Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
The Only Thing We Have To Fear....
Topic Started: Aug 11 2006, 04:04 PM (1,026 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Aug 12 2006, 03:28 AM
I'm with JB on this one - Rick has lost touch with reality, and Jack is right behind him.

If you lefties would put your hatred away, you'd find that it has been widely reported that even England acknowledges the US has been involved with them in this right from the beginning. You know those phone taps you claimed were such a violation of your civil rights? Remember your pissing and moaning about that one? Well - it just saved hundreds of lives.

It blows my mind that grown men of supposedly educated backgrounds can be so silly.

Try again, Larry. Chertoff said they had warrants. No one here has objected to surveillance pursuant to a validly issued warrant.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Whether they had warrants or not isn't the issue, Quirt.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Aug 12 2006, 04:07 AM
Whether they had warrants or not isn't the issue, Quirt.

Actually, it is. Because no one has objected to surveillance pursuant to warrants.

Therefore, no one has claimed that the phone taps violated anyone's civil rights, and no one was pissing and moaning about them.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quirt, you're just getting up. I'm just getting home. I'm exhausted, and I don't have the energy nor the inclination to play semantical games. Warrants aren't the point in this discussion, and you know it.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
My point is that it is incorrect for you to say that anyone here was complaining about illegal searches or violations of rights in relation to THIS surveillance.

If you were able to find evidence of a terrorist plot using warrantless surveillance, where there was no reasonable time or opportunity to get a warrant, your point would be better made. But this particular instance doesn't prove the point you want to make.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Ok - I've had my 4 hours sleep.

I know what your point was - but limiting it to "THIS surveillance" is nitpicking to win a point. Certain lefties here went on and on and on wringing their hands and beating Bush over the head for "violating" their rights by several things the administration put into place to track terrorists - and obtaining warrants wasn't a qualifier in their position. That means it isn't a qualifier in this discussion, no matter how legitimate your point may or may not be. *My* point is that this plot was thwarted and hundreds upon hundreds of lives were just saved thanks to the surveillance being done, and it shows just how dangerous and naive the views of the extremist left are.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
As I asked when I started this thread ....

You don't think Bush would cynically use the British success at foiling terrorists for partisan political purposes, do you?

Apparently he would:

Bush administration accused of politicizing terror threat
Allan Woods, CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, August 12, 2006 Article tools

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is under fire for trying to make political gains from the foiled London terror plot after Vice-President Dick Cheney, one day before and in full knowledge of the impending arrests, warned that the electoral defeat of a pro-Iraq war Democrat would only encourage "al-Qaida types."

Cheney's comments about the defeat of Senator Joseph Leiberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, are being viewed as a crass political effort to rehabilitate President George W. Bush and his Republican party in the eyes of the American public in the lead-up to the country's mid-term elections this November.

"There is nothing Americans want more than to win the war on terror," read the lead editorial in Thursday's New York Times, which was critical of Cheney. "It comes like a punch to the gut, at times like these, when our leaders blatantly use the nation's trauma for political gain. We never get used to this."

Lieberman's fate in the Democratic primary vote on Tuesday night was seen as gauge of support for the Iraq war and the larger war on terror, both of which the Lieberman, a former vice-presidential candidate, stands firmly behind.

The day after Lieberman's loss to political rookie Ned Lamont, Cheney called the outcome "disturbing" and "an unfortunate development."

"The al-Qaida types, they are clearly betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task," he said in a telephone interview with reporters.

"It's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy."

Cheney also charged that there is "a significant body of opinion" among Democrats who want to return to "the pre-9/11 mindset in terms of how we deal with the world we live in."

The comments were initially interpreted as little more than a partisan jab until the country woke up Thursday morning to news that two dozen terror suspects had been rounded up in and around London. Cheney and Bush had known about the investigation since last weekend and were briefed on the upcoming arrests on the same day as Cheney reacted to the Lieberman loss.

The two men receive intelligence briefings together, according to White House Homeland Security adviser Frances Townsend.

The "pre-9/11 mindset" has come under continued criticism from the American right, particularly in the last year following politically damaging revelations about some of the extraordinary measures the security and intelligence wings of the U.S. government have taken to track and investigate potential terror threats, including secretly monitoring telephone conversations and international banking records.

