posted on May 1, 2004 12:58:41 AM new
Linda: “Those peaceful Muslims?”
“””””“”””“I see raising them raising their children to want all Jews and infidels killed because their religion calls for it.
I see them not allowing differences of religion or politics....you agree with them...or else."""""""""""""
Naturally that’s what you see Linda because you view the whole world through FOX & CNN coloured glasses.
While your peacefully nation sometimes subtly and other times not so, marches into country after country, when it is not their place.
I don’t believe it ever a good thing, regardless of the victim’s religion, what is seen in the images above.
But I do rejoice in seeing these atrocities come to public light as it exposes more of that which America is capable of; for all the blind to see.
Geeeeee!!!
Americans commit atrocities…. Who would’ve guessed?
Rest assured Linda, your rotten apples stink too, like 12pole, your friend and comrade in arms who calls for genocide frequently.
God thank America for Operation Iraqi Freedom
American soldiers giving their lives for the cause of their 'benevolent' leader.
posted on May 1, 2004 01:56:45 AM new
I think some here need to read CAIR's link online every-once-in-a-while.....might just get you away from that left-leaning media tripe. They're not all our friends. They have a 'brotherhood', the tie being their religious beliefs, and they are opposed to almost all our freedoms here in American.
I'd like to see the Iraqi people be free. But the first time they acted against my country that would change. I have no problem with peaceful anybody...any country. But those on reamonds lists are well known....and it's not for their good deeds.
and Fenix - I was referring to all in the group reamond posted. Why don't you enlighted me and give me some links of all the good things these groups are doing that have benefited the world or the US. I read several news sites daily....I sure don't see them. And they're not all conservative sites. But, yes I do agree with the conservative sites and feel they are the only ones in touch with the reality of what our country is facing.
posted on May 1, 2004 02:09:19 AM new
Here's what the peaceful Muslims in America are hoping for and it's my opinion they're already putting many of their peaceful plans into operation. Take the situation in our school....where they go to great lengths to help American's understand the Muslim faith. Look to the Christian symbols being removed but Muslim one's are allowed to be shown.
A controversial American Islamic advocacy group has planned a voter registration drive to coincide with the upcoming Muslim holiday at the end of the pilgrimage to Mecca.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, alleged to have ties to terrorist groups such as Hamas, says "our goal, insha'Allah (if Allah wills), is to register more than 100,000 new Muslim voters over the next eight months."
CAIR is urging Islamic communities to sign up Muslim voters at festivals that follow Eid ul-Adha prayers, held on Feb. 22 or 23, depending on the new moon. The holiday commemorates what Muslims believe was the prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son Ishmael at God's command.
Some observers of CAIR and similar organizations insist that while these groups have a right to lobby just as any other public interest, their aims are suspect.
"They may not admit it, but ultimately they want to make the U.S. a Muslim country," Steven Emerson, a leading anti-terrorism specialist, told WorldNetDaily.
"In the interim they want to acquire as much political power as possible to push their agenda, to be afforded legitimacy by political officials," Emerson said. "So this (voter drive) is part and parcel of their campaign."
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper indicated in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he wants to see the United States become a Muslim country.
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," Hooper told the Star Tribune. "But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
Hooper noted in the interview that Muslims aren't allowed to take over the U.S. and other governments. "What we fight for here and in the remainder of the world is to practice our beliefs," he said.
Calls to CAIR and Hooper's office by WorldNetDaily were not returned.
Emerson notes that Abdulrahman Alamoudi, then-executive director of the American Muslim Council, said at a conference by the Islamic Association for Palestine in December 1996 that the United States will become a Muslim country, even if it takes 100 years.
Emerson was a staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a journalist for U.S. News & World Report and CNN.
In a CAIR editorial published on its website, Hooper called Emerson "the attack dog of the extremist wing of America's pro-Israel lobby."
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said in a statement on the voter drive that "recent events and new government policies have served to spur already growing political participation by American Muslims."
"We have an obligation, because of the Islamic duty of 'enjoining good and prohibiting evil,' to make our voices heard on a number of important issues," Awad said. "Voting, at both the local and national level, is the best way to accomplish that goal."
Awad once worked for the Islamic Association of Palestine, considered by U.S. intelligence officials to be a front group for Hamas operating in the United States. While acknowledging Awad's former affiliation, Hooper has denied any connection between CAIR and IAP.
But CAIR recently rallied to the defense of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development – a U.S.-based group accused of channeling funds to Hamas – arguing that President Bush's decision to freeze their assets could give the impression that "there has been a shift from a war on terrorism to an attack on Islam."
Emerson cites as evidence of CAIR's affinity for Hamas "their co-sponsorship of conferences calling for the death of Jews, statements on behalf of Hamas leaders, statements defending Iran and the Sudan and sponsorship of hate rallies where attacks on America are made."
Alamoudi, the former AMC director, was quoted at a Washington, D.C. rally, Oct. 28, 2000, saying: "I have been labeled by the media in New York to be a supporter of Hamas. We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah."
