Frode wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

David Maynard wrote:

Focus lad, focus. We're not talking about prior to '91. We're talking
about '91-'03.

This is so typical of your 'side': Make a false claim and then change the
subject or claim 'modifications' when it's shown to be false.


(Since we both agree the other's points above this was just bs there's no
point getting circular so skipping the top portion)

The subject covered in all of the thread that I've been involved in has been
the justification for the second gulf war. Not the first. Not prior to the
first. The one as of this year. You must've been really distracted if you
thought we were discussing the US' burden of evidence for starting the first
war. I think a few hundred Iraqi tanks in Kuwait covered that pretty well.

You have a lot of gaul to make critical claims after having removed all that was
said and every hint of context.

No, I wasn't "distracted." I was replying to false claims made but since you've
removed the entire thing I'll give a short example to illustrate.

Suppose Mr. Bill, who is 5 foot tall, applies for a job.
Mr. Critic says Mr. Bill shouldn't get the job because "no one of that height
has ever done well at it."
I point out that Mr. Jones, who is the exact same height as Mr. Bill, won two
Excellence in Achievement Awards for doing the same job.
Mr. Critic retorts that the 'subject' is Mr. Bill's unsuitability and not what
awards Mr. Jones won.

Well, Mr. Critic is wrong in that the subject was his false contention about "no
one ever."

You then, trying to be Mr. Cutesy, cut the whole thing out and chime in about
how I must be 'distracted'. And you're just as wrong as Mr. Critic.

In case you hadn't noticed, pal, the U.S. was already attacked;
multiple times. 9-11 was the last straw.

Please produce the evidence Iraq attacked the US. Prior to, including,
and after the WTC attacks. Hasn't it been agreed on what group did that
and didn't the world go to war in Afghanistan because of it? The WTC had
nothing to do with Iraq.

Same thing as above; you change the argument.


No, I don't. I asked you to support your claim that you have been attacked
multiple times by organizations proven to originate or be significantly
linked to the Iraqi regime. What are the "multiple times" you are refering
to? Where is the evidence proving Saddam's regime had anything to do with
them?

That is you changing the subject, as well as the context of it. What you
ORIGINALLY claimed, and to what I responded, was the U.S. would have themselves
"to thank for it" if it ****ed off the Middle East and, to use your exact words
"the entire middle east blows up in your face and you trigger a flood
of terrorism on US soil." I pointed out that we were already attacked AND "on
U.S. soil."

You didn't say anything about being attacked by "Iraq," as you now claim, you
said "entire middle east" and "terrorism."

You said it would be 'our fault' if we take action and then end up being
'attacked'. I pointed out we have already been attacked (for doing
nothing). We are NOT at 'peace'.


You had 1 terrorist act on your soil (not counting embassies) with a fair
amount of proof as to its source.

Again you change your claims. You originally said "only once" on U.S. soil and
you've now modified it to exclude embassies, who knows why. Further, I've
already pointed out that the WTC ALONE was attacked TWICE: the 1993 bombing and
then 9-11.

Your inability to get the number right is only a symptom of the disingenuous
flim flam you're trying to pull off with the "1" time Bullwinkle, as if "1 time"
is so 'trivial' for the 'over reaction' when your (erroneously) supposed "1"
time wreaked death and destruction on a scale comparable to Pearl Harbor.

You attacked that source with international
support and sympathies. The US then decided it wanted to finish off Saddam as
well, and went to Iraq with very little support and no evidence to connect
Iraq to any terrorist activity on US soil.

That's simply a complete misrepresentation of the reasons and justification.

There's no evidence any groupings
in Iraq previously attacked the US.

Lord only knows what "groupings" are.

If they do now out of religious
fanaticism the US provoked them to do so.

Unsupported hogwash. What 'religious' idiom did we 'attack?'

And what the hell do you mean by "if now?" How many times do you have to be
informed that the U.S. was ALREADY attacked by "religious fanaticism."

It may have been the last drop to
cause the cup to flood from their perspective.

They've been supping on the 'last drop" for DECADES. Where the hell have YOU been?

That's why the evidence needs
to be very clear or you risk provoking groups previously not interested in
harming US citizens.

Terrorists have been wantonly murdering people for decades and Saddam, besides
murdering his own population in droves, started two wars, threatened Saudi
Arabia, refused to comply with U.N. mandates, and pursued illegal WMD programs.
And you are worried we will 'provoke' them? To do what? What they're already doing?

