Massive attack foiled in England

[samclemens]

(where's that rolly smilie?)

 

That's just an ignorant statement.

 

how's that?

 

edit: i based my statement on:

 

iranian troops now fighting with hezbollah + another terrorist attack attempted = spinning out of control

Edited August 10, 2006 by samclemens

[Texsox]

I guess this means that Isreal is getting ready to kick some serious ass, huh?

 

Get freakin' real, people. I thought I was a conspiracy nut... guess not.

 

Timing is everything. At some point, someone in the chain of command is going to, for example, pick 9/11 as the date. I don't believe the timing is random. Do you?

[Balta1701]

how's that?

They were already attacked once (successfully), they've been more Pro-Bush than any other country in the world, they're the only country still giving us real meaningful support in Iraq...etc.

[kapkomet]

how's that?

 

edit: i based my statement on:

 

iranian troops now fighting with hezbollah + another terrorist attack attempted = spinning out of control

not the WWIII part, the "hopefully now the UK will fall in line" part was ignorant, IMO.

 

Timing is everything. At some point, someone in the chain of command is going to, for example, pick 9/11 as the date. I don't believe the timing is random. Do you?

 

I think +/- one week is what they had to deal with, not a prep of months to time it right before 9/11. They got the final goods to bust these guys, and they took it. That's it.

[samclemens]

They were already attacked once (successfully), they've been more Pro-Bush than any other country in the world, they're the only country still giving us real meaningful support in Iraq...etc.

 

they may be more pro-bush than any other country, but that isnt saying very much. most of the people living htere hate bush. most dislike blair and the majority do nto support the war. not to mention that the UK has been hinting at troop reductions and withdrawls constantly. i should have been more specific. an event like this will remind the people, and the givernmnet there whats really going on.

[Balta1701]

they may be more pro-bush than any other country, but that isnt saying very much. most of the people living htere hate bush. most dislike blair and the majority do nto support the war. not to mention that the UK has been hinting at troop reductions and withdrawls constantly. i should have been more specific. an event like this will remind the people, and the givernmnet there whats really going on.

That we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, right?

 

Sorry, couldnt' resist.

[Rex Kickass]

they may be more pro-bush than any other country, but that isnt saying very much. most of the people living htere hate bush. most dislike blair and the majority do nto support the war. not to mention that the UK has been hinting at troop reductions and withdrawls constantly. i should have been more specific. an event like this will remind the people, and the givernmnet there whats really going on.

 

Most of the people in the US don't like Bush. What's your point?

[Texsox]

damn great discussion, but I have to leave. Threads lke this are why I enjoy the buster.

[kapkomet]

damn great discussion, but I have to leave. Threads lke this are why I enjoy the buster.

SLACKER!

[samclemens]

Most of the people in the US don't like Bush. What's your point?

 

that maybe an event like this stem the complaining about his security policies here (ex: FISA).

 

what are you basing your assertion on? a loaded abc poll? the hatred for bush in the UK and europe is uncomparible to here.

[WCSox]

I was thinking more along the lines of search and seizure, probable cause, wiretapping, due process, freedom of speech, stuff like that. The "if you have nothing to hide, why would you want that freedom" stuff.

 

Well, that's a different story... and really isn't applicable to the airline/airport security.

 

I generally agree with you, although I wouldn't mind the wiretapping if there were some SERIOUS legal restrictions regarding how the information could be used.

[Texsox]

SLACKER!

 

It's almost to that "I need to suspend myself moment"

[WCSox]

Most of the people in the US don't like Bush.

 

They don't like Bush or they disagree with one or two of his policies? There's a big difference.

[Rex Kickass]

that maybe an event like this stem the complaining about his security policies here (ex: FISA).

 

what are you basing your assertion on? a loaded abc poll? the hatred for bush in the UK and europe is uncomparible to here.

 

People in the UK have been living with terrorism longer than you've been alive. They just have a different perspective on it than you might.

