FastNed

Daniel, I really love you - you are in more danger from an enraged elephant escaping from a visiting circus than from any instrument or agency of the American government. You are narrowly correct on one point - this thread will or has been reviewed because the terms "assassination" and "President" are present. Which is as it should be. Let me add to your paranoia, "Prime Minister" - now Canadian Intelligence will have a look as well. We Americans have two allowable methods of replacement of our President: one is called an election while the other is the term limits placed by our Constitution. No other method is allowed and we take rather violent exception to anyone who seeks a "third way"! As do, no doubt, the Canadian authorities where their Prime Minister is concerned. National Intelligence agencies have learned the bitter lesson that the lunatic fringe must be monitored to identify the 'wing-nuts' among us who may loose whatever frail grasp they have on reality. Witness Sweden just recently, need I say more? The politics of hate is loose among us in America, has been growing for these last thirty years or so. Freedom of speech is alive and well in America; I can make jokes about "BJ" Clinton or Slick Willie while others can call President Bush a "liar" and neither of us expects our doors to be kicked in a three AM by a Gestapo. Nor should they be. But Freedom of Speech is not without cost; just as you can not shout " Fire " in a crowded Theater, there are statements you may not make about our President - such as advocating a "third way" to remove him from office. Should you do so, in any way except in the privacy of your mind, you stand a chance of ending up on a 'nut' list and being subject to a "threat assessment" - an evaluation of the degree of threat you represent. Which is as it should be. I have little doubt that in the vast majority of such cases the end result is an assessment of "big-mouth", but on occasion the threat may be higher. Statutory authority exists to deal with higher threats up to and including involuntary commitment for mental heath treatment but note this is a Statutory authority under Court supervision . There are no "Disappeareds" in America. The Secret Service is neither the Gestapo or the KGB and their elite, the members of the Presidential Protection group stand ready, man and woman alike, to take a bullet to protect our President. I don't know if I would have the courage to do that job, do you? You make two other uninformed statements to which I take exception; first: Under the Laws of War, as modified by the Geneva Conventions, these "Detainee's" are being properly held until the resolution of the conflict. They do NOT meet the conditions under which they could be classified as "Prisoners of War" and thus are not entitled to treatment as such. We could elect to classify each of them as a "Spy" and execute them on the spot and such action would be in accord with the provisions of the Convention. Look it up. Second, if you are " Suspicious " that America rejected the I.C.C., I suggest you read it. It is clearly in conflict with our Constitutional protections under our Bill of Rights. It really cracks me up to see you blathering about the supposed "Constitutional Rights" of the "Detainees" in one breath and then in the next, suggesting we should suspend those very same "Rights" for every one in America to comply with a Treaty which negates them! Last, Daniel, you are free to speak against US Policy in an unfriendly manner as much as you want. If you truly understood the American concept of Freedom of Speech you would understand that it is exactly such "unfriendly" speech that the concept protects! Feel free to be paranoid about that circus elephant but don't loose any sleep about Homeland Security or the Secret Service or any other of the alphabet soup of American agencies. They have serious business to contend with, they have no time or interest in the back and forth of political debate. There are people out there that believe they have a license to kill Americans and our Government Agencies are quite serious about identifying them. They have no time to waste bothering those of us occupied in political discourse, no matter how loud or shrill!

Regrettably, Mr. McClintock represents the Ultra-Right Wing of Cali Republican politics, which group represents "doctrinal purity" who would rather be Right than elected on any other terms. Doctrinal purity must be maintained and nothing so crass as an alliance with Mr. S or South Park Republicans to accomplish an election win shall ever be allowed as this would be heresy. Mr. McClintock and those who support him have ignored calls from National Republican names for him to withdraw from the race in the interest of defeating Gov. Gray. Expect him to continue - alone - and draw 18 to 22 percent of the vote. The question is will his candidacy allow Bust-a-budget to win?

