Historical document???

[wwworry]

Rice replied, "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "

and they claim to think it was a "historical document". Is that supposed to mean Bin Laden "was determined" but is not any more? Then they excuse themselves for doing nothing because no one told them exactly where and when the attacks might occur. Rice defends herself because Clark did not tell her what to do. But isn't the job of the national security director to make those decisions?

BS

[Dippo]

Maybe instead of blaming everyone else, we should be blaming Richard Clarke!
He was the counterterrorism chief since the first Bush and what did Clarke do?? NOTHING!!!

Clarke only has cared about furthering his own career and when he didn't get his promotion, he decided to whine like a baby.

If we are going to blame anyone, we should be blaming Richard Clake.

[zimv20]

Maybe instead of blaming everyone else, we should be blaming Richard Clarke!
He was the counterterrorism chief since the first Bush and what did Clarke do?? NOTHING!!!

Clarke only has cared about furthering his own career and when he didn't get his promotion, he decided to whine like a baby.

If we are going to blame anyone, we should be blaming Richard Clake.
it's... as if.... you've read no articles.... listened to no reports... skipped all the clarke threads.... hid in a cave.... with your fingers in your ears...

[Dippo]

it's... as if.... you've read no articles.... listened to no reports... skipped all the clarke threads.... hid in a cave.... with your fingers in your ears...


I guess you got me there....

I forgot that differing opinions are not wanted in the politcal threads... :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

I forgot that differing opinions are not wanted in the politcal threads... :rolleyes:

I've heard this so much it's becoming cliché.

Your Clarke comments were inconsistent with the facts presented here.

Differing opinions are not merely contrary opinions. They must meet the same burden of proof.

[mactastic]

Maybe instead of blaming everyone else, we should be blaming Richard Clarke!
He was the counterterrorism chief since the first Bush and what did Clarke do?? NOTHING!!!

Clarke only has cared about furthering his own career and when he didn't get his promotion, he decided to whine like a baby.

If we are going to blame anyone, we should be blaming Richard Clake.

How about the person in charge takes responsibility? I'm so sick of polititians wanting to pass the blame on down the chain but bring the accolades up the chain to themselves.

[kuyu]

With all this blaming going on, I've got a great one. How about we not blame Clinton, Bush, or their administrations.

Instead... (I know, this is far-fetched) ... why don't we blame.... the terrorists themselves? It's crazy, for sure.... But I'm beginning to think that the terrorists might have had something to do with the attacks. The TV keeps telling me that Clinton and Bush had the planes hijacked, but my intuition says otherwise.

Maybe, just maybe, both admin's knew that people hated us. And maybe they'd both heard of bin Laden. And perhaps (stick with me now) the presidents could have used their super-sensing abilities to mentally locate bin Laden, and then had Catwoman and Spiderman spoil bin Laden's plans.

Seriously folks, this partisaned blame game has got to end. Terrorists did it. Not American politicians. Blame alqueda, not the previous presidents.

[IJ Reilly]

Just a reminder of what's occurred here: The most incendiary claim made by Richard Clarke in his book and his testimony was that the Bush White House did not treat terrorism as a top priority. In all of her talk about "structural problems" and "actionable intelligence," Condi Rice essentially confirmed Clarke's charge. No matter how you look at it, this is a ball they weren't moving down the field with much enthusiasm. Whether they were justified in not taking much action is arguable, but I should think the question about whether Clarke was correct in saying what he did should no longer be at issue.

[SlyHunter]

Rice replied, "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "

and they claim to think it was a "historical document". Is that supposed to mean Bin Laden "was determined" but is not any more? Then they excuse themselves for doing nothing because no one told them exactly where and when the attacks might occur. Rice defends herself because Clark did not tell her what to do. But isn't the job of the national security director to make those decisions?

BS
Lets say the FBI read the report that Middle Eastern looking people with valid jobs and id (I believe all were legal US citizens? or at least held valid passports) were legally learning how to fly but showed no interest in learning how to land. And lets say they also read that above PDB. What were they suppose to do? If they arrested those individuals they would've been violating their rights for they did not do anything illegal. The ACLU would be demanding their release. In fact most of the participants themselves didn't even know their target until they boarded the plane. The tickets weren't purchased until 3 days before they boarded the plane. Until they actually boarded the plans they did nothing to be arrested for. Our legal system would not have been permitted to do a damn thing to stop them.

The same ACLU demanding the release of our terrorist prisoners in that Cuban prison camp would've demanding the release of the terrorists who destroyed the Twin towers and rammed the Pentagon. For there was no substatial proof that they were guilty of anything until it was too late to do anything about it. No they could not have initiated servellience. For one that also would've been a violation of their rights, considered harassment, and the ACLU upon getting wind of it would've accused them of racial discrimination. Also would've cost allot of money that doesn't actually magically appear just because you need it like allot of Democrats seem to think.

