Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties

[Nickdfresh]

Bush calls surveillance bill inadequate

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent1 hour, 9 minutes ago

President Bush said Thursday that the House Democrats' version of a terrorist-surveillance bill would undermine the nation's security and that if it reaches his desk, he would veto it.

Ratcheting up his rhetoric, Bush said, "The American people understand the stakes in this struggle. They want their children to be safe from terror."

The House is expected to vote on the measure later Thursday. Bush went before cameras on the South Lawn before the vote to encourage Democrats to drop their effort and, instead, support a Senate-passed version.

Replying to Bush, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the president was trying to bully Congress and mislead the people.

"He refuses to accept that under our system of government, neither the president nor the telecommunications companies gets to decide which laws to follow and which to ignore," Kennedy said in a written statement.

"The president wants Congress to pretend that his administration did not conduct a massive, illegal, domestic warrantless surveillance program that was one of the most outrageous abuses of executive power in our nation's history. Rather than accuse Congress of playing politics, the president should stop playing politics with our national security," he said.

The law is intended to help the government pursue suspected terrorists by making it easier to eavesdrop on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States. The law expired Feb. 16 after Congress did not quickly renew it. Bush opposed a temporary extension and has warned that failure to renew the law would put the nation at greater risk.

Bush said the House bill "could reopen dangerous intelligence gaps by putting in place a cumbersome court approval process that would make it harder to collect intelligence on foreign terrorists."

"Their partisan legislation would extend protections we enjoy as Americans to foreign terrorists overseas," the president said. "It would cause us to lose vital intelligence on terrorist threats, and it is a risk that our country cannot afford to take.

The Senate-passed version would grant legal immunity to the telecommunications firms. Bush said lawsuits against telecommunications companies would lead to the disclosure of state secrets. Further, he said it would undermine the willingness of the private sector to cooperate with the government in trying to track down terrorists.

Directing his message at the House, Bush said, "They should not leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk."

He said the Senate would not pass the House version of the bill, and even if the Senate did, he would veto it.

Nineteen Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Wednesday challenging the administration's arguments.

"We have concluded that the administration has not established a valid and credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting blanket retroactive immunity as set forth in the Senate bill," they said in a statement issued by the committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

They said they have seen no evidence that lawsuits have harmed the telecommunications companies' reputations or finances, or that intelligence gathering has been compromised.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorist_surveillance

[Deklon]

"Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties". Now that's a good one. In FACT, he wants to destroy one "civil liberty" of person with KNOWN terrorist connections who are communicating with persons overseas with KNOWN terrorist ties. What part of that don't you foolish liberals get? Are you aware that at least one major terrorist attack was prevented as a result of the wiretapping program? As the President himself asked in an interview, "Which attack that we have prevented would you have preferred to happen if we didn't use these methods?"

The following is a hypothetical that you should be quite fearful of...

"President Obama/Clinton, we have strong reason to believe that person X is talking to someone overseas about an impending terrorist attack on our country, we need to set up a wiretap immediately."

President Obama/Clinton responds, "Well, I just can't take away this suspected/known terrorists civil liberties, let's send this through the court system"

You may call this exploiting fear. Well, the fear is factual and real. I, for one, am glad we have a president who is doing everything he feels necessary to protect my wife and two young boys.

Read the following quotes and tell me honestly that our President needs to be more concerned with civil liberties of suspected terrorists with known connections than with protecting the citizen's he is responsible for...

"We have the right to kill 4 million Americans, two million of them children."
-Abu Gheith, Al-Qaeda spokesman

"If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands…this is permissible."
-Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, prominent Saudi cleric close to Al-Qaeda

"The real matter is the extinction of America. And, Allah willing, it will fall to the ground…keep in mind this prediction."
-Mullah Omar, Taliban leader and ally of Osama bin Laden

[kwame k]

I have no problem with using every available tool to fight the people who want to do us harm but that includes President Bush Inc. and his disregard of the Constitution. One liberty try about 20 that this fucking crook has slowly tried to take away from us.

Yes, terrorists are using our system against but as Ben Franklin said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The framers of the Constitution put safeguards into the Constitution to protect us against terrorist like Bush Inc. Asking for a warrant to go after a known terrorist will not hinder anyone from doing their jobs. A warrant for a wiretap can be obtained quickly, if they show cause. Checks and Balances. No President or Organization should have unfettered access to spy on private citizens, period. They need every tool necessary to stop terrorism but protecting the phone company from lawsuits and no oversight for the people listening in on people’s conversations is bullshit.

When you give a President that kind of power and blanket it under national security you get the same scenario that Nixon used to black mail potential political rivals. It’s not national security to abuse the laws of our land. Hiding behind national security is a lame ass excuse for giving People, Elected by The People, For the People the keys to the kingdom. We are a country of free people and that freedom has a high price. Using fear to take away liberty is Constitutional Terrorism!!

Do you realize that Bush Inc. could be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s an election year and The Democrats are too fucking scared to do it. It would bog down the machine and take focus away from the election.

I ran across this online:

"We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of law…. We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws…. Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight …. Thus, we call on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution…. We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. -- American Lawyers Defending the Constitution

Over one thousand lawyers – including former Governor Mario Cuomo and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein – have signed onto the above statement demanding wide-ranging investigative hearings into unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity by the Bush administration.
In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and winner of the 2007 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship, said: "The majority of lawyers in this country understand that the Bush administration has really gone off the page of constitutional rights and off the page of fundamental rights, and is willing to push the Congress to restore those rights." Ratner said he was "dismayed" that a Democratic majority has failed "to push on key illegalities… the torture program, and now the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal…. The minimal that absolutely is needed to get us back on the page of law is to have serious investigative hearings that go up the chain of command and figure out who is responsible for what."
Ratner noted that even with regard to the US attorney's investigations, where Congressional committees held Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove in contempt, leadership has failed to enforce these actions by bringing the resolutions to a vote. "Just announcing that investigations will be held and subpoenas will be issued is terribly insufficient unless Congress is willing to enforce the subpoenas by issuing contempt citations," Ratner said. "Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the executive branch and our entire system of government is threatened when Congress simply folds before an obstinate executive. Issuing contempt citations against Bolten, Miers, and Rove should be Congress's first order of business in 2008."
Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, discussed the administration's torture program violating three US-ratified treaties and the US torture statute; the illegal War in Iraq violating the US-ratified UN Charter as a war of aggression; and Attorney General Michael Mukasey's conflict of interest in overseeing investigations into the torture program and the destruction of the CIA interrogations tapes.
Also speaking with reporters was Jesselyn Raddack, a former Justice Department ethics lawyer who served as an advisor during the interrogation of John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). Raddack said, "My e-mails documented my advice against interrogating Lindh without a lawyer, and concluded that the FBI committed an ethics violation when it did so anyway. Both the CIA videotapes and my e-mails were destroyed, in part, because officials were concerned that they documented controversial interrogation methods that could put agency officials in legal jeopardy…. " Raddack pointed to the Department of Justice's investigations of Enron and Arthur Anderson for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence, and the need for the same aggressive oversight and legal proceedings in these scandals.
This is a vital effort by those charged with defending our constitution, as Ratner said, "This lawyers' letter and the growing number of signatures we'll have on it, and prominent people – it's a way of saying to Congress, ‘You need some backbone. You need to have a serious investigation, wherever it might go, on these issues that really have taken the United States out of the mainstream of human rights.' It's absolutely critical… We've opened up the door to illegality…. Unless we have accountability on those illegalities, we're going to be facing a very bleak future in which fundamental rights will not really be obeyed."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=262693

