• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US Tactics On Terrorism: Have We Gone Too Far?

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Topping the EU's Most Wanted are 22 CIA agents, now banned from all 25 European Nations Countries, charged with Kidnapping an legal Italian resident.

BBC Report

Now accused of Domestic Spying, laws of our own making designed to protect individuals Constitutional rights may have been broken. Laws which carry a 5 year jail term.

NSA

Now evidence of not only listening to American but actively monitoring them as well has been discovered. Monitered with no other proof than their religion.

US mosques checked for radiation

Even after all of this is presented, we still watch our elected officials vote to continue these actions.

Patriot Act Vote

Is there anyone after reviewing these facts that approves of the direction this administration is steering us towards?

KMS
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Too much stringency infringes on our civil liberties, yet not enough stringency invites homeland terrorism. Either way, the citizens are going to be unhappy. How do you propose to solve this bizarre conundrum?



 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Too much stringency infringes on our civil liberties, yet not enough
stringency invites homeland terrorism.

I don't know it seems like too much stringency causes Homeland Terrorism.

In England after the bombings much the same "Homeland" tactics as we have now were considered, the English people turned down the Home Office on implimenting these programs.

Perhaps allowing the citizens to decide as England did by vote what laws we decide is too stringent, and what laws we so chose to be subject to.

Proper democracy needs to be questioned constantly, and it's action not mandated upon the people instead accepted by them, not just in reaction to one poll at one specific time that makes is seem to be "the will of the people."

KMs
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The London & 911 terrorists came from Pakistan, Afganistan, Eritrea, Sudan, London, Suidi, Morroco. The US & UK goes to deal with the problem by killing 25,000 people in Iraq ! Nuff said.
However it is very reassuring to know little old ladies have to go through metal detectors everytime they fly somewhere.... Should I laugh, or should I simply go.... :roll:
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Tashah said:
Too much stringency infringes on our civil liberties, yet not enough stringency invites homeland terrorism.
CaliNORML said:
I don't know it seems like too much stringency causes Homeland Terrorism.
It seems that you are using semantics here, and your response is a personal political statement rather than an objective overview.

CaliNORML said:
In England after the bombings much the same "Homeland" tactics as we have now were considered, the English people turned down the Home Office on implimenting these programs.
Perhaps allowing the citizens to decide as England did by vote what laws we decide is too stringent, and what laws we so chose to be subject to.
Proper democracy needs to be questioned constantly, and it's action not mandated upon the people instead accepted by them, not just in reaction to one poll at one specific time that makes is seem to be "the will of the people."
I wholeheartedly agree that any legislative reforms based on Homeland security considerations need to be questioned periodically. Hence, the Patriot Act has only been extended by Congress for one additional month. The 'will of the people' has indeed been taken into consideration by elected officials.

The overarching problem here is that no one knows precisely where to draw the fine-line between Homeland security necessities and civil liberty guarantees. Is it morally acceptable to sacrifice perhaps another 3000 lives to this conundrum? If you say yes, then you have to be willing to shoulder a measure of personal responsibility in the event that your conclusion is perhaps morally correct but realistically erroneous.



 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Perhaps I am ignorant, but I would like some proof that the current anti-terrorism measures are working. I have heard people declare that the lack of a second terrorist attack on the U.S. is due to the war in Iraq; I have heard it used as proof that al-Qaeda is smashed and bin Laden is dead or impotent; I have heard it used to justify the continuation of the Patriot Act. Do we have any evidence of any of these positions? Or is it just a useful debating/political tool, to use this "proof" of a negative to confirm a particular position, e.g., there have been no terrorist attacks in 4 years, so the lucky charm I bought in Mazatlan is working!

Have any terrorists been caught by wiretaps? By investigations begun with library reading lists? By e-mail snooping? Have any terrorist attacks been foiled at all, that we know of? Or would declaring a definitive success merely endanger our future intelligence gathering, by exposing the method we used to find the enemy? I would suggest that, if there is no proof that these measures have worked, that we drop them. Can we not have a measure of security without violating civil rights? Just how much security do we need? and is giving the government any power to violate our privacy really the best way to create security?