CAIR seeks to underscore its political clout by citing a figure of about 7 million Muslims in the United States, but recent counts have come up with a much lower total. An evaluation of current estimates, conducted by Howard Fienberg and Iain Murray of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service, concluded there are about 2 million U.S. Muslims. A recent study commissioned by the American Jewish Committee puts the number between 1.9 million and 2.8 million.
CAIR and other groups such as the AMC, American Muslim Alliance and Muslim Public Affairs Council, helped get out the vote during the 2000 election. Their top issues included opposition to racial profiling and the use of secret evidence against people suspected of terrorist activity.
The groups claimed their support of Bush put him in office, but an exit poll by the Detroit News showed 66 percent of Muslims in Michigan voted for Al Gore.
Muslims are heavily concentrated in Detroit and other major metropolitan areas including New York, Chicago and Southern California.
Arab-American pollster John Zogby estimates that U.S. Muslims are about 30 percent African-American, 20 percent Pakistani, 15 percent Arab American and 13 percent Indian. About 20 percent come from Iran, Turkey, Africa and Asia.
While most Muslims in the U.S. might not share CAIR's views or even know about the organization, adding 100,000 Muslim voters would give the group more clout to carry out its political agenda, Emerson said.
"I think we've already seen some of that in terms of what has happened over the last few years," he said, "when Hollywood studios change the scripts to take out any references to militant Islamic terrorists, or when school boards actually excise books from the curriculum because CAIR says they are deemed harmful to 'Islam,' or if counterterrorism laws are not enforced because of the fear that this is going to be anti-Muslim."
Emerson said that before Sept. 11 there was a strong move in Congress to stop the use of classified evidence in deportations of terrorists. "They had been gaining a lot of momentum abetted by the naivete of the media," Emerson said.
posted on May 1, 2004 02:15:13 AM new
Linda - I was unaware that the only way to establish youtr worthiness as human being was to do good things ofr the US, or even for the world at large.
Isn't just being a peaceful individual enough for you and if not, why do you support an invasion and the establishment of a new governemtnin Iraq considering that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of that government will be Bahii, Shiia or Sunni. If they are all evil war mongering death wishing people, why in the world would you have spent the past year argueing in support of creating a free and peaceful nation? Especially when you feel they are all incapable of peceful existance with you?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 1, 2004 02:44:40 AM new
fenix - I think I've already explained that.
I'd like to see all countries be free....free to enjoy the same freedoms we do.
I hope we can provide that, eventually, to Iraq. I believe their three divisions can live together in peace once they are taught how to.
I believe once that whole region gets a taste of true freedom they can become peace-loving nations too. But the groups reamond mentioned are not freedom loving people. Their intent is to destroy our country....if given the means.
Look at all who have joined in the war in Iraq....why do you think they did? Because they hate American and what it stands for.
And again, I'm serious....I'm open to being proved wrong.
Show me those groups peace-loving people.
Show me that even though many may not be violent themselves, they rarely seem to speak out against the one's who are. Why ? [again] because they all support one another....against outsiders - The Western World...non-Muslim, non-Arab. They don't side with Westerners or the other's in their groups kill them too for going against their 'brothers'.
Just like I said on the SA thread - From what I read I don't know if they're friend or foe. But until I feel comfortable with something...I'm going to be on guard...watching...reading...to help me make up my mind.
So far I've seen nothing to make me feel any in the ME love us....from everything I read they hate us. But hey, if you've got something to show me differently....I'm open to hearing it.
posted on May 1, 2004 04:19:26 AM new
First of all - if I were to post an article from a decidedly liberal source that started off whic such an increbibly vague accusation as :alleged to have ties to" YOU would stop reading then and there and state as I have seen you do so many times that you are not going to bother wasting our time with something so slanted an unsubstantiated. but I read on. I stopped at the point where people advocating that muslims register to vote were advocating a takeover of the country. Isn't voting what one is SUPPOSED to do in a democracy?
And could you please explain to me how you can possibly point fingers at a religious group advocating that its members become involved in the democratic process as being something evil when your beloved president has broughtso many faith based programs into our government. You are the one that think that religion has a place in government Linda - or is it just Christianity?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 1, 2004 04:47 AM ]
posted on May 1, 2004 05:41:01 AM new
this abuse has been an ongoing thing from day one of the invasion, and the generals and bush and gang knew this abuse was going on...shame ....and you call this liberation, from the frying pan and into the fire.....american administration is Saddam just in another body......look at what bush and gang did with the war crimes courts, they made sure from day one the US would not be held accountable in anyway for war crimes...the american president knew this was going to happen.....and he calls himself a christian...is this what all christians practice in the US???? what do christians pray for when going to church???..that they can kill more non christians???...is this a christian value????...the inquistion has arrived..... this abuse is just the tip of the iceberg....these crimes will piss off a lot of Muslims....and here bush is saying to go out and control them..hell he was told before this started and by me also, that this war will raise a hornets nest....and the waste of life...all for profit.....not for honor or defence of one's country.....
Saturday May 1, 2004
The Guardian
After an investigation was launched into the alleged abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick decided to keep a journal to ensure his side of the story would be revealed. The journals seen by the Guardian begin on January 19 2004 and detail the conditions of the prisoners, apparent torture, and the death of one inmate after interrogation.
