Off Topic Messages

Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:28 am

Steve_M wrote:Seriously ? Muslims want to destroy America ?

If you had a bomber who attacked somewhere in the US and it turned out he was a red blooded American who claimed to be Christian, what would you say then about all Christians ?

Just curious, maybe you didn't mean what you said and meant something else, i dunnno hence the question.


A lot of Americans think every person of Islamic persuasion is out to destroy them !

Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:43 am

Your point about me omitting sentence in the FISA is a boldfaced LIE. I'm sorry but I have to say it there is no such passage about "incidental communications" in the FISA provision that follows the sentences I mentioned. I encourage anyone here on this board to examine the act which is easily available online. I don't know where you picked up that line but it is most definitely not from the FISA act.

An even worse lie. You tell me what I mean when I make a point. That's rich. Who are you Kreskin? My comment about bigotry was not made in regard any specific item thread was made about the silly procedure some voters used for choosing their candidate in 2004.

I would also to point with your great hall of quotations that you freely use quotes out of context. Nancy Pelosi is one. Pelosi voted against the war in 2002 although she believed Hussein had WMD as many people did. As ridiculous as it seems to go over this point again there was no doubt ever that Hussein at one point had some form of WMD (We have the receipts and our names are on the missiles.) The UN inspections procedure was problematic but working. I also would like to point that many members of congress expressed reservations about pressures from the administration to present certain evidence at the exclusion of other evidence. Finally, military intervention is not always an invasion. The BIG difference is that they did not invade. If they did they with the information that they had at that time they received the same world wide condemnation that is being visited upon the Bush administration.

The evidence that Bush manipulated pre-war evidence to support the invasion is overwhelming. Just Sunday a former CIA Official Appeared on 60 Minutes to make the same claim which is the same claim made by Richard Clarke and dozens of others. You love the idea of painting an opponents to the current administrations as extremists. But who but an extremist dismisses the idea of the evidence put forth in the mainstream news. Of course the condemnations of the rest world can be easily dismissed as well. Fellow "left wing" extremists- Former New Jersey Governor Christie Todd Whitman, William F. Buckley, Pat Buchanan, conservative columnist Paul Mulshine who wrote an article asking Bush to step down in 2004.

The Bill of Rights is supposed to stand for an ideal as well a rule of law. What kind of moral superiority do we have if we forego it? The Founding Fathers would have puked at what's going today.

In Albert Goldmanesque style you were the one that inflated the Supreme Court's "Godlike" importance. And guess what? They can have one decision that's good law and one decision that's bad law. Hey you learned something today. It's called applying discrimination to facts when they're presented to you.

About the deficit. "There wasn't war either" BINGO.

And as for your cartoonish impression of liberal POV it's hardly worth wasting time on but I'll try anyway. Some programs are worth funding and some programs are not and sometimes you can't afford wothy programs sometimes it's a painful decision to decide. And further paying programs doesn't alway mean deficit spending. Only an idiot would push through a major tax cut in a time of war. Oh yeah an idiot did. Only an idiot would push through legislation mandating new spending locally with no money to back it up.

To use your favorite phrase, your comment about using law enforcement to tackle terrorism is a straw man. It has nothing to do with sharing information. Many believe handling terrorism is a law enforcement issue to this day and that's a very legitimate belief. A huge problem with the war on terror is that it is not against a particular country. It doesn't mean one part of a bureaucracy can't share information with another. What do you when there is an international drug cartel or kiddie porn ring? Give up?

We've done so well treating it as a military operation.

There's no question the system needed fixing under Clinton. There's also no question that terrorism was not even a blip on GW's radar screen prior to September 11.

Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:58 pm

Thanks for posting this article Gregory. I don't think he is one of the worst presidents, but he is certainly not the best either.

He is somewhere in between.

Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:19 am

LTB and Scatter -
You guys are steadily ratcheting up the intensity level of your debate responses to each other. As someone who considers you both friends I've got to ask you both to tone it down before it turns ugly. How about it guys? Pull back before it gets too personal.

Remember, this is the kindler, gentler FECC!

Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:07 am

I tend to agree, Pete, although as a third-party it did seem that Scatter went negative first. I find the quote-by-quote response technique that is so easy to do on FECC (even I do it occassionally) inevitably results in meaner, snarkier responses. Come on, guys, keep it peaceful...and boring. :lol:


ColinB wrote:A lot of Americans think every person of Islamic persuasion is out to destroy them !


Yeah, those dumb Americans. :roll: Mind you, we did fall for GW's gambit in the Middle East, but I'd say it would be unwise to get to lax about the sinister motives of Muslim extremists.

