I encourage pre-emptive action; let's nuke the pussies.

-Rudey

Some present posters excluded, why is it always the same people who complain that the Bush administration allowed 9/11 to happen because he didnt take any threats seriously the ones who think that the terror levels are just an excuse to scare the general populace?

Does anyone wonder when stuff like this comes up as to why we have so many soldiers over in Iraq? Are there enough soldiers left to protect the United States?

Thats actually more useful than reading our emails . . . Sounds good to me.

Shameless hijack of a couple of famous Dr. Strangelove quotes:

"I can no longer sit back and allow... terrorist infiltration, terrorist indoctrination, terrorist subversion, and the international terrorist conspiracy... to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!" - Gen. Jack D. Ripper

"Well, boys, Ah reckin' this is it... nu-cu-lear com-bat toe-to-toe with the terrorists!" - Maj. T.J. 'King' Kong

Only one problem, Rudey... the terrorist c*cksuckers of al-Qaeda are spread out and don't consider any specific Islamic country as their own. They camped out in Afghanistan until we bombed them outta the country. It's very possible that sumbitch Osama bin Laden is hiding out in Pakistan... besides, he's the front and money man... the bastard we gotta worry about is Ayman al-Zawahiri, who's really the brains behind SPECTRE... oops... I mean al-Qaeda.

550 Minuteman III silos... plus a whole boatload of Trident ballistic missile subs... one HUGE mushroom cloud... and now it's Miller Time!

Some interesting comments from this article from December, 2003.

Points I find interesting:

One reason they aren't raising the terror level:

David Heyman, a senior fellow and director of science and security initiatives at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted in a recent interview with United Press International the high cost of the increased threat alerts. He said the enhanced security measures required by the Orange Alert level cost an estimated total of $1 billion a week.


This isn't the first time we've heard these things either: (from the same article in December)

"The information we have indicates that extremists abroad are anticipating near-term attacks that they believe will either rival or exceed the attacks that occurred in New York and the Pentagon and the fields of Pennsylvania nearly two years ago," said Ridge at a quickly called news conference Sunday.

I think they don't have enough information to raise the alert level but they are afraid to not say that there is a risk because of political fallout if something happens and we didn't have any notice.

I find it interesting that they get more concerned around holidays or "special events" such as the political party conventions, yet, 9/11 had no significance and that is part of what made it terrorism. It was just another day, the day that Michael Jordan announced he was coming out of retirement, until about 8:43 a.m. They seem to prefer an element of surprise, part of the shock value.

So.. is NYC still the safest even though it's commonly thought of as the most likely target for terrorism? (referring to NYC safest city thread).

Dee

In todays paper, they said the plan was 90% , not 70% in place.

Which means the Feds are after the bastards... I hope to God we nab the sumbitches before they can cause any damage.

90% vs. 70%?

I may just be in denial, but it seams like it could be likely that they have an empty deck and are just trying to bluff the American economy into oblivion.

At least I hope that's the case. Anyhow... not to hijack here, but if these guys are apprehended, what will our liberal friends do to ensure that these terrorists' human rights aren't violated?

Dang your good!!!

How about the follow the guidelines set out in the Constitution? If we don't do that, why have one?

The Supreme Court has been liberal in its interpretation of the constitution when it comes to public safety. For example, it upheld a ruling that said that roadblocks to test for drunk drivers were legal search due to public safety concerns.

If it comes to potentially saving 4 million lives (and you have the fringe benefit of making life miserable for a murderer like one of these folks), I say do it.

Why don't you tell us what those guidelines in the constitution say?

-Rudey

I agree. This administration is darned if they do and darned if they don't.

Exactly... if you are elected to office or join the military I believe you swear an oath to uphold the constitution... not use it only when it suits you.

So:
Here are some pertinant sections -
Article VI-2
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding.
- All States and judges are therefore bound by the Geneva Convention (this is one section used by the UK in freeing citizens from Gitmo).

Amendment V
No person snall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- Okay another biggy... make note of the fact it says person and not citizen. The whole compelling a person to bring evidince against themself is the foundation against torture (IMO). However the exception regarding war or public danger is the touchy part... this is were the hand off to Military Law happens.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State or district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
- Lookey here... a promise of fair trial....

Now Amendment XI [January 8th, 1798] is a little confusing on the subject for me... so perhaps someone else can shed light on it.

Finally lets try to leave soap-box politics out of this... no Liberal/Right-Wing/Republican/Democrat name calling.... we see enough of that on the daily news.