|
05 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM (#1086552) Subject: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing As the editorial says, Smile, you're in America!. Foreign visitors to the US will now be fingerprinted and photographed upon arrival and, eventually, upon departure from the US. Congress has approved a budget of $330 Do any other countries do this? How do Mudcatters from elsewhere feel about this? Will it deter you from coming over to visit? Thanks, katoutraged! |
|
05 Jan 04 - 04:24 PM (#1086562) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg I find the very idea of this practice absolutely appalling. It will do NOTHING to stop terrorism...it MIGHT allow prosecution of some drug dealers, but then, that is not the purpose being alluded to, is it? |
|
05 Jan 04 - 04:54 PM (#1086591) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Amos It should add nothing at all to the time of transit, if the photo and the fingerprint are all taken digitally. It could easily fit into the time wasted by people in the Customs and Immigrations queues. And I don't know that you can say it will do nothing tostop terrorism. The thing that puts the most wind up in those who move in darkness is the fear of being known, Just knowing your incontrovertible ID is on file might be a deterrent for some kinds of terrorists, if not for suicide bombers. A |
|
05 Jan 04 - 05:27 PM (#1086613) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg I should explain what I meant, Amos; since the fingerprints and facial profiles will be comapred to those of known criminals already on file, the likelihood of this practice preventing terrorist activities BEFORE they happen is very unlikely... and as we have seen, some terrorists only need one opportunity to make their mark... |
|
05 Jan 04 - 05:39 PM (#1086626) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: artbrooks The cost, according to CNN.com, is $380 million, not billion. Is there information anywhere to indicate that Congress specifically appropriated any money for this dumb program, or is Tom Ridge planning to slush-fund it? |
|
05 Jan 04 - 05:46 PM (#1086634) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Martin Gibson All you Mudcatters who like to use your real names shouldn't object to this. I think we have an absolute right to know who comes into this country. |
|
05 Jan 04 - 06:12 PM (#1086657) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Sure. And treat all visitors like criminals right off the mark. Nice welcome. |
|
05 Jan 04 - 06:28 PM (#1086667) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Horse pucky! Ever heard of a database? I think we will find other countries doing this to Americans soon also. I would have no objection to it. I believe Brazil is starting a similar program now. I don't believe a lot of you recognize the kind of war we are in now. If it will provide the authorities with information that will prevent a terrorist (him/her) from killing our citizens I am for it 100%. Will it? I don't know for sure, but neither does anyone else on this forum. DougR |
|
05 Jan 04 - 06:33 PM (#1086672) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Like they say, Cluin, if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about. As for this being useless.... There are a lot of pretty nasty people out there whose ID particulars are already known, but they're somewhere in the world beyond the reach of U.S. security. If it stops them from coming in or catches a few of them trying to, it seems like a pretty good idea to me. The cost? About $1.50 per person per year. Seems like a bargain.... cheers, david |
|
05 Jan 04 - 06:59 PM (#1086690) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Stop the presses! Get Ripley on the phone! I agree with Doug on this one... Yeah, I think this can be an important police tool in the war against international criminals... Now this makes more sense than going around just wackin' and occupying other folks countries... Should have been implimented a long time ago. I have absolutely no problems. They want my pic 'er fingerprint. Heck, they've allready got 'em but they can have 'em again... Bobert |
|
05 Jan 04 - 07:20 PM (#1086701) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace I think the "20-50 sceonds to everyone's flight schedule" is a litlle optimistic--maybe by three orders of magnitude. Of course, the last time I got printed was in the late '60s. That took a day. Of course, it also involved an overnight stay courtesy of the state, a very dry sandwich and some water. They were very nice about it all. I'm sure the customs/immigration people will be, too. If you're worried, just wear thick gloves and hope no one notices. The US has a right to establish its own rules regarding people entering the country. Them's the facts, Jack. Will it be printing its own citizens when they return from abroad? That could get a little contentious for some people. And will search and seizure laws apply if they are checking a terrorist suspect and by accident discover a bank robber? Miranda law? Looks like a big can of worms, but hey, it ain't my country. All the best. |
|
05 Jan 04 - 08:33 PM (#1086738) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing It wasn't a foreigner who was found to have WMDs in Texas just recently, nor was it a foreigner who blew up the federal bldg. in Oklahoma City. Thanks for the correction on the amount, Art(brooks). I haven't seen anything about Congress specifically okaying these funds, but it's early days, yet.:-) I'd really like to hear from our friends in the UK, OZ, and elsewhere, too. And, good point, if we go out of the country, are WE, US citizens the next to be subjected to this? Doug, the war we are in is right here at home. I hope you wake up to that fact, soon, and realise the rest of it was manufactured for oil. kat |
|
05 Jan 04 - 08:38 PM (#1086742) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: artbrooks Apparently people from nations who don't need visas to visit the US (which includes the UK, Australia and New Zealand) aren't covered. Of course, that would include the shoe bomber.... |
|
05 Jan 04 - 08:43 PM (#1086746) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Sorcha IS think it is scary and sick, but I know I'm just a Commie, Pinko, Liberal Bitch.....and I am wondering what I will have to go through to get There and Back Again to UK..... |
|
05 Jan 04 - 10:02 PM (#1086770) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Hey Kat, love your logic. You've got two problems, so you don't apply a partial solution to one because it doesn't address the second..... Did I miss something? cheers, david |
|
05 Jan 04 - 10:09 PM (#1086775) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Exactly, kat, the threat is here at home! So why not learn all you can about those who come from somewhere else? Brucie: uh, we have computers now. DougR |
|
05 Jan 04 - 10:19 PM (#1086783) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DougR Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I just read Bobert's post! We AGREE on SOMETHING! Bobert, reconsider! Please! Now I'm wondering if I was right! DougR |
|
05 Jan 04 - 10:41 PM (#1086799) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Oh, DougR, you mean times have changed? (Yeah, I didn't think of that. You have lots more brains than the average Republican. I was thinking of the old ink pad and paper stuff. Thanks, Doug. Also, it's good to see you're mellowin'.) LOL Bruce M |
|
05 Jan 04 - 10:47 PM (#1086803) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Computers still ain't gonna deal with the legal ramifications you brought up, brucie. (and Doug) |
|
05 Jan 04 - 11:17 PM (#1086819) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing ddw, my point was these kinds of "security" measures would have done nothing to stop the domestic terrorists. I also have asked if other countries do this. I'd like to see some evidence that this kind of thing would really be any part of a solution. It seems more of a grand gesture born of paranoid fear. Yes, we should try to prevent another Sept. 11th, but this administration hasn't even gone after the real perps. of that and now they're going to screen every qualifying traveler in and out of the States? I find it offensive and extreme. kat |
|
06 Jan 04 - 12:18 AM (#1086845) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: LadyJean We're having a nice gang war in my neighborhood. City buses keep breaking down, and our government is spending money photographing foreign visitors to Congress. My tax dollars at work! PHOOEY!!!! |
|
06 Jan 04 - 06:37 AM (#1086961) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus As ddw said - " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." Same thing in the UK with regard to issuing ID Cards, can't for the life of me see how that infringes anybody's civil liberties, unless of course they shouldn't be here in the first place. Would this practice deter me from visiting the US - with the US$ at 1.80 to the £ - Hell No! |
|
