Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Before I respond, would you elaborate on pro-active?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
More American Al-Qaeda Arrested
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Before I respond, would you elaborate on pro-active?
Speaking of missing rights....
I did hear on the radio today(no link) that one of the people picked up shortly after 9/11 was kept in solitary for 8 months without being able to see a judge/lawyer :disgust:. This is quite repulsive and some people need to be smacked around for it. For the ~1000 people picked up shrtly after 9/11 i hope this was the exception and not the rule
I did hear on the radio today(no link) that one of the people picked up shortly after 9/11 was kept in solitary for 8 months without being able to see a judge/lawyer :disgust:. This is quite repulsive and some people need to be smacked around for it. For the ~1000 people picked up shrtly after 9/11 i hope this was the exception and not the rule
I'm not pushing an all out wag the god senerio here. (Bad dislexia here, that's how I typed it) I'm saying that everything in Washington happens with one eye on votes, Democratic and Republican. I don't trust politicians much and don't think many of them are very morally, ethically, or philosophically developed. I think the Bush admin has its eye on the election and knows that its one chance at reelection is over the terrorist threat. I think they trotted the dirty bomber out at the moment they needed a push to get homeland security dept going and I think the drumbeat of terrorist threats is just in part a matter of vigilance and covering their asses. I think these guys are smart and shrude and don't figure in the harm these really useless warnings are having of many people's psyches. I don't think they care. What I do think is that they know that a hightened sense of fear has been very good for conservative (or if you prefer something more Rightist yet) ideas. Check out firing squad gooneygoon in this thread. And I'm saying it's a bad time for US foreign policy where the war on terrorism can really be won only by a war of ideas and constructive actions, Liberal Democracy vs Fundamentalist Islam because a realization that that is were the real battle lies requires more than a two didget IQ in a Commander in Chief.
gooneygoon
Banned
And I stand by my belief. Please remember, I did say if found guilty.
If killing this one terrorist scumbag stops another attack that kills another 3,000 innocent lives let it be.
If or when another attack occurs, if you are more directly affected would you change your stance at all?
Lose a person you care about to some mindless act? The person commiting this act to achieve what he believes are 72 virgins awaiting him?
Get real. If you deny that your mindset wouldn't change, I really don't place any weight on anything you say.
UltraQuiet
Banned
Well I just don't share your "evil politicians" view of our gov't. Don't view that as blind trust, I just don't think they are inherently evil. They trotted the bomber out because his lawyer, who I didn't know he had, was saying to release him. Their 30 days were up. You still haven't proposed a solution to the warnings. I am now going to bed.
PS- Bush is far from being our smartest Prez. but I don't think he is stupid and if I spelled like you I wouldn't accuse anyone of it. 😉
HappyPuppy
Lifer
Before I respond, would you elaborate on pro-active?
When we can create fear in the terrorist camp equal to or greater than that which the American people are experiencing, that is pro-active. Bush declared that we reserve the right of "first strike". That doesn't bother the terrorists because they can hide in their holes, it will, however, make countries who support the terrorists think twice.
Arresting Padilla when he entered the country and then not announcing it was a brilliant move. It gave our government time to grill him while, at the same time, his compatriots have to sweat it out wondering if he has talked.
We have special ops in many countries right now collecting information that will aid us in attacking them if it becomes necessary.
This is, after all , war. Do you really believe that there are rules in war? I don't want to pop your bubble, but there aren't.
When we can create fear in the terrorist camp equal to or greater than that which the American people are experiencing, that is pro-active. Bush declared that we reserve the right of "first strike". That doesn't bother the terrorists because they can hide in their holes, it will, however, make countries who support the terrorists think twice.
Arresting Padilla when he entered the country and then not announcing it was a brilliant move. It gave our government time to grill him while, at the same time, his compatriots have to sweat it out wondering if he has talked.
We have special ops in many countries right now collecting information that will aid us in attacking them if it becomes necessary.
This is, after all , war. Do you really believe that there are rules in war? I don't want to pop your bubble, but there aren't.
Corn
Diamond Member
I truly believe that Moonie's mindset wouldn't change. People of his particular mindset do not believe in responsibility nor punishment. Instead the perpetrators of violence are often "misunderstood" or simply victims of circumstance. The root cause of their "situation" is to blame for their ciminal behavior.
Can I just point out that is why DaveSohmer put his ass on the line in service to his country? So that pot-smoking tree hugging nutjobs still have the freedom to speak their minds, no matter how unpopular their views may be? 😉
As for my view, I think they are both right to some extent. Our government is taking steps that make me nervous, I understand where they are coming from, I just worry about how some of these changes will be used when the threat is minimalized, if it ever is. I would have felt much better if American citizens were excluded from those new laws, but I know they can't since it is so called Americans that are half the problem.