There are no constraints imposed upon Protesters, they are free to express any opinion they wish. This is all about media exposure and time on National TV. There are 'wing-nuts' and terrorists out there who would love to get close to our President to take him out. One of the primary missions of the US Secret Service is Presidential Protection and the elite of that agency serve that mission. Their last known failure was with President Reagan and but for the Grace of God, they would have lost him; a prime example of why access to the POTUS must be controlled. There is an old "Truism" that you should never issue an order which you know will not be obeyed and that clearly is applicable in this matter. No one knows more about assassination than the Secret Service and no Judge has the experience to overrule them. No Judicial Order which they believe will lessen the protection necessary for the POTUS will be obeyed, nor should it be! Bluntly, while there are a few Judges with delusions of grandeur (& not solely in the 9th Circuit) the Judicial system has sufficient wisdom to respect the separation of powers doctrine and after a quick examination of what is involved here will decline to be placed into the midst of decisions concerning Presidential security. Were the Service interning people to silence them, without Court Orders, there would be a basis for complaint but no such thing is happening here. The legal recourses available to the Service are quite extensive but are exercised quietly in appropriate cases under Court supervision. Which is as it should be. This is a great deal of noise about a matter of little substance.

Hello RB - I understand your feelings and concur that, in the normal course of events, the killing of an opponent is counter-productive. I am not convinced that this would be true in the case of Arafat. I do suggest, however, that either he is killed or the Oslo Accord be denounced and the Palestinians be returned to the Status Quo Ante . They can not have it both ways!

Not being British, I could well be wrong but I thought the purpose of the BBC was to be a source of objective reporting. By adopting a particular political point of view as their raison d'etre they betray their stated purpose. As they are supported by mandatory public funding, this is especially objectionable. Should the Board of Governors be forced to resign?

Say, Black Dog, you started this thread with an allegation: " Iraq was said to have presented a "clear and present" danger to the U.S. ... That was the central reason for the war. It was a lie." But there is no cite attributing this quote to President Bush. It clearly wasn't his speech to the UN in Sept 02, where he said: "In cells, in camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale. In one place and one regime, we find all these dangers in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront." .... "The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein regime is a grave and gathering danger." Rather a different statement than that alleged by media liars, isn't it? This political blather, attempting to gain some partisan advantage in the forthcoming elections is quite short sighted. Why not direct your intelligence to the valid question of exactly what has happened to this stuff? A very good scernario could be constructed around the possibility that some are hidden in Iraq while the balance are on their way to America. A coordinated attack might be thought by someone versed in the Arab style Command structure to be the basis for a defeat in depth of America. Fortunately for America, our military can not be hobbled by attacks at the top of the Command Tree! In fact, our military is far more dangerous when lead from the bottom up!

SirRiff, you stated: How exactly do you reach this conclusion? You have access to better intelligence than everyone else? You wish to present this as some sort of moral contest and claim that fifty years of American actions, as viewed with your mindset, make our actions v.v. Iraq an immoral act. The moral tone for our War against terrorists was set on 9.11; we have not responded on that level, as yet, but reserve the right to do so if, as and when necessary. Saddam provided aid, comfort and support to terrorists. R.I.P.

Luigi, not taking issue with an increase but there does appear to be a misunderstanding between "numbers" and "percentages". Without knowledge of the initial numbers the percent of increase has no bearing! If last period there was "one" hate crime and this period there are "seventeen", that constitutes a 1600% increase. As you have access to the study, if you wish to go into this, please advise: a) The initial number & reporting period. b.) Subsequent nbr & period. Exactly what is being measured? Provide examples of what constitutes a reportable event in this study. Was each event liable for prosecution under American Law? Are some/most/all what are called hate crimes? How many involve physical attacks vs. verbal attacks? Difficult to respond to you without knowledge of the above.

