I don't think it matters just so long as the job is done right. But we all "know" Ashcroft is a hood wearin' bigot and Bu$h is the puppet of Big Oil (TM) and this is all just the start of the American SS. So what does it matter what it's called while I hyperventilate in an effort to brand every Bush idea as some secret move to remove our rights?
tell us SDW from Media PA, PencilTucky, let us in to your worldly knowledge... now that you've gone to the big city.... or have you gone to what Pittsburgh or Philly for your senior field trip yet?!?!??!
---ok ok I know ... unnecessary flamation... sorry
------------------------------
I just have to ask again, why is it the first people to scream about having guns in order to ensure one's rights are the first to fall in love with what could be a real slide into a Police state?!?!?
and why do people who love teh 'rugged individual' and hate 'the Government' always love a big military, that serves that Government that they supposedly hate?!?!?
And WHY is it that those who hate centralized government want to see what amounts to a centralized national police force that can legally listen to your love chat with your wife?!?!? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Now I don't have any real problem with this whole anti-terrorism thing... but I think that those that are most radically for your rights (like gun ownership, etc) should be keeping an eye out for possible problems with that whole centralized government thing!!!
but look, now even conservative commentators are saying the obviouse. So dont feel that you need to easily pretend that the glaring inconsistencies in you ideaolgies do not exist:
from William Safire: [quote] J. Edgar Mueller By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON
Under the police powers it operated under last year, and with the
lawful
cooperation of a better-managed C.I.A., an efficiently run F.B.I.
might well
have prevented the catastrophe of Sept. 11. That is the dismaying
probability that Congressional oversight (it should be called
undersight)
will begin to show this week.
To fabricate an alibi for his nonfeasance, and to cover up his
department's
embarrassing cut of the counterterrorism budget last year, Attorney
General
John Ashcroft - working with his hand-picked aide, F.B.I. Director "J.
Edgar" Mueller III - has gutted guidelines put in place a generation
ago to
prevent the abuse of police power by the federal government.
They have done this deed by executive fiat: no public discussion, no
Congressional action, no judicial guidance. If we had only had these
new
powers last year, goes their posterior-covering pretense, we could
have
stopped terrorism cold.
Not so. They had the power to collect the intelligence, but lacked the
intellect to analyze the data the agencies collected. The F.B.I.'s
failure
to absorb the Phoenix and Minneapolis memos was compounded by the
C.I.A.'s
failure to share information it had about two of the Arab terrorists
in the
U.S. who would become hijackers (as revealed by Newsweek today).
Thus we see the seizure of new powers of surveillance is a
smokescreen to
hide failure to use the old power.
Ashcroft claims he is merely allowing the feds to attend public
events, or
to surf the Internet, which "even a 12-year-old can do." That's a
masterful
deceit: under the former anti-abuse guidelines, of course the F.B.I.
could
send an agent into a ballpark, church or political rally. All it
needed was
"information or an allegation whose responsible handling required some
further scrutiny" - not even "probable cause" to investigate a crime,
but a
mere tip about possible wrongdoing.
Same with surfing the Net or reading a newspaper or watching
television
news. Often that's how F.B.I. agents in the field have been alerted
to a
potential crime, and could then open a preliminary inquiry. If a lead
showed
"reasonable indication of criminal activity," agents could initiate a
full
investigation without going through Washington headquarters - hiring
informants, staking out a house, seeking wiretap and search warrants.
But under the new Ashcroft-Mueller diktat, that necessary hint of
potential
criminal activity is swept away. With not a scintilla of evidence of
a crime
being committed, the feds will be able to run full investigations for
one
year. That's aimed at generating suspicion of criminal conduct - the
very
definition of a "fishing expedition."
Not to worry, say governmental perps - we won't collect data in
dossiers on
individuals or social or political clubs or church groups - the sort
of
abuse that suppressed dissent in "the bad old days."
Just because the F.B.I. brass hats are presently computer illiterate,
do
they think the public is totally ignorant of the ability of today's
technologists to combine government surveillance reports, names on
membership lists, and "data mining" by private snoops to create an
instant
dossier on law-abiding Americans?
Consider the new reach of federal power: the income-tax return you
provided
your mortgage lender; your academic scores and personnel ratings,
credit
card purchases and E-ZPass movements; your political and charitable
contributions, charge account at your pharmacist and insurance
records; your
subscription to non-mainstream publications like The Nation or Human
Events,
every visit to every Web site and comment to every chat room, and
every book
or movie you bought or even considered on Amazon.com - all newly
combined
with the tickets, arrests, press clips, full field investigations and
raw
allegations of angry neighbors or rejected lovers that flow into the
F.B.I.
