Time for crow pie!

[RedRed]

sorry kv.... its really late here, I mis read you.

[Rags]

I am sure that many afghans said that over the past few weeks...

That is sad it has to happen, but we have little other choice. Either we allow other countries to propogate terrorism and keep getting blown up, or we decide to finally defend ourselves from the madness in the middle east that we so often get blamed for. Hell, if we are going to be blasted and blamed for the problems in that part of the world, we may as well take a strong approach to protecting our citizens from the retards who can't play nice in the world.

Wake up you!
You are not really at war!

The US is not in danger, there has been no formal or informal declaration...

You are a ****ing moron if you really believe that. Many times these organizations have declared war on us, even the taliban declared war on us for using precision bombing in their country.

George Bush jnr is looking to better daddys play in the gulf last time round...

Another golden statement from our local west hater.
Yeah, GWB was just hoping and praying that our country would get attacked so he had an excuse to bomb in the middleast.

ah as for some 'legal technicality' - thousands of people are currently being held NOW in the US without trial, access to a lawyer, even a bloody judge! The maximum sentence these kangaroo courts can impose is DEATH!

GOOD. Do you think our citizens would get pref. treatment by the Taliban, or in Iraq? Don't kid yourself peckerwood.
Let's get something straight, we are following the rules put forth by the UN for capturing adversaries during conflict. Why should go so far beyond that?

Rags

[Wombat]

You seem to care more about the rights of these suspected terrorists than you care about the innocent lives they would take.

The key word here is "suspected." Right now anybody that seems to be anti-patriotic in any way is a suspected terrorist. Welcome to <A HREF="http://www.progressive.org/online.html">New McCarthyism</A>. Even Congressman Leahy is being attacked as being anti-American for questioning Ashcroft's recent powergrab. How the hell can you question a guy who has already recieved his very own anthrax letter? If he can be faced with that kind of death, and <B>still</B> question the ethics of the crap Ashcroft is pulling, maybe we should listen, eh?

It's great that you bring up Orwellian contexts KvH, because that's sure where we're slowly heading. All this lovely surveillance, and giving up civil liberties in the name of "freedom." I guess it's all doubleplusgood, right?

Rags, why don't we just declare war if we're going to act like it? Is it really that hard?

GOOD. Do you think our citizens would get pref. treatment by the Taliban, or in Iraq?

No, we'd probably bomb the **** out that country for being "wrong," or supporting "terrorism." But just because places like UAE couldn't attack us, we can detain and sentence their citizens and feel justified? There are plenty of people who have lived legally in the US for a long time, doing as much or more for the country than your average "patriotic citizen." So now we can just try and sentence them with evidence they're not even allowed to see? We're all the children of immigrants Matt, so why are these people any different from our border-crossing ancestors?

[Rags]

Originally posted by Wombat

The key word here is "suspected." Right now anybody that seems to be anti-patriotic in any way is a suspected terrorist. Welcome to <A HREF="http://www.progressive.org/online.html">New McCarthyism</A>.

There is no doubt we have to be careful, but we haven't stepped over the line from what I have seen thus far. Mccarthyism was totally different, they were going after American citizens. Now we are targeting people who have overstayed their visas for whatever reason, and finding out why they didn't follow up with either leaving or becoming a citizen, or why they didn't do what they were supposed to be doing here. Yeah, I think that we should prequalify people for being a citizen. Yes I believe we should prequalify people coming in on a visa. Yes, I believe they are aware they don't get the same considerations as citizens, and I am sure they will be aware that we are going to be puting more scrutiny on them from now on as well.

Even Congressman Leahy is being attacked as being anti-American for questioning Ashcroft's recent powergrab. How the hell can you question a guy who has already recieved his very own anthrax letter? If he can be faced with that kind of death, and <B>still</B> question the ethics of the crap Ashcroft is pulling, maybe we should listen, eh?

What? A guy gets an Anthrax letter so he becomes the automatic authority on it? He never even got it, anyways. Oh, a victim cannot be questioned on their judgment. If that's so, then why are you not holding the whitehouse to the same standard? I mean GWB had his own living quarters targeted with a ****ing jet, so he must be all knowing and all right? WRONG.