Gonad the Barbarian
Lifer
Dave's not gullible, naive maybe, idealistic most likely. Politicians aren't evil as much as they are selfish. Nice, generous people who look out for other people's best interest before their own just don't tend to get elected to office. An election is a ruthless affair, and it takes ruthless people to win. And you have to watch those people like a hawk because when they take an inch with one hand they are reaching for a mile with the other. Our government officials aren't really scrutinized enough (or too much from the opposing party to the point where it looses all emphasis) and a lack of scrutiny by the average person keeps this dirty snowball rolling down the mountain. And so does dismissing those who do scrutinize as paranoid, conspiricists, nuts, whatever.
Sleep well.
Xerox, just wondering. Would you spit on a dog who woke you in a burning house because it was a dog. You have a very puney sense of what freedom and democracy is all about if you get excited about my qualifications to advise Dave. I'd call it a dialogue. Children have them with adults all the time. In fact, come to think of it, adults have them with children all the time too.
gooney, the dirty bomber is being held without charges so he can be questioned, not tried and shot. At least they're thinking. The problem is that a citizen should be tried before a civilian court. He's entitled to charges he can attempt to refute.
DS, you don't have to share my inherently evil view. That's not even my view anyway. I'm saying these guys are tainting a serious matter with political ambitions. You don't think so. I do. You say potatoe and I say potatoe, and don't tell me I can't spell.
Happy, what can I say. Maybe by the time i get this post up somebody else already will have. Listen to your logic:
1. Proactive equals scaring the terrorists = to or > they scare us
2. Solution.......first strike
3. That doesn't bother the terrorists. (Notice how that violates rule 1)
4. Other countries will think twice (Oh goodie, OK guys we thought it over twice....proceed)
Why not just bomb the countries directly? 😀
Xerox, just wondering. Would you spit on a dog who woke you in a burning house because it was a dog. You have a very puney sense of what freedom and democracy is all about if you get excited about my qualifications to advise Dave. I'd call it a dialogue. Children have them with adults all the time. In fact, come to think of it, adults have them with children all the time too.
gooney, the dirty bomber is being held without charges so he can be questioned, not tried and shot. At least they're thinking. The problem is that a citizen should be tried before a civilian court. He's entitled to charges he can attempt to refute.
DS, you don't have to share my inherently evil view. That's not even my view anyway. I'm saying these guys are tainting a serious matter with political ambitions. You don't think so. I do. You say potatoe and I say potatoe, and don't tell me I can't spell.
Happy, what can I say. Maybe by the time i get this post up somebody else already will have. Listen to your logic:
1. Proactive equals scaring the terrorists = to or > they scare us
2. Solution.......first strike
3. That doesn't bother the terrorists. (Notice how that violates rule 1)
4. Other countries will think twice (Oh goodie, OK guys we thought it over twice....proceed)
Why not just bomb the countries directly? 😀
XMan
Lifer
The only problem with your analogy is the fact that our "house" isn't on fire, Chicken Little. You can tremble in your bedsheets every night waiting for Ashcroft and his mythical stormtroopers to come for your ass, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't gonna happen. Would I be a bit more nervous about the current state of affairs if Bush wasn't in office? I think so.
You have every right to say whatever you want. We also have the right to laugh at your BS. Don't like what's going on? Vote for somebody who will change it.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
You might be suprised but I agree with much of what you say. It is a legitimate function of the government to protect its citizens by use of pre-emptive military force. This announcement just says up front that we will do that. We have always reserved that right, so this is not a real change in policy. I do doubt that we will cause fear in individuals who look forward to dying. I would submit that this is irrevalent, because if you are dead, you are not a direct threat. Possibly an indirect one, but I choose not to address that at this moment. Next, is this Padilla incident. I would remind you that no matter what this man has done, he is a citizen. The fact that you might have it otherwise does not change that. I understand that the extraordinary nature of his alleged crime makes it tempting to view him as someone who does not deserve his rights. This does not matter. He HAS them. The Constitution granted them and neither you or I can take them away. As was pointed out by someone, one of the functions of the Constitution is to set rules by which we are obligated to abide, even in bad times. YOU need him to have a lawyer. YOU need him to have due process. That is because once a right becomes not a right, it forever remains that way. One day this episode in terrorism will be over, but if the precident is set that a right to an attorney, etc becomes something that you may not have because it may be against the governments interests, heaven help us all. Do I expect this to happen? No. But if it does not, it will be due to people speaking their concerns, and not just towing the patriotic line. Read up on your Jefferson. And while you are at it, see what Samuel Johnson said about patriotism and what he meant in context. Do I think after saying all this that he should have been let go? No, I do not think so. But I know nothing about the evidence against him. Lets assume he is indeed a clear and present threat. Ok... he still needs a lawyer. Next, how long DO you detain him without trial? If he has broken the law, then put him away, but do it in a fashion that the founding fathers would have been proud of and not by some cheap construct. Now for rules of war. There are some and we abide by them. You have heard of the Geneva Convention. Google that and you will see why it exists. Without rules, we would become that which we fight against. That is a moral imperative. If you doubt it ask Dave S about how he feels about shooting children. Well alls fair right? No, not right. Our rules, and how we comport ourselves is what distinguishes us from those we fight. Dont forget it. We are not the contents of our wallets, our possessions, our cars. It is what we ARE, and what we are is demonstrated by our actions.