Even now we are forbidden to give an extra look to middle easterners boarding plans or learning how to fly even if their name was Mahamud without the aCLU accusing law enforment of racial profiling. You can't protect everything 100% of the time from everyone. It is simply not possible. The enemy can pick and choose where they attack and have the benefit of time to deduce where you are weakest. As such neither we nor the Israelites (who have a similar problem) can afford to set up a defensive strategy vs terrorist because it would not actually protect us. The only real protection vs Terrorist is to kill them so that they no longer exist or to insure that they know for 100% certainty that it cost the terrorist organizations more than they gain to send out their terror squads. They are fighting to win and if we show it is impossible for them to win then they will eventually quit or at least run out of volunteers. People Like Ted Kennedy enable these terrorists with hope that someday they can win for people like Ted Kennedy and other democrats makes us look like cowards to the middle Eastern Eastern societies who only respect strength.

[numediaman]

It's funny -- here we have a Republican Congress, a Republican in the White House -- and it is still all the Democrats fault. What does Ted Kennedy or the ACLU have to do with any of this, they aren't making policy or running the country.

The ACLU is an organization that defends the rights of U.S. citizens -- even awful, horrible ones you don't like. Even awful, horrible ones I don't like. They don't start wars, they don't set policy, they don't make laws.

Yesterday I defended OPEC on another thread (I couldn't believe it myself), and today I'm defending the ACLU -- it is amazing what Bush supporters will make a guy do.

[SlyHunter]

It's funny -- here we have a Republican Congress, a Republican in the White House -- and it is still all the Democrats fault. What does Ted Kennedy or the ACLU have to do with any of this, they aren't making policy or running the country.

Ted kennedy's on air comments while legal has given those in Iraq who wish a theocracy hope that if the Democrats win the election that the US will leave and give up on trying to build a democracy there. Thus that gives them reason to keep fighting even a loosing battle wish is causing death on both sides. Specifically trying to make Iraq look like another Vietnam for example.

The ACLU is an organization that defends the rights of U.S. citizens -- even awful, horrible ones you don't like. Even awful, horrible ones I don't like. They don't start wars, they don't set policy, they don't make laws.

Yesterday I defended OPEC on another thread (I couldn't believe it myself), and today I'm defending the ACLU -- it is amazing what Bush supporters will make a guy do.
The ACLU was part of an what if example of what if Bush had done something about the terrorist who crashed those planes before 9/11. If Bush, the FBI, or other law enforcement agency had acted against those very same people thus preventing 9/11 then the ACLU would've been taking up a defense fund for them. Thats assuming he would've, could've. For a better example of what I mean reread the previous post.

[IJ Reilly]

This is another sad case of talk radio poisoning -- the truth goes right out the window in favor of comforting, partisan spin. There is no prospect of the US "leaving Iraq" if Kerry wins. No serious person is proposing such a thing and no serious person should believe it if they'd heard anyone report it.

[zimv20]

What were they suppose to do? If they arrested those individuals they would've been violating their rights for they did not do anything illegal. The ACLU would be demanding their release.
for ****'s sake, now it's the ACLU's fault? here's your answer: surveillence.

when those 19 people under watch, all suspected AQ agents, simultaneously boarded airplanes, you've got your probable cause.

[vwcruisn]

With all this blaming going on, I've got a great one. How about we not blame Clinton, Bush, or their administrations.

Instead... (I know, this is far-fetched) ... why don't we blame.... the terrorists themselves? It's crazy, for sure.... But I'm beginning to think that the terrorists might have had something to do with the attacks. The TV keeps telling me that Clinton and Bush had the planes hijacked, but my intuition says otherwise.

Maybe, just maybe, both admin's knew that people hated us. And maybe they'd both heard of bin Laden. And perhaps (stick with me now) the presidents could have used their super-sensing abilities to mentally locate bin Laden, and then had Catwoman and Spiderman spoil bin Laden's plans.

Seriously folks, this partisaned blame game has got to end. Terrorists did it. Not American politicians. Blame alqueda, not the previous presidents.

Ok, you are a bit confused. Nobody is blaming the american politicians for commiting the act on 9/11 (although there are some conspiracy theories). Remember when we (sort of) went to war with afganistan? (until bush decided to switch everyones attention to iraq). Going to war with afganistan was putting blame on the terrorists no? The point of the 9/11 commission is to see where INTELLIGENCE failure went wrong. You make it seem like intelligence and surveillance are only for those with superpowers (catwoman/spiderman etc). If there is no way to stop terrorism, then why fight a war on terror? How did they stop, and catch the millenium LAX bomber under Clinton's watch?

[SlyHunter]

for ****'s sake, now it's the ACLU's fault? here's your answer: surveillence.

when those 19 people under watch, all suspected AQ agents, simultaneously boarded airplanes, you've got your probable cause.
ACLU sues you for racial profilling and discrimination for monitoring innocent individuals going about their business legally simply wanting to learn how to fly. You cannot legally tap their phones without a search warrant. If you follow them sooner or later they will catch you at it and higher a lawyer.

There were allot more than 19 people with Middle Eastern appearance learning how to fly. Some weren't even terrorists.

