[Zedicus]

http://www.corecodec.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=61&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

With the passing of the Patriot Act, and the Son of Patriot Act, we are giving up our freedoms left and right. Wasn't that why we were attacked in the first place?

The war on terrorism has is over, and we have lost. Not by the hands of any hijackers, but at our own hands. Freedom is intrinsic to the human being - it can not be taken, it can only be given up by those who unwilling to defend it.

"Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."

I must admit, the guy does make a vallid point....

[Art Eatman]

Well, if "terrorism" includes bombs addressed "to whom it may concern", no, the WOT is a long way from over.

The Patriot Act and the SOP Act are a matter of degree, not of kind. The War on Drugs was providing enough excuses, but merely at a slower rate. The inherent goal of all governments is the extension of power over the citizenry. The excuses may vary, but the efforts are unending...

"It's for your safety, and that of your children."

:(, Art

[fallingblock]

"The inherent goal of all governments is the extension of power over the citizenry. The excuses may vary, but the efforts are unending..."
************************************************************
The Australian government certainly qualifies....

"Your guns are evil....let us have them and we'll make you safe"
:barf:

[Art Eatman]

Ah, but Vic! If "they" should discover you've read "The Turner Diaries", what then? For example: A friend of mine had a policeman observe a page of a magazine with an article about the Militia; the magazine was on the seat of his car. The policeman immediately began berating the man about his membership in evil organizations. Problem? It was a one-page generalized article in Time Magazine.

The problem is not the immediate or visible loss of freedoms. The problem is the vast potential for abuse of power, in preconceived notions of guilt of terrorism--and with little or no accountability or redress to the wrongfully accused. I note that Star Chamber proceedings and the prevention of having advice from one's attorney happen to go against more than one Supreme Court finding as to Constitutionality.

IMO, government has no inherent rights in natural law. It has no right to know more about me than whether or not I pay my taxes or whether or not I commit crimes against person or property.

It is egregious snooperitis to want to know about the number of bathrooms in my house, or what I read, or by implication from that reading, what are my political beliefs.

My final really big gripe is that most of our anti-terrorism laws/regulations passed after 9/11 do little to protect you and me. Primarily, they are designed to protect the Beltway Bandits.

Art

[Standing Wolf]

The problem is not the immediate or visible loss of freedoms. The problem is the vast potential for abuse of power...

You don't mean to say you think the nation could be afflicted with another Janet Reno, do you?

[Tamara]

You see, I live a law abiding lifestyle. I have nothing to worry about if some snoop wants to see what I've checked out at the local library. Let him or her look. ... It's just like some cities have placed video cameras throughout parts of their city. I don't care. What have I to be afraid of? Nothing! And if it helps the local authorities to perhaps catch some loser then more power to them.

OMG! :eek: :eek:

I can't believe that an actual American citizen typed this on THR! :scrutiny:

Is your house also built of glass bricks so that passing policemen can see inside? After all, you have nothing to hide...


(That sound you hear is the authors of the Fourth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights spinning in their graves. All that work they put in to allow you to live as a free man, and that's the gratitude you show? For shame. :mad: )

[Cactus]

It's ironic that someone would post that the war on terrorism is over on this day. Just yesterday, a British man was arrested for selling a surface to air missle to undercover agents posing as terrorists. Also, two Pakistani men were arrested at Sea-Tac International Airport attempting to board seperate airplanes to New York. Both men purchased one way tickets with cash. Although seen talking together prior to purchasing their tickets, they each purchased tickets on different airlines. Both of these men were on a watch list for suspected terrorists and had entered the country illegally.

I agree somewhat with Vic. I have lost no freedoms either. Virtually everything in the Patriot Act was doable prior to its enactment. The Patriot Act does things like consoldate some of those things and makes it easier for law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate with each other and to get one warrent instead of a series of them. The police are not going through libary records looking for people who check out "Turner Diaries" unless they are suspected to have terrorist links. And the Courts have ruled that enemy combatants can be treated differently than common criminals.

Yes portions of the law can be misused. As can portions of ALL laws. There is always a balancing act between individual liberties and the governments obligation to provide security. Neither one is absolute. It has historically swung back and forth and I suspect that it will continue to. In the areas that have gone to far, they are being challenged in the courts and looked at by Congress, as they should be.

We are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy us. The government has taken measures during all wars that threatening our nation, that would seem overly restrictive to us during peaceful times. The trouble is that this enemy is unseen by most of us and does not opperate under the flag of a nation. Because of that, it doesn't feel like we are at war. If this enemy was wearing the uniform of China and massing troops at our borders, we would see it very different.


Originally posted by Art Eatman:
The policeman immediately began berating the man about his membership in evil organizations.

Did the cop arrest your friend? No. Did he report him to the FBI? I doubt it. So whats the big deal. The cop was a jerk. He has the right to express his distaste for a certain organization just as you do if you saw a co-worker with a copy of a letter from Sarah Brady. However, I'm sure you would be much more polite than this cop was to your friend.:D

[Tamara]

We are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy us.

Really?

Thank gawd, I thought Congress was never going to get around to declaring war! When'd they do it, yesterday or today?

[JohnBT]

I thought we were at war when we were attacked. Which attack you say? I dunno. Pick one, there're plenty to choose from going back a goodly number of years.

Congress? I've grown to expect little from them. Maybe they'll come around. Shall we wait?

John

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Tamara:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really?

Thank gawd, I thought Congress was never going to get around to declaring war! When'd they do it, yesterday or today?

Who do you wish to declare war against? Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Canada, France, Germany or Great Britain? Terrorists fighting us have come from all of these nations and more. So who do we declare war on? Some have even come from the United States. Should we declare war on ourselves?

Was the War Between the States a war? How about the Indian Wars? What about the Korean War? The Viet Nam War?

None of them were declared a war by Congress either. I wonder if any of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in those conflicts realized they weren't in a war? I'm sure that would have made their dying easier for their families. If you would prefer to call our battle against the terrorists that have killed thousands of our citizens something else, that's your perogative. How about "Police Action", or "Punative Action", maybe even "Crusade". Call it what you wish, I will continue to call it what it is, declaired or not; it's a WAR. It is against an organized group of people who want to see you and me dead and our nation eliminated.

