Homeland security opening private mail

[michaeledward]

Sorry, I have to disagree. This started well before 9/11. It goes back to the 2000 election, and hasn't let up since. He won the electoral college (all recounts in Florida support this) but lost the popular vote.

Well ... we continue to make definative statements where definition is still open.

There was a recent article on the 'OVER-VOTES'. Overvotes were not the attention of the 2000 recounts. Rather, those focused on under-votes, hanging chads, dimpled chads and the like.

This recent article counted over-votes. Many of these votes were disqualified because they had a punch-hole punched, and a candidates name, written on the ballot. The Florida statue, as I recall, talks about the 'intent of the voter'.

If a person punched candidate Gore, and wrote on the ballot candidate 'Gore', don't you think we could conclude with some level of accuracy the 'intent' of the voter?

According to this article, that is exactly what happened. And many thousands of votes were not counted, ever. Not considered, ever.

President Bush was appointed by Five Supreme Court Justices appointed to the high court by President G.H.W. Bush and President Reagan (V.P. Bush). Please don't reference the electoral college.

 

[Phoenix44]

michaeledward is right...the 2000 Florida votes were NOT counted in full, because the Supreme Court stopped the count.

But what if many Americans disliked Bush before his recent abuses of power? Many of us didn't, and still don't like his stand on many issues. It has nothing to do with Clinton, who has been out of office for 5 years.

Many of us don't believe Bush really does care about our security. Remember 911 happened on his watch. In 1998, Clinton created a BIPARTISAN commission on national security, the Hart-Rudman Commission (7 Democrats and 7 Republicans). They studied the issue for 2 1/2 years, and UNANIMOUSLY approved 50 specific recommendations. They stated that a terrorist attack on US soil was likely. The Commission issued its report to the Bush Administration. Rudman, a Republican, briefed Condoleeza Rice.

But instead of adopting the recommendations, Bush put Cheney in charge of "studying" the issue--even though the commission had already done that. Cheney's group NEVER MET. Not even once.

OK, that was "pre-911." But after 911, the President failed to implement the recommendations of the 911 Commission. Homeland Security funds have been primarily allocated by population, rather than by risk. Our borders are still wide open, and instead we're in Iraq. He has a remarkable propensity to appoint unqualified buddies to positions of great responsibility--that doesn't bespeak concern for our safety.

When a president says, essentially "I authorized illegal domestic spying without warrants, and I'm going to continue to do it," that is contemptuous of the Constitution. The Constitution is vague on many things, but the 4th amendment is very clear about the issue of warrantless searches of American citizens, including their personal papers. If the NSA thinks there's a valid national security reason to invade privacy, they should get the warrant from the FISA court. And any president who says otherwise is acting like a despot.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yeah, that or to get people to read the article ... or because these are now the identifiable faction which does this. Before what did we call it, the FBI? CIA? the mysterious 'government'? Now it has a distinct name and that's what we call it. It's the difference between calling that thing on your foot a crusty yellow thing and a callous.

If you want to give it a name, then call it what it is....US Customs opening foreign mail as it has for many years now.....jeez. Some people could turn picking up the garbage early into a conspiracy.

 

[sgtmac_46]

michaeledward is right...the 2000 Florida votes were NOT counted in full, because the Supreme Court stopped the count.

Stopped endless 'recounts' big difference.

But what if many Americans disliked Bush before his recent abuses of power? Many of us didn't, and still don't like his stand on many issues. It has nothing to do with Clinton, who has been out of office for 5 years.

I'm sure you wish it did have nothing to do with Clinton.....and, except for that pesky thing we call reality, it doesn't.

Many of us don't believe Bush really does care about our security. Remember 911 happened on his watch. In 1998, Clinton created a BIPARTISAN commission on national security, the Hart-Rudman Commission (7 Democrats and 7 Republicans). They studied the issue for 2 1/2 years, and UNANIMOUSLY approved 50 specific recommendations. They stated that a terrorist attack on US soil was likely. The Commission issued its report to the Bush Administration. Rudman, a Republican, briefed Condoleeza Rice.