Well, let's put it this way: Muslims are disportionately "over-represented" in world of 21st-century terrorism.

While I'm not for blanket statements and I certainly don't want to see moderate Muslims turned off, I still say there is a bit of "head in the sand" attitude about the radical, fundamentalist Islam, both in London and New York, even after respective attacks.

I've been heartened to hear that British Muslims are beginning to step foward to become more assimilated but I'd say skepticism is always healthy. I do become concerned that the enemy is in our midsts and our fuzzy, open-minded liberal outlook on immigration is like a sitting duck with these people.

Why can't we be frank about the extremist ranks in Islam? Sadly, a lot of this has been exploited for ill by the present administration, but this does not negate the blood-thirsty hate of the jihadist Muslims.

Image

Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:37 am

I just want facts cited honestly if you're going to cite them.

Greg- You could say the same thing about Italians and the Mafia. Just because most Mafioso (at least in the Gotti era and before sense of the word) were Italians, it doesn't mean most Italians are mafioso. It works the same way for Muslims and terrorists. And even the protestors last year we notice them because they're vocal. That doesn't there's not X million/billion that hold tolerant or reasonable views.

Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:44 am

Well, I think the tolerance level changes if, say, the Mafia started downing planes and other acts of "domestic" terrorism.

It's proably a flogged point, but I don't share the left's concern that Americans are "paranoid" or "over-reacting" about radical Islam.

We've been on the whole rather tolerant and remain so. It's a part of the national fabric. I just don't want us to be naive.

There are groups (whether rightly aggrieved or not) who will bring on discrimination against perfectly innocent cohorts of their group by their wretched acts. It's one of the sad aspects of the "blow-back" from the terrrorism. Sad, but also a fact of life and we have to minimize it while at the same time not be frisking 88-year Swedish grandmothers or a bunch of infants as recently happened at an airport.

Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:01 am

See I think that's issue because nobody is accusing anyone of overreacting to radical Islam. The problem is classifying all Islam as radical.

According to a documentary I saw last week the Mafia did indeed interfere with the war process (not downing planes) but interrupting the operation of ports in the 1940s even to the point of burning down government warehouses. In an example, I don't necessarily want to see repeated now the Mafia stopped when the federal government reportedly made a deal with them.

Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:06 am

I don't think any smart person thinks all Islam is radical. Even the brow-beaters on right-wing radio make this distinction.

As for the second point, while it did not match what was done to the Japenese (and Japanese-Americans), both Italians and Germans frankly faced scrutiny in that war that ultimately was well-founded, if hurtful to some innocents, no doubt.

Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:17 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Well, I think the tolerance level changes if, say, the Mafia started downing planes and other acts of "domestic" terrorism.

On one level, it's certainly easy to acknowledge that the Mafia is responsible for a lot more than 3,000 deaths on US soil.

It also seems more and more Americans are bothered by the existence of places like the unlawful prisions of Guantanemo Bay, torturing of prisioners in secret camps overseas, and the erosion of our basic civil rights under the guise of protcting us from "terrorism."

These and many other reasons are why people of all political stripes are giving such low approval ratings to the current administration. Things are a mess, and these people have been making the decisions.

DJC

Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:31 am

Pete Dube wrote:LTB and Scatter -
You guys are steadily ratcheting up the intensity level of your debate responses to each other. As someone who considers you both friends I've got to ask you both to tone it down before it turns ugly. How about it guys? Pull back before it gets too personal.

Remember, this is the kindler, gentler FECC!


Duly noted Pete............bike, my apologies for the tone. It was actually the personal attacks upon Bush that started all this. Policy differences fine...........character assassination is just as wrong when pointed at Bush as it is when pointed ay Clinton, especially when done by someone making assumptions when the person is actually unknown.

If the unfair and presumptive attacks upon Clinton are decried as unfair (which bike has done repeatedly) it is no less odious to replicate that tone about any other President (or anyone else unknown personally).

If one abhors the slinging of mud, it is incumbent upon them to put their own mud down as well.

One last note about my supposed "lying" about the FISA regs......I did make an error when I was looking up the FISA regs, and inadvertantly posted the NSA governing regulation on the matter which quoted FISA. When I looked up the FISA regs, I referenced the NSA's directives. Not a lie, an inadvertant sourcing error (which,BTW, is more relevant than FISA , since it is the actual Congressionally accepted interpretation of what FISA actually covers and its limitations and exclusions)

The NSA is the agency which FISA regulates, therefore their directives and interpretation are the prime authority on the matter. Congressional oversight was involved in the framing of what follows, so the "Illegal" wiretap argument is a lost cause.