I would prefer that our nation put its focus on defeating the enemy instead of playing symantics with words.

[Tamara]

"War" is a pretty specific term, and, in reference to the U.S. government, describes a certain state of affairs, declared by Congress. This is true; you can look it up.

I realize that, since the '60s or so, the .gov has used the term "War" to describe everything from handing out milk money to poor schoolkids to busting pot growers, but these are not "Wars", these are just various government activities that they would like to get everyone all excited about.

An attack by criminals is not the same as a war, no matter how much rhetoric the talking heads spew trying to frame it in that vernacular. The proper response to a criminal organization committing violent crimes is to kill or capture its members, not to use the attack as an excuse to perfom proctological exams on every American citizen still unfortunate enough to be unable to avoid airlines.

The government has taken measures during all wars that threatening our nation, that would seem overly restrictive to us during peaceful times.

You know, this one never worked for me when I was a kid.
"Aw, mom, Abie got to suspend habeus corpus! Why can't I?"
"I don't care what Abie got to do; it's still wrong."

[pax]

Hey folks,

According to the Highest Law in our fair land, we aren't at war until Congress declares war.

This isn't mere semantics, you know. It is one of the necessary safeguards from the most dangerous thing on the planet (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18458).

In recent years, we've dismantled the safeguards one by one. It doesn't matter who claims nothing has changed: the fact is, tearing the safeguards off the government buzzsaw is a bad idea.

pax

I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery. -- Jean Jaqueas Rousseau

[Tamara]

It's customary to cite quotes.

...also, what does any of that have to do with the discussion at hand? A pretty non sequitirish choice for a cut'n'paste if you ask me. :confused:

[Cactus]

Originally posted by Tamara:
I realize that, since the '60s or so, the .gov has used the term "War" to describe everything from handing out milk money to poor schoolkids to busting pot growers, but these are not "Wars", these are just various government activities that they would like to get everyone all excited about.

An attack by criminals is not the same as a war, no matter how much rhetoric the talking heads spew trying to frame it in that vernacular. The proper response to a criminal organization committing violent crimes is to kill or capture its members, not to use the attack as an excuse to perfom proctological exams on every American citizen still unfortunate enough to be unable to avoid airlines.

So are you saying that our WAR against the terrorists is just an attempt by the government to get us all excited about something? Our WAR against the terrorists is just something akin to LBJ's "War on Poverty"? Are the victims of 9-11 just the equivalence of poor schoolkids that can't get milk?

I don't know what they do at airports in Tennesee, but I have yet to have a screener look up my "bum". I am still going through the same screening procedures that I have been going through for the past 20 years. Well I did have to take off my shoes the last time.:what: Oh the tyrants; that's it, lets man the parapits!:rolleyes:

If I have to continue to remove my shoes at the airport to prevent terrorists from flying a jet liner into the White House, that's a condition I can live with.

[Art Eatman]

Cactus, the lack of an arrest is irrelevant. I mentioned the 1983 event as an example of a preconceived mindset. Given the media blitz against the militia groups after the Oklahoma City bombing, there could well have been an arrest--but that's speculation on my part.

IMO, LBJ cheapened the use of the word "War" with his War on Poverty. It has been downhill from there.

While there is no difference in hazard and misery between the two formal wars of the 20th Century and the struggles in Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm, there is a world of legal difference.

Al Qaida and its friends may well consider themselves warriors, and are quite happy to kill any and all of us. However, without a specific declaration by Congress, we not in a legal condition of war. We are more in a condition that the Pinkertons are trying to identify suspects in order that a posse go after them.

Vic, pardon my lack of comprehension, but the post to which Tamara referred did not seem to relate to the previous posts...

AS to any perception of a loss of freedoms: True, our daily lives are generally unaffected--now. I am unconvinced that "It Can't Happen Here" has a total absence of possibility. I remember when I could get a new pistol in the mail from Colt. I remember when there was no BATF, nor even the concept of a "sting" operation with straw purchasers.

I even remember when Airport Security did not exist, and nobody even considered taking away the Medal of Honor from an 83-year-old man because of its sharp points. Heck, kids even said the word "Bang!" without being kicked out of school!

But we don't ever have to worry about abuse of power. Hmmm. You may be 100% correct to have faith in President Bush. However, he's not President for Life, and there's no Sunset Clause in the Patriot legislation.

I guess I'm a Reaganite: "Trust, but verify." I might be willing to trust, but Congress was unwilling that I could verify.

Art

[JitsuGuy]

"Order Through Chaos"

This whole scenario is nothing new. "Just tell the people they're being attacked and they'll willfully give up their rights."

But never in America, we're immune from that sort of thing.... Right?

Jits

[TearsOfRage]

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

[Justin]

TearsofRage-
Why would you say that? Everyone knows Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. :)


Hmmm, let's see...

War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Terror

You know what?
Not one of the above is a war. You can't declare war on a concept such as poverty, or things such as drugs.

Same goes for the War on Terror.
What are the goals?
When do we declare victory?

I've yet to see any .gov spokesthing offer any sort of plan of action that is even semi-coherent. (And declaring that 'we won't stop until every terrorist is dead' doesn't count, because it's an impossible goal.)

The same goes for every other stupidly conceived, half-baked congressional attempt at pulling the fleece over the typical American citizen.
And Vic, just because you believe that your freedoms are still in tact doesn't make it so, especially when there's so much evidence to the contrary.

Reminds me of those people who go about spouting about how they believe they've been abducted by little grey Venusians with big eyes.

I always want to tell those people that no one cares what you believe, especially when you cannot bring to bear any sort of verifiable proof to back you up.

[HBK]

I think it's pretty much a fact that we are losing some of our freedoms. Governments usually don't pass laws to give us more freedom. Quite the opposite in fact.

[faustulus]

It's just like some cities have placed video cameras throughout parts of their city. I don't care. What have I to be afraid of? Nothing! And if it helps the local authorities to perhaps catch some loser then more power to them.
Extending that logic, you have no problem with a national registry of firearms and their owners. Nor should any of the gun control laws on the books bother you. I will assume these are true statements.

