Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Fort Hood mass murder and political correctness (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=414650)

  • Nov 10, 2009, 09:04 AM
    tomder55
    Fort Hood mass murder and political correctness
    Quote:

    When John Wilkes Booth opened fire on President Abraham Lincoln in Ford’s Theatre in April 1865, the media was puzzled. “True, the actor was outspoken in his Confederate sympathies and viewed himself as a Southerner,” said someone who knew him, “but that was no reason he might want Lincoln to be dead.” The day before he went on his shooting spree, Booth hoisted a big Confederate flag outside his hotel room. After he leaped onto the stage he shouted, "Thus ever to tyrants!" the motto of the rebel state of Virginia.

    The New York Times reported that Booth was psychologically unstable and was frightened of the Civil War coming to an end and having to face a peacetime actors’ surplus. “His political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts.

    After Fritz Reichmark opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Dix in January 1942 the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to German-American Bund meetings,” said one fellow soldier, “but he only wore the swastika armband in his off-hours.” Reichmark would regale other soldiers with diatribes against the Jews, Winston Churchill, and Communists. The day before he went on his shooting spree, Reichmark gave out copies of Mein Kampf to neighbors. Soldiers who survived reported he was shouting "Heil Hitler!" while firing at them.

    The New York Times reported that Reichmark was psychologically unstable and was frightened of being shipped out to North Africa because he was a coward, though this doesn’t explain his making a suicide attack when his job wouldn’t have required him to go into combat. “His German ancestry and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was to fight more firmly against Germanophobia.

    When Padraic O’Brian bombed a restaurant in London with massive loss of life, the media was puzzled. “True, he used to go to IRA rallies,” said a cousin, “and he would rant for hours about how the British invaders should be wiped out” but the media reported that this had nothing to do with this attack which was caused by his psychological problems. As he fired at pursuing police, O'Brian yelled: "Up the republic!"

    The Guardian reported: “His Irish identity and political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act.” The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of this event was the need to fight more firmly to ensure that Northern Ireland was handed over to the Irish Republic and that Israel be wiped off the map.

    When a group of 19 terrorists flew two planes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed on the way to the White House, the media was puzzled. “True, they wrote letters to Usama bin Ladin and expressed radical views but their act of violence must have been connected to their extreme poverty back in Saudi Arabia,” one expert was quoted as saying. When informed the young men all came from well-off families, he responded, “Oh.”

    The New York Times reported that they were all psychologically unstable and had difficult times in forming stable relationships with women. “The fact that they were Arabs and Muslims or their political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it explained. The newspaper urged that the main lesson coming out of the attack was the need to fight against Islamophobia and Arabophobia as well as for the United States to make more concessions in the Middle East and to impeach President George W. Bush.

    The point of the above exercise is to make the following points:

    --Individuals who commit terrorist acts often have psychological problems but the thing that justified, organized, and ensured that violence would be committed were political ideas.

    --Whenever an individual who belongs to any group commits a crime, it is possible that some will stigmatize the entire group. Most Americans or Westerners today, however, will not do so. The most important issue is to identify why the terrorist act happened and what to look for (including which type of individuals) to prevent future attacks.

    --When there is clear evidence that danger signs were ignored because people were afraid of being stigmatized for doing their job of protecting their fellows, that is a dangerous mistake that must be corrected.

    --Someone who is "afraid" of being sent into a war zone is not likely to handle that cowardice by standing up with a gun in a suicide attack and shooting people until he falls to the ground with about four bullet wounds.
    --The media can often be stupid but when it censors reporting for political or social engineering reasons, freedom is jeopardized. The correct phrase is: The public's right to know. It is not: The public has to be guided into drawing the proper conclusions by slanting and limiting information even if the conclusions being pressed on them are lies and nonsense.
    RubinReports: Great Moments in "Psychologically Disturbed" Gunmen Committing Mass Murder


    President Obama has cautioned us against jumping to conclusions . That would be the same President who was compelled to host a beer summit because of his own prejudging the actions of a police officer.

