Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:14 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

and the alternative is...

Make sure the US can US evidence from illegal searches or wire taps against them. That ought to tip the balance against them.

I believe that the legal means of acquiring such evidence are just fine. Once you start systematically allowing illegal evidence, you head down a slippery slope to a complete abuse of power.

Quote:

If "direct material support" is the benchmark, there's not going to be enough room in all of Cuba for them. But let's at least start with Rumsfield, Cheney, et al who were involved in the funding of Sadaam and the Taliban.

the US supported Saddam Vs Khomeni. show what support they gave the Taliban.

From this, I am guessing that you are under 30. Not only did the US support Sadaam, they also sold arms to Iran (Iran-Contra anyone?). Wrt Taliban, it's fairly common knowledge that Reagan supported the mujahideen, c-u-m Taliban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Interventions_of_the_Reagan_Administration wrote:

Upon becoming President, Reagan moved quickly to undermine Soviet efforts to subdue the government of Afghanistan, which the Soviet Army had invaded in 1979.

Islamic mujahideen guerrillas were covertly supported and trained, and backed in their jihad against the occupying Soviets by the CIA. The agency sent billions of dollars in military aid to the guerrillas.

Quote:

It was 8 years between WTC attacks. It's been less then 5 years since 9/11. So first, the Patriot Act has to at least exceed the previous measures. Which were working just fine, if only the administration had been paying attention. The warning signs were there, they were just too ineffectual to heed them.

The warning signs are always there. You tell us the US could have picked the time and the buildings and the way AQ was going to attack.

Do we know the time and place and method of every potential threat that we've stopped in the past? Most likely, not. But that's within the job duties of an effective intelligence bureau. They use their intelligence and foresight and make reasonable, measured decisions based upon the information that they have. I don't see the Patriot Act changing that. It's not a problem with the data, but rather the interpretation. And leading up to 9/11, they failed to do their job.

Quote:

Is that seriously your solution? I've lived in a country with a police state, and if you really think that's going to be effective, you have no idea what goes on in the world.

Really why is that. Mideast regimes are police states they control the media and who gets funded. Did you see how Saudi Arabia took down Al Qaida? I don't see Quadda is Libya. Iran doesn't worry much about them.

why would it not be effective?

Do you really believe that there are no Al Qaeda or its supporters in Saudi Arabi or Libya or Iran? Really? Less then a month ago they tried to hit the biggest refinery in Saudi Arabi. That's effective?

Quote:

Not to mention the freedom-inspiring message that this would send to the world. We might as well just herd all the Muslims into gas chambers.

The mideast is already full of police states - those who oppose the govt are taken care of. What is wrong with them just wiping out Al Qaidia while they are at it?

Their intellegence services are very very effective. They know what goes on within their own countires. It is not like there is much domestic oppostion over there

Actually, I don't think their intelligence services are effective at all. They control dissent by outright force - sweeping up the bad and the good. It leaves a lot of underlying resentment on the part of the population. I surely wouldn't want to use that as a model for America's world relations.

Quote:

Why should anyone be free to fund Al Qaida teach hate, plan terror, or fund Al Qaida, or incite violence.

The question is, how do we most effectively control this organization. Trying to squash it is like killing coc-kroaches. They just keep coming back with more and more. Yes, something must be done. But no, I don't think that something should involve oppression and an abandonment of America's core values.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

I believe that the legal means of acquiring such evidence are just fine. Once you start systematically allowing illegal evidence, you head down a slippery slope to a complete abuse of power.

worry about the slippery slope later. If the US has real evidence on them then it should always be admited even if it was obtained with an illegal search or a wire tap. To let these guys go free means more attacks. Cause that is what those guys do.

Quote:

Well here is a little more perspective on the subject:

Quote:

Some argue that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[15] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channelled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the U.S. government, which maintains that U.S. aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that Afghan Arabs had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself. [16]. The State Department quotes CNN analyst Peter Bergen as saying:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Quote:

The Patriot act gives the government the same power to go after terrorists that they already have when going after the Mafia. It is based on RICO laws. What is wrong with that? It gives the US an edge against Al Qaida or those that support them.

Quote:

that attack didn't do much damage besides you don't really know how powerful those govts are within their own nations.