06 Jan 04 - 06:54 AM (#1086964) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." Not necessarily, ddw and Teribus. There are something like 35 million visitors to the US every year. Every system has a failure rate. Suppose this is 99.999% accurate. That's still 350 innocent people who get detained, jailed or whatever a year. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:02 AM (#1087070) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg no one sees this as yet another notch on the belt of those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office? no one remembers that 'new' laws which sprang to the fore just after 9-11 having to do with detaining suspects were already on the books and that their originators were waiting in the wings for just such a catastrophe to occur? Guantanamo: it ain't just in Cuba no more. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:19 AM (#1087086) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Uncle_DaveO Cluin said: Sure. And treat all visitors like criminals right off the mark. Nice welcome. It's not treating anyone like criminals. It's recognizing that there ARE going to be criminals out there, and trying to sort them out. One point is to make sure that the individual, presenting a visa, is the same person who was issued the visa overseas. This, contrary to what Peg said, is preventative in nature. It is true that this will not solve all problems, but then no measure that could be taken will solve all problems. You attack a problem by doing what can presently be done, and later try to stop up the other holes. And no set of security measures will ever give absolute protection, but that doesn't mean that the country should throw up its hands, roll its eyes, and give up. Dave Oesterreich |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:21 AM (#1087089) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus A question for you Peg: Subsequent to September 11th 2001, how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the United States of America, and how many American citizens have died, or been injured, as a result of those attacks? That is how effective "those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office" have been. Two-and-a-quarter years of threats and bluster by Osama from somewhere deep under-ground. What is the answer to the question Peg? |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:25 AM (#1087092) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace "If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about." Did Joe McCarthy say that? HUAC? Just curious. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:27 AM (#1087093) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Sorry, DMcG 06 Jan 04 - 06:54 AM " if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about." On the point you made regarding your hypothetical statistical failure rate. Accepting your figures and the circumstances that might cause them to be detained - I do not believe for one moment that their detention would be for longer than it took for them to prove who they said they were. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:33 AM (#1087098) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Uncle_DaveO As to the observation (which is true) that a number of countries of origin are not dealt with, you may or may not know that this that's going on at this time is the initiation of the program. The countries that are presently exempted (like most of Europe (but not Poland) and Japan) will be included in the program a little down the way. As to processing delays, it would seem to me that this should not slow up airport waiting time any at all. The less than a minute it takes can be (if it's set up rationally) part of the time one is standing in line to go through security anyway. To amplify or maybe clarify my comments in a previous post: When everyone is required to go through the procedure, there is no implication at all of criminality, as was implied in Cluin's comment. Dave Oesterreich |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:38 AM (#1087100) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: harpgirl ...this is just a step towards fingerprinting everyone who travels and exerting more control over individual citizens. We no longer live in a free country. We no longer have a participative democracy. Big Brother is here! If I allow myself to notice, I am aware that most of my interactions, transactions, and activity in public places is completely recorded already. We're one step away from video in home observation, folks. Where we go on the internet, what programs we watch, how much electricity we use, et., etc. is easily accessed already. Even our grocery tapes are a full diary of our activity at this point. But hey, Doug...lets keep increasing control over our citizens. That's what a free country is about! |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:46 AM (#1087106) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: freda underhill WASHINGTON (Special report) - Scott McClellan announced today that President Bush has been diagnosed with Mad Cowboy Disease. The President will be quarantined, until further notice, at a psychiatric ward in Walter Reed Medical Center. Mr. McClellan said epidemiologists have traced this case of to Jenna Welch's special holiday Texas Head Cheese Bean Dip that was infected with Mad Cow disease. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:51 AM (#1087112) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG Well, there was a case only a month or two ago where someone was detained for weeks before being released without charge. If the authorities suspect you of being a wily terrorist, they also expect you to be trained to give a convincing account of your innocence. Its not easy to persuade them otherwise. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 11:22 AM (#1087131) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG This is the one I was originally thinking of. It was rather more than "a few months" ago! |
|
06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM (#1087152) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Teribus; here's a question for you: How many terrorist attacks occurred in the United States in the two and a quarter years BEFORE 9-11? How many American citizens wee killed or injured as a result of those attacks? As for the answer to YOUR questions, a number of people died from anthrax after 9-11 as a result of infection from spores mailed or placed by "terrorists." A good many nnocent citizens have been arrested, detained, strip-searched and subjected to all sorts of humiliating treatement, all in the name of 'fighting terrorism." i call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort. A tyrannical government always finds convenient excuses to trample upn its citzens' civil rights. j Just because we have five thousand brands of cereal on our grocery store shelves and an iMac in every office doesn't make us any more noble than the worst police state overseas. I would love to know how many American citizens have been injured in their period of detainment at the Guantanamo facility...but since they have no access to lawyers or their families, there is no way of knowing...despite none of them having been formally charged with anything... If this sort of thing were perpetrated by OTHER nations, these people would be known as "hostages," but because it's the good ole U S of A, they are "suspects." |
|
06 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM (#1087156) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,pdc One danger that no one seems to have mentioned: what will a government do with a database of fingerprints? When does the next step come, in which everyone is required to submit their fingerprints. If anyone thinks that a fingerprint database is not open to various abuses, I have a couple of bridges I'd like to sell you. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 02:42 PM (#1087240) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin They fingerprint and photograph criminals as part of the regular procedure. Now they will do the same to visitors. Pardon me if I see a similarity there. Maybe they should institute routine body cavity searches too. Hey, if you've got nothing up your bum, you've got nothing to worry about. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 03:34 PM (#1087271) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang DMcG, your argument with the failure rate doesn't convince me at all. Even now, when I come to any country outside of the EC they routinely check my identity, look at my passport, compare my present lookings with my passport picture, sometimes they check with their databases on criminals. So neither the error rate (far larger in the present system) nor the checking of the identity are anything new. If you want to convince me that the replacement of an error prone identity check technique by a less error prone technique is something to fight against you need some more arguments. Wolfgang |
|
06 Jan 04 - 05:19 PM (#1087351) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: DMcG I wasn't trying to make a very precise case, Wolfgang. I was simply saying the statement "the innocent have nothing to fear" is taking things too far. Any system, including the present one, have risks. And of course the two cases I mentioned happened under the existing system, not the proposed one. I have no idea which is more reliable, but my guess is that diluting a database of known suspects with a lot of people who simply passed through a checkpoint is likely to make things more difficult. I've looked at web pages from face recognision software companies and reports on the products by third parties since this thread started and they seem to regard a database of over 1000 pictures as large and one report said that if the pictures were over a year old the matching rate dropped to 50%. (I'm convinced people matching faces are going to be much better than with automated systems for many years, by the way. I don't object at all to the guy on the desk checking my picture against a set of likely suspects.) |
|
