Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 10:07 AM
35 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,147 Year: 5,184/19,786 Month: 1,306/873 Week: 202/460 Day: 18/29 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Is the media hurting the war?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 121 of 145 (421586)
09-13-2007 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by taylor_31
06-29-2007 9:44 PM


There is no war.
Not to quibble, but there is no "war" being fought by US troops, by standard definition of the term:
war -noun.1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

In Afghanistan we are not at war with the government of Afghanistan.

In Iraq we are not at war with the government of Iraq.

There is no "war on terror" because the "enemy" is not a nation or any specific party, but an ever plastic definition of people or groups of people as terrorists: there is no cohesive body that is the enemy, and nothing can be conquered from them. The prosecution of American citizens as terrorist shows this to be an oxymoronic phrase.

What we really have are:

Police action in Afghanistan in support of the government there (and with their active support).

Peace-keeping action in Iraq trying to keep rival factions in the civil war (albeit one that has been unleashed by US destruction of the previous government) there from killing each other, and to support the ?government? there (and with their active support). Peace-keeping action that is jeopardized by the US active participation in the destruction of the previous government.

Police action against international criminals (whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine, etc) that kill innocent people, trying to bring them to justice or kill them in the process (just as with other violent criminals).

In this regard, I would say that the media is "harming the war" because they have allowed these conflicts to be mis-defined and misrepresented to Americans and to the world.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : oxy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by taylor_31, posted 06-29-2007 9:44 PM taylor_31 has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 122 of 145 (421591)
09-13-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Chiroptera
09-10-2007 12:13 PM


So? What do you think the problem is? Do you think that CNN is broadcasting reports like "US forces believe that Osama bin Laden is located at 123 4th St. in Baghdad and will raid that house at 8:00 tonight?"

No, but being that it is possible that the people we are fighting against are very isolated, any information that we think is outdated, might be useful to them. Unless you fully understand every situation, you'll have to admit there is a possibility. Why take a chance?

The only message we send our enemies, is that we don't trust our government, and we are a screwd up society, cause we can't keep secrets among ourselves.

The problem about "media hurting the war" is that the media sometimes (not often, but sometimes) publishes information that contradict the government's lies about why the war is taking place, and perhaps even reminding viewers and readers that innocent people as well as American service personel are being killed by in a foreign invasion that occurred for no justified reason.

Or the reciprocal of that. Al-jeezera does a fine job of reporting the war, wouldn't you agree?

I know a few people that actually fought over there, and their reports contradict what we see on the news. Having heard that from the source, gives me pause to wonder if the media is in fact hurting the war. Plus, I really never trust the media completely to begin with.

The people, by being informed and then exercising their rights as voters, may decide to end the war.

We should have our act together before the fact. We shouldn't have had Bush in the white house to begin with, even though I voted for him.

I am not saying we should not know what is going on, I am saying there is a time and place for everything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Chiroptera, posted 09-10-2007 12:13 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2007 3:33 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 09-15-2007 2:35 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 29 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 123 of 145 (421592)
09-13-2007 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Rrhain
09-12-2007 5:25 AM


Yeah, right. The local population of Anbar province all sit up late and watch Glen Beck.

Are you saying the local population of Anbar are our enemies?

That said, let's assume that the terrorists aren't stupid. Then that belies the claim that "We have to fight them over there so that we don't fight them over here." After all, they know where "here" is. And if they weren't stupid, they'd attack now because all of our defensive equipment is over there. If you're the weak one, the only way you'll cause any damage is if you hit the enemy in a vulnerable spot. By engaging in a foolish, endless occupation in Iraq, we have made the US weaker and much more vulnerable.

So you think a blow by blow description of what is going on, during an attack on Bagdad is not useful at all to the enemies? You don't think it would be better to wait until any information given out is useless?

Shouldn't we start listening to the people who were right and stop listening to the people who were wrong?

I am not talking about sacrificing liberty. I am talking about timing.

I am all for listening to the people who are right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 5:25 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2007 3:43 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 622 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 124 of 145 (421663)
09-13-2007 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tal
09-13-2007 7:46 AM


From your first link:
An American intelligence official said that the United States helped German authorities track the location of two of the German suspects by eavesdropping on their cellphone conversations as they moved out of training camps in Pakistan.

