The Death of the Neo-Cons
- Thread starter shamus005
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Trainman-
Lots of words there, but not a single response to my question. The referenced Dept of Justice site also shows no apparent arrests due to PATRIOT, that could not have been made in its absence. Oh, yes, there is the 3.8 Million asset seizure from "investigation of a Montreal-based telemarketing operation which preyed on elderly Americans" which they link to PATRIOT; but they don't say how. The 14 Canadians were charged with RICO violations which have been around for decades (since the time we created "conspiracy" or "thought crimes").
So, you really haven't answered the question. You glibly stated that you had seen PATRIOT used "to good effect to pursue those individuals or groups that conspire to do this country and its infrastructure murderous harm." Again, give me three concrete examples. You've "seen" them, as in, you know them off the top of your head. Kindly share. Source, please.
Rich
Lots of words there, but not a single response to my question. The referenced Dept of Justice site also shows no apparent arrests due to PATRIOT, that could not have been made in its absence. Oh, yes, there is the 3.8 Million asset seizure from "investigation of a Montreal-based telemarketing operation which preyed on elderly Americans" which they link to PATRIOT; but they don't say how. The 14 Canadians were charged with RICO violations which have been around for decades (since the time we created "conspiracy" or "thought crimes").
So, you really haven't answered the question. You glibly stated that you had seen PATRIOT used "to good effect to pursue those individuals or groups that conspire to do this country and its infrastructure murderous harm." Again, give me three concrete examples. You've "seen" them, as in, you know them off the top of your head. Kindly share. Source, please.
Rich
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125551,00.html
Specifically:
Among the specific examples:
— The Patriot Act allowed intelligence agents to share with FBI criminal investigators evidence that an anonymous letter sent to the FBI had come from an individual with Al Qaeda (search) ties. That letter began the investigation into an alleged terror cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., that has resulted in six guilty pleas.
— That same information-sharing authority was used against members of an alleged terror cell in Portland, Ore., that an undercover informant said was preparing for possible attacks against Jewish schools or synagogues. Continued surveillance under the Patriot Act of one suspect led to six others, who likely would have scattered or fled if the first suspect had been arrested right away.
— Terror financing provisions of the law were used in numerous cases, including charges against a member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, on charges of being an unlicensed money transmitter. The same authority has been used to prosecute people illegally sending money to Iraq, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and India.
Powers permitted under the Patriot Act have also been used in investigations involving potential school bomb attacks, computer hackers, child pornography, violent fugitives and illegal weapons sales. In one case, Patriot Act electronic communications authorities allowed law enforcement agencies to identify a person who had sent 200 threatening letters laced with white powder in Lafayette, La., the Justice Department said.
I have answered the question. I have presented notations that the Patriot act has been an effective law enforcement tool for this country against terrorism.
Will that appease you? I highly doubt it, nor is it really an item of concern for me.
Conversly, I still have not been presented evidence that the rights of the citizens of this country have been been denied on a massive scale. I might concede that there have some instances of isolated mistakes. But that occurs in life. We can never have a perfect system. All we can do is pursue perfection. It is an unachievable goal.
The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
Specifically:
Among the specific examples:
— The Patriot Act allowed intelligence agents to share with FBI criminal investigators evidence that an anonymous letter sent to the FBI had come from an individual with Al Qaeda (search) ties. That letter began the investigation into an alleged terror cell in Lackawanna, N.Y., that has resulted in six guilty pleas.
— That same information-sharing authority was used against members of an alleged terror cell in Portland, Ore., that an undercover informant said was preparing for possible attacks against Jewish schools or synagogues. Continued surveillance under the Patriot Act of one suspect led to six others, who likely would have scattered or fled if the first suspect had been arrested right away.
— Terror financing provisions of the law were used in numerous cases, including charges against a member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, on charges of being an unlicensed money transmitter. The same authority has been used to prosecute people illegally sending money to Iraq, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and India.