Your assessment of 'who' is involved in 'what' is blindly naive. The whole
region is 'involved'.


You can claim the same of an LA gang. "They're all involved in the
shootouts". You can't go arresting them all based on that though. You have
the burden of proof for every individual's involvement. The same goes for
said geographical region.

No, the same doesn't 'go' because "the region" is not an L.A. street gang. An
L.A. street gang doesn't have the scope, organization, nor capability to wage
'war' and your analogies to 'domestic legalities' is wholly inadequate as the
predicate FOR 'domestic legalities' does not exist between nations and/or
international terrorist organizations.

Domestic law is a contract between government and the society which grants it
authority/power and imposes limitations upon that power. Government is, for
example, granted the power of search and seizure but there is no such ability,
besides espionage, for the U.S. to gather information from Iraq; nor could the
U.N., as the inspection regime should have made abundantly clear even to YOU.
Government (and the defendant) are granted power to compel witnesses to testify
in court and even Saddam, laughingly, claimed he could not 'compel' his
scientists to even so much as 'talk' to U.N. inspectors.

Not to mention there is no enforceable COURT or else the
south-end-of-a-north-bound-horse Saddam would have been made to comply with the
12 years of MANDATORY U.N. rulings. Not to mention, just how do you suggest he
be 'arrested' in order to even APPEAR before the non existent 'court' without
what was done?

Your analogy fails miserably.

What other terrorist acts on US soil apart from the WTC has been
perpetrated by foreign organizations?

You mean both times? Btw, U.S. embassies, wherever they are, are "U.S.
soil" and so are U.S. Warships but I suppose you figure that, off the 50
states, U.S. interests are just 'fair targets' and 'tough luck', eh?


Obviously military craft are by definition legitimate military targets.

Oh, really? To WHO? YOU like to pretend an obsession with 'international
legalities' so just WHAT international 'law' recognizes a terrorist's
'declaration of war' so that "military craft" are "legitimate targets?"

But thanks for admitting it IS a "war" in the "WAR" sense.

If an
organization attacks a US ship in friendly or neutral waters, you are
entitled to find out which group and go after that group.

We a International terrorists.

And don't turn around and change the topic again by asking the "when did Iraq?"
question because that was never the claim and the topic here is "What other
terrorist acts?"

Same thing if it
was a country that declared war on you.

Gee, thanks for allowing the U.S. to fight back when war is declared on them.

You're not entitled to attack any
country you wish for reasons you can't produce evidence of and justify.

No one made that claim either. You're simply inventing your own strawmen to
flail against.

Not to mention your contention is pollyannish. Just who do you think 'refereed'
W.W.II to make sure each side only attacked the 'legal' ones?

A country under attack has every right to fight those participating in the
attack, including those aiding the enemy.

Embassies in hostile regions are obviously targets as well.

So you're declaring the entire world a "hostile region?"


Albeit not
legitimate ones.

When it comes to terrorists, your quaint arguments of 'legitimate targets' falls
on deaf ears.

Like any other criminal act performed by criminals you are
of course entitled to bring the perpetrators to justice in cooperation with
the country's local law enforcement.

That statement proves you haven't a clue what's going on, nor an understanding
of what criminal, terrorist, and war means.

You don't go leveling entire cities in
doing so however anymore than you just burn down the worst neighborhoods in
your own major cities.

Weeeeeee. Let loose the flamboyant false rhetoric.

And just what "cities" did the U.S. go in and "level" with precision bombing
hitting strictly military targets, and usually so effective that you can see the
effects on one building and not a scratch on the adjacent ones?

See? I told you the folks on your side couldn't accurately represent reality if
their life depended on it.

Nor do you attack the country "we think they came
from" without a very good amount of evidence

Your standard for "good evidence" is impossible to ever satisfy. Hell, you can't
acknowledge evidence even EXISTS unless it's 'mathematically perfect'.

they are indeed from their and
are supported by the government there.

And, of course, if Saddam's "Information Minister," Baghdad Bob, says they aint
there, when the US does, then you'll believe him, even though a TV crew is
interviewing U.S. tank personnel 25 feet behind him.


The OKC bomb? The Atlanta pipebomb? The much covered Washington snipers?
The unabomber? They were Iraqis?