We are at war with an enemy that wants to destroy us.
We don't have anything to fear from terrorists. They can only take our lives. We alone have the power to destroy ourselves, that is what I and a handful of others have been warning about since Sept. 11.

We have American Citizens sitting in jail without counsel and without convicitions.

Congress? I've grown to expect little from them. Maybe they'll come around. Shall we wait?
That's right they should just go the way of the Reichstag. Afterall a single powerful leader is better...

Call it what you wish, I will continue to call it what it is, declaired or not; it's a WAR. It is against an organized group of people who want to see you and me dead and our nation eliminated.
So stop screaming about the abuses of the second amendment. You can't pick parts to like about the constitution and parts that are ok to ignore. If it is ok for congress to bypass one it is ok for congress to bypass all.

The Bush Doctrine's principle of regime change, too, is odious to many on the liberal left.
With good reason, it is illogical. We attacked the one Arab nation where fundemental Islam was mostly being held at bay. And we attacked because we said there were weapons there which we can't find but somehow don't seem concerned about now.

Finally, maintaining America's leadership role as the sole superpower will influence stability throughout the world.
What a brave new world that will be. Everyone will love us for our infinite benevolence, and they shall praise us to the heavens. After all meddling in other countries business isn't what brought on the attacks in the first place. It's not like we supported bin Laden agaisnt the soviets. Or put people like Manuel Noriagia into power. After all we have such a good track record in these affairs.

Uh Tamara.... National Security? Loss of freedoms? Which I believe we haven't lost any, and if it helps secure our National Security I'm all for it.
So you would give up your guns for national security? your religion? Is life so sweet ...
Thank God our founding fathers didn't think this way. However, it does reenforce the original post -- we have already lost.

[Jeff White]

Cactus,
Did the cop arrest your friend? No. Did he report him to the FBI? I doubt it. So whats the big deal. The cop was a jerk. He has the right to express his distaste for a certain organization just as you do if you saw a co-worker with a copy of a letter from Sarah Brady.

Sir I beg to differ. He had NO right to express his distaste for that organization. NOT while he was in uniform and on duty. In fact as one who has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, he had an obligation to be officially neutral.

A couple years ago the Aryan Nations had a rally here. We had every officer on the force working that day. We had reinforcements from the State Police. These pathetic losers managed to muster about 12 people. Yet as distastful as it was, we protected them while they marched uptown and around the courthouse. Yet every officer on duty that day was porfessional enough NOT to express his opinion publically. When you accept a position like this, you have to be bigger then your own feelings and respect the rights that people have to believe what they want, to read what they want. The GWOT is puttting the government into everything. Osama has already won. Everytime we change anything we do because of him, he wins. That is the goal of the terrorists, to make us change our free lifestyle because of them. So everytime you willingly give up a freedom you once had, you are saying to Osama, "yeah buddy, you're right, my culture of freedom is so decadent it must be destroyed..."

Jeff

[Moparmike]

The WoT will be over when there are no more living multi-celled sentient organisms on this planet.

Otherwise, everytime something agressivly acts against another, it will be declared terrorism by some less-than-educated creature. Now, am I saying that we are not experiencing terrorism against the US of A? Hell no, of course I wouldnt say that. It is a bonified war against us, and we should be taking it to them and making a front line. The only trouble is, there isnt any definable front line except our coasts and borders, and having no buffer like that is not agreeable. I personally think that everyone doing their own thing is fine, even if they think I am an "infadel" and should die. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. If they want to act on it, they can meet the wrong end of my gun and meet their 21 "Virginians" in Heaven.

Monitoring: I like the idea in public places if it could be somehow used ONLY for preventing rape, murder, etc. or identifying those who commited said illegal acts. (Call me an idealist) I dont like the potential that it has, like monitoring what I might be reading or doing, or preventing me from meeting my Indian or Pakistani friend and discussing whatever.

Argh. More later, losing ability to cognitively reason and type at same time.

[Khornet]

young surgeons learn that the diagnosis can be tricky. Not all that many cases present as clearly recognizable appendicitis, and it takes time to learn to judge who should undergo surgery and who should be observed. A good surgeon will sometimes operate on people who turn out not to have needed it.

It is said that if everyone you operate on turns out to have appendicitis, you're not using good judgement. It means that there are some folks out there who should have had surgery but didn't. Likewise, if few of the patients have appendicitis at surgery, you're too quick on the draw.

So I'd ask, how's the diagnostic record of the WOT folks? How many people who have no connection to terrorism have been detained? I don't know the answer; this is not a rhetorical question. But it is notable that for all the alleged draconian-ness of the WOT, an illegal alien can still get away with murder here.

[Marko Kloos]

You see, I live a law abiding lifestyle. I have nothing to worry about if some snoop wants to see what I've checked out at the local library. Let him or her look. Know what they'll find? That I checked out Band of Brothers, The Lost Squadron (P-38's), The Great Escape, and a few other books of the same genre. I think it's the suspected or known criminals that need to be worried. Not me.

It's just like some cities have placed video cameras throughout parts of their city. I don't care. What have I to be afraid of? Nothing!

And people wonder how in the world the Germans allowed Nazism to happen...

Answer is that they didn't just let it happen, but they actively embraced it, defended it, and rationalized it. Some did so because they didn't know any better, and some did because they had a lot to gain from the new order.

The problem is that Nazism didn't advertise itself at the polls with censorship, incarceration of "subversives", concentration camps, or wars of conquest and bombed-out cities. It advertised itself with job creation, national pride, the promise of safety and security, snazzy uniforms, and a strong leader who could clean up all that confusing mess posed by an ineffective and divided legislature. People were actually glad to have a strong man who was ready and willing to abolish the parliament and the democratic process.

When the majority of the American population not only tolerates the abolishment of their civil rights, but actively defends it, asks for it, and rationalizes it, then this country is truly headed towards national socialism in lockstep. It's no longer a question of "if", only of "when".

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[Augustwest]

What follows comes from the movie "The Siege." I suggest that anyone who hasn't seen this movie, do so. Granted, it's about government behavior that's gone farther than where we're at now. But not too much farther.

Seems to me germane to this thread.