All your personal data is right there at the crossroads of modern
marketing
and federal law enforcement. And all in the name of the war on terror.
This is not some nightmare of what may happen someday. It happened
last
week. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of House Judiciary, said the
removal of
restraints made him "queasy"; Pat Leahy of Senate Judiciary is too
busy
blocking judges to object. Some sunshine libertarians are willing to
suffer
this loss of personal freedom in the hope that the Ashcroft-Mueller
rules of
intrusion may prevent a terror attack. They won't because they're a
<strong>It's sort of a joke,but I see a consolidation of government powers that I think is scary.Thankfully it is a full cabinet postion,meaning that there will be congressional oversight.I wouldn't assume that the Bush government will respect our democratic system,originally Bush wanted the post not to be a cabinet position,so there would be no oversight.But of course all of this has been going on for a long time,it cuts across party lines-the ending Elian Gonzalez affair was a sad day for all Americans,when a legal dispute was settled at the barrel of a gun- I would like to point out that all of the appeals had not yet been exhausted at that point.Also,the COG project was originally formulated during the Carter administration.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Consolidation is scary? What's that sh*t? I thought consolidation and centralized control ("congressional oversight") was supposed to be good.
[quote]C-SPAN has declined to cover the event despite strong interest expressed. Event organizers are now urging interested citizens to contact C-SPAN to lodge complaint of biased coverage.
9-11 and the Public Safety: Seeking Answers and Accountability
To members of the press:
A international press conference and formal web site launch for UnansweredQuestions.org will be held on Monday, June 10th from 2-5 PM at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The goal of this unprecedented press event and public inquiry is to pose pointed, as yet unanswered, questions regarding the failure of our national security infrastructure, and the response
that has sacrificed civil liberties and rewarded failure as opposed to ensuring performance and guaranteeing freedoms, now and in the future.
UnansweredQuestions.org is being launched by an independent, non-partisan network of citizens concerned about the growing number of issues surrounding September 11th that have yet to
be addressed or resolved; and their related public safety and Constitutional implications. Invited panelists will offer statements, present well-documented research, and ask incisive questions
relative to these issues while addressing how citizens can act now to ensure accountability from those in government directly responsible for public safety and upholding the Constitution.
The conference will be moderated by Catherine Austin Fitts, President of Solari and former Assistant Secretary of Housing during the 1st Bush administration.
Confirmed participants include:
1st Panel-- (approx. 45 min including Q&A)
Julie Sweeney, wife of Brian Sweeney, killed on United Airlines flight 175 into South WTC tower Julie will present her case for a full and open investigation.
Ryan Amundson, brother of Craig Amundson, killed at the Pentagon; co-founder of Peaceful Tomorrows.org. (issue focus TBA)
Derrill Bodley, also of Peaceful Tomorrows, lost his daughter Deora on Flight 93 (issue focus TBA)
Lorna Brett, Director of Media Relations, Nolan Law Group, representing 9/11 families on United Airlines hijacked planes. (issue focus TBA)
Mary Schiavo, Esq., lawyer for 32 passengers' families from all 9/11 hijacked planes, former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation ('90-'96) and author of Flying
Safe, Flying Blind. Ms. Schiavo will speak to FAA accountability and Airline safety.
2nd Panel-- (Approx. 1 hr.)
Michael Ruppert, Editor of From the Wilderness Publications, investigative journalist; former Narcotics Officer, LAPD, will provide historical and geo-strategic context to the War on Terror.
He is currently on a lecture tour in Canada, speaking to sold-out audiences, and getting extensive press coverage.
John Judge
Author, Judge for Yourself and Co-founder, Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA), will speak about the failure of US Air Defenses on September 11th.
Tom Flocco, investigative journalist, will discuss highly unusual insider trading in the trading days immediately preceding September 11th.
J. Michael Springmann, veteran of 20 years of foreign service, posted at the Saudi Embassy for a two years. Based on his experience there he will speak to "the CIA and terrorism."
Dr. Steve Camarota, Director of Research; Center for Immigration Studies; will address "Immigration and Terrorism."
Peter Erlinder, Professor of Constitutional Law, William Mitchell College of Law will discuss Constitutional issues relative to the Patriot Act.
Richard Ochs, freelance writer and researcher, will present his research into the anthrax attacks.
--Members of Congress have been invited to participate in the third hour of the conference.