No, and that's your absurdity, not mine.


I'm still waiting for you to produce a list of what terrorist acts you were
referring to above.

The ones that took place on U.S. soil, including Embassies and military craft
(as they are internationally recognized as U.S. soil).

had huge storages of ready-to-fire chemical weapons. The US had
nothing except general rumor and hearsay to back their claims up.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

That's just the point. There's no evidence to see.

You just proved my statement. I saw it.


That's what the US has been telling the world. "I saw it" isn't much good
without producing the evidence to support it though.

You claim "There's no evidence to see." I saw the evidence presented. The whole
world did.

Now a reasonable person might say they didn't find the evidence presented
convincing enough, to which I would disagree, but you don't. You falsely claim
there's none to see.

Based on "I saw it"
every child's word is proof santa is real and closets harbor monsters.

Wrong. I am capable of distinguishing between cartoons, news reports, U.N.
presentations, CIA reports, UNSCOM reports, Congressional hearings, and the rest.

The US has failed to produce anything except "we believe this is so
because... we can't show you what our reasons are you just have to take
our word for it and we'll show

That you insist on playing like The Three Monkeys with plugged ears and
covered eyes is your problem.


I'm glad the justice system doesn't work the way you wish international
opinion did.

International opinion isn't a court to begin with nor does it, in any way,
resemble a justice system.

No trial would ever end up in anything but a deadlock since
anything mentioned by either side would require no proof apart from being
uttered in the courtroom.

Give the U.S. power to search and seize foreign government documents, the power
to compel foreign nationals to testify, arrest, wiretap, and all the other
powers available to a government in pursuit of justice and then we'll discuss
your criteria for 'evidence' during the 'trial'


Just because you're too blind to see the correlation does not make it
less real.

And just because you refuse to see what's placed under your nose doesn't
make your paranoia real.


Paranoia? Which nation went to war on another based on fear and unsupported
by evidence the fear was reasonable?

None.

Paranoia seems to be an accurate
description of the reasons for attacking Iraq since no evidence to show they
were worthy of fearing has been produced.

Tell that to Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the Iraqi people.

But again, you change the argument. You made an absolute claim about 'how
wars are started these days' and it's a false claim for the reasons I
stated (but that you snipped because it was irrefutable).


I snip when I see there's no point answering since you've taken a fanatic
stance.

Snipping what was said so you can make accusations against it is deceitful and
dishonest; and there's nothing "fanatic" about showing your broad brush,
unsupported, claims to be just that.

I'm not here to restate the same obvious points time and time again.

Things that are obvious stand on their own without needing you to declare it, or
snip it.

If you feel that is a victory, by all means bask in the glory.


Further, you used it to 'prove' your claim that the administration is doing
so (I.E. that's the way it's done these days so they 'must be') but


The burden of proof is not on me or the world, but on the US that initiated
the war. Nice try, but I suggest you show the evidence that Iraq was a clear
and present danger to the US at the time the US chose to go to war as opposed
to trying to derail the topic.

You keep confusing claims you make with where you want to 'end up'. You made a
false all encompassing generic claim about 'how wars are started' and I
responded to THAT. You now want to shift the topic to a different 'proof' than
the claim you made and I'm not going to do that HERE because it's off topic in
this section and has been dealt with elsewhere.

In fact, most of the world apart from US citizens can see it just fine.

'Most' of the world does not have a widely diverse and free press with
access to all the facts.


Large parts of the world does, if the template is the geographical and
population mass of the US. Much larger parts than the US itself.

Not by my standards of widely diverse and free.

Irrelevant at any rate as the popularity of a proposition says nothing about the
truth of it.

That is one of the great myths promulgated by your side. No, the
'technique' Hitler used was absolute control over every means of
communication and the material presented. There's nothing even remotely
similar to the U.S.


After the WTC the american public would've swallowed almost anything if they
felt they were giving payback to those that organized the attack.

That's a convenient self serving accusation. How about "you'd believe almost
anything as long as it was critical of the U.S.?" And I'm sure we can both think
up lots more unsubstantiated, self serving, ad hominum opinions to bandy back
and forth, not that it accomplishes a blessed thing.

Hitler did
not have the luxury of such an act to build on.