Powers permitted under the Patriot Act have also been used in investigations involving potential school bomb attacks, computer hackers, child pornography, violent fugitives and illegal weapons sales. In one case, Patriot Act electronic communications authorities allowed law enforcement agencies to identify a person who had sent 200 threatening letters laced with white powder in Lafayette, La., the Justice Department said.
I have answered the question. I have presented notations that the Patriot act has been an effective law enforcement tool for this country against terrorism.
Will that appease you? I highly doubt it, nor is it really an item of concern for me.
Conversly, I still have not been presented evidence that the rights of the citizens of this country have been been denied on a massive scale. I might concede that there have some instances of isolated mistakes. But that occurs in life. We can never have a perfect system. All we can do is pursue perfection. It is an unachievable goal.
The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.
I'm amazed that this discussion even exists. 
Should the government be allowed to violate it's own laws? NO!!!
When did this come up for discussion? It's not a matter of whether they have used it against us. It's not a matter of how much we should trust them. It's not a matter of whether or not we as individuals have been persecuted as a result. It's not a matter of how effective it may or may not be.
Authoritarianism makes my teeth itch.
Should the government be allowed to violate it's own laws? NO!!!
When did this come up for discussion? It's not a matter of whether they have used it against us. It's not a matter of how much we should trust them. It's not a matter of whether or not we as individuals have been persecuted as a result. It's not a matter of how effective it may or may not be.
Authoritarianism makes my teeth itch.
Rich,
Playboypenguin,
Could you source this please?
I’ve seen it used to good affect, and I will not source it. You will have to take me at my word. You and I have had a few conversations and can probably guess that I’m not talking out of my hind end here, but most of these types of things are not “sourceable”.
Playboypenguin,
How about the known terrorists that are not allowed into the country because of these laws. Yes it’s happened and no I won't source it.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Trainman-
High points for the research attempt. I will concede you and ahenry your points, but it requires that I do so without facts; sort of a "Trust Me" concession.
The Lackawanna Six is a perfect example of how this works. Six men, each charged with belonging to an Al Qaeda Sleeper Cell, each sentenced to terms less than you might receive for possession of an ounce of cocaine, all credited to PATRIOT. But how is that possible? 7-10 years for being members of a Terrorist Sleeper Cell?
The answer is simple: they were never tried. They plead guilty to the charges because, had they refused, .gov threatened to place them under military jurisdiction where they would be held, without charge, indefinitely. You may recall that such actions were later (2005) ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Of course, they're legal now, thanks to PATRIOT III, the Military Tribunals Act.
The Lackawanna Six is the perfect example of the "Trust Me" argument. It was heralded as a great success for PATRIOT:
"See, this proves that we need expanded, secret powers."
"How does it prove that."
"We can't tell you. Trust us."
But, in fact, those convictions had nothing to do with PATRIOT; they had to do with a government that now threatens US Citizens with indefinite imprisonment, without charge, unless they confess to a crime. Now, I'm not defending these six men; but I can't seem to overlook the fact that this is the same type of behavior that we've come to expect from Banana Republic Dictators; the same type of behavior that we pointed to when we chose to remove Sadaam. The only difference that one can point up is that our government can be "trusted" not to abuse it's authority.
Hillary may well be the next President. Yesterday's War on Drugs. Today's War on Terror. Who knows, perhaps tomorrow's War on Street Violence or "Domestic Militias" (read that, "Shooting Clubs" or NRA). She certainly has the tools and/or blueprint to wage such War now. After all, "Desperate times justify desperate measures. It's a dangerous world."
The NoFly List:
Alia Kate
Dianne Henke
74-year-old Sister Virgine Lawinger
Father Bill Brennan
Sarah Backus
What did they have in common? They were anti-war protestors.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/679322/posts
Rahinah Ibrahim probably deserves it. After all, she's Muslim.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/2/16/gradFilesNationalSuit
Ted Kennedy made the list, due to the name T. Kennedy being part of the NoFly List. Of course, Uncle Ted had the clout to clear that up. What about the next T. Kennedy, who may not have the resources of a Senior US Senator?