Organizers maintain that it is the role of informed active citizens to insist upon standards of performance from our public officials in regard to the events surrounding 9-11 and ongoing
threats. Organizers are calling for a complete and public investigation of the failures of government agencies (FBI, CIA, INS, FAA) uncovered recently. This, they insist, requires a fuller
disclosure of the circumstances surrounding each case in order to effectively address documented misappropriation (or lack of appropriation), incompetence, negligence and possible
corruption. Doing so will ultimately foster an intelligence and national security apparatus that is effectively committed to the public safety and a government worthy of trust, operating within
the bounds of the US Constitution, and fully accountable to the American people.
Members of radio, television and print press are invited to attend. There will be ample opportunity for questions and follow-up, and one-on-one interviews with the panelists directly
following the event.
Press kits available beginning at 1:30PM outside Holeman Lounge, National Press Club
**Registration required for admittance**
Please contact Kyle F. Hence to register: 401-847-1963; kylehence@earthlink.net
Media Notes: C-SPAN has declined to cover the event despite strong interest expressed. Event organizers are now urging interested citizens to contact C-SPAN to lodge complaint of biased
[quote] Consolidation is scary? What's that sh*t? I thought consolidation and centralized control ("congressional oversight") was supposed to be good <hr></blockquote>
I believe your being sarcastic, however I would have to say that it is a limitted idea of the people that you are calling your enemy with this post and trying to make fun of them to assume that they do not have the sophistication to understand that decentralization is quite often a good thing, and, that centralization can be the worst possible thing. The idea is to find a balance: too much center=tyrrany and too much unorganized emergent clustering gets you a cluster****ed.
Sorry. I bow to your Phd.ness. I am not worthy to question your superiour post that cuts through with intelligent reasoning and make the rest of us look like stupid sheep.
Noone else can make a five word reply and put everybody else in amazement.
</strong>
Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>
Overwhelm us with your superiour intelligence O great one!
Or, better than that, STFU, go off some place, and kill yourself. After that we will build a monument to your supreme intelligence and then procede to blow it apart with C4 after putting graffiti all over it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show some class, guys. You do not have a point now that you have insulted him back.
Comments
[quote]
I don't think it matters just so long as the job is done right. But we all "know" Ashcroft is a hood wearin' bigot and Bu$h is the puppet of Big Oil (TM) and this is all just the start of the American SS. So what does it matter what it's called while I hyperventilate in an effort to brand every Bush idea as some secret move to remove our rights?
<hr></blockquote>
Scott you're finally starting to understand.
Scott you're finally starting to understand.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
You're not, though.
[ 06-07-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
---ok ok I know ... unnecessary flamation... sorry
------------------------------
I just have to ask again, why is it the first people to scream about having guns in order to ensure one's rights are the first to fall in love with what could be a real slide into a Police state?!?!?
and why do people who love teh 'rugged individual' and hate 'the Government' always love a big military, that serves that Government that they supposedly hate?!?!?
And WHY is it that those who hate centralized government want to see what amounts to a centralized national police force that can legally listen to your love chat with your wife?!?!? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Now I don't have any real problem with this whole anti-terrorism thing... but I think that those that are most radically for your rights (like gun ownership, etc) should be keeping an eye out for possible problems with that whole centralized government thing!!!
[ 06-07-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
but look, now even conservative commentators are saying the obviouse. So dont feel that you need to easily pretend that the glaring inconsistencies in you ideaolgies do not exist:
from William Safire: [quote] J. Edgar Mueller By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON
Under the police powers it operated under last year, and with the
lawful
cooperation of a better-managed C.I.A., an efficiently run F.B.I.
might well
have prevented the catastrophe of Sept. 11. That is the dismaying
probability that Congressional oversight (it should be called
undersight)
will begin to show this week.
To fabricate an alibi for his nonfeasance, and to cover up his
department's
embarrassing cut of the counterterrorism budget last year, Attorney
General
John Ashcroft - working with his hand-picked aide, F.B.I. Director "J.
Edgar" Mueller III - has gutted guidelines put in place a generation
ago to
prevent the abuse of police power by the federal government.
They have done this deed by executive fiat: no public discussion, no
Congressional action, no judicial guidance. If we had only had these
new
powers last year, goes their posterior-covering pretense, we could
have
stopped terrorism cold.
Not so. They had the power to collect the intelligence, but lacked the
intellect to analyze the data the agencies collected. The F.B.I.'s
failure
to absorb the Phoenix and Minneapolis memos was compounded by the
C.I.A.'s
failure to share information it had about two of the Arab terrorists
in the
U.S. who would become hijackers (as revealed by Newsweek today).