 

They don't like Bush or they disagree with one or two of his policies? There's a big difference.

I'd argue that most people in Europe disagree with his policies and don't "hate" him either.

[samclemens]

People in the UK have been living with terrorism longer than you've been alive. They just have a different perspective on it than you might.

 

and what would that perspective be? that it's more tolerable than i think it is?

[Texsox]

Well, that's a different story... and really isn't applicable to the airline/airport security.

 

I generally agree with you, although I wouldn't mind the wiretapping if there were some SERIOUS legal restrictions regarding how the information could be used.

 

It is applicable in an abstract way. How does our society change if we allow invasive searches to get on an airplane (for example). We are accepting that we can not have the freedoms our parents had. I don't see any turning back. We can't eliminate terrorism. Our freedoms are not just about the government and what they can do, but also about what we will allow each other to do. It doesn't matter of the government can't search your person 24/7 if we allow employers, airlines, buses, retail stores, etc. to make the same searches.

[Balta1701]

It is applicable in an abstract way. How does our society change if we allow invasive searches to get on an airplane (for example). We are accepting that we can not have the freedoms our parents had. I don't see any turning back. We can't eliminate terrorism. Our freedoms are not just about the government and what they can do, but also about what we will allow each other to do. It doesn't matter of the government can't search your person 24/7 if we allow employers, airlines, buses, retail stores, etc. to make the same searches.

But Tex...here's the counterpoint...no one needs to go on a plane. Going on a plane is not a right. Going on a plane is something you purchase a ticket to do, it's a choice. It's more of a contract between you and the flight provider than it is between you and the government or anythign like that.

 

The governnment has restrictions on what freedoms it can take away. Those we have to defend against people like Bush. But airlines are a different beast entirely...they are private corporations. If the rules for the contract people purchase with thsoe airlines were to be significantly changed, I'm not sure I see the problem with it in the same way I see the problem with the government changing its rules.

[Rex Kickass]

Balta,

 

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. One of the things that the US has as an implied right or privilege is the ability to travel freely. The US currently prohibits travel to only North Korea, Iran and Cuba. If suddenly international travel for Americans by the American government was severely curtailed... I wonder if you'd feel the same way.

 

I kind of believe that the ability to move freely is a right for law abiding citizens.

[Texsox]

But Tex...here's the counterpoint...no one needs to go on a plane. Going on a plane is not a right. Going on a plane is something you purchase a ticket to do, it's a choice. It's more of a contract between you and the flight provider than it is between you and the government or anythign like that.

 

The governnment has restrictions on what freedoms it can take away. Those we have to defend against people like Bush. But airlines are a different beast entirely...they are private corporations. If the rules for the contract people purchase with thsoe airlines were to be significantly changed, I'm not sure I see the problem with it in the same way I see the problem with the government changing its rules.

 

I would contend that our economy depends on travel. While it isn't a right, it is necessary for many individuals. So those individuals would be in a position to have to subject themselves to a search that would normally be against our rights. Same with employers that want our bodily fluids.

 

My best point here is what difference will it make if the government can't do something, like search and seizure, if we allow everyone else to search?

[Balta1701]

Balta,

 

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. One of the things that the US has as an implied right or privilege is the ability to travel freely. The US currently prohibits travel to only North Korea, Iran and Cuba. If suddenly international travel for Americans by the American government was severely curtailed... I wonder if you'd feel the same way.

 

I kind of believe that the ability to move freely is a right for law abiding citizens.

There's a difference between being allowed to move freely and restricting access to one method of that movement to people willing to follow certain rules. I'm not advocating saying "All people of middle eastern descent can't fly", but something along the lines of saying "If you want to fly, you have to go through this process, it will take 3+ hours, you will be asked this set of questions, you will be subject to full searches", and so forth. That doesn't mean that anyone can't fly or can't travel, it just means that in order to be willing to travel by that means, you have to be willing to go through said procedures.