In other words, Tashah, I agree that we cannot see a clear delineation between security and civil rights; but does erring on the side of security really mandate the loss of civil rights? Must these two always be in conflict? And is the loss of civil rights actually effective, or is it just what we expect -- sort of like the idea that medicine has to taste bad to be effective.
 
Last edited:

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
CoffeeSaint said:
In other words, Tashah, I agree that we cannot see a clear delineation between security and civil rights; but does erring on the side of security really mandate the loss of civil rights? Must these two always be in conflict? And is the loss of civil rights actually effective, or is it just what we expect -- sort of like the idea that medicine has to taste bad to be effective.
Welcome to Debate Politics CoffeeSaint... glad to have ya here!

One of the core tools of a defensive-minded Homeland security operation is the black art of spycraft. To publicaly reveal the nature and scope of these spycraft operations is basically anathema to its intrinsic purpose. Examining operational successes (and even failures) in the public domain could reveal important facets of key methodology. This is true of all covert actions across any examined plateau. Would GM publicly reveal that it has placed a mole in Ford corporate management? Would the Yankees tell anyone exactly how they manage to steal signs from the Bosox catcher? Of course not. Yet the secretive ways and means used to obtain sensitive information is precisely what the US public seeks to justify the spycraft operations of those who are tasked to defend US Homeland security and ensure the safety of its citzens.

Erring on the side of security does indeed entail the loss of some civil liberties. On the other hand, erring on the side of civil liberties carries a high risk of allowing the enemy unfettered access. Some citizens believe that civil liberties must always be paramount with no contingent considerations allowed. Other citizens believe that the sanctity of life is more important and thus civil liberties must be annotated to reflect certain realities. That is the essence of this conundrum... as both viewpoints can be correct and both can also be erroneous. Ironically, the only entity that can actually solve this dilemma is also the entity that created it... al-Qa'ida.



 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I am not willing to give up one civil right to fight this bullshit war on terror. Not only can you not fight a war against an ideology, we do not spend any time trying to get to the causal reasons why we are so hated. It's not because they are jealous of our freedom. And it is not inherent in their religion. There are reasons that drive people to this level of hatred. We find out what those reasons are, address them as best we can without sacrificing national security, and then and only then, will we start preventing another 9/11 from occuring.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tashah said:
Welcome to Debate Politics CoffeeSaint... glad to have ya here!

One of the core tools of a defensive-minded Homeland security operation is the black art of spycraft. To publicaly reveal the nature and scope of these spycraft operations is basically anathema to its intrinsic purpose. Examining operational successes (and even failures) in the public domain could reveal important facets of key methodology. This is true of all covert actions across any examined plateau. Would GM publicly reveal that it has placed a mole in Ford corporate management? Would the Yankees tell anyone exactly how they manage to steal signs from the Bosox catcher? Of course not. Yet the secretive ways and means used to obtain sensitive information is precisely what the US public seeks to justify the spycraft operations of those who are tasked to defend US Homeland security and ensure the safety of its citzens.

Erring on the side of security does indeed entail the loss of some civil liberties. On the other hand, erring on the side of civil liberties carries a high risk of allowing the enemy unfettered access. Some citizens believe that civil liberties must always be paramount with no contingent considerations allowed. Other citizens believe that the sanctity of life is more important and thus civil liberties must be annotated to reflect certain realities. That is the essence of this conundrum... as both viewpoints can be correct and both can also be erroneous. Ironically, the only entity that can actually solve this dilemma is also the entity that created it... al-Qa'ida.



Thank you for the kind welcome; so far, this site has been most hospitable to me, and it is much appreciated.