Thus we see the seizure of new powers of surveillance is a
smokescreen to
hide failure to use the old power.
Ashcroft claims he is merely allowing the feds to attend public
events, or
to surf the Internet, which "even a 12-year-old can do." That's a
masterful
deceit: under the former anti-abuse guidelines, of course the F.B.I.
could
send an agent into a ballpark, church or political rally. All it
needed was
"information or an allegation whose responsible handling required some
further scrutiny" - not even "probable cause" to investigate a crime,
but a
mere tip about possible wrongdoing.
Same with surfing the Net or reading a newspaper or watching
television
news. Often that's how F.B.I. agents in the field have been alerted
to a
potential crime, and could then open a preliminary inquiry. If a lead
showed
"reasonable indication of criminal activity," agents could initiate a
full
investigation without going through Washington headquarters - hiring
informants, staking out a house, seeking wiretap and search warrants.
But under the new Ashcroft-Mueller diktat, that necessary hint of
potential
criminal activity is swept away. With not a scintilla of evidence of
a crime
being committed, the feds will be able to run full investigations for
one
year. That's aimed at generating suspicion of criminal conduct - the
very
definition of a "fishing expedition."
Not to worry, say governmental perps - we won't collect data in
dossiers on
individuals or social or political clubs or church groups - the sort
of
abuse that suppressed dissent in "the bad old days."
Just because the F.B.I. brass hats are presently computer illiterate,
do
they think the public is totally ignorant of the ability of today's
technologists to combine government surveillance reports, names on
membership lists, and "data mining" by private snoops to create an
instant
dossier on law-abiding Americans?
Consider the new reach of federal power: the income-tax return you
provided
your mortgage lender; your academic scores and personnel ratings,
credit
card purchases and E-ZPass movements; your political and charitable
contributions, charge account at your pharmacist and insurance
records; your
subscription to non-mainstream publications like The Nation or Human
Events,
every visit to every Web site and comment to every chat room, and
every book
or movie you bought or even considered on Amazon.com - all newly
combined
with the tickets, arrests, press clips, full field investigations and
raw
allegations of angry neighbors or rejected lovers that flow into the
F.B.I.
All your personal data is right there at the crossroads of modern
marketing
and federal law enforcement. And all in the name of the war on terror.
This is not some nightmare of what may happen someday. It happened
last
week. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of House Judiciary, said the
removal of
restraints made him "queasy"; Pat Leahy of Senate Judiciary is too
busy
blocking judges to object. Some sunshine libertarians are willing to
suffer
this loss of personal freedom in the hope that the Ashcroft-Mueller
rules of
intrusion may prevent a terror attack. They won't because they're a
fraud.
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>It's sort of a joke,but I see a consolidation of government powers that I think is scary.Thankfully it is a full cabinet postion,meaning that there will be congressional oversight.I wouldn't assume that the Bush government will respect our democratic system,originally Bush wanted the post not to be a cabinet position,so there would be no oversight.But of course all of this has been going on for a long time,it cuts across party lines-the ending Elian Gonzalez affair was a sad day for all Americans,when a legal dispute was settled at the barrel of a gun- I would like to point out that all of the appeals had not yet been exhausted at that point.Also,the COG project was originally formulated during the Carter administration.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Consolidation is scary? What's that sh*t? I thought consolidation and centralized control ("congressional oversight") was supposed to be good.
Updated event Press Release is below:
------
Press Release
UPDATED June 9, 2002
<a href="http://www.UnansweredQuestions.org"; target="_blank">http://www.UnansweredQuestions.org</a>;
9-11 and the Public Safety: Seeking Answers and Accountability
To members of the press:
A international press conference and formal web site launch for UnansweredQuestions.org will be held on Monday, June 10th from 2-5 PM at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
The goal of this unprecedented press event and public inquiry is to pose pointed, as yet unanswered, questions regarding the failure of our national security infrastructure, and the response
that has sacrificed civil liberties and rewarded failure as opposed to ensuring performance and guaranteeing freedoms, now and in the future.
UnansweredQuestions.org is being launched by an independent, non-partisan network of citizens concerned about the growing number of issues surrounding September 11th that have yet to
be addressed or resolved; and their related public safety and Constitutional implications. Invited panelists will offer statements, present well-documented research, and ask incisive questions
relative to these issues while addressing how citizens can act now to ensure accountability from those in government directly responsible for public safety and upholding the Constitution.
The conference will be moderated by Catherine Austin Fitts, President of Solari and former Assistant Secretary of Housing during the 1st Bush administration.
