Timing is everything, isn't it? (political thread)
- Thread starter Briar Rose 7457
- Start date
minniepumpernickel
<font color=FF66FF>DIS Veteran<br><font color=0099
- Joined
- May 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,973
I'm not really sure of a correlation either. I just enjoy reading about mass murderers and different cult like movements.
I know that before Al Queda came on to the scene, we had bizarre movements within our own country that wanted to kill large numbers of people. I was also thinking Jim Jones,a nd Gianna (sp).
If anyone is finished with any of these type of books, I'd be glad to borrow them.
Briar Rose 7457
Proud of my Princesses
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2002
- Messages
- 4,944
guess you never heard of Aryna Nation or the KKK.
Briar Rose 7457
Proud of my Princesses
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2002
- Messages
- 4,944
McCarthyism involved conspiracy theories about alleged infiltration of our government and armed services by "enemy agents," i.e., the Soviet Union. the fear was that the Soviets would infiltrate our country and steal away our way of life from within. couple that with a very real threat of nuclear warfare, and paranoi reigned.
similar to what I see happeneing now.
turning back to the original question, by the way, here's an interesting editorial from Newsday:
U.S. view in terror cases: Trust us
Marie Cocco
June 3, 2004
There was never any dirty bomb. Or even a plot to explode a dirty bomb. What we have is a stink bomb.
By the Justice Department's own account, Jose Padilla, an American citizen held as an "enemy combatant" in a military brig for two years without trial or charges against him, never possessed an explosive device laced with nuclear materials. He never tried to obtain the materials. He never got a nuclear plot approved by higher-ups in al-Qaida. They thought it was infeasible.
The terrorist leaders suggested instead that Padilla rent some apartments in high-rise buildings - New York, Florida and Washington supposedly were discussed as the appropriate locales - and use the buildings' gas heating systems to blow them up.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that Padilla had been scooped out of the regular criminal justice system and thrown into a military brig, he said it was because the government had "disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb."
Never mind. Now we are supposed to believe the revised version.
This is because the Justice Department decided to declassify the information it says it obtained from interrogating Padilla and others held in the war on terror. This propitiously timed declassification, according to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, hasn't to do with the fact that the Supreme Court is about to rule on the Padilla case and another involving an American held as an "enemy combatant."
The high court is to decide whether the president can declare, unilaterally and without court review, that an American citizen may be incarcerated indefinitely, without charge or trial or access to a lawyer.
Comey's outline of Padilla's alleged intentions reads like an opening statement in a big trial. It is scary and infused with the drama of the chase. Sam Waterson could do no better.
But there is probably to be no trial, Comey indicated. None of the statements Padilla gave his military captors are admissible in court, he said. There was no trial to begin with, Comey said, because if Padilla had a lawyer he probably wouldn't have talked. He might have copped a plea and cooperated - the usual way to get information from bad guys. But Comey said a plea wasn't possible because of the "absence of a hammer." That is, the government had no credible evidence and so could not "credibly threaten criminal charges." So it locked Padilla up and threw away the key.
What the government did develop came from Padilla's interrogation and others. But we can learn nothing about the nature of those interrogations, said Donna Newman, who serves as Padilla's court-appointed lawyer and has been allowed a few supervised visits. Newman said the ground rules bar her from asking Padilla about his questioning. "I'm not sitting here and accusing them of torturing Mr. Padilla," she said. "I'm saying I don't know and I'm not allowed to find out."
The question of torture came up during the Supreme Court's oral argument in the Padilla case. The government's lawyer was asked what kind of check against such practices would exist if the executive is allowed to hold people without review. The answer: Trust us.
A few hours later on the day of the argument, CBS aired its "60 Minutes II" expose of the abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The Pentagon brass had won a two-week delay of the broadcast. The court's argument took place during this blackout.