Wait, how is this thanks to the Patriot Act?

The second link doesn't even mention involvement of US intel in the distrupting the plot. It only mentions that air marshalls are being sent over (after the plot was disrupted, no less) to provide further security. Again, how is this proof the Patriot Act has helped?

Now for the next ten.
The last seven are with help from other countries.
None of these cases demonstrate the efficacy of the Patriot Act. In order to do that, the report would need to reveal which parts of the Act allowed us to discover these plots that, without the Act, would not have been able to be uncovered. I see no indication of this being done.

By the way, just what is your picture of Patreaus supposed to proof? That he has a goofy haircut? Big ears? Or funky smile? I believe this is the first time I've seen someone argue by using an picture abstractly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 7:46 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 125 of 145 (421944)
09-15-2007 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tal
09-13-2007 7:46 AM


Ooh! More information about that German plot that was foiled:

The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, apparently lied to Congress about the role of the the Americans. When asked by Joe Lieberman if the revamped FISA law helped in the German action, McConnell said, “Yes, sir, it did.”

But there's a little problem with that statement: It wasn't true. The assistance the Americans provided was done BEFORE the FISA process was screwed around with. Instead, it was carried out with all that pesky oversight the Bush Administration claims stands in the way of another terrorist attack.

Once again, we're left wondering just what all this destruction of our Constitutional rights has accomplished. Our old system seems to have been working just fine. What's the problem with oversight?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 7:46 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 126 of 145 (421945)
09-15-2007 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
09-13-2007 9:32 AM


riVeRraT writes:

quote:
I know a few people that actually fought over there, and their reports contradict what we see on the news.

So the two guys who were just killed and the one who was shot in the head who wrote the op-ed in the New York Times weren't really killed/wounded?

I know a lot of people that have fought over there. They say the news isn't reporting the half of it. Shall we play a game of "my anecdote is better than yours"?

quote:
We should have our act together before the fact.

Agreed. But since it is quite clear that in this case, we didn't, what do we do now? Lie about it so that we don't dare "show weakness"? How many people have to die in order to save face?

quote:
I am not saying we should not know what is going on, I am saying there is a time and place for everything.

Why not here and now? We've been at this longer than WWII and we haven't gotten anywhere. How many people have to die before it becomes the time and place?

Give us a number.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 09-13-2007 9:32 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 127 of 145 (421948)
09-15-2007 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by riVeRraT
09-13-2007 9:37 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:
Are you saying the local population of Anbar are our enemies?

Every last one of them? Of course not. But the ones who are attacking us are locals. The attempts by the Bush Administration to claim that it's a bunch of outsiders from Iran are false. Don't forget, electricity in Iraq is spotty at best. You get a couple of hours a day, tops.

So since the people attacking us aren't being flown in from countries that have a dedicated satellite feed, it stands to reason that they don't spend much of their time watching our television. Especially since most of them don't speak English.

quote:
So you think a blow by blow description of what is going on, during an attack on Bagdad is not useful at all to the enemies?

And do you have a single example of that happening ever? The closest we've come so far is Geraldo Rivera, war cheerleader for Fox News, one of the biggest cheerleaders for the war and for the Bush Administration, drawing the plans on the sand for the camera.

Be specific. What information that has been reported has been "of use to the enemy"?

quote:
quote:
Shouldn't we start listening to the people who were right and stop listening to the people who were wrong?

I am not talking about sacrificing liberty. I am talking about timing.


People are dying while you're waiting for the right moment. How many people have to die before you decide that it's OK to point out just how wrong this administration has been about everything? How many people have to die before we can mount the campaign that will be required to convince the American people to get rid of the people who are driving those deaths?

quote:
I am all for listening to the people who are right.

But you won't let them talk for fear that what they'll say will "embolden the enemy."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by riVeRraT, posted 09-13-2007 9:37 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 145 (422019)
09-15-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tal
09-13-2007 8:23 AM


Wow. You are actually going to try to argue this one?

We did argue this. Remember? You lost. Bush didn't meet his service obligations. Did he go "AWOL"? Technically yes, but he was never considered so, because who would commit career suicide to put the son of a war-hero and Senator (and future President of the United States) on an AWOL list?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tal, posted 09-13-2007 8:23 AM Tal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Tal, posted 09-16-2007 5:38 AM crashfrog has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 129 of 145 (422023)
09-15-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by riVeRraT
09-13-2007 9:32 AM


No, but being that it is possible that the people we are fighting against are very isolated, any information that we think is outdated, might be useful to them.

