Forum: pol
Page 2995
Subject: Domestic security, 6 years later

  Posted by: Perm Dude - [17946246] Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 17:52
I was reading through this great interview about security (in particularl, the type and emphasis of security at airports), and the huge amount of money we are spending on security. Far and above pre-9/11 amounts. Are we at the point where we can ask: "Is it worth it?"

Money quote:

Q: So if you were in charge of airport security, are there any things that you would implement?

A: I think we should ratchet passenger screening down to pre-9/11 levels. I like seeing positive bag matching. That's something that was done in Europe for decades. The U.S. airlines screamed and screamed and refused to do it, and now they are.

Really, I would take all the extra money for airport security and have well-trained guards, both uniformed and plainclothes, walking through the airports looking for suspicious people. That's what I would do. And I would just give back the rest of the money. If we secure our airport and the terrorists go bomb shopping malls, we've wasted our money. I dislike security measures that require us to guess the plot correctly because if you guess wrong, it's a waste of money. And it's not even a fair game. It's not like we pick our security, they pick their plot, we see who wins. The game is we pick our security, they look at our security, and then they pick their plot. The way to spend money on security airport security, and security in general is intelligence investigation and emergency response. These are the things that will be effective regardless of what the terrorists are planning.

It isn't just an inconvenience to airline passengers anymore. The "need for security" can easily turn one paranoid, spending more time and money (at the expense of civil rights which are sometimes freely given and sometimes not) in the effort to finally feel "secure." At what point do we tell people you can't use the court system anymore if you don't have ID? How about domestic flying? Trains?

And what about the harvesting of personal information about people? Is there a point where it has no security value at all? Is that point actually before the information is recorded?

At what point does that information become too much, in a free society, to trade for the illusion of security?
 
1biliruben
      ID: 579411512
      Wed, Oct 24, 2007, 19:21 		I have a real distaste for the wide-scale loss of privacy we have undergone. I know it's cliche, but I'll say it anyway:

The terrorists have won!

Phew; now I feel better. ;)

Off point a bit, but realistically the way technology is moving, the average person is going to have to handicap themselves and fore-go a lot of emerging technology to avoid being pretty much tracked 24-7. Privacy and anonymity are so 20th century.

Get used to it.
 
2Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 06:10 		At what point does that information become too much, in a free society, to trade for the illusion of security?

I think the better question is; Are these funds spent for security or for control?
 
3Perm Dude
      ID: 40946256
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 09:36 		I think that's an excellent question. At this point, however, I don't think it really is control so much as the illusion of control either. These people have no idea of what to do with this information (mostly, IMO, because it really isn't all that useful).
 
4sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 10:43 		The "illusion of security", is precisely what we have for all those expenditures. For the very reasons stated in the OP; We initiate security protocols, 2) The bad guys evaluate our security and its inevitable "holes", 3) The bad guys plot around the effective security measures to hit "softer" targets. End result? The hard security, simply moved the attack, not prevented it.

Intel, foreign policy, international cooperation...those are the tools IMHO, for effecting the kinds of change which in turn, would reduce the perceived attractiveness of the terrorists position to their potential recruits. That in turn, reduces the terrorist risk/threat.


Re airport security.....flew through better than a dz airports this past summer and only on the final trip, did the "guard" refuse to allow the toothpaste container I had been transporting all summer, cause its 3.5 ozs vs the allowed 3 oz. Nevermind, that I had flown in and out of that same airport 3 or 4 times already. The entire prpcess is a joke...and a very bad one at that.
 
5Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 12:17 		Airports I have been through in the past year or so.

Salt Lake
Seattle
Oakland
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Honolulu
Lihue(Kauai)

Other than Lihue, the easiest to negotiate are Salt Lake and Seattle. The worst are Phoenix and San Francisco.

And while this may sound racist, are there any TSA workers who aren't minoroties lacking a high school education?
 
6biliruben
      ID: 579411512
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 13:31 		In my experience, when you go through security to and from Seattle to Lihue with a 350 lb Samoan, you always get pulled for a detailed search. But the reason appears to be that they just want to shoot the shiznet with a fellow Islander! Very friendly, if time consuming experience.

Seatac security is disproportionately Somoan, from my limited experience.

I try to fly through San Jose if I can help it. Much more pleasant the SF.
 
7Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 14:18 		let's list my airports in the last 12 months:
LaGuardia
JFK
Newark
Islip
SFO
Dayton
Columbus
O'Hare
Midway
Logan
Vegas
Detroit
West Palm Beach
Fort Lauderdale
Detroit


that's what comes to me without thinking too hard about it. JFK, LGA, and Islip were the best.

both Chicago airports, Vegas, and Newark were the worst.


And while this may sound racist, are there any TSA workers who aren't minoroties lacking a high school education?

back when i worked at Barnes & Noble, it wasn't unusual to see some of the same minimum wage rent-a-cops we employed working security at the airport. some of those are now TSA employed.

airline security is a joke. nearly a million people on the watch list!?!?!? it's just absurd.

this morning, coming back from SFO, the TSA agent pulled a butter knife from my back pack (i'd forgotten to remove from a picnic lunch earlier in the day), and shuffled right past the bag of liquids i'd also forgotten to remove, not even mentioning it.
 
8sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 14:22 		Motorcycle helmets, are on the official TSA list of prohibited items for carry-on. They (TSA) wants them checked.

1) Drop a helmet from a height of 3' onto a hard surface, and you just rendered the helmet useless. They are good for one impact and only one impact. (Anyone ever watch a planes baggage being loaded?)

2) Their rational is, "its hard plastic and could be used as a weapon." When I countered that statement with, "And a laptop computer is allowed then because...?"

3) Why is it, that a 6" screwdriver, IS allowed, as carry-on?????

The "rules", are ridiculous, arbitrary, and not based on any meaningful evaluation that I can gleem.
 
9C1-NRB
      ID: 5932328
      Thu, Oct 25, 2007, 15:27 		It's obivous no one has had to go through Kansas City. If ever there was an airport designed NOT to be security-friendly, it's KCI.

You have to pass in and out of security if you're going 5 gates over IN THE SAME TERMINAL. And they always check your shoes; don't even bother putting them back on again.

DFW is great.
Houston Intercontinental can be a pain.
Atlanta is alright.
Louisville is OK.
San Diego is easy.
Orlando is pretty good.
Reagan National isn't too bad.

I remember going through SeaTac about twelve years ago and it was a mess back then.
 
10walk
      ID: 7952415
      Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 13:06 		NY Times Op-Ed, Mike McConnell: Help me Spy on Al Qaeda
 
11Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 21:01 		All you people b!tching about security at your airports and the convenience/inconvenience, I have 1 word for you: Philadelphia Internation Airport (ok, 3). Not only do you have sub-optimal security and checks, but you have ineffecient management at security check points (arrive 1 1/2 early and 10 mins before your flight boards you are still 25 mins from passing through security....absolutely true), inefficient runway management (unless you are on United which owns the airport) and the lovely inhabitants of the City of Brotherly Throw-Double D-Batteries-at-JD Drew-Ice Balls-At-Santa Clause-Laugh-at-Michael Irvins-Injury-Mayor Street-Running-the-City-with-His-Family-and-friends-getting -all-the-government-contracts-dirty-politician-Route 95-traffic-Love.

Deal with that, then come back and complain. :)
 
12Astade
      ID: 5935164
      Mon, Dec 10, 2007, 23:31 		United Air?

Khahan, I thought that US Air had one its major hubs in PHL...
 
13Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Tue, Dec 11, 2007, 08:41 		yeah, us air. Same difference. They just muck everything up.
 
14WiddleAvi
      ID: 895017
      Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 08:17 		Did anyone see the new rules they came up with after the attack last week ?

New security regulations

You will not be allowed to leave your seat for one hour before landing. You will not be allowed to have any electronics on your lap one hour before landing. They are also recomending passengers not to bring any carry-ons.

It's going to get to a point that flying will be such an inconvenience that people will try to avoid it at all costs.
 
15Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 08:44 		Thank god I am afraid to fly. I wonder how many people on that jet on Christmas are scared and will never fly again.
 
16Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 09:22
You will not be allowed to leave your seat for one hour before landing.

which basically means if your flight is 90 minutes or less, you better hope you don't have to piss, because you're not going to be allowed up from your seat.

this is another one of those rules that isn't going to make a damned bit of difference, because there's always going to be that one guy who figures a way around.

in fact, i'm not even sure what this changes - now, instead of blowing up the amsterdam-detroit flight just prior to landing, he blows it up over the Atlantic.

more and more, this country really needs high-speed train travel, because it truly is going to become very difficult to fly internally.
 
17Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 11:12 		16- I totally agree with u. We took a train from Chicago to Flagstaff,Booked it 4 months ahead of time, $1000 round trip for 5 people.(No sleeper car) The best trip I have ever taken. Sat in the observation car the whole time and watched the country go by. New Mexico is absolutely beautiful. For a vacation I would highly recommend it.
 
18Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 11:35 		I remember that security in Chicago,(the whole trip) was lacking. When we were waiting to board the train my cousin who lives in Chicago came to see us. She walked right into the restricted area, no questions asked, nothing. We had 2 long layovers (hour long) in Kansas City and Albuquerque. We could get off the train and go in to the station. When we boarded no questions asked, didnt have to produce a ticket. This was 4 years after 911. I thought that was strange.
 
19DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Sun, Dec 27, 2009, 13:53 		Re: 14 -- facepalm.

Here's a wacky idea--if you do your security right BEFORE people get on the plane, there really isn't a whole lot you need to change WHILE people are on the plane.
 
20sarge33rd
      ID: 18111286
      Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 15:08 		Problem with this last incident; illustrates the kep problem with preventing explosives on flights. Plastics, dont show up on the metal detectors. Nor do chemicals. So 2 or more compounds, not metallic, which when combined go "boom"; can be smuggled on board in seperate containers. Mix at your leisure. The bad guys, figured this out a LONG time ago.
 
21Boldwin
      ID: 2211142821
      Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 22:15 		Here's a wacky idea--if you do your security right BEFORE people get on the plane, there really isn't a whole lot you need to change WHILE people are on the plane. - DWetz

Here's a whacky idea. If you respond properly when you spot them doing their 'dry run' planning and security probe mission, maybe they don't run the real mission.

Of course if you are too politically correct to accept the obvious [as the linked discussion reveals] then you can't accomplish that.
 
22WiddleAvi
      ID: 895017
      Mon, Dec 28, 2009, 22:27 		Boldwin - It would help if the dry run you refer to somewhat matched this attemped attack.
 
23tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 00:27 		I'm hanging out in east texas, using my treo, so maybe that link in baldwin's post isn't working properly for me, as it takes me to another thread.

where does the link go properly? what "dry run" is Baldwin referring to?

thanks.
 
24DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 01:03 		I believe it refers to the same piece of garbage interview with the guy who witnesses the Muslims talking, even though he wasn't actually, you know, on the plane that he supposedly witnessed this event on, but still it proves that the Muslims are bad or something.

