What would happen after another Terrorist attack?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CMichael,

Shane's condition progresses favorably enough (updates regards rejection are still pending - maybe this afternoon .... fingers crossed that we don't hear anything today) & thanks for asking.

However, your "The government is the one who is protecting us." & "you guys need to realize who the enemy is" thought-frame is dyslexic, although spot on, if that can be at all.

The government isn't protecting anything other than the barest infrastructure for our "democracy" (which wasn't meant to be as such & isn't anyway), ... I'lljust leave it at that. Our guvmint isn't protecting anybody within our borders.

Quick case in point = what's the diff between Condition Yellow & Condition Orange & what should you do if the colors switch? Anybody told you & do you know what to do in such a color switch? I do pay attention to these things (if nothing else for a shot of levity) & have absolutely no clue .....

I've no doubt there's a bunch o' folks who'd kill us outright. No question about it, but our Guvmint enacting laws, that violates everything that we used to stand for to prevent "somebody else" violating everything we stand for .....

Somehow, I can't make the logic leap.
 
(deep, calming breath)

CMike -

I'm going to have to respond to a couple of posts in one, here. First, let me lead off by saying that you are spectacularly misinformed on a number of subjects, and you seem to be either unable or unwilling to correct that. I'm asking you to put aside you obvious love for the state, and to try and follow my reasoning.

First:

Chris you are making contradictory arguments.
Nope. You are confusing two entirely seperate arguments.

First you say that the Constitution is a "piece of paper with no more moral authority..."
Correct.

Then you say that what the Constitution says is absolute.
You missed the point, CMike. You are attempting to argue (I think; it's sometimes hard to tell) that the USA PATRIOT ACT passes Constitutional muster. I stated that it does not, and explained the intended purpose of the Constitution in order to prove so. Wheter the Constitution has any moral authority is a seperate issue.

Well, if it has no moral authority what difference does what rights it gives or not?
None at all. I was not the one who originally brought up the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act. If the Constitution did not exist, the Patriot Act would still be unacceptable, for similar reasons.

Nothing is absolute.
If that is your opinion, than I will have to take the position that your 'individual' interpretation of the Second Amendment is not absolute, and therefor the 2nd only gives the government the right to form a national guard.

Words have meanings, and those meanings are very much absolute. To deny this is to deny reality.

And the Patriot Act says that a warrant must be issued.
I don't care.

Many of the rights you enjoy are there at least partially because of Hamilton.
This is laughable. The 'rights' I enjoy exist because of no one but myself.

Are these scenerios so far fetched?
About as far-fetched as the federal government categorizing gun enthusiasts as 'domestic terrorists' and using Patriot Act provisions to round them up.

If you're going to have your fantasies, I'll have mine, thank you.

The government is the one who is protecting us.
This is ridiculous. The government protects the government. It has not and probably will never protect me from anyone or anything.

Clinton had a regulation on the CIA that made it nearly impossible for CIA agents to get human intelligence from bad guys.
Untrue. Said restrictions existed since the Church Committee hearings of 1973. Human intelligence is regarded by those in the profession as a waste of time and money. And the correct term is "officers." Not "agents."

The enemy is government. By this I mean not the United States Government, not alone. I mean the very concept of government, the very idea of a 'political class' that can tell the rest of us what to do, and who can enforce their orders at the point of a gun. They are the enemy.

- Chris
 
Shane's condition progresses favorably enough (updates regards rejection are still pending - maybe this afternoon .... fingers crossed that we don't hear anything today) & thanks for asking.

I'll keep him in my prayers.

Quick case in point = what's the diff between Condition Yellow & Condition Orange & what should you do if the colors switch? Anybody told you & do you know what to do in such a color switch? I do pay attention to these things (if nothing else for a shot of levity) & have absolutely no clue .....

Actually President Bush responded to this numerous times. The answer is that there isn't much the individual can do, except be very vigilant about what is goind around him.

As Pres. Bush said one time if you own a small plane and you see someone strange in the cockpit and is starting to taxi down the runway it may be a good time to notify the authorities.



I've no doubt there's a bunch o' folks who'd kill us outright. No question about it, but our Guvmint enacting laws, that violates everything that we used to stand for to prevent "somebody else" violating everything we stand for .....

Not one of our rights is being violated. If you would look at the details and not react to the paranoia I truely believe you would see that. Please try to step back and look at the details.
 
Not one of our rights is being violated. If you would look at the details and not react to the paranoia I truely believe you would see that. Please try to step back and look at the details.

:rolleyes:


Why haven't you replied to me yet? Didn't you read what I posted about that first section of the Patriot Act? (Sec. 213)

And you still haven't replied to the OTHER questionable portions yet.
 
No rights being violated? Did you know that you do not have the right to refer to an incident as a terrorist act unless the Federal government certifies it as such? Ask the LAX PD and the LAPD about it - they got slapped down quick for daring to call the El Al shooting a terrorist act.