Why argue about "possibilities"? Is there any information about who the insurgents are? Can we determine, with a little research, whether the insurgents are at least somewhat organized and share information amongst themselves? If you were to try using Google, would you find out whether it is known that the insurgents, by actually observing the movements and actions of coalition forces (as well as information that they can gleen from their supporters in the Iraqi police force), that they have information at least as good as what is being reported on CNN?

Come back to this point when you know a little more than "possibilities".

It might be also be helpful to the discussion if you would provide an example or two of reports in the media that are supposed to be "helpful" to the enemy. It appears that several people are discussing several different ideas of what it means to "help" the enemy.

--

P.S. I found this piece from the Onion to be only slightly humorous, but it does seem somewhat apropos.

Edited by Chiroptera, : added only to last sentence.


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by riVeRraT, posted 09-13-2007 9:32 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 130 of 145 (422032)
09-15-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rrhain
09-13-2007 8:14 AM


What does the Patriot Act do
Burden of proof is still on you: What has the Patriot Act actually allowed us to do that we couldn't do before?

Its very simple, but for some reason, many people have made a mountain out of a molehill.

I'll give you a brief synopsis. The NSA and the FBI, along with many allied nations, have set up electronic surveillance through both the Raptor program (FBI), and the Echelon program (NSA). These are major aspects of SIGINT for the US and its allies. The US have been intercepting these transmissions for years and years now.

Its yielded a lot of success in the past, however, there was a major trip up as far as prosecution is concerned. The end game is prosecution. But there was a problem in the past.

The Patriot Act removed several restrictions. Most notably, was that it dismantled the barrier between intelligence officials and law-enforcement officials from sharing information and working together on investigations for the suppression or prevention of terrorist acts. And as we all know, the intel community was criticized to no end about how 9/11 could have been prevented if only the agencies involved were communicating with one another.

Before the (PA) was passed, when a plot was uncovered to commit acts of terrorism, the Intel community was said to have obtained the information. So some people were saying, fine, I understand that you are concerned about civil liberties, but at least allow us to use the intercepted information to stop the act itself and we won't seek prosecution. The Clinton Administration still said no.

The PA removes those barriers so that we can both stop the action and prosecute.


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 09-13-2007 8:14 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 131 of 145 (422040)
09-15-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Hyroglyphx
09-15-2007 3:31 PM


Re: What does the Patriot Act do
nemesis_juggernaut responds to me:

quote:
I'll give you a brief synopsis. The NSA and the FBI, along with many allied nations, have set up electronic surveillance through both the Raptor program (FBI), and the Echelon program (NSA). These are major aspects of SIGINT for the US and its allies. The US have been intercepting these transmissions for years and years now.

Ahem. I was asking about anything that the recent legislation has been able to accomplish. Please keep up. We got attacked six years ago and then people started screaming that we needed to change our laws in order to prevent terrorist attacks and then those laws were changed.

What is it we have gained?

quote:
Most notably, was that it dismantled the barrier between intelligence officials and law-enforcement officials from sharing information and working together on investigations for the suppression or prevention of terrorist acts.

As if that were the only thing it did. "Most notably"? Please. Have you seen the Patriot Act? It's hundreds of pages long.

Oh, and by the way...the supposed "information sharing" that the Patriot Act was suppsed to usher in hasn't happened. Remember, while the Department of Homeland Security was recommended by Congress BEFORE the attacks as well as after by the 9/11 Commission, the Bush Administration never wanted to implement it. They flip-flopped on it and then did precisely what the Bush Administration does: Put cronies in charge rather than anybody with any actual competence and drive.

Just how effective do you think it's going to be?

quote:
And as we all know, the intel community was criticized to no end about how 9/11 could have been prevented if only the agencies involved were communicating with one another.

Indeed, but the problem with 9/11 wasn't that they were being prevented from talking to each other, per se. It's that they weren't even trying. And even more problematic, the ground agents who were squawking that something strange was going on weren't being paid attention to by the higher ups. It really doesn't matter how open the channels are among the various intel groups if the information isn't being utilized by the group who gathered it.

quote:
Before the (PA) was passed, when a plot was uncovered to commit acts of terrorism, the Intel community was said to have obtained the information. So some people were saying, fine, I understand that you are concerned about civil liberties, but at least allow us to use the intercepted information to stop the act itself and we won't seek prosecution. The Clinton Administration still said no.