Confirmed participants include:
1st Panel-- (approx. 45 min including Q&A)
Julie Sweeney, wife of Brian Sweeney, killed on United Airlines flight 175 into South WTC tower Julie will present her case for a full and open investigation.
Ryan Amundson, brother of Craig Amundson, killed at the Pentagon; co-founder of Peaceful Tomorrows.org. (issue focus TBA)
Derrill Bodley, also of Peaceful Tomorrows, lost his daughter Deora on Flight 93 (issue focus TBA)
Lorna Brett, Director of Media Relations, Nolan Law Group, representing 9/11 families on United Airlines hijacked planes. (issue focus TBA)
Mary Schiavo, Esq., lawyer for 32 passengers' families from all 9/11 hijacked planes, former Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation ('90-'96) and author of Flying
Safe, Flying Blind. Ms. Schiavo will speak to FAA accountability and Airline safety.
2nd Panel-- (Approx. 1 hr.)
Michael Ruppert, Editor of From the Wilderness Publications, investigative journalist; former Narcotics Officer, LAPD, will provide historical and geo-strategic context to the War on Terror.
He is currently on a lecture tour in Canada, speaking to sold-out audiences, and getting extensive press coverage.
John Judge
Author, Judge for Yourself and Co-founder, Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA), will speak about the failure of US Air Defenses on September 11th.
Tom Flocco, investigative journalist, will discuss highly unusual insider trading in the trading days immediately preceding September 11th.
J. Michael Springmann, veteran of 20 years of foreign service, posted at the Saudi Embassy for a two years. Based on his experience there he will speak to "the CIA and terrorism."
Dr. Steve Camarota, Director of Research; Center for Immigration Studies; will address "Immigration and Terrorism."
Peter Erlinder, Professor of Constitutional Law, William Mitchell College of Law will discuss Constitutional issues relative to the Patriot Act.
Richard Ochs, freelance writer and researcher, will present his research into the anthrax attacks.
--Members of Congress have been invited to participate in the third hour of the conference.
Organizers maintain that it is the role of informed active citizens to insist upon standards of performance from our public officials in regard to the events surrounding 9-11 and ongoing
threats. Organizers are calling for a complete and public investigation of the failures of government agencies (FBI, CIA, INS, FAA) uncovered recently. This, they insist, requires a fuller
disclosure of the circumstances surrounding each case in order to effectively address documented misappropriation (or lack of appropriation), incompetence, negligence and possible
corruption. Doing so will ultimately foster an intelligence and national security apparatus that is effectively committed to the public safety and a government worthy of trust, operating within
the bounds of the US Constitution, and fully accountable to the American people.
Members of radio, television and print press are invited to attend. There will be ample opportunity for questions and follow-up, and one-on-one interviews with the panelists directly
following the event.
Press kits available beginning at 1:30PM outside Holeman Lounge, National Press Club
**Registration required for admittance**
Please contact Kyle F. Hence to register: 401-847-1963; kylehence@earthlink.net
Media Notes: C-SPAN has declined to cover the event despite strong interest expressed. Event organizers are now urging interested citizens to contact C-SPAN to lodge complaint of biased
coverage. 2) please look for event transcript and audio and/or video archives of the event to be accessible at <a href="http://www.unansweredquestions.org"; target="_blank">http://www.unansweredquestions.org</a>; following the event.
National Press Club
Holeman Lounge
529 14th Street NW; [corner of 14th & F St.]
Washington, D.C.<hr></blockquote>
Seems strange that CSPAN would pass on this one? Or not?
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
[quote] Consolidation is scary? What's that sh*t? I thought consolidation and centralized control ("congressional oversight") was supposed to be good <hr></blockquote>
I believe your being sarcastic, however I would have to say that it is a limitted idea of the people that you are calling your enemy with this post and trying to make fun of them to assume that they do not have the sophistication to understand that decentralization is quite often a good thing, and, that centralization can be the worst possible thing. The idea is to find a balance: too much center=tyrrany and too much unorganized emergent clustering gets you a cluster****ed.
[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>
Sorry. I bow to your Phd.ness. I am not worthy to question your superiour post that cuts through with intelligent reasoning and make the rest of us look like stupid sheep.
Noone else can make a five word reply and put everybody else in amazement.
</strong>
Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>
Overwhelm us with your superiour intelligence O great one!
Or, better than that, STFU, go off some place, and kill yourself. After that we will build a monument to your supreme intelligence and then procede to blow it apart with C4 after putting graffiti all over it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Show some class, guys. You do not have a point now that you have insulted him back.
[ 06-14-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>