I am unable to resist making a quick comment on this. Does anyone believe that the Secret Service holds the President "Captive" - that by restricting immediate access to the area around the President they are supressing dissent? Hiding dissenting views from the President? Let's be real! The complaint states that by establishing "Protest Zones" the Secret Service accomplishes two goals: 1) The Protestors can not be seen by the President. The unspoken companion to this is that no one in the Zone can see or TARGET the President. 2) The Media covering the President can not easily also feature the Protestors. The Poor Media - forced to make a few extra steps to display the Protestors. It warms my heart to see the compassion among these groups for the overworked Media. There is also a complaint that those friendly to the President are not placed in the Protest Zone. Duh! They are not protesting, why should they be there? What is unsaid is a fact of life it you are going to be near the President. You must be vetted - your identity is verified and you do not go "TILT" on any nut list. Those who are allowed near the President have provided identity information in advance to the satisfaction of the Secret Service and are not considered a potential threat. Experience has shown that those who are suing are not willing to cooperate with the Secret Service to the necessary extent. Consider Abortion Clinic cases, Freedom of Speech does not allow someone to directly accost those who wish to visit such places. There are safety and security limits on the exercise of free speech and correctly so. Protection of our Constitutional Officers is a function of the Executive Branch of Government; absent clear and comprehensive abuse of constitutional freedoms, the Courts have no business interjecting themselves into an area which they have neither the knowledge or experience to judge. This is a "Political" Suit and the Court should approach it with a ten foot pole.

Hello Luigi, as soon as I can get to it, I'll add information in support of my posting. I have no interest in proving you either right or wrong. Your focus is different than mine. I will note in passing, however, that the more people who can be placed on a "safe" list the more attention can be focused on potential security problems. Ensuring the validity of documentation is not a bureaucratic process designed to allow the "State" additional control of its citizen and residents but rather is a tool to identify those who are outlaws in our midst.

Luigi, what are you trying to do, confuse some people? Post verifiable facts? Pry open closed minds? Bravo!

Candidly, the 1600% increase is a new figure to me - I had seen previous mention of a 600% increase so the additional 1000 is a surprise. Two comments: without knowledge of the actual number, a percentage "quote" is meaningless. If there was "one" hate crime prior to 9.11 and "seventeen" after, what percentage increase is that? Statistics are not helpful in this area, they are too easily twisted to make whatever point is desired. Second, let's stop talking about verbal crimes, which examination will reveal is what is involved in the majority of these cases. How many religious riots have taken place in America? How many Muslim homes, businesses and places of worship have been torched? How many Muslims have been executed simply because they are Muslim? No doubt you are reading my words and thinking: "What is this guy, crazy? That sh1t don't happen here!" And that is my point, it does not happen in America. Yes, there is a great deal of verbal response - there is a wellspring of American rage, little understood outside of America which is poorly articulated. That guy at his local watering spot who watches a report on American casualties and announces "Those F-ing Ragheads gotta be taught a lesson!" has made a statement considered to be a hate crime. Well, the World had best understand the "Root Cause" of American rage is 9.11 - the American Street is going to make certain that its government does something about its rage. One data disclosed about the lists seized from Yee is highly significant: Not only did he have lists of captives, he listed the names of their interrogators. This is right out of the old KGB playbook. It places at risk each and every dependant of those people; wives, spouses, children & parents become targets. There is no "humanitarian" justification or excuse for such lists and if this is true, expect him to be charged with Treason. You may also expect him to live the remainder of his life in isolation because he is a dead man in any military or civilian population. You did ask about citations on the difference between military justice and civilian prosecutions. This is a "Truism" to which I suscribe based upon prior military service and thirty years of experience in the civilian court system. As generalities, your military defense counsel has far greater resources and input into investigations than a public defender; your judges (and jury) are other military members of your rank or higher (not a political fund raiser or bag man appointed to the Bench as a reward); and, the prosecutor is not a political appointee or someone looking for (re)election to a higher office. Of great importance, a military conviction is automatically reviewed at higher levels which insures or increases the opportunity for justice and also tends to remove "Command Influence" as a significant factor in Courts Martial. Higher Command may have to put up with General "Perfumed Prince" but they will not allow him to screw over those under his command - "good military order" does not allow this. A cultural anthropolgist could (and perhaps has) produce a great thesis here.

Hello Boydfish, welcome to the Forum. We crossed-posted so I did not see your entry until I ended mine. You mention: The problem with this viewpoint is that Kyoto does not target "industrial polution", it is much more narrow and applies to CO2 production. It is not cost effective from either a production point of view or an environmental one. The sole objective of Kyoto is to destroy North America as a world-class source of market competition.

Oddly, enough Craig, South Korea may need to be added to your list based upon their nuclear power generation. I had thought our best option for supression of North Korea was hard ball - pull out of South Korea and let the North take over but the number on nuclear facilities they would gain and thus the seed stock for nuclear weapons makes this a very poor option. The main deterent to Russia signing Kyoto is America's continuing refusal to get on board. Without American participation, there is no one to buy those pollution credits and Canada certainly can not afford to do so. Canada will be forced to renege or it will cease to exist as a Country. There is no serious market for Canadian goods other than America - blunt but factual. There is no Canadian product which does not have an American competitor. The cost of Kyoto added to Canadian products (even oil & gas) will price them out of the market. As businesses begin to go bankrupt and unemployment climbs, and then when Provincial revenues disappear, the Country will begin to disintegrate. It will be Kyoto or Canada - not too hard a choice, is it? Your knowledge in this area is far superior to mine - what do you think are the critical industries and Provinces? Auto parts, Hydro Quebec or something from the Western Provinces?

Very nice post, Whistler.

It is long standing American Policy that any use of any WMD against America will justify American response with WMD. In simple terms, use of chemical or Bio weapons against American Forces on a dash for Baghdad could well result in an American Proctologist inserting a six foot long, nuke tiped probe painfully into your posterior. Any American response will be nuclear as we destroyed all other Chem & Bio weapons in compliance with International Treaties sponsored by America. The policy was designed to discourage direct attacks as well as proxy attacks, i.e., if No. Korea provides a Nuke (or any CBR weapon) to a terrorist group working out of Damascus, both NK and Syria are at risk from an American WMD response. Saddam had two real problems in authorizing such an attack: first, you must consider his culture and what was important to him: he is/was an Al Tikritti, a man of clan and tribe. Any American response would have been directed first and foremost at Tikrit destroying his family and clan. Would you expect him to be 'impressed' or 'deterred' by an response against the Kurds or Shi'ia? Second, the environmental conditions during our attack were counter-productive for a chemical or Bio attack; had he used such agents, the extreme heat and sandstorms would have negated much if not all effectiveness of an attack. American troops and equipment function quite well during harsh Iraqi Summers and brutal Afghan Winters - did you really believe the Media reports? The failure, to date, to locate Saddams WMD production facilities is an extremely serious problem - and I do not mean the Media PR aspects! A serious bioweapons production facility can be constructed in a tractor/trailor truck; add seed stock (which has been established to be in Iraq) and you have the basis for a real nightmare. Any half-assed military advisor could design a "resistance" program based upon this. I am self-censoring and will go no further into this - DO NOT attempt to play with or research this concept, at home, school or college; it is counter-productive to your well being and could well bring you to the attention of some hard nosed people you would rather not know you exist! A political comment: if any additional evidence was needed that the Democratic Candidates for President are "Clueless" on National Defense and are not to be trusted in this area by the majority of Americans, this is it. They are all chanting the mantra of the rabid Left - "There are no WMD" rather than discussing the clear and present danger to every American which flows from our failure to locate and destroy Saddams stash.

Luigi, you're a big boy, start to do your own research - to get you started, go HERE for a Parliamentary Research Report & Overview on Canada Immigration. 2- Google Canada Immigration Refugee 3- Do a search within the above google for any terrorist group name you can think of - it will be educational, I promise. The basic scam is this: You arrive at a Canadian Entry Point with "Clean" ID. You request admission as a Refugee from Afghanistan as a religious refugee - you are a religious taliban persecuted by the Afghan Government and their American Overlords. They have 72 hours to justify your exclusion; if they can't justify exclusion, you are released into the general populace with a hearing in about 12 months! You can immediately get employment! You are entitled to the great free Canadian Health Care! I'm told you can get welfare but haven't researched it yet or, you can disappear, get more false ID and live happy ever after. Or you can join your terrorist buddies and plan a cross-border terrorist act.