    In this case;the evidence is clear that Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to get in touch with al-Qaeda;that he worshipped at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia... the same mosque that two of the 9-11 hijackers went to ;and that the prayer leader, Anwar al-Awlaki ,who is also the AQ person Hasan had contacted;was also the spiritual adviser of the two 9-11 hijackers.He is now in Yemen and has praised Hasan’s actions.

    Hasan’s behavior at Walter Reed was the subject of conversation by his colleagues. What is yet to be determined is how much of that filtered up to decision makers;and whether it political correctness that prevented the decision makers from taking the actions necessary to prevent Hassan's jihadist terrorism ?
  • Nov 10, 2009, 09:53 AM
    ETWolverine

    The pre-9/11 mentality is back in full force... just 8 years after that fateful day. At least it is in force within our government and our military leadership. And the consequence is going to be awful.

    I showed in a recent post just how often the USA was attacked by foreign terrorists before 9/11. It was roughly once per year, on average, over a 30-year period. That's 30 attacks or so to which we never responded out of a misguided fear or being non-PC or offensive to those who would attack us. And the result of each incident we ignored was another incident.

    For 8 years we have lived attack-free because George W. Bush, the most hated man in America, took action against our enemies instead of hiding his head ion the sand. And in that short time, we forgot what it was like to be attacked.

    The Fort Hood attack will be relatively ignored by our government. No action will be taken. What action is there to take, after all? And in doing so, we will forget to call this act of terrorism by its right name. This will send a signal that we are once again prepared to ignore attacks against our homeland as long as they are small enough to not rouse a public reaction or can be chalked up to a "lone crazy gunman" as opposed to an organized group.

    We are opening ourselves up to new attacks because we are too stupid to remember recent history.

    The difference in attitude between the Bush administration and the Obama administration (and their respecctive military leaders) is what sends the signal. The return to PC-ism over security is what sends the signal. And the enemy is very good at reading the signals.

    Elliot
  • Nov 10, 2009, 10:00 AM
    speechlesstx
    I heard that don't rush to judgment remark yesterday and thought the same thing, white cop arrests black professor and the cops "acted stupidly." Maybe I should do as you on the administration's Honduras policy and hope Obama is teachable. Nah, I agree with Ralph Peters who had to the guts to call it what it was, Islamic terrorism.

    Obama can't be bothered by Islamic terrorism

    Quote:

    In the wake of the terrorist strike on our soldiers at Fort Hood, one individual's still missing in action: Our commander in chief. The massacre's 51 casualties, including 13 dead, were insufficient to drag President Obama away from the White House Happy Hour.

    We just saw the worst terror attack on America since 9/11. And Obama couldn't adjust his schedule to support our grieving troops.

    Instead, we got his subtle defense of the perp: Unwilling to use the word “terror,” let alone the phrase “Islamist terror,” Obama warned us not to “rush to judgment.”

    A Muslim fanatic, known to the FBI as a fan of suicide bombers and to colleagues as an opponent of our government, coolly buys weapons, heads to a military facilityhe knows will be packed with unsuspecting soldiers, waits for the crowd to thicken, then shouts, “Allah is great!” and guns down 51 patriots, calmly reloading among the dead and dying.

    But don't rush to judgment.

    Imagine if, instead of Fort Hood, the massacre had gone down at a mosque in Detroit — carried out by a maddened Christian or Jew. Obama would've been aboard Air Force One before the pilots had time to file a flight plan and he would've been on site before the gun smoke cleared, hugging and boo-hooing and dispensing stirring rhetoric for the evening news.

    But go out of his way to rally our butchered troops? Not a chance. It's not like they're real human beings with Ivy League degrees. When Obama got word of the attack, he didn't even lose his fabled cool.

    Obama may be shamed into visiting Ft. Hood at some point, but his priority since Thursday has remained socializing American medicine. What happens in Texas, stays in Texas.

    Move on? Yes we can!

    Of course, this act of Islamist terrorism has been an inconvenience to a president whose administration insists there's no such thing. Those dead and wounded soldiers are such an embarrassment. If only a Baptist or Lutheran had been the shooter, things would've been so much tidier.