Perhaps it is a coincidence that our government manipulated the timing of an incendiary broadcast so the Supreme Court would not see it. Perhaps even now, Comey's trove of conveniently declassified material - meant to sway, as he put it, "the court of public opinion" - is not to influence the justices.
We are supposed to believe our government is innocent until proven guilty. We are asked to do this even as the government pronounces the guilt of its citizens, and offers no way for them to prove otherwise.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
Newsday
similar to what I see happeneing now.
turning back to the original question, by the way, here's an interesting editorial from Newsday:
U.S. view in terror cases: Trust us
Marie Cocco
June 3, 2004
There was never any dirty bomb. Or even a plot to explode a dirty bomb. What we have is a stink bomb.
By the Justice Department's own account, Jose Padilla, an American citizen held as an "enemy combatant" in a military brig for two years without trial or charges against him, never possessed an explosive device laced with nuclear materials. He never tried to obtain the materials. He never got a nuclear plot approved by higher-ups in al-Qaida. They thought it was infeasible.
The terrorist leaders suggested instead that Padilla rent some apartments in high-rise buildings - New York, Florida and Washington supposedly were discussed as the appropriate locales - and use the buildings' gas heating systems to blow them up.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that Padilla had been scooped out of the regular criminal justice system and thrown into a military brig, he said it was because the government had "disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb."
Never mind. Now we are supposed to believe the revised version.
This is because the Justice Department decided to declassify the information it says it obtained from interrogating Padilla and others held in the war on terror. This propitiously timed declassification, according to Deputy Attorney General James Comey, hasn't to do with the fact that the Supreme Court is about to rule on the Padilla case and another involving an American held as an "enemy combatant."
The high court is to decide whether the president can declare, unilaterally and without court review, that an American citizen may be incarcerated indefinitely, without charge or trial or access to a lawyer.
Comey's outline of Padilla's alleged intentions reads like an opening statement in a big trial. It is scary and infused with the drama of the chase. Sam Waterson could do no better.
But there is probably to be no trial, Comey indicated. None of the statements Padilla gave his military captors are admissible in court, he said. There was no trial to begin with, Comey said, because if Padilla had a lawyer he probably wouldn't have talked. He might have copped a plea and cooperated - the usual way to get information from bad guys. But Comey said a plea wasn't possible because of the "absence of a hammer." That is, the government had no credible evidence and so could not "credibly threaten criminal charges." So it locked Padilla up and threw away the key.
What the government did develop came from Padilla's interrogation and others. But we can learn nothing about the nature of those interrogations, said Donna Newman, who serves as Padilla's court-appointed lawyer and has been allowed a few supervised visits. Newman said the ground rules bar her from asking Padilla about his questioning. "I'm not sitting here and accusing them of torturing Mr. Padilla," she said. "I'm saying I don't know and I'm not allowed to find out."
The question of torture came up during the Supreme Court's oral argument in the Padilla case. The government's lawyer was asked what kind of check against such practices would exist if the executive is allowed to hold people without review. The answer: Trust us.
A few hours later on the day of the argument, CBS aired its "60 Minutes II" expose of the abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The Pentagon brass had won a two-week delay of the broadcast. The court's argument took place during this blackout.
Perhaps it is a coincidence that our government manipulated the timing of an incendiary broadcast so the Supreme Court would not see it. Perhaps even now, Comey's trove of conveniently declassified material - meant to sway, as he put it, "the court of public opinion" - is not to influence the justices.
We are supposed to believe our government is innocent until proven guilty. We are asked to do this even as the government pronounces the guilt of its citizens, and offers no way for them to prove otherwise.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
Newsday
I'm surprised it took this long for the McCarthyism charge to come up. Okay, so how do you propose we screen for terrorism? Are you denying that the majority of terrorists that are sworn enemies of this country are NOT Arab-lookiing? What part of "not all Muslisms are terrorists, but the terrorists we are looking for are Muslims" do you not understand?
