take away the restrictions that protect us from our own system. The people who are doing that job are only human. They make mistakes. Under the current system the mistakes are minimized and innocent people are more or less protected. I agree the restrictions make the job more difficult but that's just life. If it was easy and fun they'd call it play.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:18 AM

Apparently I'm not being clear. A dark-haired person in a mosque is not a target. A dark-haired person in a mosque trying to collect anthrax is a target. An old man in an internet chat room is not a target. An old man downloading kiddie porn is a target. A latino immigrant working at Taco Bell is not a target. A latino immigrant working at Taco Bell and driving a Lincoln Navigator, wire-transferring three thousand dollars a week and wearing a six-hundred dollar cowboy hat is a target.

I love my paperwork. I take great pride in my affidavits. My affidavits kick ass. It wouldn't be as much fun to catch the bad guys without the constitutional protections, which I myself might need some day. (When the vegans outlaw meat)

But I take my time. I amass a lot of evidence before I arrest anybody. So does that FBI agent. He ain't gonna write no skinny warrant. Ebbie's jury ain't gonna get a shot at him. He wouldn't be any happier going to prison or losing his retirement because somebody was proud to be on jury with a bunch of folks who hate Republicans.

He isn't timid, but he knows which way the wind blows. He knows what the law allows, and what it limits. That's the way you want it. That's the way a lot of people want it. O.K. That's not a bad thing. We're still enjoying ourselves.

But it's really really really chickenshit for anybody to even suggest the FBI could have stopped the hijackers if only they had done their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:26 AM

You know lep, seems he'd have better chance on a jury with me on it, than I would with a jury with you on it. You ignore all that I say, about ... for example, being infavor of the FBI doing its job WITH CONSTITUTIONAL CHECKS, that document YOU swore to uphold... well, in fact, old skin, I was on a jury which tried a State Liquor cop for shaking down store owners. The case hung on wether or not he opened his brief case at one point, letting a store owner see his gun, that would have proved a witness's story true.
I was the last hold out for an entire day, giving the cop the benifit of the doupt, believing that it was not a huge stretch to assume a liquor agent had a fire arm in his brief case.
When they come after peace churchs, will you show us the concern we show your rights? I hope so, kiddo,
By the way, a federal agent denying rights do to a bad search has little to fear in the way of santions of the law, other than his case going south... so it is a rather odd hypothetical... Well good luck any old way... Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:30 AM

Leprechaun: wasted breath, I fear. These folks are convinced that the FBI is out to get 'em, and no words from you, I, or anyone else is going to convince them otherwise. I'm outta here.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 06:50 AM

I guess we don't disagree after all, Lep. We both want the restrictions in place. Thank you for taking the time to do the paper side of your job and for doing it right.

(Actually we do not take the time to thank our cops often enough. It would have been nice to say thanks to the cops and firefighters who died on 9/11 while they could still hear us. Give me roses while I yet live...)

Larry, please don't let your anger cloud your posts. We are trying to have a civilized discussion here and I would hate to see it dissolve into name calling and finger pointing. I agree completely with your concerns and fears. I don't believe I have ever been the target of the FBI so I can't quite feel your emotion but I can understand it, I think.

Doug, your post indicates that you aren't listening and hearing what we (the liberals) are saying. We are worried and concerned. Some of what has been said by the conservative viewpoint (in this thread and in 3d land) has only served to exacerbate those worries. We are looking at history and asking someone to reassure us that it won't be repeated. So far nobody has been able to give us that assurance. The best anyone can do is tell us to trust our elected officials.

The problem with that is our elected officials have let us down too often in the past. Those of us who remember the Viet Nam era, Watergate, Joe MacCarthy, etc., know that those people in charge will do whatever they can to shape the world to their own personal vision.

Our President is one of those people (aren't they all?). He thinks the American public wants what he does. He forgets that he lost the popular election. He has no mandate from the people to put his vision in place. Fewer than half the voters supported him before 9/11.

My concern is that with the war on terrorism his popularity has increased. And, with every new terrorist threat he announces more and more people see him as standing between the terrorists and the falling towers.