06 Jan 04 - 06:14 PM (#1087403) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bill D I wish I knew what to think about this-- I don't LIKE the idea of databases, lack of privacy and government intrusion into more of our (and the world's) lives....but neither do I like the idea of what may happen if we do nothing. The world has changed...there are people out there that have moved from wanting to emulate us, to disliking us, to being willing to destroy any pieces of us that they can get access to. I have no doubt that, without security, there would be power plants damaged, water supplies poisoned and innocent people killed in bombings...and I mean HERE. I don't want them to do this, but I don't want G. Bush and crew to have the power that they want to defend against it, because I'll bet they will abuse it. Sure, we may have an occasional home-grown nut blow up a federal building in Oklahoma, but so far, most of the guys who want to destroy us have funny accents and bow to Mecca 5 times a day. What about the millions of perfectly lovely Muslims who are horrified by this and would never dream of terrorism? I dunno....I hope they are not driven into the ranks of America-haters by new security measures that may catch NO one. I truly wonder what would be happening if Gore had gotten 5000 more votes in Florida, and some Democrat were making these decisions! I suspect that many of the same *decisions* would be made, but with an entirely different slant and explanation. It is scary to see how sanctimonius and smug some administartion officials can seem, even when they are doing 'technically' the needed thing. There are ways to sooth the waters when doing something distasteful, but this administration has a pretty heavy-handed approach. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 06:45 PM (#1087437) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Greg F. Yup, that was ol' Tailgunner Joe, Bruce. Also Roy Cohn. Also A. Mitchell Palmer, the commander of the Ohio National Guard, Mayor Daley's chief of police, and a host of others. Think Kissinger also told that to the Cambodians... Relax! Its under control... |
|
06 Jan 04 - 08:03 PM (#1087506) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Here's a rather interesting article on the issue, with some more information. Below is the first page. To continue, please click here and scroll down to page two. U.S. Taking Photos and Fingerprints Of Visitors Some Foreigners Face New Policy Upon Arrival By Sara Kehaulani Goo and Amy Joyce Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, January 6, 2004; Page A01 The United States began fingerprinting and photographing foreigners arriving at U.S. airports and ports yesterday in an effort to track down wanted criminals and suspected terrorists and identify visitors who overstay visas. The U.S. Visit program, which debuted at 115 airports and 14 seaports yesterday, aims to keep records on more than 24 million foreigners who enter the United States each year largely from Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. It does not apply to 28 nations, including Japan, Australia, Singapore and many countries in Europe. Under some circumstances, though, citizens from exempt countries are still subject to the new rules. The program has attracted a wide range of critics. Airports worry that it will exacerbate immigration lines. Civil libertarians raise privacy concerns that the government will use the data for purposes beyond tracking visas and criminals. A Brazilian judge said the system discriminates against certain foreigners and has ordered officials in his country to begin photographing and fingerprinting American visitors. Some travelers who were fingerprinted and photographed at airports across the country yesterday said the security procedures were swift, and most said they were resigned to the new rules. "I don't really mind," said D.C. resident Salome Nnanga, a native of Ethiopia. "I think it's a very, very good idea to protect the country." Homeland Security Department Secretary Tom Ridge said yesterday that the U.S. Visit program is the beginning of a larger government effort to better track people crossing U.S. borders. "I think you're seeing . . . just the first step in a series of steps so we get a fully integrated record of who comes into the country and who leaves," Ridge said on NBC's "Today Show." Many nations have agreed to a U.S. request to later this year begin phasing in passports encoded with identification details such as a fingerprint and photograph. This summer, the U.S. government plans to launch a vast computer screening program that checks the identity of all airline passengers before departure and color-codes them based on the threat they pose to the aircraft. The government's big security projects have been targeted by some groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which has launched a major campaign to advertise their concerns about the privacy issues related to the programs. The U.S. government "is applying a broad, dragnet approach to security that views everyone as a potential terrorist," said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the ACLU. Instead, Edgar said, officials would be better off improving their intelligence and communication networks to focus on the "small number of terrorists who are likely to do us harm." Customs and Border Protection officials say photographing and fingerprinting foreign passengers will add an estimated 10 to 15 seconds to processing time. Passengers arriving at customs and immigration checkpoints at Dulles International Airport yesterday placed their left and right index fingers on a glass scanner that captured their fingerprints. Then, a digital camera snapped a photo of their faces. |
|
06 Jan 04 - 08:30 PM (#1087524) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: ddw Cluin and Kat, What seems to be missing here is the admission that the U.S. is on a war footing now. They didn't choose it; it was forced on them by a series of pretty nasty terrorist attacks and I for one think they have a right to defend themselves. Do I like what has to be done? No. I'm a firm believer in personal rights — a damn sight more strongly, I dare say, than the cradle-to-grave neo-monarchist fuzzheads who call themselves "Liberals" today. But I'm also a realist. If you have to inconvenience 100,000 people to find one bent on killing 10, I think it's a pretty good tradeoff. There are a lot of fine, upstanding people in the U.S. and Canada who happen to believe in Islam. There are also some crazies who believe the West in general and the U.S. in particular are the spawn of the devil. If you can tell me a really good way to sort those out without doing some watching and identifying and tracking, I'd love to hear it. I'll bet Homeland Security would, too. As for Kat's protest: No Kat, it won't do much to stop the home-bred crazies, but I still don't see the logic in identifying two nuts out to kill you, finding a way to stop one of them and refusing to use it because it won't stop both. Sorry, lady, but if I've got people shooting at me from two directions, I won't hesitate to shoot back at the one I can see just because I can't see the other. cheers, david |
|
06 Jan 04 - 10:41 PM (#1087580) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Cluin Well, I don't see how it will accomplish much but take a ding out of the tourism industry. But I guess it might make it look like they are doing something security-wise. Do they already have a file of photos and prints of every known terrorist to compare with? |
|
07 Jan 04 - 04:52 AM (#1087723) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM Regarding your question, why only two-and-a-quarter years before 911. The same time span applied after 911 takes us to the present. There have been terrorist attacks in the USA prior to 911, largely unnsuccessful, but people have been killed and injured. The anthrax incidents post-911 that you refer to, as far as has been reported over this side of the pond, was carried out by person, or persons unknown, therefore cannot be verified as "terrorist" attacks. Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life. A responsible Government, puts in place what measures it has to to ensure the safety and security of the general population. But it would appear that you could not tell the difference between responsible and tyrannical if it jumped up and bit you. I'd like to ask some of your good many citizens who had been arrested, detained and strip-searched if they would have foregone that in exchange for the opportunity to be blown-up. The arrests, detentions and strip-searches had to be based on some premise. On real police states - maybe you should go and experience life in some of them - If this forum was based in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - quite a number would have gone silent long ago for some very sinister reasons. All currently being held at the Guantanamo facility...are "suspects." And will remain so until such time as their interrogations are completed and they can fully explain their presence in Afghanistan within the captured ranks of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces. GUEST,pdc 06 Jan 04 - 12:16 PM Fingerprints!! I'd go for compulsary ID cards along with fingerprints, DNA sample and retinal scan all on record. That would combat identity theft and greatly ease the work of law enforcement, criminal detection, illegal immigration and counter terrorist organisations. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 05:05 AM (#1087732) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing It would also make it that much easier for a tyrannical government to round up all of the "blue eyes" or whathaveyou. This country is supposed to be about Freedom, not nazi-like identity measures such as you suggest. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 05:55 AM (#1087756) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus katlaughing, I would far rather comment on the benefits of such measures than immediately zero in on the negative aspects of possible misuse. By "This country" I assume that you are American and referring to the United States of America. Well kat, since 11th September, 2001 your world has changed. The world you live in now is more similar to that bitterly experienced by a whole raft of countries who have been subject to direct terrorist attacks for the past sixty or so years. As your concern for your rights is so strong that it objects to, and over-rides, perfectly reasonable steps being taken by your government to ensure your safety, all well and good. Get what legislation has been put in place repealled as soon as possible - but you will not turn back the clock, you will only have suceeded in making yourself and your fellow Americans more vulnerable and open to attack. By the bye, if you still intend handing out those almanacs, any chance of throwing one my way. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 08:54 AM (#1087880) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang THUMB FOR THUMB Do any other countries do this? (katlaughing) A late response to this question. Since January 1, this year, all US American flight passengers to Brasil are treated exactly like Brasil travellers to the USA a judge there has decreed. Waiting times up to 8 hours and many missed connecting flights have made some passengers very angry, was reported in our press today. Wolfgang |