Now I agree that we should kill all the lawyers but every now and then they come in handy.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
"Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties". Now that's a good one. In FACT, he wants to destroy one "civil liberty" of person with KNOWN terrorist connections who are communicating with persons overseas with KNOWN terrorist ties.

Um, no. They can open up any email, intercept ANY call they want. The Justice Dept. has revealed that the FBI is wantonly abusing the powers of the National Security Letters and probably doing so in violation of peoples' civil rights, and as a means to harass legitimate dissenters, not violent terrorists or criminals:

From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html?hpid=topnews):

Report: FBI Misused Information-Gathering Powers

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2008; 3:49 PM

The FBI continued to improperly obtain private telephone, e-mail and financial records five years after it was granted expanded powers under the USA Patriot Act, according to a report issued today.

In a review focusing on FBI investigations in 2006, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found numerous privacy breaches by the bureau in its use of national security letters, or NSLs, which allowed the FBI to obtain personal information on tens of thousands of Americans and foreigners without approval from a judge.

The findings mirror a report issued by Fine's office last year, which concluded that the FBI had improperly used the letters to obtain telephone logs, banking records and other personal data for three previous years, from 2003 to 2005.

The pattern persisted in 2006, Fine concluded in the report issued today, in part because the FBI had not yet halted the shoddy recordkeeping, poor oversight and other practices that contributed to the problems. He also said it was unclear whether reforms enacted by the Justice Department and FBI last year will address all the issues identified by his investigators.
...


With the domestic surveillance program, there is no known set of protocols as to whether someone is suspected of being involved in terror or not simply because they have refused access of members on the intelligence committee. And the problem is the Bush Administrations "fuck you, take that bitch!!" attitude whenever somebody tries to modify these programs to insure civil liberties are not being illegally shat upon while secrecy laws are abused as blanket protection --and the corporate communications hubs that potentially illegally gave information to the gov't under pane of not getting contracts are given blanket immunity..

Jesus Christ! Some of these companies would have built gas chambers in 1942 with their servile, mindless and spineless obedience to the corporate state...

And if there was no real wrongdoing, then they have nothing to fear in court, don't they?


What part of that don't you foolish liberals get?

The part about the retarded, pseudo-conservatives that disregard any pretensions of libertarianism ideals that their supposed to believe in and just blindly trust the gov't, unless of course it comes to taxes or Democrats being in power. Whatever happened to the true Goldwater conservatives that questioned ALL authority, not just bitched about having to pay taxes?


Are you aware that at least one major terrorist attack was prevented as a result of the wiretapping program?

No. I wasn't. Name ONE!!

Are you aware that before in the period of June to August of 2001, the "9/11 Commission Report" indicates that the terrorist chatter was "blinking red," and that the domestic spying program Bush had already enacted, illegally, didn't do a damn fucking thing to stop them?


As the President himself asked in an interview, "Which attack that we have prevented would you have preferred to happen if we didn't use these methods?"

Wow, you mean he gave some bullshit answer that never indicates specifics, nor does it have any actual evidence of a terror cell being rounded up in the continental US that had any tangible plans to launch attacks here...



The following is a hypothetical that you should be quite fearful of...

Be afraid! Fear! Fear!


"President BUSH/Cheney, we have strong reason to believe that person X is a member of a politically active group peacefully exercising their rights to free speech."

President BUSH/Cheney responds, "Well, lets harass them by issuing FBI 'National Security' letters and see if we can get them fired from their jobs and call the IRS to audit their taxes. He he he!"


You may call this exploiting fear. Well, the fear is factual and real. I, for one, am glad we have a president who is doing everything he feels necessary to protect my wife and two young boys.

LMAFO!! He's the president that ignored a CIA briefing stating that al Qaeda intended to attack the US using hijacked airliners in August of 2001...


Read the following quotes and tell me honestly that our President needs to be more concerned with civil liberties of suspected terrorists with known connections than with protecting the citizen's he is responsible for...

"Liberties of SUSPECTED terrorists?"

So, whenever a murder-rape happens, we should round up all of the men in the town between the ages of 13 and 65 until we catch the murder?


"We have the right to kill 4 million Americans, two million of them children."
-Abu Gheith, Al-Qaeda spokesman

It's a good thing that right wing idiot sites are so concerned with reprinting terrorist propaganda...


"If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands…this is permissible."
-Sheikh Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, prominent Saudi cleric close to Al-Qaeda

Gee --what have American Nazis said?

What about mouth breathers on this site that advocate murdering innocent Muslim women and children as revenge for 9/11? Are they terrorists too? I'm supposed to let some babbling idiot terrorize me?

Good bitches! Way to cave in!


"The real matter is the extinction of America. And, Allah willing, it will fall to the ground…keep in mind this prediction."
-Mullah Omar, Taliban leader and ally of Osama bin Laden

Funny, but why did we invade Iraq is we're so worried about the Taliban and what members of al Qaeda say?

While your peeing your pants over the empty, bellicose rhetoric of some idiot living in a cave and being supported by our "allies," I'm going to wave my middle finger at him by viewing pornography and drinking a beer...

Peace out.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

While your peeing your pants over the empty, bellicose rhetoric of some idiot living in a cave and being supported by our "allies," I'm going to wave my middle finger at him by viewing pornography and drinking a beer...