Someone made the comment about people putting there asses on the line for their country. Well, it might eventually occur to someone that there are those who have served their country in the military and choose not to mention it here. Those who do have the right to say so, but that is not everyones way.
Well I see I missed the mindset issue. Doubtless, gooney you have asked yourself where the flaws in your logic may be and I'm only too glad to tell you. Naturally it will only be my opinion:
________
"And I stand by my belief. Please remember, I did say if found guilty."
________
I already addressed that. Guilty was not the issue
____________
"If killing this one terrorist scumbag stops another attack that kills another 3,000 innocent lives let it be."
______________________
But of course. Who is disagreeing with that. The issue is what if the person isn't a terrorist scumbag? What if he is you? The Founding Fathers were very uptight about this and wrote an important document to prevent it from happenng. It's not convenient.
___________________
"If or when another attack occurs, if you are more directly affected would you change your stance at all?
________________________
You assume you know my position, but since you do not my answer would be incomprehensible to you. I can tell you that I am not Senator Dukakis
____________________
"Lose a person you care about to some mindless act? The person commiting this act to achieve what he believes are 72 virgins awaiting him?
Get real. If you deny that your mindset wouldn't change, I really don't place any weight on anything you say.
_________________________________
If I may say so, like a child you ask me to compete with you in some figmentary illusion of suffering you wish to feel yourself a part of, or even some real loss, to justify your anger.
I cannot show you my pain you silly man, just a finger pointing at the moon. If you want to know pain then love. Here another. Anger is nothing more or less that the device by which we protect ourselves from suffering. I leave you to work out the implications. I have a good idea how long you'll spend.
So to clear up a bit the issue of whether I can change and my suggestion that for example, corn's supposition is posed upside down I quote myself from another thread:
Well,well,well, OFFascist, you are very gracious to come so far my way to agree in part with what I've said. Perhaps it's only fair that I do likewise. I am not a pacifist, I'm just a killer of last resort. My objection to the typical American solution to problems, we have a hammer so everything looks like a nail (that's for my buddy hammer09), violence first second and third as our options range, is that it is just that, limited, shortsighted and myopic. War is a form of not very controlled insanity. It should always be a last resort, last after exhaustive and profound efforts to avoid it. In the case of a nuclear war perhaps it is even better to die than retaliate, if it might mean that a few people make it through, but you're not going to tell anybody beforehand. My objection to American policy is that it is always based on economic or strategic interests. We don't give enough of a damn about people and the misery and poverty in the world and care too much about our own strategic advantage. We rely on power and we are hated and resented. We are resented for our hypocracy. For example we overthrow Dr. Mossadegh, install the Shah of Iran and Savak and are dumbfounded when Ayatollah Khomeini
turns up chanting death to America. We do these things because we are stupid, think short term, and of our advantage only.
Let us, before we go to war, make sure our house is in order and passes the truth test. To fight on the side of real justice is equivalent to being undefeatable. We threaten when all we have to do is engage our enemies on the field of ideas. They live a lie. A lie can never be as strong as truth. But I think what our leaders really are are cowards. They can't even conceive of these realities because they are afraid. They are hollow inside and posess no inner sense of right. They don't trust the truth because the live by lies. Without an inner compass what guidance can they give. And so they turn to power because it's all they know. And they lead a nation of similarly rudderless sheep.
When the enemy has gone insane, when he cannot or won't feel or respond to your love, when he decides anyway to use violence against you, and when you, objectively, have gone the extra mile and his effort is still to try to kill you, then you may stop him but only in the least violent way possible, but right on up to killing him is that is the only way. When has or does this happen? I don't know of any examples.
Corn, the fact that I know what makes people insane, the fact that I know it's not their fault doesn't mean I wouldn't kill such a person to save your beautiful ass. I would do it reflexively and without a single thought. But it would make me sad and remind me that I haven't done enough in this world to make it better. And if I felt anger, it would ony mean I'm still sick.
________
"And I stand by my belief. Please remember, I did say if found guilty."
________
I already addressed that. Guilty was not the issue
____________
"If killing this one terrorist scumbag stops another attack that kills another 3,000 innocent lives let it be."
______________________
But of course. Who is disagreeing with that. The issue is what if the person isn't a terrorist scumbag? What if he is you? The Founding Fathers were very uptight about this and wrote an important document to prevent it from happenng. It's not convenient.