1998? How'd that commission work out? The US cole was attacked, 9/11 was being planned and put in to place prior to 1999....How was that commission working for Clinton? Instead of 'passing along recommendations' to Bush, why wasn't Clinton actually implementing them? If they started in 1998 (about 5 years too LATE considering they tried to blow up the world trade center the first time in 1993) then why was nothing done for the next 3 YEARS?! Heady stuff, I tell you, altering reality to paint Clinton's incompetence out of the war on terror.

But instead of adopting the recommendations, Bush put Cheney in charge of "studying" the issue--even though the commission had already done that. Cheney's group NEVER MET. Not even once.

Not once....in the next 8 months....of course what happened during the preceeding 3 years since the commission 'met' and the 5 years prior to that when bin Laden and al-Qaeda FIRST tried to bring down the World Trade Center (not to mention the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, just to name two)?

OK, that was "pre-911." But after 911, the President failed to implement the recommendations of the 911 Commission. Homeland Security funds have been primarily allocated by population, rather than by risk. Our borders are still wide open, and instead we're in Iraq. He has a remarkable propensity to appoint unqualified buddies to positions of great responsibility--that doesn't bespeak concern for our safety.

Basically, anything that the president DOES do you don't like, and anything he doesn't do, you think he should do? Basically, you don't like him, and nothing he does do will ever satisfy you. This is nothing new in the political world.

 

[Phoenix44]

sgtmac, if you have some data and references, by all means, present them, but personal comments about me "altering reality" and "nothing he does do will ever satisfy you" really don't add anything to the discussion.

Besides, you have it backwards: I don't dislike Bush's policies because I dislike Bush. I dislike Bush because I dislike his policies. I don't like Bush's CAFTA any more than I liked Bill Clinton's NAFTA. I don't like like the fact that Bush wants to continue his course in Iraq any more than I like Hillary Clinton's similar viewpoint.

You know what I respect Bush for? For being athletic and keeping fit. I respect him for trying to protect his daughters from the press. I respect him for quitting alcohol and drugs.

It's easy to recall 911 and the earlier attack on the WTC. But do you remember the Millennium Plots in 1999? Probably not, because they were foiled. Or the 1993 plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush? That was foiled, too, and Clinton retaliated against the Iraqi intelligence agency for their involvement. The 1993 arrest of Sheik Rahman stopped the terrorist plot to blow up a number of US landmarks, including the George Washington Bridge. What about 1995 "Project Bojinka"? That didn't happen either (until 911).

Why didn't Clinton implement the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission? Simple. Because the Commission didn't finish it's investigation until the end of Clinton's term. But Clinton's antiterrorism task force actually met (including meetings with the president). Cheney's task force never met--not even after the August 6, 2001 PDB, which highlighted the terror threat.

 

[michaeledward]

The US cole was attacked, ....

the USS Cole, just to name two)?

You mention the USS Cole twice in your post.

When did the Central Intelligence Agency determine responsibility for the attack on the USS Cole?

Launching any retalitory action before determining responsibility would be like randomly bombing Pakistani villa's in hopes of killing Zawahiri.

18 people were executed by the United States government. What were they guilty of again?

 

[Lisa]

Mod. Note.
Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-Lisa Deneka
-MT Moderator-

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac, if you have some data and references, by all means, present them, but personal comments about me "altering reality" and "nothing he does do will ever satisfy you" really don't add anything to the discussion.

Besides, you have it backwards: I don't dislike Bush's policies because I dislike Bush. I dislike Bush because I dislike his policies. I don't like Bush's CAFTA any more than I liked Bill Clinton's NAFTA. I don't like like the fact that Bush wants to continue his course in Iraq any more than I like Hillary Clinton's similar viewpoint.

You know what I respect Bush for? For being athletic and keeping fit. I respect him for trying to protect his daughters from the press. I respect him for quitting alcohol and drugs.

It's easy to recall 911 and the earlier attack on the WTC. But do you remember the Millennium Plots in 1999? Probably not, because they were foiled. Or the 1993 plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush? That was foiled, too, and Clinton retaliated against the Iraqi intelligence agency for their involvement. The 1993 arrest of Sheik Rahman stopped the terrorist plot to blow up a number of US landmarks, including the George Washington Bridge. What about 1995 "Project Bojinka"? That didn't happen either (until 911).