But how many of those threats are real? It is suspicious to me that the timing seems to coincide with every fresh criticism of the administration. Without being able to see evidence of the threats he could be manipulating the people and keeping them on edge to ensure he gets re-elected and gets the mandate he couldn't get honestly.

That scares the hell out of me because his vision does not include people who dare to question him. And he will use the FBI and whatever other agency he has or can create to get rid of those subversives.

Can you see now the source of our worries?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:22 AM

Anger? Name calling??????? Old skin? Lep? What name calling? I must be a wee bit missunderstood here! In Ireland old skin is a term of endearment! Trouble with e-conversations is folks often missread the feeling behind the writing, the above is not said in anger, rather, I was responding to Leprachan saying that as a juror I would be prejudiced against cops... not the case. Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:30 AM

Oh, sorry about that, Larry.

I was just concerned because you have some important contributions to make to this thread and I'd hate to see them get swept aside in a spate of name calling and finger pointing. The surveillance of the Quakers, to me, is synonymous to the surveillance of the Islamic groups. However, the Quakers are known for their devotion to peace. I don't think I've ever heard of a militant Quaker...

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:31 AM

However that would be a great name for a band, The Militant Quakers.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:14 AM

Unfortunaltly there where a few, Nixon, well a Quaker who made war and lied etc... then I believe a majority of our Friends joined the army in WWII, not as non-combatants... as far as Quakers militancy, that, thank god has not happened, no Spanish inquisision! We may be an anti FBI hate group (only KIDDING!!! guys....) but we are nice about it... Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 12:45 PM

Naemanson: I do understand your point of view. Total mistrust of govenment leaders, total distrust of government. Rather than seeing the glass half full, the glass is half empty.

It is true that in the election Bush did not win the popular vote. However, he won the election because we do not choose our presidents by popular vote as you well know. I am of the opinion that the majority of the American people DO support Bush and his policies in realtion to handling the terrorist threat. Why? Because his popularity rating has constantly remained 70+% since 9/11. If the majority of the American people were opposed to his policies, his popularity would plummet. You seem to put great store in the value of the popular vote, therefore, I would think you would recognize the value of popularity polls.

I believe that law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the FBI. True, there were abuses of power in the past, but as has been pointed out in this thread, the purpose for those abuses was to ensure J. Edgar he would continue to have a job. Those days are long gone, I believe.

Another point we will disagree on probably is the need for profiling. The terrorist acts in the past have not been committed by 80 year old grandmothers, they have been committed by middle easterners between the ages of 17 and 40. Airport screeners should cease making detailed searches of grandmothers, former governors of states, who are also Medal of Honor winners, and concentrate on middle eastern males between the ages of 17 and 40.

You, and probably the majority of those contributiing to this thread probably believe otherwise. That's fine with me. You have as much right to an opinion as I do. So the one thing we might agree on is that right. The right to disagree.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 02:10 PM

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

—Reinhold Niemoller

Just a thought. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 03:51 PM

Holding you Don, and Reinhold in the light... well remembered... Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:10 PM

Let me explain what I meant about the election. I do not want to reopen that debate. He won and that's all there is to it.

Bush did not win the popular election. To me that means he did not have the confidence of a majority of the people. He needed something to win that confidence. Along comes al Qaida and the towers fell. Suddenly he has a mission. He has something to hang his hat on. As long as he can show he is fighting his war on terorism the people will support him.

If that was as far as it goes I wouldn't have a problem with it. Unfortunately he is using the situation to push his conservative agenda down our throats. (Remember less than half of us wanted that agenda to start with.) Now he can justify those agenda items that people worried about in November 2000 by shouting "Terrorist!" whenever he needs to push something through. And whenever someone in authority questions the administration and its methods there is another announcement of a new "credible threat" but no details are ever provided.

In this day and age of TV and electronic media the population is easy to manipulate. But you have to remember the proverb, "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." As long as he can keep the population believing that there are terrorists around every corner then he will be able to keep his place. And he has a very good public relations bureau to help him keep tabs on what the people are thinking and doing. (No politician worth his salt would dare not have good public relations bureau, liberals and conservatives alike.)