A controversy brewing in Saudi Arabia is instructive. Several weeks ago, when the U.S. was gearing up for the assault on Fallujah, Salman al-Awdah, a popular preacher who had close ties to al Qaeda in the '90s, signed, along with 25 colleagues, a declaration that made fighting the U.S. in Iraq an obligation for able-bodied Muslims. This sly document left it an open question as to whether Iraqis and Saudis were equally obliged to fight. The authors of the declaration wanted to have it both ways--to garner the benefits of association with al Qaeda abroad without suffering any consequences at home.
But many Saudis have grown tired of this game, and are working to expose clerics for playing fast and loose with peoples' lives. The reformist newspaper al-Watan revealed that Mr. al-Awdah subsequently enlisted the aid of the Saudi security services in order to prevent his son Muadh from joining the jihad in Iraq. Muadh, it seems, had decided with some friends to go and fight America. "God permitting," he said in a message to his family, "we have an appointment with paradise." In an effort to prevent him from keeping this date, Mr. al-Awdah contacted Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, No. 2 at the Saudi ministry of Interior. The authorities quickly found the young men, and returned them safely to their families.

Mr. Al-Awdah's frantic call for help revealed two levels of hypocrisy. First, it shattered his carefully crafted image as a courageous fighter for Islam, a man who speaks truth to power. For someone supposedly independent of the regime, he has cozy ties with the Saudi secret police. Second, it unmasked his true feeling about the anti-American jihad: Let Iraqis kill themselves.
Mr. al-Awdah is today less concerned about fueling the jihad than he is about saving his reputation. He is quibbling over the details of al-Watan's report, claiming defamation and threatening a lawsuit. Al-Watan has responded by saying, in effect: Bring it on. If he dares to do so, Mr. al-Awdah may well find himself with more legal burdens than he cares to shoulder. The father of a Saudi boy who did in fact find his death in Iraq has gone to the media expressing his intention to sue Mr. al-Awdah and the other 25 clerics who issued the fatwa supporting the jihad. And to make matters worse, the government of Kuwait--a predominantly Sunni country--has banned the offending clerics from its soil.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006014

Mideast governments are all powerful within their own borders. They never get overthrown and their is no disent permitted. If they choose to crush Al Qaida then Al Qaida will be gone. If mideast govt feel that their survival depends on them crushing Al Qaeda then they will kill off Al Qaeda. If they are fored to do so then they will do so.

Quote:

The resentment in the mideast is caused by regimes, clerics , elites and media teaching hate.

You didn't see any protests in the mideast when Saddam gassed the Kurds, when Khomeni killed 30,000 in 1988 , when Assad destroyed the city of Hama or when Bin Laden killed muslims in Afghanistan. (what religion were the Northern alliance?)

]

Quote:

the US is at war for real. Half hearted measures will not do the trick. Mideast regimes are never overthrown. Then can get rid of Al Qaeda and similar types if they decide to do so. If they are forced to then they will do so.

igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:12 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

I'm not so sure the Patriot Act is the right thing, though.

Hey, come on now.

If you're a PATRIOT you'll shut up, not ask ask any questions, & like good little boys & girls quietly go along with everything "PatroticK" gov't legislates.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

I believe that the legal means of acquiring such evidence are just fine. Once you start systematically allowing illegal evidence, you head down a slippery slope to a complete abuse of power.

When the (Constitutionally) legal means are already quick and easy (and if they're aren't quick and easy enough, let's make them quicker and easier, not totally ignore them)? These safeguards are there for a reason - to maintain the seperation of powers. If evidence is acquired in a fair and reasonable manner outside of this process, okay. But it shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the administration to subjugate these procedures.

Quote:

The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI)....

six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Quote:

Today it's terrorists, tomorrow it's Greenpeace. Who knows? The PA removes the checks on the administration which are designed to prevent that sort of abuse. RICO was designed with a specific mission (and even that is being exploited), while as the PA is an open ended rubber stamp. Whatever happend to the GOP not trusting government?

Quote:

that attack didn't do much damage besides you don't really know how powerful those govts are within their own nations.

Yet still proving that there are AQ in Saudi Arabia. Again I ask, do you really believe that there are no Al Qaeda supporters in Saudi Arabi or Libya or Iran? Again, I've lived in a country with a police state. As pervasive as the militsia is, they don't control everyone and everyone's thoughts. Big Brother is still fictional.