[SlyHunter]

Ok, you are a bit confused. Nobody is blaming the american politicians for commiting the act on 9/11 (although there are some conspiracy theories). Remember when we (sort of) went to war with afganistan? (until bush decided to switch everyones attention to iraq). Going to war with afganistan was putting blame on the terrorists no? The point of the 9/11 commission is to see where INTELLIGENCE failure went wrong. You make it seem like intelligence and surveillance are only for those with superpowers (catwoman/spiderman etc). If there is no way to stop terrorism, then why fight a war on terror? How did they stop, and catch the millenium LAX bomber under Clinton's watch?
You kill them.
You remove the ones rewarding terrorists. Like for example Saddam Hussein who was writting checks as rewards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, or did you overlook that little fact. Saddam was a bigger problem than Afghanastan at the time we went into Iraq for Al Qaeda was busy tucking their tails in and running.

[Ugg]

You kill them.
You remove the ones rewarding terrorists. Like for example Saddam Hussein who was writting checks as rewards to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, or did you overlook that little fact. Saddam was a bigger problem than Afghanastan at the time we went into Iraq for Al Qaeda was busy tucking their tails in and running.

Then the entire Kingdom of Saud should have been at the top of the list to be removed. That is where bin Laden and the majority of Muslim Fundamentalists got their start. SH's little checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was not the reason those people strapped explosives to themselves.

Saddam a bigger problem than al Qaeda? How do you figure that? Oh, that's right, all those WMD that he had been making and stockpiling for years. Come on, if you're going to take a stance at least be realistic. SH was a terror to his own people but had little or nothing to do with international terror. al Qaeda has only dug in deeper and fueled by their success and the total inability of the US to stop them, they are only waiting for another chance and fueling the hopes of other fundamentalist terror groups around the world. gw's war has not targeted terrorists only his own enemies, real or imagined.

[zimv20]

so how many people have already added SlyHunter (/g5man/ovi/etc?) to their ignore list?

[numediaman]

so how many people have already added SlyHunter (/g5man/ovi/etc?) to their ignore list?

No, no, I think SlyHunter is the perfect representative for the Bush camp.

My biggest complaint about SlyHunter is that according to his profile he is not a Mac user. It reads "IBM". So, a PC user on a Mac forum . . . doesn't that equal troll?

[mactastic]

so how many people have already added SlyHunter (/g5man/ovi/etc?) to their ignore list?

You gotten an IP match yet? Cause I'm wondering the same thing, but hesitate to level that charge without any proof.

[SlyHunter]

Then the entire Kingdom of Saud should have been at the top of the list to be removed. That is where bin Laden and the majority of Muslim Fundamentalists got their start. SH's little checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was not the reason those people strapped explosives to themselves.

Saddam a bigger problem than al Qaeda? How do you figure that? Oh, that's right, all those WMD that he had been making and stockpiling for years. Come on, if you're going to take a stance at least be realistic. SH was a terror to his own people but had little or nothing to do with international terror. al Qaeda has only dug in deeper and fueled by their success and the total inability of the US to stop them, they are only waiting for another chance and fueling the hopes of other fundamentalist terror groups around the world. gw's war has not targeted terrorists only his own enemies, real or imagined.
WMD's Saddam showed to the television cameras and admitted to having and then claiming to have destroyed while refusing to prove they were destroyed. Yeah those WMD's had they existed were the primary reason for taking him out and all he had to do was show us the proof that he destroyed them and we wouldn't of been able to attack him. Even tho I had other reasons for wanting to.

[vwcruisn]

WMD's Saddam showed to the television cameras and admitted to having and then claiming to have destroyed while refusing to prove they were destroyed. Yeah those WMD's had they existed were the primary reason for taking him out and all he had to do was show us the proof that he destroyed them and we wouldn't of been able to attack him. Even tho I had other reasons for wanting to.


how do you show proof that you DONT possess something? let weapons inspectors look around? :rolleyes: What would have been acceptable "proof" in your opinion that he did NOT have weapons? And what were your "other reasons for wanting to" attack?

[Backtothemac]

Ok guys, you have all ready the PDB. What could have been done roughly one month before to prevent 9/11? Could the CIA have told the FBI that the terrorists had entered the country. That may have been a good start, but it isn't Clarke's fault, Bush's fault, or Condi's fault.

It was a policy failure of the greatest magnitude.

[mactastic]

WMD's Saddam showed to the television cameras and admitted to having and then claiming to have destroyed while refusing to prove they were destroyed. Yeah those WMD's had they existed were the primary reason for taking him out and all he had to do was show us the proof that he destroyed them and we wouldn't of been able to attack him. Even tho I had other reasons for wanting to.

Wait a sec, wern't you the one saying we couldn't trust anything Saddam said? And yet you trusted him when he said he had WMDs?

BTW can you prove you don't have any illegal drugs in your possesion?

[vwcruisn]

BTW can you prove you don't have any illegal drugs in your possesion?

Im sure he would tell the authorities to search him.. and thus prove his innocence.

[SlyHunter]

Ok guys, you have all ready the PDB. What could have been done roughly one month before to prevent 9/11? Could the CIA have told the FBI that the terrorists had entered the country. That may have been a good start, but it isn't Clarke's fault, Bush's fault, or Condi's fault.