I understand your point that intelligence gathering and spycraft are necessary, and also necessarily secret, but that strikes me as unrealistic. Given an absolute public trust in the actions and intentions of the government in the operation to promote security, there would be no reason to explain the methodology, nor to present victories; in that situation, the secrecy can be as absolute as it is possible to make it. However, that is not the situation in which we find ourselves. It would seem that the level of dissatisfaction and distrust of the government now prevalent in the American populace would, to some extent, override the need for such absolute secrecy; the people will begin to undermine the intelligence gathering efforts, else. Witness the outcry against the Patriot Act: perhaps the American people made an educated decision, and pressured their government into removing an ineffective measure, or perhaps the public did not recognize a truly effective counterterrorist measure because they were not told, explicitly, how effective that measure was. Was it effective? I have no idea. If it was proven to me that it was, I personally would have been more willing to surrender my civil liberties. Since the administration only argued that it was effective, my distrust of my government forced me to oppose the act. Thus, those statements being repeated many times by many people, the measure was lost.
In this situation, I feel the government should present simple, factual proof that the spycraft involved has been effective, else they will continue to fight two enemies: the terrorists, and the very people they seek to protect from same.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
CoffeeSaint... I do appreciate and understand your concerns and reservations. It is an unfortunate and troubling situation. I did not disagree with you, I was merely playing the devil's advocate. As an Israeli, I have the viewpoint from afar that rather than the Bush administration, the Dept. of Homeland Security, or the US military, it will ultimately be the American people who decide what counter-measures are adequate for internal security. That is as it should be. Whatever they may be... I pray you make the right decisions.



 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
Thank you for the kind welcome; so far, this site has been most hospitable to me, and it is much appreciated.

I understand your point that intelligence gathering and spycraft are necessary, and also necessarily secret, but that strikes me as unrealistic. Given an absolute public trust in the actions and intentions of the government in the operation to promote security, there would be no reason to explain the methodology, nor to present victories; in that situation, the secrecy can be as absolute as it is possible to make it. However, that is not the situation in which we find ourselves. It would seem that the level of dissatisfaction and distrust of the government now prevalent in the American populace would, to some extent, override the need for such absolute secrecy; the people will begin to undermine the intelligence gathering efforts, else. Witness the outcry against the Patriot Act: perhaps the American people made an educated decision, and pressured their government into removing an ineffective measure, or perhaps the public did not recognize a truly effective counterterrorist measure because they were not told, explicitly, how effective that measure was. Was it effective? I have no idea. If it was proven to me that it was, I personally would have been more willing to surrender my civil liberties. Since the administration only argued that it was effective, my distrust of my government forced me to oppose the act. Thus, those statements being repeated many times by many people, the measure was lost.
In this situation, I feel the government should present simple, factual proof that the spycraft involved has been effective, else they will continue to fight two enemies: the terrorists, and the very people they seek to protect from same.
Ask and you shall recieve,
from the Justice Department:


For decades, terrorists have waged war against U.S. interests. Now America is waging war against terrorists. As President Bush has said, "Free people will set the course of history." We have promoted freedom over the past two years while protecting civil liberties and protecting people here and around the world from further terrorist attacks.

The United States of America is winning the war on terrorism with unrelenting focus and unprecedented cooperation. Prevention of terrorist attacks is one of our highest priorities. With the President's lead, information sharing and cooperation has vastly increased. Today, we are better able to "connect the dots."
The Department of Justice has acted thoughtfully, carefully, and within the framework of the Constitution of the United States. Survival and success in this long war on terrorism demands that the Department continuously adapt and improve its capabilities to protect Americans from a fanatical, ruthless enemy, even as terrorists adapt their tactics to attack us.
HOW WE ARE WAGING THE WAR ON TERRORISM:

First, we are disrupting terrorist threats, and capturing the terrorists that would carry them out. Since 9/11:

Our intelligence and law enforcement communities, and our partners, both here and abroad, have identified and disrupted over 150 terrorist threats and cells;
Worldwide, nearly two-thirds of al Qaida's known senior leadership has been captured or killed -- including a mastermind of the September 11th attacks;
Worldwide, more than 3,000 operatives have been incapacitated;
Five terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and Northern Virginia have been broken up;
401 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism-related investigations;
Already, 212 individuals have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; and
Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States.
Second, we are gathering and cultivating detailed knowledge on terrorism in the United States:

Hundreds of suspected terrorists have been identified and tracked throughout the United States;
Our human sources of intelligence related to international terrorism have increased 63% since 9/11, and our human sources of intelligence related to domestic terrorism have increased by 30% since 9/11, with the quality of this human intelligence having improved significantly; and
Our counterterrorism investigations have more than doubled since 9/11.
Third, we are gathering information by leveraging criminal charges and long prison sentences. When individuals realize that they face a long prison term, they often try to lessen their prison time by pleading guilty and cooperating with the government.