Quote:

Mideast governments are all powerful within their own borders. They never get overthrown and their is no disent permitted. If they choose to crush Al Qaida then Al Qaida will be gone. If mideast govt feel that their survival depends on them crushing Al Qaeda then they will kill off Al Qaeda. If they are fored to do so then they will do so.

The Shah?

But in general, yes, they aren't overthrowing government. Because the government fulfills the basic function of keeping people happy - bread on the table. As long as the oil flows and they can keep the people fed, revolutions will be rare. Not because of their strong arm tactics (See the USSR).

Quote:

Forcing them? Like we did in Iraq? If 100,000 US troops can't keep AQ at bay, I don't see how you expect any other government, with only a half-hearted self interest, to succeed.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

that sounds close to ok, but I would rather error on the side of the govt.

Quote:

six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Ok but US responsibilty for Al Qaida and the Taliban has clearly been exagerated.

Quote:

there is a big difference between terrorists and Greenpeace. Terrorists are even worse than the Mafia. The Patriot act is not open ended it has to be renewed. But I don't see why the govt ought to have less power to deal w/ terrorists than they do the mob.

Quote:

Sure there are supporters in all those nations. But if those nations wanted to crush them once and for all they could.

Saudi Arabia has left many of Al Qaeda's supporters alone. That must change. If the pressure is dialed up enough it will.

Quote:

The Shah?

was overthrown cause he wasn't as oppressive as Khomeni.

Quote:

But in general, yes, they aren't overthrowing government. Because the government fulfills the basic function of keeping people happy - bread on the table. As long as the oil flows and they can keep the people fed, revolutions will be rare. Not because of their strong arm tactics (See the USSR).

Uh Syria is kind of poor yet the Assads stay in power. Those countries suffered big when oil prices collapsed in the mid 90's but none of them fell.

Saddam was under sanctions and he survived pretty well until the US took him down.

Quote:

Forcing them? Like we did in Iraq? If 100,000 US troops can't keep AQ at bay, I don't see how you expect any other government, with only a half-hearted self interest, to succeed.

Forcing them perhaps with bases from Iraq. You support Al Qadia then US will target your leaders , your infrastucture , your miltary and your elites. The US has an airforce and Navy that are in good shape.

Most of who the US is fighting in Iraq are not Al Qaeda but the leftovers of Saddam's army , his secret police and his paramilitary organizations.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:16 am Post subject:

igotthisguitar wrote:

Gopher wrote:

I'm not so sure the Patriot Act is the right thing, though.

Hey, come on now.

If you're a PATRIOT you'll shut up, not ask ask any questions, & like good little boys & girls quietly go along with everything "PatroticK" gov't legislates.

9-11 conspriacy mongers - like Jeff Rense want to see the US government weakened or destroyed . They enjoy any success that Al Qaeda has. They want Al Qaeda to thrive.It also gives them stuff for their conspriacy theories on the internet. They are allies of Al Qaeda against the US. Keep that in mind when Jeff Rense supporters or similar types give their political analysis.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

that sounds close to ok, but I would rather error on the side of the govt.

I'd rather error on the side of safety myself. But I don't trust the govt to maintain a respectable balance. That's that the judicial and legislative are for.

Quote:

six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Ok but US responsibilty for Al Qaida and the Taliban has clearly been exagerated.

maybe. But in the 20th century, what fascist/tototletarian/dictatorship has the US not supported in some way (that would fall under the PA's definition of accomplise)?? The US doesn't exactly have a stellar record wrt this.

Quote:

The PA does not distinguish between AQ terrorists and domestic "terrorists" such as Greenpeace. That is a major reason for my opposition. Look at RICO (which is much more restrictive) being applied to anti-abortion groups. As much as I disagree with them, they aren't under the intended jurisdiction of RICO.

Quote:

Again I say, it's impossible. Noone will ever have the ability to eliminate AQ operatives.

Quote:

Uh Syria is kind of poor yet the Assads stay in power. Those countries suffered big when oil prices collapsed in the mid 90's but none of them fell.

Are they keeping "bread on the table"? I don't know much about Syria, but Uzbekistan has 1/2 the GDP per capita, and they are satisying the populous. When the people are starving, they will revolt. That's basic human instict.