It was a policy failure of the greatest magnitude.
One problem. When they entered the country they weren't terrorists. By our laws they are innocent until proven guilty. They did nothing to prove themselves guilty unless we had usen then illegal spying techniques to spy on them, until when they pulled those paper cutters out on the airplane itself and then it was too late to stop them. Unless we expected them to not use them as trade but as a bullet then maybe the passengers would've done more or on board cops did, but until 9/11 you are right.

[SlyHunter]

Wait a sec, wern't you the one saying we couldn't trust anything Saddam said? And yet you trusted him when he said he had WMDs?

BTW can you prove you don't have any illegal drugs in your possesion?
No I trusted the UN, the french, the germans when he showed them the wmd's. I trusted our country when they admitted to giving him some WMD's. Where he got them is immaterial, he did have them.

I trusted the dead kurds who died from mustard gas.

[vwcruisn]

No I trusted the UN, the french, the germans when he showed them the wmd's. I trusted our country when they admitted to giving him some WMD's. Where he got them is immaterial, he did have them.

I trusted the dead kurds who died from mustard gas.

please answer the question: how do you prove you DONT have something? or as mactastic put it, how would you prove you have no illegal drugs on you?

[mactastic]

One problem. When they entered the country they weren't terrorists. By our laws they are innocent until proven guilty. They did nothing to prove themselves guilty unless we had usen then illegal spying techniques to spy on them, until when they pulled those paper cutters out on the airplane itself and then it was too late to stop them. Unless we expected them to not use them as trade but as a bullet then maybe the passengers would've done more or on board cops did, but until 9/11 you are right.

There were at least a couple who could have been arrested on visa violations. That would have been completely legal. And since when has probable cause not been enough to get permission to surveil? The cops do it all the time. Scott Peterson was followed, his phones were tapped, the whole nine yards. So if we can do that to an American citizen, how can you argue that we couldn't do it to a foreign national, particularly one who is here illegally?

[SlyHunter]

how do you show proof that you DONT possess something? let weapons inspectors look around? :rolleyes: What would have been acceptable "proof" in your opinion that he did NOT have weapons? And what were your "other reasons for wanting to" attack?
You havn't been reading this thread very well.

If he destroyed biological weapons it is impossible to remove all trace. The destruction process leaves waste product all he had to do was show the site of where they were destroyed and our chemists would've proved it for him. All he had to do was show us the buckets of wastes that he buried and our chemists would've proved it for him. He wasn't even willing to show paper document orders that would have been passed down from him thru his Generals to those responsible for the destruction. Those documents alone would've proved to the UN (not me and maybe not Bush) that they were destroyed.

At the time I thought he was cheating the system and hiding them for later use. Thats what he wanted me to think and more importantly what he wanted other countries in the MIddle East to think. (yes its a guess)
Now I believe he could not provide that proof because he gave the weapons away to Syria, Iran, or someone else and did not want to admit it. Its his own fault that it had to end the way it did. He had 12 years to play ball and follow thru on the surrender agreement he himself signed.


My other reasons for the purpose of this discussion aren't important for I already know the UN, France, Germany did not think they were good enough and I'm not 100% certain that they are either because they have long range implecations. Like saving the people of Iraq is a reason but then we can't go around saving the world so where would we draw the line. I don't know and thus it is immaterial.

[zimv20]

It was a policy failure of the greatest magnitude.
today's testimony by george tenet ("five years to get the kind of intelligence apparatus we need" [paraphrase]) underscored that

[zimv20]

You gotten an IP match yet?
i don't have the power. rower can check that.

[SlyHunter]

There were at least a couple who could have been arrested on visa violations. That would have been completely legal. And since when has probable cause not been enough to get permission to surveil? The cops do it all the time. Scott Peterson was followed, his phones were tapped, the whole nine yards. So if we can do that to an American citizen, how can you argue that we couldn't do it to a foreign national, particularly one who is here illegally?
Scott Peterson isn't black, hispanic, or middle Easterner. Our country has a problem with ethnic equality to the point that our law enforcement has special rule they have to follow when dealing with them that they don't have when dealing with a white male in order to insure they aren't accused of racial discrimination, profiling, or prejudice.

[Rower_CPU]

i don't have the power. rower can check that.

No match. FYI, current member gop007 shares an IP with g5man.

[zimv20]

current member gop007 shares an IP with g5man.
what a fascinating screen name. thanks for the tip.

[Ugg]

Thats what he wanted me to think and more importantly what he wanted other countries in the MIddle East to think. (yes its a guess)
I don't know and thus it is immaterial.

Dude, you have a serious ego problem, unless of course you have some "secret"line to SH and gw.

The simple fact that you lack knowledge about something does not make it immaterial, it only makes you ill-informed.

[SlyHunter]

Dude, you have a serious ego problem, unless of course you have some "secret"line to SH and gw.

The simple fact that you lack knowledge about something does not make it immaterial, it only makes you ill-informed.
Me as in Americans at large.
He doesn't know me I am unimportant in his life. And until 9/11 I thought he was unimportant in mine as well.

[zimv20]

The simple fact that you lack knowledge about something does not make it immaterial, it only makes you ill-informed.
If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.
--Benjamin Franklin

[poopyhead]

ACLU sues you for racial profilling and discrimination for monitoring innocent individuals going about their business legally simply wanting to learn how to fly. You cannot legally tap their phones without a search warrant. If you follow them sooner or later they will catch you at it and higher a lawyer.