___________________
"If or when another attack occurs, if you are more directly affected would you change your stance at all?
________________________
You assume you know my position, but since you do not my answer would be incomprehensible to you. I can tell you that I am not Senator Dukakis
____________________
"Lose a person you care about to some mindless act? The person commiting this act to achieve what he believes are 72 virgins awaiting him?
Get real. If you deny that your mindset wouldn't change, I really don't place any weight on anything you say.
_________________________________
If I may say so, like a child you ask me to compete with you in some figmentary illusion of suffering you wish to feel yourself a part of, or even some real loss, to justify your anger.
I cannot show you my pain you silly man, just a finger pointing at the moon. If you want to know pain then love. Here another. Anger is nothing more or less that the device by which we protect ourselves from suffering. I leave you to work out the implications. I have a good idea how long you'll spend.
So to clear up a bit the issue of whether I can change and my suggestion that for example, corn's supposition is posed upside down I quote myself from another thread:
Well,well,well, OFFascist, you are very gracious to come so far my way to agree in part with what I've said. Perhaps it's only fair that I do likewise. I am not a pacifist, I'm just a killer of last resort. My objection to the typical American solution to problems, we have a hammer so everything looks like a nail (that's for my buddy hammer09), violence first second and third as our options range, is that it is just that, limited, shortsighted and myopic. War is a form of not very controlled insanity. It should always be a last resort, last after exhaustive and profound efforts to avoid it. In the case of a nuclear war perhaps it is even better to die than retaliate, if it might mean that a few people make it through, but you're not going to tell anybody beforehand. My objection to American policy is that it is always based on economic or strategic interests. We don't give enough of a damn about people and the misery and poverty in the world and care too much about our own strategic advantage. We rely on power and we are hated and resented. We are resented for our hypocracy. For example we overthrow Dr. Mossadegh, install the Shah of Iran and Savak and are dumbfounded when Ayatollah Khomeini
turns up chanting death to America. We do these things because we are stupid, think short term, and of our advantage only.
Let us, before we go to war, make sure our house is in order and passes the truth test. To fight on the side of real justice is equivalent to being undefeatable. We threaten when all we have to do is engage our enemies on the field of ideas. They live a lie. A lie can never be as strong as truth. But I think what our leaders really are are cowards. They can't even conceive of these realities because they are afraid. They are hollow inside and posess no inner sense of right. They don't trust the truth because the live by lies. Without an inner compass what guidance can they give. And so they turn to power because it's all they know. And they lead a nation of similarly rudderless sheep.
When the enemy has gone insane, when he cannot or won't feel or respond to your love, when he decides anyway to use violence against you, and when you, objectively, have gone the extra mile and his effort is still to try to kill you, then you may stop him but only in the least violent way possible, but right on up to killing him is that is the only way. When has or does this happen? I don't know of any examples.
Corn, the fact that I know what makes people insane, the fact that I know it's not their fault doesn't mean I wouldn't kill such a person to save your beautiful ass. I would do it reflexively and without a single thought. But it would make me sad and remind me that I haven't done enough in this world to make it better. And if I felt anger, it would ony mean I'm still sick.
Well said. Very well said indeed.
My political philosophy is probably further to the right than Rush Limbaugh's but even I'm getting a little uncomfortable with the trend that I see developing of late. The highest tenet of true patriotism is a good healthy distrust of government in all its facets. We are Americans. No threat, however great, should ever cause us to abbrogate to the federal government (or any other) one iota of that which we hold so dear and which so many have fought and died for; A system founded on checks and balances and constitutional guarantees of due process. If the transgressions of an enemy can strike such fear within us as to cause us to glibly give up even the smallest portion of our greatest treasure then the battle needs not even be enjoined. It is lost already.
Xerox Man: "The only problem with your analogy is the fact that our "house" isn't on fire, Chicken Little."
____________________________________________________________________________________
A bit of retorical rot there Rip Van Winkle . The whole issue is whether the house is on fire or not. Your statement that it is not is simply your opinion and is worthless in it's inherent factuality. The debate is about whether the house is on fire. Please, please, don't say the house isn't on fire. Make a case that it isn't, one based on what you're seen heard read or believe. Debate isn't it's not on fire, yes it it, no it isn't.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can tremble in your bedsheets every night waiting for Ashcroft and his mythical stormtroopers to come for your ass, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't gonna happen. Would I be a bit more nervous about the current state of affairs if Bush wasn't in office? I think so."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I guess it helps you focus thinking I'm trembling in my bedsheets. Some knowledge of the phenomenon of projection often dampens those kinds of claims. 😀 JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You have every right to say whatever you want. We also have the right to laugh at your BS. Don't like what's going on? Vote for somebody who will change it."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
No really, that's not true is it? But don't forget that, according to you, Dave has more of that right than I. What a great patriot you are. You can be proud. In fact maybe you can explain to me these lines. They've always confused me:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,..........