Quote:

Saddam was under sanctions and he survived pretty well until the US took him down.

Oil for food? He kept "bread on the table" did he not? Even without the corruption he was going to maintain power.

Quote:

Forcing them? Like we did in Iraq? If 100,000 US troops can't keep AQ at bay, I don't see how you expect any other government, with only a half-hearted self interest, to succeed.

AQ or Sadaam's remanants. Again, six of one / half dozen of another. The point is that the 100,000 US troops are unable to maintain order. What makes you think the the Saudi, Libyians, etc. will be able to?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

I'd rather error on the side of safety myself. But I don't trust the govt to maintain a respectable balance. That's that the judicial and legislative are for.

I would rather trust the govt then Al Qaeda . I think you would too.

Quote:

Often the opposition to the govts was just as oppressive , ruthless and undemocratic as the govt the US was supporting.

Quote:

well then small parts need to be fixed but in principle it is a good thing

Quote:

Again I say, it's impossible. Noone will ever have the ability to eliminate AQ operatives.

Any disent in any of those countries?

Quote:

NORTH KOREA

CAMBODIA

Quote:

Oil for food? He kept "bread on the table" did he not? Even without the corruption he was going to maintain power

.

Bread on the table for his friends , oil for food meant him hoarding food , and well there is a whole history about it.

Quote:

cause they are willing to do stuff to their own populace that the US could never get away with.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

I'd rather error on the side of safety myself. But I don't trust the govt (replace govt with executive branch) to maintain a respectable balance. That's that the judicial and legislative are for.

I would rather trust the govt then Al Qaeda . I think you would too.

a govt with three balanced branches, yes. I'd trust them (about as far as I could throw them, but trust them I would).

Quote:

well then small parts need to be fixed but in principle it is a good thing

"in principle," yes, a great idea. But the devil is in the details, or rather lack of details. i.e. checks and balances that limit the scope of the President's powers. Nobody is saying we should let AQ run free, but rather we (America) should preserve the ideals of the Constitution in the process. Maybe that makes it a little bit harder, but it's worth it, IMHO.

Quote:

Again I say, it's impossible. Noone will ever have the ability to eliminate AQ operatives.

Any dissent in any of those countries?

yes. Just because it doesn't show up on CNN doesn't mean it's not there.

Quote:

cause they are willing to do stuff to their own populace that the US could never get away with.

And you want to encourage them to do more of that? I thought that's what are involvement in Iraq was all about. Oh wait, I forgot about the WMDs.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

govt with three balanced branches, yes. I'd trust them (about as far as I could throw them, but trust them I would).

I think the far more dangerous problem are the terrorists.

Quote:

yes. Just because it doesn't show up on CNN doesn't mean it's not there.

or maybe it is not there cause if it were then those behind it would have been iced.

Quote:

And you want to encourage them to do more of that? I thought that's what are involvement in Iraq was all about. Oh wait, I forgot about the WMDs.

It was

Quote:

S Arabia 'real reason for war'
NEWS.com.au ^ | April 3, 2004

Posted on 04/03/2004 1:55:34 AM PST by Piefloater

FORGET Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The real reason the United States invaded Iraq was Saudi Arabia, according to a US intelligence analyst.

Dr George Friedman, chairman of the United States private sector intelligence company Stratfor, said the US had settled on WMD as a simple justification for the war and one which it expected the public would readily accept.

Dr Friedman, in Australia on a business trip, said the US administration never wanted to explain the complex reasons for invading Iraq, keeping them from both the public and their closest supporters.

"That, primarily, was the fact that Saudi Arabia was facilitating the transfer of funds to al-Qaeda, was refusing to cooperate with the US and believed in its heart of hearts that the US would never take any action against them," he said.

Dr Friedman said the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US prompted the strategy to hunt down al-Qaeda wherever it was to be found. But that proved exceedingly difficult.

"The US was desperate. There were no good policy choices," he said.

"Then the US turned to the question - we can't find al-Qaeda so how can we stop the enablers of al-Qaeda."

He said those enablers, the financiers and recruiters, existed in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But the Saudi government variously took the view that this wasn't true or that they lacked the ability and strength to act, he said.