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5754.html
Last, but certainly not least, except in size: let's not forget all those Infant Terrorists the NoFly List has saved us from. They're the most cunning of all:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/15/national/w115806D06.DTL
Want more?
Rich
Rich
High points for the research attempt. I will concede you and ahenry your points, but it requires that I do so without facts; sort of a "Trust Me" concession.
The Lackawanna Six is a perfect example of how this works. Six men, each charged with belonging to an Al Qaeda Sleeper Cell, each sentenced to terms less than you might receive for possession of an ounce of cocaine, all credited to PATRIOT. But how is that possible? 7-10 years for being members of a Terrorist Sleeper Cell?
The answer is simple: they were never tried. They plead guilty to the charges because, had they refused, .gov threatened to place them under military jurisdiction where they would be held, without charge, indefinitely. You may recall that such actions were later (2005) ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Of course, they're legal now, thanks to PATRIOT III, the Military Tribunals Act.
The Lackawanna Six is the perfect example of the "Trust Me" argument. It was heralded as a great success for PATRIOT:
"See, this proves that we need expanded, secret powers."
"How does it prove that."
"We can't tell you. Trust us."
But, in fact, those convictions had nothing to do with PATRIOT; they had to do with a government that now threatens US Citizens with indefinite imprisonment, without charge, unless they confess to a crime. Now, I'm not defending these six men; but I can't seem to overlook the fact that this is the same type of behavior that we've come to expect from Banana Republic Dictators; the same type of behavior that we pointed to when we chose to remove Sadaam. The only difference that one can point up is that our government can be "trusted" not to abuse it's authority.
Hillary may well be the next President. Yesterday's War on Drugs. Today's War on Terror. Who knows, perhaps tomorrow's War on Street Violence or "Domestic Militias" (read that, "Shooting Clubs" or NRA). She certainly has the tools and/or blueprint to wage such War now. After all, "Desperate times justify desperate measures. It's a dangerous world."
The NoFly List:
Alia Kate
Dianne Henke
74-year-old Sister Virgine Lawinger
Father Bill Brennan
Sarah Backus
What did they have in common? They were anti-war protestors.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/679322/posts
Rahinah Ibrahim probably deserves it. After all, she's Muslim.
http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/2/16/gradFilesNationalSuit
Ted Kennedy made the list, due to the name T. Kennedy being part of the NoFly List. Of course, Uncle Ted had the clout to clear that up. What about the next T. Kennedy, who may not have the resources of a Senior US Senator?
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5754.html
Count 'em. Thirty THOUSAND complaints in One Year. And how many terrorists did we catch? The laughter coming from a cave somewhere deep in Afghanistan is uproarious!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_list
Last, but certainly not least, except in size: let's not forget all those Infant Terrorists the NoFly List has saved us from. They're the most cunning of all:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/15/national/w115806D06.DTL
Want more?
Rich
Rich
What has been pointed out, in my opinion, is some legal maneuvering and processes that brought a limited number of persons of dubious motivation into the control of the legal system.
Additionally, in my opinion, a major effort is made to illustrate how international travelers may be anecdotally inconvenienced if they are on a list and try to enter this country. By the way were those 30k people involved able to resolve the issue?
In my opinion, I have yet to have revealed to me the repealing of constitutional rights on a massive scale.
Additionally, in my opinion, a major effort is made to illustrate how international travelers may be anecdotally inconvenienced if they are on a list and try to enter this country. By the way were those 30k people involved able to resolve the issue?
In my opinion, I have yet to have revealed to me the repealing of constitutional rights on a massive scale.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
That about wraps this one up. Unless you see "massive" infractions, everything in your world is fine. You have every right to that position.
Only problem is this: the word "repeal" exists nowhere in this thread, except in your last post. So, I think you've just won an argument that no one else was involved in.