There were allot more than 19 people with Middle Eastern appearance learning how to fly. Some weren't even terrorists.

the thresh hold needed to obtain a warrant in order to tap one's phone is amazingly low
all that one needs to do is present probable cause via signed affidavits to a neutral magistrate
neutral magistrates tend to err on the side of greater government infringement of privacy rights not fewer
thus the threshold is low indeed

administrative agencies can place phone taps without obtaining prior warrants
so long as they are not dealing with domestic national security (american citizens)
United States v. United States District Court 1972

[Ugg]

Me as in Americans at large.
He doesn't know me I am unimportant in his life. And until 9/11 I thought he was unimportant in mine as well.

Don't claim speak for me and I'm sure most other Americans have no desire for you to be their spokesperson either.

Well, since rummy shook hands with him we have provided him with lots and lots of money and overlooked his actions when he gassed the kurds and encouraged him materially when he went to war with Iran. In my mind, all Americans were important in his life in that they provided the means for him to carry out his misdeeds. As for the fact that he was unimportant in yours shows that you along with many other Americans have ignored the world stage at your own peril.

[poopyhead]

ACLU sues you for racial profilling and discrimination for monitoring innocent individuals going about their business legally simply wanting to learn how to fly...
There were allot more than 19 people with Middle Eastern appearance learning how to fly. Some weren't even terrorists.

There is no law against profiling

your argument seems to assume that bushy (supported by the unlimited resources of the national govt.) is afraid of the attorneys and limited coffers of the ACLU. So afraid in fact that he would rather be derelict in his duty than submit to possible negative critiques. A semi-logical end to your argument would be that bush let 3000 americans die because he couldn't handle the pressure.
being unable to deal with pressure seems to be a recurring problem with bush
alcohol abuse
cocaine
joining the national guard to get out of actual service in vietnam
and last night
refusing to answer the questions at hand before poor attempts at obfuscation

on a personal note

slyhunter I appreciate your forum participation
if you keep posting as you have
and my semester hurries up and ends
I will have an avatar in no time
I'm thinking seamonkies

[zimv20]

overlooked his actions when he gassed the kurds
just so everyone's clear, there's still great dispute on who gassed the kurds. there's more evidence pointing to iran than iraq.

[SlyHunter]

There is no law against profiling

your argument seems to assume that bushy (supported by the unlimited resources of the national govt.) is afraid of the attorneys and limited coffers of the ACLU. So afraid in fact that he would rather be derelict in his duty than submit to possible negative critiques. A semi-logical end to your argument would be that bush let 3000 americans die because he couldn't handle the pressure.
being unable to deal with pressure seems to be a recurring problem with bush
alcohol abuse
cocaine
joining the national guard to get out of actual service in vietnam
and last night
refusing to answer the questions at hand before poor attempts at obfuscation

on a personal note

slyhunter I appreciate your forum participation
if you keep posting as you have
and my semester hurries up and ends
I will have an avatar in no time
I'm thinking seamonkies

In January, the Humanitarian Law Project scored a legal victory it had long been seeking when a Los Angeles Federal District Court judge struck down parts of the Patriot Act. The section of the Act in question barred American groups like HLP from providing advice and non-military aid to known terrorist groups across the globe.

big US government with so called unlimited funds lost

As a result, the HLP will now be able to aid the two Marxist terrorist groups that were the subject of the lawsuit. One of the groups, the Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), is responsible for over 200 suicide bombings, including attacks on mass transit and other civilian targets and the assassinations in the early 1990s of the prime ministers of India and Sri Lanka.

They might've been the group that defended the 9/11 hijackers had we tried anything against them prior to 9/11 had we known of their existence.

Despite this, most of the media described the HLP as a “human rights” group in its coverage earlier this year. HLP could better be described as a vehicle of the most extreme elements of the pro-terror Left – and of the United Nations, which are increasingly becoming indistinguishable from each other.

As a United Nations nongovernmental organization (NGO), the HLP has consultative status, receives its funding from the UN and reports to the UN’s commission on Human Rights.

Another reason to not belong in the UN.
Another reason to not pay our so called dues.

For more than a decade, the American leftists who run the HLP have been “monitoring” their own country on behalf of the UN and making damning reports before the commission and on the floor of the UN, most of them about “atrocities” supposedly committed in or by the United States, particularly during both Iraq wars.

The HLP is the creation of Los Angeles real estate magnate Aris Anagnos, who has spent the last three decades bankrolling Marxist causes across the globe.

In fact, the United States is the Great Satan to HLP members. Hence, it must be weakened, neutered and rendered of no effect. Hence, it should come as no surprise that chief among the HLP’s aims is disarming the United States. In July of 2003, while testifying before a UN Commission on Human Rights subcommittee, Karen Parker, a Los Angeles attorney who has represented HLP before the UN for years, claimed that the fate of the whole world lies in being able to carry out the “true disarmament” of the U.S.