And to call what Ashcroft is doing crap. Give me an example of where he has gone against either US law or UN law. ONE example. He has one job to do and that is to uphold the laws setforth, he doesn't make the laws, so quit trying to have a nice mean fat white man to throw darts at. Not everyone is out to get you you know.

Rags, why don't we just declare war if we're going to act like it?

I cannot speak for our leaders, but from what I can tell, it's because the problem of these groups that are attacking civilians as a means to change policies or extort demands (AKA terrorists), go beyond borders, and the policy has been set that we will seek out these groups, not countries. Now if a country knowingly harbors them or aids them, then we can take action against that country or go in ourselves and get them. Pretty simple if you ask me. I don't see what the hard part about that is.

Is it really that hard?

In a way it is yes. Because we don't know which countries we are going to declare war on. Generally declaring war is a bit more extreme than what we are doing right now.

No, we'd probably bomb the **** out that country for being "wrong," or supporting "terrorism."

Think with your brain, not your emotions. You seem to not understand the difference between a group of people that target civilians as a rule compared to a country that targets militia and connections that have infested their country.

But just because places like UAE couldn't attack us, we can detain and sentence their citizens and feel justified?

No, these people LIVED with the ****oles who were on the plane. These 'people' were very well established in connection finacially and in many other ways. They were here on visas. They did not keep up with their end of the visa. They are suspects in a capital crime. We cannot just send them back and hope they help us and show up later for their date with a tribunal. We are following UN procedure on this, and we are going to change the laws so we can monitor these people more closely. Yes, we have every natural right to do this. If these people are not here to become citizens and productive people, then why are they here?

There are plenty of people who have lived legally in the US for a long time, doing as much or more for the country than your average "patriotic citizen."

Of course there are. And they have visas and are abiding by their visas. I have no problem with that.

So now we can just try and sentence them with evidence they're not even allowed to see?

No, that's not what we are doing. Go back and read then come to debate FACTS not what your FEEL is going on.

We're all the children of immigrants Matt

SO? What does that have to do with this discussion? I have not said one thing that was anti immigrant? Are you implying I did?

, so why are these people any different from our border-crossing ancestors?

Our boarder crossing ancestors took over this land from other people. Literally ripping it out of the hands of a weaker opponent. So don't give me that righteous bullshit. If my ancestors had been stronger and smarter, like we are trying to do RIGHT NOW TODAY in the US, then they wouldn't have been all but extinct and stuck in some reservations. I think you seem to miss that point. Let people walk all over you, and give everyone that wants to an open pass to come into the country and do nothing about them kicking you in the nuts afterwards, and you reap the consequences.

Again, I have no problem with immigrants who come here and abide by the rules. I have to, so why shouldn't they? And I don't think we should give them the same privelages of being a citizen legally obviously you do.

Rags

[orangejulius]

<small>Just a side note - slashdot had a great <a href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/16/1438210&mode=thread">article</a> on B-52s -- "The B-52 Stratofortress, famous for its carpet bombing (or, as the Pentagon prefers, "long sticking") was designed in the 1940s to carry boxcar-sized atomic bombs. This Fast Company analysis describes how the US plans to keep these planes -- the youngest of which was built in 1962 -- flying until 2040."

Now back to your regulary scheduled <a href="http://www.quite.com/personal/cafeq/querkyrecipescrowpie.htm">pie</a>.</small>

[Rags]

A b52 carries Lots of dumb bombs, it showed the 'diasy cutter' in action

You do realize that a daisy cutter is a guided weapon now, right? (it has been fitted with guidance just in the last 3 months). You do realize that the B52's carry more than just 'dumb' bombs.

a 15,000 lb bomb. dumbfire, dropped by parachute drouge.... (can be inaccurate by up to 2 miles!!!)

You are aware that the average accuracy of the bombs dropped in Iraq were estimated to be 200 yards, right? Also there are people who study this a lot more than you or I do that estimate our bombing accuracy has increased significantly since the gulf war. Even without guidance our bombing is very accurate. This isn't vietnam anymore. And there were no carpet bombing of civilization. You do realize that less than 10 percent of our total bombs dropped in Afghan were well outside of the cities, right? And we dropped no cluster bombs inside cities. No carpet bombing. No daisy cutters. Boo hoo, so we dropped some daisy cutters on some scum.

http://www.safaridave.com/pics6.shtml

I know what a daisy cutter is. It's more of a psychological weapon than a mass destruction weapon. Carpet bombing causes far more destruction for the buck than a Daisy Cutter does. BTW, that site's pics were not from this millenium

Main targets were:
front lines, villages cities (kabul, Jelalabad, Kandahar, and the like, its was on the bloody BBC!