These individuals have provided critical intelligence about al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, safehouses, training camps, recruitment, and tactics in the United States, and the operations of those terrorists who mean to do Americans harm.
One individual has given us intelligence on weapons stored here in the United States..
Another individual has identified locations in the United States being scouted or cased for potential attacks by al-Qaida.
Fourth, we are dismantling the terrorist financial network. Already the United States Government has:

Designated 40 terrorist organizations;
Frozen $136 million in assets around the world;
Charged 113 individuals in 25 judicial districts with terrorist financing-related crimes, with 57 convictions or guilty pleas to date; and
Established an FBI Terrorist Financing Operations Section (TFOS) and utilized the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to identify, investigate, prosecute, disrupt, and dismantle terrorist-related financial and fundraising activities.
Fifth, we are using new legal tools to detect, disrupt, and prevent potential terrorist plots. Congress has provided better tools to make sure we are doing all we can, legally and within the bounds of the Constitution, to detect, disrupt, and prevent acts of terror. The PATRIOT Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, in the Senate by 98-1, and in the House of Representatives by 357-66.

The PATRIOT Act allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking. These tools have been used for decades and have been reviewed and approved by the courts.
The PATRIOT Act facilitates information sharing and cooperation among government agencies so that they can better "connect the dots." In the past, different agencies and departments were collecting data but not sharing it with each other. Now we are able to share that data to prevent future attacks.
The PATRIOT Act updated the law to reflect new technologies and new threats. The Act brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with legal authorities left over from the era of rotary telephones.
The PATRIOT Act increased the penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Americans are threatened as much by the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who detonates it. That's why the Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad.
Sixth, the Department of Justice is building its long-term counter-terrorism capacity since September 11th:

A nearly three-fold increase in counter-terrorism funds;
Approximately 1,000 new and redirected FBI agents dedicated to counterterrorism and counterintelligence;
200 new Assistant U.S. Attorneys;
100 Joint Terrorism Task Forces;
More than 300% increase in Joint Terrorism Task Force staffing; and
FBI Flying Squads developed for rapid deployment to hot spots worldwide
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/a_terr.htm
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
More from the Justice Department:

Reauthorize the Patriot Act
Congress Should Reauthorize the Patriot Act and Further Strengthen Homeland Security

By Alberto R. Gonzales

Wednesday, December 14, 2005; Page A29

On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists inspired by hatred murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. In response, Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA Patriot Act. Now, before it adjourns for the year, Congress must act again to reauthorize this critical piece of legislation. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are at work: Their stated goal is to kill Americans, cripple our economy and demoralize our people.

The bill to be considered this week is a good one. It equips law enforcement with the tools needed to fight terrorists, and it also includes new civil liberties protections. Members of Congress should put aside the rhetoric and focus on the facts surrounding this vital legislation.


Wednesday, Dec. 14, at 3:05 ET
Gonzales Discusses Patriot Act
United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales discusses his op-ed in today's Washington Post on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.


The Patriot Act has been successful in helping prevent acts of terrorism in many ways. First, it updated anti-terrorism and criminal laws to reflect evolving technologies. Second, it increased penalties for those who commit terrorist crimes. Third, it gave terrorism investigators the same tools used by those who pursue drug dealers and the Mafia. Most important, the act helped break down the wall preventing regular exchange of information between the law enforcement and intelligence communities.

Four years later, after a lengthy and extensive public debate, Congress has produced a comprehensive reauthorization bill to permanently reauthorize 14 of the act's 16 expiring provisions. During this important debate, Republicans and Democrats have discovered that concerns raised about the act's impact on civil liberties, while sincere, were unfounded. There have been no verified civil liberties abuses in the four years of the act's existence.