Incorrect. This is a common myth among the right wing echo machine.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. The Clinton administration was one of the most active administrations regarding the prevention of terror. Clinton never said no.

quote:
The PA removes those barriers so that we can both stop the action and prosecute.

Huh? Do you not know how the FISA law works? You don't need a warrant right now. You can stop the action now and get the warrant later. The FISA court has only said no about half a dozen times total.

Look, I'm not saying that what happened six years ago was just something that inevitably slips through the cracks, the system is as perfect as it can be, or some such.

I'm simply asking what it is the "fixes" to the problems have actually accomplished. We know that the various intelligence agencies have been spying on Americans. And they've been doing so illegally.

Where are the stopped terrorist attacks? The argument is that the ends justifies the means (which is never, ever true), but we don't have any ends that could possibly justify the illegal, unconstitutional, unamerican intrusions that have been perpetrated.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-15-2007 3:31 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-15-2007 6:02 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 132 of 145 (422068)
09-15-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rrhain
09-15-2007 3:57 PM


Re: What does the Patriot Act do
I was asking about anything that the recent legislation has been able to accomplish. Please keep up. We got attacked six years ago and then people started screaming that we needed to change our laws in order to prevent terrorist attacks and then those laws were changed.

What is it we have gained?

I suppose I could turn the argument around on you and asked what it has lost... But, you asked the question, so I will oblige you.

Over 200 suspects have been thwarted since its inception. Most notably, Iyman Faris. Other notable notables include, but are not limited to:

The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002, the United States disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of Sept. 11.

The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003, the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast using hijacked commercial airplanes.

The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002, the United States disrupted a plot that involved blowing up domestic apartment buildings. One of the alleged plotters, Jose Padilla, also allegedly discussed the possibility of using a "dirty bomb" in the United States.

The 2004 U.K. Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004, the United States and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the spring of 2003, the United States and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003, the United States and several partners disrupted a plot to attack London's Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major Sept. 11 operational figure.

The 2004 U.K. Plot: In the spring of 2004, the United States and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the United Kingdom.

The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003, the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.

2002 Strait of Hormuz plot: In 2002 the United States and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean.

2003 tourist site plot: In 2003 the United States and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States. The White House did not list what site that was.

Source

I dare say that the Patriot Act, with the employment of the Echelon program and human intelligence, is proving its worth. Unless of course you're cool with more 9/11 style attacks.

Then of course, we also have this

quote:
:Most notably, was that it dismantled the barrier between intelligence officials and law-enforcement officials from sharing information and working together on investigations for the suppression or prevention of terrorist acts.

As if that were the only thing it did. "Most notably"? Please.

This is the theme, yes. What else were you expecting? Government agencies sanctioned in watching you masturbate?

Have you seen the Patriot Act? It's hundreds of pages long.

Yes, I am aware of how voluminous it is. Most laws are like that. Try cracking open the United States Code some time. Sheesh... talk about dry material. :)

Oh, and by the way...the supposed "information sharing" that the Patriot Act was suppsed to usher in hasn't happened. Remember, while the Department of Homeland Security was recommended by Congress BEFORE the attacks as well as after by the 9/11 Commission, the Bush Administration never wanted to implement it. They flip-flopped on it and then did precisely what the Bush Administration does: Put cronies in charge rather than anybody with any actual competence and drive.

Source?

Just how effective do you think it's going to be?

It already proving its worth. You live in San Diego. You and I know that it is the largest West Coast military town in the nation. Unless you're cool with Miramar MCAS, the Coronado bridge, San Onofre power plant, Camp Pendleton MCB, 32nd Street Naval station, North Island naval air station, Lindbergh Field, Pacific Beach, Mission Beach, Gaslamp District etc, etc blowing up, by all means, oppose it.

I just don't understand why people think this act is detrimental to their civil liberties.