Dr Friedman said in March last year, the Saudis responded to US pressure by asking the US to remove all its forces and bases from their territory. To their immense surprise, the US did just that, relocating to Qatar.

He said Saudi Arabia and al-Qaeda shared a number of beliefs including that the US could not fight and win a war in the region and was casualty averse. There was a need to change that perception.

But close by was Iraq, the most strategically located nation in the Middle East, bordering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Turkey and Iran.

"If we held Iraq we felt first there would be dramatic changes of behaviour from the Saudis," he said. "We could also manipulate the Iranians into a change of policy and finally also lean on the Syrians.

"It wasn't a great policy. It happened to be the only policy available."

Dr Friedman said US President George W Bush faced the difficulty of explaining this policy, particularly to the Saudis. Moves to link Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda failed completely.

"They then fell on WMD for two reasons," he said.

"Nobody could object to WMD and it was the one thing that every intelligence agency knew was true.

"We knew we were going to find them. And we would never have to reveal the real reasons.

"The massive intelligence failure was that everybody including Saddam thought he had WMD. He behaved as if he had WMD. He was conned by his own people."

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

govt with three balanced branches, yes. I'd trust them (about as far as I could throw them, but trust them I would).

I think the far more dangerous problem are the terrorists.

sure, but it's not like one or the other. we can control the terrorist thret without sacrificing our liberties.

Quote:

yes. Just because it doesn't show up on CNN doesn't mean it's not there.

or maybe it is not there cause if it were then those behind it would have been iced.

Again, I've lived in a police state (Uzbekistan). There is discontentment and opposition there. Again, look at AQ's attack in Saudi Arabi last month for further proof. Do you really not believe that there are anti-government pockets in the most oppressive of regimes - Cuba, China, Middle East, etc. etc..

Quote:

And you want to encourage them to do more of that? I thought that's what are involvement in Iraq was all about. Oh wait, I forgot about the WMDs.

It was (article deleted)

Looks like a revisionist justification spin to me. Regardless, it wasn't very effective. The US is pretty much tied up now, and unable to respond to any other global crisis. Giving Iran a free hand in their negotiation process.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

sure, but it's not like one or the other. we can control the terrorist thret without sacrificing our liberties

.

I don't think the PA takes them away

Quote:

In many of them yes in some like North Korea perhaps not. but anyway

AQ attack was a faliure, and more than that Saudi Arabia has not been going after AQ anywhere near as hard as they could. The security sevices are friendly with many of the clerics who praise bin Laden. (I showed so above)

Mideast regimes if they choose can kill the elites that support AQaida. In the mideast most clerics are paid by the govt. The Govt can put them down. They control the media over there. They control the finacial system

Quote:

You think the guy just said that just to make excuse for the Bush administration?

As for the rest - well the results are not all in yet.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:17 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

sure, but it's not like one or the other. we can control the terrorist thret without sacrificing our liberties

.

I don't think the PA takes them away

You don't think these are an infringement on the Constitutional rights of Americans:
* detaining suspects (even US citizens) without charge, indefinitely
* spying on religious and political organizations without reasonable cause
* spying on citizens without reasonable cause or even a warrant

We know that the government is apt to abuse these powers, because they have in the past. And the laws we had before the PA were adequate. We had information about the 9/11 attacks before hand, it just wasn't used correctly. Again, the problem wasn't with the data, but with the interpretation.

Quote:

AQ attack was a faliure, and more than that Saudi Arabia has not been going after AQ anywhere near as hard as they could. The security sevices are friendly with many of the clerics who praise bin Laden. (I showed so above)

First you said that Saudi Arabia has taken out AQ. When I showed that they haven't, you said that they could if they wanted to. Now you are suggesting that even that isn't possible, given the casual relations between Saudi Arabian officials, clerics, and AQ. If that's the case in SA, might it not also be the case in Libya, Iran, and other mideast countries?

Quote:

You think the guy just said that just to make excuse for the Bush administration?

No. I'd agree that the reasons for invading Iraq were more complex then just WMDs. But I think that he's attempting to differentiate himself with the "WMDs were a cover story" assessment. Besides, if he is correct, it's one more reason not to trust the govt.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:00 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

You don't think these are an infringement on the Constitutional rights of Americans:
* detaining suspects (even US citizens) without charge, indefinitely

Padia is the the US court systme

Quote:

* spying on religious and political organizations without reasonable cause

there is often good cause. did the US sometimes make mistakes -probably nevertheless error on the side of caution.

some of these political organizations probably hate the US so much that they would help AQ if they could. See the international action center.

