Secret FBI Report Questions Al Qaeda Capabilities

[strvs]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation ... 425&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=566425&page=1)

[ninty]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.

[Mr.Buttocks]

Fear mongering is the name of the game.


There's a lot of fear mongering here in the UK right now as Blair tries to ram an "anti-terrorism" bill through Parliament. Apparently there are 200 Al-Qaeda dudes on the streets of the UK just waiting.....waiting to KILL US ALL!!!!




sleeping:

[Jin-Roh]

Fear = control. happy:

[Ferich]

[quote="Jin-Roh":275a2]Fear = control. happy:[/quote:275a2]

I'm going to kill you if you don't grow a beard.

[1080jibber]

[quote="Jin-Roh":ca7ca]Fear = control. happy:

I'm going to kill you if you don't grow pubes.[/quote:ca7ca]edit:

[ninty]

[quote:67c36]U.S. Using Anti-Terror War to Gain World Oil Reserves — Soviet Intelligence Chief

Created: 21.03.2005 14:05 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:05 MSK

MosNews

On the pretext of fighting international terrorism the United States is trying to establish control over the world’s richest oil reserves, Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service, who heads the Russian National Economic Security Service consulting company, said in an interview for the Vremya Novostei newspaper.

Using the anti-terrorist cause as a cover the United States has occupied Afghanistan, Iraq and will soon move to impose their “democratic order” on the Greater Middle East, Shebarshin said. “The U.S. has usurped the right to attack any part of the globe on the pretext of fighting the terrorist threat,” Shebarshin said.

Referring to his meeting with an unnamed al-Qaeda expert at the Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization in the U.S., Shebarshin said: “We have agreed that [al-Qaeda] is not a group but a notion.”

“The fight against that all-mighty ubiquitous myth deliberately linked to Islam is of great advantage for the Americans as it targets the oil-rich Muslim regions,” Shebarshin emphasized.

With military bases in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, Shebarshin said, the United States has already established control over the Caspian region — one of the world’s largest oil reservoirs. [/quote:67c36]

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/03/21/shebarsh.shtml

[Coleman]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

[rdeyes]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

lol no Al Qaeda annoy:

[ninty]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.

[rdeyes]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.



if they send you orders to ship out to afghanistan are you going to question them?

[strvs]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.



if they send you orders to ship out to afghanistan are you going to question them?
Why shouldn't he? If he is going to put his life on the line for his country, shouldnt he be completely sure of why? And that it is actually a perceivable threat?

[rdeyes]

[quote="ninty9":43d90]Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.



if they send you orders to ship out to afghanistan are you going to question them?
Why shouldn't he? If he is going to put his life on the line for his country, shouldnt he be completely sure of why? And that it is actually a perceivable threat?[/quote:43d90]

can you turn down orders ?

[strvs]

[quote="Coleman":f8805][quote="ninty9":f8805]Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.



if they send you orders to ship out to afghanistan are you going to question them?
Why shouldn't he? If he is going to put his life on the line for his country, shouldnt he be completely sure of why? And that it is actually a perceivable threat?[/quote:f8805]

can you turn down orders ?[/quote:f8805]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/ ... 9336.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml)

Apparently.

[rdeyes]

[quote="ninty9":112fd][quote="Coleman":112fd][quote="ninty9":112fd]Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.



if they send you orders to ship out to afghanistan are you going to question them?
Why shouldn't he? If he is going to put his life on the line for his country, shouldnt he be completely sure of why? And that it is actually a perceivable threat?[/quote:112fd]

can you turn down orders ?[/quote:112fd]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/ ... 9336.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml)

Apparently.[/quote:112fd]

annoy:

[Pyro]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.

It's how to get elected in the USA.

[Sgt>Stackem]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.

It's how to get elected in the USA.


you cant, we are trying to get rid of our "Canadian" governor in MIchigan right now (Jennifer Granholm) . This bitch has raised every tax we have, I think her upbringing has something to do wiht it. If you ever come to Michigan can you take her back with you?

[Short Hand]

I bet she could kick your ass old man.