· Prison conditions
"Prisoners were forced to live in damp cool cells. MI [military intelligence] has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window for as much as three days. MI personnel and even CID agents were present at these times. On or about the first week of Jan 2004 ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] was to make an appearance at the facility. Prisoners that were not processed were rushed out to processing immediately to be processed. I pulled Lt Col Phillabaum aside while he was in 1A. I questioned him about how MI wants things done and about how prisoners were being treated in 1A/B. His reply was "Don't worry about it." I have asked for support from BN [battalion] and the company as to dealing with certain prisoners' behaviour and have received nothing."
"I had a few small rooms within the tiers ... I was often told to place them in these rooms that were as small as 3ft by 3ft. When I brought this up with the acting BN commander he stated "I don't care if he has to sleep standing up."
"Prisoners were forced to sleep in areas not suitable, such as tents that had water in them from rain, only 2 or 3 blankets to shield them from the weather. A prisoner with a clearly visible mental condition was shot with non-lethal rounds for standing near the fence singing when a lesser means of force could have been used."
"The hardsite never knew who to accept or not to accept. MI prisoners were left in cells for as many as 60 days before their handler would ever know that they were there."
· Use of dogs
"MI has encouraged and told us great job that they were now getting positive results and information. CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI's request. [A] CID agent told the soldier working 1A to stress one prisoner out as much as possible that he wanted to talk to him the next day. On the 18th Jan 2004 an unruly prisoner with a broken arm. The prisoner was placed in a head lock and choked out in the presence of CID agent team."
· Death in custody
"Back around Nov an OGA prisoner was brought to 1A. They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately 24 hours in the shower in the 1B. The next day the medics came in and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away. This OGA was never processed and therefore never had a number
Health facilities
"There was a large breakout of body lice among many prisoners. Only solution given was razors.
"Prisoners that were infected with TB were housed in the same tier as other prisoners and ... the soldiers to be possibly infected by this airborne virus.
· Freedom of religious expression
"Prisoners have a mosque at the facility but are not allowed the privilege to go to it."
Two emails, one written before the abuse was discovered and one after are also telling.
· December 18, 2003
Email to Mimi Frederick
"It is very interresting (sic) to watch them interrogate these people. They don't usually allow others to watch them interrogate but since they like the way I run the prison they make an exception ...
We have had a very high rate with our style of getting them to break. They usually end up breaking within hours ..."
· January 22, 2004
"Dear Mimi,
I am feeling so bad at how the army has come down on me. They always said that #*!@ rolls downhill and guess who is at the bottom? I have asked for help and warned of this and nobody would listen. I told the battalion commander that I didn't like the way it was going and his reply was 'Don't worry about it. I give you permission to do it'.
"I just wish I could talk to someone about what is going on but I was ordered not to talk to anyone besides my attorney and CID. As far as trusting someone, DON'T."
The Mirror says the pictures were handed over by British soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment who claimed a rogue element in the British army was responsible for abusing prisoners and civilians.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, the soldiers told the paper no charges were brought against the unnamed captive.
They allege that during his eight-hour ordeal he was threatened with execution, his jaw broken and his teeth smashed
After being beaten and urinated on, he was driven away and dumped from the back of a moving vehicle, the soldiers claimed, unaware if he was dead.
The reason for making the photos public was, they said, to show why the US-UK coalition was encountering such fierce resistance in Iraq.
One told the paper: "We are not helping ourselves out there. We are never going to get them on our side. We are fighting a losing war."
Ahmed al-Sheik, editor-in-chief of Arab TV news channel, said the photographs would outrage Arabs around the world.
"These scenes are humiliating not only to the Iraqis, but to every Arab citizen around the world," he told BBC Two's Newsnight.
Meanwhile former foreign secretary Lord Hurd said the situation in Iraq was in danger of spiralling out of control.
"In Iraq we're in a nosedive. Things are happening which were entirely predictable and predicted.
"An army of liberation, particularly a British/American one, turns within hours into an army of occupation."
