wondering everyones thoughts on this Options

[Hellfighter]

Can't argue against your fantasies Capt.

It's statements like this that make me wonder what planet the left is living on.....really hoping I'm misunderstanding....

But guessing not after reading this from Hellfighter:

"You learn well from Bush and cronies, Mr.Rocket in conjuring up hypothetical disasters as a pretext for taking pre-emptive drastic actions where none is needed. Your examples are pure speculations... your intent is fear-mongering- your desire is to get everyone besides yourself to run around like headless chickens ; perhaps just to console yourself that you are incapable of being sound of mind like the majority."

If you think it's pure fear mongering that there can and will be an attack on the US I think you are the one that is incapable of sound mind. Those towel heads didn't come over here and bake us cookies. And our ports and entries to this country are laughably controled. It's not a matter of if but when one of these catastrophic events takes place. So maybe its not a nuke. Maybe they just blow up the Rose Bowl with 85,000 people in it. Or some wonderful biological agent released in downtown NY. When it does you and your cronies will be the first one's moaning about how Bush was asleep at the wheel and he should have been personally monitoring the mail, phone calls, and diary entries of Osama, Muhammad, Akbar, and all their slurpee selling friends. I'm sick of hearing everyone whine about their "freedom". Fact is we haven't been attacked since 911. And like it or not we ARE AT WAR. We forget that we might have to sacrifice a bit durring times of conflict. So if they have to listen to Mike Moore's, The Pope's, and yes even your phone calls to prevent even one person from dying then damn right they should do it. Waterboard the whole lot of them daily if it saves lives. I guess that makes me a neo con, ditto headed, second class, no brain having, thoughtless, peabrain but I'm going to sleep well tonight knowing that we're trying to stop these bastards from killing people here and around the world. I haven't forgoten that on the planet I live on two buildings that employed 10's of thousands of people were hit by two planes, another hit the pentagon, and yet another crashed in a field in PA. All piloted by a network of nut jobs not from this country. It was not hypothetical and we are not going to keep it from happening again by talking about our feelings, closing our eyes, or negotiating with these people. Action and diligence is going to keep it from happening and is why we are still without another attack today. Poo Poo the methods all you want but they have been effective and I hope they keep doing all they have to do to keep producing the results they have since that day.

When Bush and 'cronies' received reports well before 9-11 about 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' and implemented no heghtened security proposals or protocols its not hard to argue he was asleep at the wheel.

Freedom is our system that is the reason why many people all over the world dream about having and desire to live here.... and one of the best things is that we can whine and debate and muddle through a solution more or less agreeable to everyone. I'm not sick of it at all. Where there's no 'freedom' you know changes only happen after bloody revolutions or by the influential pressure of 'whining' freedom nations.
Give me whining-Give me liberty

Why hasn't an attack happened since 9-11-ever thought maybe they only wish to consider doing only outrageous attacks - they have ample opportunity to carry out small attacks- that shoe bomber Reid could've set off his bomb in the airport lobby instead of attempting it in flight.

I'm sorry but its not left versus right.... many Republicans are worried by Bush's antics and are clearly voicing their opposition. For the record the only Dem I like running at the moment is Biden -then I'd go repub for Ron Paul-> if possible I'd rather see George Bush Senior or Bill Clinton back... maybe some current candidates on either side can rise to the occasion of being a solid Prez, but I'm not impressed.
If you believe ends justify the means then why not nuke the entire Middle East [and if you say yes I'll give my opinion why not]. Fear mongering means just that -acting upon speculation. No-one is arguing people won't take drastic action/use torture as a last means given a situation that can save lives - well just say 'it's torture' don't dance around the issue and say certain techniques aren't -that's where the hypocracy comes in.

What were they effective in doing? Give examples.... how can you know what precisely was effective and what information was given if the entire procedure is secret and not publicized. I ask you again->
What was effective? Give dates and who 'it' was effective against and what was effective. Other than that waterboard report used several years ago which 'reportedly' got what information we know not, name what's been effective please to back up your statement.

Consider the original point of UD's enquiry - people against the big brother plan understand UDs point directly-its not about not permitted to listen in on phone conversations of the bad guys-> Down the road -the government could have any capability to listen to what anyone is saying at anytime on private phones-without warrants and with private phone companies immune to accountability- the 'don't worry if you have nothing to hide' argument is invalid- would these arguers not mind if their conversations were put online and on the tv, in newspapers? The opposition is about Bush's desire to do things [ action and diligence] without a warrant -underhandedly and without accoutability -bypassing the expectation's of society's belief they are above those similar 'methods' used by dictators, tyrants, and thugs in power.
The argument is not about not having the ability to listen to phone calls.
You can call it poo-pooing, but I say it's a step into a dark tunnel- it's not a left vs. right issue. Many of your fellow Americans and politicians on the right and left feel the same way - so it's really a delusion to create the impression it's an 'all americans are for this' like Mr.Rocket likes to do.