[Sgt>Stackem]

[quote="Short Hand":1990d]I bet she could kick your ass old man.[/quote:1990d]


naw, Ive seen her, she is older and smaller. I could take her. I saw her when I took my daughter to see the senete voting on a bill we were supporting. I will take her out with my vote. I hope the other Michiganders do so. The power of the people!!! rock:



PS I wish she would get rid of that damn mole on her face. I cant help but to stare at it when she talks. Its like there is another life form on her cheek

http://www.epochtimes.com/i5/401224601956.jpg

[Pyro]

chicks + government = oOo:

[Coleman]

Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.I had the open mind all the way up to that. There was some pretty bogus stuff in there. I just didn't feel like hearing material that was so left without anything else given to represent the other side. I thought it was rediculous to sit there and waste my time watching how the Bush Administration built Al Qaeda.

[rdeyes]

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":bd640][quote="Short Hand":bd640]I bet she could kick your ass old man.[/quote:bd640]


naw, Ive seen her, she is older and smaller. I could take her. I saw her when I took my daughter to see the senete voting on a bill we were supporting. I will take her out with my vote. I hope the other Michiganders do so. The power of the people!!! rock:



PS I wish she would get rid of that damn mole on her face. I cant help but to stare at it when she talks. Its like there is another life form on her cheek

http://www.epochtimes.com/i5/401224601956.jpg[/quote:bd640]

eww

[ninty]

well i'll be happy to send you the other two parts so you can see it wasn't the bush administration, but rather both groups built each other. The neocons and radical Islamists feed off each other.

The film does not say that 9/11 was organized by Bush. It does say that al queda is no where near as strong as politicians tell us.

I have to go to school now. I'll respond more latrer.

http://www.groundforce1.com/forums/viewforum.php

[Coleman]

It does say that al queda is no where near as strong as politicians tell us.
I remember it specifically saying that there was no such thing as Al Queda. It was what the Bush administration labeled the group of Islamic Terrorists and from there they became an organization. I'm sorry, but that is bull in my eyes. THere is no set of facts from some website/article or even the f'in BBC for the matter, to change my mind on that one.

[Poseidon]

[quote=ninty9]Fear mongering is the name of the game.


There's a lot of fear mongering here in the UK right now as Blair tries to ram an "anti-terrorism" bill through Parliament. Apparently there are 200 Al-Qaeda dudes on the streets of the UK just waiting.....waiting to KILL US ALL!!!!




sleeping:[/quote:d79ae]

It was then discovered that the more accurate number was something like 18 oOo:

[ninty]

It does say that al queda is no where near as strong as politicians tell us.
I remember it specifically saying that there was no such thing as Al Queda. It was what the Bush administration labeled the group of Islamic Terrorists and from there they became an organization. I'm sorry, but that is bull in my eyes. THere is no set of facts from some website/article or even the f'in BBC for the matter, to change my mind on that one.

Thats correct. Whats in a name? Bin Laden never publically said that his "clan" was called Al Queda until after the label had been applied. The film doesn't argue that terrorist groups don't exist. They acknowledge that these groups had a part to play on sept 11. All the video is saying is that politicians can exploit our fear to get what they want. And why wouldn't they?

9/11 provided the perfect catlyist to allow the government to implement sweeping changes to rights, and to increase defence spending substantially in the name of security and freedom. Hitler did the same thing. Why is this any different?

[quote:6aee8]None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who
falsely believe they are free.
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
[/quote:6aee8]

[ninty]

if they send you orders to ship out to afghanistan are you going to question them?

They can't ship me out to afghanistan because, unlike the US, reservists in Canada have to volunteer to go overseas. Right now the entire contingent overseas is reg force. In the future, there will be reserve forces overseas, however, those people who want to go can volunteer and will probably get to go.

[Coleman]

9/11 provided the perfect catlyist to allow the government to implement sweeping changes to rights, and to increase defence spending substantially in the name of security and freedom. Hitler did the same thing. Why is this any different?

are you serious?

[ninty]

I'm dead serious.

You can't deny that civil liberties have been curtailed in the US on the grounds of Security. This is exactly what happened in Germany in 1933. There are many comparisons to be made, I will admit certainly not as drastic as '33 Germany, however, they are still there.

Holding people without trial for indefinite amount of time.

Pre-emptive strikes on other countries in the name of security.