Peace out.

You might as well this is what Bush is doing.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2e1dowk.jpg

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Deklon
"Bush Wants To Destroy Civil Liberties". Now that's a good one. In FACT, he wants to destroy one "civil liberty" of person with KNOWN terrorist connections who are communicating with persons overseas with KNOWN terrorist ties. What part of that don't you foolish liberals get? Are you aware that at least one major terrorist attack was prevented as a result of the wiretapping program? As the President himself asked in an interview, "Which attack that we have prevented would you have preferred to happen if we didn't use these methods?"

What is this moronic shit?

First, nothing in the law says a "known" terrorist. In fact, nobody is a "known" terrorist until there has been a trial.

But the proposal from the white house doesn't say "known terrorist." It doesn't say anything. It's just up to the sole discretion of a bureaucrat to surveil whoever they feel like.

For that matter, if somebody were a "known" terrorist - then they would have zero difficulty getting a warrant, would they? Then why not? Why not follow the Fourth Amendment as it's written?

Because they're not limiting themselves to "known" terrorists.


Congratulations - you're an ignorant ass. How does it feel?

[bueno bob]

In a nutshell? Bush's rhetoric and anti-civil liberties policies have saved Americans here and far from THOUSANDS, AND I DO MEAN THOUSANDS, of terrorist attacks! It's true!

Well, that's what he says, anyway.

Of course...mentioning anything SPECIFIC among those thousands of attacks would jeopardize the nation, so I guess it's just a guessing game. But fuck, I mean, he's been so HONEST up to this point, why not believe him?

:rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Praise Jesus! the children are safe from the Islamofacists.

If only the gov't would actually show evidence of this by actually breaking up a cell that was actually planning something, and not a bunch of loud-mouthed lunatics incapable of planning a bake sale, much less a terror attack in CONUS...

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Blackflag

First, nothing in the law says a "known" terrorist. In fact, nobody is a "known" terrorist until there has been a trial.


So by your fuzzy logic Osama bin Laden is a.........



But the proposal from the white house doesn't say "known terrorist." It doesn't say anything. It's just up to the sole discretion of a bureaucrat to surveil whoever they feel like.


Kind of a good reason to have some over-sight there, Skippy.



For that matter, if somebody were a "known" terrorist - then they would have zero difficulty getting a warrant, would they? Then why not? Why not follow the Fourth Amendment as it's written?


Ask Bush why he doesn't.



Because they're not limiting themselves to "known" terrorists.


No shit! You're getting there!



Congratulations - you're an ignorant ass. How does it feel?


Oh so close! You were actually going to make some sense. Then you blew you're wad too soon.:eek:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Blackflag

First, nothing in the law says a "known" terrorist. In fact, nobody is a "known" terrorist until there has been a trial.


Hooray! This is tremendous news for the people held at Guantanamo!

[vh rides again]

the way i figure it is, if your not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

if you are sending drugs through the mail, well you might get busted because of this policy.
talking on the phone about your plans to rob a bank? you might get busted.

making plans on going over to your best freinds house to fuck his wife? nobody gives a shit, nothing to worry about there.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by vh rides again
the way i figure it is, if your not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

Says the police as the round you up.

You trust all police? You mean there are no innocent people in jail or that have been executed?

And what if you're not violating any laws -- but become the subject of political and economic harassment? What is your recourse?


if you are sending drugs through the mail, well you might get busted because of this policy.

Um, you would have gotten caught even without this policy as one would have to be a retard to even bother...


talking on the phone about your plans to rob a bank? you might get busted.

What if it were kids pranking? Should they be arrested for conspiracy then? How many resources were wasted in busting them?

And are real terrorists/bank robbers stupid enough to talk about their plans over an open line? Most, the ones that are actually competent and a threat, would never use the phone. Even Bin Laden doesn't use his phone...

BTW, this program is only supposed to be against national security threats. But already it's okay by you if they listen to everyone?


making plans on going over to your best friends house to fuck his wife? nobody gives a shit, nothing to worry about there.

Says you. What if the Christian Right fully realizes their agenda of a more "moral" America and creates a morality police?

I think many in Wiemar Germany felt that way in 1932...

Where does it stop? At which laws are okay for the gov't to discard "in the name of security," and which are okay?

Is it okay to then call someone a "terrorist," then summarily execute them. Bury their body at Area 51 (a test range so secret, it's not clear if anyone in the FBI could actually even investigate the crime scene).

It's a slippery slope to fascism. And it begins with an ignorant citizenry willing to give up their rights for some false perception of safety. And it also begins by turning a blind eye to law violations by the executive branch, which inherently leads to the lawless state. Which is the basis of a dictatorship...

[kwame k]

Originally posted by vh rides again
the way i figure it is, if your not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.

if you are sending drugs through the mail, well you might get busted because of this policy.
talking on the phone about your plans to rob a bank? you might get busted.

making plans on going over to your best freinds house to fuck his wife? nobody gives a shit, nothing to worry about there.

I’m not going to cut and paste each part of your post and make snide comments.

Truly, I’m not being a smartass, if the sentiments in your statement are what the vast majority of the voting public believe our country is ruined. Democracy will be a failed experiment. There is nothing I can say to convince you how dangerous your views are, to the American way of life.

PLEASE read up on McCarthyism here’s a quick link http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

Please read up on Presidents Nixon and Johnson and how they hid behind National Security.

Do an internet search about the Constitutional Violations that George W. Bush has committed but swore to defend.

U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As Nickd has pointed out read about the Nazi’s and how they rose to power. If you substitute “Terrorist” for “Jews” you’ll see that the current administration is similar to the Nazi’s of the 1930’s. Using a group of boogey men Nazi’s=Jews, Bush=Terrorist as a fear tactic to erode civil liberties.

Read Bush’s statements about the bill he is threatening to veto. He wants to protect the Phone Companies from being sued from Sept 11, 2001 to now. Why is he so worried about giving immunity to the Phone Companies if they are only spying on criminals?

I’ll never change your mind about what you believe. We can disagree about Politics, Religion, and even the weather but that is only because we have Constitutional Rights. Those rights are being taken away. It’s not only one right, it’s many that are slowly being taken away bit by bit.
One Constitutional right taken away is one too many. You are not any safer. It’s just that the fear of the unknown has made you think you are safer.