What if what they really want is to have us herd our children into the stadiums like we're doing, put soldiers on the street, have Americans looking over their shoulders. Bend the law, shred the constitution just a little bit. Because if we do this, then everything that we have bled and died and fought for is over and they've won.

They've already won!

[TallPine]

"They came for the people who read certain kinds of books, and I didn't read those books, so I said nothing ..."

Actually, it's worse than that - instead of saying nothing, some of you actively endorse it.

[Augustwest]

How many people who have no connection to terrorism have been detained?

I think an equally or more important question is what is the gov't definition of terrorism, and what will it be in the future?

In AG Ashcroft's view, I aid and abet terrorism because I'm concerned about the losses of liberty we're facing. Very short jump

The definition of "enemies of the United States" gets broader and broader.

And for those who think their doing nothing illegal, I submit that it's almost impossible to obey every law and administrative ruling these days.

[AZLibertarian]

I think the debate about whether what we're now involved in is a "war" misses one point. Sure, we've had a series of silly "Wars"--War on Poverty, War on Illiteracy, War on Drugs...you name it. And the undeclared military wars we've had probably could have been declared as wars by Congress. I don't know exactly why the post-WWII conflicts aren't declared wars...I think it has something to do with a pissing contest between Congress and the Executive Branch, or perhaps we simply don't want to be bound by those pesky rules of war. Whatever the reason, it is clear that "declaring" war in very much out of fashion.

However, I think GWB is finally on to something here. It isn't so much that we've declared a "War on Terrorism", but that we've finally recognized that the terrorists have declared a war on us. The years of endless diplomacy, appeasement, multi-lateralism, or whatever stall-tactic you want, have simply not worked. The terrorists are still bent on taking us down, and now the only real choice is to aggressively take the fight to them. I find that I can't much argue against the view that if a group or country declares themselves to be our enemy, and has the willingness to acquire the means to do us serious harm, then that group or country will get our full attention.

All this being said, I find I'm still troubled by elements of the Patriot Act. The fact that an American citizen can be held incommunicado (sp?) in a military jail, without access to an attorney, or charges being filed, bothers me. Today, I'm fairly confident that Ashcroft and the judges involved, are doing the right thing with this one guy, but the future prospect of another AG Reno, and her JBTs ought to send shivers up the spine of any American.

[Carlos Cabeza]

You see, I live a law abiding lifestyle. I have nothing to worry about if some snoop wants to see what I've checked out at the local library. Let him or her look. Know what they'll find? That I checked out Band of Brothers, The Lost Squadron (P-38's), The Great Escape, and a few other books of the same genre. I think it's the suspected or known criminals that need to be worried. Not me.

Just because your choice of material is beneign does not mean that there aren't other works that are considered questionable.

Some people do not read fiction. :cool:

"The books offered for sale in this catalog are for academic study only"

If I had a hundred dollar a month bill from this catalog, I "might" be a terrorist. :barf:

And for a terrorist to incite terrorism, one must feel the emotion of terror and be terrorized. I'm not feelin' it.

[longeyes]

You're not one of those guys who cites the Constitution a lot,
are you? Hmmmm, we'd better keep a very close watch on you. Quoting
the Constitution is a gateway to, well, you know...:D

[CMichael]

I would like to make several points:

1) The extreme paranoia. By the philosophy of some why have any laws. After all that can lead to an abuse and the end of the earth as we know it. Anything may happen. We need to deal in the reality of what is going on today.

2) We are indeed in a war. The war started on 9 11 when Al Qaida attacked the Pentagon and the WTC. As was pointed out numerous times we haven't been in a declared war since WWII despite the numerous wars since then, with the latest being out police action in Iraq.

Congress authorized the President to conduct the war.

The Constitution says that Congress declares war. It doesn't say that Congress executes war. It also doesn't that say that Congress must declare war for war to be exercised.

3) The PA doesn't take away any rights. On the other folder that was closed there was s discussion using the actual text of the law. Just about all the myths about it were dispelled by the words of the actual law.

4) The war at home is an intelligence war. It is critical to get relevant information before a terrorist attack occurs.

5) Yes abuses can occur. They can occur today. That doesn't mean that you stop from making a law because an abuse may occur. If that is true then you couldn't make any law.

6) An individual won't protect the public from a terrorist attack. A homicide bomber isn't going to stop himself from blowing himself in a mall because someone brandishes a weapon. The only way to stop it is to foil the plot before it's executed. That can only be done by allowing the government room to gain this information.

[CMichael]

yup the government made it all up.

From the NY Post.

OF MISSILES AND MISCUES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



August 14, 2003 -- There was mixed news yesterday for New Yorkers on the homeland-security front.
The FBI, together with Russian and British officials, nabbed a British arms dealer near Newark Airport, where he allegedly tried to sell a shoulder-fired missile launcher capable of bringing down a passenger jet to what he believed were Muslim terrorists.

Ominously, the dealer - identified as Hekmat Lekhani - reportedly pressed his customers to commit to buying 50 more such missiles.

The "terrorists," of course, were undercover agents. And the missile, which actually had been smuggled into the country, had previously been rendered inoperative.

Two other people were arrested in New York and charged with laundering money for the undercover agents posing as terrorists; further arrests were expected in both England and Russia.

All of which serves to remind America that administration officials are simply not exaggerating when they insist that the nation still faces a terrorist threat.

Indeed, Lekhani's arrest points up the fact that the tools to bring about hundreds of deaths in an instant are widely available on the international black market.



This time, law enforcement was on the alert.

Next time, the arms merchant may not be taken in by undercover agents - he may succeed in hooking up with agents of al Qaeda.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher's famous observation, the bad guys need only be lucky - once.

Meanwhile, New Yorkers have good reason to be alarmed at the security breach that took place Sunday night when three boaters whose raft went adrift wandered undetected near a Kennedy Airport runway for over an hour.

One of the trio admitted that "I was expecting people to come up to us. But it was nothing like that."

In fact, the three had to go looking for the cops, finally knocking on the door of a Port Authority police station.

Which means that the combined forces of the PA, the Coast Guard and the NYPD completely failed to detect them.

Again, no real harm done; the three were completely harmless. But what if they had been terrorists toting shoulder-fired missiles obtained from an international arms merchant?