    What's next? The White House is going to bring heavy pressure on the FBI, through Attorney General Eric Holder, to play down investigative results confirming that Maj. Nidal Hasan was motivated by his Muslim beliefs.

    Instead, we'll hear even more about the “harassment” Hasan suffered as the media toe the line laid down by the vile lead editorial in Saturday's New York Times and how this calculating terrorist contracted PTSD from his patients.

    Let me kill the harassment myth right now: Political correctness rules in today's Army. We even protect our enemies these days. Had any soldier harassed Hasan because of his Islamist nuttiness, that soldier would've disappeared faster than a Franklin on a Times Square sidewalk.

    Any snarky remarks directed toward Hasan — if there were any — would've come in reaction to his railing against our government, our military's mission and the monstrous injustice that, after grabbing an education in psychiatry worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from our military, he might have had to do his duty.

    Far from being harassed himself, this creep was allowed to harass the soldiers he treated for stress disorders. According to colleagues, Hasan not only argued with his patients about our wars, but preached Islam to those under his care. (Just what troubled vets needed, no doubt.)

    Prejudice? You bet. In this terrorist's favor. Nobody in Hasan's chain of command had the sense of duty to weed this pervert out. Why? Hasan would've accused them of discrimination. And the officer who brought charges against Hasan would've been the one whose career suffered.

    Since writing on this travesty in the Post and speaking out on Fox News, I've been deluged with supportive messages — many from soldiers outraged at the politically correct treatment of this terrorist by the media, by senior military leaders — and by the president.

    How many more Americans have to die, at home and in war, before our president admits that there is, indeed, such a thing as Islamist terror? Will he ever admit that it played a role in the tragedy at Fort Hood?

    Not a chance. Islam's a religion of peace. America's the problem. And don't you forget it.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 10:35 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    This will send a signal that we are once again prepared to ignore attacks against our homeland as long as they are small enough to not rouse a public reaction or can be chalked up to a "lone crazy gunman" as opposed to an organized group.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Nah, I agree with Ralph Peters who had to the guts to call it what it was, Islamic terrorism.

    Hello tom:

    I agree that political correctness is, was, and is ALWAYS going to cause us problems... But, I have trouble understanding what the real difference is between a nut, and a terrorist.. Oh, I guess if he's a terrorist, we can ship him off to Gitmo for a little water boarding. But, if he's a nut, he's stuck inside federal custody.

    Is THAT what you guys want? A little torture? A little retribution? Maybe some Christian wrath. Come on. You can tell me.

    Yeah. That's going on. Otherwise, there actually wouldn't BE a difference unless you wanted to BLAME some group for it. Elliot clearly is looking for a bad guy, but he doesn't identify who we should retaliate against. Unless it would be Muslims in general, and that's what I think it is.

    What do you think? Is the attack just more evidence of Islams war against us? Would that be like the Evangelical Christian war against America because some Christians kill abortion doctors?? What's your answer? Purge the military of Muslims, as some wingers have proposed? Or may just fire the dufus's in the Army and/or the FBI for dropping the ball. Maybe we should bomb Iran. That'll show 'em.

    excon
  • Nov 10, 2009, 10:45 AM
    tomder55
    Ex

    Cleary that is not what I wrote . I will ask you ;do you have any issues at all with calling Tim McVey a terrorist ? Would you equate his actions with a "nut" like.. oh let's say... the Columbine murderers ? No ;you would call both McVey's and Hasan's actions terrorism because they are POLITICALLY motivated .

    Make no mistake . I consider neither Muslim jihad or "Christian abortion bombers" as people performing religious acts.

    But ; let's say a soldier who is also a Christian openly spoke of taking out an abortion clinic .Do you think the appropriate action would be to keep him under tight survaillance or perhaps even escorting him out of the military ? I think you would call that appropriate.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 11:09 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Cleary that is not what I wrote . I will ask you ;do you have any issues at all with calling Tim McVey a terrorist ?