He didn't need anything 'real' as had the luxury of complete control over all
media and means of communication. He simply invented one: the persecution of
Germans by Poland.

Polls prior to the war were
heavily in favor of not going to war on Iraq without international support.

Not quite. The polls were in favor of international support, and I would have
liked more international support too, but that doesn't mean one is "against" it
without international support.

After the war started the majority supported it to support their troops.

Your presumptions are not supported by the polls as the ones I've seen clearly
show that the American public solidly thinks the war was the right thing to do,
not that it's from simply 'support the troops'.

Currently, from what I've seen, it seems to be steadily fading as the
administration time and time again fails to produce the evidence they
promised.

Depends on what, and how, the questions are asked but your interpretations are
clearly self serving. Some people are concerned that the 'rebuilding' is not
going as well as the major combat operations did but polls do not show erosion
about 'the evidence', as you claim.


And the moral vapidity comes from the disingenuous attempt to suggest
that the two are equivalent.

Learning from history has nothing to do with a lack of morals.

Attempting to equate a defender with the attacker, or a murderous dictator
with the liberator, or the U.S. with Saddam, is morally vapid.


Considering the US in this case were very clearly the attacker, that's a
ridiculous statement.

Whether you think, and it is purely your opinion based on your interpretation of
things and not a 'fact', that the U.S. was 'the attacker' has no bearing on the
argument I presented. You made a false generic claim and I responded to it in
the generic.

The US war on Iraq is proactive, not reactive.

It's only 'proactive' if one decides to erase their memory of everything
preceding it and plead ignorance but, in the real world, history matters.

If there
were sufficient evidence to support such an action that would've been
justifiable. Said evidence is what is lacking however, which is what this is
all about.

Yes, it's about your denial of the evidence presented.


'The sky is falling' poppycock.

It's rather funny you don't realize you just described the US attempt at
claiming the same would be true if Iraq wasn't occupied.

Make a good sentence of it and maybe it will have some meaning.


Not my best sentence ever. But if you retake reading comprehension 101 and
you'll work it out I'm sure.

If you retake writing 101 it wouldn't need 'interpretation'. If you want to make
a point then make it clear.

And don't bother 'pointing out' that 'they' are not prisoners of war. The
point is that your, again generic, claim that no one can be held without
being charged with a 'crime"' is false.


I'm not an expert on US law, but I do believe the 5th amendment clearly
states you can't be held unless indicted. The exception indeed being if at
service while in time of war.

This one is great. You make an 'absolute' and then, in the next sentence,
provide 'exceptions'.

You left out "or public danger."

So unless those held are proven members of army
or militia and in active service, they can't constitutionally be held without
indictment.

Not so. And "enemy combatants' are not a U.S. legal 'invention'; they are
codified in international law.

But just think a moment about your assertion to 'prove'. You're on a battle
field and a gaggle of folks are shooting at you with ak-47s. After having
captured them you now want them taken to 'court' (who's?) to 'prove' they are
"in active service" with an "army or militia?" So the guy says "me no army. I
just feel like killing americans." Oh, ok... you can go. LOL No, of course
not. You now want a 'civil' trial, right? Where? U.S. 'law' doesn't apply on the
battle field in another country. Local law? Oh SURE. THEY will convict the guy
for shooting at THEIR enemy. Oh wait, but we'll get 'evidence' he's REALLY in
their army, right? Yeah. Say, you guys, Yeah You: the ones in enemy uniforms.
Come testify for us against this idiot so we can 'convict' him.

Say, just where do you repatriate a terrorist to? Where you found him fighting?
Where his terrorist base is? Or where he was born? And, while we're at it, which
terrorist 'leader' surrendered their 'army', 'country' (oops, no country)? Who
signed the peace terms enabling prisoner exchange?

I'm being a little flippant here, for comedic relief, but the gist is quite real
and the non battle field case presents similar problems. There are no 'normal'
procedures, domestic or international, for the kind of real war the U.S., indeed
the free world, is engaged in.

Since I'm not a US lawyer, nor want to spend the time reading the
entire amendment,

Yeah. It's like a whole 3 or 4 sentences.

I of course stand ready to be corrected. But if doing so
you'll need provide more than "you're wrong".