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, press and peaceful assembly have all been infringed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0126-02.htm

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

[Coleman]

Please tell me all of the liberties that I personally have lost and how much of a deal this is putting me in. I will not be held in jail for any amounts of time because of suspicious terrorist activities. I can say whatever the hell I want (minus shouting 'there's a terrorist!' at the Inaugural Parade).
rolleyes:

[ninty]

I'm not taking about you personally, i'm talking about the 280 million US citizens as a whole. I know not everyone is going to be put into jail and held indenfinetly, but is has happened to other people. Just because it doesn't happen to you personally, doesn't mean its not happening.

[ninty]

[quote:3bf2b]Keeping the law intact "will do great and irreparable harm" to the Constitution by allowing the government to investigate people's reading habits, search their homes without notice and pry into their personal lives, said Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman who is leading the coalition.

Mr. Barr voted for the law, known as the USA Patriot Act, in the House just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks but has become one of its leading critics, a shift that reflects the growing unease among some conservative libertarians over the expansion of the government's powers in fighting terrorism.[/quote:3bf2b]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/032305G.shtml

[rdeyes]

so did the CIA fly the planes into the building or was it the mossad?

[rdeyes]

[quote="rdeyes":eb29c][quote="ninty9":eb29c][quote="Coleman":eb29c][quote="ninty9":eb29c]Not suprising. I agree wholeheartedly that the Al Qaeda threat is overblown. Fear mongering is the name of the game.that odd movie you sent me said there is no such thing as an "Al Qaeda". The Bush administration made it up according to the 'documentary'. I'm sorry, but that pissed me off and I deleted it. biggrin:

Its not really that odd, it was produced by the BBC. And its not like he was just throwing the idea out there without facts, its part of a three part series that explains a lot. It goes over from 1945 right up to todays political climate. Anyway, not suprised you deleted it. Its a shame people can't look at things with an open mind though.

Our jobs as citizens is to question the government. If we all didn't care, then there'd be no "checks and balances". We elect these people. Their there to sure us. So I have no problem question politicians on the things they decide and do.



if they send you orders to ship out to afghanistan are you going to question them?
Why shouldn't he? If he is going to put his life on the line for his country, shouldnt he be completely sure of why? And that it is actually a perceivable threat?[/quote:eb29c]

can you turn down orders ?[/quote:eb29c]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/ ... 9336.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/06/60II/main659336.shtml)

Apparently.[/quote:eb29c]

annoy:[/quote:eb29c]

Canada denies refugee status to US Iraq war deserter.. back to work traitor

[ninty]

so did the CIA fly the planes into the building or was it the mossad?

I don't know. Why don't you ask them:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

[quote:0408b]Canada denies refugee status to US Iraq war deserter.. back to work traitor[/quote:0408b]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p14.htm

[Stammer]

[quote:9e138]If convicted, he faces up to seven years in prison.[/quote:9e138]

I guess they don't hang people for desertion anymore.

[rdeyes]

[quote=rdeyes]so did the CIA fly the planes into the building or was it the mossad?

I don't know. Why don't you ask them:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
yeah just like a missle hit the pentagon ... annoy:

Canada denies refugee status to US Iraq war deserter.. back to work traitor

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/619/619p14.htm[/quote:1ef05]

boo fucking woo ! do these people think that when they join the ARMED services its going to be a walk in the park .. enjoy hotel leavenworth

[Coleman]

I think I'll use my own common sense over the thousands apon thousands of left articles.

[ninty]

I think I'll use my own common sense over the thousands apon thousands of left articles. sleeping:

[ninty]

As I re-read my post, it seems like I was fathering or lecturing you guys with the beginning points below, or sort of telling you that there’s something wrong with you since you’re conservative. Everyone has a different ideology. Reading it over I have realized that I probably didn’t word the following the best, but I don’t really want to change it since I wrote what I was really feeling at the time. I hope that everyone will take the time to read it. I don’t know how relevant it is to anything we’ve discussed, but I’ve typed it up now, so I may as well post it.

===========================

As I sit here typing it bothers me for some reason that some can't acknowledge another side of the story.

I was just like you guys up until a year ago. I was a conservative. I voted conservative in the Canadian Federal Election in the summer of 2004. The Conservative Party of Canada is the farthest right wing federal party in Canada.

http://www.conservative.ca/english/index.asp

You can see this from the front page where it says "defence of marriage". They are anti abortion, anti gay etc.