Furthermore, the new bill adds 30 safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. Specifically, it includes measures providing that those who receive national security letters may consult an attorney and challenge the request in court; requires high-level Justice Department sign-off before investigators may ask a court to order production of certain sensitive records, such as those from a library; and requires that the FBI describe the target of a "roving wiretap" with sufficient specificity to ensure that only a single individual is targeted.

In addition, this bill further strengthens homeland security by creating a new national security division at the Justice Department, providing additional protections against the threat of attacks on mass transportation systems and at our seaports, and granting us additional tools to protect Americans from terrorism.

Congress must act now or risk bringing terrorism prevention to a halt. For example, it is widely accepted -- and documented by independent bodies such as the Sept. 11 and WMD commissions -- that a lack of information-sharing and coordination in our government before the attacks of Sept. 11 compromised our ability to connect the dots about what our enemies were doing. The Patriot Act helped dismantle this barrier. And if we allow certain provisions to "sunset" on Jan. 1, we risk shutting down essential intelligence-sharing that occurs in the National Counterterrorism Center and other facilities where law enforcement officials sit side-by-side with intelligence professionals.

Those who voice concern that Congress is rushing to reauthorize the expiring provisions fail to recognize the oversight it has conducted. In 2005, Congress held 23 hearings focused on reauthorization and heard from more than 60 witnesses. The Justice Department was pleased to provide witnesses at 18 of those hearings, with more than 30 appearances by our experts. I testified three times, explaining the importance of the act, responding to concerns and directly addressing the act's critics. My testimony was informed not only by the successes of the act but also by my personal meetings with representatives from groups such as the ACLU and the American Library Association. During the reauthorization discussion, I asked that certain provisions be clarified to ensure the protection of civil liberties, and Congress responded.

For example, Section 215 of the act permits the government to obtain records on an order issued by a federal judge. I agreed that the statute should allow a recipient of such an order to consult a lawyer and challenge it in court. Further, I agreed that Congress should make explicit the standard under which such orders are issued: relevance to an authorized national security investigation. In 2001 one prominent Democratic senator agreed that the "FBI has made a clear case that a relevance standard is appropriate for counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations, as well as for criminal investigations."

The president has said that our number-one priority is preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack. Congress must act immediately and reauthorize the Patriot Act before the men and women in law enforcement lose the tools they need to keep us safe.

The writer is attorney general of the United States. He will answer questions about this column today at 3:05 p.m. on washingtonpost.com.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121301476.html
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Still more from the Justice Department:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales Highlights Success in the War on Terror at the Council on Foreign Relations
The prevention of terrorist attacks and the prosecution of the war on terrorism remain the top priorities of the Department of Justice. In the past year alone, there have been significant convictions in terrorism cases from Virginia to Texas, following a track record of success over the past four years in previous cases such as John Walker Lindh, Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid, among others.

Notable 2005 cases include: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali: On November 22, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, a federal jury convicted Ahmed Omar Abu Ali on all counts of a superseding indictment charging him with terrorism offenses. The jury found Ali, a 24-year-old Virginia man, guilty of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization (al Qaeda); providing material support and resources to al Qaeda; conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing material support to terrorists; contribution of services to al Qaeda; receipt of funds and services from al Qaeda; conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States; conspiracy to commit air piracy; and conspiracy to destroy aircraft. Ali faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for February 17, 2006. Uzair Paracha: On November 23, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted Uzair Paracha, a Pakistani national with permanent resident alien status in the United States, on charges of providing material support to al Qaeda. Evidence at trial proved that Paracha agreed with his father and two al Qaeda members to provide support to al Qaeda by, among other things, trying to help an al Qaeda member re-enter the United States to commit a terrorist act. Paracha faces a maximum sentence of 75 years in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for March 3, 2006.

Hemant Lakhani: On April 27, 2005 in the District of New Jersey, a federal jury convicted a British national, Hemant Lakhani, on charges of attempting to sell shoulder-fired missiles to what he thought was a terrorist group intent on shooting down U.S. airliners. Lakhani was arrested following an undercover sting operation involving agents from several nations. Lakhani was sentenced in September 2005 to 47 years in prison.