Honestly, I didn't give it much attention.
 
25Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 05:20 		They probed security just before a terrorist attack, but you can't connect the dots. Why am I not surprised?
 
26bibA
      ID: 01116297
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 08:16 		If you respond properly

Could you be a little more specific? What would be done differently to hopefully ensure things were handled properly?
 
27tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 08:41 		they probed security just before a terrorist attack, but you can't connect the dots.

so help us connect the dots.

who is "they"?
what sort of "probe of security" are you referencing?
what are you referencing by linking that thread?
 
28DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 09:58 		Tree, go back and read the last 60 or so posts of the "Shooting at Ft. Hood" thread. Really, it's not worth your time to do it once, but it'll save the rest of us the time of having to debunk that crap again.

B, don't start. Just... we've had this discussion less than three weeks ago. Your supposed "dry run" theory by the self-proclaimed hero (who, I WILL REMIND YOU AGAIN, WASN'T EVEN ON THE DAMN PLANE!!!!!) was already made to look like Swiss Cheese by the volume of gaping holes that were poked in it. And now you try to drag it back out as though nobody noticed?

Come on. Seriously. Come on. Though, as you said to me, why am I not surprised?
 
29DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 10:01 		Tree, rather than cause you the anguish of reading the Ft. Hood thread again, this should sum it up adequately:

Flight 297

Despite all the glaring evidence to the contrary, this is, still, the tale that B is sticking to.
 
30Building 7
      ID: 43735169
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 10:04 		Why didn't the Detroit underwear bomber blow up his bomb in the bathroom?

Why didn't the shoe-bomber blow up his bomb in the bathroom?

There would be no way for anyone to interfere and stop the attack. I don't believe they were too stupid to figure that out.
 
31tree on the treo
      ID: 287212811
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 10:11 		B7 - that's one of those mysteries, although not knowing the details of their explosive devices, I wonder if they felt they would have more time at their seat to do what they needed to do than they would in a bathroom with a sensitive smoke detector.

either way, these new rules aren't going to make things any easier, and I plan on practicing my own forms of civil disobedience...
 
32Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 11:03 		The alleged dry run was a hoax and blown vastly out of proportion. Something did happen on the plane, but it was not necessarily terrorism related. Proving that that incident was terrorism related is a big stretch, but proving that it had anything at all to do with this bombing attempt is an incredible leap.

One theory as to why the terrorists didn’t try to detonate from the bathroom is that perhaps the bathrooms are fortified (for just such a scenario) to withstand more damage from an explosion. No facts to substantiate that, but a theory as to why they might go with that method.

The terrorists are already winning with a portion of our population whose response to this is to take away even more liberties and make air travel even less friendly than it already is. There is no way to completely stop terrorism without completely stripping away every freedom and convenience we enjoy. The inane “3 ounce liquid” rule was pointless and easily circumvented by taking multiple small liquid containers and combining. I even said as much many years ago on this very forum, I believe. Air travel is not inherently more or less prone to terrorism than other forms of mass transit. If more people start taking trains, then terrorists will target those. That’s an even easier target since it’s terrestrial. Terrorism can’t be stopped on or just before getting on a plane. It’s a poor last line of defense. Terrorism needs to be stopped in advance by intelligence agencies. The question one has to raise in this instance is why this guy who was on a terrorism watch list was allowed to fly?

The truth of the matter is that it is not terribly difficult to go on a killing spree, but body count is not the point of terrorism; it is to strike fear into one’s enemies. When we start getting scared to fly and demanding our government take away our freedom or even the freedoms of others then we are playing into their hands.
 
33walk
      ID: 291046510
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 14:12 		Nice one, Razor, #32. What he said. I cannot add anything and agree with everything.
 
34Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 16:30 		We are closing Gitmo, we do not torture, we are trying the terrorist in our court system memo must not have gotten to Al-Quaeda.
 
35walk
      ID: 291046510
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 16:43 		Well, I think we are also doing lots of covert ops in Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Yemen to get at Al Quaeda. AQ also likely needs to lash out at the most powerful and free nation as a means to keep the fight going, keep the recruiting going, and maintain their reason to be. I think for some, without the fight, there's just no purpose to live. That does not only apply to AQ (we have plenty of those thinkers in our military and country, as do many other countries). Humans = warlike species.
 
37Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 17:05 		No not allowed to listen to the radio at work. I thought that up myself. And if I thinks it is useful I am going to post it. Just my 2 cents worth. I dont think I insulted anyone in that post. Just making a point.
 
38Seattle Zen
      ID: 1410391215
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 17:35 		Just making a point.

What point was that? Are you really afraid of someone who thinks he can bring a plane down by lighting his farts on fire?

This guy and the Robbie "The Shoe" Reid, oh for two.
 
39Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 17:58 		The point is Al-Quaeda hates us and they will do any thing to terrorize us. To be truthful DWetzel I really dont think there is any thing we can do to stop them. If you read post 17-18 I really think trains are going to be next. I did hear on the radio on my way home from work that this is a 50 year fight. I really dont think this fight will ever end. I dont see it ending.
 
40Building 7
      ID: 43735169
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 18:00 		IMO post #34 adds more to the discussion than post #36.

And the term “attack” will be interpreted broadly. If the tone of a post is confrontational and disrespectful, it will be deleted. If you have children, and you would most likely send them to their room if they responded in the manner of a given post, that post will be deleted. Civility and respect are the key ingredients that every post must adhere to. You do not have to agree with an idea being espoused by another. But there are ways to debate the idea without resorting to name calling or otherwise maliciously belittling a person or group.

And Rush Limbaugh is on vacation.
 
41Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 18:15 		We are closing Gitmo, we do not torture, we are trying the terrorist in our court system

Just making a point.

i, for one, appreciate that point.

America is not Al-Queda, we are the good guys. We should be closing a prison camp where we torture people, and if we're going to imprison people, we should try them in our court system.

that is the point you're trying to make, right?

memo must not have gotten to Al-Quaeda.

the folks who didn't get the memo were part of the GW Bush administration. It took a change in our presidency, and a change in our congress, for us to start acting like Americans again.

 
42WiddleAvi
      ID: 895017
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 18:25 		I agree with Bldg 7. Post 36 was not needed.
 
43Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 19:52 		41-My point is no matter what we do or how we act (obamas way or bushes way) they are going to do, how ever they can, to terrorize us.
38-I dont think they failed. Look what you have to do to get on an airplane. Thank god nobody died.
 
44Building 7
      ID: 43735169
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 19:55 		Underwear bomber had no passport.

" target="_blank">Underwear bomber had no passport

“Laurie and I were sitting near the boarding gate, sitting on the floor, there weren’t any seats to sit in. And I saw two men. They caught my eye because they seemed to be an odd pair. One was what I would describe as a poor-looking black teenager around 16 or 17, and the other man, age 50-ish, wealthy looking Indian man. And I was just wondering why they were together– kinda strange. And I watched them approach what I would call the ticket agent, the final person that checks your boarding pass before you get on the plane. And I could hear the entire conversation. The only person that spoke was the Indian man, and what he said was: ‘This man needs to board the plane, but he doesn’t have a passport.’ And the ticket agent responded, ‘Well, if he doesn’t have a passport, he can’t get on the plane.’ To which the Indian man responded back, ‘He’s from Sudan. We do this all the time.’ And the ticket agent said, ‘Well, then you’ll have to go and talk to my manager.’ And she directed them down a hallway. And that was the last time I saw the Indian man, and the black man I didn’t see again until he tried to blow up our plane hours later.”

.....................................

Richelle Keepman, said she noticed the mysterious cameraman at the beginning of the flight, believing the man might have been simply excited about a first flight, or etc. Later when the ‘bombing’ incident took place, she says the cameraman was the only one standing up, and intently filming the entire incident.
 
45Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 20:01 		What point was that? Are you really afraid of someone who thinks he can bring a plane down by lighting his farts on fire? - SZ

You are actually going to minimize the danger of PETN on airliners? There was fire all the way up the wall inside the plane even in a failed attempt. He didn't fail by much.

I'm curious if SZ would have made it flying across the isle over other passengers to stop the attempt if he had been on board. Why bother? Terrorists are just the gang who can't shoot straight and pose no threat I guess.

 
46sarge33rd
      ID: 311272919
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 20:27 		Here's the simple truth re "physical security". It keeps an honest man honest, and MIGHT cause a dishonest one to select a different target.

IOW, install sufficient physical security to preclude ANY terrorist act; and the terrorist will instead hit a strip-mall, or rail site, or...

Security, largely gives the general populace a false sense of safety. Sorry folks, but THAT is the truth. If you REALLY want to preclude terrorism, then we need intel. LOTS of it. Human Intel, boots on the ground, spies...what ever you want to call it. THAT, is how you trump terrorist acts. Not with guards, winding paths around an airport terminal, or little metal detecting wands.
 
47Texas Flood
      ID: 7101698
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 20:38 		My wife is taking the Red Eye back to Michigan from SF and I'm a
little concerned. Anytime there is a fire in the cabin of an aircraft
there is extreme danger. I would imagine most people on that
flight were about ready to piss themselves. It would have been
nice if the guy who stopped the attack would have taken the time
to stab the terrorist in the neck a few times with a very sharp
pencil.
 
48Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 20:47 		Human Intel... THAT, is how you trump terrorist acts. - Sarge

Those puffer machines detect PETN just fine and those terrorist cells can be pretty small and self-contained. As hard as putting vastly expensive machines at entry points is...

...getting a very courageous, very vulnerable human agent [who just happens to look and speak the part] up close and personal with every set of three fanatics in the world is even more impossible.

 
49Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 21:09 		As hard as putting vastly expensive machines at entry points is...

who pays for those? are YOU willing to have an increase in your taxes?

up close and personal with every set of three fanatics in the world is even more impossible.

who determines who is a fanatic? to some, YOU are a fanatic. to others, *I* am a fanatic.

 
50DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 23:02 		Fair enough. Apologies all. I'll self delete 36.

I still think 34 is the type of thing that also doesn't add anything at all to the discussion, FWIW.
 
51DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Dec 29, 2009, 23:03 		Er, I would, when I'm at, you know, work. If a mystery moderator wants to delete it before then I won't be the least bit offended.
 
52sarge33rd
      ID: 11154305
      Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 06:54 		I would agree, that it is impossible to get 1 infiltrator per 3 terrorists in the world. Fortunately, we need nothing approaching that ratio. (Nice attempt though, to confuse the issue.) 1 per 10,000 is MORE than sufficient; if that 1 is at the right level of the organization. IOW, even that method, will take time.

Puffer machines detect plastic explosives true enough. How many airports across just your state Boldwin? Then too, you need 2 per airport as it seems they have a horribly high failure/maintenance rate. So, at what $$ cost; would you, THE fiscal conservative who wants government spending nothing; feel comfortable with this governmental program? Oh yeah; then there is the added cost of hi-tech maintenance types; parts, trained users, etc etc etc.
 
53DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 09:47 		Not to mention that the terrorists can innovate new explosives faster than you can test for them, let alone mass-market machines which unerringly test them.

Sort of like steroids, actually. And the illusion of "oh, we developed a new test for anabolics, see, we're clean" is just a giant lie.
 
54Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 10:14 		to me, the fact of the matter is that if someone wants to try and blow up a plane, they're going to find a way to do so. 9/11 proved that to us.
 
55Boldwin
      ID: 5211353010
      Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 11:37 		1 per 10,000 is MORE than sufficient; if that 1 is at the right level of the organization. IOW, even that method, will take time.

They compartmentalize. It's not like they have an organizational chart up at the watercooler complete with names. My understanding is that the 'we' actually have the organization broken up but that now the cells have enuff to work with to get the job done in this atomized state.
 
56sarge33rd
      ID: 11154305
      Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 12:04 		yes Boldwin, I know how they are loosely structured. Still, targets, resources and training come from SOMEWHERE. They dont just randomly pull out a phone book and hit a random address within it.

 
57DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 21:34 		As long as we're calling people out in-thread for things, I'd request Boldwin delete his post 45 as taking a cheap shot at SZ.
 
58Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 22:56 		Nah, post 45 wasn't much.

I would be too busy reading my WND articles I printed for my flight to bother stopping a guy in his futile attempt to bring down my plane.
 
59Boldwin
      ID: 5211353010
      Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 02:08 		Now c'mon SZ. Are you really gonna stand by the position that a guy willing to stick a detonator into a package of PETN, and who actually goes thru with it, is a threat to be scoffed at?

He's just like some practical joker lighting his farts?
 
60Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 09:41 		i'm with SZ on this. i'm not overly worried about someone blowing up an airplane.

is it possible? of course. will it happen? yea, i think that there's a chance it could happen.

but the simple fact is that the odds of someone getting on board with the necessary instruments to blow up a plane, and then being able to go through with it, are significantly insignificant.

how many MILLIONS people have flown in the last several years? But other than the shoe bumbler and the boxer bumbler, how many have ignited devices?

i've got a better chance of getting hit by a car while walking across the street, and i'm not calling for a ban on driving (although, there would be some fantastic benefits to that).

i've got a better chance of lightening hitting a tree in my front yard and causing that tree to fall on me, than i do being blown up in an airplane by some fanatic.

statistically, i've got a better chance of being killed or injured in an attack on an abortion clinic by a Christian fanatic (eight bombings, arsons, and murders (not to mention the Anthrax scare of 554 clinics) post 9/11 in the United States) than i do in a bombing by a Muslim fanatic on an airplane (zero deaths post 9/11 in the U.S.)
 
62Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:51 		It's a farce. Planes are far less susceptable to attack than many other kinds of targets. NYC subways carry far more passangers and pass under, over and through major infrastructure targets to boot. There's no way this terrorist would have been prevented from getting on a subway or commuter train. Step in between cars to detonate at the preferred moment (how about while the train rides over the Manhattan Bridge? or pulling into or out of one of the major transfre stations, where there are hundreds of commuters wiating on the platform to sqeeze themselves aboard?). A midtown tenement building can house a thousand residents and be surrounded on each side by more buildings just like it. What's to stop a terrorist from renting an apartment in a key location in the building and slowly loading it with explosives over weeks or months? All the physical security and intelligence in the world won't stop that guy if he's careful.

The notion that our airways require all this extra security while we ingnore the infinite multitude of potential targets which leave just as many (or often many more) innocent people vulnerable is eventually going to be exploited by those who endeavor to commit these acts. It's just a matter of time.
 
64Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 10:54 		Oh and Happy New Year.
 
67C.SuperFreak
      ID: 537392611
      Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 14:53 		I've flown twice since the "attacks". I flew on Dec 26th and took two flights yesterday. I'm not sure what an Orange alert really means since they said don't leave your luggage unattended and be wary of fellow passengers in the airport.

From my observations:
Starting with the drop off areas at the airport, there are easier and far numerous areas at the airport itself that could be targets.

Other than the long security line-ups (due to staffing issues-I observed more closed security booths than open booths) there has been no significant difference that I can see to the security precautions for travelers flying within or out of the USA.
The measures seem similar to the day I left on Dec 17th (albeit I flew into the US).

As well can someone explain why they are making travel into the States more of a concern. If I recall correctly the 9/11 flights were all domestic. The last couple of incidents may have been external. Has US Intel concluded that no threat exists within the US?

My carry-on contained a video camera, camera, ipod, memory stick, batteries, cell phone and accessories, a pack of gum, an empty water bottle and some fudge neatly wrapped in christmas paper. My carry-on baggage (2 pieces) was scanned and but wasn't checked beyond that. I was patted down because I wore a baggy hoodie.


Just a funny observation...There were two older people in the emergency exits on one flight. It was evident that they would not be able to assist in case of an emergency, but they were asked if they could perform their duties in an event of an emergency. They said yes and that was the end of it. Nothing further.

People are willing to jeopardize safety and security for extra leg room.




 
68Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 17:21 		I went to a Steeler game a couple of years ago and when we were standing in line with about 200(or maybe more, probably more like a thousand ) people to get scanned I was wondering this would be a perfect place for a suicide bomber. All of us packed together. Most people are tailgating and enter the game at last minute. It just seemed really wierd to me. I dont want any one thinking I am giving people ideas, but I wonder if this happens at all sporting events.
 
69Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 03:06 		link
 
70sarge33rd
      ID: 3303717
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 08:37 		I think we all know why planes got targeted and are now under such scrutiny. The make for immediate international news on a huge scale. Such 'news', is a necessary component to the terrorists 'arsenal', for without it; they create no terror.

Personally, if it weren't a clear violation of the 1st Amendment, the BEST thing would be for a governmental ban on coverage of terrorist acts/results. (Best; defined as most likely to preclude followup terrorist actions.) For without those images splashing across our TV sets and newspapers, and magazines and internet images.....99.9999999% of the populace would never know about the incident and thus the incident would cause virtually no terror in the general population. (No, I most certainly am NOT calling for any sort of infringement on the 1st Amendment. I am simply posting an observation/theory.)

More lucrative targets in terms of deaths than an airplane? There are a multitude of such things/places. There are also ways, to down an A/C from a distance, and would never require ANY exposure to airport security at all.
 
71Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 10:03 		The London and Madrid bombings made for immediate international news on a huge scale. So did the Olympic Village bombing in Atlanta. Since 9/11 how many terrorist attacks have been attempted aboard planes around the world? 4? The vast majority of the other many (hundreds, I believe) of terrorist attacks (attempted and successful) in that time were explosive devices planted or left in public areas.
 
72Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 10:39 		Thats an excellent post sarge. I never thought of the no coverage aspect of it. The sqeeky hinge gets the oil. Nice post
 
73Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 11:46 		Whether consciously or subconsciously, Ann Coulter exposes her laziness and dreams of Aryan dominance.

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

An alien from the planet "Not Politically Correct" would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: "You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader -- but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. ... What? ... What did I say?"

The only advantage we have in a war with stateless terrorists was ruled out of order ab initio by political correctness.

Same skin color? Did she really miss that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a black African, not Arab? Does she really think that Abdulmutallab looks like, say, shoe bomber Richard Reid?

Muslim terrorists come in many colors and nationalities - Arab, African, Persian, Pakistani, Indian, Afghani, Indonesian, Filipino, Tajik, Chechen to name a few. They don't all look alike, and it would be impossible in today's global community to profile every non-white person that flies.

Obviously, Abdulmutallab should have never been issued a visa, given what we know now. Obviously, we need to make serious improvements as to who gets a visa to enter this country.
Ann Coulter has nothing positive to offer in helping this country combat the threat of radical Muslims bent on terrorism. Really, what she offers is worse than nothing - an ingrained fear and profiling of any non-white person on the planet, because, in her own words, they all look alike.

She's not interested in solutions because she's part of the problem.




 
74sarge33rd
      ID: 3303717
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 11:56 		You know how it works PV;

If they aren't one of us......
And then there is the obvious; they all look alike to me.

I believe, racist is the applicable term here.
 
75Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 12:08 		There was a scene in Apollo 13, "lets fix the problem, dont try to fix the problem by guessing." My point is, when something like this happens, we attack each other (and I mean both sides of the spectrum), I would like to see the country work to together in resolving the problem. Its the same school yard adage.
 
76Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 12:21 		I completely agree. What we're seeing is the opposite--where the RNC is actually trying to raise money on the thing.
 
77sarge33rd
      ID: 3303717
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 12:25 		Shameful, however indicative of just how low the RNC has fallen.
 
78Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 12:30 		NG

Your squeeky hinge adage does apply, but in my opinion, in a different way. The attempt that succeeded utilized planes; 9/11 is your squeeky hinge.

If the 9/11 attacks were committed with similarly spectacular success with commuter trains or shipping containers or chemical agents or planted bombs or what have you, I don't believe we'd have anything like the current safety measures in place on our airlines. Indsead we'd have ridiculous regulations (some of the surely pointlessly futile) designed to plug up the weak points exploited to commit that attack.

Unfortunately, thats the way our reactionary anti-terrorism approach works. Does anyone think that after 9/11, it didn't occurr to law enforcement that commuter trains are a terrible security risk for terrorist activity? Yet it wasn't until after the London bombings that the NYPD initiated the utterly pointless random bag checks at subway entrances.

It's a terribly backward (as in the opposite of foward-thinking) approach which I believe unnecessarily keeps a portion of the public in perpetual fear as it robs us of some of the civil liberties which we boast are the very thing that elevates us above much of the rest of the world.

I'll concede that maybe there's also something to the common fear of flying (which you might argue elicits greater media attention) that also moves airline safety to the top of the list, but I think that already inherent fear just serves to help the public accept these infringements on our rights more readily and with fewer questions.


PD

Are most of those examples so different from the charge from the left that Bush's foreign policies have left us more susceptable to terrorist attacks?
 
79Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 12:37 		Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

could she lie anymore?

heck, in 2009 alone, we've had a Bolivian hijack a plane out of Cancun, and a Jamaican man hijack a plane out of Montego Bay.

neither of those men were Muslim. we don't even have to go past 2009 to see how much Coulter is lying.
 
80Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 13:12 		In this case, we not only need to work together in this country, we need cooperation from governments and Islamic communities throughout the world.

Soon after his inauguration, President Obama made an important speech to the Islamic world which should have been praised by both sides of the aisle in this country.

Instead, he was derided by the political opposition, by the Ann Coulters of this country who apparently crave an ever-expanding divide between her and those who don't look like her or worship like her.

In the big picture, this latest incident is rather insignificant. An inept individual(almost as inept as the shoe bomber) does not constitute a war. And even though there are Al Qeada ties, it really only shows how inept they are as an organization and how little effect they actually have as a threat to this country's defense.