Rich
Rich,
If I’m not mistaken, I’ve read you say on more than one occasion regarding other situations, that only getting one side of the story leads a person to an invalid conclusion. Wouldn’t you agree that for all those people you listed, you’re only getting one side of the story? Nobody that might have information about some of those situations is going to tell you what really happened. I’ll give you some open source information on one of the people you mentioned that hopefully will explain what I’m getting at:
From CNN:
Other officials said Islam was on the watch list because of reported associations and financial support for Muslim charities with terrorist connections. and Homeland Security spokesman Garrison Courtney would only say "the intelligence community has come into possession of additional information that further heightens our concerns of Yusuf Islam."
The Immigration and Nationality Act (paraphrased portions of section 212 dealing with inadmissibility of non-immigrants) states that:
Any alien is inadmissible who has engaged in terrorist activity
“Engage in terrorist activity” defined...to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds...to a terrorist organization.
Now, I will flat out tell you that I do not know any of the details regarding Cat Stevens diverted flight or refusal into the United States. I only found some public quotes from DHS and CBP officials regarding that situation and found the laws that would have allowed them to act as they did. As I’ve said, I don’t know what actually happened, or if the information CBP officials had, had anything to do with the law I paraphrased. I only want to illustrate how another side of the story can tell something completely different than the mainstream media reports.
Just because the news quotes the person saying he’s not a terrorist, doesn’t mean he isn’t.
If I’m not mistaken, I’ve read you say on more than one occasion regarding other situations, that only getting one side of the story leads a person to an invalid conclusion. Wouldn’t you agree that for all those people you listed, you’re only getting one side of the story? Nobody that might have information about some of those situations is going to tell you what really happened. I’ll give you some open source information on one of the people you mentioned that hopefully will explain what I’m getting at:
From CNN:
Other officials said Islam was on the watch list because of reported associations and financial support for Muslim charities with terrorist connections. and Homeland Security spokesman Garrison Courtney would only say "the intelligence community has come into possession of additional information that further heightens our concerns of Yusuf Islam."
The Immigration and Nationality Act (paraphrased portions of section 212 dealing with inadmissibility of non-immigrants) states that:
Any alien is inadmissible who has engaged in terrorist activity
“Engage in terrorist activity” defined...to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds...to a terrorist organization.
Now, I will flat out tell you that I do not know any of the details regarding Cat Stevens diverted flight or refusal into the United States. I only found some public quotes from DHS and CBP officials regarding that situation and found the laws that would have allowed them to act as they did. As I’ve said, I don’t know what actually happened, or if the information CBP officials had, had anything to do with the law I paraphrased. I only want to illustrate how another side of the story can tell something completely different than the mainstream media reports.
Just because the news quotes the person saying he’s not a terrorist, doesn’t mean he isn’t.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
ahenry-
You're correct. Only one side of a single instance story, does not a conclusion make.
But when you have 30,000 one siders per year, well, I leave it to you.
I note that you bring up just the Muslims claiming foul. How about:
- Senator Ted Kennedy (admitted by TSA to have been in error)
- Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics advisor
- James Moore, an Emmy-winning television news correspondent
- U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-GA)
- The wife of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens
Given that info alone, gatherered in 20 minutes of searching, any claims of "Where's the problem?" should really be followed with accusations of "a vast Left Wing Conspiracy".
Rich
You're correct. Only one side of a single instance story, does not a conclusion make.
But when you have 30,000 one siders per year, well, I leave it to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_list
I note that you bring up just the Muslims claiming foul. How about:
- Senator Ted Kennedy (admitted by TSA to have been in error)
- Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics advisor
- James Moore, an Emmy-winning television news correspondent
- U.S. Representative John Lewis (D-GA)
- The wife of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens
Given that info alone, gatherered in 20 minutes of searching, any claims of "Where's the problem?" should really be followed with accusations of "a vast Left Wing Conspiracy".