|
07 Jan 04 - 08:56 AM (#1087882) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang You may want to look at a picture of a US citizen subjected to this procedure in Brasil. Wolfgang |
|
07 Jan 04 - 09:50 AM (#1087922) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Teribus wrote: "Regarding your question, why only two-and-a-quarter years before 911. The same time span applied after 911 takes us to the present. There have been terrorist attacks in the USA prior to 911, largely unnsuccessful, but people have been killed and injured." --you have not answered my question. Why not? You have referred to a specific time period during which this country has been under the thumb of the Homeland Security Office in which you calim we have been "safe" from terrorist attacks. I asked for a correlating level of attacks or threats which, accoridng to your logic, should have occurred in the time before we had this auspicious agency looking out for our protection. You have not provided such correlating evidence. why not? Could it be that the Homeland Security Office is making NO difference in our level of safety and security? That is what the evidence seems to suggest. Further, if there are any "successful" terrorist attacks from here on in, your claim that America is now safer than before will be shown to be erroneous. "The anthrax incidents post-911 that you refer to, as far as has been reported over this side of the pond, was carried out by person, or persons unknown, therefore cannot be verified as "terrorist" attacks.' --huh? They were received with threatening letters and delivered anonymously. their intent was to intimidate, injure and kill; in short, to terrorize; they succeeded. They were not random or accidental attacks. This is terrorism. You are quibbling over definitions to suit your own arbitrary, fair-weather opinions. "Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life." --Hah! That's a larf. I never said it was the worst example I knew of. Nor was that what you asked for. Why castigate my response with irrelevant criteria when it merely fulfilled specifically what you asked? "A responsible Government, puts in place what measures it has to to ensure the safety and security of the general population." --how nice that you feel "safer." I do not; in fact, quite the opposite. "But it would appear that you could not tell the difference between responsible and tyrannical if it jumped up and bit you." --no, I simply define these uses of power differently than you do. To me, "responsible' does not include fear-mongering a la some color-coded ratungs system handing to dish out to the media every few weeks to get everyone's mind off the tanking economy. to me, "responsible" does not mean sacrificing privacy and civil rights for the sake of enforcing a militant police-state methodology of making every individual a suspect. "I'd like to ask some of your good many citizens who had been arrested, detained and strip-searched if they would have foregone that in exchange for the opportunity to be blown-up. The arrests, detentions and strip-searches had to be based on some premise." --why did they "have to be?" That is called reductionism, and it is not an advisable approach to discussing the most basic human rights of people held in captivity for OVER A YEAR with NO access to legal counsel and NO contact with family, in addition to being held with NO OFFICIAL CHARGES being made. I don't know what fucking world you live in, but this is tyranny, cruel and unusual punishment, and a clear violation of due process. That is why these prisoners are being held in Cuba; because this manner of detention is flat out ILLEGAL in the United States (not to mention most nations) and because the government-controlled media there is nowhere near as likely to allow access to, or dissemination of any information on, these people who have been all but forgotten. "On real police states - maybe you should go and experience life in some of them - If this forum was based in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - quite a number would have gone silent long ago for some very sinister reasons." --maybe you should go there; you seem to relish the idea that this is the destiny of humanity: to be bound in chains and treated like dog turds. Maybe you should go there and experience this first-hand; perhaps then you'd find some compassion. I was born with it, but some aren't so lucky. Apparently. "All currently being held at the Guantanamo facility...are "suspects." And will remain so until such time as their interrogations are completed and they can fully explain their presence in Afghanistan within the captured ranks of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces.' --interrogation? with no legal counsel present or even available? with no access to foreign embassies or consulates despite being deported to this detainment facility? This is illegal. All prisoners are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If these people are U.S. prisoners, why are they not afforded the most fundamental rights of the U.S. legal system? |
|
07 Jan 04 - 09:59 AM (#1087931) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Fir my many pinko, commie catrades (comrades): Yes, I agree with Doug and the T-Bird on this one issue but that's about it as I still disagree with them on: 1. Not fully investigating how 9/11 occured. 2. Snitch-Gate. 3. The War on Terrorism, as I believe the world would be a lot safer now if Bush hadn't squandered world sympathies and allowed the intellegent community to quietly get the job done. 4. The invasion of Afganistan. 5, The post invasion plans for Afganistan. 6. The invasion of Iraq. 7. The post war plans for Iraq. 8. The overt corruption between the Bush adminstration and corportaions that bought his Selection, including Dick Cheney's Halliburton, from which he still receives over a $1M a tear. 9. And just about any other positions that these two knotheads belive in. Yeah, 9/11 was a wake up call and a smarter administration with a sense of service to making the world safer would have done almost everything differently and gotten much better results, including bin Laden. And while doing this, a smarter approach would have brought more stability to the world and served as an example how criminals will be brought to justice. A smarter administration, rather than move the planet back in time, would have imbraced the idea of a World Court. It would have worked tirelessly thru the United Nations. It would have taken mankind further down the road toward peacfull coexistence rather than return it back in the bloodiest centuries ever, the 20th century... Today, I am truely ashamed of my country. Sure, I love it, but truely ashamed of it's bad behavior and it's administration Hell bent to screwing over just whomever it wants to keep it's wealthiest wealthier. Bobert |
|
07 Jan 04 - 02:36 PM (#1088081) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Checkin' my shoe, Got nothin' to do, Post 51, Make the message thing blue! Ooh, ooh. I'm gettin' into rap. How am I doin'? |
|
07 Jan 04 - 03:20 PM (#1088117) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus OK Peg, to put it in a simpler more direct way 1. Prior to 911 had there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks? Yes there have been (WTC Bomb to name but one) 2. Subsequent to 911 have there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks? No there has not. Have any been prevented? Yes - all well documented and reported. 3. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks of 911. 4. As far as has been reported NOBODY, be it individual or organisation, homegrown, or foreign, has claimed responsibility for the anthrax incidents. But, incidentally, one thing "those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office" did determine about those incidents was that they had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, or Saddam Hussein, and that they did report. 5. Measures taken to improve the level of security in the US? In addition to what has been discussed in this thread - Plenty. - Tightening up of security worldwide, but with particular emphasis on airports and air travel. - Increase in personal awareness through advice and those alert notices you so readily dismiss as "scare-mongering". - Vastly improved co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence organisations throughout the world. - World-wide implementation of new IMO Code ISPS which checks cargoes, ports and shipping for all goods being shipped to US ports. For the vessels this code forms part of the ship's SOLAS certification, i.e. if it does not comply the ship is considered as unseaworthy. 6. As for, "if there are any "successful" terrorist attacks from here on in, your claim that America is now safer than before will be shown to be erroneous." What kind of fools logic is that? Believe me Peg, there will be further attempted terrorist attacks and inevitably some will be successful, but those carrying out those attacks will have had to work a damn sight harder in order to succeed because of the measures being put into place now. Following your apparent preferred course of action subsequent to 911 I can think of at least 15 aircraft that would have been shot down or blown up. 7. As for you not saying that the present conditions under which live being the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered. Please explain - Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM "I call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort." 8. That you IYOP do not feel safer does not alter the reality that there are more measures, routines and practices in place, specifically geared for your protection from foreign attack than at anytime in the history of your country. They are not perfect, they are not ideal, they may very well be undesirable, but they are necessary, they are better than doing nothing and they are better than what was in place before - but most importantly they are not permanent. 