PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Man made disaster now a law enforcement issue


***SPRAYER
06-11-2009, 01:30 PM
Just like it was back in the good ol' Clinton days!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fbi28-2009may28,0,694540.story

petegz28
06-11-2009, 01:42 PM
Wow...that didn't take long....right back to where we were on Sept 10 2001

HonestChieffan
06-11-2009, 01:54 PM
Chaney was right

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 02:11 PM
What is it about allowing accused (not to be confused with convicted) terrorists have their day in court, address the charges made against them, and defend themselves through the legal process that scares you people so much?

Chief Faithful
06-11-2009, 02:19 PM
It is like the 911 commission never took place at all. How fast can Obama reset the conditions that allow 911 to take place in the beginning? Maybe Biden was right when he said to stand by them after terrorists attack again on US soil.

Chief Faithful
06-11-2009, 02:21 PM
What is it about allowing accused (not to be confused with convicted) terrorists have their day in court, address the charges made against them, and defend themselves through the legal process that scares you people so much?

Go read the 911 commission report and understand it for yourself.

Bottomline Obama is redrawing the lines between intelligence communities that make information sharing impossible.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 02:24 PM
Go read the 911 commission report and understand it for yourself.

Bottomline Obama is redrawing the lines between intelligence communities that make information sharing impossible.
You're creating a false dilemma when you claim that putting it back in the hands of the agencies that had it prior to 9/11 will amount to a return to the conditions pre-9/11. It ignores the changes that have been made within those agencies, the changes to tactics and strategies that they've undergone sine 9/11. But it still doesn't explain why so many of you think it is a bad thing to allow someone who is only accused to defend himself and try to clear his name through legal channels. That's fear talking, not good sense.

Chief Faithful
06-11-2009, 02:59 PM
You're creating a false dilemma when you claim that putting it back in the hands of the agencies that had it prior to 9/11 will amount to a return to the conditions pre-9/11. It ignores the changes that have been made within those agencies, the changes to tactics and strategies that they've undergone sine 9/11. But it still doesn't explain why so many of you think it is a bad thing to allow someone who is only accused to defend himself and try to clear his name through legal channels. That's fear talking, not good sense.

That is one un-informed statement. Go read the commission report.

The FBI was created as a national policing organization and the CIA is an international intelligence organization. They have different charters and go by different rules. The CIA will not share with the FBI when the information is available to the public. Obama has re-established the conditions that make information sharing impossible. I don't think I can dumb it down any further than that.

wild1
06-11-2009, 03:00 PM
It is like the 911 commission never took place at all. How fast can Obama reset the conditions that allow 911 to take place in the beginning? Maybe Biden was right when he said to stand by them after terrorists attack again on US soil.

it's ok, now that Dear Leader is in office everyone loves us, and no one desires to do us harm like that any longer.

Chief Faithful
06-11-2009, 03:04 PM
it's ok, now that Dear Leader is in office everyone loves us, and no one desires to do us harm like that any longer.

Our sort of a God can protect us by his words.

Garcia Bronco
06-11-2009, 03:10 PM
LAw enforcement is the best way to combat terrorism. Especially the home grown kind. Realistically it's the job of all levels of government intelligence and law enforcment. However, I don't really see the FBI as a good source for global terrorism.

Garcia Bronco
06-11-2009, 03:12 PM
What is it about allowing accused (not to be confused with convicted) terrorists have their day in court, address the charges made against them, and defend themselves through the legal process that scares you people so much?

One big reason is covert intelligence witnesses having to take the stand. Ergo, blowing their cover.

Chief Faithful
06-11-2009, 03:16 PM
LAw enforcement is the best way to combat terrorism. Especially the home grown kind. Realistically it's the job of all levels of government intelligence and law enforcment. However, I don't really see the FBI as a good source for global terrorism.

Exactly, the mechanism's and limitation placed on the FBI make them the right organization in the US and wrong internationally. This was a big issue in the 911 commission report. It is the same basic problem that prevents a real solution for the Guantanimo detainees.

Obama is just re-creating the conditions that lead to 911.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-11-2009, 03:20 PM
What is it about allowing accused (not to be confused with convicted) terrorists have their day in court, address the charges made against them, and defend themselves through the legal process that scares you people so much?

Absolutely nothing, anyone accused especially of something so dastardly should have the right to a fair trial.

Garcia Bronco
06-11-2009, 03:24 PM
Absolutely nothing, anyone accused especially of something so dastardly should have the right to a fair trial.

Followed by a fair hanging. :)

dirk digler
06-11-2009, 03:25 PM
It sounds to me like the FBI's only role over seas is to interrogate and gather evidence. Basically to make sure if these terrorists ever end up going to trial they will be able to prosecute them instead of holding them somewhere indefinitely because the investigations got all fucked up.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 03:43 PM
Chaney was right

He usually is.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 03:44 PM
He rarely is.
You got that right!

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 03:48 PM
Our sort of a God can protect us by his words.
That's strange. Are you saying none of the people who died on 9/11 were Christians? Because no words protected them. How about the thousands of soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? No Christians among them either?