So as long as he can fool the people and keep them guessing he will be all right. I am looking forward to the day that they announce another credible threat and the people say, "Not this time, buddy."

By the way, I know I might be wrong. This just may be paranoia. But I was raised to question authority. We live in a society built on the free and open exchange of ideas and information. At some point in the next 50 years the files will be opened and we will find out who is right. I hope I am here to see the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 08:51 PM

True, there were abuses of power in the past, but as has been pointed out in this thread, the purpose for those abuses was to ensure J. Edgar he would continue to have a job.

DougR, I'm curious to know why you would believe that J. Edgar is all that unusual in his misuse of power in order to protect his job. Isn't that a really big part of the reason the founding fathers of this country created so many constitutional protections and separations of power? Because they knew that it isn't unusual at all for people to behave that way, and that the only way for us to be protected from that sort of thing is through constitutional protections and separations of power?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 09:05 PM

J. Edgar used his power to blackmail presidents and other politicians. He would have been long gone years ago if presidents hadn't feared him for what he might reveal about them.

I do not believe directors who have followed JEH have abused their power. If you feel otherwise, Carol C., I'd like some instances.

Naemanson: I think, as long as the Democrats have even a slim majority in the senate, you don't have to worry too much about Bush's agenda. The Congress (read Daschle and crew) are not so impressed with the president's popularity ratings that they are going to allow legislation to pass that they don't like. Now, if the Republicans regain a majority in November, you have ample cause to get concerned (and I of course will rejoice).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 09:20 PM

I wasn't speaking about any specific people, DougR. I was saying that the understanding I have is that the founding fathers, in their wisdom, created constitutional protections and separations of power because they knew that people often misuse power in order to preserve power. It seems to me that to compromise or weaken those protections invites the possibility that someone now, or in the future, will misuse power for the purpose of preserving power.

In other words, DougR, why don't you trust the wisdom of the founding fathers when they set us up with those protections?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 09:36 PM

And DougR, we - the people- didn't know about Hoover until after his death... What will we learn in future about others?

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:01 PM

I think it was pretty common knowledge among the politicians, Ebbie, for years. Whether or not the general population knew about it is probably beside the point. He wasn't going to blackmail any of us. Even had we known, there would have been little the general population could do about it.

But I don't won't to rain on your parade, if you are convinced that you can't trust your government, be my guest! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 10:19 PM

Well, at least those of us with some healthy skepticism about the human beings who aspire to govern will be in some excellent company! George Washington... Thomas Jefferson... Benjamin Franklin... etc... etc...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 08 Jun 02 - 11:01 PM

Carol and Ebbie, those are some good points.

Doug, why do you trust our fearless leaders? What have they done that endears them to your heart?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 01:04 AM

"Whether or not the general population knew about it is probably beside the point."

Doug, that is very much the point.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 03:31 AM

On 02-Jun-02 - 11:06 AM I posted an article from the UK Guardian about a move to track all emails. "The Observer" from 9th June has a similar article which adds in the following clarifications:

* Police sources say new powers on accessing personal data will come into force in Britain towards the end of the year

* Companies that run internet sites will be required to retain passwords used by individuals, record which website addresses are visited, and keep details of webpages looked at and any credit card or bank details used for subscriptions.

To spell this out: in order to implement these new powers it looks as if even the smallest web site that allows purchase on line will have to keep a permanent record of your credit card. It is inconcievable that all these sites will have enough security in place to ensure the credit card numbers are not stolen. In order to counter a rare but high risk threat the government wants to create a widespread risk. It is harder to think of an action or an approach that will do more to discourage use of the purchasing over the net and purchasing from Europe in particular.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 07:47 AM