Don't ya just hate that.
No no no, Dave doesn't have any more right than I do. Somewhere along life's road you're lost the meaning of what your government is all about, why it was established, why we became independent, so we wouldn't have any body telling us some people have more rights then others and what they are. maybe you fell in love with the colors or the symbol or the uniforms or the flag waving, the pomp and ceramony and forgot what it all means. Maybe, just maybe it's you who is full of BS.
But corn is right. I know you mean well. I know you love your country and think you love it best. I know you see threats out there. I know how tempting it is to sucome to the notion that only in uniformity of thought, your thought, is there safety. But that's not what your government's about. The founding fathers were more nutcase like me than you. They tried to set up things so sane people like you, for whom everything is crystal clear, couldn't shove their clarity down every body elses throat. They wanted to make sure the dreamers, the nut cases, the way out there thinkers, those in minorities, would be safe cause that's who they were.
Yea, they knew that Bush and Ashcroft would come along and were very afraid. So they wrote into law constitutional protections so that the knowers, the minds of great clarity, couldn't get their hands on us. They wrote those laws to protect me from you. 😀 You are aware, are you not, that that's what you're willing to die for.
____________________________________________________________________________________
A bit of retorical rot there Rip Van Winkle . The whole issue is whether the house is on fire or not. Your statement that it is not is simply your opinion and is worthless in it's inherent factuality. The debate is about whether the house is on fire. Please, please, don't say the house isn't on fire. Make a case that it isn't, one based on what you're seen heard read or believe. Debate isn't it's not on fire, yes it it, no it isn't.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can tremble in your bedsheets every night waiting for Ashcroft and his mythical stormtroopers to come for your ass, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't gonna happen. Would I be a bit more nervous about the current state of affairs if Bush wasn't in office? I think so."
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
I guess it helps you focus thinking I'm trembling in my bedsheets. Some knowledge of the phenomenon of projection often dampens those kinds of claims. 😀 JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You have every right to say whatever you want. We also have the right to laugh at your BS. Don't like what's going on? Vote for somebody who will change it."
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
No really, that's not true is it? But don't forget that, according to you, Dave has more of that right than I. What a great patriot you are. You can be proud. In fact maybe you can explain to me these lines. They've always confused me:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,..........
Don't ya just hate that.
No no no, Dave doesn't have any more right than I do. Somewhere along life's road you're lost the meaning of what your government is all about, why it was established, why we became independent, so we wouldn't have any body telling us some people have more rights then others and what they are. maybe you fell in love with the colors or the symbol or the uniforms or the flag waving, the pomp and ceramony and forgot what it all means. Maybe, just maybe it's you who is full of BS.
But corn is right. I know you mean well. I know you love your country and think you love it best. I know you see threats out there. I know how tempting it is to sucome to the notion that only in uniformity of thought, your thought, is there safety. But that's not what your government's about. The founding fathers were more nutcase like me than you. They tried to set up things so sane people like you, for whom everything is crystal clear, couldn't shove their clarity down every body elses throat. They wanted to make sure the dreamers, the nut cases, the way out there thinkers, those in minorities, would be safe cause that's who they were.
Yea, they knew that Bush and Ashcroft would come along and were very afraid. So they wrote into law constitutional protections so that the knowers, the minds of great clarity, couldn't get their hands on us. They wrote those laws to protect me from you. 😀 You are aware, are you not, that that's what you're willing to die for.
Format C: Sadly I fear we have met the enemy and they are us. The battle may already be lost. The statistics are that 80% of Americans favor an exchange of some rights for greater security. On a more positive note Bush's popularity has reached pre 9/11 levels, not positive about that, but it's sinking, and across the political spectrum for this very reason. What a complete joke it will be if the phoney patriotic love of country is what brings us down.
The rot starts in the heartwood.
The rot starts in the heartwood.
Not THIS American. I'm not in favor of giving up even the smallest right in exchange for anything. Thats a slippery slope that I hope we have the good sense to pull back from quickly. If that means that I have to live with less so called security then so be it. I'll deal with that with the same spirit and courage as those before me. I shall retain the right to be in charge of my own destiny, secure in my freedom and liberty. Indeed that is the duty and responsibility of anyone who would call themself an American or a patriot. The government can make every effort to protect me however it sees fit with all the resources it can bring to bear, I demand no less, but it can do so legally and constitutionally. That should be what we all demand no matter the scope of the tragedy we face or the fear it engenders. To do less would be the greater tragedy.
A blurb from the guardian:
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday June 13, 2002
The Guardian
Senior British officials responsible for countering al-Qaida terrorism are becoming increasingly concerned about the Bush administration's handling of the problem.