So, on the flip side of the coin, what are some of the instances where civil liberties have been broken as a result of the PA?

the problem with 9/11 wasn't that they were being prevented from talking to each other, per se. It's that they weren't even trying. And even more problematic, the ground agents who were squawking that something strange was going on weren't being paid attention to by the higher ups. It really doesn't matter how open the channels are among the various intel groups if the information isn't being utilized by the group who gathered it.

There is ample evidence that all higher ups knew that a 9/11 was imminent. Not the exact locations or times, but we all knew it was going to happen sooner or later. Well, at least I did. I remember when people used to say, "who?", to the name Osama bin Liden.

And the CIA blamed the FBI, and the FBI blamed the CIA. Both have a large role in taking responsibility as far as I'm concerned.

The Clinton administration was one of the most active administrations regarding the prevention of terror. Clinton never said no.

Then when has Dick Morris, Clinton's own advisor, say that he didn't do it? Edwards signed on it, Sen. Dodd voted for it, Senator Biden and Sen. Clinton co-sponsored it. I mean, honestly... Why the sudden shift from approval to disapproval? They didn't read it?

quote:
:The PA removes those barriers so that we can both stop the action and prosecute.

Huh? Do you not know how the FISA law works? You don't need a warrant right now. You can stop the action now and get the warrant later.

Right, its wonderful, because now just the threat gives probable cause.

I'm simply asking what it is the "fixes" to the problems have actually accomplished. We know that the various intelligence agencies have been spying on Americans. And they've been doing so illegally.

Obviously not illegally since it was passed through legislature. And as far as them spying on you, they've been doing it all along, unbeknownst to you. They will always monitor things that threaten the United States-- unapologetically so. But then again, they aren't really spying on you anymore than we are spying on you. They are monitoring actions typed and spoken. But I assume you realize that no one can monitor everything, but rather, have specific words and phrases that automatically begin the evesdropping.

Where are the stopped terrorist attacks? The argument is that the ends justifies the means (which is never, ever true), but we don't have any ends that could possibly justify the illegal, unconstitutional, unamerican intrusions that have been perpetrated.

What do you think will happen to you as a result of the Patriot Act? Help me understand the fear and help me understand what you think the government is doing right now, either to you, or to some hapless guy in Kentucky because I really don't understand the objection.

I mean, remember the Stasi? That's intrusion! Collecting EVERYONE's urine specimens and recovering the scent of people from adrenal glands, wiring everyone's homes, killing dissenters of Communism, etc, etc... That is an affront to civil liberties, not government agencies being able to act quickly and decisively to provide and protect the very freedom you demand from them.

I mean do think they honestly give a fig about you or your friends? They aren't after you. Hell, I doubt they even know you exist, let alone give one whit about you. (Well.... unless of course you are in cahoots with the some dudes).

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.


"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2007 3:57 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by molbiogirl, posted 09-15-2007 10:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 142 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2007 4:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 133 of 145 (422125)
09-15-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Hyroglyphx
09-15-2007 6:02 PM


PR Flack
All ten items are from a WH press release.

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-7.html

Let's take a look at the facts.

From the NYU Law Review: Prosecuting Terrorism: The Legal Challenge

NYU writes:

1. 2001 Tasking Ali S. Kahlah al-Marri
Detained although charges were dropped
2. West Coast Airliner Plot
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
3. Jose Padilla Plot
Jose Padilla detained and convicted
4. 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
5. 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Port Plot
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashri convicted and sentenced to death in Yemen
6. 2003 Tourist Site Plot
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
7. Heathrow Airport Plot
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
8. 2003 Karachi Plot
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
9. East Coast Airliner Plot
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
10. 2003 Tasking
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
11. Gas Station Tasking
Majid Khan detained in Pakistan
12. Brooklyn Bridge Tasking
Iyman Faris convicted on material support charges
13. US Government and Tourist Sites Tasking
No public record of any detention or legal proceeding
14. 2004 UK Plot
Nine men of Pakistani descent detained in Britain with trial pending
15. UK Urban Targets Plot
Eight men including Issa al-Hindi detained in Britain with trial pending

5 cases involve detention.
3 cases involve conviction.

I dare say that the Patriot Act, with the employment of the Echelon program and human intelligence, is proving its worth. Unless of course you're cool with more 9/11 style attacks.

Um. No.

This is pathetic.

And, of those that have no public record, I'm assuming you're taking it on faith that Dubya et. al. are telling the truth.