It was to these measures that Bush was believed to have referred when he made a statement on the terror arrests and said that it is "a mistake" to believe there is no threat to the U.S. "and that is why we have given our officials the tools they need to protect our people."

But with a Washington Post poll last week showing that 46 per cent of Americans believed the Democrats were better equipped to tackle terrorism, compared to 38 per cent who favoured the Republicans, it is clear that the political struggle to keep Americans safe from terrorism is a blood sport.

Democrats were also quick to lay blame for the newest terror threat to the U.S. one of the most alarming since the successful attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada charged that "this latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

Reid was quoted in the Washington Post, which also weighed in with an editorial saying that "point-scoring from either side isn't very useful."

"Over the past couple of years as the threat seemed to recede, maybe it seemed OK to shape positions on terrorism based on polling results and electoral prospects," the paper wrote. "Now, we're reminded, that isn't acceptable, and neither are the stale and unproductive either-or arguments the nation gradually slid into."
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Would Bush cynically use the arliner plot for political purposes?

Apparently he would:



If that's all you have for proof of your claim you're sh!t out of luck. All you've proven is that you and the rest of the nutjobs on the left will break your back twisting anything and everything you can into another Bush bash - and it is *your* partisan propaganda causing the majority of the divisiveness in the country.

The article is ridiculous.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
By the way Rick - how do you feel about the fact that hundreds of lives were just saved by techniques that you feel violate your civil rights? Which is more important now - proven results in saving human life, or your ideology?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
May I add that it is also the ideology that thinks nothing of depriving you of your hard earned property to share it with those who won't earn but is quite upset about electronically scanning communications in a public utility for key words, phrases, known numbers of terrorists.

What's wrong with this picture?
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Aug 12 2006, 02:04 AM
ivorythumper
Aug 12 2006, 12:23 AM

Because it would have probably wound up on the front page of the NYT, the terrorists would have disbanded and fled, and you would have defended the rights of the NYT to print whatever they wanted?

Sorry if that's a caricturization of your overall position, but that is basically how I read your approach to things...

In other words, even in your caricature, the plot would have been foiled.

No, in other words, the terrorists would not have been caught, and would have another opportunity to try either this or some other plan to kill thousands.

I can't think of a single war that has been won by publishing battle plans and strategems and tectical initiatives and surveillance data and spy networks and confidential information on the front page of the newspaper.

Perhaps you can, and alleviate my concern that this is no way to fight our enemy.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Durn. :weeping:

And all this time I was under the impression that FDR did those fireside chats and the many political speeches of WWII simply for entertainment purposes.

Silly me. :silly:

Listen, you ignorant Bush-bashing twits, war is fought on as much a political battlefield as one where bombs and bullets are flying.

If you can't understand that concept and the function it plays in will to win, you don't have sense enough to pour piss out of a boot with the directions wrote on the heel. Or you are so blinded by hate as to be rendered intellectually useless.

Think, dammit! :yelling:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Ben
Aug 11 2006, 09:59 PM
most Democrats do believe in fighting the "war on terror," if you insist on calling it that.

Ben, would you call it something else?

This may be inaccurate of what you meant, and if so I apologize. However, it seems one thing that really gets me, is that some peopel don't realize we are in the fight of our life against terrorists. Hence, the WAR ON TERROR. If some libs are mad that "the GOP" came up with that or whatever...tough, get over it, and stop being blinded by politics. It's a war on terror, and we need to do everything we can to stop it, before it stops us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Or you are so blinded by hate as to be rendered intellectually useless.



:yes:
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

ivorythumper
Aug 12 2006, 01:23 AM
Rick Zimmer
Aug 11 2006, 10:20 PM
Luke's Dad
Aug 11 2006, 08:49 PM
Jack Frost
Aug 11 2006, 11:12 PM
Luke's Dad
Aug 11 2006, 11:08 PM
From what I understand,

Could you be a bit more specific? If you are being honest about this you will convert me. I think you are making this up.

jf

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207944,00.html

Quote:
 
GIBSON: Let me put it this way, Mr. Attorney General: Apparently the Brits did use sneak and peek as well as telephone taps. Does that illustrate, or should that illustrate to the American public why those are necessary tools here?