In the wake of 9/11, government officials have rightly asked for - and been given - more wide-ranging powers in order to ensure that the general public is well-protected. But that requires them to follow through and ensure that lapses of this sort simply can't happen.

Happily, the deservedly red-faced Port Authority was on the job yesterday - a New York Times reporter and photographer who tried to test airport security were quickly arrested.

But will they remain as vigilant in the weeks and months ahead?

[AZLibertarian]

All this being said, I find I'm still troubled by elements of the Patriot Act...

I know I'm quoting myself, but I ran across this today at....

http://www.msnbc.com/news/950176.asp?cp1=1

TSA in ‘witch hunt,’ air marshals say

Homeland Security denies knowledge of formal investigation

By Brock N. Meeks
MSNBC

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 — The Transportation Security Administration is conducting a “witch hunt” to ferret out and discipline employees in the federal air marshal program who have talked to the media, several sources within the program told MSNBC.com. Some air marshals are even being threatened with having the USA Patriot Act, a law enacted to help fight terrorism, used against them. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, denies that any such investigation is taking place....


The second sentence makes the point I was getting at earlier.

[CMichael]

Anything to back that up?

Also, if the air marshalls are releasing security information they should be punished.

[Gordon Fink]

So, “Vic,” since you have nothing to hide, why don’t you tell us what your real name is? While we’re at it, what is your home address? Which firearms do you own?

If you don’t trust the riffraff on the High Road, you can just send the information to me in a private message. I’m an agent of the state, so you can trust me.

Then again, I’m also a felon. At least, in another time or place, I would be considered such. I may not be actively breaking any laws right this minute, but I’m sure I’ll break at least one or two, however inadvertently, before I get home this evening.

I’ll go even further! Everyone on this board is a criminal. Many of you even brag about violating the law—“Vic” included. So don’t tell me you have nothing to hide.

We all have something to hide.

~G. Fink

[Futo Inu]

Vic, I hope you're not planning to start farming and check out a book about fertilizers, or you're likely to have your home raided. Your mentality is understandable, but the classic head-in-the-sand, just-don't-get-it sheeple mentality when it comes to "why should I care". Ask the dead guy's wife in Calif whose home was raided and he was killed in a "drug raid" based on an "anonymous tip" - no drugs found, but the vast acreage was forfeited anyway, based on the tip (lower burden of proof). Do you think that guy probably thought that he would be a target of the local SWAT team for the forfeiture of his land, just because he was a wealthy landowner and could be accused of drugs so the LEOA could get some money for their toys? Maybe, maybe not, but without the war on drugs it would not have happened. There are countless examples of people who are doing nothing illegal, but because they're misfits/or like guns/or just not liked personally by the LEO in charge of the raid/or live next door to the crack house/ or whathaveyou, they have become targets of investigation, harassment, raids, or worse, such as being shot and killed by LEOs in no-knock raids. Your head is in the sand - pull it out man, please. Not pickin on ya - I was there once - it's just a learning process for all of us. Your statments are EXACTLY what the pols in power want their sheeple to think. But woe to you if the day comes that you're doing something which the powers that be deem to be a little "off", such as amassing an "arsenal" :rolleyes: , or buying fertilizer, esp. if you also have say, a property dispute and a few words with your nieghbor, who also happens to be a police chief or BATFE or FBI agent. The more power we give to the gov't, and their hapless agents, the LEOs, the more that power will be corrupted and used unfairly.

I challenge you to really research what actually happened to Jose Padilla, and not conclude that the federal anti-terrorism laws and guidelines were abused terribly in his case.

[AZLibertarian]

Anything to back that up?

Also, if the air marshalls are releasing security information they should be punished.

I tried a google on the reporter of the article I cited, and got a bunch of old stuff he's done. I've got to get to work, and don't have a lot of time to dig up other articles he's done on MSNBC, but Meeks has a whole list of articles he's written critical of the TSA, and their operations. It is clear that some FAMs are talking to him about the (many) problems in the TSA, and the suits want to shut it down. Meeks has reported that the "security information" the TSA is apparantly trying to protect is that thru mis-management, they were finding themselves short on money to fund the hotels necessary to send FAMs on coast-to-coast flights. I'll agree that if the TSA finds an agent releasing sensitive information such as names, addresses, schedules, flight coverage, and other operational details, then that FAM needs to be strung up. However, the TSA is a runaway bureaucracy, IMO, and shining a light on their excesses in the hopes that we'll actually get some of the protective services they want the public to believe they're getting, does not fall under that definition of "security information".

My earlier point about the abuse of the Patriot Act, in the name of enhancing security (as this article details), stands.

[Carlos Cabeza]

I haven't lost a thing. In fact, I feel safer now than I did prior to 9/11.

You "feel" safer. :scrutiny:

[Art Eatman]

CMichael, today's StratFor morning briefing stated that the "terrorist" who was arrested in the sting operation is not connected to Al Qaida. The investigation has been going on for 18 months; he could have been arrested at any time. One of the "co-conspirators" is an Israeli; the other, an African (Nigerian? Disremember.)

From what StratFor said, the Russians actually began the sting operation.

Apparently, there are two facets to the deal: Generate a record of accomplishment on a slow news day; and, put some scare into people.

I agree that the potential for a SAM attack at some airport does exist. This particular deal was not and never had been an actual threat.

'Rat

[Zedicus]

Wow. Some of you people in here are extremely paranoid.
It's not being Paranoid, it's being Realistic.
In fact, I feel safer now than I did prior to 9/11.
Your Kidding, Right?

[Tamara]

So, I ask all of you have LOST your freedoms since the bill was passed to tell me and the others what exactly it is that you have REALLY lost.

That is incorrect.

YOU, "Vic Vega", can now have your house searched and any or all of its contents seized, on the sayso of a federal agent getting a rubber stamp on a blank warrant from a federal judge in Nome, AK. Also, they don't have to tell you they've searched your house or seized anything. All this thanks to refinements of existing unconstitutional laws by the even more unconstitutional (and laughably misnamed) "USAPATRIOT Act".

Oh, they haven't done it to you yet? Well then, I guess you still have that freedom, friend (in much the same way that you have the freedom to drive 40 in a 25...)