9. Your economy is far from "tanking", at the moment it is one of the most vibrant on the world scene. As for the alert code system, well there is absolutely no way to win on that as if the general public are advised on changes in alert status the administration is guilty (in your eyes) of scare-mongering, and if they don't they are guilty of keeping the people in the dark and denying them a choice. I prefer that alert code changes are announced it allows people to make up their own minds and might just act as a deterrent. 10. Population of the USA, some 270-280 million people? How many, or what percentage of that number, have been arrested, detained and strip-searched without cause because of the application of additional powers under the banner of Homeland Security? How many suspects are pulled in by the police in the normal performance of their duty (i.e. no Homeland Security connection) and are subjected to the same sort of treatment? I believe that if compared the numbers would not have suddenly escalated dramatically. I believe that the numbers would have hardly altered at all. 11. The "fucking world" that I live in, to use your expression, is one that for the major part of the last thirty years has been subject to indiscriminate terrorist attacks funded and supported by the drunken plastic paddies, resident in your fair land, who all thought it was a bit of a joke - well they all know it's a bit different now. Welcome to the rest of the world. 12. Irrespective of how much you like to whine and bemoan your lot. The fact is that you are still fortunate enough to reside in a country that is a damn sight freer than a hell of a lot of places on this globe. If you doubt that then just compare your rights and freedoms (in a country under attack), to those of an active member of the MDC in Zimbabwe (under Mugabe). 13. I "seem to relish the idea that this is the destiny of humanity: to be bound in chains and treated like dog turds." Where on earth do you get that idea from? Mind you it is a terrific example of a typical lefty-rant when all reason's lost - totally irrelevant and over dramatic. 14. Regarding those being held at Guantanamo. Their status is illegal combatants or something like that. Even had they been classified as POW's as required under the terms of the Geneva Convention, which they couldn't be, as the US did not declare war on Afghanistan, its Government, or its people. Those prisoners would not be subject, or entitled to any rights under the U.S. legal system; legal counsel; access to foreign embassies or consulates. They would be entitled to visits and access to the IRC/RC. 15. "All prisoners are presumed innocent until proven guilty." That presumption applies to some codes relating to criminal law in some countries. As such, it has no bearing in this instance whatsoever. Those detained are part of an organisation who were indoctrinated and urged by their leaders to kill all Americans, irrespective of who, or what those Americans were. These detainees will be interrogated and examined until they have revealed all they know and released when considered no longer likely to be a threat. Current reports are that about 150, of the 660-odd are about to be released shortly. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 05:47 PM (#1088259) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Greg F. Peg, a suggestion: don't waste your time. This last one is real cloud-cuckoo-land stuff. Its tough to refute lunacy- "or something like that". |
|
07 Jan 04 - 05:54 PM (#1088267) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Teribus, wishing to ask and answer all of his own questoons and thereby avoid having to consider the opinion of any other human being, wrote: 'OK Peg, to put it in a simpler more direct way 1. Prior to 911 had there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks? Yes there have been (WTC Bomb to name but one)' --that is NOT what I asked. I asked if there hadspecifically been any terroprist attacks in the *two and a quarter years prior* to 9-11. That is the same time period you asked me to abide by, and I did. Fair is fair. "2. Subsequent to 911 have there been any terrorist attacks in the USA, were there any fatalities/injuries as a result of those attacks? No there has not. Have any been prevented? Yes - all well documented and reported." --you continue to ignore the fine example I gave of the anthrax attacks.I maintain these are examples of terrorim. I don't know why you presume to try and twist my words to accomodate your rhetoric. "3. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks of 911." --yeah, and? When was this ever in question? "4. As far as has been reported NOBODY, be it individual or organisation, homegrown, or foreign, has claimed responsibility for the anthrax incidents. But, incidentally, one thing "those paranoid imperialistic thugs who make up the Homeland Security office" did determine about those incidents was that they had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, or Saddam Hussein, and that they did report." --um, actually, PLENTY of people claimed responsibiity. So many, in fact, that it was impossible to sort out which confessions were erroneous ones. You make me wish to laugh aloud when you say, first, no one has claimed responsibility for these attacks, and yet the gov'mint somehow still managed to PROVE there was no connection to Iraq or Hussein? How can you say this without knowing who was responsible? how do you know these attackes were not perpretarted by some person or persons living in the United States who claims sympathy with Hussein? Answer: you don't. "5. Measures taken to improve the level of security in the US? In addition to what has been discussed in this thread - Plenty. - Tightening up of security worldwide, but with particular emphasis on airports and air travel." --why do you feel the need to point this out/ it's painfully obvious. "- Increase in personal awareness through advice and those alert notices you so readily dismiss as "scare-mongering". --I still maintain these "alerts" are the very worst sort of fear-mongering; vague, objectless, hysterical and mysterious. "Just go about your routine but be aware the level of threat is very high." HUH??? "- Vastly improved co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence organisations throughout the world." --oh, yeah, I love the presence of a bunch of jack-booted thugs armed with semi-automatic weapons in public places. I love knowing that people can be detained randomly and indefinitely and with no reason beig given or charge being brought against them. GOSH that makes me feel safe! "- World-wide implementation of new IMO Code ISPS which checks cargoes, ports and shipping for all goods being shipped to US ports. For the vessels this code forms part of the ship's SOLAS certification, i.e. if it does not comply the ship is considered as unseaworthy." --seems like a good idea. Why haven't they worked this hard to fight the dumbass and incompetent war on drugs which still allows tons of heroin and cocaine to slip undisturbed into this country's ports, year after year? "6. As for, "if there are any "successful" terrorist attacks from here on in, your claim that America is now safer than before will be shown to be erroneous." What kind of fools logic is that?" --you earlier made the point that the Homeland Security Office was SOLELY and DIRECTLY responsible for the lack of terrorist attacks on U. S. soil (except for those people who died from the anthrax terrorist acts) in the last two and a quarter years. So, you see, it's YOUR logic. "Believe me Peg, there will be further attempted terrorist attacks and inevitably some will be successful, but those carrying out those attacks will have had to work a damn sight harder in order to succeed because of the measures being put into place now. Following your apparent preferred course of action subsequent to 911 I can think of at least 15 aircraft that would have been shot down or blown up." --you do not state what my "preferred course of action" is, though; so what is it? I did not make any such statement, so it's shocking to me that you know what it is... I do NOT agree it will be harder for these terrorists to attack; they will simply choose a different methodology: one that has not been thought through by the feds, one they have not prepared for. An attempt to poison a municipal water supply, for example, would be laughably easy to carry out. "7. As for you not saying that the present conditions under which live being the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered. Please explain - Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM "I call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort." --you will have to explain this better because you seem to have left out a necessary verb or pronoun or something. "8. That you IYOP do not feel safer does not alter the reality that there are more measures, routines and practices in place, specifically geared for your protection from foreign attack than at anytime in the history of your country. They are not perfect, they are not ideal, they may very well be undesirable, but they are necessary, they are better than doing nothing and they are better than what was in place before - but most importantly they are not permanent." --I do not agree. Simple as that. I do not believe them all necessary, I find many of them highly undesirable, and I do NOT feel safer as a result. "9. Your economy is far from "tanking", at the moment it is one of the most vibrant on the world scene." --huh? That is certainly news to me. I'd say we're vibrant compared to, say, Romania or Sierra Leone, but not compared to what we were several years ago. Before Bush. "As for the alert code system, well