I started doing a lot of 9/11 research just out of my own interest. Actually, I think Mr. Buttocks sent me some links that I looked at and found interesting. And I wanted to know more.

I have always been interested in the political process, both Canadian and American. It is something I enjoy very much. Perhaps that is why I get a little passionate at times. If I have seemed crazy, or offended anyone in any way, I apologize. It can get heated in here.

My goal is to make people see another side of the story. I think that if I can get people to understand where I’m coming from and back it up with facts, maybe people will start caring about what’s going on around them instead of taking everything as normal in stride.

My political idealism has changed a lot in the past year. I come from a hardcore Conservative Christian background. My grandmother is an evangelical Christian who hates gays, rock music, corporate restrictions, and abortion among other things. My father is a Conservative based upon he wants to make the most money as possible. He hates the government taking away all they do. I don't think he’s concerned about the policies of a conservative party really, he said he would vote for bush if he lived in the states because my father is involved in the oil patch, and bush is good for the oil business.

When I go over to my grandmother’s house for dinner she brings out some new book she got telling her to hate Muslims or gays or whatever. Last time it was rock music. I read parts of the book at her house. It called Queen's "we will rock you" the "homosexual anthem" of the 20th century which is sung at many sporting events. The book is completely ridiculous. But she believes it with all her heart.

Se also believes in God with all her heart. So much so that she would sacrifice her children if god asked her to. What’s the point of me telling you this? I'm not sure. I guess it’s that my family is too far-gone to turn around. And what does it matter if I get a couple guys on an internet to read something different than they find on their local news channels? I don't know why it matters. But it does for some strange reason. I guess it’s the same reason that we all keep posting here.

I leave you with an article as always:

If this can't be taken seriously, I don't know what can. It’s from the BBC. The Telegraph but also ran the story, as well as The Independent but you need a subscription to view the Independent's article. These are three very credible news sources. If we can't believe these sources, then who can we believe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 559151.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... tory=94438 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=94438)
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/ ... iden23.xml (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml)

If one accepts these sources, then the question becomes, why would the government label these men as terrorists, and if we believe this is not a mistake by the government, what else is the government not telling the truth about?

Or we can all just choose to accept that either the government, or the press and other people reporting on the story made a mistake and move on with our lives.

[TGB!]

I always find it laughable when progressives bemoan the fact that "neo-cons" (the first tell-tell sign of intolerance from the left, in using neo-con as a blanket slur against all conservative voters) simply cant see it "their way". . .as any conversation speaking to the actual GOOD that has been done by this OBVIOUS facist regime that is Bush Co. is slipped into one ear and out the other. . .

Politicians using "fear" to stir up the masses - SAY IT ISNT SO! What a PROFOUND epiphany and critique on modern politics. I tell you what though - I've seen more pictures of terrorist than I have of "Old People" shopping for dog food because their SSI is so low. Truly "neo-cons" are the only sect of politikos using "fear" to their advantage.

As for Bush "giving" the name of Al Qaeda to AQ - absolute bullshit as any review of de-classed FBI/CIA documents show. I would think that the fact that Richard Clarke "chastising" Condi Rice about "AQ" before 9/11 would dissuade anyone of that particular ridiculous theory. . .or not, rarely has TRUTH been any deterrent to ideology.

As for the whole "civil liberties" bent: show me. I've YET to see any American arrested and held indefinitely for expressing their First Amendment rights. The PA SPECIFICALLY protects Americans in regards to their activities covered under the FA, and CONTRARY to popular belief actions taken under the authority of the PA ARE subject to judicial review AND propable cause - which this congressman would certainly be aware of if he read the silly thing. . .cest la vie

[Coleman]

^^my basic argument in the past few threads summed up in one post ^^

[ninty]

[quote="TGB!":d4d0a]