I see. You are a headline skimmer. You see a red spot on a map and assume that's the exact point where our bombs were dropped. Get educated on this before you come back.

Rags

[Rags]

America hasnt named its enemy, its named a concept.

It claims to be fighting (but not to have declared war on) terrorism.

So are you suggesting that in your city, you believe since there are laws, and laws are concepts, there is no need for police, or execution of laws?
I know it's a stretch to compare the two, but it's similar.

Proposing to attack a country to 'finish the job' is bullying.

Proposing to attack a group in a country that SUPPORTS terroists who KILL US is NOT BULLYING. Proposing to attack the government that refuses to hand over people they KNOW are killing civilians is NOT BULLYING. How hard is it to understand?

Rags

[Wombat]

Mccarthyism was totally different, they were going after American citizens.

That site was one of the first I found. It is biased, but there are facts in their stories. Those incidents <I>are</I> about things that American citizens are putting up with.

I didn't say that Leahy became an expert, but rather he would be one of the people that would me most directly affected by these acts of terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11 that Ashcroft is purporting to prevent. If Leahy can still be level-headed enough after that to question how much Ashcroft is asking, that's one more reason to pay attention to what is going on. A victim's judgement can certainly be questioned, but you'd think they'd be the ones pushing hardest for justice/vengence/etc. If they're not, then I would pay serious attention to who is.
Also, where are you getting the idea that a jet was aimed at the White House?

Has Ashcroft broken the law? Not yet, but he's setting himself up with the abilities to do so, or hide his actions. No longer disclosing to Congress is troubling. Although I just spent a half-hour looking for transcripts, I can't find any transcripts of the hearings with Leahy, Kennedy, and Ashcroft that I listened to on NPR (here's NPR, but it's in RA, and I won't install that crap http://www.npr.org/programs/specials...ies/index.html). One point that stuck with me was that Ashcroft was reserving the right to hold non-citizens no matter what. If a judge for Immigration ruled to let the defendant go, and the state appealed, and the appeals court also ruled to let the defendant go, Ashcroft can <I>still</I> detain the person if he sees fit. After all, Ashcroft said that the judges "work for [him]."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now we can just try and sentence them with evidence they're not even allowed to see?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, that's not what we are doing. Go back and read then come to debate FACTS not what your FEEL is going on.

Yes, actually it is. Ashcroft testified that that is a power he is reserving. See the above.

Of course there are. And they have visas and are abiding by their visas. I have no problem with that.

We're also making it extremely hard to do so, and almost impossible. I have one co-worker whose visa is overdue for review and renewal, but the US gov't has put a halt on all such paperwork. He'd like to go visit his wife in Canada, but can't because he won't be allowed back into the US. Another guy's father died recently, but he can't fly to visit his family because he is in a very similar situation.

You seem to not understand the difference between a group of people that target civilians as a rule compared to a country that targets militia and connections that have infested their country.

Actually, I'm more concerned that my government differentiates less and less between "terrorists" and people that oppose our government's recent encroachment on my civil liberties. Yes, I think Ashcroft is going over the line. He can't dismiss my concerns, but belittles them instead: <I>"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends." </I>

SO? What does that have to do with this discussion? I have not said one thing that was anti immigrant? Are you implying I did?

All I'm saying is that the difference between many of the people whose lives we are now imposing upon and just another US citizen is 7 years or less. I wouldn't have wanted my grandparents treated like this, NINA signs were bad enough. No, foreigners on visa don't/shouldn't have the full rights of the citizens, but somebody in this country believed that ANYone had "inalienable" rights, and maybe it's time to define what some of those are before they can be taken away.

[The PIT]

Well just to upset the terrorist lovers apparently the Yemen government backed by US and British forces are hunting out Bin Ladens cronnies there as well.

[KeiFront]

Originally posted by RedRed
Until Binladen is in the ground or an trial, it HAS achieved nothing!

All that has happened is that a few more thousand tons of unexploded munitions are scattered over afghanistan. several thousand people are dead. one corrupt reigime has been replaced by another.

