I hate to bring war/politics up on the board.....- Page 3

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/15/03 at 11:54pm

On the other hand, it wasn't easy at all. On the other other hand it was only kind of easy. I'm just saying what I read in the Washington Times about how easy it was.

[RobbO]

Posted: 12/15/03 at 11:58pm

this is fun!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/15/03 at 11:59pm

On the other hand it's awful. In somebody else's opinion. I don't have one. I'm just trying to give time to the other point of view. Whatever it is. On the other hand, it's a blast.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 8:31am

Regarding the Patriot Act:

Mr Roxy...I wonder if you've taken your own advice and checked out the Patriot Act for yourself? It's impossible for the lay person to read because all it does is refer to other laws. Here's an example:
(a) IN GENERAL-Chapter 121 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-,
(1) in section 2703, by striking 'under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure' every place it appears and inserting 'using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation'.....
Phew! And it goes on and on. Pretty sneaky huh. But one nifty little thing the Patriot Act does is makes it legal for the FBI to search your house without ever even telling you! So basically the terrosists who crashed into the Twin Towers did more damage then they probably intended...they took away our right to privacy. Isn't this the kind of thing that made us refer to Russia as the "Evil Empire" in the 80's?
I also find it personally offensive when people use the argument "I'm sure the wives of the 9/11 dead would be happy about what Dean is doing blah blah blah." Do you actually know any? Have you spoken to any and asked them how they feel? Read a poll somewhere? My guess is your using them to back up you points, just like the President uses the threat of terrorism to keep us all scared...remember the duct tape? I have the unfortunate honor of knowing several people who lost someone on 9/11 and believe me, they don't all agree with Bush. Maybe you do know some people who lost someone in the Towers that are Bush supporters...but please don't speak for all of them.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 8:52am

Sorry had to respond to one more thing...

"I do not think we should be checking 80 year old grandmothers for knitting needles or tall blond swedes. Who committed 9/11 & almost every other terrorist act? Hint, they came from the middle east. If I was from that area I would expect to be profiled & would accept it & not get my nipples in a twist over it."

Yes..just like those silly Japanese Americans should not have gotten their "nipples in a twist" over being sent to camps during WWII. After all..it was the Japanese who attacked us. Actually if we're going to search people who have committed the most terrorist acts on American soil...we should be searching middle aged white men.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 10:12am

And then along comes a discussion of actual details, instead of general statements based on gut reactions and not facts, and it proves there is hope. There are thinking people. Thank you Erik.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 11:45am

well as long as we're going to talk facts...

"but one nifty little thing the patriot act does is makes it legal for the fbi to search your house without ever even telling you!"

this is factually incorrect. what the patriot act does do is broaden slightly the circumstances under which law enforcement can delay for a limited time when a subject is informed that a judicially approved search warrant has been executed. so they do have to tell you, just not right away. such searches have been on the books and utilized by law enforcement for decades primarily in drug enforcement and organized crime cases. the patriot act merely added a few more circumstances under which they might be utilized.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 11:55am

Actually no, The Patriot Act gives a lot more power than that. For example it allows the attorny general's office to receive any information it wants by issuing a "national security letter". Once law enforcement has one of those they can access any personal information they want. And we have begun to talk about the issue of the secret "detentions" that have take place since The Patriot Act or secret deportation hearings.
The point being...with The Patriot Act the little obstacle of probable cause has been removed.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 12:39pm

actually erik, in the specific circumstance which you cited regarding the search provision, you're factually incorrect. also, i must confess ignorance of the term "national security letter" as that phrase does not appear anywhere in the text of the patriot act.

with regard to your "detentions" would not those and the other catalog of abuses under the aforementioned act be detailed in the inspector general's semi-annual report to the commissions on the judiciary of both the senate and the house? and there's this part:

Section 412

(c) REPORTS.—Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period, on—
(1) the number of aliens certified under section 236A(a)(3)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by subsection
(a);
(2) the grounds for such certifications;
(3) the nationalities of the aliens so certified;
(4) the length of the detention for each alien so certified;
and
(5) the number of aliens so certified who—
(A) were granted any form of relief from removal;
(B) were removed;
(C) the Attorney General has determined are no longer
aliens who may be so certified; or
(D) were released from detention.

so if people are missing, shouldn't their representatives already know who they are, where they are and how long they've been there?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 12:56pm

and if you are citing the aclu's attack on section 215 of the patriot act, you should read it and see that any and all applications for such searches must be made to a judge of the appropriate court or a united states magistrate judge. the attorney general can say go after this guy, but a judge still has to approve it before they can get anything from the person.

now regarding section 505...there's still congressional oversight, but that whole idea is a bit big brother-ish. but, the constitution is not a suicide pact. i'm no hero, i'd rather be alive and have somebody snooping a bit than be in the safe privacy of a casket.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 4:25pm

AAAAGGHHH!!! This thread makes my head hurt. I'm going back to reading about Patrick Wilson's butt. I need some happy time....