I believe part of the problem here is the myth of the modern. Before the House of UnAmerican Activities (HUAC), there was a commission which lost credibility for excesses. Then the worst of HUAC's excesses - McCarthizm lost credibility, then HUAC itself lost credibility, but now we believe, in our MODERN age, we can trust a government agency to oversee religion and politics in the US - to set the standard of Americanizm, using 9/11 as an excuss. In fact, the present laws, which provide for search, which provide for inflitration WITH PROBABLE CAUSE exist and are strong enough. This new plan is nothing more than a new HUAC. I don't think we are a better people than we were in the late fourties or fifties. I think we need checks on government power. Call that being a member of a hate group, I perfer to call it responcible citizenship.
I should point out, that I don't doupt the good intentions of folks like Lep and Doug, (in the manner they do of me on occation) I just believe in their idealism they think they live in times when better folks are in power. I think that is a dangerous thought.
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 02:00 PM

Aw Larry, do you REALLY think Lep and I pick on you? I wouldn't pick on somebody I didn't like. :>)

Naemanson, if the general population knew everything government is up to, it probably wouldn't have enough storage space to deal with it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 02:59 PM

First of all, a disclaimer:— Anyone who tries to classify me as liberal or conservative will find that they are way off the mark. In certain things, I am what is generally regarded as liberal (whatever that means). In other things, I am really quite conservative (whatever that means).

Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" are forms of political profiling akin to racial profiling. They are unrealistic pigeon-holes that save people from the effort of thinking. But they also lead people into a morass of contradictions.

It is generally assumed that liberals are unorthodox and non-traditional, favoring individual freedom, social reform, often advocating increased government size and spending while at the same time wanting to restrict government's power. Constant change. Shake it up. Try new things. If it isn't busted, fix it anyway.

It is generally assumed that conservatives want to preserve the tried and true, the traditional values. They generally regard themselves as more patriotic—somehow more truly American—than the liberal who so often finds fault with the government. And among those traditional values—family, church, Truth, Justice, and The American Way—is that greatest of all accomplishments of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution. When it comes to change, conservative are much more cautious.

Why, then, when harsh winds begin to blow, it is not the liberals, but the conservatives who want to flush the Constitution down the toilet so that the government can better deal with the problem? And this includes many presidents, who have to take an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution!

That's not "conservative." That's not even "liberal." That's radical! And one could make a pretty good argument that it verges on treason.

Can somebody explain that to me?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 03:58 PM

Ah, Don. The explanation is that you are operating from a flawed premise. The founding fathers weren't conservatives. They were a bunch of flaming liberals!

Think about it. They were the revolutionaries of their time (literally!). They plotted, planned, and successfully executed the overthrow of their government! They created a nation based on a bunch of radical new ideas such as freedom, liberty, and inalienable rights. Those guys were hardly conservatives by anyone's standards.

And here's something interesting you might not be aware of. Did you know that the "Pledge of Allegiance" was written by a Socialist? It's true! Check it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 06:09 PM

Hey Doug, of course I know that and the feeling is mutual, all the best, Larry
Same to Lep... who I hope is as happy as a clorachan...

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 08:04 PM

Doug, if the GOVERNMENT knew half of what it is up to it wouldn't have the storage space.

I am continually mused at the conspiracy theorists who believe the Government is hiding some huge secret. They forget that the government is made up of simple people with the same motivations as the rest of the human race. If Technician A thought that revealing the secret would get him: a) more money; b} prestige; c) laid or; d) all of the above, then that secret would be blown wide open. And there is no way to hide funding for some huge secret in the Federal Budget. There are too many people looking at it and with their fingers in the minutiae of producing it. But it makes for exciting movies....

Our founding fathers took a very radical step. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking they were doing it for purely liberal reasons. They were business men and the king's laws were strangling their trade. And their trade meant jobs and money for the people in the colonies.

My own definition of liberal and conservative is very simple, perhaps oversimplified but I find it works. Liberals focus on people and social ills. Conservatives focus on business, money, and a restrictive viewpoint.

Thus, liberals tax and spend the money on wastrels who mooch off the government. Conservatives, on the other hand, tax and spend the money on businesses in the form of tax breaks and "incentives". Liberals set up things so people can live their lives free and unfettered. Conservatives set up things to deregulate businesses. Liberals do not concern themselves withthe private lives of individuals. Conservatives look into the personal lives of groups of people to make sure they are living correctly.

