Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Uphold the constitution?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 76
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?Page 4 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

9/11 COULD have been prevented and it had nothing to do with the non-existence of the Patriot Act or Homeland security.


Well ya it did in the sense that they wanted it to exist, so they ram rodded the bill through congress to create the american SS, (Homeland Security), while our heads are still spinning to prevent americans citizens from revolting when they lose their constitutional rights.

History shows the us is a far greater threat to iraq and the ME than they are to the us.
.
 Crash1967
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 77
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 12:13:27 AM
....there's a book out by Naomi Kline that talks about what mike just mentioned. its called "The Shock Doctrine". She talks about how one of the tactics used is to knock people off their feet with "shock and awe" and they become so discombobulated they will sell you their grandma....its actually a tactic for interrogation direct from an old CIA interrogation field manual. You keep making huge changes in peoples lives, in the example of an interrogation, you manipulate their environment so that they are always off of their center as it makes them more pliable. So, you rearrange their cell when they aren't in it, change cells, wear the same tie for a while and then switch it....a bunch of simple things that just mess with peoples heads. It is exactly how they got Saddam to talk. I listened to an interview with the man who was responsible for interrogating him until they hung him.


"I purposely put his back against the wall. And then mine against the door, psychologically to tell him that his back was against the wall in the interview room. And that I stood between him and the door, psychologically. Between him whether it's to go back to his cell, freedom, whatever he was projecting to be outside of that door. I was kind of that psychological barrier between him and the door," Piro recalls."At times we would rehearse where I would yell out some instructions, and they would literally start running around in panic, trying to accomplish it. And it was all part of our strategy," Piro explains. "I basically said that I was gonna be responsible for every aspect of his life, and that if he needed anything I was gonna be the person that he needed to talk to," he recalls. "We had the guards remove their watches. And the only person that was wearing a watch was me. And it was very evident to him, 'cause I was wearing the largest wristwatch you could imagine. And it was just the act of him asking for the time -- was critical in our plan," Piro says.
 IronmanUK
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 78
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 3:44:36 AM
Damn matchlessm, such anger. It's not healthy you know.
Sorry for letting my life get in the way of replying to you

Ok, lets begin.

I don't know why you'd come the the conclusion that I 'hate' America. I've been to America on a few occations and loved the place and the Americans I met personally.

OH!, I get it, because I ask questions of the American authorities I must hate them and you and support your islamic enemies......no, no, wait. They bombed London so they must be my enemies too..... Now I'm confused

Both the constitution and the USA patriot act are very technical and drawn out documents and to fully cross reference both would be a long process for which I have very little motivation......Basically, I'm not all that bothered.

Here's where I drew my conclusions.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

It's the 5th amendment to your constitution but please read the 6th, 7th & 8th too.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

Note is says, NO PERSON. Not citizen, PERSON yet the US government is holding hundreds of PERSONS without charge, indefinately at Guantanamo Bay with the authority of the USA patriot act.

So which is it to be? One or the other, you can't have both.

Has for your threats to 'put me on my back'
Well, lets look at the stats:
You: 53, 5'10
Me: 42, 6'3.
I wonder if the good people on POF would like to place some bets......or maybe they would question the rational of ANYONE who would rather settle an argument with violence

Basically, IMHO, you're an idiot and not a good advert for America
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 79
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 5:29:34 AM

Has for your threats to 'put me on my back'
Well, lets look at the stats:
You: 53, 5'10
Me: 42, 6'3.
I wonder if the good people on POF would like to place some bets

Ironman, I hate to say it, but you may have a tough challenge on your hands. Haven't you seen any movies lately? The American's always win, no matter how big of a disadvantage they have.

Just kidding.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 80
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 6:02:02 PM
First, let me apologize. Apparently I was wrong in believing you were insulting me and my country. My comments were much more personal than was called for. Still, I think you are dead wrong, like many people are, about this administration's foreign policy. If we have a President McCain, I suppose you'll all REALLY have something to say.

You're admittedly "not all that bothered" to inform yourself, yet that didn't stop you from popping about America's attempts to defend itself. That seems to be a new, voguish sport in your part of the world. And I see you have a pal and supporter, who unfortunately is an American. I've seen others like him on here. That doesn't surprise me--a treasonous spirit has infected this country.

You may think I'm not a good advertisement for the U.S. Fine by me. I think the same of you, in regard to the UK. You, and millions like you, are far more concerned about the rights of Islamic Nazis than you are about saving innocent lives. You very foolishly have chosen to be apologists for (and abettors of) utterly depraved, evil fanatics whose perverted religion obliges them to try to kill you, me, and everyone else who doesn't believe exactly what they do.