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 5:17pm

Oh...it's nice to debate this stuff with someone who can discuss it with facts!
The thing that disturbs me about the Patriot Act is it makes invasion of privacy so much easier. Yes, it's true that the attorny general needs a judge's approval. But it's a "rubber stamp" approval. And remember...these warrants DO NOT have to be obtained from a regular court. They are obtained from the Government's own Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Basically all the feds have to do is show up at this court and say what the want is for intelligence purposes and they get their rubber stamp. To get the judge's certification the Feds don't even have to offer any proof. Probable cause is a thing of the past. So therefore you have searches going on without approval of the court in the traditional sense. 170 of these emergecny warrants were issued in 2002 compared to the forty-seven in the past twenty three years.
Oh..and then there's the gag order that prevents anyone from who the Feds have requested information from talking. Therefore Ashcroft could decide to start going through my library records, email, etc and my sweet Librarian couldn't let me know about it or she would be prosecuted. Goodbye 4th ammendment, hello big brother!
But it gets worse. With the definition of "domestic terrorism" the Feds can now start treating protestors as terrorists. Remember that little blip on the news awhile back that reported the FBI was encouraging local police to investigate protestors?
To me The Patriot Act has opened a scary door and the "Patriot Act II" threatens to bust it open wider. I'm glad to see that this tread is getting so many views. If anyone is interested I encourage you to look up some of this stuff for yourself, if you haven't already. I'll provide a link to the ACLU's web page on the subject...of course the site will back up everything I've said...Papalovesmambo could probably supply a site that's more supportive of the act...that way you can make up your own mind. Although if you want...you can go to the ACLU site and just read the text of the Act itself (good luck).
The Patriot Act

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 7:55pm

To Papa Loves Mambo

At least some sanity on the board. Well said

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 9:11pm

I enjoyed watching Bush evade Diane Sawyer's questions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...considering she asked it about 5 times. Here's some more interesting news!

More lies

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 9:41pm

Wow this stuff just keeps popping up. Look what I came across I was surfing the web for news.
more invasion of privacy

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/16/03 at 11:22pm

most interesting thing i saw was the fact that most of the comments agreed with the right of the us to request the information.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 8:39am

Yes, a whopping 7 comments of support are at the end of the article.
For more interesting facts about the Bush administration click below. (Special thanks to the person who sent me this link via PM)

Daily dose of Bush

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 12:36pm

Erik: Keep posting. I've learned more from your shared info that from any mainstream press pieces. As always, a reminder that in the minutiae lies the truth, particularly when dealing with an administration that consistentlyh builds its case(s) with button-pushing generalizations. Start with linking 9/11 to S.H., and work your way up. Or rather down.

The Bush blanket statement, "the war on terror will be fought on many fronts" is used to justify anything and everything.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 4:23pm

Auggie...a lot of my friends are surprised when I share this information with them too. You can find a lot of this stuff in the main stream press..but it isn't usually the headline.
I've gotten a lot of PMs about this thread. Some of them have been negative, but most have been similar to what you just posted.
A couple of people have called me "unreasonable" and that there's no point arguing with me because my mind is made up and I won't listen. This is completely untrue. If someone can show me how Bush is helping the country I'll be more than happy to listen.
What sickens me the most is that the Bush Administration is using 3000 innocent lost lives to push forward their agenda to help big business and oil companies while destroying the environment, stomping on civil rights, and blowing up the deficit. Meanwhile, an average of 9 americans a day are dying in Iraq.
Iraq...a place we were told we needed to wage war with all by ourselves, and right away, because they were an immediate threat to our safety. I guess Bush figured if he said Saddam had WMD's and ties with al Qaeda enough...we would all believe. Of course we now know this is not true. And the man we were supposed be so afraid of was found hiding in a dirt hole.
So now we did it for the Iraqi people. I guess we'll be coming after all the other ruthless dictators in the world now. Oh wait...they don't have oil.
But this administration likes to keep us scared. That way we can all think the Patriot Act is a good idea. In reality, we as Americans are more likely to die from the flu, in a car accident, or as a victem of gun violence than we are to be killed by a terrorist.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 4:35pm

erik, 459 americans have died in iraq sicne the war began. i don't know how you can make that number 9 a day ven by the most remote math. lest you should question my numbers, i took that number from from antiwar.com...check it yourself.

http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html

if you want to average it out, it works out to 1.68 american lives a day since the start of combat operations on march 19th. and yes, i agree that it's a very steep cost to pay but one that will pay dividends to the entire world in the end. and no not in cheap oil either.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 4:41pm

oops my mistake...I didn't mean to put Americans..I meant people. Thought I edited that. But I agree it's a high price to pay...and for what? Dividends to the world...what dividends? I have no doubt the world will be a better place without Saddam. I'm not so sure how Iraq will fare. I'm not confident we won't screw that up. We don't have a good track record at replacing governments.