They say that imprecise or exaggerated warnings of attacks merely serve to encourage panic, and give gratuitous propaganda victories to the terrorists.
One official described a blanket warning by Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, last month about possible attacks on apartment blocks in the US as being so vague as to be meaningless. Another British official put it down to "back-covering".
There is also deep concern about the rhetoric employed by senior members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and John Ashcroft, the attorney general - and even Mr Bush himself. Some suspects have been described as serious terrorists despite a lack of evidence against them, with remarks which would be prejudicial to a fair trial.
Mr Rumsfeld's description of prisoners at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay as some of the worst al-Qaida terrorists, and pictures of the inmates given out by the Pentagon, were described by Whitehall officials as "scandalous".
One official said: "American politicians are only concerned with American audiences." Another described the rhetoric, and the US refusal to acknowledge the Geneva convention, as "not benchmarks of a civilised society".
Security sources are also critical of the way the Bush adminstration handled the arrest of Jose Padilla, who according to US officials also uses the name Abdullah al-Muhajir.
He was described by Mr Ashcroft as a "known terrorist" preparing to detonate a "dirty bomb". There was briefly a suggestion from some, including Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, that there had been an imminent danger to thousands.
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday June 13, 2002
The Guardian
Senior British officials responsible for countering al-Qaida terrorism are becoming increasingly concerned about the Bush administration's handling of the problem.
They say that imprecise or exaggerated warnings of attacks merely serve to encourage panic, and give gratuitous propaganda victories to the terrorists.
One official described a blanket warning by Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, last month about possible attacks on apartment blocks in the US as being so vague as to be meaningless. Another British official put it down to "back-covering".
There is also deep concern about the rhetoric employed by senior members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and John Ashcroft, the attorney general - and even Mr Bush himself. Some suspects have been described as serious terrorists despite a lack of evidence against them, with remarks which would be prejudicial to a fair trial.
Mr Rumsfeld's description of prisoners at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay as some of the worst al-Qaida terrorists, and pictures of the inmates given out by the Pentagon, were described by Whitehall officials as "scandalous".
One official said: "American politicians are only concerned with American audiences." Another described the rhetoric, and the US refusal to acknowledge the Geneva convention, as "not benchmarks of a civilised society".
Security sources are also critical of the way the Bush adminstration handled the arrest of Jose Padilla, who according to US officials also uses the name Abdullah al-Muhajir.
He was described by Mr Ashcroft as a "known terrorist" preparing to detonate a "dirty bomb". There was briefly a suggestion from some, including Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, that there had been an imminent danger to thousands.
UltraQuiet
Banned
I will address a couple of things that were mentioned while I was wasting time sleeping. First of off I am not, nor to my knowledge have I ever, invoking any special privledge because I am on active duty. Millions of people have served before me and there are millions more to come whose only privledge is the same as eveyone's who was lucky enough to be born in this country. The only thing I ask is that you don't spit or throw blood on me or my compatriots in an airport. :|
Secondly I don't consider myself to be a gullible tool, naive or an idealist. I understand perfectly the fact that most politicians will do almost anything to get themselves re-elected. Several years ago I had dinner with someone high up in the state goverment of Louisiana ( my last ship) and he explained it very well, " When you understand why someone would spend $5 million getting themselves elected to an office that pays $35 thousnad dollars a year, you'll understand politicians." I know it's about money and power but I also think underneath there is a desire to serve and to do right by the country. That's why I don't understand these accusations of "their trying to take our rights away". Why would they? How does it benefit them? I think they are trying to do the right thing but we don't agree with them. If that makes me a naive, gullible tool of an idealist then guilty as charged. Take me out back and whoop me with a stick. The problem in this country is not the politicians, the problem is not enough people are involved in the political process.
Secondly I don't consider myself to be a gullible tool, naive or an idealist. I understand perfectly the fact that most politicians will do almost anything to get themselves re-elected. Several years ago I had dinner with someone high up in the state goverment of Louisiana ( my last ship) and he explained it very well, " When you understand why someone would spend $5 million getting themselves elected to an office that pays $35 thousnad dollars a year, you'll understand politicians." I know it's about money and power but I also think underneath there is a desire to serve and to do right by the country. That's why I don't understand these accusations of "their trying to take our rights away". Why would they? How does it benefit them? I think they are trying to do the right thing but we don't agree with them. If that makes me a naive, gullible tool of an idealist then guilty as charged. Take me out back and whoop me with a stick. The problem in this country is not the politicians, the problem is not enough people are involved in the political process.
Nitemare
Lifer
Yup..
The Al Qaeda declared war on our country and our way of life. We are still at war, because they are still planning and scheming. An Al Qaeda member is nothing more than a wart on the face of the earth and should be removed. They are backward, belligerant, hateful, and oppressive. They serve no purpose on this planet other than making peoples lives miserable. I say line up every single member of this hate group and all the others and have target practice.