Calcountry
06-11-2009, 03:49 PM
What is it about allowing accused (not to be confused with convicted) terrorists have their day in court, address the charges made against them, and defend themselves through the legal process that scares you people so much?What do you mean, YOU PEOPLE?

KC native
06-11-2009, 03:50 PM
That's strange. Are you saying none of the people who died on 9/11 were Christians? Because no words protected them. How about the thousands of soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? No Christians among them either?

FTW!

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 03:50 PM
What do you mean, YOU PEOPLE?
What do you mean, YOU PEOPLE?

Calcountry
06-11-2009, 03:56 PM
it's ok, now that Dear Leader is in office everyone loves us, and no one desires to do us harm like that any longer.Especially now that he has apologized to everyone.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-11-2009, 04:00 PM
Followed by a fair hanging. :)

Well if found guilty then that's a possibility.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 04:02 PM
If they're found guilty through a fair trial, then I don't care how quickly or slowly we kill them, or how much sadistic torture we put them through.

Garcia Bronco
06-11-2009, 04:15 PM
If they're found guilty through a fair trial, then I don't care how quickly or slowly we kill them, or how much sadistic torture we put them through.

They are deemed enemy combatants and as such do not have access to the federal courts. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have taken this position.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 04:20 PM
They are deemed enemy combatants and as such do not have access to the federal courts. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have taken this position.
Not all of them have been (at Afghan, maybe, but not at Gitmo). That's at the heart of the controversy.

dirk digler
06-11-2009, 04:32 PM
They are deemed enemy combatants and as such do not have access to the federal courts. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have taken this position.

The Supreme Court has said otherwise IIRC

dirk digler
06-11-2009, 04:35 PM
June 12 - 2008

In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Bush said he strongly disagreed with the decision — the third time the court has repudiated him on the detainees — and suggested he might seek yet another law to keep terror suspects locked up at the prison camp, even as his presidency winds down.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces — the administration's justification for the detentions — but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Cannibal
06-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Options:

1.) Systematically wipe out the entire muslim world, killing every man, woman and child (kind of like the Nazi's tried with the Jews).
2.) Nuke the entire region, accomplishing # 1, but harming us with fallout at the same time.
3.) Engage in a literally endless war on their soil which is an endless drain on our blood and treasure.
4.) Treat it as a law enforcement action and try to infiltrate, bribe and gain all the intelligence you possibly can and thwart attacks before they happen, while at the same time trying to moderate their societies through education and economic incentives.

I believe # 4 is the most logical and reasonable option. Especially when # 3 has not proved to "keep us safe" yet. The big actions are usually 10 years apart. Despite "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here", we could still easily be attacked on our soil. They just take along time between actions.

Cannibal
06-11-2009, 05:04 PM
I mean we can all pound our chests and act macho all we want, but lets get down to what is actually going to solve the fuckin problem.

MagicHef
06-11-2009, 05:33 PM
That's strange. Are you saying none of the people who died on 9/11 were Christians? Because no words protected them. How about the thousands of soldiers who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? No Christians among them either?

You realize he's talking about Obama, right?

irishjayhawk
06-11-2009, 06:41 PM
Wow...that didn't take long....right back to where we were on Sept 10 2001

Is that not a good thing? I recall Sept 10th being pretty good.

Baby Lee
06-11-2009, 07:01 PM
What do you mean, YOU PEOPLE?

I'll cradle the balls, stroke the shaft, work the pipe, and swallow the gravy. Get it over here, buddy. Let's do this.

Baby Lee
06-11-2009, 07:04 PM
Is that not a good thing? I recall Sept 10th being pretty good.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c1fWmc1y4qc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c1fWmc1y4qc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SBK
06-11-2009, 07:43 PM
Options:

1.) Systematically wipe out the entire muslim world, killing every man, woman and child (kind of like the Nazi's tried with the Jews).
2.) Nuke the entire region, accomplishing # 1, but harming us with fallout at the same time.
3.) Engage in a literally endless war on their soil which is an endless drain on our blood and treasure.
4.) Treat it as a law enforcement action and try to infiltrate, bribe and gain all the intelligence you possibly can and thwart attacks before they happen, while at the same time trying to moderate their societies through education and economic incentives.

I believe # 4 is the most logical and reasonable option. Especially when # 3 has not proved to "keep us safe" yet. The big actions are usually 10 years apart. Despite "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here", we could still easily be attacked on our soil. They just take along time between actions.

Speaking of you people, you people are f'n hilarious. Either Frankie>>>>>Cannibal, or this Cannibal guy is one hilarious parody poster.

Cannibal
06-11-2009, 08:36 PM
Speaking of you people, you people are f'n hilarious. Either Frankie>>>>>Cannibal, or this Cannibal guy is one hilarious parody poster.

Which of the 4 options would you choose?

MagicHef
06-11-2009, 09:45 PM
Is that not a good thing? I recall Sept 10th being pretty good.

No way. Eddie McCaffrey broke his leg on September 10th, 2001.

Cannibal
06-11-2009, 09:47 PM
I'll cradle the balls, stroke the shaft, work the pipe, and swallow the gravy. Get it over here, buddy. Let's do this.