Here are some definitions of terrorism
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS212US212&defl=en&q=define:terrorism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

The terrorist are winning because they are destroying our freedoms by using fear to intimidate us into submission. The statements you are making fall right into the terrorist’s goal for America. George W Bush and his Administration are Constitutional Terrorist!

The views I have and the statements I make will not be considered an American’s right to Free Speech but subversion. I will, if things keep going the way they are, be considered a Traitor to my government. Even though speaking out against our government was one of the safe guards that every Founding Father wanted to guarantee.

Read what the founders of our country said about situations like we are facing right now. They set up our system to safe guard us from Presidents like George W Bush.

Please read what Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other Traitors said about people like George W Bush.

I honestly feel sorry for you if you are buying into this Administration’s lies.

[Deklon]

The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

GREAT JOB MR. PRESIDENT, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.



Right out of the gate! Jesus, you didn't even make it past number one.
The US Government didn't do shit about that it was the passengers and flight attendants.
What law or government agency stopped that??? He made it on the plane. Da plane, boss, da plane!!!!

Next!

[Deklon]

And you won't give the President and his policies credit for any of the other 18! I can see I'll get nowhere with you. You're apparently one of those who hates the President so much you have lost your ability to have common sense. Here's what I mean (respectfully):

Your side's argument is that the President is purposely infringing on civil rights for reason other than protecting the country. All this foolishness about they can look at anyone's e-mails and phone calls for any reason and are doing so. Can't you see that makes absolutely ZERO sense? What would be the point? Your side is critical of reports that show we still don't have enough infrastructure in place to to perfect terrorosim surveillance and yet you say the President is reading my e-mails? When you return to earth, let us know.

[Nickdfresh]

Firstly, provide links, or your stuff will be deleted for plagiarism/copyright issues!


Originally posted by Deklon
The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

About the only attack of substance. And you know what? he was taken down by regular air line passengers --NOT THE DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM. And by all accounts, he was a mentally ill stooge. Hardly the portrait of the competent terrorist too fear...


• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

Almost universally acknowledged to be the bullshit fantasy of mildly retarded, truck-driver Padilla and bullshit extracted under torture (Khalid Sheik Mo hammed). He had no weapons, no means to get the material for a "dirty bomb," and no real support.

He was held illegally at Guantanamo Bay and had his civil rights repeated violated in an absolute abortion of justice...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29


• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.


LOL One of the biggest lines of bullshit and miscarriages of justice in recent times. These poor stooges in the Yemeni population that form a significant community in the Buffalo, NY suburb (my hometown, and I was there when all this happened) had no weapons to speak of, no real plan, no real communications/control with/of al Qaeda, and were no real threat.

Calling them a terror cell is like calling the Boy Scouts an elite military commando formation...The only thing most of these guys were guilty of was visiting Afghanistan and of going to one of Bin Laden's camps, BFD...


• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

LMFAO!! Again, he was "charged." What was he convicted of?

Another huge fallicy and fake story...


• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.


LOL These guys were in a deranged cult, and again, they had NO weapons nor plans...


• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

Which financial centers?


• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

Another case of no bomb, no specific plans, and many allegations of "entrapment" as the sole evidence is of statements made while being egged-on by a smarmy police informant...

(who was paid over $100,000 I might add)


• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

He should have just plotted to do it in Pakistan. Apparently, they can't stop assassinations...

Again, another highly dubious "sting" operation many characterize as entrapment...


• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

Wow! Attended a "terrorist training camp?"

And that means what?

Oh, convicted of "customs violations?" :rolleyes:


• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

One of the few actual potential terrorist incidents. Still, they were ameteurs and easily caught, and still not found by domestic spying...


• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

LOL He's an environmental terrorist, and has nothing to do with Islamiscist violence...


• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

Again, another instance of no weapons, no specific plans, and nothing but (loud) talk by wannabees...



• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

Convicted of making "casing video tapes." Again, hardly a smoking gun...


• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

June 23, 2006

The Truth Behind the Exaggerated Threat against the Sears Tower

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS (http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/06/06/ana06048.html)

Earlier today, BuzzFlash suggested that the Bush Administration's claim of foiling an attempt to destroy the Sears Tower was propaganda exaggerated to distract and mislead us. While we have not denied there were indeed rumors and boasts of committing acts of terror, a careful examination of the facts makes it clear that the Miami group was not as serious a threat as portrayed in the media. They had no operational ability beyond their mouths.

Here is what we found buried in the middle of some reports:

No terrorist connections:

* Group "never met Bin Laden or had any contact with the terror kingpin's henchmen… In fact, they had no connection to any known terrorist organization." (NY Daily News)

No actual terrorist actions:

* No bomb making materials were found in the raids." (CNN.com)
* "Only overt acts described in the indictments were swearing oaths of allegiance to Al Qaeda and taking video footage of the F.B.I office." (NY Times)
* Six of the seven men indicted "are described only as driving (the leader) or the informer places or as attending meetings between the two." (NY Times)
* "Only devised a plot on paper." (Chicago Sun-Times)

Officials dismiss serious risk:

* Chicago Police: There was "No credible threat… They had no capability to (destroy the Sears tower). They never got to that point – or could have." (NY Daily News)
* Sears Tower executive: "Law enforcement continues to tell us that they have never found evidence of a credible terrorism threat against Sears Tower that has gone beyond criminal discussions." (Chicago Sun-Times)
* Senior federal law-enforcement source: "No means" to attack Sears Tower or other buildings. "There was no threat at all." (Chicago Tribune)
* Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communication Executive Director: "The plan developed in Florida was never an actual plan, and therefore, nobody was in danger" (CBS News)

The Sears Tower is the tallest building in North America and is known for its structural integrity. It is actually comprised of nine separate steel columns of different heights. While 9-11 showed what determined, well-supplied terrorists can do, a single wannabe amateur and a few bodyguards without any connections pose little threat, as the Chicago Police noted above.

Again, BuzzFlash is supportive of the FBI for arresting the group. We just don't think it is as important as Bush seems to want us to. The timing of the raid, given that there was no immediate operational threat, appears politically motivated. The Bush Administration wanted to scare Americans and tie the Iraq War to terror after a Senate debate on redeployment that very morning.

Bush has said for years that the point of going to Iraq was to draw out terrorists there to prevent them from coming here. If anything, the most newsworthy aspect of this story is that the suspects were largely American citizens, operating within our borders, and not even Arab, which means that our focus on War in Iraq does not address threats that could be more immediate.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS


• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_bomb_plot

An "extremely vague" plot. He was arrested in Lebanon. No specific weapons or plans were discovered...


• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

Again, all talk. No weapons, specific planning, and the UK claimed that they were pressured to prematurely arrest the defendants by the Bush Admin for political purposes, and that the Admin threatened to reveal the supposed plot if the British didn't act, thereby harming the British investigation...:rolleyes:


• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

Pizza deliverymen that had no connection to al Qaeda. They were caught by an undercover informant, NOT by the wiretapping program...

One of the few "terror plots," that amounted to anything.

BTW, they had few weapons and were trying to acquire some, from FBI informants...



• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

LOL

From Wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport_attack_ plot)

Controversy over the seriousness of the plot

A debate has emerged in the wake of plot about the seriousness of a threat this plot posed and how seriously foiled plots should be taken in general. Criticism has emerged to the statement by U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf that the plot could have "one of the most chilling plots imaginable," which might have caused "unthinkable" devastation. According to critics such as Bruce Schneier [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier)the plot was never operational. The public had never been at risk. And the notion of blowing up the airport, let alone the borough of Queens, by exploding a fuel tank was in all likelihood a technical impossibility. Also cited are a portrait emerging of alleged mastermind Russell Defreitas as hapless and episodically homeless, and of co-conspirator Abdel Nur as a drug addict. The New York Times put the story of the plot on page 37 the day after the plot was announced. Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review writing in the New York Post, criticized the Times' decision saying "Foiled terror plots often will seem ridiculous and unlikely, especially when they are pre-empted" but should be taken seriously. Rep. Peter King former chairmen and member of the United States House Committee on Homeland Security dismissed criticism of law enforcement as "the price of success when you haven't been attacked in six years. We've gone from criticizing them for not doing enough immediately after 9/11 to now criticizing them too much."


• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

LOL They got him after 9/11, and the Pakistanis could have taken him into custody before. BTW, it has been said that he spouted whatever bullshit he thought the gov't wanted to hear while under torture -- to make it stop...


GREAT JOB MR. PRESIDENT, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

Yeah, thanks for failing to stop 9/11...:rolleyes:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb3.jpg

Long version:

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb1.jpg

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.



Number 2.

Good work Denying an American Citizen his Constitutional Rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601771.html

He was detained for 2 years without access to a lawyer. No Habeas Corpus and on and on.
He was finally given his trial, due process prevailed and he was convicted. Good the system worked but it took 5 years and violated his Rights.
So in your logic you are guilty until proven innocent. The government has the right to detain you for as long as they want without a trial, charges filed against, access to a lawyer and torture any American Citizen. Change their minds and list you as an enemy combatant when people start asking questions about his rights being violated. Then 4 years later change their mind and let a normal trial begin.

Our Government changed the charges several times and back peddled.

[Deklon]

Again, it just baffles my mind that the man who is responsible for protecting this country, a responsibility that is impossible to imagine, has so little support from those of you who have such hate. It is UNDENYABLE that people have tried and are trying to hit this country, and under the President's watch have not succeeded. 9/11? Yes he could have possibly done more, but there was virtually no precedent and all they had was a brief memo with intent. You think Clinton would have prevented 9/11 with the same intel? Laughable, just laughable. I can be quite critical of President Bush even though I approve of most of what he does. Yet you can't allow a moment of common sense to offer praise no matter what the facts are.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Again, it just baffles my mind that the man who is responsible for protecting this country, a responsibility that is impossible to imagine, has so little support from those of you who have such hate.

LOL What were you saying during the Clinton Presidency?


It is UNDENYABLE that people have tried and are trying to hit this country, and under the President's watch have not succeeded.

Because a credible terrorist threat doesn't exist...

The only real terror threat here is the "homegrown" ones we made domestically, mostly by shit policies in Iraq...

And, since Bush hasn't protected us against psychotic college shooter, mass-murders that seem to be far more of a threat than terrorists are, is he really a good president in your silly little world?


9/11? Yes he could have possibly done more, but there was virtually no precedent and all they had was a brief memo with intent. You think Clinton would have prevented 9/11 with the same intel?

Bill Clinton at least actually met with his terror Czar, Richard Clarke, once in a while. He didn't freeze him out as Bush and Condi did...


Laughable, just laughable. I can be quite critical of President Bush even though I approve of most of what he does.

What do you specifically approve of him doing as president?


Yet you can't allow a moment of common sense to offer praise no matter what the facts are.

What facts? That he's failed to secure the ports and borders, the al Qaeda as an organized terror threat is largely a myth, and that the War in Iraq has spawned more terror that anything else in recent human history?

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
You think Clinton would have prevented 9/11 with the same intel? Laughable, just laughable. I can be quite critical of President Bush even though I approve of most of what he does. Yet you can't allow a moment of common sense to offer praise no matter what the facts are.
No, I think Clinton is just as responsible as Bush was.
Actually, the Intelligence Agencies totally fucked up and could of prevented 9/11. Where have I said anything about supporting Clinton.
You just Assumed.

[kwame k]

Shit Nickd I'm posting all over you. Sorry dude.

[Deklon]

Nickdfresh, after a comments like this...

"Because a credible terrorist threat doesn't exist...

The only real terror threat here is the "homegrown" ones we made domestically, mostly by shit policies in Iraq..."

To ignore 9/11, US Cole, 1st attack on WTC, US Embassy bombings, several other terrorist attacks aimed at the US, and all of the writings of Al Qaeda (all of which occured before we went to Iraq), makes me no longer be able to have an intelligent debate with you. You have ZERO credibilty. We can only agree that we love Van Halen.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Blackflag
What is this moronic shit?

First, nothing in the law says a "known" terrorist. In fact, nobody is a "known" terrorist until there has been a trial.

But the proposal from the white house doesn't say "known terrorist." It doesn't say anything. It's just up to the sole discretion of a bureaucrat to surveil whoever they feel like.

For that matter, if somebody were a "known" terrorist - then they would have zero difficulty getting a warrant, would they? Then why not? Why not follow the Fourth Amendment as it's written?

Because they're not limiting themselves to "known" terrorists.




outstanding post.

[Deklon]

Idoits. The people they are surveiling are having conversations with KNOWN terrorists overseas!! Again, do you honestly think the people doing the surveillance and/or wiretapping are looking at random people like you and me for no reason just for fun? Or can you least give people the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying do do the right thing for their country?

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
Idoits. The people they are surveiling are having conversations with KNOWN terrorists overseas!! Again, do you honestly think the people doing the surveillance and/or wiretapping are looking at random people like you and me for no reason just for fun? Or can you least give people the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying do do the right thing for their country?