Corn, did you mean by "Moonie, I would hardly call the what your believe to be the motivations that cause people to commit violent or criminal acts to be "fact? Moonie, that you don?t accept what I?ve called a fact as factual?
There's a problem in your sentence and so I'm guessing the above is logically what you intend. If so then I can say I would have hardly expect you to. You do not have sufficient life data for such knowledge nor can you access mine. Naturally I inadvertently used the words that apply personally. Let us say instead then that, due to and flowing from data transmitted to me from somewhere or other and beyond the scope of this conversation, and additionally thrice tested by me over a lifetime via those inner and universal tests of self validation, namely of self analysis, insight and the inward application of just such data, there has arisen in the psyche of this most peculiar entity here, your dear Moonbeam, a repeated and now crystallized certainty, that the factors which engender in individuals that pandemic condition of psychosis you see spread like a contagion all over the planetary surface, and which erupts like a boil or pox in isolated but frequent cases in that particular form of outward expression commonly called crime, there is a most elementary etiology, but one about which modern peoples of all colors and flavors remain perpetually blind, and they posses, if you will, this log in their eye, precisely, exactly, and only because a correct view of reality in this regard does not flatter them. And additionally you can rest assured, in case you had any concerns in that direction, that this further ?fact? which has now in turn been transmitted to you, has also undergone a thorough ?reality check?, as you might say, and as a consequence, your utterance of the phrase ?I would hardly call?? as a perhaps subtlety intended word bomb zinger not only failed to knock me out of my tree, but arrived, as the station master in a Swiss subway might say, right on time.
DaveSohmer: ?I will address a couple of things that were mentioned while I was wasting time sleeping. First of off I am not, nor to my knowledge have I ever, invoking any special privledge because I am on active duty. Millions of people have served before me and there are millions more to come whose only privledge is the same as eveyone's who was lucky enough to be born in this country. The only thing I ask is that you don't spit or throw blood on me or my compatriots in an airport.?
______________________________________________________________________________________
Moonbeam here had already adduced as much from the qualities of other of your posts
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Secondly I don't consider myself to be a gullible tool, naive or an idealist. I understand perfectly the fact that most politicians will do almost anything to get themselves re-elected. Several years ago I had dinner with someone high up in the state goverment of Louisiana ( my last ship) and he explained it very well, " When you understand why someone would spend $5 million getting themselves elected to an office that pays $35 thousnad dollars a year, you'll understand politicians." I know it's about money and power but I also think underneath there is a desire to serve and to do right by the country. That's why I don't understand these accusations of "their trying to take our rights away". Why would they? How does it benefit them? I think they are trying to do the right thing but we don't agree with them. If that makes me a naive, gullible tool of an idealist then guilty as charged. Take me out back and whoop me with a stick. The problem in this country is not the politicians, the problem is not enough people are involved in the political process."
______________________________________________________________________________________
Well put and I believe heart felt. I, myself, see something at once similar and still rather different, something rather complicated and difficult to explain and for reasons not dissimilar to those implied above to Corn. I believe that the people in question, our current crop of politicians, for example, aren?t bad in the sense that they are out to hurt us intentionally. They are bad, if you will, because they are ignorant, not ignorant in the sense of uneducated, but ignorant in terms of self-insight. They do not know themselves, and they do not know themselves for the same reason that everybody almost, doesn?t know himself. we (he or she) doesn?t want too. Because the capacity to know this can only be had when this also unconscious desire not to know is transcend, we are talking, from the ordinary person?s point of view, about a black hole. No light gets out and the presence of the hole is completely unseen. But the consequences of this lack of self-knowledge are profound, because what is not known is that we hate ourselves. Self-hate that is unconscious has a visible manifestation. It manifests as the psychological phenomenon called projection. Simply put, that is seeing in outer people what is really the truth about ourselves. You can see it as a general observer most easily in examples like these: The thief is afraid you will steal something from him, the liar that you will lie to him, the violent that he will be attacked, the untrustworthy or duplicitous fearing he will be tricked.
So to deal succinctly here only with a limited aspect of something very much in need of further elaboration, humans have a powerful instinct for control. Got to keep that unconscious at bay. Got to keep that impulse for violence from happening to me. We are afraid. We have only one truth, stop the fear. If we project that fear onto terrorists and we have trouble erasing their threat from our lives, then burn the Constitution if that?s what it takes. Law is for somebody else. Throw it out if I get scared.
So we aren?t bad, we?re just scared and anything and everything we do to end fear is TRUTH, JUSTICE
and the AMERICAN WAY. Until we understand how we work, we are only sleepwalkers in a nightmare.