The announced withdrawal of American troops from Falluja, unless it is scuppered by the neocons (and I have no doubt they are working on scuppering it), is a very important development, for two main reasons:
It represents the first acknowledged defeat for the neocon 'shock and awe' mad-dog strategy of American military dealings with the rest of the world. Basically, psychos like Ledeen and Perle decided that the United States has the only domineering army in the world, and American foreign policy should be to use it to violently coerce the rest of the world to follow American big business interests. This would be accomplished by picking example countries like Iraq and using American military violence to completely destroy the country and terrify the population. The massacre in Falluja is the most blatant manifestation of this policy. The neocons were prepared to kill almost every person in Falluja until any survivors were so terrified that their terror and the deaths of the rest could be used as an example to any others in Iraq or the rest of the world who might question the decisions of the American occupiers. It is a strategy right out of the Bible. It didn't work. Again, facts have proven that an army, even the best army in the world, is useless in fighting a determined civilian resistance (Vietnam, southern Lebanon, the thirteen colonies, etc.). The only way you can 'win' such an encounter is if you are morally prepared to murder or incapacitate every last inhabitant (are the Americans ready for the Byzantine Empire solution of blinding every male in Iraq?). We have seen the neocon strategy over and over again in Iraq, starting with the 'shock and awe' bombing of civilians, and carrying through the murder of journalists, the abuse of civilians, and the torture of prisoners. It is laughable for the Americans to claim that the recent evidence of misuse of prisoners is an anomaly, when we have seen so much evidence of other incidents in the past. Now they claim they are going to 'investigate'. How many investigations have been promised before? How many people have been punished? American claims of innocence won't fly anymore. Brutality is the express and implicit policy of the Pentagon in Iraq. The soldiers who brutalize Iraqi civilians and prisoners do so because they understand that they are supposed to. Brutality is what the neocons intend to use to start a conflagration in the Middle East which will lead to their real goal - a goal essentially treasonous to the United States - of using the American military to force the creation of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. You want to know why Wolfowitz can't remember the number of American dead? Because he doesn't give a damn about American deaths (but I bet he can give you the name of every last insane Israeli settler illegally living on Palestinian land who ended up the victim of a Palestinian freedom fighter). Americans are just 'fodder units' for the greater Biblical goal of the creation of Greater Israel. Americans are eventually going to have to wake up to the fact that they are being led by a bunch of psychopaths whose sole loyalty is to a foreign country.
It represents an incredible loss of control by the Pentagon in Washington over the American military. It is apparent that the American commanders on the ground in Falluja came to the conclusion that whoever was giving the orders in Washington was insane (Dr. Strangelove), and that they were no longer prepared to participate in a massacre that not only would fail in its short-term military goal, but would turn the whole country violently against the Americans (not to mention completely destroying the moral integrity of the American military by forcing soldiers to murder civilians). They negotiated a cease-fire unknown to the Pentagon in Washington and against the express wishes of the civilian neocons in charge of the Pentagon. In fact, Falluja was being micromanaged by the White House itself. No to put too fine a point on it, the cease-fire in Falluja was a mutiny by the American commanders in Falluja (the hero seems to be Marine Lt. Gen. James Conway). This explains why we weresimultaneouslyhearing announcements of a cease-fire in Iraq and vehement denials from the Pentagon in Washington. It also explains why some Americans had stopped the massacre, while others, still under the control of Washington, continued. Paul Wolfowitz (Captain Bligh) said the situation was 'confusing', which is a very odd thing for the guy supposedly in charge to say. It was confusing to him because a cease-fire was being negotiated on the ground in Falluja behind Wolfowitz's back. The central command in Washington has become so bad - both incompetent and treasonous - that American soldiers in the field have to make their own cease-fires. Perhaps there is hope for the United States yet.
posted on May 1, 2004 07:16:02 AM new
Ahh more rantings from some well known vendio anti-americans... what's a day without seeing their inane BS...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 1, 2004 07:22:08 AM new
Anyone that has actually been in the Military knows that you DO NOT have to follow orders that are contrary to good order and disciplne... So any soldier that has knowingly allowed this to happen since January is as guilty as those in the pictures...
There is no such thing in the US Military, "I was just following orders"...
They are allowed under certain circumstances to disobey... if you had been in the military you would of known that...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 1, 2004 09:30:23 AM newyou DO NOT have to follow orders that are contrary to good order and disciplne..
That's correct, however there are intervening human behavioral elements brought about by military training that simply do not lend themselves to the good order and discipline doctrine.
Military training is to cause the individual to lose inhibitions about foillowing orders without question and to kill on command. That is what the training is meant to do.
Boot Camp is not about physical conditioning, that could be done more efficiently in a different environment.
It is about mentally and physically tearing down the individual and making them into something just short of a robot.
This is done purposely and methodically. It was designed by behavioral scientists and has proved very effective.
Accordingly, once the military has produced groups of people like this, it is imperative that the command structure pays attention to what is going on and issues orders immediately to correct these thing before they happen.
It is also the case that with the good order and discipline doectrine that the "individual" puts their career on the line anytime they question an order. And it is also the case that even if the individual is exhonerated after following an illegal order, their career is over. The military does not want individual actors, they want a grouop that will do what it is told without question.
posted on May 1, 2004 01:35:31 PM newpost an article - increbibly vague accusation as :alleged to have ties to" YOU would stop reading.
problem here is no matter which 'slant' is presented the sources of the article can't always be identified by name or position. If stories could only be printed in that manner we would be given little information. But I do think those 'un-identified' sources statements have to be looked at skeptically...yes.
I stopped at the point where people advocating that muslims register to vote were advocating a takeover of the country.
The Muslims who were advocating this change were named. What more could you want. And the source was given to where their statements were made.
Isn't voting what one is SUPPOSED to do in a democracy?
Most certainly. But what I'm saying I worry about from all that I read is that they're using our system against us. Used to be immigrants came to Amercia and adapted to our ways. This group is doing all they can to change our ways...through our political system/voting.
I worry how much they are "FOR" America and how much they are "Against" our way of life and are just working to change it....little by little.
And could you please explain to me how you can possibly point fingers at a religious group advocating that its members become involved in the democratic process as being something evil when your beloved president has broughtso many faith based programs into our government. I point it questioning their motives. There have been many Muslims arrested, in the US, for supporting terrorists groups abroad. It is not unreasonable, imo, to be questioning why...or to be upset that they're supporting groups who hate America.