It's no wonder that Democratic office holders have sex scandals and Republican office holders have money scandals.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 09:09 PM

Our founding fathers took a very radical step. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking they were doing it for purely liberal reasons. They were business men and the king's laws were strangling their trade. And their trade meant jobs and money for the people in the colonies.

Good point, Naemanson. Except that in those days, those were very liberal viewpoints. The conservative viewpoint of that day would have been that the King knows what he's doing and therefore his laws are good, and we should be good subjects, pay our taxes to the king, and keep our mouths shut and not criticize the government.

But the term "conservative" means different things in different places. I have a friend who is from Canada, and who lives in the US these days. By his standards of conservatism, I'm a conservative, and DougR is a flaming liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 09 Jun 02 - 11:56 PM

Yes, Carol, I think you are right (surprise!) I do think the terms Liberal and Conservative mean different things in different societies.

Don, I respect your views regarding the definition of liberal and conservative, but I don't agree with it. Conservatives recognize the value of both large and small businesses, that's true. But big business does not dictate their thinking. Actually, small business is a stronger driving force in our economy, probably, than big business. I do not buy the popular belief by liberals that conservatives are uncaring about the disadvanted, or that they are resistant to change either.

President Bush has just proposed the biggest change to government organization than has been attempted since 1947. Does that make Bush a liberal? I don't think so.

He has also proposed the most radical change to Social Security that has been proposed since SS was established. That makes him a liberal? Nope.

Are either of these proposals evidence that conservatives are resistant to change?

Bush wants to abolish the death tax. That tax, in my opinion, should never have been enacted in the first place. It was passed (as I recall) during WW I, and too many Americans since then have been double taxed just because the Congress wants more money to spend. Is his proposing that it be abolished evidence that conservatives are resistat to change?

Bush wants those on welfare who are able to work, to work. Is that an outrageous expectation?

Bush wants those federal agencies concerned with home security to be organized in a more efficient manner, and has proposed a reorganization. Is that being resistant to change?

I don't know how I would classify the Founding Fathers.

Carol, you seem very confident when you point out in an earlier post that they were definitely liberals. Really?

Would liberals have beem willing to GO TO WAR to gain what they wanted (freedom? I don't think so. But, that's how we got it, right?

Applying the popular definition of consevatism(on the Mudcat at least) the Founding Fathers would never have approved waging war with England for their freedom because they would have been resistant to change! So I don't know how to classify them. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 12:30 AM

Would liberals have beem willing to GO TO WAR to gain what they wanted (freedom)?

Yes. They would have and did. It was called the American Revolution. And that was hardly the only time liberals went to war for their cause, either. (Of course, which revolutions you would consider to have been fought by liberals would depend on your definition of liberal.)

Applying the popular definition of consevatism(on the Mudcat at least) the Founding Fathers would never have approved waging war with England for their freedom because they would have been resistant to change! So I don't know how to classify them. :>)

My point exactly. They were liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 12:44 AM

I think the big difference between liberals and conservatives with regard to war, is that liberals will go to war and fight in order to secure liberty for themselves. Conservatives will go to war in order to achieve supremacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 01:07 AM

Well, Carol, I think you have a weird definition, but it's yours and I salute your right to have it.

However, using your own definition, wouldn't you say the Founding Fathers were supreme in their effort to achieve liberty?

And from what I can gather, from those who classify themselves as liberals on the mudcat, they would NEVER go to war for anything, including liberty. Just my opinion, of course (but I can read).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 01:21 AM

;-) Nice try, but you can't twist my words quite that easily. The American Revolution was not fought in order to acheive supremacy in relation to or over any other countries. Just for the purpose of achieving independence from England. Since I'm the one who said it, I'm the one who gets to decide what I mean by it.

And from what I can gather, from those who classify themselves as liberals on the mudcat, they would NEVER go to war for anything, including liberty. Just my opinion, of course (but I can read).

Tell that to Big Mick.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 01:54 AM

Well, Big Mick can speak for himself.