President Bush to match Herbert Hoover in Job Loss

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 8:40pm

not a huge point here, but, tom ridge would be the one to announce any change to the homeland security advisory level, as powerful as ashcroft is, he's not oz...yet

but on the level of unsubstantiated hearsay dr. ayad allawi, a member of the iraqi governing council told the london telegraph on sunday that they'd found a memo from the former head of the iraqi intelligence service to saddam dated from july 2001 detailing not only the fact that mohammed atta had been in iraq that summer training with abu nidal and that they'd gotten their shipment from niger. in the same memo. i'm not making this up. i don't think i could if i tried. the only thing left out was that he'd been taining with a huge stash of wmds! i am aghast!

actually i am aghast that
a) this guy is a member of the governing council and that
b) nobody has fired the reporter yet

but then...it could all be true. it'd be just like that sneaky bush to be waiting until something like that could be verified and then drop it next summer. think about it, the whole yellowcake mess...the link between saddam and al qaeda...shhh, don't disturb me right now, i'm enjoying this dream, ok.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 5:21pm

a chance at a free and democratic country in the heart of the middle east. scoff. i know, i've heard it. my friends all do. but i think that history will look far more kindly on this president (or at least this administration) than those caught in the immediacy of hatred.

i'll say what i believe in and then you can slam my ideas all you want. i doubt that i have anything convincing enough here to change your mind anyway. but that said...

we invaded iraq becuase it was the only place in the region that we could effect regime change and possibly instill some form of democracy. the only way to eventually stop terrorism is to change the economic disenfranchisement of the arab peoples and that's not gonna happen with the status quo. so we took out the one dictator no one would cry too much over losing. if in his place we can help the iraqi people develop a government that can hold to a loose federalist system that will be responsible to its people and accountable to them, all of them, then it's worth having done this. even if we fail, it was worth doing. is there corruption at some levels in this enterprise? of course there is! it's a government exercise so there will undoubtedly be corruption somewhere. i don't think that poisons the entire undertaking.

that region of the world needs a chance. a free and democratic iraq in the center of the middle east will act as a beacon to the people in neighboring countries who already are clamoring for a more representative from of government. why do you think the mullahs in iran are so angry about this? becuase it will make it harder to oppress their own people when those people can look across the border and see a free people who can live the way they choose under a government that responds to their wishes and respects them rather than dictates to them under penalty of death. and if you question whether iran is yearning to breathe free, just read the writing of their own vice president, he's got quite a humorous website. but i doubt that anyone laughs when their newspapers call for his death. or when the clerics unleash their own version of the saddam fedayeen loose on students marching for reform.

the war on terror will not be won with guns and bombs, although that is a component of it. the war on terror will be won when the fanatics haven't got the huge impoverished underbellies of entire nations from which to draw their soldiers. showing the people of that rergion that there is another way is part of the path. thomas jefferson said that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." i know a lotta people don't think that it was our fight over there, but what makes them any less worthy of liberty than we?

people say that there are a lot worse dictators than saddam, and there are. but he was the one we could take down. will we succeed in helping the iraqis to create a new nation? i pray that we do. am i a romantic fool about what i see as our intentions there? perhaps so. do i sound like a dom rumsfeld press conference? you're darn tootin' i do. golly this was more fun than i thought.

anyway, that's what dividends i think this will pay to the world...less violence (sounds crazy huh?)...more freedom...some hope.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 5:56pm

Again, well said Papalovesmambo...although you're right, I don't agree with most of what you wrote.
Like I said...I'm not convinced about the free and democratic Iraq...I'll believe it when I see it. We haven't even been very helpful at getting the lights turned back on so I'm not sure we can install a democracy.
I wish everything that you said were true. But if it were true, then how come they were not the reasons given for leading us into war? Why all this threat of weapons of mass destruction and connections with al Queda?
Saudi Arabia produces more than it's fair share of terrorists and this administration is awful friendly with them. The war on terror is a fabrication. I'm confident history will prove it.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/17/03 at 6:43pm

Erik: Two letters to the Times today bring up points about Saddam and our relief over "got 'em."

1) Bush says the Iraqi people should try Saddam, because he was their foe. But that suggests a huge contradiction, in terms of his threat to us, doesn it? Bush thus implies that this man did NOT commit offenses against the US that would justify our trying him. If Saddam Hussein didn't commit sufficient offenses against US to warrant our trying him (like stockpiling WMDs that could blow us to smithereens in 45 minutes) -- why did we invade Iraq?

2) Lieberman (and a lot of Republicans -- but then, isn't Lieberman really becoming one too?) are severely attacking Dean for saying capturing Saddam has made us no safer. But if capturing Saddam HAS made us "safer," why hasn't Ashcroft appeared to lower the Homeland Security's famous color-coded safety index? We have no downgrade from "Heightened Alert." Yet remember how elevated it was just before the war -- to terrify the hell out of us all.