Just like they did about the yellow cake. The WMD. Et cetera.

I'd also like to point out that, of those that involve detentions, 4/5 were in other countries.

The only detention/conviction here in the U.S. is Padilla.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/17/opinion/edpadilla.php

Herald Tribune writes:

On the way to this verdict, the government trampled on the Constitution, and its prosecution of Padilla was so inept that the crime he was convicted of - conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas - bears no relation to the plot to wreak mass destruction inside the United States, which the Justice Department first proclaimed.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-15-2007 6:02 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2007 8:47 PM molbiogirl has responded

Tal
Member (Idle past 3786 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 134 of 145 (422153)
09-16-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by crashfrog
09-15-2007 2:23 PM


We did argue this. Remember? You lost.

In your mind. I'll be happy to prove you wrong again, since I am the subject matter expert.

A Dropped from rolls packet consists of:

1. DD Form 553 Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces.
Must be signed by the individuals Commander.

2. DA Form 4187 Bringing the status from Present for Duty to AWOL.

3. DA Form 4187 Bringing the status from AWOL to Deserter.

4. DD Form 458 Charge Sheet.
Must be signed by the Commander and the Courts-Martial Convening Authority.

Those Documents are then sent to USADIP, Fort Knox, KY for verification and then entered into NCIC (Natinal Crime Information Center) for a No-Bond Felony Warrant for the arrest of the individual.

There is no 553 for President Bush.
There are no 4187s for President Bush.
There is no 458 for President Bush.
There has never been an entry into NCIC of President Bush.

I personally checked all of these, to include the files from Vietnam that Carter pardoned.

Feel free to contact USADIP NCIC at (502) 626-3711/3712/3713 (24 hours) or mail them at:

U.S. Army Personnel Control Facility
ATTN: ATZK-PMF-D
1481 Old Ironsides Avenue
Fort Knox, KY 40121

Otherwise, you've lost as you have produced zero evidence of anything having to do with a DFR packet. Your only "evidence" is some forged documents.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/10/national/main665727.shtml

(CBS) Four CBS News employees, including three executives, have been ousted for their role in preparing and reporting a disputed story about President Bush’s National Guard service.

The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.

Hey looky there, CBS fired 4 guys over this including 3 Execs. I wonder why? Must be becuase they did something wrong.

“We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy,” said CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves.

Flawed...Whoops.

But let us dig a little further.

A key factor in the decision to broadcast the piece was a telephone conversation between Mapes and Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, Killian’s commanding officer during the period in question. Mapes told the panel Hodges confirmed the content of the four documents after she read them to him over the phone.

Hodges, however, denied doing so. He also told the panel he had given Mapes information that should have raised warning flags about the documents, including his belief that Killian had never ordered anyone, including Mr. Bush, to take a physical.

Hodges said that when he finally saw the documents after the Sept. 8 broadcast, he concluded they were bogus and told Rather and Mapes of his opinion on Sept. 10.

Ouch.

Next.

After rushing the piece to air, the panel said, CBS News compounded the error by blindly defending the story. In doing so, the news organization missed opportunities to set the record straight.

Seems like you Evolutionists like to stick by stories long after they've been disproven. It is your trademark really.


If those WMD that don't exist were easier to identify and handled properly, then this would not have occurred.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 2:23 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nator, posted 09-16-2007 8:11 AM Tal has not yet responded
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 09-16-2007 12:53 PM Tal has responded
 Message 143 by Rrhain, posted 09-17-2007 4:42 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 279 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 135 of 145 (422158)
09-16-2007 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Tal
09-16-2007 5:38 AM


quote:
Seems like you Evolutionists like to stick by stories long after they've been disproven. It is your trademark really.

Tal, I'd like you to invite you to discuss the logical implications of your above statement as it applies to Biologists, Geneticists, Paleontologists and other professionals in the life sciences in the thread, How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

There, you can explain how it is that hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years are either really, really bad at doing science, that current researchers are able to make successful predictions based upon the (according to you) faulty conclusions of past reasearchers, or that there is a massive conspiracy among all scientists to deceive the public about Evolution.

Or, perhaps you have another explanation for how scienctists have been able to stay so wrong for so long.

I look forward to reading what you have to say in the other thread.

See you there.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Tal, posted 09-16-2007 5:38 AM Tal has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019