 

I would contend that our economy depends on travel. While it isn't a right, it is necessary for many individuals. So those individuals would be in a position to have to subject themselves to a search that would normally be against our rights. Same with employers that want our bodily fluids.

 

My best point here is what difference will it make if the government can't do something, like search and seizure, if we allow everyone else to search?

But the difference here is that it is a search in response to a specific request for a service. It's not just an arbitrary search. If that service is a necessity for some businesses, then the people doing it have to be willing to put up with what is required.

[Rex Kickass]

OK, I getcha.

[NorthSideSox72]

Balta,

 

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. One of the things that the US has as an implied right or privilege is the ability to travel freely. The US currently prohibits travel to only North Korea, Iran and Cuba. If suddenly international travel for Americans by the American government was severely curtailed... I wonder if you'd feel the same way.

 

I kind of believe that the ability to move freely is a right for law abiding citizens.

Neither driving, nor flying (whether as pilot or passenger) has ever been legally recognized as any sort of right. They are priviledges.

 

You have the RIGHT to move about by whatever methods you have access to. Walking, biking, riding public transit, etc. are free access. You have a right to choose to travel, but if you choose flying or driving, you can only do so under certain restrictions.

[southsider2k5]

But Tex...here's the counterpoint...no one needs to go on a plane. Going on a plane is not a right. Going on a plane is something you purchase a ticket to do, it's a choice. It's more of a contract between you and the flight provider than it is between you and the government or anythign like that.

 

The governnment has restrictions on what freedoms it can take away. Those we have to defend against people like Bush. But airlines are a different beast entirely...they are private corporations. If the rules for the contract people purchase with thsoe airlines were to be significantly changed, I'm not sure I see the problem with it in the same way I see the problem with the government changing its rules.

 

You could even make a great arguement that is isn't any business of the government to decide what happens on planes and by the airlines. It shouldn't even be a necesity for airlines to provide ANY security at all. It is a choice they make based on their business decesions, which should leave them open for anyone who has a loss because of their bad practices to be able to seek retribution through the court system. And then the next step would be that any regulation of flight travel by the US government could be construed as interfering with interstate commerce.

 

But that is a horse of a different color.

[NorthSideSox72]

You could even make a great arguement that is isn't any business of the government to decide what happens on planes and by the airlines. It shouldn't even be a necesity for airlines to provide ANY security at all. It is a choice they make based on their business decesions, which should leave them open for anyone who has a loss because of their bad practices to be able to seek retribution through the court system. And then the next step would be that any regulation of flight travel by the US government could be construed as interfering with interstate commerce.

 

But that is a horse of a different color.

I think maybe you are misconstruing the Constitutional allowances for interstate commerce. The clause dealing with interstate commerce specifically states that it falls under the purview of the federal government - it does NOT state any sort of right to conduct such (though it may be implied). The federal government, in administration, cannot violate its own right to enforce. So I don't think there is a valid legal argument there.

 

I do agree though, that one could make an argument that the government COULD, if it chose, bow out of the whole thing. But, similar to if the government bowed out of driving and licensure, I don't think anyone would want that to occur.

[Balta1701]

You could even make a great arguement that is isn't any business of the government to decide what happens on planes and by the airlines. It shouldn't even be a necesity for airlines to provide ANY security at all. It is a choice they make based on their business decesions, which should leave them open for anyone who has a loss because of their bad practices to be able to seek retribution through the court system. And then the next step would be that any regulation of flight travel by the US government could be construed as interfering with interstate commerce.

 

But that is a horse of a different color.

Ah, but there is reason for the govenrment to be involved, because of what happens if a plane doesn't take the proper actions. In the event of another attack, who is it who spends the funds to do the cleanup, undertake the investigation, arrest the people responsible, etc.? Those tasks won't be done by the company. And furthermore, the defense of this country is the job of the government as well. So the government does have a real interest in making sure that the appropriate security measures are followed.

Edited August 10, 2006 by Balta1701