Politicians using "fear" to stir up the masses - SAY IT ISNT SO! What a PROFOUND epiphany and critique on modern politics. I tell you what though - I've seen more pictures of terrorist than I have of "Old People" shopping for dog food because their SSI is so low. Truly "neo-cons" are the only sect of politikos using "fear" to their advantage.
[/quote:d4d0a]
I never said they were the only ones. Kerry/Bush are one in the same. It just so happens that Bush is the president at this time.
[quote:d4d0a]
As for Bush "giving" the name of Al Qaeda to AQ - absolute bullshit as any review of de-classed FBI/CIA documents show. I would think that the fact that Richard Clarke "chastising" Condi Rice about "AQ" before 9/11 would dissuade anyone of that particular ridiculous theory. . .or not, rarely has TRUTH been any deterrent to ideology.[/quote:d4d0a]
[quote:d4d0a]Although "al-Qaeda" is the name of the organization used in popular culture, the organization does not use the name to formally refer to itself. The name "al-Qaeda" was coined by the American Federal Government based on the name of a computer file of bin Laden's that listed the names of contacts he had made in Afghanistan, which talks about the organization as "the base" of the jihad.[/quote:d4d0a]
http://www.answers.com/topic/al-qaeda

[quote:d4d0a]
As for the whole "civil liberties" bent: show me. I've YET to see any American arrested and held indefinitely for expressing their First Amendment rights. The PA SPECIFICALLY protects Americans in regards to their activities covered under the FA, and CONTRARY to popular belief actions taken under the authority of the PA ARE subject to judicial review AND propable cause - which this congressman would certainly be aware of if he read the silly thing. . .cest la vie[/quote:d4d0a]
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpee ... 16879&c=86 (http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16879&c=86)
http://ga1.org/nyclu/notice-description ... _id=926071 (http://ga1.org/nyclu/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=926071)
http://www.mcrcnet.org/Reports/2004/042 ... 2004.htm#1 (http://www.mcrcnet.org/Reports/2004/042004/arrests042004.htm#1)
http://www.socialistalternative.org/justice29/22.html

[TGB!]

First article has NOTHING to do with the PA and its effect on CHILLING free speech. . .mass arrests at protests are nothing new - as the NY DA is certainly aware of since they dismissed most of the "charges".

Second article is a "Hey Were Your Rights Violated" form - dunno how this is specifically being used to bolster your charge but whatever. . .

Third and Fourth Article - let them sue if they feel they were unlawfully detained. . .good luck though on a non-citizen and likely non-naturalized "citizen" taking this court. Were authorities overzealous in their canvassing - possibly. . .no arm of the justice department is immune to mistakes - again let em sue. Federal Courts and the Supreme courts have made their decisions regarding the PA, and the only "blow" has been two court cases - one dealing with the so-called Sneak and Peeks and the detaining of prisoners on "foreign" soil. . .hardly the indictment against the PA that the ACLU would like.

Quite honestly these "our civil liberties are at stake" rants are a ton of smoke and mirrors -

And once again - you asserted - to bolster your AQ and Global Terrorism isnt REALLY that big of a problem ( rolleyes: ) - that Bush Co. gave AQ their name. . .which is not true and which your link does nothing to prove. Using your logic. . .since we named Italy, Germany, and Japan the "AXIS OF EVIL" - that whole WW2 thing was all in all a whole bunch of nothing. . .we "named" em for political gain. . .nothing to see here. . .move on Jews

[ninty]

[quote="TGB!":d224e]

Third and Fourth Article - let them sue if they feel they were unlawfully detained. . .good luck though on a non-citizen and likely non-naturalized "citizen" taking this court. Were authorities overzealous in their canvassing - possibly. . .no arm of the justice department is immune to mistakes - again let em sue. Federal Courts and the Supreme courts have made their decisions regarding the PA, and the only "blow" has been two court cases - one dealing with the so-called Sneak and Peeks and the detaining of prisoners on "foreign" soil. . .hardly the indictment against the PA that the ACLU would like. [/quote:d224e]
So is this not an example of the Patriot Act?

It doesn't matter anyway. The fact still remains that thousands have been arrested under the patriot act, and only one has been charged with any form of terrorism. Even if no one was arrested Liberties are still being violated.

[quote:d224e]# (802) Allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches, perform roving wiretaps, and gain access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records.

# (206 and 507) Authorizes law enforcement officials to force librarians and booksellers to hand over book check-out and internet use records.

# (215) Allows FBI agents to investigate citizens for criminal activity without probable cause if they say it is for "intelligence purposes".