Briar Rose 7457
Proud of my Princesses
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2002
- Messages
- 4,944
John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla are not "arab-looking" as i said before.
and how many "aarab-looking" people are NOT terrorists? a good many. are you proposing we go back to the days of "Japanese Internment Camps"?
and how many "aarab-looking" people are NOT terrorists? a good many. are you proposing we go back to the days of "Japanese Internment Camps"?
A good many? The FBI list doesn't suggest that.
No, I'm not suggesting that. But, I would not mind finding out who of these people is in this country legally and who isn't. I'd go so far as to having them sign a loyalty oath.
Look, if there are reports of a rapist roaming the neighborhood driving a white van, and is a bald black man, would police be pulling over white women driving BMW's? Latino men driving Impala's? White men with plaid shirts and trucker hats driving pick-ups? Believe it or not, law enforcement profiles ALL THE TIME.
Briar Rose 7457
Proud of my Princesses
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2002
- Messages
- 4,944
there's a difference between "profiling" and paranoia.
ask anyone who was arrested for "driving while black."
ask anyone who was arrested for "driving while black."
Who said anything about paranoia? I'm not advocating "flying while Arab". But, if you match a description and are exhibiting suspicious behavior based on information gathered (taking pictures of bridges, filming train stations).
I'd like to see the FBI list of the most wanted terrorists that are NOT Arab looking.
Douglas Dubh
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 1999
- Messages
- 4,636
No, McCarthyism involved naming people in high positions in government who were Communist sympathizers or actual spies and putting pressure to have those people removed from positions of power where they could act against American interests. You do know that there were actual Communist spies working in the government at the time of the McCarthy inquiries, right?
This issue isn't whether or not you're questioning Kerry's patriotism, but whether or not Sampley is. And the answer is yes, Sampley is questioning his patriotism in a public forum and then tried to involve schoolchildren. In the non-sue-me age, that would've got Ted Sampley the Harry Truman treatment: "a beefsteak for each eye and a supporter for down below".
But, you don't question the mental stability of a President (appointed) who tells the enemy to "bring it on" while his troops are fighting in Iraq and he's safely in Washington. Priorities! LOL.
So, are saying all's fair and anything goes? Please clarify, so the next time someone complains how unfair someone is being to Bush, I can tell them "DMan says it's all right".
The best lesson Clinton taught us was the hypocrisy and stupidity of the rightwing nuts.
Yes, it really does MATTER.
No, it constitutes bad judgement, rudeness, and utter stupidity. Some role model.
Oh puhleeeze, enough with the phony outrage. Like you would've voted for Kerry if he had handed Sampley a dozen roses and a box of chocolates.
Briar Rose 7457
Proud of my Princesses
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2002
- Messages
- 4,944
yes, like Lucille Ball, Orson Bean, Will Geer, Judy Holliday, Burgess Meredith, Zero Mostel and Pete Seeger.
Briar Rose 7457
Proud of my Princesses
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2002
- Messages
- 4,944
and you do realize, of course, that McCarthy was discredited and censured by the Senate, but not until mass paranoia ruined hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Have you ever heard me say some is being "unfair"? I'll asscuse them of being biased, ill-informed, small-minded, hypocritical, and naive, but never unfair.
See answer above
Boo hoo! I wonder what he would have done with Squeaky Fromme.
can the word "nut" ever be used without being prefaced with "rightwing"? Then again, I don't think the work "wacko" can be used without being prefaced with the word "leftwing"
-
Do You Want These All-New Baymax Snacks at Disneyland?
-
Brace Yourself for Two New Upcoming Disney Merch Drops
-
Expansive New Home Tour In Disney's Cotino Community
-
What Kind of Disney News Could Shift the Momentum from Universal?
-
New Mediterranean Salad on the Menu at The Polite Pig
-
Make These Iconic Disneyland Paris Cookies Today
-
Disney Debate: Vacation Laundry Or Clothes For Days?
Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!
Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE
New Posts
- Poll