Rich
Are you sure they were actually matches to a list, or were possible matches that had to be verified that they were not matches?
From a 2004 TSA press release available on their web site:
“Under Secure Flight, TSA will take over responsibility for checking airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists – a function currently administered by each airline individually. The move will help eliminate most of the false alerts caused by the current out-dated system.”
From a 2004 TSA press release available on their web site:
“Under Secure Flight, TSA will take over responsibility for checking airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists – a function currently administered by each airline individually. The move will help eliminate most of the false alerts caused by the current out-dated system.”
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Ahenry-
Yup it may be a mirage. TSA claims in '04 that it has a new system to eliminate "False Alerts". In 2005, it admits it had 30,000 appeals before the year was over. Mighta all been Sleeper Cell members trying to "get over", I dunno.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. The situation is well in hand.
Rich
Yup it may be a mirage. TSA claims in '04 that it has a new system to eliminate "False Alerts". In 2005, it admits it had 30,000 appeals before the year was over. Mighta all been Sleeper Cell members trying to "get over", I dunno.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along. The situation is well in hand.
Rich
Rich,
All I'm trying to say is that people that claim they aren't "bad guys" might actually be "bad guys" despite what they claim with righteous indignation to the media. Additionally, just because a legitimately good person who might have been delayed on their flight doesn’t necessarily mean they are actually on some list somewhere. Being that your original claim was, and I quote, “Ask some of the tens of thousands on the No Fly list for the Crime of having the wrong last name.”
Hell, I was traveling through Texas and got stopped for speeding (I was BTW). A loooong time later the officer tells me he was about to put me in cuffs and put me in the back of his car while he straightened out my identity, because my license number and that of a wanted murderer with an alias similar to my name was only one digit off. It got cleared up with just the most minor of inconveniences to me, but just because law enforcement tries to identify if a person is actually the "bad guy" doesn't mean anything. Law Enforcement has been doing that since the dawn of time.
All I'm trying to say is that people that claim they aren't "bad guys" might actually be "bad guys" despite what they claim with righteous indignation to the media. Additionally, just because a legitimately good person who might have been delayed on their flight doesn’t necessarily mean they are actually on some list somewhere. Being that your original claim was, and I quote, “Ask some of the tens of thousands on the No Fly list for the Crime of having the wrong last name.”
Hell, I was traveling through Texas and got stopped for speeding (I was BTW). A loooong time later the officer tells me he was about to put me in cuffs and put me in the back of his car while he straightened out my identity, because my license number and that of a wanted murderer with an alias similar to my name was only one digit off. It got cleared up with just the most minor of inconveniences to me, but just because law enforcement tries to identify if a person is actually the "bad guy" doesn't mean anything. Law Enforcement has been doing that since the dawn of time.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Yes, but you didn't report it to his Superiors to clear it up, did you? Why not? Because it wasn't that much of an inconvenience, I suspect.
For the third time:
Why did they complain, ahenry? Do we really think most of that THIRTY THOUSAND filed a complaint for a relatively minor inconvenience? Or do we believe they probably were terrorists, flaunting the screening loopholes to get their names off the list?
C'mon, This point is Way Done. You feel it's prudent for .Gov to crawl up that many butts with no productive results; I think there are better ways. It's OK that we disagree and I grant you right to your feelings that all this makes you safer. Just recognize that thse who wish "minor" controls over firearms ownership ask even less; they won't hold you up at all. All they want is to include your personal information and your purchases in a simple database. After all, there's still school shooters out there. Where's the difference?
Rich
One of my neighbors is a Treasury Agent and someone who has the same name is on the No-Fly list. You would think that with the Treasury Department vouching for him to DHS/TSA, my neighbor's problem would have been solved. He says things have improved tremendously and it now averages only 30 minutes extra per flight to convince TSA of his identity.
Rich,
Actually it was a big inconvenience (perhaps the fact that it was such an inconvenience explains why he didn’t actually cite me for speeding?). However, I understand the cops position. Who wants to be the cop that has a murderer in his hands and lets him go, only to find out later the guy he had really was the murderer? Given the circumstances, it was even more ridiculous than I’ve explained here. Nonetheless, I have no problem with the cop making sure I am who I say I am.
No, and I never said that they did, neither was that your claim, by the way. I think it was probably a fairly major inconvenience, to the point of missed flights. Moreover, I think they did exactly right to complain, well the innocent ones at least. Their complaining brought about an improved process. CAPPS II (a TSA screening process) doesn’t exist anymore in part because of those complaints. Regardless, the fact that there was too long of a process to clear an innocent traveler is in no way an example of “some of the tens of thousands on the No Fly list for the Crime of having the wrong last name”, which was your assertion. Those innocent individuals weren’t on a list. Proper vetting of an individual is not a loss of rights, nor excessive gov’t interference into private lives. Vetting like that has been going on since long before Sept. 11th. The only difference is that, post 9/11 far greater care is taken to ensure the traveler really isn’t the bad guy.
I never asserted that gov’t should be intrusive. To claim I have is disingenuous at best. I have claimed that there are not tens of thousands of innocent people on some list somewhere, which was your assertion. Verifying that the “Joe Sixpack” born in 1960 standing in front of you about to board a plane, is not the same “Joe Sixpack” born in 1960 that is a genuine terrorist, is hardly a random loss of rights as you claimed it to be.
I'm one of those people who routinely gets stopped at airlines for checks. I tend to fly with minimum luggage, on short duration trips, and my ticket is usually paid for by some else. This all began long before 9/11, because my profile fits that of a drug runner. You need to ignore, of course, the fact that my ticket is paid for by the federal government and that I was always travelling on gov't business.
The idea that all this started with neo-cons is kind of farsical, as is the idea that the Dems will suddenly turn it around. The Dems were just as bad, and worse in different areas, and they will rapidly see the value of keeping a lot of what the evil "neo-cons" put into place. So, we should say goodbye to our neo-con masters, and welcome our new Hyper Lib masters.
The idea that all this started with neo-cons is kind of farsical, as is the idea that the Dems will suddenly turn it around. The Dems were just as bad, and worse in different areas, and they will rapidly see the value of keeping a lot of what the evil "neo-cons" put into place. So, we should say goodbye to our neo-con masters, and welcome our new Hyper Lib masters.
Started with the neo-cons? Hardly.
Let's return to the original post:
"What the noeocons gave us:
Nation building (we criticized Clinton for that, didn't we??)
Deficit spending, and utter fiscal irresponsibility
Big Government
Unilateral foreign policy approaches that leave us holding the ball, and the bill!
Kowtowing to the christian-facist's twisted agenda(which turns off all those moderate voters who decided to vote democrat in this election)
The rape of civil liberties and Big Brother"
To say that these activities and outcomes were brought to us by the so-called neo-cons, or modern Republicans for that matter, shows a near complete lack of knowledge of American history. Can I toss out a couple of names: Roosevelt and LBJ. I think we'd be better served by more reading and studying on the facts of history and less over-the-top ranting on the forum.
John
Let's return to the original post:
"What the noeocons gave us:
Nation building (we criticized Clinton for that, didn't we??)
Deficit spending, and utter fiscal irresponsibility
Big Government
Unilateral foreign policy approaches that leave us holding the ball, and the bill!
Kowtowing to the christian-facist's twisted agenda(which turns off all those moderate voters who decided to vote democrat in this election)
The rape of civil liberties and Big Brother"
To say that these activities and outcomes were brought to us by the so-called neo-cons, or modern Republicans for that matter, shows a near complete lack of knowledge of American history. Can I toss out a couple of names: Roosevelt and LBJ. I think we'd be better served by more reading and studying on the facts of history and less over-the-top ranting on the forum.
John