I think plenty of people working for our government are honest, hard working, and competent people.

When Civil liberties are being abused and a President with a blatant disregard for the Constitution is not being put in check I have a problem.

What part don’t you get about Bush using fear as justification for suspending civil liberties? Can’t you see that he is using Executive Privilege and National Security as a means of forwarding his political agenda.

Other than fucking up our economy, pandering to corporate greed, special interest, suspending separation of Church and State, and ruining all credibility the US had around the world!!!! He’s doing a great job!


He is saying Fuck-you to our Constitution and our laws. Is that clear enough.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon
Idoits. The people they are surveiling are having conversations with KNOWN terrorists overseas!!

1] The surveillence started prior to the 9/11 attacks, which weren't stopped, so obviously the methods aren't working...

2] If these KNOWN terrorists are worth their salt, wouldn't they be bright enough to communicate IN WAYS OTHER THAN THE FUCKING TELEPHONE. :rolleyes:

The fact you sheep fall for this shit is scary.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon

To ignore 9/11, US Cole, 1st attack on WTC, US Embassy bombings, several other terrorist attacks aimed at the US, and all of the writings of Al Qaeda (all of which occured before we went to Iraq), makes me no longer be able to have an intelligent debate with you. You have ZERO credibilty. We can only agree that we love Van Halen.

Maybe we just haven't invaded/occupied enough countries in the region yet....

The known terrorists seem to respond well to that approach.

Iraq has seen a real drop in terrorist activities in the last 5 years.

Oh, and Afghanistan is no longer able to hide the bigwigs.


:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by kwame k
Shit Nickd I'm posting all over you. Sorry dude.

No problem at all, man...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Nickdfresh, after a comments like this...

"Because a credible terrorist threat doesn't exist...

The only real terror threat here is the "homegrown" ones we made domestically, mostly by shit policies in Iraq..."

To ignore 9/11,

I didn't ignore 9/11. I've posted more on it than you have!


US Cole, 1st attack on WTC, US Embassy bombings, several other terrorist attacks aimed at the US, and all of the writings of Al Qaeda (all of which occured before we went to Iraq),

Of course. But, al Qaeda is not the all powerful, organized movement it is often made out to be...

As I think I said in my first post, if half of the fear mongering were justified, they'd have launched a series of attacks with prepositioned cells in the US right after 9/11.

This never materialized showing that they pretty much 'blew-their-wad' on that day and that they were pretty much wiped out after the invasion of Afghanistan and the US offensive in Pakistan...

I never said that there was no (historical) threat. Just that the threat is largely exaggerated and that the terrorists take what we give them --propaganda!


...makes me no longer be able to have an intelligent debate with you. You have ZERO credibilty. We can only agree that we love Van Halen.

I didn't realize we were having an intelligent debate. Your regurgitation of FAUX talking points, constantly reminded us of the supposed terrorist threat that seems rather weak when put to any factual scrutiny...

I think you need to view this BBC documentary and read over this thread:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24239&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Idoits.

LMFAO :D


The people they are surveiling are having conversations with KNOWN terrorists overseas!!

FINE!! Get a fucking warrant for it, or at least allow judicial oversight so we don't go back to the days of COINTELPRO! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) Which was why the FISA Court was established, to prevent omnipotence seeking executive branch from fucking over their political enemies...


Again, do you honestly think the people doing the surveillance and/or wiretapping are looking at random people like you and me for no reason just for fun? Or can you least give people the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying do do the right thing for their country?

Nobody is saying that we shouldn't be surveilling enemies of the state, only that some scrutiny and oversight is needed. Is it THAT tough to figure out?? The point is that Big Brother can surveill whomever they want, with no legal recourse

[Deklon]

We can go back and forth forever and likely get nowhere. We're both lsitening to the same song. You hate it, I like it it. Like when Ed screws up a few songs and the sound quality sucks at a show. Some people come ways saying he show sucked, others say it was the best on the tour. Same show, opposite opinions.

I can honestly understand how those you who oppose Bush and everything about him feel the wat you do. You have some evidence to back up your opinions, lots of things look really bad, and the President can appear arrogant and stubborn. Combine that with some results at this point can bring you to your negative iews.

When I have these arguments at length, I frequently come away feeling no one moved much on their opinions.

However, and I again say you have legit eveidence to back up your opinons, I have evidence as well.

You may say the terrorist threat isn't real or signifiant. I say there is ample evidence to suggest it could be not only real, but beyond our imagination. What if a several nuclear devices of some kind were somehow smuggled in to this country and the guys who got them in asked any of the major terror figures what they should do? You and I know what that answer is. MANY respected and trusted people on both sides of the aisle about these types of things being at leat possible. Well, if it's at leat possile, and you're in charge, you HAVE to err on the side protection. One missed plot or plan would be all it would take to inflict unimagibable harm.

I believe some of the thing the President has done indeed look bad on their own and see how you feel that way. But those of us who support him honestly feel his intentions are good and right. I believe it could even be that he is doing some wrong things for the right reasons. And I believe he must think he has to. I feel I know a lot of people, and not one has ever mentioned they felt their privacy was being threated by the goverment. The IRA audits 1 out of 1,000 tax filers? How many people do you think are being looked at, and how many are competely innocent? If some innocent people get harrased and one major plot is foiled as a result of wiretapping (like the airliner plot), then I say the inconvenience of a few is worth the price. If the President believes that he has o do things te way he does to provide he best chance of safety, then I support that.

I can go on and on about the economy,the world hating us, and Church and Stete, but for God's sake, it's a VH website. I've opened my eyes and given careful thought to views opposite to mine, and given great though to my own opinions. I don't believe that those of you who are so hateful of the President have ever been even open to the opinion that he may be right. Lastly, I don't feel that you can accuarelty critique the Bush presidency now. It will take years or decades to find the answers.

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by Deklon
[B]
I can honestly understand how those you who oppose Bush and everything about him feel the wat you do. [B]

It's not about Bush. It's not about opinions. It's not about terrorism. It's about the Bill of Rights - either you believe in it or you don't.

Bush doesn't. You don't. That's what makes you ignorant fuckers who should be deported.

[vh rides again]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Says the police as the round you up.

You trust all police? You mean there are no innocent people in jail or that have been executed?

And what if you're not violating any laws -- but become the subject of political and economic harassment? What is your recourse?