“The smaller, poorer countries cannot possibly keep up with ‘arm-chair’ wars or they will bankrupt themselves,” she said, urging the UN to give America’s enemies a fighting chance in their war against the United States. “Even the other developed countries are far, far behind this technological madness. If the United States is allowed to use and develop these weapons, all other countries are reduced to peonage at the mercy of the United States.”

As Parker explained in an interview in Human Rights Action, the HLP newsletter, the group considers the World Court – formally called the International Court of Justice – to be “the highest legal body in the world.”

see even our own people thinks that our court system should be answerable to the International Court. The same court that claims we violated Human rights. The same UN who placed Egypt and Syria as co chairmans of the human rights commission in the UN.

In 1988, before a scheduled summit between U.S. and Soviet leaders on human rights, Parker led a press conference in New York to assure Soviet leaders that despite U.S. rhetoric, the real human rights problems weren’t in Russia, but in America. American human rights violations had reached “truly mass proportions” Soviet leaders were told, including the tragedy of “the starving the homeless.” Meanwhile, a recent tour of the USSR by lawyer William Kunstler (founder of the Center for Constitutional Rights) had proven that the U.S. government’s allegations about violations of human rights in the Soviet Union, including the persecution of Soviet dissidents, were “absolutely unfounded.” (Tell that to Sakharov and Solzenitsyn.)


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12982

[poopyhead]

big US government with so called unlimited funds lost
]

a district court decision is not national law
it is at best district law

Los Angeles is (I believe) in the ninth circuit
the most overturned district in the country

the HLP is not the ACLU
therefore
your statement does not pertain to the argument at hand




I wonder if they will ever create a patriot act chatbott

[SlyHunter]

a district court decision is not national law
it is at best district law

Los Angeles is (I believe) in the ninth circuit
the most overturned district in the country

the HLP is not the ACLU
therefore
your statement does not pertain to the argument at hand




I wonder if they will ever create a patriot act chatbott
And you took me too literally. I used ACLU as an example not as a target exclusive of all other possibilities. There are many, many people out there who have no problems defending terrorists and insuring they have their rights ACLU is just one of them.

[pseudobrit]

Ok guys, you have all ready the PDB. What could have been done roughly one month before to prevent 9/11?

Reinforced cockpit doors. The bipartisan Hart commission recommended this in 1999 IIRC.

[pseudobrit]

And you took me too literally. I used ACLU as an example not as a target exclusive of all other possibilities. There are many, many people out there who have no problems defending terrorists and insuring they have their rights ACLU is just one of them.

I love it! If a group stands up for the civil liberties of its citizens they can be accused of aiding and abetting a foreign enemy. Paint them with the enemy brush.

There are many people who think that terrorists should have their rights. I do. Why? Because terrorist is a label that can be slapped on anyone, and if labeling automatically means rights are lost, then it's not hard to see the loophole created in every human and civil right for anyone who is targeted for any reason or no reason.

[SlyHunter]

Reinforced cockpit doors. The bipartisan Hart commission recommended this in 1999 IIRC.
Yeah double the price of a airline ticket prior to 9/11 to put in reinforced cockpit doors. yeah people wouldn't have rioted over that. Or better yet raise taxes for it. Another riot. Its more than just sticking in a heavier door.

[SlyHunter]

I love it! If a group stands up for the civil liberties of its citizens they can be accused of aiding and abetting a foreign enemy. Paint them with the enemy brush.

There are many people who think that terrorists should have their rights. I do. Why? Because terrorist is a label that can be slapped on anyone, and if labeling automatically means rights are lost, then it's not hard to see the loophole created in every human and civil right for anyone who is targeted for any reason or no reason.
See and you would be demanding hwo dare the government get on the case of innocent Middle Easterners simply because they were over here learning how to fly. The big nasty government is picking on people simply because their minorities from the Middle East will the government never stop in their prejudicial persecution of those who don't look like them. Believe or not not all Middle Easterners are terrorists.

Oh and labelling those people who crash those planes as terrorist is so cruel. They were just misunderstood warriors fighting a war with a superior power the only way they knew how. Boo Hooo hooo.

[toontra]

See and you would be demanding hwo dare the government get on the case of innocent Middle Easterners simply because they were over here learning how to fly. The big nasty government is picking on people simply because their minorities from the Middle East will the government never stop in their prejudicial persecution of those who don't look like them. Believe or not not all Middle Easterners are terrorists.

Oh and labelling those people who crash those planes as terrorist is so cruel. They were just misunderstood warriors fighting a war with a superior power the only way they knew how. Boo Hooo hooo.

Your arguments are as nonsensical as your sentiments are repellant. I take it you're here to try and stir up trouble, having made 98 inflammatory posts in this forum in just over 1 day's membership.

I for one will not respond to any of your posts.

[Backtothemac]

Reinforced cockpit doors. The bipartisan Hart commission recommended this in 1999 IIRC.

1st there wasn't enought time to do that on over 6,000 airliners. Second, no one would have gone for that because it would have raised the costs, thus tickets, and we, in our state of ignorance would not have gone for it.

[SlyHunter]

As far as trying to stop the terrorist before they did anythign illegal more on that.