UNITED STATES SIGNALS INTELLIGENCE DIRECTIVE
(USSID)18


(Which addresses everything you're saying and illustrates the problem with your "illegal" argument)

SECTION 4 - COLLECTION
b. With the approval of the Attorney General of the United States, if:

(1) The COLLECTION is directed against the following:
(a) Communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside of the UNITED STATES, or
(b) International communications to, from, [1 line redacted.]

(c) Communications which are not to or from but merely about U.S. PERSONS (wherever located).

(2) The person is an AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER,(such as an Islamic terrorist, for example) and
(3) The purpose of the COLLECTION is to acquire significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE information

d. Emergency Situations

(1) In emergency situations, DIRNSA/CHCSS may authorize the COLLECTION of information to, from or about a U.S. PERSON who is outside the UNITED STATES when securing the prior approval of the Attorney General is not practical because:
(a) The time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE and would cause substantial harm to the national security

[please pay attention to this part]

4.3 (U) Incidental Acquisition of U.S. PERSON Information. Information to, from or about U.S. PERSONS acquired incidentally as a result of COLLECTION directed against appropriate FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE TARGETS may be retained and processed in accordance with Section 5 and Section 6 of this USSID.

[let's skip to section 5]
5.4 (S-CCO) Nonforeign Communications.

b. Communications between U.S. PERSONS. Communications solely between U.S. PERSONS will be treated as follows:

(1) Communications solely between U.S. PERSONS inadvertently intercepted during the COLLECTION of FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS will be destroyed upon recognition, if technically possible, except as provided in paragraph 5.4.d below.

[skip to 5.4.d]
d. Exceptions: Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 5.4.b. and c., the DIRNSA./CHCSS may waive the destruction requirement for international communications containing, inter alia, the following types of information:

(1) Significant FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE, or
(2) Evidence of a crime or threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person, or
(3) Anomalies that reveal a potential vulnerability to U.S. communications security.


All of which apply in these cases........



I assume as well that you are aware of the November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001, where the court said:

"The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:12 am

Bush Sr, Cheney, Rumsfeld and co. funded Bin Laden through the CIA in the 80´s to fight the evil commies. Then the monster they had created rebelled and attacked back his former masters. Pity is that the ones who paid for it were the normal people in NYC, and then the normal people in Baghdad. You know, big fishes never lose.

Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:18 am

Thanks.......all we were missing was the point of view of the hopelessly obtuse.

Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:30 am

Scatter wrote:Thanks.......all we were missing was the point of view of the hopelessly obtuse.


Don´t be so hard on yourself.

Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:42 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Well, I think the tolerance level changes if, say, the Mafia started downing planes and other acts of "domestic" terrorism.

On one level, it's certainly easy to acknowledge that the Mafia is responsible for a lot more than 3,000 deaths on US soil.

It also seems more and more Americans are bothered by the existence of places like the unlawful prisions of Guantanemo Bay, torturing of prisioners in secret camps overseas, and the erosion of our basic civil rights under the guise of protcting us from "terrorism."

These and many other reasons are why people of all political stripes are giving such low approval ratings to the current administration. Things are a mess, and these people have been making the decisions.

DJC



Well, sure, I'm no fan of the current administration but then I wouldn't be so quick to put "terrorism" in quotes, as it does seem many a liberal continually wants to minimize the threat that radical Islam represents. It's a pity the administration played politics with it, as the moral should not be that there was no terrorism to fear.

The victims of the Italian-American mafia over the years is just not on the same page of the total randomness of " Islamofascist" global terrorism. It's a distraction to even discuss it, frankly.

I share your concern (as do many conservatives) regarding the erosion of some civil rights but then, to this day, President Lincoln gets flack from civil libertarians who disliked his war-time suspension of certain civil rights for some parties, as do FDR and Truman. I am frankly glad they held out and won the wars they led.

The "war" metaphor employed against terrorism was problematic to begin with, although I applaud some of the measures to get in there and root them out in places like Afghanistan.

Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:37 am

Spanish_Eyes wrote:
Scatter wrote:Thanks.......all we were missing was the point of view of the hopelessly obtuse.


Don´t be so hard on yourself.


Wait.....isn't this the spot where you try to convince us all how much you LOOOOOOOVE America???

You know........like OJ loved Nicole
Like Michael Jackson loves little boys
Like Hannibal Lechter loves dinner guests.

You are exhibit A that our policy of letting just anybody come in here isn't working :lol:

Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:35 am

Maybe not the worst... but if he keeps trying hard enough...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060428/ap_ ... a_congress