Ali Al-Timimi: On April 26, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Ali Al-Timimi was convicted on all 10 charges brought against him in connection with the “Virginia Jihad” case. Al-Timimi, a spiritual leader at a mosque in Northern Virginia, encouraged other individuals at a meeting to go to Pakistan to receive military training from Lashkar-e-Taibi, a designated foreign terrorist group, in order to fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison.

Zacarias Moussaoui: On April 24, 2005 in the Eastern District of Virginia, Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six charges against him related to his participation in the September 11th conspiracy. Moussaoui faces a maximum penalty of death.

Eric Robert Rudolph: On April 13, 2005 in the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern District of Alabama, Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to charges related to deadly bombings in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the Atlanta area, including the bombing at the 1996 Olympics. He has been sentenced to life in prison. Rudolph provided the government with information about 250 pounds of explosives that he had hidden in the Western North Carolina area. As a result of Rudolph’s information, the government was able to locate and safely detonate the explosives.

‘INFOCOM’: On April 12, 2005 in the Northern District of Texas, a federal jury convicted Bayan Elashi, Basman Elashi, Ghassan Elashi and the Infocom Corporation on charges of conspiracy to deal in the property of a specially designated terrorist and money laundering. The activities were related to Infocom, an Internet service provider believed to be a front for Hamas. Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad and Mohammed Zayed: On March 10, 2005 a federal jury in the Eastern District of New York convicted Mohammed Ali Hasan Al-Moayad, a Yemeni cleric, and Mohammed Zayed on charges of providing, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda and Hamas. Al-Moayad was sentenced to 75 years in prison; Zayed was sentenced to 45 years in prison.

Rafil Dhafir: On February 10, 2005 in the Northern District of New York, a federal jury convicted Rafil Dhafir on charges of participating in a conspiracy to unlawfully send money to Iraq, in violation of U.S. sanctions, and money laundering. Dhafir was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Lynne Stewart, et al: On February 10, 2005, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York convicted attorney Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Yassir al-Sirri on charges including providing, and concealing the provision of, material support or resources to terrorists. The four defendants were associates of Sheikh Abdel-Rahman, leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Group (IG). Rahman is serving a life sentence for his role in terrorist activity, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Dec...5_opa_641.html
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Billo, here is the reason for your "bullshit war on terror". You need look no further...

"On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

Source is http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
Billo, here is the reason for your "bullshit war on terror". You need look no further...

"On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

Source is http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm
But I though Osama bin Laden and terrorism were only a myth used to usurp the civil liberty of the hapless citizenry? (strong sarcastic emphasis added mine)
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If indeed as an American citizen I am responsible for those 3000 souls who perished in the attack on American soil, September 11th; then I as a human am also responsible for the 25,000 killed in Iraq, and in our war on terrorism worldwide. I am more than a citizen of America, I am also a human.

I am also responsible then for the treatment of those whom we capture in this war. The above proof of news reports does show how effective the tactics of our war have been. We have indeed snagged many "suspects." Where are they now? I believe that is what our nations CIA agents are being sought by courts in Europe to answer just those questions.

The terrorism tactics seem to be actions of the same ilk. Kidnapping, bombing, control of the general public, torture, sending young men to mass suicide and to commit horrid acts against another person.

I guess who the terrorists are is simply based on what side of the issue your on.

What fun is life with no Civil Liberties? These held in the Constitution as ideals where for life to be free, what good is an ideal such as that with no actions to back it, only undermine it?

KMS
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
CaliNORML said:
If indeed as an American citizen I am responsible for those 3000 souls who perished in the attack on American soil, September 11th; then I as a human am also responsible for the 25,000 killed in Iraq, and in our war on terrorism worldwide. I am more than a citizen of America, I am also a human.

I am also responsible then for the treatment of those whom we capture in this war. The above proof of news reports does show how effective the tactics of our war have been. We have indeed snagged many "suspects." Where are they now? I believe that is what our nations CIA agents are being sought by courts in Europe to answer just those questions.