You are the one that think that religion has a place in government Linda - or is it just Christianity?
Nope it's not...no matter how much you all here think that is my motive. I believe all religions can live in peace side by side with enough tolerance of one another. The Muslim faith and the Christian faith are similar in basic ways. But again, I'm saying we don't have Christian/Jewish/etc religious groups here supporting our enemies. We don't have religions here who's faith practices killing their own children because they were kidnapped and raped and their culture blames the victim...to restore the family's honor.
We don't have other US religious groups here in America being arrested for politically and financially supporting terrorists groups, like we do in the Muslim community. Support for groups like Hamas.
A staff member for CAIR pleaded guilty to terrorism. These issues can't be ignored.
But the thing I have the most trouble understanding is how the lefties support tying the hands of our FBI [read - Patriot Act] when it comes to be able to investigate these questionable Muslims to see if they are working on plans against America. They're more worried about racial profiling/etc. than they are concerned that many Muslims are supporting our enemies. That's concerns me greatly and I don't understand it at all.
posted on May 1, 2004 02:40:17 PM new
::But the thing I have the most trouble understanding is how the lefties support tying the hands of our FBI [read - Patriot Act] when it comes to be able to investigate these questionable Muslims to see if they are working on plans against America. They're more worried about racial profiling/etc. than they are concerned that many Muslims are supporting our enemies. That's concerns me greatly and I don't understand it at all. ::
There are two entirely different schools of thought on this one... Yours is from the school of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Which in theory is true.
I cannot speak for everyone so I will give you this "leftists" reasons. The Patriot Act has given to much freedom with too little oversight. The FBI is now enabled to basically do as they will with no reporting procedures. Prior to recent enactments of the Patriot Act the FBI had to show just cause and suppoena financial records. At the end of the day they had to report to congress how many times they did this. Not anymore. Any police or FBI agent can request copies of all of your financial records without showing any reason for doing so, you cannot be informed and your banker can e arrested for telling you it's been done and and there is absolutely no oversight over the frequency of this practice. It is stripping away basic rights of privacy. Your personal records can be called into question, your phones tapped, you flagged as potentially dangerous because someone that you know or have done business with is under suspicion but there is no definition for what puts them under suspicion. You can be arrested with no reason, held with no charges and no right to council. How is this different from so many of the regimes we have fought against and worked to change in our history?
Remember this one...
When the Nazis arrested the Communists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.
This is why people with and fight these types of action. Removing freedoms is a slippery slope. Where does it stop? What happens when someone whose philosophy you do not agree with is put into a position of power and uses these newfound freedoms of invasion to further a cause that you do not believe in?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 1, 2004 03:50:31 PM new
fenix - The Patriot Act has given to much freedom with too little oversight.
I've more than once wished I could relocate a site where the Patriot Act was compared, side-by-side, with how the laws were before the Patriot Act was approved. Because it has been important for me to point out to those who are under the impression that what's in the Patriot Act are not all new laws.
There were so many similarities it was surprising. Much of what is allowed under the PA was already allowed....just each were called different
things. Much of what's in the PA were put into law during the clinton admin.
The FBI is now enabled to basically do as they will with no reporting procedures.
And my agrument to this is that there always is and will be accountability if any law is used inappropriately. It's not a 'do whatever - get away with anything' program.
Prior to recent enactments of the Patriot Act the FBI had to show just cause and suppoena financial records. At the end of the day they had to report to congress how many times they did this. Not anymore. Any police or FBI agent can request copies of all of your financial records without showing any reason for doing so, you cannot be informed and your banker can e arrested for telling you it's been done and and there is absolutely no oversight over the frequency of this practice.
Many of these things the FBI were already allowed to do under our laws....like check your bank records/etc....but now what's been expanded has been more of the institutions they can do the same thing at. They need this ability to track what terrorists groups/etc are donating funds to terrorists groups. They're not going to be singling our you and me.
It is stripping away basic rights of privacy. The government has been able to do this in the past too....by court order.
Your personal records can be called into question, your phones tapped, you flagged as potentially dangerous because someone that you know or have done business with is under suspicion but there is no definition for what puts them under suspicion.
Yes, usually those who 'hang' with those under suspension are looked at...have been looked at in any crime investigation. Our phones/etc could already be monitored....the PA has just updated the law to allow the exact same thing to be done with technology that wasn't around when those laws were put in place.
You can be arrested with no reason, held with no charges and no right to council. I keep hearing people say this, but each time I've read about anyone arrested they've had a lawyer.
How is this different from so many of the regimes we have fought against and worked to change in our history?
You're comparing our nations to one's we've worked to change? No comparion imo.
fenix - We're not going to change each others minds. I know you feel differently about this, as do many here, than I do. I believe since we are now involved in a new type of war - not our military against another countrys military....the game rules have changed. They HAVE to be changed...we've never had some of our enemies in our own country before. You know it's been reported that we have terrorist cells right here. Our government HAS to be given the ability to go into their Mosks and hear/find out what's going on. They worship there yes, but for their culture it's also a meeting place where they discuss political issues....and we have to be able to be sure they mean us no harm.