The Brits have been investigating this group in earnest since last december. If it were in this country, why could this not have been done with a secret court warrant?

Because it would have probably wound up on the front page of the NYT, the terrorists would have disbanded and fled, and you would have defended the rights of the NYT to print whatever they wanted?

Sorry if that's a caricturization of your overall position, but that is basically how I read your approach to things...

:lol: Good post, Ivory!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Luke's Dad
Aug 11 2006, 11:49 PM
Jack Frost
Aug 11 2006, 11:12 PM
Luke's Dad
Aug 11 2006, 11:08 PM
From what I understand,

Could you be a bit more specific? If you are being honest about this you will convert me. I think you are making this up.

jf

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207944,00.html

Quote:
 
GIBSON: Let me put it this way, Mr. Attorney General: Apparently the Brits did use sneak and peek as well as telephone taps. Does that illustrate, or should that illustrate to the American public why those are necessary tools here?


Thanks LD, this is confirming what I also heard on the radio news as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
The 89th Key
Aug 12 2006, 09:04 AM
Ben
Aug 11 2006, 09:59 PM
most Democrats do believe in fighting the "war on terror," if you insist on calling it that.

Ben, would you call it something else?

This may be inaccurate of what you meant, and if so I apologize. However, it seems one thing that really gets me, is that some peopel don't realize we are in the fight of our life against terrorists. Hence, the WAR ON TERROR. If some libs are mad that "the GOP" came up with that or whatever...tough, get over it, and stop being blinded by politics. It's a war on terror, and we need to do everything we can to stop it, before it stops us.

89th, you must bear in mind that Ben's grasp of politics can be summed up in one sentence:... "I'm a liberal!...... Mommy, can I have some more cookies?"......
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Because it would have probably wound up on the front page of the NYT


I understand the NYT is mad as hell at both the US and England governments for coordinating this without the leaks they needed in order to warn the enemy......
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
Aug 12 2006, 11:28 AM
As I asked when I started this thread ....

You don't think Bush would cynically use the British success at foiling terrorists for partisan political purposes, do you?

Rick, Bush has been consistent on this. He is fighting the war against terrorists, with a pro-active stance. You may not agree with him, but he SURE AS HELL isn't doing this for poll numbers. He keeps sliding in the polls because he sticks to what he said 5 years ago. This is not going to be an easy or quick battle, but a necessary one. He said he wont stop until he's done everything he can or until the job is done. He keeps losing popularity points for this (quite frankly, because of the lack of resolve that many Americans have now...), so for him to highlight how the Brits (and the help of US intelligence agencies, btw) stopped an attack worse than 9/11, as a major victory against the war on terror...isn't politics. It's reality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
It is pretty clear that the data collection of flight records (to Pakistan), financial transactions, phone conversations and so forth are exactly the things in the Patriot Act and other measures that the ACLU and Rick have opposed. I am flying with family on BA to London next week, and I am sure glad that Scotland Yard had the ability to monitor these things.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
This whole discussion is a head shaker for me. The public media has an obligation not to hinder or compromise national security and /or police investigations in any way. That includes the publication of unreleased police evidence that should happen its way or the process as to how the police or authorities are conducting ongoing investigations. Nor should the media assume it has a need or even right to know what is the duly constituted enforcement agencies are doing.

This particularly the case when the authorities are working 24/7 in trying to infiltrate terrorist conspirators. The operant phrase in any intelligence gathering operation or criminal investigation of a highly sensitive nature is "need to know". Relevant information pertaining to a case should and must be distributed on a strict "need to know" basis. The media and the general public do not have a need to know anything. Nor do they have a right to know either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
IT posed these questions to Ben, who is certainly capable of responding on his own (and I hope he does), but I'd like to offer my own thoughts as well.

Quote:
 
1) what do you make of the phrase "in aftermath of the alleged plot to blow up several planes en route to the U.S."?