But I guess their First Amendment rights weren't violated.


OR ask the folks at AOPA Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) for a copy of the March 2002 "President's Message". You might be interested in how many folks have been put out of business by all this anti-terrorist hysteria.


But I guess their rights weren't violated.



Bin Laden won. America is becoming a police state. That's just what he said he wanted to accomplish.


And so-called Americans are handing him the victory on a silver platter.
 
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836]
 
Dr. Jones
Why haven't you replied to me yet? Didn't you read what I posted about that first section of the Patriot Act? (Sec. 213)

Because I have other things to do in life other than to post on this message board. Don't get your panties in a bunch I'll get to it when I get to it.
 
I see Manzanar re-opening and alot of middle easterners being put there or deported.
 
Guys

I think CMike is saying that because he has not suffered violations of his rights, then no one else has suffered. As long as no one steps on his toes, then everything is okay.

We all have read myriad examples of how our "friendly neighborhood government" has trampled on the rights of thousands, but CMike apparently believes that they had it coming to them because they did something to "anger" the "Great Father".

The only way CMike will ever be convinced is when the JBT's finally get around to beating down his door. Of course, by then, it will be too late.
 
`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

What is Chapter 121?

In any case it says that the judge has discrection. If a terrorist act is imminent I would certainly want the process to be able to be speeded up to thwart thousands of Americans from being mass murdered.

Very true; We could. But life is a crap shoot. "Safety" is an impossible thing; at any moment my life, or the life/lives of my family, could terminate. I would rather die at the hands of a terrorist than live in fear, or as a slave, of and to politicians and law enforcement.

If you are living in fear because of the few changes in law to help catch terrorists then you are completely overblowing what is happening. I think it's the job of the government to minimize the risk to the public.

Art
Laws MUST be specifically written so as to minimize possible misuse, no matter how good, honorable, kind and humane some particular administration may be.

Art if that was the case we would have anarchy. Any law can be misused.

Chris
If that is your opinion, than I will have to take the position that your 'individual' interpretation of the Second Amendment is not absolute, and therefor the 2nd only gives the government the right to form a national guard.

In my opinion it should not be absolute. I don't think violent felons should legally be allowed to own and keep firearms.

Oji
The enemy has been, is, and will be those that work to take away our lives and/or our liberties.

And the group that is doing that is the terrorists. If there is a radioactive bomb that has exploded in Washington D.C. And people are now afraid to go outside hasn't their liberty been taken away?

Untrue. Said restrictions existed since the Church Committee hearings of 1973. Human intelligence is regarded by those in the profession as a waste of time and money. And the correct term is "officers." Not "agents."

I am sorry but you are incorrect. The regulation of making it hard to get human intelligence from bad guys was instituted by Clinton.

Quartus
No rights being violated? Did you know that you do not have the right to refer to an incident as a terrorist act unless the Federal government certifies it as such? Ask the LAX PD and the LAPD about it - they got slapped down quick for daring to call the El Al shooting a terrorist act.

There is a vast difference between what individuals are allowed to say and not say and what law enforcements due for PR purposes.

Benjamin Netanyahu, former prime minister of Israel, and a person who has had vast experience fighting terrorism has a book out called "Fighting Terrorism." I urge you all to go get it and read it.

Just for the record I may or many not answer promptly based on what else I am doing on the day. I also may or may not respond to a point based on whether I felt I already made my point or if I damned well feel like it. :)
 
CMike

I don't need the government to protect me; they did a real good job with my ancestors, didn't they?

And the group that is doing that is the terrorists. If there is a radioactive bomb that has exploded in Washington D.C. And people are now afraid to go outside hasn't their liberty been taken away?

Many people are hesitant, even afraid, to start their own businesses because of the stifling regulations enacted by government. Property is confiscated because of a few square acres of "marsh". No knock raids are performed on innocents because of some person's "report of suspicious activity". People are afraid to defend themselves in their own home because they might be prosecuted for murder.

All of this because of the government.

But none of this has happened to you, so everything is fine.
 
I think it's the job of the government to minimize the risk to the public.
Quit thinking; know. We've been over this several times already. It is not the governments job to 'minimize risk' to anything. Particularly not by steping on my freedoms.

Freedom sometimes means taking risks. If that's not your cup of tea, go ahead and hide in the basement. Just don't try and lock the rest of us in there with you.

In my opinion it should not be absolute. I don't think violent felons should legally be allowed to own and keep firearms.
I suppose it's no surprise that you are anti-gun, considering your other political opinions.

And the group that is doing that is the terrorists. If there is a radioactive bomb that has exploded in Washington D.C. And people are now afraid to go outside hasn't their liberty been taken away?
No. The people hiding in their basements are making a personal choice (based on faulty logic, but a choice nonetheless.) The rest of us who do not have an unreasoning fear of eeeeeeeevil terrorists can walk around outside if we so choose.