Am I wrong that the American forces achieved superiority over the British forces to gain our independence?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 02:30 AM

I'm not talking about who won. That would sort of be superiority in the context of the war. Although I think it could be argued that the American forces never had superiority at all. From what I've heard, military historians say that George Washingon's greatest strength was in knowing when to retreat. And my understanding is that the American forces got a lot of help from some other countries. Sounds to me like they just sort of wore the British out. But I'll leave that discussion for someone who is much more knowlegeable about military history than me.

I will attempt to rephrase what I said before in a different way so that we don't get entirely bogged down in semantics...

What I am asserting is that with regard to liberals, fighting wars has to do more with making social and/or political changes within a country, rather than trying to be more powerful than other countries, or to have power over other countries. England (the conservatives in this scenario, for the sake of argument) was trying to maintain power and control over the colonies. And it was doing that, in part, because the colonies were a good source of revenue for England to use in it's struggles with the other European countries for supremacy. (Supremacy in relation to the other countries.)

The American Revolutionaries, on the other hand, just wanted to be free of the British, and to have a crack at self determination.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 02:47 AM

We sure hijacked this puppy, didn't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 07:36 AM

Atually the American Revolutionaries wanted to be rid of Aristocratic control of the ecconomy... that is why American leaders of the war of Independance hanged a large number of American Revolutionaries when they lost Shea's Rebellion, and so in the eyes of many historians, the "Revolution" as you are speaking of, was a war of Independance, where as the Revolution (Shea's Uprising) which would have changed the control of the ecconomic and political leadership, was lost... being that we were still sparcly populated, a larger percent of our population died in that war than in any other to date. It takes alot to put down an ideal of freedom,
hmmmmmm...
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 12:19 PM

Yep, Carol, I guess we did. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 02 - 05:28 PM

(heh heh heh) Caught me, Larry. I don't really have any idea what I'm talking about with regard to the Revolutionary War, Shea's Rebellion, or the War of Independance. But as far as BS goes, I thought it sounded pretty good ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 09:19 AM

A long time ago in this thread I had a funny thought that made me laugh. What poor FBI agent came in late on Monday morning and got stuck with spying on Quakers? "Ha ha, Smith. You're late so the boss gave you the Quaker file. We'd be happy to help you but we got a lot of work to do on this New Orleans Brothel file."

Whatever they were, I think the founding fathers did a pretty good job. Maybe if I'd have been a Tory back then I would have considered them a hate group. But I have no faith in the fashionably revolutionary groups now claiming they want to destroy our government. I know in the depth of my soul that neither the Posse Comitatus or the Anarchists could put together a Constitution that would keep a country somewhat together for more than two hundred years.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 09:37 AM

Well, Lep, ol pal, we finally fully agree on something! (Acutally we agree and a few things!) Though, don't forget Thomas Payne, a Quaker and, as Addams said (accusing him of being an anarchist...) he is far too democratical for me! So they had a wee part in the seasoning of the mix. But, don't forget, the founders wrote far above their asperation and dreams, we where a nation which held slaves, which did not allow women (and is many cases the landless) to vote, and the process created a document seeming written by angels.
Cheers and be well,
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 12:04 PM

Hey, where did that thread go? You guys been busy!

My understanding of the American Revolution (that little ruckus in the colonies) is, like Carol's, that we just wore them down. Great Britain's attention was on the European Continent and the trouble in the colonies didn't rate much in their grand scheme of things.

(I love, by the way, King George's notation in his diary for July 4, 1776. He wrote, "Nothing of importance happened today." Of course, it would be months before news of the Declaration Of Independence got to England by ship but...}

Conservatives vs liberals. Definitions? We all like our own definitions. And none of us like to be labeled.

I think my own take on conservatives, liberals, and war is that liberals will go to war but will do so reluctantly. My perspective is that conservatives are not reluctant but see it as a viable (and for some, desirable) outcome to any negotiation. There seems to be a desire for the glory and honor.