Think about the kind of damage the 10 million American Muslims could create in this country if they were committed to it. Many of the scenarios have been discussed in this thread. Subways, malls, sports stadiums are all potential targets for terrorists. Yet all they can muster is another unsuccessful to blow up a plane.

Those who think this a war discredit my father and uncle who fought the Japanese in the Pacific in WW2. My uncle survived Iwo Jima, where we lost thousands a day.

It's hard to understand why Ann Coulter would want to be part and parcel of fanning the flames that would contribute to moderate Muslims or Muslims sympathetic to terrorists to move to act against our country. It's even harder to understand how her supporters can claim to be patriots.

 
81Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 13:15 		MITH: I'm sure you recall that the charges from the Left came after a long period of support for Bush's foreign policy, and the Bush Doctrine in particular. Becoming the "loyal opposition" came very quickly to the Left. Support for Bush was very strong after 9/11 (and, you might recall, the Senate was controlled by Democrats during the Iraq War run up, and Senate Democrats were clear about giving him whatever he needed).

Only after it was clear that the policy was not working did large numbers of people start turning against it.

By and large the Right in this country has never been interested in supporting any policy of this Administration, undermining it at every step and insisting on doing those very things it labeled as "treacherous" when done, in a pale previous form, by Democrats under the Bush Administration.
 
82Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 14:06 		Just so it doesn't look like I'm persecuting conservatives with my Coulter comments, as is a common claim, Pat Buchanan offers some positive and thoughtful analysis. Questions worth noting:

Obama just ordered 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Yet, even if Gens. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal pull it off and pacify Kandahar, how does that protect the American homeland from suicide bombers hell-bent on blowing up airliners?

How does turning the tide in Afghanistan stop radical Muslim youth in Africa or Arabia from being trained to board planes with bombs and blow them up over the Atlantic? How do 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq make us more safe from an al-Qaida that has moved into Waziristan, Baluchistan, Yemen, Somalia and North Africa?

 
83Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 14:26 		82-Like I said earlier in a post. I really dont think we can win the war on terror. How many terrorist are in this country already. How is fighting a war there, stopping them here? Quoting a scene in the movie JFK (I like movie quotes) "its a riddle wrapped in an ignemia."
 
84Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 14:59 		The basic idea is sound: Democracy and freedom breed peace. But the way the War on Terror has been fought (including locking up people in Gitmo, which is practically a recruiting poster for terrorists) has made things worse, not better.
 
85Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 15:21 		So you lock them up in Illinois?
 
86Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 15:27 		You charge them or release them. You actually bring justice into the system. We're holding a number of Chinese Uighurs at Gitmo for years who are demonstratively not terrorists. But we hold them there (allowing them to be harshly questioned by visiting Chinese officials) simply because we've allowed the system to be entirely compromised by politics.

If the whole point of the War on Terror is to bring terrorists to justice then we've failed miserably.
 
87Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 2401116
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 17:01 		86-Fair enough. They should be brought to justice(through a military tribunal in my opinion). They still are better in Gitmo than out planning attacks. As for the Chinese guys, I dont know much about them. Would like to read about them.
 
88sarge33rd
      ID: 3303717
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 18:16 		They still are better in Gitmo than out planning attacks.

Presumption of innocence been done away with in this countries vision of justice? To my knowledge, virtually none of the GITMO detainees has been charged with ANY crime, let alone tried and convicted of anything. Since we do we, hold as prisoners, persons we have not bothered to charge; and continue to hold them for years?
 
89sarge33rd
      ID: 3303717
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 18:17 		Since we do we...

should read: Since WHEN do we.....
 
90Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 18:27 		If the whole point of the War on Terror is to bring terrorists to justice then we've failed miserably.

Some of the Gitmo cases, as well as Jose Padilla, held for years in a blatant ignoring of the Constitution, certainly support that statement.

As for Abdulmutallab, a foreigner caught red-handed(or burn-handed)trying to committ mass murder by blowing up a plane, I tend to agree with Buchanan:


Unlike the war on crime, or the war on drugs, this is not a metaphorical war. There is no presumption of innocence, rather a presumption that Umar is a terrorist and did not act alone.

The questions he should have been asked as soon as he was pulled off the plane and hauled to a prison hospital are these:

Who taught you to detonate a bomb? Who sewed the underwear in which you concealed the components? Who was with you in Yemen? What are the names of those you trained with? Who helped you get on that plane? Who did you stay with on your visits to the U.S.? Who gave you cash? Who paid your bills? Where is your computer? And if you want pain medicine for those burns, you will tell us

In this case, fine, call it a war and use the enemy combatant label. But as Buchanan later states so succinctly, this is an enemy that more resembles the Apache of Geronimo than the panzers of Rommel










 
91Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 18:41 		Then if we dont charge them then let them go.
 
92Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 19:17 		Then if we dont charge them then let them go.

you may be asked to turn in your "Conservative" card for that comment...
 
93Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 19:29 		Thoughtful conservatives are always welcome.
 
94Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 20:27 		Wouldnt it be nice to take the politics out of politics.
 
95Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 21:25 		NG - it would be nice if you could think on your own without members of your party attacking you.
 
96sarge33rd
      ID: 2005026
      Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 07:50 		#91, I can agree with 100%. #94...yep. that WOULD be nice.

Problem for the rightwingnuts and post 91.....How many of the GITMO detainees, have been charged with ANYTHING?
 
97Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 07:52 		95-We are sending an additional 30,000 troops over to afghanisstan to support troops that are already there (not sure how many already there). They send 1, let me say that again, 1 man over on a plane and he single handidly disrupted the whole US aviation industry, (not to mention the whole world). I hear the front on terrorism is in yemens and some where else. I really am starting to think its time to bring them home. I think its time to do the intel on terrorist, then locate them and then send a drone over and destroy them. I do think the Iraq war was a good thing, but Afghannisstan is going to be a big flop. History has proven that. Lets say by chance we win the war in afghannisstan, how is that going to stop what happened on Christmas day? Tree, PD, PV, Sarge, I will answer that, IT ISNT.
92, 95-To steal another line from JFK, "bring them on, I dont care" I just think this terroism situation (RIGHT NOW) is a lost cause, we are not winning. Every time they attacck they win. Every time we attack.................
 
98sarge33rd
      ID: 2005026
      Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 07:59 		Actually NG; I think our going into Afghan in the 2st place; was the right and proper thing to do. THAT, is where AQ was hiding and training. When we went into Iraq; we got distracted from our true objective. Split our forces, and only became 1/2 able on both fronts.

Leaving Iraq is a necessity. Pulling back from Afghan is also necessary. AQ has moved across the border into Pakistan.
 
99Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 08:10 		Ok we moved in there, now lets move over there, wait they are over there, no I see them over there, dam they are back where they were 8 years ago. In the mean time they send someone over to **** up our lives. (sorry moderators for the language)
By the way send a drone over to Iran and blow up their Nuclear facilities, we know where that is.
 
100Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 08:14 		Oh and another thing while I am on a rant, send a drone up to blow up the clouds that are producing the 4-8 inches of snow we are suppose to get this weekend. Ill be back have to shovel for the 5th time in 3 days.
 
101Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 09:15 		Ok we moved in there, now lets move over there, wait they are over there, no I see them over there, dam they are back where they were 8 years ago.

not 100 percent sure what you're saying here, but i think you're implying (sarcastically) we should go back and forth between afghanistan and iraq as we follow the "terrorists" back and forth from place to place.

the point is, THEY WERE NEVER IN IRAQ. We shouldn't have taken our eye off the prize in Afghanistan to go for the booby prize in Iraq - *that* is truly what screwed the pooch.
 
102Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 10:43 		101-No what I am saying they are every where, not just iraq and afganistan. Believe me, I am sure they werent just in Afghanistan 8 years ago. I think Biden is right drone them to death.
 
103Wilmer McLean
      ID: 271130176
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 04:30 		Can't we combine airport security and healthcare reform by giving every flyer an x-ray and mri? ;)
 
104walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 10:51 		US Intensifies Screening of Passengers from Select Countries

I am for this. I don't care if it's racial profiling or whatever. I think the bottom line is if the proportional incidence of terrorism helms from certain areas, then we should emphasize our screening efforts accordingly. These searches should be done courteously of course ("would you like a cup of tea with that patdown?" -- aaaar).
 
105Khahan
      ID: 391582715
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 14:27 		Dang Walk, I just came here to post that link and mention the same thing. And I'm curious how people who are in favor of this reconcile this with profiling in general (if you are for this but generally against profiling).
 
106Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 14:42 		Walk, that isn't racial profiling at all. That is targeting nationals from certain countries. Smart move, IMO.
 
107Khahan
      ID: 391582715
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 15:14 		Isnt that exactly what the beef against racial profiling is, PD? It targets a specific set of people for no apparent reason other than their race?
 
108Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 15:32 		Yes, that's right. But targeting nationals from certain countries in which terrorism exists is an acceptable use of profiling. Profiling on account of race is not because race isn't an indicator for terrorism.

This is more like targeting those entering from Mexico and South America for tougher checks for drugs. Because that's where they are coming from.
 
109Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 15:37 		Isnt that exactly what the beef against racial profiling is, PD? It targets a specific set of people for no apparent reason other than their race?

but this isn't targeting a race. and it's not even exclusively targeting people from a specific country.

from the linked article: Passengers holding passports from those nations, or taking flights that originated or passed through any of them, will be required to undergo full-body pat downs and will face extra scrutiny of their carry-on bags before they can board planes to the United States.
 
110biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 18:53

"I only signed up for the pat-down, not the cavity search!"

Oh yeah. The topic. I agree with Mike O'Hare:

In 2008, there were about 800 million commercial (scheduled carrier) airplane trips from, in, and to the US, on about 11 million flights. In the decade since 2000 (traffic has been up and down, of course), let’s say 100 million flights. Of these, three were successfully used as terror weapons against non-passengers, a fourth was crashed, and six crashed in accidents with no or few survivors. If we just use the crude averages as a guide to probability, when you get on a plane, you are drawing one pea from a bucket of peas that contains four black ones (you die from terrorism) and six red ones (you die from something TSA has nothing to do with).

How big is this bucket? I did a little experimental research with the extra blackeyed peas I didn’t cook up for New Years: it’s 800 6400 gallons [thanks, Cardinal Fang - in comments], which is about six feet across and four feet tall. Full of peas, with ten killers among them, four terrorist. Is there anything that could make it worth reaching diving into this bucket, groping around, and picking one pea? Attitudes to risk vary, but I don’t consider myself especially courageous and I would do it for almost anything nice.


Read the whole thing.

The point is, should we really be freaking out and spending 100 billion dollars on tech that "solves" a nearly non-significant problem, while almost completely ignoring the other ten quantwillian ways a terrorist could "get" us?

How stupid are we?

Wait.

Don't answer that.
 
111biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 18:59 		Woops.

Link to Mike O'Hare post.
 
112biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 19:03 		I especially like the bit about arming all the passengers with Swiss Army knives. Makes perverse but abundant sense.
 
113Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 19:11 		I especially like the bit about arming all the passengers with Swiss Army knives. Makes perverse but abundant sense.

i carry a Swiss Army Knife on my keychain, and i can't bring it on a plane.

Yet i can bring on a pair of scissors with a blade less than 4 inches.

on the bigger picture, i agree. the odds of us getting killed in a terrorist attack on an airplane are so tiny.
 
114Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 19:36 		Bili, I understand the point he is making perfectly. However, now look at this:

You have Mike O'Hare's bucket and an identical bucket filled with the same ratio of peas. You are told you can pick 1 from Mike O'Hares bucket. Or you can pick one from the identical bucket, but if you close your hand around a black pea, we may tell you certain death lies ahead and to pick another one.

Quite simply, which bucket would you decide to pick from?


Also, Mike's argument using statistics is only half of the information we need. You see, he is taking the position we are in now, after we have spent the 100 billion dollars and trying to use seemingly insignificant ratios to justify why we don't need to spend 100 billion. What he needs to do is show a 'before spending' figure and the aforementioned after spending figure.

Right now, I'd rather say that seemingly insignificant number supports why we spent 100 billion rather than saying it doesn't support spending another 100 billion.

One other point on Mr. Ohare's musings. He's taking the perspective of 1 person taking a 4 in 11,000,000 (or 1 in 3,750,000) chance of something bad happening to himself.

The reality is, there are 11,000,000 people, each one picking a pea. So 4 of them will pick the terrorist peas. Oh, and when they do, 240 or so people are going to die with that person.

Now does his little pea metaphor sound so insignifcant?
 
115Biliruben movin
      ID: 358252515
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 19:42 		Yep. I'll try and find some time to explAin later.

Did you click thru?
 
116Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Mon, Jan 04, 2010, 20:02 		Yeah, I read his blog. And first, it is all opinion and he's right in his justification of his opinion in that we all have our different levels of tolerance.

But I just can't agree with the degree to which he's trying to carry this out. He doesn't think that 'nobody' should be armed, but he thinks 'everybody' should be armed? Sorry but everybody is not armed in the traditional sense he is referring to (a swiss army knife or pocket knife). Again, following his point, I would much rather have the attacker thinking he is the only one armed on the plane. I may not have any 'traditional weapons' on me, but I am not defenseless and have plenty of weapons to protect myself. Keys, my belt, a shoelace, a piece of luggage. His example of 1 extreme is as misguided as letting nobody be 'armed.'

I do agree with him that having an armed air marshall is a good idea. New plane designs with no access to the cockpit is another way to go. But he glosses over the air marshal and focuses most of writings on points that are as misguided as the ones he is against.

 
117Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 08:06 		#110: Thank you.
 
118biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 08:48 		Khakan - would you support a law that insists we wrap ourselves in a bubble-wrap suit every time we get into an automobile?

By far the most dangerous thing most of us do every day is get into our cars.

Every day nearly 100 people are killed and 300 injured in auto related accidents. Every day.

More people per day have died in cars than in all terrorist related activity since 9/11.

That puts things in perspective.

Maybe we should be taking that 100 billion it would cost to buy the new scanners the fear-mongers are hawking and spend it a little more creatively, no?

Or just corner the market on bubble-wrap.
 
119Khahan
      ID: 391582715
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 10:24 		Nice diversion bili, but again completely irrelevant. We're discussing how to deal with terrorists and general airport security, not an unrelated topic of automobiles.

You also didn't answer my question: Which bucket would you pick from: Mike O'hares bucket where there is no second chance or the other bucket where that second chance may save your life?

What I get from his blog is 'do nothing,' which I cannot agree with. Post 114 simply shows some major flaws in his logic. But if you read post 116 you'll see that I am in favor doing something and that those ideas do not involve our government spending a dime.

Redesign the cockpit entrance? As planes are phased out and new ones purchased by airlines, this feature should be in place.

Air marshalls? Do they have to be government employees? Nope. Privatize this. Have them be airline employees. Whatever. Doesn't need to cost our government a penny. Might make tickets a smidge more pricy but I can deal with that.

 
120Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 10:32 		Air marshals are important, but they absolutely should be government employees so that their motives cannot be questioned.

My understanding is that the new cockpit designs have been in place for years now.
 
121sarge33rd
      ID: 3604259
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 10:42 		Air Marshals are critical IMHO. However, they need to have Law Enforcement authority and that by definition means they need to be employed not by a private firm but rather by the government.

AA of these security features at airports today can create a very real sense of security. They also cost the taxpayer a bundle AND private enterprise a bundle as well. The adage "time is money" is well known and accurate. An Exec making 400k/yr and working 70 hrs/wk is garnering some $114/hr. Make that person spend 6hrs every other week in an airport, times 25 weeks equals 150 hours lost to security. At $114/hr thats $17,100. Thats assuming 1 air trip every other week and only 1 company person. Extrapolate, and you are costing companies millions if not billions, and THOSE costs, are then passed on to consumers. So it's a double whammy. A cost in taxes and a cost in goods/services purchased. And for what? The feeling that we as a society are more secure? In reality, I don't know that airport security has prevented many terrorist attacks. Intel, infiltration of the organizations is how you PREVENT attacks. Learning of the planned attack while it is in the planning stages. THAT, would create a very real security for all of us.
 
122Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 11:15 		PD,

Maybe I've just been unlucky, but every airplane I've been on in the past few years, we've boarded with the pilot standing in the cockpit entrance shaking hands and smiling. Thats nice and friendly. No problem with that. But the cockpit door is wide open and still easily accessible to anybody who stands up and takes 3 steps forward.

Guess it takes a while for that many airplanes to need replaced and have the new designs ready to go.
 
123Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 11:27 		Actually, that has nothing to do with the door. That is like everyone putting deadbolts on their doors but leaving them open.

All cockpit doors now have the ability to be locked from the inside and cannot be forced open once locked.
 
124Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 11:34 		Maybe I've just been unlucky, but every airplane I've been on in the past few years, we've boarded with the pilot standing in the cockpit entrance shaking hands and smiling. Thats nice and friendly. No problem with that. But the cockpit door is wide open and still easily accessible to anybody who stands up and takes 3 steps forward.

out of curiousity, how many of those flights that you took with the pilot standing in the cockpit entrance shaking hands and smiling ending up having someone unauthorized barge into the cockpit and fly off?
 
125biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 11:52 		You also didn't answer my question: Which bucket would you pick from: Mike O'hares bucket where there is no second chance or the other bucket where that second chance may save your life?

I don't even understand the question. I'll take Mike O'hare's bucket, and use my swiss army knife as my second chance.

Then I'll spend the 100 billion on things that would actually save a significant amount of lives.

Listen. I just spent 20 hours on airplanes and airports with my wife, who has an extreme fear of flying, and our toddler.

I understand irrational fear. I even sympathize with it.

I also understand that you deal with irrational fear by consulting a shrink, not by listening to highly paid terrorism-tech lobbyists.

What you need to do is do cost-benefit analyses. Consider the benefit to lives saved. I can think of a thousand things, both terrorism and non-terrorism related that you could spend a small fraction of that 100 billion on and save vastly more lives.

Terrorism related - my real fear isn't of some idiot underwear bomber getting lucky and killing a couple hundred every few years. My fear is the ports and nuclear devices.

I have a cousin who goes around to our ports and installs these massive detection devices. He basically admits our efforts here are inane and woefully inadequate. But because we haven't yet had a scare, that's not where are resources are being spent. They are being spent fighting the last threat, not the next one.

We should be spending our money screening shipping containers before they leave the departing port. Right now, we are screening the shipping containers in the hearts of many of our biggest cities. This is absurd. It's too little too late. Do we really need Seattle and 200,000 people in a nuclear explosion before we start thinking rationally about how to allocate resources for anti-terrorism efforts?

Yes, I'll will happily take my chances on the minuscule risk of flying, if we actually start to defend our cities. That's where the real risk is, and we are all but ignoring it.
 
126sarge33rd
      ID: 3604259
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 13:29 		VERY valid points Bili. Last I read, less than 5% of inbound containers get checked. Therein, lies our true exposure.
 
127Khahan
      ID: 486552412
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 13:38 		my real fear isn't of some idiot underwear bomber getting lucky and killing a couple hundred every few years.

I think those few hundred people every few years are worth protecting.

And its not a hard question to understand bili. On one hand you have Ohare saying do nothing aobut the terrorists. They are too few (4 out of 11 million) to do anything about. If you happen to board their flight, tough. Its such a small risk its not worth protecting against.

On the other hand you have people saying, "Lets put some safety measures into place and maybe catch these terrorists before they can do their damage."

Which is the smaller risk overall? When you walk into an airport, which mindset would you have?

And before you starting talking about this 100billion dollars, put that aside a moment. I have yet to discuss supporting anything that cost so much money. Right now I'm just talking about step 1, which is identifying what desired result we want from airport security. But you aren't even willing to discuss that because some of the common methods of reaching that result may cost too much. Don't get ahead of yourself. Talk about what you want airport security and flight security to accomplish first, then talk about solutions and their pros and cons.

Personally, I *want* aiport security to make me feel safe from these threats. I also want the security to do a good job of actually making me safe from these threats.


And again, your argument about 'spend the money elsewhere' is a strawman argument that just pulls attention away from what we are really discussing. Those other things have their own funds and resources to deal with them. They are not the topic at hand.

But again, you are under the impression that I am in favor of spending your mythical hundred billion dollars on these scanners you keep referring to. Please show me where I said I think thats a good idea. I haven't yet. So please stop throwing them in my face like some safeguard.
 
128Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 14:02 		The focus on airline safety is misguided. We're far more vulnerable elsewhere. You're already safe from the threats you refer to, Khahan. The statistics show this unquestionably. The liklihood of being hurt aboard an airliner (in a terrorist attack or otherwise) is well within our societal standards for being safe when you leave your house. If you want to feel any safer, take Bili's advice and see a shrink. I'm not interested in the various ways that you can further infringe on my personal rights to allegedly make me marginally (unmeasurably) safer.

In the meantime we have much more dangerous vulnerabilities which in point of fact do not have necessary attantion and funds allocated to be sufficiently dealt with.
 
129biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 14:27 		I agree with MITH. We are already doing way too much with regards to airline security.

You can also not compartmentalize terrorism security like that. We have limited funds, and we need to direct those funds to areas that actually decrease risk of catastrophe. I really have no interest in your feelings. I do have interest in your safety. I guess I'll have to turn in my liberal id card.
 
130Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 14:27 		I'm with bili and MITH that fighting airplane terrorism in a significant and costly way is pointless and unnecessary, but I should add that it's 4 out of 100 million US flights that crashed due to terrorism. 1 in 25 million. You're twice as likely to win the lottery. There have been zero terrorism-related airline fatalities in the US in the last 8 years. Zero.
 
131DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 14:35 		"I think those few hundred people every few years are worth protecting."

At any cost?
 
132walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 15:25 		I think we all likely agree on the bang for the buck when it comes to proportional allocation of budget for security. My guess though is that since airline disasters are so blown out of proportion, the optics ignite so much fear in our combustible public that our agencies and politicians don't have the courage to cite stats and clearly explciate greater, less-well protected vulnerabilities elsewhere (e.g. trains, mass transit, etc.). Airlines also present the "international" fear of invasion more so than non-airplane attacks, which stokes public fear. It's sorta like this "protect our borders" mentality that is irrational and focused on appearances. It should change, but I don't think it will (puns intended)
 
133biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 15:33 		Ar ar.

I didn't see you offer to any pro-bono therapy for the tremulous, however. I thought you were a patriot.
 
134Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 15:49 		Well, a politician can't go out and say not a single American plane has been hijacked in 8 years. Once one does, and it's only a question of when, he'll be lambasted. There just needs to be a general public understanding that there are extremely diminishing returns in trying to eliminate terrorism and that we have to allocate our enormous yet still limited resources to protect ourselves as much as we can against terrorism in general rather than terrorism in airplanes.
 
135boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 16:00 		Are people really scared of terrorist attacks on planes? personally i feel everyone of these "attacks" with liquids, with underwear, with...the terrorists win because the government just enacts new "determination" methods when everyone knows all a terrorists needs to do is get a job loading baggage...
 
136Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:07 		One thing they could do to boost airline security is to treat captured terrorists fresh from failed attempts...

...who are in the process of spilling their guts bragging about the other 25 guys ready to go do the same thing...

...and you treat them like the non-uniformed non-state sponsored enemy combatants which they are and who are not covered by the geneva convention or the US constitution as citizens...

Instead of reading them their miranda rights as was recently done and he shuts up about the plans in the works to blow up 25 other planes.

Ya think?

 
137Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:15 		#136 covered in #90
 
138Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:16 		Actually, by all accounts the guy is singing like a bird.

Once again, calls to torture him are divorced from reality.
 
139Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:20 		You did not cover the fact that he was actually stopped in mid-confession, from helping prevent another one...

...by the process and approach now in place.

 
140Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:22 		Are you under the mistaken belief that torture extracts good intelligence?
 
141Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:23 		Where did I suggest torture?
 
142Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:33 		141-touche
 
143Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:41 		You're right--I read the code words as being torture but you were talking strictly about withholding his rights. My bad.

Your descriptions of the guy post-arrest match none of the reality, however. There is no evidence he was read any rights, for instance, let alone that him being mirandized has led to a withholding of vital intelligence information.

You are, however, ever hopeful for disaster to strike so that Obama can be blamed, it seems...
 
144Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:45 		There's no evidence he was treated any differently than the Shoe Bomber that I've seen.
 
145Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:52 		So far, pretty much exactly the same.
 
146Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 17:56 		Except that Abdumutallab was badly burned, so he, in effect, tortured himself. Pity.
 
147sarge33rd
      ID: 5800517
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 18:01 		Terrorism is a crime, yes? This act (crime) was committed in U.S. jurisdiction, yes? Then, the reading of his Rights is REQUIRED by law. (Unless of course, you would prefer to see the charges dismissed due to non-compliance.)


If we for one minute, advocate the utter suspension of our rights and legal system in order to facilitate irrational fear; then my friends...the terrorists will have won the war.
 
148biliruben's lawyer
      Dude
      ID: 014826271
      Tue, Jan 05, 2010, 21:40 		Then, the reading of his Rights is REQUIRED by law. (Unless of course, you would prefer to see the charges dismissed due to non-compliance.)


The charges would not be dismissed for failire to read him his rights. No danger of that.
 
149Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Wed, Jan 06, 2010, 04:59 		SZ defending Boldwin.

Apocalypse or the new civility?

 
150Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Wed, Jan 06, 2010, 07:15 		Neither.
 
151biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Wed, Jan 06, 2010, 08:43 		Not SZ. I have retained a different attorney.
 
152Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 17:20 		I just read transcript from OBamas speech on the christmas day incident. I was impressed with it. The buck stops here and he took the blame. Very impressed.
 
153Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 17:45 		NG, you are a breathe of fresh air in these parts. I definitely appreciate your participation, and reading your thoughts...
 
154Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 18:04 		Like I said before: A thinking conservative is very welcome on these boards.

I did not read that speech, only some of the reactions (was up on PEI). I'll have to dig it up.
 
155Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 21:42 		For a compare/contrast with the Bush Administration on whether mistakes were made and how the President learns from them.
 
156Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 22:12 		Show us a comparable where Obama was put on the spot and had to respond without a teleprompter.
 
157Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 22:19 		155-I dont think that is a fair comparison. That was asked at the end of his tenure as president. If you listen closely he said he is sure he made some mistakes, but couldn't think of any right of hand. I really do think that was one of Bushes weaknesses, his speaking in front of people. Dam, right now, i can say Ive made mistakes too, but I cant think of any right now either. By the way, I wish this global warming thing comes back, because I am really sick of shoveling snow with layers of clothes on.
 
158Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 23:17 		The perfect answer -

"When I treated the press as if they were the loyal opposition."

 
159Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 23:24 		The problem isn't how the President treats the Press. It is how the Press treats the President.
 
160Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Thu, Jan 07, 2010, 23:28 		I agree.

However a knight doesn't tell the enemy where the chink in the armor is. He tells Brutus to buzz off.

 
161Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 00:48 		However a knight doesn't tell the enemy where the chink in the armor is.

in other thread, you complained about the President's lack of transparency. so, which is it? too transparent, or not transparent enough?
 
162Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 08:17 		In this case Boldwin is talking about Bush. Of course, there has never been any criticism from the right about transparency from the Bush administration. Government transparency is traditionally a lefty issue. These days the right has coopted it for two reasons that I see; they can score political points by harping on Obama's campaign promises to bring more transparency to government, and it provides an additional angle for those who endeavor to proselytize the simple and weak-minded into believing these fantasies that President Obama works toward a marxist or fascist agenda. The truth, of course, is that whether or not he ever manages to reach the standards he promised during the campaign, his release of the WH visitor logs, the new standards for document classification and the creation of data.gov have already made this aministration far more open than probably any other in history, certainly in my lifetime. Still it's amusing to hear rightists who either defended or ignored the high priority of secrecy in the Bush/Cheney administration complain about Obama's supposed lack of openness.
 
163Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 08:26 		This is the era of hope and change. BUSH IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT. I am so tired of bush this and bush that. What is done is done. There is nothing you can do to change history. Work on the mistakes history has shown us and move on. The sad part of all this is when obama leaves and a new republican president comes in, the republicans are going to do the same thing as you guys are doing. It is very counterproductive. If i ever do it please feel free to call me on it. Now I am going outside TO SHOVEL THE 7 INCHES OF SNOW WE GOT OVER NIGHT. AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
 
164Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 08:40 		NG, surely you see the difference between resorting to "but he did it too" arguments (which I agree is usually a pointless argument) and pointing out the hypocrisy of political watchers who criticize behavior they supported or remained silent about when committed by previous government.

My point is that if you never uttered a word of complaint about the secrecy of the previous administration then you won't be taken seriously when you complain about the lack of openness in the current situation. It's absolutely relevent to compare how people reacted to similar topics when the tides were turned, to see whether their complaints are lobbied from the same set of standards when they had someone more favorable in office.

As an example, if you supported the massive Patriot Act when it was approved by two legislative bodies who never read a word of the thing, then you sound really stupid complaining that healthcare reform was "rammed down our throats".
 
165Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 08:42 		BTW, "you" in that last paragraph does not refer to NG or any other specific person. I don't know that NG supported the PA or has made that particular comoplaint about the healthcare bill.
 
166Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 09:19 		This is the era of hope and change. BUSH IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT. I am so tired of bush this and bush that. What is done is done. There is nothing you can do to change history. Work on the mistakes history has shown us and move on.

Exactly.

That is what Obama is doing. He promised change and transparency, and has provided just that. His presidency is already likely the most transparent in my lifetime, as MITH pointed out with some of his examples.

No one is saying "well Bush did it too!" but rather, using him as a comparison to a time when the presidency was shrouded in secrecy.
 
167Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 09:32 		The drudge report has a interbiew with Ted Kopple. If you get a chance try to watch it. I could not agree with him more. I think it is a very common sense approach to what happen christmas day.
 
168Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 09:37 		163- I lied, there was 8 INCHES OF SNOW.
 
169Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 09:47 		I largely agree with Koppel. I know I sound like a broken record but does anyone not think that the way we react to terrorism is largely the result of the political right's anti-terrorism public discourse? For over a week you couldn't watch FNC for 30 minutes without someone accusing the president of not coming out strongly enough in response to the attack. Obviously the sentiment didn't exist only on the right but we know where it's most at home.
 
170Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 10:10 		Well i think yesterdays speech helped alot for him. Dam, I was watching OReilly last night and he had Ingram on and she said at one point she was cheering his speech.
 
171Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 10:14 		Agreed, good for the president politically but strikes the wrong chord in real terms.
 
172Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 10:51 		8 INCHES OF SNOW

No new snow here, but it's 3 degrees and I have to spend about an hour unloading my van from outside parking up 4 flights of unheated stairs.
 
173Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 16:39 		I just got done watching MSNBC and listening to Rush today. I am going to use a NASCAR analogy to show what is wrong with the system. Jiimy Johnson (the terrorist) is leading the race by 5 lengths. Jeff Gordon (republicans) and Dale Earnhart (Democrats) are fighting for second. Now Gordon and Earnhart are fighting very hard to take over second. Jimmy Johnson sees this in his rear view mirror and is loving it. Let them fight it out, and his lead all of sudden is 30 lengths. We keep on bickering and the terrorist are sitting over there loving every minute of it and they are winning.
 
174Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 16:48 		Maybe. But so long as they aren't attacking that's fine with me.

What we should be concentrating on, IMO, are some of the underlying reasons that radicalize Muslims against the West (at least, the reasons over which we have any control). Locking up innocent people at Gitmo for years without charges, then finally releasing them is something that is more likely to radicalize them, IMO.

So are calls by some (like Ed Koch) that "hundreds of millions of Muslins" are terrorists.
 
175Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 17:21 		There were terrorist before gitmo. They hate us. I sincerely believe that if we didnt have gitmo, did not torture, and everything else, we would still be dealing with terrorist. My god 9-11 happened before gitmo. The cole happened before gitmo. The first bombing of the twin towers happened before gitmo. They just hate everything about us.
 
176DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 17:25 		NG, I don't really think anyone would disagree, but we'd like to keep the subset of "they" as small as possible without resorting to nukes. :)
 
177Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 17:44 		176- Good point. I wonder if any one really knows how big "they" are. And how many of "they" are already over here.
 
178Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 17:58 		MITH #162

No one is suggesting C-Span have 24/7 access to the oval office. By the same token when Obama makes specific promises to allow C-Span access to something, gets elected on that basis and then expects us to forget he ever said it, we have every right to ask him to live up to his words.