I am sorry but you are incorrect. The regulation of making it hard to get human intelligence from bad guys was instituted by Clinton.
Please. You are, as my Dad would say, "trying to snow the snowman."

The Church Committee (aka. The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) put out an interm report in 1975 which recommended that the CIA not use criminals and underworld figures as agents, to prevent the agency from becoming unwittingly involved in criminal activities. This recommendation was codified into internal agency policy in the mid-to-late 1970's. It had very little effect on the intelligence gathering capabilities of the USG, because by that time most people had already realized that human intelligence was a boondoggle more than anything else. They kept pouring money into it anyway, desite a pathetic lack of results.

Ojibweindian -
The only way CMike will ever be convinced is when the JBT's finally get around to beating down his door. Of course, by then, it will be too late.
Exactly. Some people just need to get hit in the head with a hammer (or the buttstock of some FedGoon's MP-5/10...)

- Chris
 
From the CNN article below

'Nefarious people' necessary
The panel also recommended scrapping 1995 regulations issued by the CIA which prohibit recruiting foreign intelligence informants if they may have been involved in human rights abuses.

"Out of necessity, we will be dealing with nefarious people when you collect information on nefarious activities, so it stands to reason that we should do that," said former CIA director, retired Lieutenant General James Clapper.



Cash offered, new strategy pushed in U.S. fight to foil terrorism

December 14, 2000
Web posted at: 9:36 p.m. EST (0236 GMT)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this story:

Anti-terrorist recommendations

'Nefarious people' necessary

Cash for saving lives

Most leads come from Pakistan

RELATED STORIES, SITES


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


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States has taken new steps to ensure it's no sitting duck for terrorists.

A new campaign of cash rewards for tips, and a push for a national anti-terrorism strategy, both got under way Thursday.

RESOURCES
Read the panel's recommendations

Read the full report
(This requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)


U.S. State Department is offering rewards of up to $5 million for information about terrorists and planned attacks against American citizens and interests.

"Money talks, money works," said the reward program's director, Mark Etelmaki. "The United States government has been offering rewards since the days of the Old West. It worked then, it works today."

The push for a national strategy comes from an anti-terrorism panel established by Congress in 1999 after the bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998.

"Because the stakes are so high," within a year of taking office President-elect George W. Bush should develop and present to Congress a national strategy for combating terrorism on U.S. soil, the committee advises in its second annual report..

"A terrorist attack at some point inside our borders is inevitable and the United States must be ready for that attack," the panel's chairman, Virginia Governor James Gilmore, said Thursday.

In its report, the panel describes present approaches to dealing with an attack on U.S. soil as "fragmented, uncoordinated and politically unaccountable."

And while major terrorist incidents in the United States to date have involved the use of conventional explosives, the panel warns that it is only a matter of time before terrorists resort to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Gilmore also said that while the nation's first goal is to prevent any such attack, another very important goal should be to make the effect of any attack "so insignificant, so inconsequential that it just won't be worth the effort to attack this strong and decisive nation."

Anti-terrorist recommendations
The panel's report, which was presented to Bush, President Clinton and Congress, concluded that any plan should give local law enforcement, fire departments and emergency medical services a major stake in planning and executing any new approach to domestic terrorism.

Other recommendations include:

• The creation of a powerful National Office for Combating Terrorism, with a Cabinet-level director chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The mandate for the office would be to "deter, prepare for and respond to international and domestic terrorism." The office could also do extensive budget reviews and "eliminate conflicts and unnecessary duplication among agencies."

• Streamlining 25 congressional committees that currently have jurisdiction over terrorism issues down or one or two committees. Experts suggested the creation of a Special Committee for Combating Terrorism as either a joint Senate-House committee or a separate committee in each chamber.

• More federal money and coordination for state and local efforts to respond to a terrorist attack somewhere in the United States.

For example, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently contracted for 40 million doses of effective smallpox vaccine, "much remains to be done to ensure effective distribution of vaccines, including better coordination with state and local agencies."

'Nefarious people' necessary
The panel also recommended scrapping 1995 regulations issued by the CIA which prohibit recruiting foreign intelligence informants if they may have been involved in human rights abuses.

"Out of necessity, we will be dealing with nefarious people when you collect information on nefarious activities, so it stands to reason that we should do that," said former CIA director, retired Lieutenant General James Clapper.

The rules were imposed after a paid CIA informant in Guatemala, Col. Roberto Alpirez, was found to have been involved in the killings of a U.S. citizen and a Guatemalan who is married to a U.S. Citizen, Jennifer Harbury.

Cash for saving lives

The U.S. State Department's new rewards-for-tips campaign was launched in eight languages and on the Internet as well as the traditional media.