Why didn't Clinton implement the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission? Simple. Because the Commission didn't finish it's investigation until the end of Clinton's term. But Clinton's antiterrorism task force actually met (including meetings with the president). Cheney's task force never met--not even after the August 6, 2001 PDB, which highlighted the terror threat.

And yet....Clinton performed nothing but token responses against a clear and present danger to the US for 8 years.....8 years that lead up to the attacks that killed over 3000 Americans. Surely, had Clinton taken bin Laden as seriously as he should have, given al-Qaeda tried to topple the World Trade Center the very year he took office the FIRST time, then we might not be dealing with the present mess. If you don't think that has a direct impact on our present discussion, I have to question your objectivity.

 

[sgtmac_46]

You mention the USS Cole twice in your post.

When did the Central Intelligence Agency determine responsibility for the attack on the USS Cole?

It was very clear from the beginning the USS Cole was an al-Qaeda operation.

http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=778&p=front&a=1

Launching any retalitory action before determining responsibility would be like randomly bombing Pakistani villa's in hopes of killing Zawahiri.

18 people were executed by the United States government. What were they guilty of again?

It wasn't 'randomly bombed', it was very deliberately bombed, and for a very deliberate reason.

The only reason Zawahiri didn't die, is that he didn't show up to the dinner they had invited him to. Aiding and abetting a sworn enemy of the United States is very dangerous. THAT is what they did. I know it offends people's delicate sensitivities, but we can live with that.

We used to bomb entire cities to attack strategic targets in war time, now we have narrowed it to a few houses. An improvement, but it's an imperfect and sometimes brutal world. You can't always pick your battles, you fight the ones handed to you.

 

[michaeledward]

It was very clear from the beginning the USS Cole was an al-Qaeda operation.

http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=778&p=front&a=1

And yet, this response does not answer the question?

When did the United States Security agencies determine that al Qaeda was to blame for the attack on the USS Cole?

It wasn't 'randomly bombed', it was very deliberately bombed, and for a very deliberate reason.

The only reason Zawahiri didn't die, is that he didn't show up to the dinner they had invited him to. Aiding and abetting a sworn enemy of the United States is very dangerous. THAT is what they did. I know it offends people's delicate sensitivities, but we can live with that.

We used to bomb entire cities to attack strategic targets in war time, now we have narrowed it to a few houses. An improvement, but it's an imperfect and sometimes brutal world. You can't always pick your battles, you fight the ones handed to you.

Your argument justifies an act of war on a sovereign nation. A nation that despite widespread public opposition, has been supporting U.S. efforts against al Qaeda; some go so far as to call Pakistan an ally.

And, just to point out "what they did"; refers to eight women and five children. Doesn't one of the rules of warfare dictate that you attack only combatants?

I hope you are correct ... that we can live with those results. I fear that this act has enabled al Qaeda to continue to recruit activists faster than our military can capture or kill them, to put it in Hizzoner Rumsfeld language.

 

[sgtmac_46]

When did the United States Security agencies determine that al Qaeda was to blame for the attack on the USS Cole?

It was clear from the beginning al-Qaeda was responsible. Of course, that's not your question. Your question really is 'when could we prove it in court' which is the problem....And why the Clinton administration was completely ineffective at dealing with al-Qaeda, they kept thinking it was a justice department problem and kept sending FBI agents to gather evidence, and prepare a court case.....Exactly what court it was going to be tried in, or who was going to arrest the real parties behind it, remains a mystery.

Your argument justifies an act of war on a sovereign nation. A nation that despite widespread public opposition, has been supporting U.S. efforts against al Qaeda; some go so far as to call Pakistan an ally.

A sometimes alley, who also has a large number of terrorists hiding within it's borders.

And, just to point out "what they did"; refers to eight women and five children. Doesn't one of the rules of warfare dictate that you attack only combatants?

We used to carpet bomb and fire bomb cities to attack strategic targets. Life's imperfect, but it's an improvement.