So....to me...we have to be a little flexible in regard to the balance of our civil libertites vs protecting those who wish to harm us because we held so rigid, wouldn't bend to make it possible to prevent attacks before they happen. And attacks have been prevented....so to me it's working. And as someone else pointed out since the PA came into being how many cases are we seeing where the government is misusing these new rules. How many hundreds of Amer. citizens are screaming their rights are being violated.
I agree it's a fine line. But, imo, if we're going to error I'd rather we error on our side.
posted on May 1, 2004 03:51:37 PM new
Twelve, beating up gays for sport in some drunken fervor is essentially on the same level of these incidents of torture.
I'll add hypocrite to you resume.
You should recuse yourself from this discussion as a mater of decency although that is a lot to expect from you.
posted on May 1, 2004 04:03:00 PM new
::Many of these things the FBI were already allowed to do under our laws....like check your bank records/etc....but now what's been expanded has been more of the institutions they can do the same thing at. They need this ability to track what terrorists groups/etc are donating funds to terrorists groups. They're not going to be singling our you and me.::
Linda - I think you are missing some important aspects. Formerly, the government had to get a supeona to do this which means they had to show a judge that they had just cause for the request. Now all they have to do is fax over a request on company letterhead. Formerly they had to notify congress of hw many times this was done now they do not. Now any agent with desire can have access to all of your records just because they want them and do not have to report to anyone that they have. There is no oversight and no checks and balances to avoid abuse. This is where the problem lies.
::Yes, usually those who 'hang' with those under suspension are looked at...have been looked at in any crime investigation. Our phones/etc could already be monitored....the PA has just updated the law to allow the exact same thing to be done with technology that wasn't around when those laws were put in place. ::
Again, formerly there was oversight on this. There had to be justifcation,, not anymore.
I do not have a problem with allowing proper investigatin. I have a problem with a government agency being given the ability to do as they will. there are innumerable opportunities for abuse.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
The Patriot Act has become a magnet for claims that the government is violating our individual rights.
Yesterday, the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from several prominent law professors on the dangers of the act. Last month, Al Gore called for the act's repeal, accused the Bush administration of suspending civil liberties, and claimed that the government was using "fear as a political tool to consolidate its power and to escape any accountability for its use." Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has called the act "morally wrong," "shameful," and "unconstitutional." Many cities have refused to assist the federal government in its implementation.
Putting aside the hysterics, the worst thing about the Patriot Act is its Orwellian name. It creates no revolution in government powers, nor does it violate the Constitution. If the act marginally reduces peacetime liberties, this is a reasonable price to pay for a valuable weapon against al Qaeda, a resourceful and adaptable enemy that is skilled at escaping detection.
The Patriot Act's most controversial provisions concern electronic surveillance of individuals who threaten national security. But the act did not initiate this practice. The system of secret search and wiretap warrants, granted in a secret hearing by a group of federal judges, without notice to the target, was established 25 years ago by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
FISA was passed because before 1978 authorities could conduct searches to stop threats to national security without any judicial warrants at all. No court has ever found FISA to be unconstitutional, and just last year a special panel of federal appeals court judges reviewed the Patriot Act's central modification of FISA and unanimously found it constitutional.
Before the Patriot Act, FISA warrants were issued upon a showing that the "primary purpose" of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence information. Both the Department of Justice and the special FISA court that issued the warrants interpreted this language, for reasons known only to themselves, to mean that any such information gathered by counter-intelligence services could not be shared, except under rare circumstances, with law enforcement officials. This "wall" prevented law enforcement officials and counter-intelligence officials from pooling their information--a dangerous and stupid practice given that al Qaeda has demonstrated that terrorists can easily operate outside and inside the United States.
my note: This is what all the hoop-la is about with the 9-11 Commission and Jamie Gorelick - she and the Janet Reno group didn't want the two agencies sharing infor. And many agree that could be part of why we weren't able to prevent 9-11 - the WALL was there
The Patriot Act changed the warrant standard from "primary purpose" to "significant purpose" in order to eliminate the wall of separation between foreign threats and domestic crimes, and to allow law enforcement to be used as a weapon against terrorism.
Civil libertarians would have us believe that the Patriot Act allows CIA and NSA agents to roam freely through the country detaining anyone they please. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Patriot Act represents a modest retrenchment from an overcautious interpretation of FISA, but nothing like the pre-1978 regime of warrantless searches.
The Patriot Act also expands FISA to include business and other records that are relevant to a terrorism investigation. The claim that this provision is unconstitutional is false. Individuals generally do not have a Fourth Amendment right over records about them held by someone else.
Given that al Qaeda terrorists have used libraries to conduct research and to communicate, and that their activities can be traced through credit-card receipts and travel reservations, this expansion of FISA is eminently reasonable.
Much of the rest of the Patriot Act contains similar common-sense adjustments that modernize existing laws, like FISA. FISA warrants, for example, are now technology-neutral; i.e., they allow continuing surveillance of a terrorist target even if he switches communication devices and methods. Warrants now authorize nationwide surveillance, rather than surveillance only within a single city or district.