RedRed

Wise words Red Red.
I sincerly hope the new regime is not corrupt and that the West will help the people to rebuild their country. And offcourse that BinLaden is put to trial by international law.

Originally posted by Rags Another golden statement from our local west hater.
Yeah, GWB was just hoping and praying that our country would get attacked so he had an excuse to bomb in the middleast.

I don't think Red Red is a local West hater Rags. We Europeans don't just blindly follow our leaders.

[RedRed]

Rags
you said (referring to the terrorists):
These 'people' were very well established in connection finacially and in many other ways. They were here on visas.

and yet that was one of your criteria for NOT trying these individuals...

actually Wombat is correct, these tribrunials can take place without showing the accused evidence, without publicity, without a lawyer, without a defense and without a jury and without and appeal. The maximum penalty is death.

That ANY state do this is wrong, be it afghanistan, England, timbucktoo or the United Stated of America (remember the 6th Amendment? ).

(technically they could do it for a visa expiring by a week!!!)

As for the disycutter/cluster bomb discussion:

You are aware that the average accuracy of the bombs dropped in Iraq were estimated to be 200 yards, right? Also there are people who study this a lot more than you or I do that estimate our bombing accuracy has increased significantly since the gulf war. Even without guidance our bombing is very accurate. This isn't vietnam anymore.

1 The DC and the B52 ARE veitnam era weapons.... some DC bombs may have had guidance fitted, but you can bet that only some.... Cluster Bombs have no guidance as a rule...

2 The AVERAGE does not say much without giving the standard deviation.... (I am sure you agree) If the bombs are SO accurate how come those soildiers and the CIA calling airstrikes got hit. ON 4 TELEVISED OCCASIONS. Dumb bombs are just that.... they fall they go boom (usually).

3 In Iraq, only 3 per cent of the bombs dropped were active... Most common munitions were the Mk 82 (you can look it up) The bulk of munitions were dropped by strike aircraft at an altitude > 30,000 feet, and yes these are more accurate.

You see a red spot on a map and assume that's the exact point where our bombs were dropped. Get educated on this before you come back.

You are a ****ing moron if you really believe that.

Please do not insult me and please watch your language. It is not worth discussing with you if you are going to be vile. It is simpler to say -'i disagree with you' or 'I feel you are wrong because....'

For the 4th time in this fori I am not a West Hater (I am Irish for Gods sake! give me a drink and I LOVE EVERYGODDAMBODY). I believe that it is a common perception outside the US that Mr Bush WAS looking for a war. It is not that he was looking for the US to be attacked.... it is that he has been looking for an excuse to attack Iraq...

RedRed

[KvHagedorn]

I don't think Red Red is a local West hater Rags. We Europeans don't just blindly follow our leaders.

I believe that it is a common perception outside the US that Mr Bush WAS looking for a war. It is not that he was looking for the US to be attacked.... it is that he has been looking for an excuse to attack Iraq...

Could it be that many Europeans just blindly follow their left-wing media?

[GT98]

Originally posted by RedRed
A B52 carries Lots of dumb bombs, it showed the 'diasy cutter' in action a 15,000 lb bomb. dumbfire, dropped by parachute drouge.... (can be inaccurate by up to 2 miles!!!)

More FUD...the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" FAE Bomb is dropped from a C-130 Cargo plane...heres a nice little graphic here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/response_14.html

As for the B-52 carrying alot of dumb bombs...well this is true, but it was also carring JDAM..a GPS guided Bomb also...for more info check this link out:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.htm

Scott

[The PIT]

Originally posted by RedRed

Y). I believe that it is a common perception outside the US that Mr Bush WAS looking for a war. It is not that he was looking for the US to be attacked.... it is that he has been looking for an excuse to attack Iraq...

RedRed

Err where did you get that load of trash from. I haven't come across anyone with that attitutude apart from solicalist workers and some cranky muslims.

[Rags]

That site was one of the first I found. It is biased, but there are facts in their stories. Those incidents <I>are</I> about things that American citizens are putting up with.

Find another source for your info, if you are looking for a way to piss and moan at least do it with facts, not a little truth sprinkled with innuendo.