The terrorism tactics seem to be actions of the same ilk. Kidnapping, bombing, control of the general public, torture, sending young men to mass suicide and to commit horrid acts against another person.

I guess who the terrorists are is simply based on what side of the issue your on.

What fun is life with no Civil Liberties? These held in the Constitution as ideals where for life to be free, what good is an ideal such as that with no actions to back it, only undermine it?

KMS
In another thread, someone didn't see my disagreement and sarcasm with an earlier statement and asked why I saw things in black and white...

After reading this post, and NOT seeing any sarcasm to this sentence...

What fun is life with no Civil Liberties?...

...I must ask the same question...

Where the heck did this come from???...Why, in a nation where we gain more and more civil liberties every year does the slowing down of these events mean we, all of a sudden, become Communist Russia?...This is nothing more than extreme rhetoric designed to make people feel like the government is actually stifling something...far from it...

It's amazing that so many people want the government to protect us, then in the next breath criticize them for actually doing so...

Apparently, everyone of the Left just completed their bar exam in the last two weeks and are more than happy to yell from the highest mountain how illegal everything is...:roll:
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
cnredd said:
In another thread, someone didn't see my disagreement and sarcasm with an earlier statement and asked why I saw things in black and white...

After reading this post, and NOT seeing any sarcasm to this sentence...

What fun is life with no Civil Liberties?...

...I must ask the same question...

Where the heck did this come from???...Why, in a nation where we gain more and more civil liberties every year does the slowing down of these events mean we, all of a sudden, become Communist Russia?...This is nothing more than extreme rhetoric designed to make people feel like the government is actually stifling something...far from it...

It's amazing that so many people want the government to protect us, then in the next breath criticize them for actually doing so...

Apparently, everyone of the Left just completed their bar exam in the last two weeks and are more than happy to yell from the highest mountain how illegal everything is...:roll:
Actually if they understood the law then I wouldn't have to explain it to them fifty different times on fifty different threads why the President is well within his legal rights and after they realize that they have no case they go into their liberal spin and start making **** up like someone said that he was sure the president spyed on political opponents and when confronted on it he of course had no evidence to back it up so cnredd do as I do and use the liberal Kryptonite it's not that hard to find it's called the truth based on facts as opposed to lies based on rhetoric, speculation, and inuendo.

EDIT:

Oh and lest we forget the moral reletavists here who like so many enemy agitators and sympathizers before them try and create some sort of moral equivalency between the United States her enemies as if there could ever be such a comparison.
 
Last edited:

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Actually if they understood the law then I wouldn't have to explain it to them fifty different times on fifty different threads why the President is well within his legal rights and after they realize that they have no case they go into their liberal spin and start making **** up like someone said that he was sure the president spyed on political opponents and when confronted on it he of course had no evidence to back it up so cnredd do as I do and use the liberal Kryptonite it's not that hard to find it's called the truth based on facts as opposed to lies based on rhetoric, speculation, and inuendo.

EDIT:

Oh and lest we forget the moral reletavists here who like so many enemy agitators and sympathizers before them try and create some sort of moral equivalency between the United States her enemies as if there could ever be such a comparison.
Three Questions:
1. If your such a legal expert, why aren't you on the bench?

2. If you President Bush is, "without a reasonable doubt" within his rights as the President when doing these warantelss wiretaps, why would a bi-partisan group of congress be furthur looking into the issue to see if he was within in rights?

3. If your so right, why aren't you talking in washington instead of a debate politics forum? Since you are always right all the time 100% (or at least you think so).
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
Three Questions:

1. If your such a legal expert, why aren't you on the bench?
Because one must first graduate from law school before they practice law.
2. If you President Bush is, "without a reasonable doubt" within his rights as the President when doing these warantelss wiretaps, why would a bi-partisan group of congress be furthur looking into the issue to see if he was within in rights?
Because Senator Specter is a Republican in name only, by bi-partisan perhaps you mean 1 Rep and 44 Democrats. :roll:

3. If your so right, why aren't you talking in washington instead of a debate politics forum? Since you are always right all the time 100% (or at least you think so).
Because I will be after I either recieve my masters in political science, or I pass the Bar.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually in the interview on PBS the subject of the laws surrounding the NSA were addressed, and the President can face 5 years in the Federal Pen.