Try common sense, for a starter.

track its citizens every move,

An absurd claim. But not surprising as I've come to the conclusion that
your side is simply incapable of stating facts but are instead compelled to
put things in the most inflammatory manner possible regardless of whether
it has any relation to reality. As a result, facts themselves are never
debated and the discussion is reduced to nothing more than the throwing of
wild accusations like "1984 is on the way."


- From the Patriot Act:

First sentence and you're already misrepresenting things. The following is NOT
"from the Patriot Act" but is from a someone's, we know not who, interpretation,
and opinion of, the Patriot Act.


"FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without
demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an
order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or
pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that
person or entity is named in the order."

The part missing is that it, as always, requires a court order with the same
level of evidentiary suspicion. What is different is not needing to get a new
order each time the person under investigation changes the phone he's using. In
my opinion this is a reasonable change, in light of technology, as it is the
person that is being investigated and not 'the phone'.


"The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including
terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the
U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an
ongoing criminal investigation."

One can whine all one wants about the meaning of "relevant" but that, as was
always the case, is under judicial review and requires a judge to agree. That is
the case with ANY court order.

Internet activity is not any different than phone conversations, except for the
technical medium. Why would you expect it to be free from investigation?


"Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court
order."

This sounds like the well known "hot pursuit" principle. Someone attacking a
computer and the time needed to wait for some court to convene is intolerable.

The characterization is a good example of how twisting words alters the meaning.
The act says nothing of "suspected" trespassers. That is, apparently, the
critic's contribution. He also leaves out the limiting 'details' to make it
sound like just anyone falls under it. Tain't so.

The title of that section is: "SEC. 217. INTERCEPTION OF COMPUTER TRESPASSER
COMMUNICATIONS" and deals with "protected computers."

Trespasser is defined:

`(21) `computer trespasser'--
`(A) means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and
thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication transmitted
to, through, or from the protected computer; and
`(B) does not include a person known by the owner or operator of the protected
computer to have an existing contractual relationship with the owner or operator
of the protected computer for access to all or part of the protected computer.';

What is says is:

`(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color
of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer
trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if--
`(I) the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception
of the computer trespasser's communications on the protected computer;
`(II) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;
`(III) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe
that the contents of the computer trespasser's communications will be relevant
to the investigation; and
`(IV) such interception does not acquire communications other than those
transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.'.


Now why, in God's name, would you expect that communication traffic from/to a
trespasser, on a computer unlawfully broken into, should be 'protected'? Not to
mention that even the illegal trespassing act itself is NOT ENOUGH to allow the
interception.


The list goes on. And that's just the Patriot Act.

The problem with your 'list' is you don't consider the reasons (e.g. technology
changes), limitations, existing law, or anything else, but simply take
inflammatory, end of the world, characterizations as gospel.

The TIA's clear and stated
goal is to be able to automatically monitor people to such an extent that the
system can redflag "dangerous" behaviour.

And you have a problem with identifying dangerous behavior?

It includes the HumanID program to
recognize and catalog people based on facial recognition.

The purpose of the program is to identify threats in a crowd and is not
dissimilar to what a human agent would do when visually scanning a crowd looking
for threats.


Combine the Patriot and TIA and you're getting very close to complete
surveillance of all, innocent or otherwise. It is rather cute that the T in
TIA was changed from Total to Terrorism. Unless you conveniently forget the
original meaning of the T its purpose is rather obvious isn't it. The name
clearly states it.

I have my own concerns with TIA and HID but the point is you don't state any
real concern but simply go into a knee jerk tizzy without analysis; relying on
nothing more than the adjectives someone uses to characterize it. If I say "it's
to find murderers" then it's fine. If I say "it's to track innocent civilians"
then you panic. But you don't investigate enough to know whether either is an
accurate statement; much less go into any contemplation: such as noting that ANY
'investigation' into a murder can also result, at least occasionally, in an
'innocent civilian' being investigated in the process (not to mention we're ALL
'innocent' till proven 'guilty', aren't we?). After all, if they KNEW who was
guilty they wouldn't need an 'investigation'. The question would remain if the
tradeoff is reasonable, in light of the threat, and what protections are in
place, or proposed, but you don't bother to think about it.


The Constitution has always granted reasonable search and seizure rights to
government.


Yes, reasonable. Covered above.

No, it wasn't. You didn't give 2 seconds of thought to whether anything was
reasonable or not. Someone simply yelled 'disaster' and you knee jerk panicked.