Then where do you stop torturing without accountability-> suspects [not proven guilty but those in power believe the person guilty or not has no rights] -it could be one of your relatives picked up to undergo the process. Not all terrorists are foreign - McVeigh... then we have serial killers and gang-drug lords currently our worst terrorists. I'd like them all summarily executed but they need to be put through a process to establish they are guilty first. Once you yield too much power to untrustworthy politicians playing around behind the scenes then its only a matter of time before everyone suffers.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/19/07 7:27am

[T/A6Pak]

Accountability is no longer in place. When there is no accountability, they can do what they want and get away with it... very scary IMO.

A lot of people think that monitoring phone conversation is going to catch a terrorist. Let's see how many they catch using this tactic in the next year compaired to how many people law abiding citizens get put on the watch list.

[steel]

Surveillance to protect the US is not the sticking point in the debate over the legistative proposals. The "line in the sand" is whether or not to give retroactive immunity to telephone companies which have been participating in the government's warrantless wiretaps.

But, the phone companies already could not be held liable for their participation since surely they can show that the gov't gave them some written documentation compelling their cooperation.

The thing is, whatever that written documentation is, THAT is the problem. It would most probably have been drafted by AG Alberto Gonzales' office, and whatever it says that showed the warrantless wiretapping as legal, was not true.

And that's why the president is demanding that the phone companies be immune from lawsuits. Because when the phone companies produced their documentation for the warrantless wiretaps, it would be the administration and the justice department who would be in trouble.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

" from Bush and cronies, Mr.Rocket in conjring uphypothetical disasters as a pretext for taking pre-emptive rastic actions where none is needed.
When Bush and 'cronies' received reports well before 9-11 about 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' and implemented no heghtened security proposals or protocols its not hard to argue he was asleep at the wheel. Read the entire report here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

More lies, more lies, more lies. This is getting old Mr Hellfighter. We know your in love with Clinton but it is clouding your judgement. This in an except from the 9/11 Commision Report showing the adorable Mr. Clinton (NOT BUSH) was breifed about Airplanes being Hijacked.



The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.



SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [-] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq 'Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold.A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options-perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the "next couple of weeks" to free 'Abd al-Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [-]

2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources, but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin's al-Qa'ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.Accord-ing to [-] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.

• A [-] in October told us that unspecified "extremist elements" in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [-]

3. [-] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.

• In other [-] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that "they" were in the "ninth month [of pregnancy]."
• An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in "commerce" from abroad and said his impending "marriage," which would take place soon, would be a "surprise.""Commerce" and "marriage" often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [-]

[HammaTime]

Surveillance to protect the US is not the sticking point in the debate over the legistative proposals. The "line in the sand" is whether or not to give retroactive immunity to telephone companies which have been participating in the government's warrantless wiretaps.

But, the phone companies already could not be held liable for their participation since surely they can show that the gov't gave them some written documentation compelling their cooperation.

The thing is, whatever that written documentation is, THAT is the problem. It would most probably have been drafted by AG Alberto Gonzales' office, and whatever it says that showed the warrantless wiretapping as legal, was not true.

And that's why the president is demanding that the phone companies be immune from lawsuits. Because when the phone companies produced their documentation for the warrantless wiretaps, it would be the administration and the justice department who would be in trouble.

Brilliant analysis Steel!

I'm really enjoying these discussions. Keep the coming everyone!

[Hellfighter]

" from Bush and cronies, Mr.Rocket in conjring uphypothetical disasters as a pretext for taking pre-emptive rastic actions where none is needed.
When Bush and 'cronies' received reports well before 9-11 about 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' and implemented no heghtened security proposals or protocols its not hard to argue he was asleep at the wheel. Read the entire report here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

More lies, more lies, more lies. This is getting old Mr Hellfighter. We know your in love with Clinton but it is clouding your judgement. This in an except from the 9/11 Commision Report showing the adorable Mr. Clinton (NOT BUSH) was breifed about Airplanes being Hijacked.

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

First off.... who's this 'WE know...' business. I'm afraid your list of allies is very thin Mr.Rocket and the 'WE know' are phantoms in your mind. Do you not have enough self-confidence to say 'I know you love...".
It's funny how you love to knowingly distort people's words- I know you love doing it [much like you copied and re-edited my original quote to make it seem like I couldn't spell-what's that all about !?
-and why do you throw a link in my quote when I never did that... who is the liar? "lies, lies, lies" you said?]

I say knowingly distort because frequently in past posts from me that you've read I never claimed to worship Clinton- I merely said he was a solid world leader-not the most perfect. And again- I've mentioned pointedly I think he was a sleazy human being for trying to cowardly cast Lewinsky as a liar in the eyes of the world.