I hope you are correct ... that we can live with those results. I fear that this act has enabled al Qaeda to continue to recruit activists faster than our military can capture or kill them, to put it in Hizzoner Rumsfeld language.

Nothing is going to speed up the number of terrorists produced, that has long since reached terminal velocity. What we must do is decapitate their leadership and decimate their ranks. My only regret is that we missed our target.

 

[michaeledward]

* * * yawn * * *

One of these days, you will get around to answering the question.

It was clear that al-Zawahiri was having dinner in those three mud huts in Pakistan at 3:00 AM local time last week.

Oops! Except he wasn't.

Now we've gone and pissed off all the Pakistani's ... more.

Geesh ... if this is how we treat our friends ... what do we need enemies for?

 

[sgtmac_46]

* * * yawn * * *

One of these days, you will get around to answering the question.

Translation 'one of these days I wish you would say what I want you to say'. I already answered the question, sorry you don't like the answer. It was clear from the beginning that al-Qaeda was behind the USS Cole, as they received intelligence before the attack that a US target was going to be hit.

It was clear that al-Zawahiri was having dinner in those three mud huts in Pakistan at 3:00 AM local time last week.

Oops! Except he wasn't.

You are mistaken. The intelligence was that he was going to have dinner there, and he didn't show up. Changing plans at the last minute is nothing new, and it's the only reason al-Zawahiri is still alive.

Now we've gone and pissed off all the Pakistani's ... more.

Geesh ... if this is how we treat our friends ... what do we need enemies for?

The people in this village were NOT our friends. Our friends don't harbor and aid one of the main architects of the deaths of thousands of American people. With friends like THAT we don't need enemies.

 

[shesulsa]

MODERATOR NOTE: PLEASE RETURN TO TOPIC - SECOND WARNING.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Moderator

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Originally Posted by michaeledward
"Doesn't one of the rules of warfare dictate that you attack only combatants?"

Nope. At least not as you would like it. If you are targeting an enemy you dont have to assure that absolutely no civillians will be killed. You would never be able to fight any war that way. If anything, we are the country MOST concerned with sparing civilians what with all the **** the media spews every time a civilian gets killed. When did we become responsible for 0 civilian casualties?

 

[sgtmac_46]

When did we become responsible for 0 civilian casualties?

Since Bush took office. During Clinton's administration, the left thought mistakenly bombing the Chinese Embassy and blowing up baby food factories was acceptable (which they may, in fact, have been). However, now that Bush is in charge, ANY collateral damage (real, perceived, or flat out made up) is considered PROOF that our government is evil. This isn't about the issues for many people, it's about politics.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I understand that politics and pesonal views of our goverment sometimes lead to a heated debate. I also understand that this thread is in the study and that Martialtalk sometimes allows thread drift in the study, but this thread has gone all over the place so PLEASE go back to the original question .
If you want to start a thread on other subjects please feel free but remember to be polite

 

[sgtmac_46]

I understand that politics and pesonal views of our goverment sometimes lead to a heated debate. I also understand that this thread is in the study and that Martialtalk sometimes allows thread drift in the study, but this thread has gone all over the place so PLEASE go back to the original question .
If you want to start a thread on other subjects please feel free but remember to be polite

You are correct, i allowed another to lead me off topic, I apologize.

Back to the topic, in short, the whole 'Homeland security opening private mail' issue is bogus, as the issue is the US Customs department examining foreign mail entering this country that is the issue. As this practice is many years old, by far predating the Bush administration, and no evidence exists to suggest that this is an altered policy that resulted in the openned mail cited, the whole issue is moot and disingenuous.

 

[shesulsa]

As this practice is many years old, by far predating the Bush administration, and no evidence exists to suggest that this is an altered policy that resulted in the openned mail cited, the whole issue is moot and disingenuous.

Not when this particular mail exchange has been occurring for a while with no prior interruptions. Hmm ... they must have put a "hot" word on the envelope - "bomb" or something.

 

[dobermann]

have you ever heard of echolon? what do you think the NSA is doing?

ALL, and i mean ALL electronic communication is being taped. how do you think the world works?