CLINTON OFFICIAL WON'T LEAVE COMMISSION

Jamie Gorelick, a woman Dick Morris has called the public official "most responsible for 9/11 happening." is refusing to leave her post on the 9/11 Commission. She was the deputy attorney general during the Clinton years, and by all accounts really wore the pants at the justice department. So once again, we have another double standard. Can you imagine the howls of protest if a former Bush official was on this same commission charged with investigating events in which they took part? The media would be jumping up and down, along with Democrats in Congress. As it stands now, hardly a word. Funny how that happens, isn't it?

"Of all the public officials in the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, the one who is most directly, in my judgment, responsible for 9/11 happening is Jamie Gorelick," said Morris, who served in the Clinton administration himself. So what did she do that is causing all the fuss? Well, when Ashcroft recently testified in front of the commission, he pointed out that Gorelick sent out a memo in 1995 setting up a wall between the FBI and the CIA. This prevented investigators from receiving intelligence that may have thwarted the 9/11 plot. Outraged yet? It gets worse.

A specific example is the case of Zacarias Moussaui. He is what people are calling the 20th hijacker. Anyway, he was being pursued on an immigration violation, but as Morris put it, "they couldn't let the intelligence types look at his computer." And just what was on that computer?

The names of some of the September 11th hijackers and the flight schools they attended. Would the 9/11 attacks have happened if the FBI had been able to share that information with the CIA? We may never know, but you tell me..just who should be doing the apologizing?

Gorelick refuses to step down from the commission, saying there is no conflict of interest. Yeah right. She's on the wrong side of the table.

[SlyHunter]

Last week, 9-11 commissioner John Lehman revealed that "it was the policy (before 9-11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory." Hmmm ... Is 19 more than two? Why, yes, I believe it is. So if two Jordanian cab drivers are searched before boarding a flight out of Newark, Osama bin Laden could then board that plane without being questioned. I'm no security expert, but I'm pretty sure this gives terrorists an opening for an attack.

In a sane world, Lehman's statement would have made headlines across the country the next day. But not one newspaper, magazine or TV show has mentioned that it is official government policy to prohibit searching more than two Arabs per flight.

Meanwhile, another 9-11 commissioner, the greasy Richard Ben-Veniste, claimed to be outraged that the CIA did not immediately give intelligence on 9-11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar to the FBI. As we now know – or rather, I alone know because I'm the only person in America watching the 9-11 hearings – Ben-Veniste should have asked his fellow commissioner Jamie Gorelick about that.

In his testimony this week, John Ashcroft explained that the FBI wasn't even told Almihdhar and Alhazmi were in the country until weeks before the 9-11 attack – because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. The FBI wasn't allowed to put al-Qaida specialists on the hunt for Almihdhar and Alhazmi – because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995. Indeed, the FBI couldn't get a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer – because of Justice Department guidelines put into place in 1995.

The famed 1995 guidelines were set forth in a classified memorandum written by the then-deputy attorney general titled "Instructions for Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations," which imposed a "draconian" wall between counterintelligence and criminal investigations.

What Ashcroft said next was breathtaking. Prohibited from mounting a serious search for Almihdhar and Alhazmi, an irritated FBI investigator wrote to FBI headquarters, warning that someone would die because of these policies – "since the biggest threat to us, OBL (Osama bin Laden), is getting the most protection."

FBI headquarters responded: "We're all frustrated with this issue. These are the rules. NSLU (National Security Law Unit) does not make them up. But somebody did make these rules. Somebody built this wall."

The person who built that wall described in the infamous 1995 memo, Ashcroft said, "is a member of the commission." If this were an episode of "Matlock," the camera would slowly pan away from Ashcroft's face at this point and then quickly jump to an extreme close-up of Jamie Gorelick's horrified expression. Armed marshals would then escort the kicking, screaming Gorelick away in leg irons as the closing credits rolled. Gorelick was the deputy attorney general in 1995.

The 9-11 commission has finally uncovered the proverbial "smoking gun"! But it was fired by one of the 9-11 commissioners. Maybe between happy reminiscences about the good old days of Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Elian Gonzales raid, Ben-Veniste could ask Gorelick about those guidelines. Democrats think it's a conflict of interest for Justice Scalia to have his name in the same phonebook as Dick Cheney. But there is no conflict of interest having Gorelick sit on a commission that should be investigating her.

Bill O'Reilly's entire summary of Ashcroft's testimony was to accuse Ashcroft of throwing sheets over naked statues rather than fighting terrorism. No mention of the damning Gorelick memo. No one knows about the FAA's No-Searching-Arabs counterterrorism policy. Predictions that conservatives have finally broken through the wall of sound coming from the mainstream media may have been premature.

When Democrats make an accusation against Republicans, newspaper headlines repeat the accusation as a fact: "U.S. Law Chief 'Failed to Heed Terror Warnings,'" "Bush Was Told of Qaida Steps Pre-9-11; Secret Memo Released," "Bush White House Said to Have Failed to Make al-Qaida an Early Priority."