The disagreement coming from the fact that the NSA was never supposed to be turned onto the people of America. This is the violation of that law being argued today, that overstepping of power, as well as who that power was used against. The provisions of this agency were clear, and still are.

Many of the mosques that were under watch were only because of the Presidents sidestepping of this law. Thes mosques where being run by American citzens, born and raised. Their civil rights trounced because of religion is fine in our nation?

The entire progression of Constitional civil rights has been rolling backwards at full steam for some time now that is the movement seen to be slowing down.

Our State Supreme Courts are given mandates to impliment, not allowing us, the people, a fair debate and review of them first.

KMS
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
CaliNORML said:
Actually in the interview on PBS the subject of the laws surrounding the NSA were addressed, and the President can face 5 years in the Federal Pen.

The disagreement coming from the fact that the NSA was never supposed to be turned onto the people of America. This is the violation of that law being argued today, that overstepping of power, as well as who that power was used against. The provisions of this agency were clear, and still are.

Many of the mosques that were under watch were only because of the Presidents sidestepping of this law. Thes mosques where being run by American citzens, born and raised. Their civil rights trounced because of religion is fine in our nation?

The entire progression of Constitional civil rights has been rolling backwards at full steam for some time now that is the movement that is slowing down.

Our State Supreme Courts are given mandates to impliment, not allowing us, the people, a fair debate and review of them first.

KMS
You don't get it.
Its legal because Trajan Says so.

And, for questioning his ultimate knowledge you are Un-American, Un-Patriotic, Treason, and Traitor!

Oh yeah, Your giving Aid to the Terrorists.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Silly me to not chose Black or White, I just prefer stripes.

KMS
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CaliNORML said:
Actually in the interview on PBS the subject of the laws surrounding the NSA were addressed, and the President can face 5 years in the Federal Pen.

The disagreement coming from the fact that the NSA was never supposed to be turned onto the people of America. This is the violation of that law being argued today, that overstepping of power, as well as who that power was used against. The provisions of this agency were clear, and still are.

Many of the mosques that were under watch were only because of the Presidents sidestepping of this law. Thes mosques where being run by American citzens, born and raised. Their civil rights trounced because of religion is fine in our nation?

The entire progression of Constitional civil rights has been rolling backwards at full steam for some time now that is the movement seen to be slowing down.

Our State Supreme Courts are given mandates to impliment, not allowing us, the people, a fair debate and review of them first.

KMS
And now I must explain it yet again the crime is not the wire taps the crime is leaking the program and publishing it all over the New York Times:
Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information
>
> (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
> transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
> or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
> interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
> government to the detriment of the United States any classified
> information -
> (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
> cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any
> foreign government; or
> (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or
> repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or
> prepared or
> planned for use by the United States or any foreign
> government
> for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
> (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
> United States or any foreign government; or
> (4) obtained by the process of communication intelligence
> from
> the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
> same to
> have been obtained by such processes -
> Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
>years, or both.
Here's the oath the president must take:


:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
And that of the vice president:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

and here's the authority of the president to control the military:

Quote:
Artilcle II
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
Now here's the war powers of the president:


War Powers Resolution of 1973

Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Now here are the war powers granted to the president by a joint resolution of congress in accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973:


Joint Resolution Authorizing The Use Of Force Against Terrorists
September 14, 2001
This is the text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements


Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Caine said:
You don't get it.
Its legal because Trajan Says so.

And, for questioning his ultimate knowledge you are Un-American, Un-Patriotic, Treason, and Traitor!

Oh yeah, Your giving Aid to the Terrorists.
Fifth Column - Fifth column refers to any clandestine group of people which works covertly inside a nation to undermine its strength (psychological warfare) while the nation is simultaneously suffering an overt attack by a foreign power or another faction in a civil war.

synonyms may include Democrats and Liberals.
 
Top Bottom