Patriot Act changes allow the search and surveillance tools that had been used against drug dealers and the Mafia to be used against terrorists.
These changes are modest and are worth the small, if any, reduction in civil liberties. Even well-known liberal Democrats have dismissed the idea that constitutional freedoms are in danger. Sen. Dianne Feinstein stated: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuse. They e-mailed back and said they had none." Sen. Joe Biden said at a recent hearing that "the tide of criticism" being directed against the act "is both misinformed and overblown."
But some think that even a small restriction of civil liberties can never be justified.
These people think that, as a mark of our commitment to freedom, courts should not allow the government to invade our civil liberties even during emergencies. The truth is the opposite.
Civil liberties throughout our history have always expanded in peacetime and contracted during emergencies. During the Civil War, the two world wars, and the Cold War, Congress and the president restricted civil liberties, and courts deferred; during peacetime, civil liberties expanded.
The image of a government rationally balancing liberty and security might seem falsely reassuring. What if Mr. Gore is right that the government is using public fear as a tool for consolidating its power? Historical precedents--Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, the Roosevelt administration's internment of Japanese-Americans--do not bode well. Shouldn't the courts protect us against such abuses?
Whenever a war or emergency occurs, critics often argue that the government's reaction is motivated by fear. History surely does suggest that the government is frequently ill-prepared for emergencies, and that fear provoked by a new threat can spark official action. But this is not a bad thing. Although not all fear-driven policies are good--again, we must remember the Japanese Americans' internment--fear provoked by emergency also can motivate government to react to new threats in creative ways.
Common-sense changes in surveillance law could have been used against al Qaeda before they murdered 3,000 people. Errors may occur, but they happen during peacetime as well as during emergencies.
What of the charge that the administration is using public fear to consolidate political power? History shows that new security policies usually last only as long as the war or emergency. The president and Congress usually voluntarily give up their emergency powers; when they do not, courts step in.
Despite a succession of wars and emergencies since the Civil War, civil liberties in our country have expanded steadily.
President Roosevelt said at the beginning of the Great Depression that the only thing we need to fear is fear itself. But he later realized that the absence of fear could be just as dangerous, because it prevented the United States from preparing for the coming war. It took Pearl Harbor to shatter the complacency of the American public.
We can only hope the absence of an al Qaeda attack on American soil during the last two years will not lull us back into our pre-Sept. 11 stupor.
taken from worldnet daily.com
[Mr. Posner is a law professor at the University of Chicago. Mr. Yoo, a visiting professor at the University of Chicago law school and scholar at the American Enterprise Institution, was an official in the Bush Justice Department.]
posted on May 3, 2004 07:46:02 AM new
Help AQ grow put - the handwringing kerry in office.
This President is the one who finally took action against AQ...continues to encourage our nation and other countries to fight terrorist all over the world.
The Republicans have a back-bone....unlike the ultra-left's Jamie Gorelick's of the democratic party who do all they can to hamper catching our enemies.
-----------------------
What is kerry's position on the Patriot Act? Does he even have one? Has it changed from he held before 9-11 to now...trying to win election?
posted on May 3, 2004 07:58:45 AM new
taken from Boston.com/news/Boston Globe:
John Kerry's shifting stands
By Jeff Jacoby, 2/12/2004
IN THE 2004 presidential field, there is a candidate for nearly every point of view.
His name is John Kerry.
Equivocating politicians are sometimes accused of trying to be "all things to all people," but few have taken the practice of expedience and shifty opportunism to Kerry's level.
Massachusetts residents have known this about their junior senator for a long time. Now the rest of the country is going to find out.
Here's how it works:
Say you're in favor of capital punishment for terrorists.
Well, so is Kerry. "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country," he said in December 2002. "I support killing people who declare war on our country."
But if you're opposed to capital punishment even for terrorists, that's OK -- Kerry is too!
Between 1989 and 1993, he voted at least three times to exempt terrorists from the death penalty. In a debate with former governor William Weld, his opponent in the 1996 Senate race, Kerry scorned the idea of executing terrorists. Anti-death penalty nations would refuse to extradite them to the United States, he said. "Your policy," he told Weld, "would amount to a terrorist protection policy. Mine would put them in jail."
What does Kerry really think? Who knows? He seems to have conveniently switched his stance after Sept. 11, 2001, but he insists that politics had nothing to do with his reversal.
Either way, one thing is clear: His willingness to swing both ways fits a longstanding pattern of coming down firmly on both sides of controversial issues.
Take the Patriot Act.
Kerry condemns it fiercely as the stuff of a "knock-in-the-night" police state. He vows "to end the era of John Ashcroft" by "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."
So does that mean he voted against it in 2001? Au contraire!
Kerry voted for the law -- parts of which he originally wrote. He singled out its money-laundering sections for particular praise but declared that he was "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation as a whole."
Bottom line, then: Is Kerry for or against the Patriot Act?
Absolutely.
It would be funny if National Security weren't such an important issue.
posted on May 4, 2004 12:32:04 PM newThis President is the one who finally took action against AQ.