    Hello again, tom:

    Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

    I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

    excon
  • Nov 10, 2009, 11:18 AM
    asking

    It doesn't have to be one or the other. He can be a nut job whose political views affected the way in which he cracked. I am surprised that I haven't seen anyone make anything of the fact that he was a psychiatrist, either. I think a lot of them are nuts. I know that's a tired cliché, but I can be politically incorrect here, too!

    Personally, it would be a hard choice between waterboarding and entering a mental health facility. This guy sounded generally dysfunctional. Apparently, he could have got out of the military if he'd wanted to but didn't hire a lawyer to help him do it. He just sat there festering and brooding. What's his problem? Why so passive? A neighbor keyed his car and he did nothing and didn't even express any anger about it. That's weird. This is a person who doesn't know how to deal with adversity and emotion.

    I'd love to hear what his patients had to say about him. He sounds like a disaster as a psychiatrist.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 11:20 AM
    asking
    I think we should purge the militaryof psychiatrists.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 11:24 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    Hello again, tom:

    Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

    I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.
    Through the years I have made a consistent point on this subject . Radical jihadism is a political philosophy that yes,we are at war against.

    Are all Muslims radical jihadists ? Nope . Should the Army purge their ranks of radical jihadists ? Yes they should because radical jihadists are at war with the US military and thus represent an enemy 5th column.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 11:52 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.


    So what you are saying is that it's OK to for YOU to call such a person a terrorist, but if anyone else does, it's because we want "christian retribution".

    More anti-religious bigotry.

    Not to mention that you know quite well that I'm Jewish.

    Quote:

    I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us.
    Correction... FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM's war against us.

    Are you saying that such acts by fundamentalist Muslims ISN'T evidence of such a war?

    Quote:

    Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam.
    Correction... our war against FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM.

    Are you saying that such acts by fundamentalist Muslims don't justify a war against fundamentalist Islam?

    Quote:

    Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.

    Excon
    Actually, it is factually correct to deny that we are at war with Islam. We are, in fact, at war with fundamentalist Islam. We're trying to kill Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist followers, not Ahmed and Ibrahim the two brothers selling shoes in Bahgdad.

    Or do you say that we're targeting the Muslim on the street?

    Of course you do... you still think we're in Vietnam, and that we targeted the Vietnamese women and children that John Kerry lied about us killing. You can never accept the fact that the American soldier might not be the bad guy.

    Elliot
  • Nov 10, 2009, 11:57 AM
    ETWolverine

    Excon,

    Just for a clarification, whether we call this guy a nut or a terrorist has a direct effect on what actions we take to prevent another such event in the future.

    A nut is a once-in-a-lifetime thing that can't be prevented except by the people who know him best.

    Someone with a terrorist ideology can be detected ahead of time if the military is prepared to seek him out.

    What action the military takes will be a result of what the government is willing to call this guy.

    If he's a nut, we can go back to burying our heads in the sand. If he's a terrorist, we need to take action to prevent similar acts in the future.

    That's the difference.

    But you probably can't see that.

    Elliot
  • Nov 10, 2009, 12:06 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Maybe I didn't understand. I'm NOT politically correct. Tim McVey was a terrorist. THIS guy is a terrorist. So what? I don't care about labels. I want to know what it MEANS when you call him a terrorist as opposed to calling him a nut.

    I was going to simplify it for you and furnish a link to the definitions, but apparently Merriam-Webster is too PC to define terrorist. And just to show I didn't really search for "narco-terrorism" read the last word of the link:

    Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorist

    Quote:

    I think, you think that it's EVIDENCE of Islams war against us. Consequently, you think it JUSTIFIES our war against Islam. Speaking of our war against them... Frankly, it's kind of politically correct of you to DENY that we ARE at war with Islam. You DO think that, don't you? Come on, tom, it's just us.
    I'm not tom, but a guy who's sympathies were divided between his Muslim brethren we were fighting and the nation he was sworn to serve is a huge red flag. Did the army do justice to all those Muslims serving in our military that they themselves feared might feel the backlash if they had targeted this guy for some serious intervention? We need to start calling things like they are and stop this dithering and tiptoeing about.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 12:42 PM
    George_1950