there is absolutely no way to win on that as if the general public are advised on changes in alert status the administration is guilty (in your eyes) of scare-mongering, and if they don't they are guilty of keeping the people in the dark and denying them a choice. I prefer that alert code changes are announced it allows people to make up their own minds and might just act as a deterrent." --ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf?" NO ONE is listening to these warnings anymore. Except employeess who are ordered to comply with them. "10. Population of the USA, some 270-280 million people? How many, or what percentage of that number, have been arrested, detained and strip-searched without cause because of the application of additional powers under the banner of Homeland Security?" --somewhere in the hundreds to thousands. We don't know exactly because some of these people have not been allowed to contact their famiies or have access to lawyers. I have now pointed this out several times. Just so ya know, I am NOT including those citizens detained during airport security checks for what later turned out to be erroneous reasons...or those whose privacy has been violated by inwarrananted prying into their electronic phone, financial or library records. "How many suspects are pulled in by the police in the normal performance of their duty (i.e. no Homeland Security connection) and are subjected to the same sort of treatment? I believe that if compared the numbers would not have suddenly escalated dramatically. I believe that the numbers would have hardly altered at all." --are you saying that the plain ole police have not been asked to be more vigilant in their "normal performance" since 9-11? Cuz if you are, you're ignorant, naive, or stupid, or you think I am. "11. The "fucking world" that I live in, to use your expression, is one that for the major part of the last thirty years has been subject to indiscriminate terrorist attacks funded and supported by the drunken plastic paddies, resident in your fair land, who all thought it was a bit of a joke - well they all know it's a bit different now. Welcome to the rest of the world." --huh? I do not know what or who is referred by this term, "drunken plastic paddies." Sounds like a derogatory slur against the Irish, which is not appreciated by anyone here, I can tell you that. "12. Irrespective of how much you like to whine and bemoan your lot. The fact is that you are still fortunate enough to reside in a country that is a damn sight freer than a hell of a lot of places on this globe. If you doubt that then just compare your rights and freedoms (in a country under attack), to those of an active member of the MDC in Zimbabwe (under Mugabe)" --I am well aware of this comparison and have been for some time. I think it is hilarious the way militant types like you trot out this tired old chestnut. Why don't you just tell me "America: Love it or Leave it!"??? It is precisely BECAUSE I live in a country in which I am accustomed to such freedoms of expression and movement that I question and decry what my government is doing. I'm surprised you haven't figured this one out. "13. I "seem to relish the idea that this is the destiny of humanity: to be bound in chains and treated like dog turds." Where on earth do you get that idea from? Mind you it is a terrific example of a typical lefty-rant when all reason's lost - totally irrelevant and over dramatic." --ah, yes, and your invoking life under Mugabe is NOT totally irrelevant and over (sic) dramatic? Give me a break. "14. Regarding those being held at Guantanamo. Their status is illegal combatants or something like that." --well, thanks so much for the exact description. I now see why you feel empowered to argue your points with such confidence. "Even had they been classified as POW's as required under the terms of the Geneva Convention, which they couldn't be, --why not? seems a bit too convenient, if you ask me. "as the US did not declare war on Afghanistan, its Government, or its people." --well, now, THAT's interestng. We sent troops there and bombed the living crap out of the place. That's not war??? It was a fucking invasion by a hostile nation towards a nation that had not only not made any hostile overture towards us, but a country that was at the time struggling to feed its own people. The fact that we did so without the legally-required participation of Congress does not mean it did not happen. "Those prisoners would not be subject, or entitled to any rights under the U.S. legal system; legal counsel; access to foreign embassies or consulates. They would be entitled to visits and access to the IRC/RC." --why not? If one sees the invasion of Afghanistan as an act of war, and I do, and so do millions of other Americans, these people are prisoners of war. And as such we are guilty of GROSS violation of several aricles of the Geneva Convention. "15. "All prisoners are presumed innocent until proven guilty." That presumption applies to some codes relating to criminal law in some countries. As such, it has no bearing in this instance whatsoever." --I repeat: seems a tad too convenient to me. The horror that is war frequently relies upon arbitrary acts of inhuanity. "Those detained are part of an organisation who were indoctrinated and urged by their leaders to kill all Americans, irrespective of who, or what those Americans were." --oh, so NOW you're telling me you know for a FACT that ALL these people are members of Al Qaeda??? You are even more full of it than I thought. "These detainees will be interrogated and examined until they have revealed all they know and released when considered no longer likely to be a threat. Current reports are that about 150, of the 660-odd are about to be released shortly." --I maintain these people have been detained long enough without access to legal representation or contact with their families. I think it's OUTRAGEOUS that it has taken TWO YEARS for this first round of prisoners to be interrgated and released. This is not the America I am proud of. Not anymore. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 06:31 PM (#1088307) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Teribus, you sound bitter and exude a typical patriarchal condescention. Still, if you'll get me an address I'd be happy to send you a Farmer's Almanac. Don't bother to dust it for prints, though...I'll wear gloves. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 08:58 PM (#1088409) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: mg I used to have real problems crossing into Canada..fit some profile...fuzzy haired old maid or something... But I for one do not want to tell a planeload of people they can blow up in a ball of fire and pain so that I am not fingerprinted. Neither do I want to blow up so they don't have to be. And I would do every single person, not discriminate by country, age etc. mg |
|
07 Jan 04 - 09:37 PM (#1088427) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace OK, OK, OK! I'm askin' a serious question here and no one is answering me. I will try AGAIN. What's more important? Bush, or an aspiring rap writer. Come on, where's the ol' pat on the back, the go get 'em "rap writer"? Checkin' my shoe, Got nothin' to do, Post 51, Make the message thing blue! Ooh, ooh, Woo, woo. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 10:03 PM (#1088437) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Great stuff, brucie... I love ya but keep yer day job... Bobert |
|
07 Jan 04 - 10:05 PM (#1088439) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace Thank you, Bobert. I owe ya. Bruce M PS When I make my first million from rap, I will cut you in for half. |
|
07 Jan 04 - 11:17 PM (#1088455) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bev and Jerry Those of you who think that if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about should read this. Bev and Jerry |
|
08 Jan 04 - 12:52 AM (#1088479) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: LadyJean Many people lived in peace and contentment in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Many lived peacefully under Francisco Franco. That doesn't mean that hey were good men, or that what they did was right. Hitler came to power because the Germans were afraid of Communists. When you consider Stalin's record you understand that their fears were well grounded. But the cure was as bad as the disease, in fact, it was no cure at all. |
|
08 Jan 04 - 02:00 AM (#1088496) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: sledge And how many more have been taken secretly in the same way as the man in the article highlighted, not something I would want to be done in my name. Some may try to say anything is justified, be careful, thats a two edged sword. Peg, FYI, the "drunken plastic paddies." that Terribus was on about refer to the US citzens who knowingly donated money to the IRA in support of their campaign against the British. And as a Brit myself I know how he feels on that point, but I also now find myself quite resentful of the born again attitude comming from the US government that terrorism is now really bad, only it seems because the US suffered what has been the worst act of terrorism that I can think of. Sledge |
|
08 Jan 04 - 07:49 AM (#1088602) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Greg F. "the worst act of terrorism that I can think of" Worst? Where does the bombing of Cambodia fit in this hierarchy? |
|
08 Jan 04 - 08:12 AM (#1088608) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: sledge I didn't realise I had to qualify my opinions against anyone else's. If you wish why not start an atrocity list and we can vote on our personnal preferences, an obsenity top ten maybe. Given the statement I made and the small amount of information contained in it, it seems obvious that I was referring to those small groups like the IRA, red army faction and Al Queda. But if you wish lets drag in any of our pet peeves. Not happy with the plastic paddy reminder Greg? |
|