Especially when it involves socializing 1/7 of the economy.

Exactly what openess law did Bush violate?

Here are your choices -

Administrative Procedure Act PL 79-404; 1946Freedom of Information Act PL 85-619; 1966Federal Advisory Committee Act PL 92-463; 1972Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act PL 93-344; 1974Government in the Sunshine Act PL 94-409; 1976Inspector General Act PL 95-452; 1978Ethics in Government Act PL 95-521; 1978Presidential Records Act PL 95-591; 1978

As far as I can tell Obama is in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act as was Hillary when she tried the same thing. Violating the law when you are bragging about bending over backwards the other way, begs for exposure.

 
179Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 18:46 		I'm not aware of which is any of those the current or previous administrations have violated. I'd look into it further but these day's I'm armpit deep in a project that allows me little more than an occasional perusal of the internet between layers of joint compound and paint. Interesting idea for research if anyone has the time and feels like doing the work.
 
180Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 18:58 		Hilary was said to be in violation because she was considered a member of the Executive Branch. The negotiations going on within the Legislative Branch would not fall under that law. And stretching Obama's "promise" to cover a different branch doesn't make it so.
 
181Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 19:11 		#175-177: I agree, but (as I tried to point out) we do need to do things which are completely under our control not to make it worse. We certainly shouldn't throw our hands up because "they hate us" as though we can't make it a little better through our own actions.

As a cop friend of mine once said, "Just because people drive like idiots sometimes doesn't make road rage OK." You do what you have to do, under your control, to make things that much better.

At the very least, not doing what we can (or, acting unreasonably) gives the other side absolutely no incentive to taking steps themselves. And in a part of the world where hating the US is easy to do, we need to do what we can to make not hating the US more attractive.
 
182DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 20:01 		I think we're mostly on the same page.

There is a subset of "they" which isn't going to be swayed by anything.

There is a much larger (IMO) subset of "they" who will not have become "they" if we acted differently. They may decide they don't like America, but that doesn't mean they're going to go running halfway around the world to blow themselves up.

The most dangerous mistake (when it isn't intentional--unfortunately sometimes it is) we can make is to lump everyone into the same level of "they", and then assume it's OK, even noble somehow, to treat them all like that first subset.
 
183WiddleAvi
      ID: 44025819
      Fri, Jan 08, 2010, 20:25 		When fighting terrorists we need to consider what can we do to stop future generations of terrorists. If we bomb civilians we just created a family of potential terrorists. Everything we do wrong (morally) is more ammo to recruit the next generation. The only way we win the war on terror is by winning the minds of the younger generations.
 
184Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Sat, Jan 09, 2010, 00:32 		Maybe PD is onto something, unknowingly.

I assumed Obama was projecting a handsoff approach and letting Reid and Pelosi appear to be doing the heavy-lifting so that he could avoid the blowback and let them take the biggest hit.

But maybe he was providing himself secrecy while Rahm was working people over with the brass knuckles in the backroom.

 
185Boldwin
      ID: 26451820
      Sat, Jan 09, 2010, 01:26 		Obama's actual C-Span promises which PD now says don't apply to him...*boggle*
 
186biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Sat, Jan 09, 2010, 23:23
The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Calvin Trillin's Prediction
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		Political HumorHealth Care Crisis
 
187Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 08:07 		183-After doing some research on why terrorist hate us, I think the best thing we can do is to leave the middle east except for helping out here and there. I really think they dont want us in there invading their life style. One thing I think in my opinion, is we have to be a lot less oil dependent, I think that would help.
 
188Mith
      ID: 159201318
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 08:16 		Agreed.
 
189Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 08:29 		Being less dependent, creating oil ourselves, wow, look at the jobs that would create. Im telling you I am going to email this post to my senator, how to create jobs. But no, we have a chosen minority that dont want to ruin the environment, so god forbid, we become self efficient. You could put this post in the jobs forum.
 
190biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 10:12 		A majority want to ruin the environment?!?
 
191Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 10:34 		But no, we have a chosen minority that dont want to ruin the environment, so god forbid, we become self efficient.

In order for this country to become self sufficient, energy wise, we would need to dramatically cut back on our consumption, as well as dramatically alter the products we use.

That stems from the fact that there is no "easy oil" left in this country, oil that can be inexpensively retrived by drilling a hole and pumping it into barrels. This country's unexploited oil reserves exist in deep water off shore sites, shale and tar sands, and remote locations like ANWR, which, if you've ever seen last year's Ice Road Truckers TV show, can hardly be classified as "easy oil."
Most of these extraction techniques are extremly expensive, economically unfeasable at today's price per barrell, and yes, in most cases, environmentally damaging.

Short-sighted demands to "Drill, Drill, Drill" will not make this country energy self-sufficient. The most promising way to achieve self suffiency is to ween ourselves from petroleum and turn to natural gas, which this country does have an abundance of reserves, is easier and more environmentally to extract, and doesn't produce the pollutants that oil does. Solar, wind and nuclear are also the future of self sufficient energy consumption.

Jobs would not only be created in the extraction industries, but in the technology and manufacturing fields as well, as we engineer products more in line with the future of transportation, electricity generation, heating and cooling.

 
192biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 10:39 		F'in tree-hugger.
 
193Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 11:11 		F'in tree-hugger

i think the phrase you're looking for is Liberal Commie Socialist Marxist.
 
194sarge33rd
      ID: 420471012
      Sun, Jan 10, 2010, 13:47 		you forgot "self-loathing America hating"

:)
 
195Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 09:46 		Did the Underwear Bomber have help in the Amsterdam Airport

Buried at the very end of a two page article published on ABC News on January 22, 2010, is this quote:

Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.

Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab “did not get cold feet.”

...........................................

Kurt Haskell has indeed been telling the story about this man since immediately after the Christmas Day incident. On December 26, Sheena Harrison of MLive.com reported:

A Michigan man [Kurt Haskell] who was aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 says he witnessed Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab trying to board the plane in Amsterdam without a passport.

Haskell said he and his wife were sitting on the ground near their boarding gate in Amsterdam, which is when they saw Mutallab approach the gate with an unidentified man.

[...]

While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time.’”

Mutallab is Nigerian. Haskell believes the man may have been trying to garner sympathy for Mutallab’s lack of documents by portraying him as a Sudanese refugee.

The ticket agent referred Mutallab and his companion to her manager down the hall, and Haskell didn’t see Mutallab again until after he allegedly tried to detonate an explosive on the plane.

Five days later, MLive.com published an update written by Haskell in which he said this about obfuscation on the part of the FBI and Dutch authories:

Please note that there is a very easy way to verify the veracity of my prior “sharp dressed man” account. Dutch police have admitted that they have reviewed the video of the “sharp dressed man” that I referenced. Note that it has not been released anywhere, You see, if my eye witness account is false, it could easily be proven by releasing the video. However, the proof of my eyewitness account would also be verified if I am telling the truth and I am. There is a reason we have only heard of the video and not seen it. dutch authorities, “RELEASE THE VIDEO!” This is the most important video in 8 years and may be all of two minutes long. Show the entire video and “DO NOT EDIT IT”! The American public deserves its own chance to attempt to identify the “sharp dressed man”. I have no doubt that if the video indicated that my account was wrong, that the video would have already swept over the entire world wide web. Instead of the video, we get a statment that the video has been viewed and that the terrorist had a passport. Each of these statements made by the FBI is a self serving play on semantics and each misses the importance of my prior “sharp dressed man” account. The importance being that the man “Tried to board the plane with an accomplice and without a passort”. The other significance is that only the airport security video can verify my eyewitness account and that it is not being released.

Who has the agenda here and who doesn’t? Think about that for a minute

........................................

Me: Somebody decides what stories to run and not to run at different news organizations. Supposedly, independently ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NYT, MSNBC, etc. all thought this story was not newsworthy.
 
196Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 11:01 		Law enforcement occasionally requests that media organizations not report or wait to report certain things. Though I know I've seen or heard Kurt haskell's account and assume a lot of other people have as well on alternative media, including some of the bigger web sites.

NPR interviewed Haskell on December 28th.

So I don't know why the gvt would gain from supressing it at the mainstream level if the average person who listens to radio reads news on line is likely is likely to stumble across it anyway


Maybe the FBI simply wouldn't varify Haskell's account, failing some previously-agreed standard the industry holds for running this or certain types of stories.

What would a more sinister alternative be? That mass media has collaborated to protect the well-dressed man?

The first link is a Huffington Post entry from Christine Negroni. She also writes for the NYT and wrote a Times article about airline safety following the bloomers-bomber incident and didn't mention haskell. At HuffPo, after noting an account about another incident incident with a different passanger before the same flight, she wrote:
Flight 253 passenger Kurt Haskell, also reported that even before the plane departed Amsterdam, he saw Mr. Mutallab in the company of an older Indian gentleman, who was telling the ticket agent that Mr. Muttallab was a Sudanese refugee and should be allowed to board the airplane without a passport. I know, I know, it sounds incredible. But Mr. Haskell, an attorney in suburban Detroit does seem reasonable. His account is at least worth checking out.
Maybe that's a clue about what she ran into if she tried to include Haskell's story in her NYT article. Perhaps media is wary of getting burned by unsubstantiated witness accounts following terror-related incidents which turn out to be fabrications, such as the guy who claimed to have confronted and prevented a terrorist attack aboard a plane he was never actually on.
 
197Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 11:09 		Who has the agenda here and who doesn’t? Think about that for a minute

I think about what would have transpired had the attack been successful.

As we know following 9/11, the President was given bipartisan support to invade Afghanistan, implement the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, increase defense spending to benefit entities like the Carlyle Group, Halliburton and General Dynamics, all while blocking any independent and transparent investigation of the attacks.

Is it really a suprise that Mutallab's father's warnings were ignored when FBI field agents in Minnesota and Arizona were ignored when they sounded warnings about Muslims taking flying lessons, but never caring to learn how to land, or the
blatant Florida flight school cover-up?



 
198Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 14:02 		One theory is that he was on the watch list and they let him in on purpose so they could track him and possibly find other terrorists. The government has admitted to doing that sometimes.

Another theory is that he was a patsy and his handlers wanted him to get caught, so that the war on terror could continue. They need one of these "attacks" on occasion to keep the war on terror going. They also seem to have a big hankering to go into Yemen and luckily this guy was supposedly trained there. So they gave him some fake explosives and some instructions. This may also explain why he did not set off the explosives in the bathroom where he could not have been stopped. Ditto for the shoe bomber.

They are also using this as an excuse to wheel out a bunch of body scanner machines. So now for the rest of her life my daughter will have to be oogled by TSA employees.
 
199boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jan 28, 2010, 14:07 		B7 why are you my favorite poster? Good possible theories.