It's interesting you again bring up points to smack around your own position. You really busted up any argument you could make for Bush being caught unawares - now seeing as he was aware Bin Laden planning plane attacks in 1998, then his admin of cronies priority upon taking office would be 'fixing' the national security hole left open by clinton [ie, airpot security being ramped up] - correct? Where was the neo-con outrage at Clinton at him not taking extraordinary efforts to vapourize bin laden- nope- all the focus was on the Lewinsky scandal and making him look bad/impeachment rather than taking down terrorist no.1.

Your 'except'> exceRpt- relates nothing to my point about the direct quote Rice was forced to refer to at that commission about bin laden/planes/flying into buildings in intel reports at Bush's disposal when HE took office well before 9-11.


And for supporters of no accountablity -> if you think everything is/was on the up and up regarding wire tapping, why did then AG Gonzalez resort to this lowlife incident; it was big news at the time but maybe some of you missed it-
it regards a hospital visit he made to a colleague to twist his arm into signing a document approving a knowingly controversial plot; read-on and see why this whole thing smells foul.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/ja...omey_05-18.html



This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/19/07 11:46am

[steel]

Snot, did you read everything on that page of the 9-11 report that you copied the PDB (president's daily briefing) from? http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

The Clinton administration took action based on that PDB. And if you'll remember, Clinton told Bush during his exit briefing that Osama Bin Laden was the biggest security threat the US faced.

But, um, this discussion is supposed to be about the pending wiretapping legislation, isn't it?

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

" from Bush and cronies, Mr.Rocket in conjring uphypothetical disasters as a pretext for taking pre-emptive rastic actions where none is needed.
When Bush and 'cronies' received reports well before 9-11 about 'Bin Laden planning to fly planes into buildings' and implemented no heghtened security proposals or protocols its not hard to argue he was asleep at the wheel. Read the entire report here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm

More lies, more lies, more lies. This is getting old Mr Hellfighter. We know your in love with Clinton but it is clouding your judgement. This in an except from the 9/11 Commision Report showing the adorable Mr. Clinton (NOT BUSH) was breifed about Airplanes being Hijacked.

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

First off.... who's this 'WE know...' business. I'm afraid your list of allies is very thin Mr.Rocket and the 'WE know' are phantoms in your mind. Do you not have enough self-confidence to say 'I know you love...".
It's funny how you love to knowingly distort people's words- I know you love doing it [much like you copied and re-edited my original quote to make it seem like I couldn't spell-what's that all about !?
-and why do you throw a link in my quote when I never did that... who is the liar? "lies, lies, lies" you said?]

I say knowingly distort because frequently in past posts from me that you've read I never claimed to worship Clinton- I merely said he was a solid world leader-not the most perfect. And again- I've mentioned pointedly I think he was a sleazy human being for trying to cowardly cast Lewinsky as a liar in the eyes of the world.

It's interesting you again bring up points to smack around your own position. You really busted up any argument you could make for Bush being caught unawares - now seeing as he was aware Bin Laden planning plane attacks in 1998, then his admin of cronies priority upon taking office would be 'fixing' the national security hole left open by clinton [ie, airpot security being ramped up] - correct? Where was the neo-con outrage at Clinton at him not taking extraordinary efforts to vapourize bin laden- nope- all the focus was on the Lewinsky scandal and making him look bad/impeachment rather than taking down terrorist no.1.

Your 'except'> exceRpt- relates nothing to my point about the direct quote Rice was forced to refer to at that commission about bin laden/planes/flying into buildings in intel reports at Bush's disposal when HE took office well before 9-11.


And for supporters of no accountablity -> if you think everything is/was on the up and up regarding wire tapping, why did then AG Gonzalez resort to this lowlife incident; it was big news at the time but maybe some of you missed it-
it regards a hospital visit he made to a colleague to twist his arm into signing a document approving a knowingly controversial plot; read-on and see why this whole thing smells foul.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/ja...omey_05-18.html

I did not intentionally change any spelling on your words to make it seem you can't spell. Where do you get that from?

I did screw up and put that 911 link in your quote instead of mine. That was my bad. For some reason whenever I try to reduce the quote size when I reply I mess it all up. LoL. I wish I could be as smart as Clinton instead of as dumb as Bush.



While I thought Clintons interaction with Miss Lewinsky was quite pathetic, I was far more outraged by his actions or lack of actions in response to terrorist activities against the US. And even more put off buy his giving away of missle guidance technology to China.



I am buy no means giving Bush a complete pass on all issues in this regard. However, I do see him trying to combat the terrorists which is, by far, more than what Clinton did. In one view, someone could claim that Clintons response to terrorist activities against the US actual led to 9/11.