(PS: Re: your boast of being a "law-abiding citizen"... What happens when they pass the next law screwing over the Second Amendment? You gonna be as happy with it as laws that screw over the other nine? With friends like you... :( )

[Tamara]

And Tamara, you're still speculating. I'm not afraid of them searching my house anyway, because I'm not a terrorist. Get it???

No, Vic Vega, I'm not "speculating".

Before USAPATRIOT, you had the freedom of being informed when a search warrant was served on your premises. You don't have this freedom anymore.

Argue all you want. Argue 'til you're blue in the face. That is irrefutable fact.

There's plenty more where that came from, but that will do for starters.

Not a terrorist?

Brian Cornfield wasn't a terrorist, neither was Donald Carlson, Charles DiGristine, Manuel Ramirez, Albert Lewin, Donald Scott, Robin Pratt, Xavier Bennett Jr., Kenneth Baulch, and on and on and et cetera, ad nauseum...

Fact is, I put a lot of faith in our government,

The one that says you can't have a bayonet lug on your AR-15? That government, or a different one? This would actually be funny if it weren't so sad...

"Faith in government".... Hey, here's a quote for you: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Guess what anarchist paranoid whacko said that?

[Tamara]

Nothing wrong with having opposite beliefs. And this is just happens to be one of them. I feel strongly about mine, and you feel strongly about yours.

Hmmm.

So there's nothing wrong with someone feeling you have no Second Amendment rights?

The only difference I see is, I am an optimist and your approach seems to be that of a pessimist.

I'm descended from a long line of folks with pessimistic view about government, going all the way back to Jefferson and the author of the quote in my previous post. (Guessed who the pessimistic paranoiac was yet? ;) )

Plus, with you being a moderator I am sure to lose in one way or another. Thanks for the debate.

If you want to bow out, bow out. But don't do it because of that. We can agree to disagree 'til the cows come home, as long as we do it politely.

[cuchulainn]

For those of you who have, I still haven't heard any concrete evidence that you have lost freedoms ...<snip>... And low and behold you will start the daily routines all over again the next day and the cool thing is, THERE IS NO LOSS OF FREEDOMS!

It's more a matter of lost protections than of lost freedom.

To go with Tamara's 4th Amendment example, I'm sure that even if the feds and states actually amended the Constitution to revoke the 4th altogether that most of us still would follow the same daily routines before and after with little realization about the lost protection.

While the PATRIOT Act did not abolish the 4th amendment, it did weaken it.

More than 99% of us will never get our homes searched regardless of the protections in the 4th Amendment. Of that <1% who get searched, only a minority will be subject to abusive or unduly intrusive searches. The 4th always has protected a minority within a minority. That the vast majority of us can go about our daily routines never needing the 4th, does not make people paranoid for being troubled at the weakening of the 4th.

With all due respect, "hey, no problem" is just as absurd as "help, the Nazis are coming!" but on the other end of the scale.

The 4th amendment is not about the freedom to walk your dog, brush your teeth or wash your face. It's about having protections you probably never will need, but would be glad you have in the unlikely chance you need them (kind of like CCW, fire extinguishers or seatbelts).

[faustulus]

Vic,
I have lost the right to be able to look at a search warrent before it is executed.
I have lost the right to counsel if I am deemed and enemy of the state.
If one American has lost these rights then all Americans have lost these rights.
You may not be afraid of what they will find, but it is still a loss of freedom you once had. By the way what if they decide the guns you own are to be used for terrorist purposes? Terrorist use guns, you have guns.

In fact, I feel safer now than I did prior to 9/11.
Since when has it been about safety?

If you think because you believe you are innocent no one will bother you then you need to study history. Ask many black americans how it is that innocent people can be abused by the system.

Tell me how can the terrorist destroy us? There are 280 million Americans. How will the Terrorist destory the United States? Will they capture Washington? If this is a war what are the objectives of our enemies?
Face it, as we have said time and again, the threat is internal not external.

[Don Gwinn]

Moderators do not use "one way or another" to win debates around here, sir. You couldn't have known, I suppose, but some of us take that sort of thing personally.

You asked what freedoms you've lost, and what freedoms we've lost. Tamara has told you several times which freedoms you've lost, and you continue to ask her to tell you again. Now you want to sigh in bemused tolerance and throw up your hands because we're all so frustrating. Something is wrong with that picture.

Freedoms you (and I) have lost:

1. Pre-Patriot (PP) I had the right, according to the Constitution, to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." This meant, PP, that no warrant was valid which did not properly describe the place to be searched and the items for which the police were to search. To ensure this, citizens were assumed to have the right to examine the warrant and to be present as the searches were carried out. Post Patriot Act, that is no longer the case. The police can now search your home and have no legal responsibility to inform you that a search has taken place, much less allow you to examine the warrant, for 90 days. That's insane.
But even if you think it's sane and rational, do you really intend to insist that it's not a loss of freedom? If so, you must have different definitions for some of these words.

2. There was a time when the police would not have assumed that they could force my local librarians (Patty and Denise) to give them a list of my reading. Same goes for Mr. Kohner at the bookstore uptown. Now, that's explicitly allowed and Patty and Denise could go to jail just for telling me about it if it happens! No freedom lost there?

3. When the SNIPER CRISIS!!!! craziness swept the East coast, THR members got threatening calls and visits from local police and BATF officers demanding to know exactly which guns they owned and threatening them with jail time for refusing to cooperate. People tolerated stuff like that, and some, like you, even applauded it. Fine, but there is no way one can rationally claim that such a thing is not a loss of freedom. What about the freedom not to be threatened in your own home by government thugs for daring to own legal firearms?



Now, I have NOT answered your question with a question. I answered your question with three facts which are not in dispute. Are you willing to think seriously about those facts and confront the idea that maybe, just maybe, you've allowed your natural desire for security to overwhelm your need for liberty?

[seeker_two]

In fact, I feel safer now than I did prior to 9/11.

I don't....

I feel like another threat to our Constitution and American way of life has declared war on our rights...

...and that's not a good feeling at all. :uhoh:

[Moparmike]

I have learned much about the PA from this thread and the closed one. Thanks everyone.