# (218) Allows law enforcement to search a person's home without anyone present and to delay notification indefinitely.[/quote:d224e]

Not to mention the definition of terrorism has been changed to:
[quote:d224e]SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;[/quote:d224e]

Under these provisions, homeland security has done the following:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=206591
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/rea ... =315&t=315 (http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=34&i=315&t=315)
http://www.rense.com/general52/black.htm
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201268949
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl? ... ode=thread (http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=02/12/08/2244247&mode=thread)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stori ... 10819.html (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2003/nov/04/110410819.html)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DT0480.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/14/national1259EDT0480.DTL)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -5163r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030615-123422-5163r.htm)
http://www.unknownnews.net/030929dead.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0628-01.htm
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 18708.html (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-05-Wed-2003/opinion/22518708.html)


[quote:d224e]
And once again - you asserted - to bolster your AQ and Global Terrorism isnt REALLY that big of a problem ( rolleyes: ) - that Bush Co. gave AQ their name. . .which is not true and which your link does nothing to prove. Using your logic. . .since we named Italy, Germany, and Japan the "AXIS OF EVIL" - that whole WW2 thing was all in all a whole bunch of nothing. . .we "named" em for political gain. . .nothing to see here. . .move on Jews[/quote:d224e]
It wasn't to bolster an argument. Coleman brought it up. oOo:

And on the topic of congress:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0109-12.htm

[TGB!]

[quote:26156]# (802) Allows law enforcement to conduct secret searches, perform roving wiretaps, and gain access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records.

# (206 and 507) Authorizes law enforcement officials to force librarians and booksellers to hand over book check-out and internet use records.

# (215) Allows FBI agents to investigate citizens for criminal activity without probable cause if they say it is for "intelligence purposes".

# (218) Allows law enforcement to search a person's home without anyone present and to delay notification indefinitely.[/quote:26156]

And not a SINGLE one of those rules can be used without judicial review and propable cause and peer review - meaning that those who are being investigated are NO DOUBT already part of an ongoing operation - not just because they slapped on a "FUCK BUSH" T-Shirt. . .I know the ego of the liberal desperately needs to believe that the Big Bad Gubment is coming to get them. . .but sadly in this regard its simply not true.

Quick question - have you actually READ the PA? I have - interesting read. . .should take a look at it. . .

[ninty]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=206591
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/rea ... =315&t=315 (http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=34&i=315&t=315)
http://www.rense.com/general52/black.htm
http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201268949
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl? ... ode=thread (http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=02/12/08/2244247&mode=thread)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stori ... 10819.html (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2003/nov/04/110410819.html)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... DT0480.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/14/national1259EDT0480.DTL)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -5163r.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030615-123422-5163r.htm)
http://www.unknownnews.net/030929dead.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0628-01.htm
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 18708.html (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-05-Wed-2003/opinion/22518708.html)


Section 215 requires no judicial review and also 206 i believe.

And if those being investigated are no doubt guilty, then why has there been only one arrest made?

In any event, do you really think judicial review is any way meaningful?

[Coleman]

[quote:f10d8]
And once again - you asserted - to bolster your AQ and Global Terrorism isnt REALLY that big of a problem ( rolleyes: ) - that Bush Co. gave AQ their name. . .which is not true and which your link does nothing to prove. Using your logic. . .since we named Italy, Germany, and Japan the "AXIS OF EVIL" - that whole WW2 thing was all in all a whole bunch of nothing. . .we "named" em for political gain. . .nothing to see here. . .move on Jews
It wasn't to bolster an argument. Coleman brought it up. oOo:

[/quote:f10d8]you brought it up when you sent me that idiotic video from BBC.

[TGB!]

[quote:9ae39]Section 215 requires no judicial review and also 206 i believe.[/quote:9ae39]

False and false again. Section 215 refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which SPECIFICALLY outlines an panel of judges to review and AUTHORIZE requests for survelliance of folks involved in terrorism. It is a LAW that has been in effect since 1979 and was amended by the PA to include Section 215 which includes this little nugget that seemingly folks like to skip over:

`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

As for Section 206 of the Patriot Act it is as well an amending of the FISA which - again - SPECIFICALLY states that Probable Cause must be met in order for a judge to approve the application for surveillance:

(a)(3) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power: Provided, That no United States person may be considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
. . .