Um, you would have gotten caught even without this policy as one would have to be a retard to even bother...



What if it were kids pranking? Should they be arrested for conspiracy then? How many resources were wasted in busting them?

And are real terrorists/bank robbers stupid enough to talk about their plans over an open line? Most, the ones that are actually competent and a threat, would never use the phone. Even Bin Laden doesn't use his phone...

BTW, this program is only supposed to be against national security threats. But already it's okay by you if they listen to everyone?



Says you. What if the Christian Right fully realizes their agenda of a more "moral" America and creates a morality police?

I think many in Wiemar Germany felt that way in 1932...

Where does it stop? At which laws are okay for the gov't to discard "in the name of security," and which are okay?

Is it okay to then call someone a "terrorist," then summarily execute them. Bury their body at Area 51 (a test range so secret, it's not clear if anyone in the FBI could actually even investigate the crime scene).

It's a slippery slope to fascism. And it begins with an ignorant citizenry willing to give up their rights for some false perception of safety. And it also begins by turning a blind eye to law violations by the executive branch, which inherently leads to the lawless state. Which is the basis of a dictatorship... paranoia will destroy ya. get a grip sister.

[vh rides again]

Originally posted by kwame k
I’m not going to cut and paste each part of your post and make snide comments.

Truly, I’m not being a smartass, if the sentiments in your statement are what the vast majority of the voting public believe our country is ruined. Democracy will be a failed experiment. There is nothing I can say to convince you how dangerous your views are, to the American way of life.

PLEASE read up on McCarthyism here’s a quick link http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm

Please read up on Presidents Nixon and Johnson and how they hid behind National Security.

Do an internet search about the Constitutional Violations that George W. Bush has committed but swore to defend.

U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As Nickd has pointed out read about the Nazi’s and how they rose to power. If you substitute “Terrorist” for “Jews” you’ll see that the current administration is similar to the Nazi’s of the 1930’s. Using a group of boogey men Nazi’s=Jews, Bush=Terrorist as a fear tactic to erode civil liberties.

Read Bush’s statements about the bill he is threatening to veto. He wants to protect the Phone Companies from being sued from Sept 11, 2001 to now. Why is he so worried about giving immunity to the Phone Companies if they are only spying on criminals?

I’ll never change your mind about what you believe. We can disagree about Politics, Religion, and even the weather but that is only because we have Constitutional Rights. Those rights are being taken away. It’s not only one right, it’s many that are slowly being taken away bit by bit.
One Constitutional right taken away is one too many. You are not any safer. It’s just that the fear of the unknown has made you think you are safer.

Here are some definitions of terrorism
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS212US212&defl=en&q=define:terrorism&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

The terrorist are winning because they are destroying our freedoms by using fear to intimidate us into submission. The statements you are making fall right into the terrorist’s goal for America. George W Bush and his Administration are Constitutional Terrorist!

The views I have and the statements I make will not be considered an American’s right to Free Speech but subversion. I will, if things keep going the way they are, be considered a Traitor to my government. Even though speaking out against our government was one of the safe guards that every Founding Father wanted to guarantee.

Read what the founders of our country said about situations like we are facing right now. They set up our system to safe guard us from Presidents like George W Bush.

Please read what Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other Traitors said about people like George W Bush.

I honestly feel sorry for you if you are buying into this Administration’s lies. my life is wonderful, im not a paranoid nutjob screaming the sky is falling.
people like yourself are american greatest enemy, it is in fact people like you that terrorist count on to spread fear and mistrust throughout my country.

i trust my government, ive been showed no reason not to trust it.

im a team player, not chicken little.

[vh rides again]

Originally posted by Blackflag
It's not about Bush. It's not about opinions. It's not about terrorism. It's about the Bill of Rights - either you believe in it or you don't.

Bush doesn't. You don't. That's what makes you ignorant fuckers who should be deported. i feel the same about you, i dont want you on this team, your strategy is a losing one.

[vh rides again]

ill bet if all you fags were alive during world war 2 you would have been crying about rights then too.

when are you guys gonna give up this bitchfest, whats it gonna take?

theres always been rights vioilations and presidents walking all over the constitution during wars.

can any of you crybabys list 3 considerable constitutional rights violations that happened immediately after pearl harbor?

come on put on your thinking caps then tell me why it was ok then but not now.
oh by the way we won that war and everyone was on the same team.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Deklon
Idoits. The people they are surveiling are having conversations with KNOWN terrorists overseas!! Again, do you honestly think the people doing the surveillance and/or wiretapping are looking at random people like you and me for no reason just for fun? Or can you least give people the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying do do the right thing for their country?

the point isn't whether they are currently only using it against bad guys.


the constitution set up safeguards for a reason. the same reason that our justice system finds people guilty or not guilty. innocent is not relevant. either the government does its job of proving guilt or it doesn't. if it doesn't, you go free, whether or not you're innocent.

likewise, our constitutional protections don't just apply to those of us that are not threats. they apply to everyone.


now, does that mean that we all might be more at physical risk? yep. absolutely. but the real question is whether or not our freedoms are worth that risk. obviously, they are worth the risk to the men and women serving overseas.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
the point isn't whether they are currently only using it against bad guys.


the constitution set up safeguards for a reason. the same reason that our justice system finds people guilty or not guilty. innocent is not relevant. either the government does its job of proving guilt or it doesn't. if it doesn't, you go free, whether or not you're innocent.

likewise, our constitutional protections don't just apply to those of us that are not threats. they apply to everyone.


now, does that mean that we all might be more at physical risk? yep. absolutely. but the real question is whether or not our freedoms are worth that risk. obviously, they are worth the risk to the men and women serving overseas.

Nicely put!

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
I've opened my eyes and given careful thought to views opposite to mine, and given great though to my own opinions. I don't believe that those of you who are so hateful of the President have ever been even open to the opinion that he may be right. Lastly, I don't feel that you can accuarelty critique the Bush presidency now. It will take years or decades to find the answers.

I respect that about you. I may disagree with you but at least you stand up for what you believe in.
No matter how misguided you are:D
Kidding.

I believe that our civil rights are being taken away. When I read what the framers of the constitution said about abuse of power and using fear tactics, to further a political agenda, I am amazed at how it applies toady. They really understood how dangerous a President with unlimited powers and a blatant disregard for the Constitution can be.

No one wants another 9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, USS Cole, or the first attack on the Trade Center. When we suspend a persons liberties, no matter what the justification may be, we lower ourselves to a standard that is no better than the oppressive regimes that we are fighting against.