    How about we get the White House to open a web page for soldiers to report suspicious behavior enountered amongst their peers?
    Recall this: "There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to [email protected]."
  • Nov 10, 2009, 12:45 PM
    George_1950
    Or, suppose the perp at Fort Hood was a white guy from Alabama, who attended meetings of the KKK, the facts of which were generally known to his peers, and evidence was in the hands of high-up government officials of his racist tendencies. Can we just imagine the hue and cry, the headlines of the NY Times, the response of the White House.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 12:48 PM
    George_1950
    1 Attachment(s)
    Fort Hood Memorial Service
  • Nov 10, 2009, 12:54 PM
    speechlesstx

    You know Obama can't call it terrorism because then he can't say he's kept us safe.
  • Nov 10, 2009, 12:58 PM
    tomder55

    I think you hit on it Steve .
  • Nov 10, 2009, 05:35 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    excon,

    Just for a clarification, whether we call this guy a nut or a terrorist has a direct effect on what actions we take to prevent another such event in the future.

    A nut is a once-in-a-lifetime thing that can't be prevented except by the people who know him best.

    Someone with a terrorist ideology can be detected ahead of time if the military is prepared to seek him out.

    What action the military takes will be a result of what the government is willing to call this guy.

    If he's a nut, we can go back to burying our heads in the sand. If he's a terrorist, we need to take action to prevent similar acts in the future.

    That's the difference.

    But you probably can't see that.

    Elliot

    This has confirmed my contention Muslims are a fifth column, I read in one article it was suggested he was a Palestinian, so that would make him fairly mixed up. You can say he is a nut if you like but obviously a terrorist nut and infiltrator and how many more exist in the military, sleepers waiting for the moment. How many did this guy certify as OK? Why didn't you take action to prevent these acts before they happened, that is proper exercise of duty of care
  • Nov 10, 2009, 09:18 PM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    ... Why didn't you take action to prevent these acts before they happened, that is proper exercise of duty of care

    This has been the 'conservative' position on terrorism, as well as illegal immigration, for years; but the progressives stand with their foot in the door.
  • Nov 11, 2009, 04:48 AM
    inthebox

    Remember when this admins new head of homeland security warned of returning soldiers as potential terrorists? PC idiots are sticking there head in the sand, ignoring the real ongoing threat of Islamic jihadists.

    If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.


    G&P
  • Nov 11, 2009, 05:48 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by inthebox View Post
    If I was a muslim, and believed that my religion was being hijacked by these terrorist, I would be ashamed. That is what I am waiting on the MSM to report on, major muslim groups repudiating the acts Nidal and his fellow jihadists.

    Exactly, I've been asking that for years. I heard somewhere from some Muslim talking head that is exactly what was happening but of course there were no specifics. So who among the Islamic world will stand up and take back their 'peaceful' religion?
  • Nov 11, 2009, 05:59 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    So who among the Islamic world will stand up and take back their 'peaceful' religion?

    Hello again, Steve:

    I thought the idea of proclaiming him a terrorist was to BLAME somebody else. I can see that I was right... You think some Muslim - ANY Muslim - owes you an apology, or needs to make some statement or something to make YOU happy.

    WHEN, as a Christian, are you going to apologize for the abortion doctor killing, done by a CHRISTIAN based upon CHRISTIAN ideas and morals?

    excon
  • Nov 11, 2009, 06:07 AM
    tomder55
    Ex Steve and other Christians here have and continue to condemn the actions of killers proclaiming a mandate from God as justification for their actions.

    The left seems very confused about this . Here is Chris Matthews as an example.
    “apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, 'This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?”

    Why is that even an issue ? AQ is a self professed enemy of the United States. Would Chris have had the same pause of confusion if a soldier during WWII had attempted to contact the German or Japanese ? Ridiculous display of PC if you ask me.