Quote:

* spying on citizens without reasonable cause or even a warrant

in the Patriot act they need to permission of a court.

and the wire taps had to do with foreign phone calls.

Quote:

We know that the government is apt to abuse these powers, because they have in the past. And the laws we had before the PA were adequate. We had information about the 9/11 attacks before hand, it just wasn't used correctly. Again, the problem wasn't with the data, but with the interpretation.

while the biggest problem was collection of DATA you are right about that

I don't think they were adequate before 9-11

The US is at war. During war time the US govt has increased its powers. Terrorists ought to not have more rights than the mob.

Again error on the side of caution . The govt at its worst will give you more mercy than Al Qaeda at their best.

I don't think the PA goes far enough and I hope for a national ID card system.

Quote:

It is possible for them to really go after Al Qadia. The mideast states could go after AQ much more than they do.

Quote:

the govts job is to win above all else. To say the real reason for the war would make it harder to pressure Saudi Arabia. Cause to cooperate then would seem like giving in to the US.

I am not a liberatarian - I think they are selfish crazy and spiteful . I am willing to give the govt the benefit of the doubt during wartime.

Do you think the laws before 9-11 were adaquate?

Well then look at this:

Quote:

Barton Gellman Washington Post Service

WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture. .
Sudan expelled Mr. bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is thought to have planned and financed the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the near-destruction of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen last year and the devastation in New York and Washington on Sept. 11.
.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," said a U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism.
.
"We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11. We would still have had networks of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks. But there would not have been as many resources devoted to their activities, and there would not have been a single voice that so effectively articulated grievances and won support for violence."
.
Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option against Mr. bin Laden in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment then, they said, there was no choice but to allow him to leave Sudan unmolested.
.
"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."
.
Three officials in the Clinton administration said they hoped - one described it as "a fantasy" - that the Saudi monarch, King Fahd, would order Mr. bin Laden's swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh.
.
But Mr. Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism for the National Security Council, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force Mr. bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.
.
Conflicting policy agendas on several other fronts contributed to the missed opportunity to capture Mr. bin Laden, according to a dozen participants.
.
The Clinton administration was riven by differences on whether to engage Sudan's government or isolate it, a situation that influenced judgments about the sincerity of the offer. In the Saudi-American relationship, policymakers diverged on how much priority to give to counterterrorism over other interests, such as support for the ailing Israeli-Palestinian talks and enforcement of the no-flight zone in Iraq.
.
And there were the beginnings of debate, intensified lately, on whether the United States wanted to indict and try Mr. bin Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an underground war.
.
The Sudanese offer had its roots in a dinner at the Khartoum home of Sudan's foreign minister, Ali Othman Taha. It was Feb. 6, 1996, the last night in the country for the U.S. ambassador, Timothy Carney, before evacuating the U.S. Embassy on orders from Washington. Paul Quaglia, then the CIA station chief in Khartoum, had led a campaign to pull out all Americans after he and his staff came under aggressive surveillance and twice had to fend off attacks, one with a knife and one with claw hammers.
.
Mr. Carney and David Shinn, then chief of the State Department's East Africa desk, considered the security threat "bogus," as Mr. Shinn described it. Washington's dominant decision-makers on Sudan had lost interest in engagement, preparing plans to isolate and undermine the regime.
.
One factor in Washington's hostility was an intelligence tip that Sudan planned to assassinate President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, the most visible administration critic of Khartoum. Most U.S. analysts came to believe later that it had been a false alarm.
.
On Feb. 6, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, asked Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn what his country could do to dissuade Washington from the view, expressed not long before by Madeleine Albright, then the chief U.S. delegate to the United Nations, that Sudan was responsible for "continued sponsorship of international terror."
.
Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn had a long list. Mr. bin Laden, as they both recalled, was near the top. Mr. Taha mostly listened. He raised no objection to the request for Mr. bin Laden's expulsion, though he did not agree to it that night. On March 3, 1996, Sudan's defense minister, Major General Elfatih Erwa, arrived at the Hyatt Arlington. Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn were waiting for him, but the meeting was run by covert operatives from the CIA's Africa division. In a document dated March 8, 1996, the Americans spelled out their demands. Titled "Measures Sudan Can Take to Improve Relations with the United States," it asked for six things. Second on the list - just after an angry enumeration of attacks on the CIA station in Khartoum - was Osama bin Laden.
.
"Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and passport data on mujahidin that Usama Bin Laden has brought into Sudan," the document demanded.
.
During the next several weeks, General Erwa raised the stakes. The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on Mr. bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous.
.
Susan Rice, then senior director for Africa on the National Security Council, remembers being intrigued with but deeply skeptical of the Sudanese offer. And unlike Mr. Berger and Mr. Simon, Ms. Rice argued that mere expulsion from Sudan was not enough.
.
"We wanted them to hand him over to a responsible external authority," she said. "We didn't want them to just let him disappear into the ether."
.
Mr. Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were briefed, colleagues said, on efforts to persuade the Saudi government to take Mr. bin Laden.
.
The Saudi idea had some logic, since Mr. bin Laden had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, denouncing the House of Saud as corrupt. Riyadh had expelled Mr. bin Laden in 1991 and stripped him of his citizenship in 1994, but it wanted no part of jailing or executing him, apparently fearing a backlash from militant opponents of the government.
.
Some American diplomats said the White House did not press the Saudis very hard.
.
Resigned to Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials raised the possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously pursued because Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances.
.
"In the end they said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,'" General Erwa said in an interview. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they said, 'Let him.'" On May 15, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, sent a fax to Mr. Carney in Nairobi, giving up on the transfer of custody. Sudan's government had asked Mr. bin Laden to leave the country, Mr. Taha wrote, and he would be free to go.
.
Mr. Carney faxed back a question: Would Mr. bin Laden retain his access and control to the millions of dollars of assets he had built up in Sudan?
.
Mr. Taha gave no reply before Mr. bin Laden chartered a plane three days later for his trip to Afghanistan.
.
Subsequent analysis by U.S. intelligence suggests that Mr. bin Laden managed to access the Sudanese assets from his new redoubt in Afghanistan.