08 Jan 04 - 10:26 AM (#1088676) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Thanks for the clarification sledge. But it's still a derogatory ethnic slur. |
|
08 Jan 04 - 12:11 PM (#1088736) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Your wriggling Peg After the WTC bomb, your government of the time did not think fit to implement any special measures. After 911 your government did. The latter course was the more responsible course of action to take. Your fine example of a terrorist attack, lacks credibility as a terrorist attack as no responsibility for it was announced which kind of defeats the object of making such an attack, i.e. to draw attention to a particular situation or grievance. All leads were investigated, and the possible involvement on the part of a foreign government was ruled out on available evidence by process of elimination. For arguements sake, should an individual do something out of sympathy for Iraq and Saddam Hussein, that does not implicate Iraq or Saddam Hussein in the incident. Your anthrax incident remains on the books as an unsolved criminal act - as a terrorist motive has not been established. The changing of alert status, as someone else has pointed out directly affects those dealing hands on with security. Advising the general public about such changes, keeps them informed, allows them to exercise choice based on best information to hand, allows them to either cancel trips or makes them aware that, due to increased security checks they may have to turn up earlier than they otherwise would have done. I would call that responsible, not scare-mongering, not vague, not objectless and certainly not hysterical. One result of the vastly improved co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence organisations throughout the world was the prevention of the clandestine import to the USA of 30+ state of the art shoulder launched SAM's. Recommended use of same, from the supplier, was to mount a co-ordinated simultaneous attack against at least 15 civilian airliners at various locations in the US. Would you have felt safer if that supplier had not been caught? Nice to hear you appreciate some of the steps your government has taken to combat the terrorist threat (IMO Code ISPS). It may well catch a few drug shipments - that would be a bonus a catch-crop. The reason it is part of SOLAS certification is because it affects safety of the ship. Method of implementation was through the IMO, the UN's watchdog for maritme concerns. The reason it could not have been done solely for drugs is because drugs carried onboard a ship do not affect that ships safety. Going back to two of your earlier posts: Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM "I call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort." Then the following day Peg 07 Jan 04 - 09:50 AM "Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life." --Hah! That's a larf. I never said it was the worst example I knew of." Please explain what is worse than worst? On courses of action, I believe I actually said, "...your apparent preferred course of action" not, "...(your)preferred course of action" there is a difference. As you have done nothing bar complain about jackbooted nazi thugs, loss of your civil rights, etc, without putting forward one single proposal regarding a course of action subsequent to 911 (apart from discounting taking your class out for a drink, rejected because they happened to be under the age limit). Your APPARENT preferred course of action would appear to be to do nothing - Absolutely brilliant! the message sent to Al-Qaeda, "there you go boys, have a nice day, make sure y'all come back now, missin' you already". You may well subjectively believe that things have not been made any harder for terrorists trying to attack targets in the USA. But objective analysis of the situation prior to 911 compared to the situation now would demonstrate that it is harder now than before because there are more safeguards in place. By the way, your example of a different methodology, "An attempt to poison a municipal water supply" a bit pointless, such an attempt would be detected almost instantly. Municipal water supplies are regarded as being essential and it has long been realised that they may be subject to accidental contamination. That being the case they are continuously sampled for any impurity. Regarding the US economy, rate of growth four times higher than in any Euro-zone country and twice that of the major Far Eastern countries. At its highest level ever the Dow Jones stood at 11,700-odd points (1999), it is currently standing at 10,576. I'll stand by what I said regarding your statement about the US economy "tanking". Numbers subjected to arrest, detention and strip-search are minute, there is no evidence that the powers given are being abused on any scale that could be cause for alarm. I say that realising that nothing in this world is perfect and that while mistakes, although regretable, may be inevitable, the over-riding consideration can only be founded on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. When I referred to police in the normal performance of their duty (no Homeland Security connection), I was specifically thinking about police work associated with drugs, theft, assault, burglary, etc, where I am sure that people brought in as suspects are subject to arrest, detention and strip-search who are completely innocent. Sledge has correctly identified the group I refer to as drunken plastic paddies - "Irish Americans" who for years funded the terrorist activities of the IRA from the safety of bars in Boston, Chicago, etc, etc. If your sensitivities and those for whom you speak are offended by such a reference, then tough shit, that is what did happen, they did it for years knowing full well the damage they were causing, they suceeded in destroying the lives of thousands of innocent people, the majority of them real Irish men, women and children. You brought up the subject of "police states". Your contention is that the current President and his administration, have subverted your democracy and assumed powers that rob you of your civil rights, turned the home of the free into a police state for their own ends in order to enrich themselves and their inner circle. I suggested that things are a long way off the state you describe. I also suggested President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as an example of exactly what you describe, so again I would suggest that you compare the conditions in the US for an opponent of the US government, to a member of the MDC in Zimbabwe then tell me who is better of ( or maybe that should be who's worst off, or worser than worst off). The US did not declare war on Afghanistan, the US did not invade Afghanistan. The US did supply assistance (primarily air-power) to the Northern Alliance forces in their struggle against the Taleban. The Northern Alliance then suceeded in driving out the Taleban. No war, No invasion. In actual fact permission had to be sought from the Northern Alliance leaders to allow specialist troops in to secure the airport and make it safe for Hamid Karzai to return to the country. On the Geneva Convention and the treatment of Prisoners of War. Prisoners of War need no recourse to any legal system or legal representation, because they will not be charged with anything, because they have committed no offence. What prisoners of war are entitled to is contact with the representatives of the International Red Cross or Red Crescent, who have access to prisoners of war in order to monitor the conditions under which the POW's are being treated and kept. As you say there was a war in Afghanistan, what army were these members part of? Where did Al-Qaeda fit into this army? |
|
08 Jan 04 - 12:31 PM (#1088758) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace So, like, uh, what? |
|
08 Jan 04 - 01:57 PM (#1088814) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Teribus, you aren't worth the effort. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge reality. |
|
08 Jan 04 - 03:56 PM (#1088908) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Barry Finn One goverment's terrorist is another's freedom fighter (General Washington & General Cornwallis, Stonewall Jackson & Sherman) just depends from whose shoes you're standing in at the moment or whose the victor & whose the loser. We're (the US) as guilty as any other nation for fighting against the freedoms of other people. What pisses me off is that every one whose ever been sick or has treated the sick know that the best way to treat an illness it not to treat the symtoms |
|
08 Jan 04 - 05:06 PM (#1088955) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Barry Finn Sorry, I hit the sumiy button by accident. Anyway, the best way to treat an illness it not to treat the symtoms but to spend a little money, time & sweat to find out the root causes & treat those. I can't imagine that in all this no one in this administration bothers to investagate the why of it all (IMHO there's no one there that gives a shit as to the causes), & please don't spew the religious angle (as in Irland) or the extremist bull either. We are no safer today than we were at the time of 9/11. As long as there exists a power that in subtle or definent ways oppresses or puts their thumb on the back of others there will be the threat of terror when they're on feet again & they feel like there back's against the wall. There's no way in hell we can win in Iraq/Viet Nam & absolutely no way we can wage a campain against terror. It would be easier tracking ghosts through heaven, hell & earth, the spirits will just keep coming. What might be our next great concern is home growing our own freedom fighters/terrorists. I would think that many of us can recall the milliant groups of the 60's. Some might of had legit reason & some might not have. The Black Panthers, the SDS, the Weathermen & a bunch more. Faar fetched, we seem to already be reliving part of that era. The Red Scare, the Cold War, J. Edgar Hoover's & the FBI's spy files on Americans, Joe MacCarthy's search for unamerican activities, instead of a civil rights issue (which has yet to be addressed) it's now human & constatutional rights issue. As in the 60's the issues are starting to get more exposure & are starting to pile up. It's beginning to look more & more like a powder keg waiting on a small spark. Damn, I still haven't been able to find much on Bush's signing of the 2nd Patriot Act on Saturday (an unusual day for signing anything), the same day as Saddam was captured. Seems funny how finding Saddam rates complete coverage and an act that will effect every American is pushed to the back of the classified section. Next we'll find out what's being done to us by reading about it in the funnies. I guess this lends some ghostly truths to Bush's Shadow Government. Where's the debates these days or does every issue just get rammed down our throats & the throats of others around the world. I find it incredable that the american public can't add beyond 1+1. Is it that if a little bit of shit gets swallowed here & there & we're told that it's good for us & in our best interests that we can't tell by days end that we've been treated worst that the crapper & that tomorrow we can gladly expect the whole crew to piss on us, have a good laugh for themselves & thank us all for being right there when we're needed. Barry |