LMAO Tropic Thunder

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 09:53 PM
No way. Eddie McCaffrey broke his leg on September 10th, 2001.
Like he said, September 10th was pretty good (this is a Chiefs board, remember)! Okay, that was bad, and I don't wish broken legs on anyone, and I'm sure most Chiefs fans were sympathetic to the way he got put to pasture that season, but we still rejoiced at the Donks losing such a big weapon.

Saul Good
06-11-2009, 10:14 PM
If they're found guilty through a fair trial, then I don't care how quickly or slowly we kill them, or how much sadistic torture we put them through.

To the waterboards!!!

SBK
06-11-2009, 10:35 PM
Which of the 4 options would you choose?

I'm laughing at you because you think there's only 4 options. And the slant of the 4 options is even funnier.

Great parody post of the wackos around here.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 10:51 PM
I'm laughing at you because you think there's only 4 options. And the slant of the 4 options is even funnier.

Great parody post of the wackos around here.
If it's a parody, it's a parody of both sides. I've seen posters on this very board espouse all four positions.

SBK
06-11-2009, 10:59 PM
If it's a parody, it's a parody of both sides. I've seen posters on this very board espouse all four positions.

it's not a parody post. shhhh.

Cannibal
06-12-2009, 07:14 AM
I'm laughing at you because you think there's only 4 options. And the slant of the 4 options is even funnier.

Great parody post of the wackos around here.

Lets hear your solutions. Maybe you'll change people's minds.

Radar Chief
06-12-2009, 07:41 AM
Is that not a good thing? I recall Sept 10th being pretty good.

Blissfully, fatally, ignorant of what was about to happen.

Ultra Peanut
06-12-2009, 08:28 AM
did someone say ED MCCAFFREY

http://i40.tinypic.com/2d77kz.jpg

patteeu
06-12-2009, 08:57 AM
Options:

1.) Systematically wipe out the entire muslim world, killing every man, woman and child (kind of like the Nazi's tried with the Jews).
2.) Nuke the entire region, accomplishing # 1, but harming us with fallout at the same time.
3.) Engage in a literally endless war on their soil which is an endless drain on our blood and treasure.
4.) Treat it as a law enforcement action and try to infiltrate, bribe and gain all the intelligence you possibly can and thwart attacks before they happen, while at the same time trying to moderate their societies through education and economic incentives.

I like option 5. Use all aspects of our national defense, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, financial, foreign aid, etc. capabilities to prevent future attacks while at the same time trying to moderate their societies through any available means. In other words, continue with the Bush approach which has kept us safe with minimal impact on the way we live for the past 8 years.

Your option 4 is weak. Why tie your military action arm behind your back instead of using all of your capabilities when and where applicable?

I believe # 4 is the most logical and reasonable option. Especially when # 3 has not proved to "keep us safe" yet. The big actions are usually 10 years apart. Despite "fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here", we could still easily be attacked on our soil. They just take along time between actions.

It's not at all too early to prove that GWBush kept us safe. The book on that is closed and he aced the post-9/11 test. Obama is off to a good start, but a few of his choices lead me to worry a bit about his long term prospects.

Cannibal
06-12-2009, 09:13 AM
I like option 5. Use all aspects of our national defense, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, financial, foreign aid, etc. capabilities to prevent future attacks while at the same time trying to moderate their societies through any available means. In other words, continue with the Bush approach which has kept us safe with minimal impact on the way we live for the past 8 years.

Your option 4 is weak. Why tie your military action arm behind your back instead of using all of your capabilities when and where applicable?

I can see your point, but at the same time find flaw in the fact that you cannot moderate a society while occupying it and bombing it and involving civilian casualties on a monthly basis. It breeds contempt, hate and more terrorists.

patteeu
06-12-2009, 09:14 AM
I can see your point, but at the same time find flaw in the fact that you cannot moderate a society while occupying it and bombing it and involving civilian casualties on a monthly basis. It breeds contempt, hate and more terrorists.

You mean like Germany and Japan?

Cannibal
06-12-2009, 10:05 AM
You mean like Germany and Japan?

We weren't still engaging in military actions and air strikes and accidentally killing civilians after the war in Germany and Japan as we still are in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nightwish
06-12-2009, 10:40 AM
Your option 4 is weak. Why tie your military action arm behind your back instead of using all of your capabilities when and where applicable?
For the longest time, I thought it was all an act. But you really are this dumb, aren't you?

***SPRAYER
06-12-2009, 10:41 AM
US Rep. Rogers says that the new warnings advisement policy is news to the U.S. Congress, which he notes has not to his knowledge been briefed on the new procedures.

CoMoChief
06-12-2009, 11:18 AM
What is it about allowing accused (not to be confused with convicted) terrorists have their day in court, address the charges made against them, and defend themselves through the legal process that scares you people so much?

because if it smells like a rat, it's probably a rat.

Garcia Bronco
06-12-2009, 11:31 AM
The Supreme Court has said otherwise IIRC

It depends on the definition of enemy combatant you use.