http://miami.craigslist.org/pol/135519863.html

So tell me if US laws were adaquate then why did the US have to let Bin Laden go free cause they could not convict him? Tpo bad the US didnt' violate Bin Ladens rights. If they had then there would have been no 9-11.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:58 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

You don't think these are an infringement on the Constitutional rights of Americans:
* detaining suspects (even US citizens) without charge, indefinitely

Padia is the the US court systme

and so? the govt still has the ability to detain suspects indefinitely. just because Padilla is the the court system doesn't mean they all are.

Quote:

* spying on religious and political organizations without reasonable cause

if they have "good cause," fine. that's not the issue here. And speculation based upon someone's political stance isn't really what I'd call "reasonable cause."

Quote:

* spying on citizens without reasonable cause or even a warrant

in the Patriot act they need to permission of a court.

To search your credit reports, library records, medical records? No, all can be searched without a warrant.

Quote:

and the wire taps had to do with foreign phone calls.

they were still calls from within the US, and maybe by US citizens. And no warrant. When a warrant could have been attained, even with pre-PA laws.

Quote:

The US is at war. During war time the US govt has increased its powers. Terrorists ought to not have more rights than the mob.

Fine, you can say that Americans have to give up some of their rights in this day and age. But call a spade a spade, and admit that there are rights that are being taken from them. And again, the issue isn't with the rights of terrorists, but the rights of everyone else. Is everyone assumed guilty until proven innocent?

Quote:

I don't think the PA goes far enough and I hope for a national ID card system.

I don't think I'd have a problem with this. I obviously have a passport, so I already have one.

Quote:

I am not a liberatarian - I think they are selfish crazy and spiteful . I am willing to give the govt the benefit of the doubt during wartime.

I'll give them some benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean that they are entitled to a blank check or that they should be free of criticism. The PA was a quickly crafted response in a dire time. It's being used as a political tool, to make the administration look effective. Meanwhile, they ignore major holes in our national security (e.g. border security and public transportation, to name two). It's not an either/or issue, we can have national security without trampling on the rights of the people. Just because I opposed the PA, doesn't mean I oppose national security.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe