Tom Ridge says Al Qaeda preparing "large-scale attack"

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

BTW, I doubt it was ALL Rush talked about today.

Well that and his endless bashing of Edwards. Personally I'm sick of the heat everyone is giving Edwards. I love the guy and think people are fucking stupid for dissing someone because of his age and lack of experience. I think he is great for politics.

Forty-two

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Was I actually sloppy enough to speak in absolutes?

No? Ok, I stand by my assertions.

Hiding behind 'very little'? Quade, I expected better from you.

Quote

For example . . . TSA screening used to be performed by employees of airports and funded by the airlines. Now, even if you're not an airline traveler, you're paying for the TSA.

Sorry for mixing up the replies, but . . .

And benefiting from the TSA, too. Right? Wasn't it the TSA that found Richard Reid (the shoe bomber)? How many people who didn't fly benefited from that find? I'm thinking everyone underneath the intended detonation point, the families of those onboard, I'm sure there are more. Also, and I think that you know this - the TSA is responsible for more than just airlines.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[quade 4]

Quote

Also, and I think that you know this - the TSA is responsible for more than just airlines.

Simply the first example that came to mind.

I honestly don't know enough to comment too much on bus, international shipping or rail transportation, but I'm fairly familiar with aviation.

Anyway, the point is, the formation of the DHS (and it's TSA) is a -very- UN-Republican concept.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

Of course, that's only thoughts from the liberal sheep. For the rest of the sane, intelligent people we see this as a warning from our leader that an attack could happen. Nothing more, nothing less.

Are you a member of the military or something?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Yeah, I even heard that Kris might be allowed to renew her driver's license anyway, despite the Patriot Act provision that was preventing her from doing so. I'm sure she will be back with Al Qaeda real soon too; don't forget, our government doesn't make mistakes.

You are quick to cry about one person being inconvineced. But you are slow to admit that maybe there have been hundreds or even ONE person that could not get a fake ID do to the same restrictions.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Yeah, I even heard that Kris might be allowed to renew her driver's license anyway, despite the Patriot Act provision that was preventing her from doing so. I'm sure she will be back with Al Qaeda real soon too; don't forget, our government doesn't make mistakes.

Straight from Kris's keyboard:

Quote

And the Patriot act doesn't say anything about needing someone's original birth certificate. It does mention the information sharing (section 701). What I'm running into is not law, its policy.

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with her inability to get a driver's license.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

GWB created an entirely new cabinet level bureaucracy with a huge budget that has done very little to actually make us any safer.

How do you know that? Where is your proof?

We *know* that the TSA has not made air travel safe. People continue to unintentionally bring firearms on board. If they can manage that without even trying, surely a less well intentioned type can do well enough.

The M16s at the airport were window dressing to make the sheep feel happy.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

We *know* that the TSA has not made air travel safe. People continue to unintentionally bring firearms on board. If they can manage that without even trying, surely a less well intentioned type can do well enough.

Because we haven't had another 9/11 type incident, or anything even close, then I still submit that you have no -PROOF- that the TSA hasn't made air travel safe. There's also more to the TSA than simply checking your luggage and manning the metal detectors. I'm not defending them (at least not intentionally - and I think they've got a long way to go), but you have still failed to provide -PROOF- that we are not safer with them than without.

Quote

The M16s at the airport were window dressing to make the sheep feel happy.

Not entirely sure that I agree with that statement. At the time that the NG was deployed to the airports I think that they might have seriously considered shooting someone, terrorist, unruley passenger, or anyone else. Their deployment was a knee jerk reaction and the country was in shock and confusion. We've since thought that maybe the guys with big guns weren't entirely necessary and now they're gone.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhreeZone 20]

>We've since thought that maybe the guys with big guns weren't entirely necessary and now they're gone.

They were still in Columbus International just 3 weeks ago. I saw no less then 4 NG's in the 3 hours I was at the airport. 1 was at each metal detector and 1 was just doing rounds. Not sure how many are there during the week but on a Sat morning they were still there.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Tom Ridge says Al Qaeda preparing "large-scale attack"

rubbish - entirely impossible

Bush and Cheney have been telling me repeatedly that we have become
much safer because of the Iraq war. You must have your facts wrong.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Kennedy 0]

Jim, this doesn't sound like you. According to your logic, at 7:00am on the morning of September 11th, would you have submitted that there was no evidence that air travel is a vulnerability?

"Safe" is a very high standard, and with everything from guns to box-cutters still making it on board airliners, I would submit that air traffic security is still flawed. Improved, maybe, but not "safe." One must also do a cost benefit on the TSA taking over the 'red jacket' duties. Has anything at that level improved?


Also, like someone else said, the M-16s are not gone from major airports (I still think they're little more than very expensive window dressing).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>So, anything less than no further attacks is seen as a totally ineffective
>administration by the left.

By both sides. "What, you want another terrorist attack?" is the most common defense by right-wingers when security policies are questioned. "No further attacks" is their holy grail too (one I do not think is achievable BTW)

Now they have Tom Daschle in on the conspiracy.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1300&dept_id=156927&newsid=12283083&PAG=461&rfi=9

Quote

Daschle concerned about 'sobering' terror briefing
BY DONNA SMITH, Black Hills Pioneer July 09, 2004
SPEARFISH -- Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Thursday that he was very concerned about homeland security issues in the face of what he called the most sobering terror report he had heard recently.

Quote

Asked if the timing of the terror concerns might be aimed at stealing political thunder from the announcement of John Edwards as the democratic vice presidential candidate, Daschle replied, "The report is so sobering and so serious that I cannot bring myself to believe anyone in this administration would use this for political purposes."
Daschle said the most recent terror briefing was the second this week and contained information that there is a higher threat than there has been at any time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

Quote

Yeah, I even heard that Kris might be allowed to renew her driver's license anyway, despite the Patriot Act provision that was preventing her from doing so. I'm sure she will be back with Al Qaeda real soon too; don't forget, our government doesn't make mistakes.

You are quick to cry about one person being inconvineced. But you are slow to admit that maybe there have been hundreds or even ONE person that could not get a fake ID do to the same restrictions.

But we have something like seven known terrorists roaming the country who apparently go in after all of the new security. There have also been many reports of perfectly innocent people of middle-eastern decent being hugely inconvenienced. Great report in the paper the other day about a Anglo software salesman and budding author being added to the watch list because he wrote a sentence with the word bomb in it on his newspaper during a flight. Paranoid passenger sitting next to him reported it to the flight attendant who contacted TSA who contacted the Dallas cops. He was even able to show on his laptop where he had added the phrase to his book. Wasn't good enough for the Dallas police. They let him go but said they will be watching him. Reports of people with the same name as suspected terrorists having to prove over and over again that they are not the bad guy. And yes, Kris, who is going through a lot of trouble directly or indirectly, caused by the Patriot Act. Of course if they did capture someone they couldn't tell us because then they might compromise security or worse have to get the person a lawyer.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Ron 10]

Quote

But we have something like seven known terrorists roaming the country who apparently go in after all of the new security.

7 is better than 15 or 100 don't you think?

Quote

There have also been many reports of perfectly innocent people of middle-eastern decent being hugely inconvenienced.

And young black kids get inconvienced at 3 AM if they are driving a 50,000.00 car.

Young white kids with tatoos and piercings get harrassed everyday.

Thats the problem with profiling....However it does work.

Quote

And yes, Kris, who is going through a lot of trouble directly or indirectly, caused by the Patriot Act.

Her problems by her own admitance were from how the DMV acted to the act...That sounds like a problem with the DMV...Who would have thought?

Quote

Of course if they did capture someone they couldn't tell us because then they might compromise security or worse have to get the person a lawyer.

If they were to tell us then the terroists would know how we caught them....

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We *know* that the TSA has not made air travel safe. People continue to unintentionally bring firearms on board. If they can manage that without even trying, surely a less well intentioned type can do well enough.

Because we haven't had another 9/11 type incident, or anything even close, then I still submit that you have no -PROOF- that the TSA hasn't made air travel safe. There's also more to the TSA than simply checking your luggage and manning the metal detectors. I'm not defending them (at least not intentionally - and I think they've got a long way to go), but you have still failed to provide -PROOF- that we are not safer with them than without.
Jim

We never had one of those incidents before, either, so the lack of another doesn't prove that the TSA has improved things, and mind you, the burden of proof is on that end given the $$ and inconvenience it has caused. The fact that people can forget their CCW guns and bring them onboard proves they have failed, and badly. I credit the success since 2001 to the fact that we have kept them on the run and demolished any countries that were favorable to them. It's much hard to work without an established home base.

It's clear that arming pilots is the answer, and the TSA (or is it another org?) has effectively killed any attempts to do so, despite direction from Congress. You can never guarantee that no one will bring a weapon on board, so you instead remove any incentive to try. A secure cockpit with a last resort option reduces the chance for success sufficiently to redirect bad guy interests elsewhere.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Thats the problem with profiling....However it does work.

Amen. I never understood why people gasp when they hear the words, "racial profiling." Racial profiling is a good thing. Progress moves forward more smoothly when you throw out the PC aspect of it and use good old common sense.

Forty-two

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

It's clear that arming pilots is the answer

I'm as big a proponent of arming pilots as exists, but I would say it is an answer, not the answer.

Quote

and the TSA (or is it another org?) has effectively killed any attempts to do so, despite direction from Congress.

Yes, this is another idiocy the begins and ends with the TSA.

Quote

You can never guarantee that no one will bring a weapon on board, so you instead remove any incentive to try. A secure cockpit with a last resort option reduces the chance for success sufficiently to redirect bad guy interests elsewhere.

Absolutely. And then we have to look at the "elsewheres."
(freight shipping, border crossing 18 wheelers, oil tankers near the coasts, lack of Border Patrol support, etc)

ps - anyone who thinks you can't get a weapon on a plane tomorrow, go find a wannabe catalogue and order a ceramic "letter opener."
(aka knife)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 10]

Quote

Amen. I never understood why people gasp when they hear the words, "racial profiling." Racial profiling is a good thing. Progress moves forward more smoothly when you throw out the PC aspect of it and use good old common sense

But Tuna...That would require people to not be so damn touchy feely and you might upset someone.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

It's clear that arming pilots is the answer, and the TSA (or is it another org?) has effectively killed any attempts to do so, despite direction from Congress

I work for an airline....We have pilots that are carrying.

It is PART of an answer, but not the whole answer...It would be better if we stop the terroists early.

Its the 1,10,100 principal.

1: Well remove their ability to get to the US.. And remove the support structure from underneath them.

10: We prevent them from getting into the country, or from getting onto an airplane with a weapon.

100: We use air marshals or armed pilots to prevent them from carrying out another attack.

The best answer is to make it so they ae never in the US...The worst answer is to just arm the pilots and hope that the pilots will stop them.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Was I actually sloppy enough to speak in absolutes?

No? Ok, I stand by my assertions.

Hiding behind 'very little'? Quade, I expected better from you.

Quote

For example . . . TSA screening used to be performed by employees of airports and funded by the airlines. Now, even if you're not an airline traveler, you're paying for the TSA.

Sorry for mixing up the replies, but . . .

And benefiting from the TSA, too. Right? Wasn't it the TSA that found Richard Reid (the shoe bomber)? How many people who didn't fly benefited from that find?

I don't believe it was TSA that caught him.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhreeZone 20]

You are correct. He was allowed to get on the plane and was overpowered by fellow passengers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1783237.stm The TSA had nothing to do with stoping him.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

You are correct. He was allowed to get on the plane and was overpowered by fellow passengers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1783237.stm The TSA had nothing to do with stoping him.

Totally OT - let me know when you are likely to come to SDC.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Amen. I never understood why people gasp when they hear the words, "racial profiling." Racial profiling is a good thing. Progress moves forward more smoothly when you throw out the PC aspect of it and use good old common sense

But Tuna...That would require people to not be so damn touchy feely and you might upset someone.

It has a lot less to do about touchy feely and not offending someone than it does about eroding the principles of our nation. The principles that people are judged on their individual merits. That there aren't special rules for people based on anything except their personal qualities. That protection of the rights of the individual are the paramount purpose of the government.

I don't understand how people can claim that affirmative action is discrimination, but racial profiling is not. That indicates to me that people are less upset about the racist aspect of affirmative action, and more concerned with the fact that it favors a race besides their own.

[Ron 10]

Quote

It has a lot less to do about touchy feely and not offending someone than it does about eroding the principles of our nation

what that all men are created equal? Entitled to the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Well I got news for you...People are equal. However, it is pretty clear that if a women gets her purse snatched on the street and the perp runs into a room. Three people were in that room and are being held. One is a mid 40's buisness man in a nice suit with a Rolex on his arm, the other is a 6mth pregnant women,a nd the other is a 19 year old man with tatoos and piercings....

Gee, wanna take a guess at who did it?

Profiling does work.

Quote

I don't understand how people can claim that affirmative action is discrimination, but racial profiling is not. That indicates to me that people are less upset about the racist aspect of affirmative action, and more concerned with the fact that it favors a race besides their own.

No Affirmative action is taking people and GIVING them something they didn't earn based on race. Profiling is about taking someones apperance and LOOKING into it more.

Its not like police are arresting folks just cause they are black when a crime happens...they might Question them...And they might Question a young punk white kid at the same time.

If a purse gets snatched at the two possible suspects are a 20 year old black man with a nice set of clothes on and carrying a briefcase, and a 20 year old white kid with tatoos and piercings and a "Anarchy" tshirt on...Well guess with one Im gonna suspect?

Racism would dictate that I suspect the black guy "cause he is black"..In this case I would suspect the punk.

See the difference?

In one you make a choice based on race, the other you investiagte more, based on apperance. The apperance of the INDIVIDUAL.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Racism would dictate that I suspect the black guy "cause he is black"..In this case I would suspect the punk.

See the difference?

Yes, but we were talking about racial profiling. That indicates profiling based on race, not cranial accessories.

Quote

No Affirmative action is taking people and GIVING them something they didn't earn based on race. Profiling is about taking someones apperance and LOOKING into it more.

So you're against giving to people, or helping people, based on race, but have no problem with inconveniencing (at best) or harassing and possibly violating civil rights of people (at worst) based on race?