Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't care who they call, the calls need to be monitored.

The quakers need to be monitored? Nice. Is it right for Bush to spy on political enemies?

 

[Rob Lister]

The quakers need to be monitored? Nice. Is it right for Bush to spy on political enemies?

I don't know if they did or not. I do know that phone calls from members of known terrorist organizations do need to me monitored, regardless of who they call. Are you saying a quaker can't be an aid to a terrorist orgainization? Please say you are.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm saying that I doubt that the quakers are terrorists. I also doubt that the US government has any reason to believe they are.

"Before 9-11, the FBI’s watch list consisted of only 16 names. Today it contains 80,000. As of June 2005, the National Counterintelligence Center had amassed files on 190,000 individuals. Do these numbers strike you as reasonable, or are suspicions getting out of hand?"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/opinion/main1228569.shtml


Is this surveillance about terrorism or political enemies?

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm saying that I doubt that the quakers are terrorists. I also doubt that the US government has any reason to believe they are.

So your doubt about all quakers in general extends to all quakers specifically?

"Before 9-11, the FBI’s watch list consisted of only 16 names. Today it contains 80,000. As of June 2005, the National Counterintelligence Center had amassed files on 190,000 individuals. Do these numbers strike you as reasonable, or are suspicions getting out of hand?"

They strike me as unrealistic in that the number is too small.

Is this surveillance about terrorism or political enemies?

If you're a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer, the two can be one in the same.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So your doubt about all quakers in general extends to all quakers specifically?

No, but it does extend to these people who's only "suspicious" activity consisted of anti-war protest.

They strike me as unrealistic in that the number is too small.

So, you're paranoid. Ok.

If you're a terrorist, or a terrorist sympathizer, the two can be one in the same.

Is your last name McCarthy?

 

[Rob Lister]

No, but it does extend to these people who's only "suspicious" activity consisted of anti-war protest.

If it only extended to anti-war protests, then why are there foreign terrorists calling them?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If it only extended to anti-war protests, then why are there foreign terrorists calling them?

Do you have evidence that they were called by foreign terrorists?

 

[Art Vandelay]

"Before 9-11, the FBI’s watch list consisted of only 16 names. Today it contains 80,000. As of June 2005, the National Counterintelligence Center had amassed files on 190,000 individuals. Do these numbers strike you as reasonable, or are suspicions getting out of hand?"

Ah, argument by irrelevant numbers. So the FBI moved a bunch of names to the Watch List from another list. So what? So they have a bunch of files. So what? If they have a file on everyone's who's applied to be a police officer, that right there would be quite a bit more than 190,000.

 

[Rob Lister]

Do you have evidence that they were called by foreign terrorists?

The onus is clearly on you. Do you have a case wherein they intercepted non-foreign calls? I certainly can't prove a negative (but admittedly still give the them much, much benifit of the doubt...and were it clinton or gore or kerry, I'd do the same)


This ain't a game, no matter how much you think it is. There really are people out there that are more than willing to kill you, and me, and every "infidel" simply for the 'cause'. They lack only the means. Help them all you wish. I shall do my best to thawart them.

I see the line placed differently than you. I see my line as more properly placed.

 

[CFLarsen]

This ain't a game, no matter how much you think it is. There really are people out there that are more than willing to kill you, and me, and every "infidel" simply for the 'cause'. They lack only the means. Help them all you wish. I shall do my best to thawart them.

If you see someone armed on a plane, what will be your "best" to thwart them?

Tell the teacher (stewardess) and hope she will be able to take him out? Or merely hope that the guy will be a Good Guy?

You are quite right. This isn't a game. This is very real. And we need to do whatever it takes to protect ourselves, whilst still maintaining our rights.

If you want to distinguish between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys, you better be prepared to make some tough decisions. And quick, because you probably won't have all that much time.

This isn't a game. It sure isn't a movie either. This is very real. And real situations demands real solutions.

 

[Rob Lister]

If you see someone armed on a plane, what will be your "best" to thwart them?

Well Clause, it very much depends on the circumstances. I am not a huge guy but I am not totally without means. Likely, I would do just what you suggest and tell the steward or stewardess what I witnessed. I would also inform them of any means by which I would be willing to help, should any such need arise.

At the very probable least, an Air Marshal will get a good talking to as to what exactly "undercover" means.

P.S. I'm willing to bet I've more experience in determining good guys from bad than you have. I could be wrong. Either way, it doesn't make me better at it...just more likely logical in the doing of it. I submit your past posts and treads as evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The onus is clearly on you. Do you have a case wherein they intercepted non-foreign calls?

What?! The onus is on the government to show that these people were talking to terrorists.

This ain't a game, no matter how much you think it is.

I agree, the watchlists are no joke, they are very serious. When the government starts to monitor people, illegally, for the simple crime of protest, it's a very serious matter.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by CFLarson :
If you see someone armed on a plane, what will be your "best" to thwart them?

...Likely, I would do just what you suggest and tell the steward or stewardess what I witnessed. I would also inform them of any means by which I would be willing to help, should any such need arise.....

An excellent choice. I'd do the same.

At the very least the steward or stewardess can alert the cockpit, which is now closed tight, and might be armed, too.

Then quietly pay attention, and think about possibilities.........

 

[Rob Lister]

What?! The onus is on the government to show that these people were talking to terrorists.



I agree, the watchlists are no joke, they are very serious. When the government starts to monitor people, illegally, for the simple crime of protest, it's a very serious matter.

No, it is not. SigInt is a function of the C-N-C. Were it not so, it should be.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you think it's ok for the government to spy on those that speak out against it. OK!
For some reason, I thought there was some constitutional stuff was written about that kind of thing.

 

[Rob Lister]

Then quietly pay attention, and think about possibilities.........

Exactly. All the while doing ones best to prepare themselves for even the most outrageous outcomes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well Clause, it very much depends on the circumstances. I am not a huge guy but I am not totally without means. Likely, I would do just what you suggest and tell the steward or stewardess what I witnessed. I would also inform them of any means by which I would be willing to help, should any such need arise.

At the very probable least, an Air Marshal will get a good talking to as to what exactly "undercover" means.

You feel that's your "best"? It wouldn't have been enough onboard the planes.

P.S. I'm willing to bet I've more experience in determining good guys from bad than you have. I could be wrong. Either way, it doesn't make me better at it...just more likely logical in the doing of it. I submit your past posts and treads as evidence.

Not only do you keep misspelling my first name, you even change the e to an o in my last.

What do you think you gain from doing that? Do you think you appear more credible? Even "logical"? You're really someone we can trust making the right decision...