[Marko Kloos]

Feel free to be suspicious of your Government and your Attorney General. I on the other hand favor this administration, the conservative house and senate and applaud the steps being taken by our leaders to ensure that terrorism doesn't permeate the interiors of our country.


We'll talk again when the next Democrat sits in the White House, the next "sniper" wacko makes the news, and President Hillary uses the provisions in USA PATRIOT to crack down on "domestic terrorists" (owners of black rifles).

If the PATRIOT Act doesn't scare you, doesn't it give you a little concern that it has no footnote saying "Only for use by Republican administrations"? You're waving the pompoms now because it was passed by your favorite team, but the stage is set for the next Democratic President and Attorney General to take that ball and run with it. The recent hysteria around the Beltway and the resulting crackdown on legal gun owners was a little preview of what can happen when the "right" shooting spree happens at the right time, with the right guy (or gal) in the Oval Office to take political advantage of it. Think Montgomery County on a national scale.

Do you really want to give the Democrats a tool as easily abused as USA PATRIOT to aid in your own persecution?

[gburner]

I used to have a similar mindset that Vic has. This administration, under the cover of violence from without, has been allowed to shred the constitution as it concerns the individual liberties of average Americans. This 'war' was declared by enemies of Israel as long ago as 1948, but it has only been in the last 25 years or so that these forces have been able to bring the fight to us;
the American Embassy in Iran, the Marine barracks in Beirut, the Achille Lauro,
the bombings of Americans in Berlin, Paris and Rome, the Lockerbee bombing, and more that I cannot recall here, culminating in 9/11. I have absolutely no qualms about the government searching out those who are responsible, their supporters, inspirational leaders, etc.
and terminating their miserable existence with EXTREME prejudice. This will not be done, however. Despite flashes of international testicular fortitude, the diplomatic game is a duplicitous one in which nothing is cut and dried, black and white. If it were the case, the entire House of Saud would be strung up by their burnooses and the prophets and practitioners of wahabinism would be buried in mass graves, their bodies sewn into the skins of hogs. (sigh)

However, we have a Constitution in this country that should protect us from being treated like the enemy that so richly deserves retribution. It is that same Constitution that SHOULD separate us, our domestic means, methods and motivations from those who would endeavour to bring us down. By it's very nature, our Constitution shields us from an overarching, intrusive government intent on accumulating and consolidating power and arbitrarily using it's weight to coerce and threaten us and control our lives by duress or threat of duress.

If it happens to one it can happen to all. I'll be damned if I'll go along with it, rationalize it or applaud it.
:fire:

[Loaded]

zedicus said: "With the passing of the Patriot Act, and the Son of Patriot Act, we are giving up our freedoms left and right. Wasn't that why we were attacked in the first place? The war on terrorism is over, and we have lost. Not by the hands of any hijackers, but at our own hands. Freedom is intrinsic to the human being - it can not be taken, it can only be given up by those who unwilling to defend it."


Not so fast there zedicus. This war on terrorism is far from being over. This isn't some individual country we are talking about here when it comes to terrorism. It's world wide. President Bush told all of us that this was not going to be quick, and it was not going to be easy. He also said we will track the terrorists down as well as those who harbour them and bring them to justice.

We live in a world today of "What have you done for me lately" mentality. This is going to take time people. For crying out loud.. we just took a country in less than 100 days and we are in the process of setting up a democratic style government for the Iraqi people. World War 2 took almost 5 years to complete and here we stormed through Iraq in less than 5 months. Give it some time!

Unfortunately I'm afraid it's going to take another 9/11 to wake up those of you that have forgotten what happened a few years ago. How soon you forget. Contrary to what you think, we are still at war and it is going to be a long haul. Or, would you prefer we did nothing and instead hold think sessions and sing kumbaiya while holding hands with one another?

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for critisizing those who are looking out for our best interest. And the more you bitch about how rough you have it, stop and think how rough our military men and women have it protecting us from those who wish to do harm to us.
:fire:

[gburner]

Loaded,

Put the pom poms down and lose the cheerleader outfit. If you widen your view a bit you'll realize that the people at THR are most supportive of the military fighting man of any group I've ever had the pleasure of associating with. No one is 'bitching' about how hard they have it; they are raising the alarm that the rightous retribution that we are now inflicting on sme of our foriegn enemies is being used as a smokescreen by this government to increase control over the individual and limit your God given rights.
There is not a one of us who passively sit around in think groups, holding hands and singing Kumbaya. If nothing else, the members here are VERY proactive in the defense of ALL of our rights. Further, though we are killing and capturing the enemy's field operatives, we have yet to stike at the very heart of the powers against us.
Saddam, though best eliminated, was a strawman. People in the Bush admin. will do anything at home to maintain power...including trampling our rights for a nebulous 'increase' in safety, but will do nothing of real substance overseas to topple those truly
responsible. Just so you don't get the wrong idea, the democrats are no better. Don't forget, there were colonists that saw nothing wrong with arrest without warrant, search and seizure of personal property, jail without charge, rule by
fiat, curtailing of free speech, religion and assembly and severe restrictions on firearms, powder and ball. The King, through the Royal
Governor, was just ensuring order and looking out for the security of the Crown's best interests. Move along, break it up, nothing going on here.

[Loaded]

gburner ----- Get real. I'll put the pom poms down as soon as you put the red flags down. Nobody is trampling anybody's rights. Enough with the "sky is falling" nonsense. Get out of your house and go to a ballgame, see a play, go to dinner and rent a movie and sit with your family and eat popcorn together. Life is good. Check it out for yourself. In fact, it's better than it's ever been. Our fore fathers would be proud!

[TallPine]

I can't believe what I am reading in this thread ...

[Jeff White]

Vic, loaded,
Why do I have the feeling you guys would be stacking magazines and straightening the pins on your grenades if this was coming from the Reno Justice Department?

There are some things you can't trust to any man's judgement. The Bill of Rights is one of those things.

Things are much worse when it comes to individual freedom then they have been at any time since our nation was founded.

You say you have nothing to hide? I don't think that you realize exactly what goes on when a residence is searched. We have laws and regulations made by unelected bureaucrats that define the intent of congress that could make you a terrorist by virtue of what is in your garage. Unless every cleaning compound you own is water based, you have the makings of a bomb.