Whoa, Luigi - you are being too athletic, you are broad jumping to conclusions! While I hate to cite the media as a source of evidence, it's all we have at this time. He was taken into custody by the FBI for possession of classified documents upon return to the US from Gitmo. He was turned over to military authorities and is being held in the Brig. 1-This is not a bust for being a Moslim, it's for unauthorized possession of classified documents - quite a different kettle of fish! 2-The Military is holding him in the Brig - under the UCMJ, this means there is an open and shut prima facie case (read probable cause) or he'd be in the BOQ under Base or House Arrest. It is much tougher to make a case under the UCMJ than civilian law so it is significant that he is being held. Note this case is a religious and political H-Bomb and every 'i' will be dotted and 't' crossed! Expect him to get top counsel from the Army and CAIR will no doubt come up with someone like Dershowitz who can get a Top Secret Security Clearance to join or lead the Defense Team. 3-The Grenadier is charged with two counts of murder because two died from his attack. His statements about a religious motive may or may not be admitted or admissable at his Court Martial. Nonetheless, from Media reports, a religious motive was present. 4-You presume the answer to an open question: we do not know if we are at war only with 'radical' Islam. The American Jury is still out on that question. You take another broad jump when you state " There IS a severe hatred of Islam in this country. " If such a hated was fact, the body count would be significant but it is non-existent. Because we have religious freedom here, we don't much care about the content of any religion, other than our own if we have one. We do not have to understand or approve of any religion, it's part of the beauty of our system. Our prosecution of this war is not based upon religion, it's based upon killing terrorists!

daniel, I think a more appropriate view would be that the terrorist attack of 9.11 has turned a currect account surplus into a deficit. A billion or two or five per week is chump change when considered in terms of a trillion dollar economy. Also, note the CBO latest has us returning to a surplus in seven years at current expenditure levels. And this is the usual static projection which does not consider an improving economy or any effect of the tax cuts. Candidly, I think all of the politicians are blowing smoke when they claim political acts have significant economic effects. The only acts measured to have effected the economy these last fifty years are taxes. The amount of money taken by the government, up or down, is the only action by the government which shows economic results. Bushmust go - political slogans are not discourse, can't you do better than that? Hello, Whistler, I question your conclusion. If we are hit again prior to the election, I have no doubt the media and the ten dwarves will insist that it is Bush's fault but for nine of the ten, this is a loosing argument. They have gambled there will be no attack and have run on an anti-war platform - if there is an attack, they are history. Clark is the one possible exception but he has started badly by being cute - attempting to fudge his statements to appeal to the Dean crowd is a loosing proposition, he can't take votes away from the Far Left Poster Boy Dean. I expect his handlers to slap him into shape as a "centrist", a serious Vice Presidential candidate and as "God's Gift" to Hillary. Expect a Hillary/Clark ticket and this changes the equation to a significant degree. A Hillary/Clark ticket is a very serious alternative to Bush and with almost complete media support assured in advance, the only possible salvation for the Democrats. This would make it a very serious contest which could go either way depending upon outside events.

daniel, I think a more appropriate view would be that the terrorist attack of 9.11 has turned a currect account surplus into a deficit. A billion or two or five per week is chump change when considered in terms of a trillion dollar economy. Also, note the CBO latest has us returning to a surplus in seven years at current expenditure levels. And this is the usual static projection which does not consider an improving economy or any effect of the tax cuts. Candidly, I think all of the politicians are blowing smoke when they claim political acts have significant economic effects. The only acts measured to have effected the economy these last fifty years are taxes. The amount of money taken by the government, up or down, is the only action by the government which shows economic results. Bushmust go - political slogans are not discourse, can't you do better than that? Hello, Whistler, I question your conclusion. If we are hit again prior to the election, I have no doubt the media and the ten dwarves will insist that it is Bush's fault but for nine of the ten, this is a loosing argument. They have gambled there will be no attack and have run on an anti-war platform - if there is an attack, they are history. Clark is the one possible exception but he has started badly by being cute - attempting to fudge his statements to appeal to the Dean crowd is a loosing proposition, he can't take votes away from the Far Left Poster Boy Dean. I expect his handlers to slap him into shape as a "centrist", a serious Vice Presidential candidate and as "God's Gift" to Hillary. Expect a Hillary/Clark ticket and this changes the equation to a significant degree. A Hillary/Clark ticket is a very serious alternative to Bush and with almost complete media support assured in advance, the only possible salvation for the Democrats. This would make it a very serious contest which could go either way depending upon outside events.