Due process, a right to privacy, Habeas Corpus, a right to a fair and speedy trial, being able to face your accusers and the charges brought against you , and having Checks and Balances in our government should be for everyone. A higher standard should apply to our President.

Having legal recourse against Telecommunications Companies and not giving them blanket immunity is what? A Bad Thing. Go ahead and wire-tap the bad guys. Get a warrant. What is so bad about that?

What about when John Lennon was being harassed by the FBI and Immigrations. Storm Thurman wrote a memo that the government should deport him because his views were counter to that administrations goal of another 4 years in office. They used OUR government to harass a fucking musician. All for a reelection bid.
How about the blackmail and Illegal bugging of Martin Luther King?

How is making sure our government has over-sight and accountability a bad thing?

[kwame k]

Originally posted by vh rides again
ill bet if all you fags were alive during world war 2 you would have been crying about rights then too.

when are you guys gonna give up this bitchfest, whats it gonna take?

theres always been rights vioilations and presidents walking all over the constitution during wars.

can any of you crybabys list 3 considerable constitutional rights violations that happened immediately after pearl harbor?

come on put on your thinking caps then tell me why it was ok then but not now.
oh by the way we won that war and everyone was on the same team.

What the Japanese American internment camps? The violation of the Johnson Act? I now history jackass how bout you?

Show me anywhere in this thread that someone said the constitutional violations of WWII were OK.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything.
Hilter and the Nazi are the same as the terrorist we have today? Iraq is the same thing as WWII? Whatever you're smoking ease up, dude.

So according to your logic because certain administrations violated the constitution that gives the current administration the right to do so.

I‘m sure people somewhere are fucking sheep right now, so according
to you it’s OK. Bahhter up, billy goat.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by vh rides again
paranoia will destroy ya. get a grip sister.

As opposed to being paranoid about largely non-existent terrorists, panty-liner?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by vh rides again
ill bet if all you fags were alive during world war 2 you would have been crying about rights then too.

And I'd bet you were still some fat douche letting others go off and do your fighting for you...


when are you guys gonna give up this bitchfest, whats it gonna take?

Maybe ignorant posts from the grammatically fucked right wing knuckledraggers that never graduated high school giving a great lecture on constitutional law?


theres always been rights vioilations and presidents walking all over the constitution during wars.

Name one, douchewad! Name ONE example.

BTW, in case no one has informed you super-genius, we are not in a declared war with anybody...


can any of you crybabys list 3 considerable constitutional rights violations that happened immediately after pearl harbor?

Feel free to list them.


come on put on your thinking caps then tell me why it was ok then but not now.
oh by the way we won that war and everyone was on the same team.

Probably because we were in a Congressionally declared War then, and now we're some netherworld of semantic hell?

Now run along to Sen. Larry Craig's bathroom...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Idoits.

Learn how to fucking spell, I-D-I-O-T!


The people they are surveiling are having conversations with KNOWN terrorists overseas!!

No, they're surveilling EVERYBODY conversing with anyone overseas or domestically!

If it was limited to just "known terrorists," then they'd already have warrants and it wouldn't be WARRARNTLESS surveillance, idiot!


Again, do you honestly think the people doing the surveillance and/or wiretapping are looking at random people like you and me for no reason just for fun? Or can you least give people the benefit of the doubt that they are actually trying do do the right thing for their country?

I don't fucking care if they are or not. By doing so, they'd be breaking the law and no one can stop it without oversight.

And when have I ever even given that example as an objection.

Read the fucking links I provided, then get a clue...

Does your fucking boss trust you to do whatever you do without any form of supervision?

[Blackflag]

Originally posted by vh rides again
i feel the same about you, i dont want you on this team, your strategy is a losing one.

I have taken oaths to "support and defend the Constitution." Have you?

[Nitro Express]

People have been worrying about nuclear attacks ever since the Soviet Union got their first bomb. I have lived my whole life in the nuclear holocaust possibility. So far nothing has gone bang. I'm more worried about getting hit by a drunk driver driving home from the grocery store.

[Seshmeister]

Absolutely which is why it's not worth ruining our countries giving a win for the terrorists.

9-11 was a catastrophe but being pragmatic about it 2974 people died compared to 42,196 in US traffic accidents the same year.

I can't think of any deaths in the US from terrorists in the US since then but there have been over a quarter of a million killed on the roads and about 100 000 killed by firearms.

I'm inclined to think and Katrina confrims it that the lack of deaths on US soil is more to do with it being an unlikely event rather than Homeland Security being absolute geniuses.

If the threat was as high as they like to say then even if they were brilliant the odd thing would be slipping through.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[vh rides again]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
As opposed to being paranoid about largely non-existent terrorists, panty-liner?
that comment right there proves that you are in a dreamworld. let us all know when you come back from fantasy land or where ever it is that terrorist are largely nonexistent.

you put up a good smokescreen acting as if you know whats going on with all your bullshit posts in this forum but this just proves your nothing more than a link poster who acctually has no real grip on whats going on in this war on terror.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Seshmeister

If the threat was as high as they like to say then even if they were brilliant the odd thing would be slipping through.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Especially when you consider our 6,000 miles of borders are as porous as ever, our coastlines are wide open, and tens of thousands of containers come into our open ports daily.

A "known" terrorist wouldn't need to pick up a phone and dial, when you consider the 12,000 miles of unguarded soft spots

:gulp:

Homeland Security has been a joke from day 1

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by vh rides again
that comment right there proves that you are in a dreamworld. let us all know when you come back from fantasy land or where ever it is that terrorist are largely nonexistent.

you put up a good smokescreen acting as if you know whats going on with all your bullshit posts in this forum but this just proves your nothing more than a link poster who acctually has no real grip on whats going on in this war on terror.

And what's going on in the War on terror?

[Steve Savicki]

<center>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2343296395_d6947a0eb1_o.jpg</center>

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by vh rides again
that comment right there proves that you are in a dreamworld. let us all know when you come back from fantasy land or where ever it is that terrorist are largely nonexistent.




pre-war, the terrorist connection to iraq was largely nonexistent.

saddam? bad guy. oppressive dictator. WMDs? maybe, but probably not. more likely, he kept the ability to make them in the future, and liked his enemies (israel, iran) thinking he might be more dangerous if attacked.

but direct threat to make 9/12 on the U.S.? no, largely nonexistent.