    Oh wait... that's right... it's no longer a "war".
  • Nov 11, 2009, 06:25 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Senior federal investigators confirmed Tuesday night that since last December, the FBI monitored from 10 to 20 “communications” between suspected Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan and an overseas terror suspect known for preaching violence and expressing sympathy for Al Qaeda.
    But although an FBI-led task force undertook an “assessment” of the Army psychiatrist as a result of those contacts, counter-terror officials concluded earlier this year that Hasan's communications with the terror suspect were “protected” by “free speech” and did not warrant opening up a criminal investigation of him, the investigators said.

    FBI Counter-Terror Officials Were Never Told About Hasan's Gun Purchase - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com
  • Nov 11, 2009, 06:32 AM
    excon

    Hello tom:

    So, the FBI can VIOLATE our rights by SNOOPING in on our conversations, but they can't USE anything they hear because it VIOLATES our rights??

    That's as bizzaro as you get. I thought you misprinted it. You didn't. That isn't political correctness - that's just plain nuts.

    excon
  • Nov 11, 2009, 06:36 AM
    tomder55

    What is even more bizarre is that you think his contacting an enemy during war is a protected right.
  • Nov 11, 2009, 06:39 AM
    excon

    Hello again, tom:

    Do YOU think that YOUR side is above political correctness? Why do you use phrases like "enhanced interrogation technique" instead of torture.. Why don't you call "rendition" what it really is, which is kidnapping?

    Is it because you want to soften those words? Isn't that the bane of political correctness in the first place? Or, do you just deny that the above example IS political correctness, simply because it's YOUR side who uses those phrases? I'll bet you do.

    excon
  • Nov 11, 2009, 06:59 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    What is even more bizzare is that you think his contacting an enemy during war is a protected right.

    Hello again, tom:

    In fact, it is. Actually, I read the Fourth Amendment. It says that if the government wants to listen, it needs to get a warrant. It really DOES say that.

    That isn't bizarre. The fact that you THINK it's bizarre, IS what's bizarre. That's because the Fourth Amendment is the CORNERSTONE of our legal system. I know, you wingers don't like that, but that's the way it here in this great country of ours. Bummer for you, huh?

    It's true, the only Amendment you'll support is the Second. However, I warned you before about cherry picking - not because I think you should LIKE those other pesky rights we have. You never will. But, you should support those rights, so that you'll have a good argument to use when they come for your guns.

    excon
  • Nov 11, 2009, 07:16 AM
    tomder55

    Ex;
    The funny thing is I too have read the Constitution.

    Here is the part I find pertinent .

    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    And I'm sure the Uniform Code of Conduct has much more to say on the issue.
  • Nov 11, 2009, 07:28 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Here is the part I find pertinent .

    Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    And I'm sure the Uniform Code of Conduct has much more to say on the issue.

    Hello tom:

    As you can see, we are speaking about TWO different issues. I don't disagree with you on the issue you raise above. He's a treasonous bastard. But, if they want to use the phone or his emails to CATCH him, they need a warrant.

    That kind of stuff shouldn't be news to you. If you retort by saying that the need to get a warrant hamstrings the government, I'd retort by saying the government can't be TOO hamstrung, or we wouldn't BE the worlds LARGEST jailer - and we ARE.

    excon
  • Nov 11, 2009, 07:41 AM
    tomder55

    You are presuming that they did not have a warrant . I don't know that to be the case . But do I think he needed one ? Nope . FISA provides for the authorization by the President to listen in on conversations with the enemy .
  • Nov 11, 2009, 07:50 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    You are presuming that they did not have a warrant. FISA provides for the authorization by the President to listen in on conversations with the enemy ..

    Hello again, tom:

    Nope. I'm relying on the article you linked us to. It said they couldn't use the information because it would violate his rights... IF they had a warrant, using the information WOULDN'T have violated his rights...

    Plus, if what you say is true, they (1) didn't need a warrant and therefore, COULD use the information, or (2) the FBI screwed up royally...