(b) Determination of probable cause In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of an order under subsection (a)(3) of this section, a judge may consider past activities of the target, as well as facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target.

So no - you and wherever you got your information from - is wrong. Again - read the PA and what it actually refers to.

[ninty]

[quote:b52db]Previously the government needed at least a warrant and probable cause to access private records. The Fourth Amendment, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and case law provided that if the state wished to search you, it needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge. Under FISA—the 1978 act authorizing warrantless surveillance so long as the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence information—that was somewhat eroded, but there remained judicial oversight. And under FISA, records could be sought only "for purposes of conducting foreign intelligence" and the target "linked to foreign espionage" and an "agent of a foreign power." Now the FBI needs only to certify to a FISA judge—(no need for evidence or probable cause) that the search protects against terrorism. The judge has no authority to reject this application. DOJ calls this "seeking a court order," but it's much closer to a rubber stamp. Also, now the target of a search needn't be a terror suspect herself, so long as the government's purpose is "an authorized investigation ... to protect against international terrorism."

Downplaying the extent of these changes, the DOJ argued to Congress that 215 is no big deal, since grand juries could always subpoena private records in the past. The difference they don't acknowledge is that investigators may now do so secretly, and these orders cannot be contested in court. While the new DOJ Web site asserts that searches under 215 are limited to "business records," the act on its face allows scrutiny of "any tangible thing" including books, records, papers, documents, and anything else. The site also says U.S. citizens may not be subject to search, but the act does not differentiate. How can it, when a library or doctor's office is simply asked to produce a list of names? And here is where the Justice Department hedges: It claims that a citizen cannot be searched "solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution." That means you can't have your records searched solely because you wrote an article criticizing the Patriot Act. But if you are originally from India and write that article, well, that's not "solely" anymore is it? To be sure, the ACLU is doing a bit of fearmongering when it says the DOJ can rifle through your records if they don't like what you're reading. If you're a U.S. citizen and not otherwise suspicious, you're probably safe, so long as all you do is read.[/quote:b52db]

[quote:b52db]When asked by the House Committee on the Judiciary to detail whether and how many times Section 215 has been used "to obtain records from a public library, bookstore, or newspaper," the DOJ said it would send classified answers to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The judiciary committee had what it called "reasonable limited access" to those responses, and it reported in October 2002 that its review had "not given any rise to concern that the authority is being misused or abused."

Wanting to learn more, the ACLU and some other civil rights groups filed a FOIA request, arguing that the DOJ was classifying its answers unnecessarily. But this May, a federal judge in U.S. district court in Washington ruled that the DOJ had the right to keep the specifics hush-hush under FOIA's national security exemption. The next day, at a judiciary committee hearing, Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh did throw a bone to librarians, noting that in "an informal survey of the field offices," Justice learned "that libraries have been contacted approximately 50 times, based on articulable suspicion or voluntary calls from librarians regarding suspicious activity." He noted that most such visits were in the context of ordinary criminal investigations and did not rely on the powers granted by Section 215.* He did not give specifics on searches of any other establishments.

Independent attempts to chronicle the frequency of records searches have proved inconclusive. Within months after Sept. 11, federal or local officials visited nearly 10 percent of the nation's public libraries "seeking Sept. 11-related information about patron reading habits," according to a University of Illinois survey. But since librarians are gagged under the act, it's not clear that these reports are accurate. In any event, the same study suggests that about 13.8 percent of the nation's libraries received similar requests in the year before Sept. 11, so it's impossible to say that the problem was exacerbated by the new law.[/quote:b52db]

[quote:b52db]215 does extend FBI power to conduct essentially warrantless records searches, especially on people who are not themselves terror suspects, with little or no judicial oversight. The government sees this as an incremental change in the law, but the lack of meaningful judicial oversight and expanded scope of possible suspects is pretty dramatic.[/quote:b52db]

[TGB!]

Absolutely not. . .

Link to these three articles?

[elstatec]

sleeping:

[Coleman]

/me throws some popcorn into his mouth.

[Coleman]

/me throws some popcorn into his mouth./me grabs for a soda...