WWII was labeled the good war because it was a war against real bad guys. Liberals and conservatives stood together for that one. Yet there were those who didn't believe we should fight. The vote to join the war was not unanymous in Congress. There was one dissenting voter and like it or not you have to admire her courage (I wish I could remember her name).

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 12:11 PM

Pshaw. Everybody knows that conservatives love war because they are heavily invested in munitions manufacturers.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 04:50 PM

Tut, tut, Alex, we are keeping a civil tone here. While I agree that the military industrial complex pushes war for that reason it would be unfair to say Doug or lep or any of our conservative friends are interested in war because they can make money from the conflict. We are delving for the basic difference between liberals and conservatives in general.

I am often confused about why so many of my 3d-friends support the Republican party because I can only see that party's focus on money. I do not consider these friends to be overly wealthy but they are not apparently hurting. I am hoping to learn something here about what the appeal is to those conservatives who are not wealthy but are getting by.

(My definition of wealthy comes from my father. He says he would consider himself wealthy if he could walk into a Rolls Royce dealership, pick one out and tell the salesman to "...cut the back off and throw some planks on it I need a pickup this afternoon.)

I have one conservative friend who works her butt off because she is constantly afraid of going broke. She is convinced she is steps away from the poor house. In the meantime she has to deal with weighty decisions like which Mercedes to drive to work and how many pounds of jewelry to wear.

Another friend listens to Saint Rush Limbaugh and believes every word. Yet another is still mad at Clinton (I don't blame him, I am too.) but believes in Bush. I can't figure it out. They both have lied and cheated. One harmed a few people, mostly foolish women who trusted him, and the other is busily wiping his ass with the Constitution and waving it in our faces.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 11:38 PM

Yep, Alex, I've got a munitions factory in my back yard! The only problem I have, though, is the Arizona sun keeps setting my atomic bombs off. The neighbors get annoyed by it, but since I am a conservative, I just say, what the hey! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 02 - 11:55 PM

Yeah sure, DougR. You're just saying that to try to impress the ladies.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 12:54 AM

The ladies on the mudcat are beyond impressing, Carol. I inherited the plant anyway, it's been in the family for years, and until we had the first big bang we had successfully convinced the neighborhood that we were making doll clothes for the Ken doll. Oh well, the truth will out eventually, I suppose, but the neighbors are still complaining about respiratory problems from all the dust. I keep telling them, "Wait 'til it rains!?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:10 AM

You mean the neighbors didn't catch on when little Walter (down on the corner across from the post office) was born with that third eye in the middle of his forehead? Or when the Davenport's (two houses down from the Dairy Queen) dog gave birth to a litter of puppies with eight legs each? Or when the fish in the Quigly's (three houses down from you on the other side of the street) koi pond grew rudimentary legs, and poor little Marybeth Quigly found one of them squirming its way under her bedsheets one horrible night?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: leprechaun
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:28 AM

So would the Republican Party of the 1850's have qualified as liberal?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:33 AM

I don't think so. I would say that both sides of that dispute were conservative. The Union was trying to preserve the union, and the South was trying to preserve the southern way of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 01:54 AM

No, Carol, nobody seemed to be too concerned about all the things you mentioned ...except all of those affected wondered if they would qualify for federal assistance. Since 90% of our town worked in my back yard, though, nobody sued or anything like that. *BG*

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 10:26 AM

One of the fun things to watch in history is how the parties have changed viewpoints. At one time or another democrats have been viewed as conservative and republicans have been viewed as liberal.

As Carol says each was trying to preserve the status quo. The Civil War was a clash of divergent status quos (stati quo?). Then Lincoln made it a war against slavery and those issues became obscured.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,Davetnova
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 11:04 AM

Whatever the ins and outs of liberal /conservative Americans an American citizen has been classified as an "Enemy Combatant" and locked up for the duration of "The War Against Terrorism" for investigating the possibility of placing a "Dirty Bomb" somewhere in America. As far as I can see at least half the British newspapers have "investigated" this possibility and several discussions on Mudcat could be construed as "investigating" terrorist activities. Does this make Mudcat an Enemy Combatant friendly space allowing could be terrorists to Conspire against America. (And the free world of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 05:04 PM

Naw! The FBI knows Mudcatters are good patriots, we just sometimes don't agree on some things.