This is a multifaceted problem. So long as one member of the American military indicates "Muslim" as his/her religion we must provide appropriate facilities for followers of that religion. Its the Law. This is not the first symptom of this problem - there was an earlier event when another Moslim Chaplin was found to be soliciting advice from Islamic Authorities in the Middle-East concerning preaching against American Muslims attacking other Muslims. Odd as they have been killing each other for centuries. Another was the fellow who did the grenade attack killing one and wounding many others - in a Kuwait encampment I believe. The basic unanswered question, of course, is are we at war with Islamic Terrorists or all of Islam? Immediately after 9.11, President Bush used the term "Crusade" but quickly eliminated it from usage. Not because the media objected but, I believe, because they found it resonated too much with mid-America. The rage within America over 9.11 is neither recognised or understood by the rest of the World but it surely is at the White House. If Americans become convinced that this war is with Islam, there will be a Crusade and there will be nuclear weapons used. In our justified rage, we are willing to think "The Unthinkable"!

SirRiff, Nova & Others: Assuming everything you say is correct, North America is still the target of a Ponzi Scheme - a con job. First, the base year of 1990 was very carefully chosen to target North America. Asia & Africa & So. America are exempt from Kyoto (for all intents and purposes); Russia & Germany have Billions in "credits" to sell as the USSR & East Germany no longer produce their old level of polution; and, Europe has minimal exposure because of their current level of economic activity and this can be easily covered with nominal purchase or trade for Russian Credits. The burden, financial and otherwise, for Kyoto falls only on North America. The irony of it all is that were America to reach full compliance, the Kyoto target would not be achieved as the major poluting Nations are exempt. There are only two ways America could comply with Kyoto - presuming a great depression is excluded - first, we could pay billions to Russia for pollution credits and bankrupt the American economy. But to what end? Or, we could go to complete generation of power by nuclear means. I suggest to you that 20 or 30 million newly unemployed Americans would have sufficient political power to silence the Environmental Lobbies and there would be nuclear generation in spite of any group's opposition. Only one North American Nation has signed Kyoto and that is Canada. Should Russia ratify the Kyoto Treaty and make it in force, Canada will go bankrupt attemting to reach compliance. Why am I not surprised that the economic effect was not considered by the politically correct Canadian Government which signed it? Well, any group of politicians which could turn a "million dollar" Gun Registration program into a billion dollar fiasco makes it obvious that they do not care how much of YOUR money they spend.

Hi Luigi & Greg My post represents 'gleanings' from several years of reading as well as the Canadian Government policy regarding refugees who claim to be fleeing from persecution. They are registered and then released into the general population pending a future hearing - thus my categorization "a catch and release program". I'm in the midst of a 'cash' project with a deadline of the 26th Sept. and until I complete that, don't have a great deal of time for involved research. Give it ten or twelve days and I'll have a properly researched and cited answer posted.

The magnitude of the gamble being taken by the left wing Democratic Party leadership is huge. They are betting either that President Bush has terrorism sufficiently under control to prevent a major incident before the election or that they will be able to 'blame' him and the Republicans for any terrorist incident within America. If an incident occurs and they are unable to 'blame' it on President Bush, they risk the very survival of the Democratic Party. This is not rational politics, to put it mildly. They have "misunderestimated" the response of the American People to terrorism. This is the segment of the Democrats which have embraced the "Politics of Hate" and they have passed beyond reality! This is the "Elite" group which embraces the multicultural post-modern beliefs of the European Intelligencia and their hatred is not directed so much at Bush, the individual (although much is) but at what he represents, a power structure which they - obviously the elite leadership of America - do not control. The peons and plebes - the middle class - are unfit for leadership and need to be 'guided' by their intellectual betters to a proper word-view and if you doubt that, just listen, they will tell you. The New Democrats, the Clinton 'Wing' of the Party has watched this leftward swing and is fighting for survival of the Party, but under their guidance, of course. Gen. Clark is not viable as a Presidential candidate but as 'Vice' on a Hillary/Clark Ticket he enables them to negate the ineffectual military record of Slick Willie which would be used against Hillary with great effectiveness. Her votes and statements on Iraq and terrorism have been cast quite wisely and she can NOT be tied to the radical left wing. It could work as the only alternative to allowing the Left Wing to destroy the Party with their current rabid mindset.

SirRiff, you said: I rest my case!