As to your question about what to do, I elaborated on that already. Fight the war of truth with truth. It's the one substance in the universe that can't be changed cause, and because, well because it's true.
Also and perhaps most important of all, there's no D in privilege, but two Ns government. 😀
There's a problem in your sentence and so I'm guessing the above is logically what you intend. If so then I can say I would have hardly expect you to. You do not have sufficient life data for such knowledge nor can you access mine. Naturally I inadvertently used the words that apply personally. Let us say instead then that, due to and flowing from data transmitted to me from somewhere or other and beyond the scope of this conversation, and additionally thrice tested by me over a lifetime via those inner and universal tests of self validation, namely of self analysis, insight and the inward application of just such data, there has arisen in the psyche of this most peculiar entity here, your dear Moonbeam, a repeated and now crystallized certainty, that the factors which engender in individuals that pandemic condition of psychosis you see spread like a contagion all over the planetary surface, and which erupts like a boil or pox in isolated but frequent cases in that particular form of outward expression commonly called crime, there is a most elementary etiology, but one about which modern peoples of all colors and flavors remain perpetually blind, and they posses, if you will, this log in their eye, precisely, exactly, and only because a correct view of reality in this regard does not flatter them. And additionally you can rest assured, in case you had any concerns in that direction, that this further ?fact? which has now in turn been transmitted to you, has also undergone a thorough ?reality check?, as you might say, and as a consequence, your utterance of the phrase ?I would hardly call?? as a perhaps subtlety intended word bomb zinger not only failed to knock me out of my tree, but arrived, as the station master in a Swiss subway might say, right on time.
DaveSohmer: ?I will address a couple of things that were mentioned while I was wasting time sleeping. First of off I am not, nor to my knowledge have I ever, invoking any special privledge because I am on active duty. Millions of people have served before me and there are millions more to come whose only privledge is the same as eveyone's who was lucky enough to be born in this country. The only thing I ask is that you don't spit or throw blood on me or my compatriots in an airport.?
______________________________________________________________________________________
Moonbeam here had already adduced as much from the qualities of other of your posts
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Secondly I don't consider myself to be a gullible tool, naive or an idealist. I understand perfectly the fact that most politicians will do almost anything to get themselves re-elected. Several years ago I had dinner with someone high up in the state goverment of Louisiana ( my last ship) and he explained it very well, " When you understand why someone would spend $5 million getting themselves elected to an office that pays $35 thousnad dollars a year, you'll understand politicians." I know it's about money and power but I also think underneath there is a desire to serve and to do right by the country. That's why I don't understand these accusations of "their trying to take our rights away". Why would they? How does it benefit them? I think they are trying to do the right thing but we don't agree with them. If that makes me a naive, gullible tool of an idealist then guilty as charged. Take me out back and whoop me with a stick. The problem in this country is not the politicians, the problem is not enough people are involved in the political process."
______________________________________________________________________________________
Well put and I believe heart felt. I, myself, see something at once similar and still rather different, something rather complicated and difficult to explain and for reasons not dissimilar to those implied above to Corn. I believe that the people in question, our current crop of politicians, for example, aren?t bad in the sense that they are out to hurt us intentionally. They are bad, if you will, because they are ignorant, not ignorant in the sense of uneducated, but ignorant in terms of self-insight. They do not know themselves, and they do not know themselves for the same reason that everybody almost, doesn?t know himself. we (he or she) doesn?t want too. Because the capacity to know this can only be had when this also unconscious desire not to know is transcend, we are talking, from the ordinary person?s point of view, about a black hole. No light gets out and the presence of the hole is completely unseen. But the consequences of this lack of self-knowledge are profound, because what is not known is that we hate ourselves. Self-hate that is unconscious has a visible manifestation. It manifests as the psychological phenomenon called projection. Simply put, that is seeing in outer people what is really the truth about ourselves. You can see it as a general observer most easily in examples like these: The thief is afraid you will steal something from him, the liar that you will lie to him, the violent that he will be attacked, the untrustworthy or duplicitous fearing he will be tricked.
So to deal succinctly here only with a limited aspect of something very much in need of further elaboration, humans have a powerful instinct for control. Got to keep that unconscious at bay. Got to keep that impulse for violence from happening to me. We are afraid. We have only one truth, stop the fear. If we project that fear onto terrorists and we have trouble erasing their threat from our lives, then burn the Constitution if that?s what it takes. Law is for somebody else. Throw it out if I get scared.
So we aren?t bad, we?re just scared and anything and everything we do to end fear is TRUTH, JUSTICE
and the AMERICAN WAY. Until we understand how we work, we are only sleepwalkers in a nightmare.
As to your question about what to do, I elaborated on that already. Fight the war of truth with truth. It's the one substance in the universe that can't be changed cause, and because, well because it's true.
Also and perhaps most important of all, there's no D in privilege, but two Ns government. 😀
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