"Tell us about something that's going to happen and we will pay you for helping save lives," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday in announcing the campaign.

The Rewards for Justice Program, run by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, has primarily been used to generate leads in investigations of terrorist attacks against Americans. Posters and matchbooks with pictures of suspects have been distributed globally.

The program offers a reward of up to $5 million for tips which lead to the apprehension of anyone involved in such an attack. Since the program's inception in 1984, more than $6 million has been paid out in more than 20 cases. Boucher said more than 20 terrorists have been brought to justice as a result.

In addition to the reward, those who come forward are offered relocation and their identities are kept confidential.

Most leads come from Pakistan
Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, was apprehended in 1995 and brought to justice through the program.

But a $5 million bounty on the head of Osama bin Laden, suspected mastermind of the East Africa bombings and lead suspect in the attack of the USS Cole, has not borne fruit. Boucher blamed Afghanistan's ruling regime, the Taliban, which is harboring Bin Laden.

"People manage to hole up in Afghanistan and not get expelled and not get brought to justice," he said, noting that a new UN resolution adding new sanctions to the Taliban was another component of the campaign to bring bin Laden to justice.

The new campaign hopes to prevent attacks before they start. It is during "the long planning cycle" when an attack can realistically be foiled, Etelmaki said.

Etelmaki said that 75 percent of the leads are motivated by the monetary reward.

The program brings in over 100 phone calls, 600 letters and 1,200 e-mails a year, in addition to 1.2 million hits to its Web site. Boucher said 12 per cent of the tips brought in are hard leads, and over 100 of those tips are investigated each year.

According to a profiling study done by the Diplomatic Security Service, 70 per cent of the recipients of rewards were Middle Eastern and South Asian males in their 20s.

Etelmaki told CNN a majority of the leads come from Pakistan - a main reason why the ads were produced in Urdu, which is commonly spoken throughout the country.

The reward program Web site is: www.dssrewards.net

CNN National Security Correspondent David Ensor, CNN State Department Producer Elise Labott and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 
So does this mean I get $5 million for reporting the next no knock raid? Or for reporting another increase in taxes? Or for reporting the next set of stifling laws/regulations placed on small businesses?

Government has never been "a friend", but rather a necessary evil to be tolerated and kept in check. You seem to think otherwise.
 
CMike

Take a look at this topic here on THR:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5646

Does the fact that Bush supports TIA not bother you? Are you fine with the government collecting tons of such data on its citizens? Don't you find this a little too Orwellian for your tastes, or does a world like "1984" appeal to you and your need for "safety"?

As it has been said, "those who would sacrifice freedom for safety, deserve neither freedom or safety".
 
Funny. A lot of folks think my politics are off to the right of Attila the Hun. Here I am, 68 years old, last July.

I guess ever since the arguments in favor of the GCA of 1968 I've had more nervousness about that which is mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: a State, abusing its power.

Having read of the Gulag, having read a little Kafka, I'm far more in fear of police powers being abused than I am of any criminal or terrorist. These latter impact far fewer people than the former.

Attila the Libertarian?

:D, Art
 
at some point

the "current threat" will diminish. What will remain will be the laws and the new Departments. When was the last time you saw ANY Department in Washington cease to exist? They will simply change direction.
 
Government growth

Jmurman:
You hit the nail on the head. There are certain areas where we need government: ex national defense, public roads, currency, police, fire, and several others. However beyond these functions I believe the people had best look after themselves. Too many of my tax dollars are going to support retired public employees. I have no beef with retired military, police, and fire but for the rest get a job after working a measley 20 years! Before long there will be no money left for anything else but supporting these people. No one is going to support me in my retirement.
44 caliber
 
"As Pres. Bush said one time if you own a small plane and you see someone strange in the cockpit and is starting to taxi down the runway it may be a good time to notify the authorities."

& we needed The Prez to say this, huh? & might I ask how long it will take for "the authorities" to get there to stop said felonious deed? or do I get to whip out a rifle & just smoke 'im? Code orange or red - oh, the agony, & how would I know or choose?

Thanks for that hot tip on fighting terrorism, CMike. Right up there with some yahoo's thought that we should report everybody with a backpack - & this in Colorado.

Sheesh.
 
Cmichael:
Once again this is decided by the court. If the authorities have uncovered animminent terrorist act that is about to occur I think it would be rather foolish to wait for the actual warrant. I think that is a good safeguard. I would rather the court side on preventing an imminent mass murder.


You said:
I think it would be rather foolish to wait for the actual warrant.

So, you approve of police activity without warrants?

You know, we could prevent almost all crime if we lived in guarded barracks and had daily schedules for class, work, eating. Look how few crimes are committed by basic trainees in the military. It will all but eliminate terrorism. Let's embrace it.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human rights. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Burke

Are you aware that your proposals fit the textbook definition of Fascism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top