At this exact moment, it is indeed only an alleged plot. The last radio report I heard indicated that the homes of the accused had been searched - dismantled actually - and they haven't found doodly-squat. I think they'll find what they need, but as yet they have not. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

If the alleged perps are guilty, I sincerely hope they do find the evidence required. I hope they'll use that evidence to conduct a swift and thorough trial for each accused, and if they are found guilty that they be shot at dawn. If they need help, I'll fly out to help man the firing squad. I'll do that as soon as they are found guilty in a court of law.

But not before.

Quote:
 

"most Democrats do believe in fighting the "war on terror," if you insist on calling it that. "


Quote:
 
2a) Why do you say "insist on calling it that"?  We speak of the war on poverty but that doesn't mean we plant land mines around food banks. It is an entirely valid term in English usage (war on drugs), and the war is fought with weapons and methods appropriate to the enemy.


It's not a valid term. The "War on Terror" is not a war at all. It has no beginning, and it will have no end. Neither is "War on Poverty". Neither is "War on Drugs".

Quote:
 
In this case, it is hardly as metaphoric as in war on drugs or poverty.


Indeed, which is what makes it so dangerous. Starting with the "War on Drugs", using the term "war" to describe a campaign has been used as justification for the use of wartime powers to circumvent the legal system. This is a dangerous precedent, and I'll cite the recent seizures of apartment buildings (with little hope of either return or compensation) as a tool in the "War on Drugs" as an example. The "War on Terror" has brought us numerous examples of similar disregard for the Constitution. I find these actions to be intolerable.

You should too.

Quote:
 
2b) given that the Dems are pretty intent on closing down Gitmo, in limiting the ability of the intelligence community to extract information by harsh methods, and in cheering the freedom of the press when the NYT exposes the Government's efforts to actually stop the terrorists, what sort of strategies do you think the Dems would bring to the table that would be effective in fighting the war on terror?


This one is so filled with red herrings that it will require some dissection to address:

"given that the Dems are pretty intent on closing down Gitmo"

Given by whom? Not by me, although I'll grant that there are some Democrats who are intent to do so because they have no faith that the abuses occurring there will stop otherwise. Others just want the operations there to follow well established procedures in handling the people who are held in custody. I don't believe that either camp can be described with the all-encompassing term "Dems", unless you are using the term to describe intelligent people who are intent on seeing the principles of this country upheld as we deal with this new menace called "terror".

Some in fact, might even be called "Republicans".

Nice blending of the "War on Terror" with the war in Afghanistan, BTW. Rove would be proud - his message of obfuscation is getting through. Afghanistan was a real war; the "War on Terror" is not. Both types of action have procedures, but in neither case are they being followed.

" in limiting the ability of the intelligence community to extract information by harsh methods"

It's that pesky Constitution again.

If you don't care for the provisions contained therein, then by all means campaign to change it. If you're not willing to do that, then use it to decide what to do in a given situation.

It really is that simple.

" and in cheering the freedom of the press when the NYT exposes the Government's efforts to actually stop the terrorists,"

AKA cheering the freedom of the press when it is used to expose abuses of the system - depends on how much trust you put in elected officials and sundry bureaucrats. The government has a perfectly workable system (warrants) to accomplish what needed to be done. It was not used.

Would you rather not know of this abuse? Do you trust this administration to always act in your long-term best interest?

Yes? How about the next one? Or the one after that?

what sort of strategies do you think the Dems would bring to the table that would be effective in fighting the war on terror?"

The allure of absolute power is so compelling that I have no doubt the Dems will come up with new ways to abuse the system on their own. The best I can hope for is that succeeding administrations (Dem and otherwise) will work swiftly to build new systems to deal with terror in a way that maintains the integrity of the Constitution, and to streamline the old ones.

I pray that I am not asking too much.
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Found nothing? They found pre-martyrdom videos, which is what prompted the raids to go forth.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Mikhailoh
Aug 12 2006, 10:50 AM
Found nothing? They found pre-martyrdom videos, which is what prompted the raids to go forth.

I had not heard that.

I hope the rest of the evidence is equally damning.
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Steve - And a telephone call telling them to "go for it now". Unless you want to believe that newspaper reports are faked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4