Hellfighter - I am curious to why do you have such a strong position on America's policies with what appear to be deep emotional concerns. Honestly, I may venture an opinion about a Canadian political issue but in the end it's really does not mean too much to me because it probably doesn't effect me much. I am just trying to understand your point of view on these issues.



This is my final post on this subject.





This post has been edited by Cpt. Snot Rocket: 12/19/07 12:28pm

[Hellfighter]

.......
I did not intentionally change any spelling on your words to make it seem you can't spell. Where do you get that from?

yup-i understand the editing thing- I re-edit my posts a zillion times before its alright.

Since you asked- and could not weasel out with a sly reply like Billy-boy could have done;
Compare my post 11- where you got 'copied' quote from to your post 19 with my 'altered' quote with 3 typos appearing mystically.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/19/07 12:28pm

[Ghost Child]

We know that terrorist plots have been foiled due to surveillance. We know that two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego were conversing with their al-Qaida brethren overseas before they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing 3,000 people who had their right to life violated.



Carter authorized the warrantless surveillance of two people in the States, who later were convicted of spying for the Vietnamese government. The two men challenged their convictions on the basis that evidence against them was obtained illegally with the wiretaps. The U.S. Court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as spies and terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when the surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."



Remember that this surveillance is to and from known terrorists. If the president had not made this order for surveillance, and an event happened, then he would be targeted for not doing enough.

[Hellfighter]

..................
Hellfighter - I am curious to why do you have such a strong position on America's policies with what appear to be deep emotional concerns. Honestly, I may venture an opinion about a Canadian political issue but in the end it's really does not mean too much to me because it probably doesn't effect me much. I am just trying to understand your point of view on these issues.



This is my final post on this subject.

I don't know how much simpler I can keep saying this to you.... you equate Bush's policies as America's policies.
I differ on that opinion - I along with many Americans disagree with Bush's policies -Bush- bush bussh- and his neo-con cronies - You can now hopefully get off the Hellfighter hates America choo choo train you've been riding me on all this while in spite of my explainations stating otherwise.

Bush is quite mad imo and you're right generally Canadian political issues are of no interest to me too- except how we suck in the enviromental global arena.
Bush's policies however affect everyone in the world so I do like to keep up with him and his cronies activities. Remember I was arguing against my fellow canucks when the war started for the same reasons you give about america's right to protect themselves... after Baghdad fell I saw the whole neo-con scheme start to unravel in all its uglyness and lies and cast of murky characters... All the proof is there in all my past threads to show the said war about wmds was never that from the start. So please Mr.Rocket help me out- I'm even getting bored of hearing myself rehash my views. Let's just stay on topics from now on now that you know why I'm not a Bush fan -it's not anti-American to be anti-Bush.....

Oh yeah- if I don't get the chance again Mr.Rocket-Happy Holidays and thanks for the debate workouts -very mind-stimulating.


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 12/19/07 4:07pm

[T/A6Pak]

Capt. Snot Rocket, you are just agreeing to prevent being put on the wiretap hit list correct...lol J/K

I guess it's too early to say "GROUP HUG"....lol

[PFC Mustangman]

Here's a little fuel to the fire.What about this?

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/191207_b_nsa.htm

[HammaTime]

While I thought Clintons interaction with Miss Lewinsky was quite pathetic, I was far more outraged by his actions or lack of actions in response to terrorist activities against the US.

Hey Vinny, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was treated, as it should have been, as a heinous crime. This wasn't deemed state sponsored terrorism at the time. There was no country to bomb. Clinton's justice department, as incredibly flawed as it was, managed to capture and prosecute those involved.

We know that terrorist plots have been foiled due to surveillance. We know that two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego were conversing with their al-Qaida brethren overseas before they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing 3,000 people who had their right to life violated.

Yes, weren't those very same San Diego boys the ones whose landlord was an FBI informant?!

Weren't these the same ones who were being pursued for their involvement in the Boijinka plot, and the Al Qaeda meeting in Malaysia, but had somehow managed to escape surveillance once they landed at LAX?

What bothers me the most about the bill that is before the Senate is that our government chooses to spend time and resources covering their asses, and those of their corporate sponsors instead of taking the basic steps necessary to ensure that containers arriving at our ports and baggage loaded on planes are fully inspected. What's the point of reading everyone's emails if you are going to have porous borders and ports?

More importantly, why are some of those who are contributing to this thread more interested in having their rights taken away instead of truly standing up for proper security measures.

Why does the Bush administration award medals of honor to those who have failed miserably in their duty? Why did no one get fired for 9/11? Did anyone even get a note placed in their permanent file? NO! gimme a break!

[Keystone Two-Eight]

You know, the more I read arguments like this, the more I firmly believe that Lewis Black said it best(and this is a loose quote)."Republican, democrat,Kerry, Bush; does it really matter? Your basically given the choice between two bowls of shit, the only real choice is which one smells better."