Bush has done more to wage a war in Iraq than he has done to go after AQ. How many troops are in Iraq now compared to those in Afghanistan? Are we any closer to capturing Bin Laden today than we were on 9/10/01?
Where is the proven that Iraq supported AQ?
...continues to encourage our nation and other countries to fight terrorist all over the world.
Don't make it seem like Bush Jr was the first president to take a stand against terrorism. Wasn't it Regan who said "A message to terrorists everywhere....You can run but you can not hide."
Unfortunately, Bush policy has only served to increase the number of terrorists all around the world while doing very little to shore up our home security. The fight against terrorism is a police and intelligence matter -- not an excuse for wars which only increase the risk of terrorism.
But Bush's corporate friends would not profit from that kind of war on terrorism.
posted on May 4, 2004 01:30:50 PM new
Seymour Hersh, an investigative reporter who has been working on the Abu Ghraib story for serveral months will be interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC tonight on Hardball, 7PM ET.
A soldier says he was ordered to photograph Iraqi detainees (AP/Courtesy The New Yorker)
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has promised that any Americans abusing Iraqi prisoners will be punished.
The US military says there have been investigations into 25 deaths in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In two cases the dead men were found to have been murdered by Americans, according to a US army official.
Senior US politicians have called for public hearings on mistreatment of prisoners, and have demanded the right to question Mr Rumsfeld.
Angry senators said they had been kept in the dark by the defence department until photographs of apparent abuse emerged in the media.
'Un-American'
But Mr Rumsfeld said armed forces chiefs acted swiftly and properly as soon as the claims came to light in January.
Mr Rumsfeld said those responsible for the "unacceptable and un-American" conduct would be brought to justice.
The Pentagon has confirmed that criminal charges have been filed against six US soldiers in relation to the photos, while six senior officers have been reprimanded.
But there have been concerns that the mistreatment is more widespread.
I'm afraid that people do things that they ought not to do and that are harmful and that are disappointing and are, in many instances, disgraceful
Donald Rumsfeld
A senior army official said there had been investigations into 25 cases of death and 10 of abuse in US custody in Iraq or Afghanistan since December 2002.
The BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs says of the 25 deaths, 12 were found to be either of natural or "undetermined" causes, one was a "justifiable homicide", and two were murders. Ten inquiries are ongoing, he says.
Not jailed
An Army official said a soldier had been convicted of using excessive force when he shot dead a prisoner who was throwing stones at him.
He was thrown out of the army but did not go to jail.
The other murder was committed by a private contractor who worked for the CIA, the official said.
Following the emergence of the photos, taken at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, army chiefs were called before an emergency hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Senators were angry that they had not been alerted that an investigation into abuse had taken place.
"The ramifications are so serious and so severe, and the implications are so grave, that that report should have been forthcoming here immediately," said the committee's top Democrat, Senator Carl Levin.
'Sadistic abuses'
The internal report by Maj Gen Antonio Taguba found evidence of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses of Iraqi prisoners", including sexual abuse.
TAGUBA REPORT FINDINGS
Detainees threatened with loaded pistol
Inmates beaten and sexually abused
Prisoners photographed in sexual positions
Detainees threatened with dogs
Abu Ghraib abuse report
The abuse of Iraqi detainees has been condemned across the US political spectrum including by President George W Bush.
But Mr Rumsfeld also defended the actions of the armed forces, saying they had acted promptly and properly, launching an investigation in January the day after abuse allegations were first made - and issuing a press release two days after that.
Damage control
As the US tried to contain the damage caused as the pictures of abuse were shown in the press in the Arab world, US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on the Al-Jazeera channel to appeal for trust.
"The president guarantees that those who did that be held accountable... and people will see that we are determined to get to the truth," she said.
But in Iraq, the US-appointed human rights minister, Abdul-Basat al-Turki, resigned on Tuesday in protest at the abuses.
Meanwhile a lawyer for one of the soldiers allegedly involved in the abuse cases at Abu Ghraib said they were simply "following orders".
Guy Womack, attorney for Charles Graner Jr, said the campaign was coordinated by governmental agencies, including the CIA.
The former head of the prison, Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, said she believed military commanders were trying to shift the blame onto her and other reservists and away from the intelligence officers still at work in the prison.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 4, 2004 08:51:19 PM newHow appallingly pathetic they are. This should mark the end of the Iraq "war".
Helen
How appallingly pathetic YOU are. You've been calling for the US to admit defeat since the war began. You continue to support our enemy. You are a disgrace to your country.
posted on May 4, 2004 10:10:47 PM new
Ted Rall got the best of Bill O'Reily tonight. All Bill could do was keep saying "So you're smarter than them".
Rall posits that not only is the war on terrorism in Iraq a sham, the war in Afghanistan is a sham too. He said that Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9-11 than Afghanistan or Iraq.
posted on May 5, 2004 03:46:43 AM new
Linda wrote -
"How appallingly pathetic YOU are. You've been calling for the US to admit defeat since the war began. You continue to support our enemy. You are a disgrace to your country."
Pretty strong words Linda. Do you realize how appallingly desperate that sounds?
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
[ edited by koto1 on May 5, 2004 03:49 AM ]
Sniping works up a thirst"