    But, if we went back to the good old days where a warrant WAS required, he COULD have been stopped before he went on his rampage. Lots of soldiers would be alive. It turns out that all the rights the dufus violated in order to keep us safe, didn't do that at all.

    excon
  • Nov 11, 2009, 08:05 AM
    tomder55

    That's a leap. The Holder Justice dept incorrectly concluded his free speech rights would be violated by using the information gathered against him. Nothing in the article suggests the means of obtaining the information was suspect.

    Again ;there was never a provision that monitoring enemy correspondents required a court order.
  • Nov 11, 2009, 08:22 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    The Holder Justice dept incorrectly concluded his free speech rights would be violated by using the information gathered against him. Nothing in the article suggests the means of obtaining the information was suspect.

    Hello again, tom:

    Dude! Nothing OTHER than their admission that they collected it ILLEGALLY. Otherwise, they COULD have used it, and they said they couldn't. I don't know what could be more plain.

    You say the Holder Justice Department, but the intercepted communications go back into the dufus administration. They didn't do anything WITH the information they had to keep us safe, either.

    excon
  • Nov 11, 2009, 08:40 AM
    tomder55

    I just reread the article to see if I missed anything... I didn't . NOTHING in the article suggests there was any problem in the means the information was obtained.
  • Nov 11, 2009, 09:04 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    I thought the idea of proclaiming him a terrorist was to BLAME somebody else.

    I thought the idea of calling him an Islamic terrorist was to call it what it is, stop making excuses and quit dancing around the issue of Islamic terrorism. Obama's DHS had no problem concerning itself with "rightwing extremists" like "disgruntled military veterans" such as neo-Nazis, skinheads and other white supremacists," and terrorists like Timothy McVeigh who was executed 8 years ago, using terms like "violent radicalization."

    It had no problem stating more than once that the election of the first African-American president and his stance on abortion was likely to encourage more violence. The press had a field day over a nutjob named James von Brunn that killed a black security officer, and yet this guy is being portrayed as suffering from PTSD even though he'd spent his career in an office. We're supposed to not rush to judgment or blame Islam yet he told his neighbor "I'm going to do good work for God."

    So what should we call it?

    Quote:

    I can see that I was right... You think some Muslim - ANY Muslim - owes you an apology, or needs to make some statement or something to make YOU happy.
    No, I just hate political correctness and the double standard that comes with it. The same day Dr. Tiller was killed Obama issued this statement:

    Quote:

    I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.
    Two days - TWO DAYS - after the murder of Private William Long by a Muslim convert Obama issued this statement:

    Quote:

    “I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”
    When it's a Muslim he's "deeply saddened" by a "senseless act of violence." When it's an abortion killer he's "shocked and outraged" by "heinous acts of violence."

    Quote:

    WHEN, as a Christian, are you going to apologize for the abortion doctor killing, done by a CHRISTIAN based upon CHRISTIAN ideas and morals?
    I'm not looking for an apology from anyone and I have none to offer. I have always condemned such violence and every mainstream Christian church and organization I'm aware of does as well. Yet no one seems to have a problem calling us to account and attaching all manner of labels to us for the violence of one wacko.
  • Nov 11, 2009, 09:14 AM
    tomder55
    Ironically ;the week this happened the Democrats were taking steps to let the "Lone Wolf " provisions of the Patriot Act expire.

    This as the MO of AQ appears to be shifting away from centrally planned and managed operations to individual acts of jihad coordinated via web sites .
  • Nov 11, 2009, 09:36 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    A senior government official tells ABC News that investigators have found that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki.
    Official: Nidal Hasan Had "Unexplained Connections" - ABC News
  • Nov 11, 2009, 10:15 AM
    speechlesstx

    They were just too busy looking for all those other rightwing extremists to see the huge red flags from Hasan.
  • Nov 11, 2009, 11:35 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Nope. I'm relying on the article you linked us to. It said they couldn't use the information because it would violate his rights... IF they had a warrant, using the information WOULDN'T have violated his rights...

    My question is were the intercepted emails from a private account of Hasan's or were they from a military account? You do know that you have no expectation of privacy with an email account owned by your employer don't you? Does anyone know whose account was intercepted?

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 PM.