I didn't say that Leahy became an expert, but rather he would be one of the people that would me most directly affected by these acts of terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11 that Ashcroft is purporting to prevent. If Leahy can still be level-headed enough after that to question how much Ashcroft is asking, that's one more reason to pay attention to what is going on. A victim's judgement can certainly be questioned, but you'd think they'd be the ones pushing hardest for justice/vengence/etc. If they're not, then I would pay serious attention to who is.

Once again, you are not on the ball on this. Ashcroft is acting well within the law, that's his job. I don't like it any more than you that we are in conflict at the moment, but the sooner it's over the sooner we can return to our normal lives. But I still think that people here on visas should be scrutinized more, and we SHOULD have a way to keep track of them. And if we find out they are planning ways to attack our country, we should tap and bug their lives to find out as much as we can about their plans before we take them into a courtroom.

Also, where are you getting the idea that a jet was aimed at the White House?

Take a look at the path the jet that hit the pentagon. It was aimed towards the white house, but then suddenly got jerked off course.

Has Ashcroft broken the law? Not yet, but he's setting himself up with the abilities to do so, or hide his actions. No longer disclosing to Congress is troubling.

He is just looking for ways to better do his job. And to blast somebody who doesn't make the rules or hasn't broken the laws is insane, just because they voiced their opinion. To call him voicing his opinion 'crap' is not a good way to deal with disagrrement, that's all. Mark my words, no laws will be passed that will allow a united decision without at least another branch of government getting involved.

Although I just spent a half-hour looking for transcripts, I can't find any transcripts of the hearings with Leahy, Kennedy, and Ashcroft that I listened to on NPR (here's NPR, but it's in RA, and I won't install that crap http://www.npr.org/programs/specials...ies/index.html). One point that stuck with me was that Ashcroft was reserving the right to hold non-citizens no matter what. If a judge for Immigration ruled to let the defendant go, and the state appealed, and the appeals court also ruled to let the defendant go, Ashcroft can <I>still</I> detain the person if he sees fit. After all, Ashcroft said that the judges "work for [him]."

No, he said the judges work for us. They do, they are there to interpret the law and the constitution. Ashcroft cannot reserve any rights the law doesn't give him. He was stating he wanted to have the power to do so, which I can understand. It's about time we have a bulldog going after people. Again, he doesn't make laws, he enforces them. He isn't looking to break laws, he is giving his opinion in a hearing on what he would like to see. Don't think for a minute that he's going to sway reasonable people on the outside of this.

Yes, actually it is. Ashcroft testified that that is a power he is reserving. See the above.

See above.

We're also making it extremely hard to do so, and almost impossible. I have one co-worker whose visa is overdue for review and renewal, but the US gov't has put a halt on all such paperwork. He'd like to go visit his wife in Canada, but can't because he won't be allowed back into the US. Another guy's father died recently, but he can't fly to visit his family because he is in a very similar situation.

It sucks. Conflict sucks. I agree with that it sucks to be them right now. It's a temporary thing for now, much like the airports being closed. You and your friends should feel a little better that our goverment is actually taking actions to at least try and secure our boarders.

Actually, I'm more concerned that my government differentiates less and less between "terrorists" and people that oppose our government's recent encroachment on my civil liberties. Yes, I think Ashcroft is going over the line. He can't dismiss my concerns, but belittles them instead: <I>"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends." </I>

He is correct. I agree with him, but it's your right as a citizen to be that way. He isn't looking to make it a crime. Get it straight.

All I'm saying is that the difference between many of the people whose lives we are now imposing upon and just another US citizen is 7 years or less.

I sympathise with that.

I wouldn't have wanted my grandparents treated like this, NINA signs were bad enough. No, foreigners on visa don't/shouldn't have the full rights of the citizens, but somebody in this country believed that ANYone had "inalienable" rights, and maybe it's time to define what some of those are before they can be taken away. [/B]

That's what the UN tried to do when it set rules for tribunals. It's also what we are trying to establish right now as rules for dealing with suspects who happen not to be US citizens. Nothing has been passed right now, and blasting someone whose job is to go after law breakers for wanting as many tools as possible to do his job is not the right approach. We should be focusing on law makers and the courts that will interpret the laws to see if they are constitutional.

You and I agree more than you think, but you have this thing about looking to make a villain out of someone trying to do their job.

Rags