 
200Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Fri, Jan 29, 2010, 15:53 		I think I found the reason why the media stopped paying attention to Kurt Haskell's account that a well-dressed man was was telling the ticket agent that Muttallab was a Sudanese refugee and should be allowed to board the airplane without a passport: Dutch counterterrorism officials confirmed a few days later that Abdulmutallab was carrying a valid Nigerian passport and had a valid U.S. visa.
The confirmation on Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab's passport comes after a fellow passenger claimed to have seen a possible accomplice help the 23-year-old Nigerian board the flight.

Kurt Haskell, a Michigan resident returning home from a safari in Uganda with his wife, told the Detroit Free Press that he noticed Abdulmutallab "because of who he was traveling with" - a wealthy looking Indian man in his 50s.

Haskell, who was playing cards near the ticket counter at Schipol Airport, said the Indian man told ticket agents that Abdulmutallab "needs to board the plane, but he doesn't have a passport. ... He's from Sudan. We do this all the time."

But the Dutch counter-terrorism unit's investigation into Abdulmutallab's passport pokes holes in the theory that the alleged bomber had help evading security.
 
201Building 7
      ID: 43735169
      Sat, Jan 30, 2010, 08:25 		Underwear bomber's visa kept valid for larger probe, hearing told From The Detroit News:

Washington --The State Department didn't revoke the visa of foiled terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to protect a larger investigation, a top State Department official revealed Wednesday.

Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away at the request of federal counterterrorism officials concerned that doing so would have foiled an investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.

"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Allowing Abdulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one soldier in that effort."

When asked about why the State Department wouldn't revoke the visa despite indications he was involved in a terror plot, Kennedy reiterated his assertion that intelligence agencies sometimes request visas not be revoked "for the purpose of rolling up an entire network, not just one person."

......................................

If you read the back pages of the Detroit News you may already know all about this.
 
202Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Mon, Feb 01, 2010, 12:27 		The Remaining Questions From Flight 253 And A Discussion Of The Possibilities

From the Haskell Family Blog:

1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media

Here is #7:

It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the “official” story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
.......................................

So now we know the underwear bomber was allowed to enter the US on purpose, so as to track him and catch more terrorists. At least selected readers of the Detroit News, rotoguru.com, and the Haskell family blog are aware of it. I'm sure the passengers of Flight 253 will be tickled to find this out.

So, sometimes they let terrorists in who are on the terrorist watchlist. What about 911? Were any of them let in on purpose? Many of them were sending off alarms left and right. Big Media should be trying to find out.



 
203Mith
      ID: 43914286
      Mon, Feb 01, 2010, 13:21 		These questions remain regarding Haskell's ceredibility:

1. Why is Haskell still touting the claim that Mutallab did not have a passport after the Dutch cnfirmed that he had one?

2. Why is Haskell still touting the claim that Mutallab boarded with a one-way ticket when the it has confirmed for over a month that he had a round-trip ticket from Lagos to Detroit by way of Amsterdam?
 
204walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 11:03 		NYT: The Politics of Fear

I agree with this editorial.
 
205Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:31 		I didnt know where to put this so what the hell. Hope it all shows-










Even if you are not a sports fan, this is very interesting!









? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?




36 have been accused of spousal abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

19 have been accused of writing bad checks

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71, repeat 71
cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shoplifting

21 currently are defendants in lawsuits,



and

84 have been arrested for drunk driving

in the last year



Can you guess which organization this is?

NBA or NFL?








Give up yet?

Scroll down . . .







Neither,
it's the 535 members of the
United States Congress

The same group of Idiots that crank out
hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.



You gotta pass this one on!





 
206Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:32 		Dam the pictures didnt come out, oh well.
 
207Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 7115138
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:33 		You get the point.
 
208Tree
      ID: 23143812
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:48 		1999 called, and it wants its (questionable and unverifiable) information back...

NG - you're still kinda new here, so please take this as constructive criticism.

posting an email here that was forwarded to you without at least looking into its veracity is not going paint you in a good light.

I'd reccomend doing research on something before accepting it as the truth, not to mention passing it on.

 
209Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:50 		Dude, that info is pulled from an 11 year old blog post.

Snopes.
 
210Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:51 		Ah ya beat me to it.
 
211Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 12:57 		Still, though: Wonder what the numbers are now? Even with William Jefferson in jail now, I think Congress certainly has a lot of small-time crooks.
 
212DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 13:13 		A different topic would possibly be the spot to wonder about it. Or to speculate about random criminal histories of unnamed Congresspeople.

Even if the above were accurate, it's ridiculously off-topic and should be deleted (preferably by NG himself). "Not knowing where to put it" is not an excuse for dumping it into some random thread.
 
213Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 13:17 		We're all guilty of post dumping. Prefaced by a "not sure where to put this" seems absolutely fine to me, even if I don't agree with the premise of the post.
 
214DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 14:32 		"We're all guilty of post dumping."

Not all of us. (At least I don't think so.)

How hard is it to start a new topic if it's genuinely something new? Or to find a topic that's semi-relevant?

I don't mean to go off on this too hard, but what's the point of having topics for posts if we're not even going to attempt to get somewhere near them?
 
215Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 14:37 		Lighten up already, DW. "I didnt know where to put this" should provide at least some immunity.
 
216DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 14:43 		Trust me, I could be going off a lot harder than this. This IS "lightened up". ;)

Immunity, no. Mitigating circumstances, yes. If it weren't an 11 year old spam email hoax being pasted into a thread, I'd be substantially more lightened up.

I don't think there was anything malicious about this--he wasn't deliberately trying to derail threads or anything--but I think calling it careless and inconsiderate is not going overboard at all. So I am.
 
217Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 17:07 		It sounds like something Congress would do. I was going to guess the bloggers at rotoguru that they were talking about.
 
218boldwin
      ID: 441481016
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 17:56 		Let's face it, the general tenor of that 'hoax' was spot on and the current figures are surely similar.

Snopes is not an unassailable judge of true and accurate. They tend to jump on differences that don't make a difference just to score a gotcha. They lean tho not nearly as bad as fact-check which is a purely political propaganda mill.

 
219Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 18:19 		Who called it a hoax? Snopes said it was unverifyable, which is hardly a 'gotcha'.
 
220Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Wed, Feb 10, 2010, 20:15 		Let's face it, the general tenor of that 'hoax' was spot on and the current figures are surely similar.

the point is, we don't even know if the figures were accurate back in 1999. It's information that can't be verified, as there are no names attached.

The same bit of "information" has been passed around, only attached to the Parliaments of various countries and professional sports leagues.
 
221Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 18:48 		Officers: Pakistan arrests American-born al-Qaida

hopefully, we'll get some U.S. confirmation on this, but presuming it's true, this goes a long way in proving that the Right Wingers in this country are absolutely correct when they say that this country is less safe with Obama and he's weak on terrorism.. [/sarcasm]
 
222Tree
      ID: 248472317
      Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 08:45 		Close, but no cigar...

An American member of al-Qaida was picked up in a raid in Pakistan's southern city of Karachi, Pakistani officials said Monday, but reversed earlier assertions that the detained man was the terror network's U.S.-born spokesman.

They identified the suspect as Abu Yahya Majadin Adam, but gave no details on his background or role within al-Qaida.

A name very close to that is listed on the FBI's Web site as an alias for Adam Gadahn, the 31-year-old spokesman who has appeared in several videos threatening the West since 2001. The resemblance created confusion among officials Sunday, leading them to believe that the suspect was Gadahn, an army officer and a senior intelligence officer said.
 
223Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 14:10 		Missed this, but a good piece: Judge's statement at the sentencing of the shoe bomber.
 
224sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Thu, Jun 20, 2013, 14:54 		I have long, and often said...these are terrorists, not soldiers. They are criminals, not combatants. It is a legal issue, not a military one.
 
225Boldwin
      ID: 2555216
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 07:12 		I have long said , they thus don't have Geneva Convention protections for that reason and if they aren't citizens, they don't necessarily have constitutional rights, only basic human rights.
 
226Mith
      ID: 412561115
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 08:13 		Hahaha!

A perusal of your posts in the "Closing Gitmo is Pandering to the Left" thread betrays what you have actually long believed about the unalienable rights of terrorists and accused terrorists.
 
227sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 09:50 		Our judicial system Boldwin, grants rights to ALL accused. Citizens or no, makes no never mind. Again, when "rights" are selectively doled out, they cease to BE rights, and become privileges.
 
228Boldwin
      ID: 2555216
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 11:00 		It is a privilege to be a citizen. It isn't a right.

If our law treats all mankind exactly the same all people the world over would be allowed to vote in our elections. That isn't legal but your confusion on the matter partially explains why you'd rather be set on fire than allow us to check voter's ID's.

Sneaking up to people without a uniform to kill them is a decidedly uncivilized barbaric act and does not make you eligible to special protections built into the written and unwritten codes of civilization.
 
229Mith
      ID: 412561115
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 12:12 		I'd ask about the distinction between the unwritten codes of civilization and basic human rights but I know better.
 
230Boldwin
      ID: 2555216
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 12:33 		Suffice it to say that neither one involves voting in other people's elections or murdering people and getting special soft accomodations and privileges as a reward..
 
231Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 12:35 		Heh. Citizenship is certainly a right. But the Constitution, for those with even a whisper of awareness of it, doesn't limit rights to citizens only.

The Founding Fathers were quite clear on this.

 
232boikin
      ID: 430211013
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 13:16 		Unless they decide to you know drone assassinate you on foreign soil. I guess your rights as a citizen are limited by our boarders?
 
233Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 13:20 		All rights are limited in one way other--we have millions of citizens locked away in jails in this country, for instance. That doesn't make them without rights. Or that citizenship is a privilege rather than a right.

 
234Mith
      ID: 412561115
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 15:26 		Pretty sure the FFs didn't include a drone strike exemption in the DOI.

I'll let Boldy's work here and in the Gitmo thread serve as yet another response to his recent laughter over my pointing out that the political right has been and continues to be the more authoritarian faction in American politics.
 
235sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 18:33 		Our criminal justice system Boldwin, is not confined to US citizens. It is applicable, to all who face US charges. Just as Turkish law prevails when charged in a Turk court, or German law in a German court. US Law is relevant to any and all who face charges in a US court.

That you would argue otherwise, speaks ill of both your grasp, and our nations future.
 
236sarge33rd
      ID: 4609710
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 18:45 		From 228:

If our law treats all mankind exactly the same all people the world over would be allowed to vote in our elections.

I gotta ask B, are there really people who think you know WTF you are talking about? Seriously?
 
237Boldwin
      ID: 465452112
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 20:22 		Yeah, lots of people agree with #228. Lots of people believe illegal aliens do not have the same legal rights as citizens and that sneaking up to someone to kill them without wearing a uniform does not get you Geneva Convention protections.
 
238Perm Dude
      ID: 201027169
      Fri, Jun 21, 2013, 20:31 		Again, sarge, not worth it. He lives in a fantasy land of his own making, where the rules change merely because he might otherwise feel discomfort. Let it ride.