Carol: I noted something in the morning newspaper that I knew would titillate you! It's 100% creep, but I am so certain you will be facinated by this little tidbit, I am going to risk offending the originator of this thread. Ready? Get a pencil because you are going to want to write this down. Here goes: "How many times have you mused over the curious coincidence that Damian of Vienna - 1829 - invented the accordian just four years before Andrew Johnson - 1833 - became the first U. S. president to ride a train?"

Isn't that interesting? I was certain you would appreciate that. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 07:59 PM

Hey DougR! I think there are a few folks on the board who would see a conspiracy in that fact! Johnsong, trains and accordian...!!! Must have something to do with the Lincoln assasination!!!!!!
Cheers, Larry
In fact... wasn't Johnson playing an accordian on a train at the moment that Lincoln was shot!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 08:05 PM

The Veep was playing an accordion? Clearly Booth shot the wrong guy.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 08:58 PM

You guys! Carol is going to come after you both with a meat cleaver. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 11:05 PM

I don't have a meat cleaver. I don't eat meat, nor do I cleave it.

Re: your question. Pretty much every day, DougR. Pretty much every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 02 - 11:08 PM

Should my second sentence have had a semi-colon instead of the comma between "meat" and "nor"?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 06:35 PM

I think the comma is okay. I get your point anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 06:55 PM

You were correct -- use a comma with a coordinating conjunction like "and" or "nor."

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 07:18 PM

Thanks Alex!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 07:20 PM

My pleasure!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 11:07 PM

Talk about thread creep!

I get the feeling we have pretty much flogged this dead horse to the limits of its... whatever.

I still haven't learned why people would be attracted to the conservatives nor do I even know what a conservative is beyond my own limited definition. [Sigh] I guess I have not grown as much as I had hoped I would. Still, thanks to everyone for contributing and keeping it more or less civilized. I think I'll spend the weekend lugging boxes and making music (not simultaneously).

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 02 - 11:55 PM

Hey Naemanson. This is my theory... I think that the conservative mindset embraces a paternalistic concept of the president. And if this is so, and not just some BS I'm making up, I would guess that that would have quite a bit of appeal to many people. Unless I'm all wet, in which case, never mind ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 01:22 AM

They ain't coming for you - and you're not a Jew!

If you have nothing to hide...you would NOT be paranoid. The innocent sleep well at night.

Repent - they evil ways!!!

Live in PEACE.

Sincerely
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 01:30 AM

GG, have you been paying attention? :)

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 08:13 AM

He's just trying to get a rise out of us. When he contributes something intelligent then I will respond to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 01:14 PM

I sleep well, Garg. But that's because I'M pure of mind and spirit. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 03:48 PM

The innocent sleep well at night.

I sleep well in the daytime. Does that count?

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: InOBU
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 05:30 PM

A questionair went aroung the Quaker meeting, for a weekend retrete, the last question of which was, do you snore... I responded, only during meeting. CHeers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Naemanson
Date: 14 Jun 02 - 06:09 PM

I SLEEP PEACEFULLY BUT MY PARTNER DOES NOT....

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 02 - 01:29 AM

Larry, you are bad. :>) DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 15 Jun 02 - 03:05 PM

Jeez Doug, a nuclear power plant, AND a smoker in yer backyard! Perhaps a hidden missile launcher as well????

So YOU'RE the one who's been bombarding the Taliban with constant barrages of radio-active ribs.

Rick (neo-Fascist, Conservative, Liberal, Radical).....just depends on the day of the week!

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: DougR
Date: 15 Jun 02 - 06:16 PM

That's me! And I'm scared to death of the FBI, Rick!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Jun 02 - 12:34 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Just What the FBI needs MORE POWER!
From: Hrothgar
Date: 16 Jun 02 - 05:31 AM

Andrew Johnson or Andrew Jackson in 1833?

But I'm only an Australian, and I have previously made mistakes with US presidents' names.