|
08 Jan 04 - 11:54 PM (#1089191) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: freda underhill meanwhile, with all the focus on terrorism, war & security, the US economy is now in the red. see this article from the sydney morning herald today: Global fears as US goes into the red; By Matt Wade; January 9, 2004; Sydney morning herald The huge black hole in the US budget and the country's ballooning trade deficit are threatening to push up interest rates across the globe and destabilise the international economy, one of the world's most powerful financial institutions has warned. The budget deficit - which has swung from a healthy surplus in 2000 to a forecast blowout of more than $US400 billion ($521.2 billion) this year - was a "significant risk" for the rest of the world, the International Monetary Fund said yesterday. "Sustained fiscal deficits lower national savings in the United States and will eventually raise real interest rates both in the United States and abroad," said Charles Collyns, deputy director of its western hemisphere department. The fund said the US would soon have a foreign debt totalling 40 per cent of its gross domestic product - an "unprecedented level debt for a large industrialised country". This could trigger a "disorderly" plunge in the US dollar - and a corresponding jump in other currencies, including the Australian dollar - rocking the global financial system. "The possible global risks of a disorderly exchange rate adjustment . . . cannot be ignored," the fund said. .. The greenback has lost ground on global currency markets for 18 months, pushing the Australian dollar above US77 cents for the first time in 6 years this week. It finished yesterday just below its latest peak at US76.77 cents. The IMF said the US Government must develop a credible five- to 10-year plan to balance its budget and warned this would mean spending cuts and tax rises. While US Government spending had provided valuable support to the weak global economy in recent years, the "large US fiscal deficits also pose significant risks for the rest of the world", it said. |
|
09 Jan 04 - 06:42 AM (#1089301) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Thanks for your last post of 08 Jan 04 - 01:57 PM, Peg: "Teribus, you aren't worth the effort. You don't seem to be able to acknowledge reality." Your message, quoted above, coming as it does from a member of a coven, I take as a compliment. I had a great laugh from the last sentence. |
|
10 Jan 04 - 01:37 AM (#1089832) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peace OK, everybody step away from the car! |
|
10 Jan 04 - 06:17 AM (#1089882) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST Paul O` Neill, a former Bush administrator, speaking on CBS gave a highly unflattering account of the President`s leadership. O N`eill referred to Bush as, " like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people" . Who is this man Paul O`Neill, [Teribus and Sledge, he must be a plastic paddy] get him fingerprinted and sent off to that hell-hole, Bev and Gerry directed us to. |
|
10 Jan 04 - 08:37 AM (#1089927) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg Oh, nice one, Teribus. Attacking someone's spiritual beliefs. I take my spiritual practices very seriously. I am a professional writer and professor. Maybe I will corrupt all my students and the earth will be overrun with witches and then bigoted pathetic people like you will be running scared. It's rabid Republican bullies like YOU that make ME laugh. |
|
10 Jan 04 - 10:42 AM (#1089981) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Fine points, Barry. No we are no safer now than just after 9/11 because like you say, we are treating symptoms. Yes, the Bush asministration squandered an opportunity here. Rather than treat 9/11 as a serious crime, such as was done with the aielined that was blown up over Scotland by Lybians, this administartion forwarded a right wing foriegn policy option written in 1992. Yeah, declaring a "War on Terrorism" was nothing more than a way of "framing" (PR) so that many right wing extremist policies could be pushed upon the world and American people under the guise of "War on Terrorism". The poblem is that when Bush did that he was also forwarding this idea Of "Bring it on" to those criminals who have a beef with the US and it's allies. All this did was lengthen the recruiting lines for the bin Laden's of this world. Now we see these criminals have found Iraq to be a nice friendly little joint to mess with the US and they're doing a fine job of it. These folks wouldn't be in Iraq if it weren't for us. And what really galls me is that Saddam was our guy and we could have had him jumping thru hoops if we had played him correctly. Embargos just strengthened his resolve to be a jerk. Now lastly, back to the original thoughts on treating symptoms rather than causes. We, the US, *need* a Department of Peace and *need* to check the testesterone at the door. There are non-violent ways af bringing about change both domesticly and abroad. Until we start showing the world that we, the world's greatest military power, have the wisdom to know when to listen and solve problems without "shooting first" then the world will continue to be at war. Bobert |
|
10 Jan 04 - 08:44 PM (#1090242) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bev and Jerry The War on Terrorism has the same problem as the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. How will we know when we've won (or lost)? Bev and Jerry |
|
10 Jan 04 - 09:39 PM (#1090283) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: katlaughing Bobert, yes indeed, we do still need that Dept. of Peace. |
|
12 Jan 04 - 01:56 AM (#1090886) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus What me - Republican!!!! I'll have you know Peg, that I am a loyal subject of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, you can't get further from Republican than that. |
|
12 Jan 04 - 11:37 AM (#1091174) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Peg whatever; you're still an arrogant jerk. |
|
12 Jan 04 - 03:29 PM (#1091334) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Well Peg there you have it, purely in your opinion, although having gone through our exchanges in this thread, I'd back my grip of reality way before yours. |
|
12 Jan 04 - 03:50 PM (#1091354) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Amos Well, she's not completely alone, Teribus. I too am of the conviction that you tend to be a bit of a jerk at times. Well, so what? So do I, although on different occasions than you. I mean no real offense by it, and I mention it just in case you might want to review your approach. A |
|
12 Jan 04 - 04:10 PM (#1091373) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Well thank God for that Amos - It would, after all, be down-right boring if we all agreed with each other all the time wouldn't it. |
|
12 Jan 04 - 07:05 PM (#1091493) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Walking Eagle I'm minded of a poem that goes something like this. First, they arrested the Catholic (Hindu, Baptist etc.) and I did nothing because I am not Catholic. Then they arrested the foreigner and I did nothing because I am not a foreigner. Then they arrested the - American and still I did nothing because I am not a hyphenated American. They are coming down my street and I note that there is no one left to stand for me. My apologies to the poet who wrote this and to the poem. You get the gist of it though. W.E. |
|
12 Jan 04 - 07:45 PM (#1091531) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Walking Eagle |
|
12 Jan 04 - 08:29 PM (#1091556) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Bobert Well, sniff, yeah... T is an arrogant jerk but, sniff, I likes him okay. Sure, he cheats in arguments by constantly shifting attention away from his boy, Bush, but hey, he's good at it... Kinda like a magician's slight of hand... But, like I said, sniff, I likes T.... Sniff... Bobert |
|
13 Jan 04 - 12:07 AM (#1091690) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest If the far right who are manipulating your country and the rest of the world for their own personal gain had not acted the way they have over the decades there would be absolutely no need for these regulations. Your rulers have made their own bed so lie in it. |
|
13 Jan 04 - 10:57 AM (#1091803) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: GUEST,Teribus Aw Bobert I'm all choked up Cheers pal. |
|
13 Jan 04 - 01:18 PM (#1091965) Subject: RE: BS: Book'em, Bush'o From: Wolfgang Walking Eagle, Then they came for me is a thread about these lines, origins and variants, that have been started, not as poem, by Niemoeller. By now, these lines have a life of their own and get rewritten each year. Wolfgang |