Got any pics or a videotape of you and your significant other enjoying each others company? It will be found, looked and leered at by the officers who conduct the search. Perhaps it's ok with you that strangers will peer into every corner of your personal life, get a good look at the stuff from Victoria's Secret that your wife said is for your eyes only.....We aren't talking about coming into your home and looking for a big round ball with a fuse coming out of it that says Acme Bomb Company on the side, not finding one and saying "Sorry, you are obviously a good guy, we'll see you later, don't forget to buy a ticket to the policeman's ball this year. We are talking about agents of the government peering into every nook and cranny of your life.

How easy is it to get this kind of attention? Well there are all kinds of toll free hotlines that people can call and turn you in on. And guess what, with the USA Patriot Act, we've taken the checks and balances out of the system. No longer do we have to investigate these claims made on the hotline. Now we can take that hotline call to a federal judge and get a warrant to break into your house, search everything, photograph anything we want, take anything we want, put everything back the way it was and not even tell you we were there. But we'll take all the information we received and put it in your file. This will get hooked up to an intelligence database, and other agencies will get it when they are looking into certain activities. So guys, ever had words with your neighbor? Ever flipped off someone on a road rage incident and had them get your license plate? Are you totally convinced that you live your life so cleanly that no one will ever be motivated to call a toll free hotline and turn you in, even as a joke? I hope so. Cause it has happened. And you ask how I know what goes on when a search warrant is served, I've served a few in my day. It is necessary for the state to have the ability to search residences and personal effects; but anything that makes it easy for the state to do that is a long slide down the slippery slope to totalitarianism


Tell me the truth, do you want agents from Janet Reno's politicized Justice Department to have that power? If you don't I don't understand why you would give it to John Ashcroft. Ashcroft will not always be Attorney General. I missed the part of the law that sunsets it when the next administration is sworn into office. Could you post it for me please?

Jeff

[buzz_knox]

Before USAPATRIOT, you had the freedom of being informed when a search warrant was served on your premises. You don't have this freedom anymore. Actually, depending on what you were suspected of, you haven't had that freedom in a while. Warrants for placing wiretaps inside a home have been available in special circumstances for quite some time, and whatever the agent saw while he was in there was covered under the "plain sight" exception.

Also, is it really necessary to try and quote Orwell everytime something like this comes up? The situation between present day America and what is depicted in 1984 is so different as to render any such comparisons intellectually dishonest.

[pax]

The situation between present day America and what is depicted in 1984 is so different as to render any such comparisons intellectually dishonest.
Hardly. It's a matter of spotting trends. Which direction are we headed? What is the end result of continuing down that road?

Me, I want my children to have every single one of the freedoms that I had the day I reached adulthood. Nothing less is acceptable.

Too many people are helping to forge the shackles their grandchildren will wear.

pax

I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life. – Bin Laden, quoted by CNN report televised in February, 2002. Seen at http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/

[gburner]

'Our forefathers would be proud.'
PULEAZE...they would call for an immediate convention to assess where we as a nation and a people have gone wrong, bring suit against the government for redress of grievances suffered by the people at the hands of a bloated, money theiving, out of control government and begin fomenting revolution against that government unless it justly addressed those grievances and did a complete about face
regarding it's utter contempt and disdain for the Constitution, to wit:

massive eroding of free speech rights,
massive infringements of firearm rights,
restrictions on the ability of the people to peacably assemble, suspension of habeus corpus, warrantless search and seizure, infringements of the people's right to be secure in their persons and possessions, refusal to allow defendants to face their accusers, etc.

But no, I'm supposed to go shopping, take in a game, see a movie, etc. and not worry my ignorant little mind about such little things as our Constitution
(and country) descending on the express elevator to hell.

The last 'social' gathering that I attended with my family was our son's
high school graduation. As the class was large, the event was held in the gym of the local state college. There were almost as many police and security types there as graduates. Each person through
the door was waved down with the metal detecting wand, even the elderly and infirm. Signage made it ABUNDANTLY clear that no horns, bells, whistles, posters, banners, beach balls, frisbees or loud, enthusiastic displays of emotion would be tolerated. Those in violation would be escorted out of the gym to the custody of an officer. But,
people lined up like good sheep and
baaaaaahaved themselves. I was given 'the stinkeye' by our door guardian when I asked him if he didn't feel ridiculous
with all the overkill. He glared and pointed to the sign.

Who in hell gives these people the power to do this. The folks who go shopping, take in a movie, attend a ball game,
hike up their britches and crow that were doing right by our forefathers; that our freedoms were never more sound, while unelected, faceless bureaucrats steal their birthright on a daily basis
and replace it with a little fodder and the promise of safety.

:barf:

[faustulus]

Get out of your house and go to a ballgame, see a play, go to dinner and rent a movie and sit with your family and eat popcorn together. Life is good. Check it out for yourself. In fact, it's better than it's ever been.
So that whole 'price of freedom being eternal vigilance' is so much poppycock?
No don't look at what the man behind the curtain is doing.
Wait till the water boils before you start crying. Good idea.

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves for critisizing those who are looking out for our best interest. And the more you bitch about how rough you have it, stop and think how rough our military men and women have it protecting us from those who wish to do harm to us.
Tell you what, let me deterimine what my best interest is.

However, please asnwer my earlier question. How can terrorists defeat a nation of 280 million? Tell me how they could win?
We are in a fight to save lives, but in reality our nation cannot be brought down by terrorists unless we assist them.

[standingbear]

why not just make everyones lifestyles public.anyone think THAT wouldnt be a violation of privacy?come on.the snoopers can monitor anything..ANYTHING that they choose.you web brousing habits,your mail,your phone,your house, your bank info. & your bad habits.people reporting to you that your habits are being monitored can be "punished" for telling you.kinda makes me wonder the intent when simply informing you that your being monitored is punishable.the whole thing stinks like one of those peephole cameras hidden in a bathroom.how the heck am i to guess their integrity and honesty?

[telomerase]

>how the heck am i to guess their integrity and honesty?

Well, they are politicians. They have undergone a rigorous selection process; honesty on almost any subject will keep you from being elected. So I don't think we have to "guess" too much, just go with the statistical probabilities here...