But when Republicans make accusations against Democrats – even accusations backed up by the hard fact of a declassified Jamie Gorelick memo – the headlines note only that Republicans are making accusations: "Ashcroft Lays Blame at Clinton's Feet," "Ashcroft: Blame Bubba for 9-11," "Ashcroft Faults Clinton in 9-11 Failures."

It's amazing how consistent it is. A classic of the genre was the Chicago Tribune headline, which managed to use both constructs in a single headline: "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton." Why not: "Reno Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Former Deputy Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Bush"?

Democrats actively created policies that were designed to hamstring terrorism investigations. The only rap against the Bush administration is that it failed to unravel the entire 9-11 terrorism plot based on a memo titled: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

I have news for liberals: Bin Laden is still determined to attack inside the United States! Could they please tell us when and where the next attack will be? Because unless we know that, it's going to be difficult to stop it if we can't search Arabs.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040415.shtml
How come I don't hear this stuff on ABC, NBC, CBS, PMSNBC, Clinton News Network, etc?

[Sayhey]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040415.shtml
How come I don't hear this stuff on ABC, NBC, CBS, PMSNBC, Clinton News Network, etc?

Anne Coulter? Well at least you provided a link this time. The Bush administration does have its own folks in the commission, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director. He served on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and worked closely with Dr. Rice. He has many allies on the commission as well, including the former Reagan official Lehman which Coulter quotes.

Oh, and just because the Attorney General makes a statement that blames a paper written a decade ago under the Clinton administration for 9/11 doesn't make it so. He also stated under oath that the Clinton administration never gave the order to kill bin Ladin, but was immediately corrected by the Commissioners who said they finally had access to documents (denied to them by the Bush administration up to that point) that proved Ashcroft wrong.

I'm all for declassifying most of these documents, but the selective use of declassification by the Bush administration for partisan political purposes, with this example of Gorelick's paper as one of the worst examples, is gutter politics.

Lastly, you don't hear it on the above named networks (assuming you are using "Rushspeak" for CNN and MSNBC) because many of them have at least some journalistic standards left.

[Backtothemac]

Anne Coulter? Well at least you provided a link this time. The Bush administration does have its own folks in the commission, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director. He served on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and worked closely with Dr. Rice. He has many allies on the commission as well, including the former Reagan official Lehman which Coulter quotes.

Oh, and just because the Attorney General makes a statement that blames a paper written a decade ago under the Clinton administration for 9/11 doesn't make it so. He also stated under oath that the Clinton administration never gave the order to kill bin Ladin, but was immediately corrected by the Commissioners who said they finally had access to documents (denied to them by the Bush administration up to that point) that proved Ashcroft wrong.

I'm all for declassifying most of these documents, but the selective use of declassification by the Bush administration for partisan political purposes, with this example of Gorelick's paper as one of the worst examples, is gutter politics.

Lastly, you don't hear it on the above named networks because many of them have at least some journalistic standards left.


Ugh, and there in lies the problem with the commission. It is looking to point a finger at someone for political gain for a party. It is BS. They need solutions not accusations. WE WERE ALL TO BLAME. The people for being apathetic, the government for appeasing the UN, and not realizing what we were up against. It was our fault. Now, how do we fix it?

[Sayhey]

Ugh, and there in lies the problem with the commission. It is looking to point a finger at someone for political gain for a party. It is BS. They need solutions not accusations. WE WERE ALL TO BLAME. The people for being apathetic, the government for appeasing the UN, and not realizing what we were up against. It was our fault. Now, how do we fix it?

Let's look at the report before we jump all over the commission. I have my doubts about Zelikow, Lehman, Thompson, and others, but let's save the broadside until we know what they are recommending. If folks have something to say about the testimony of people before the commission, the that's a whole other kettle of fish. And yes there will be plenty of blame to go around, but that doesn't mean that some folks, in positions of authority, are not more responsible than others.

[SlyHunter]

Ugh, and there in lies the problem with the commission. It is looking to point a finger at someone for political gain for a party. It is BS. They need solutions not accusations. WE WERE ALL TO BLAME. The people for being apathetic, the government for appeasing the UN, and not realizing what we were up against. It was our fault. Now, how do we fix it?
prior to 9/11 I was apathatic. But you do not get my sympathies by committing terrorist acts you gain my hatred and other terrorist groups also gain my attention.

There are allot of folks out there (for example Kurds in Turkey) who are treated like crap, not allowed to buy property, not allowed to have jobs, live in gutters and I don't know how they survive. But all these millions are watching the Palestinians getting aid from the world only because they got their attention via terrorist acts. That is why they must lose. I'm not arguing here at this time the validity of what they are fighting for but the method that they are using to fight for it. If we allow them to win in any way shape or form then that is sending a message to all the other downtrodden in the world that to get help they must also committ terrorist acts. The problem is we can't help everyone, but we shouldn't help those who got our attention by committing terrorism at all.

[Sayhey]

1st there wasn't enought time to do that on over 6,000 airliners. Second, no one would have gone for that because it would have raised the costs, thus tickets, and we, in our state of ignorance would not have gone for it.

Even if I accept both points, it doesn't explain why the Bush administration threw out the Hart/Rudman recommendations in order to have a new commission start all over again. The new commission, to be chaired by Cheney, never met before 9/11.