And I see you consider it irrational to use violence to settle arguments. Being a stupid American and a lawyer, I'm not so civilized. If more people in England sixty years or so ago had felt like you do, it probably wouldn't exist today. God forbid we should use violence to deal with Muslim savages! What would YOU do? Ask them nicely? I suppose the Nazis would have been amenable to the same sort of friendly request.

If I'm an idiot, at least as to U.S. laws, I'm not sure what that makes you. Your reliance on the 5th Am.'s grand jury indictment clause to support your argument is ludicrous. In at least half the States, even ordinary U.S. citizens charged with crimes don't have the right to be indicted by a grand jury. In California and most western States, people are indicted for crimes by the prosecutor's filing of a document called an "information." And you may think it's unfair, but almost none of the protections of the U.S. Constitution apply to aliens accused of war crimes.

The leading case on the President's power to detain people who qualify as "unlawful combatants" under the Geneva Accords is Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). In that case, which is still good law, the Supreme Court of the U.S. decided a habeas appeal by six Nazi saboteurs (one of them legally a U.S. citizen) who had landed here by U-boat. FDR had ordered a military tribunal created, and these men were defended by some of the best criminal defense lawyers in the U.S. But the tribunal found them guilty of sabotage and sentenced them to death. Considering all the evidence against them, that wasn't surprising. All six, including the citizen, were electrocuted.

The case addresses most of the issues involving the current detainees. It talks all about a president's constitutional authority to detain and punish unlawful combatants before trial (i.e. "extra-legal" punishment), his power to establish military tribunals to try war crimes, application of these tribunals to U.S. citizens, an unlawful combatant's right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to be tried in a regular U.S. court, AND his right to indictment by a grand jury. Habeas, yes; U.S. court, no; and grand jury, no. Incidentally, Congress long ago enacted a statute that grants the right to petition a court for habeas--i.e. ask the court to order your jailer to bring you before it, so it can determine your claim that you're being wrongly held. The Constitution itself doesn't grant any right to petition for habeas--it just limits the circumstances under which that right can be suspended. U.S.C. Art I, sec. 9, cl.2.

Forget Mr. Bush; you should be cursing Abe Lincoln's ghost. He suspended the writ of habeas--so no one being detained had any court to turn to. The Union Army held all kinds of U.S. citizens suspected of being Confederate sympathizers in military brigs without trial, some of them for a very long time. Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1867) was about a newspaper editor who had called for people to seize an armory and use the weapons against the Army. The Army destroyed his presses, seized him, and a court martial sentenced him to death. But the Supreme Court held that anyplace in the U.S. where courts were operating just after the Civil War, a citizen had a right to be tried there, rather than in a court-martial.

The U.S. citizens held in brigs back then got almost nothing. The detainees now get at Gitmo, some of whom are sadistically cruel torturers and murderers, get good food, medical treatment, international inspections, etc. The U.S. actually chose to give them everything a legitimate P.O.W. gets under the Geneva Accords of 1949, although it doesn't recognize that they have that status.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 81
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 6:19:25 PM
Crash1967,
Instead of just dismissing my post about the translated documents is disingenuous, why don't you give a reason? Or is it that you find name-calling easier than thinking? I was only referring to a recent report about these documents. I believe you asked me earlier--apparently in good faith-something about the Patriot Act. I can see now I was right not to bother answering. You seem to prefer slogans to thinking.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 82
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 6:46:52 PM
Bluesman2008,

Here's what I mean by "What does it matter," since you asked. I'll say it again. The constitutionality of any and all provisions of the Patriot Act doesn't depend on your opinion of them, mine, or anyone's on this site. The only opinions that count on that question are those of the federal judges who interpret the Act. Of course, everyone's free to think this court or that was wrong.

As to the ACLU, I'm sure you know it was founded by Communists. Do you generally sympathize with the ACLU's efforts today? I agree with what it claims to stand for, but I'm not convinced it really does.

You weren't responding to me, but can you cite a source for the statement you claim President Bush made about the Constitution?

You claim there is no habeas corpus. Can you tell me who suspended the writ recently, and when? I hadn't heard about that. I think you'll find the last (and only) time it was suspended in the U.S. was by Lincoln, during the Civil War. Actually, the Supreme Court EXPANDED the right to petition for habeas in a case a couple years ago, to include anyone the U.S. is holding anywhere in the world.
 OneBlend
Joined: 3/31/2007
Msg: 83
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 6:59:43 PM
Ironman, thanks for the videos. Nice contribution.
Age old signs of despotism - a clip from 1946. Hmmmm ... sounds familiar.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3UoLa4AhUa4&feature=relatedhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=3UoLa4AhUa4&feature=related


You claim there is no habeas corpus. Can you tell me who suspended the writ recently, and when? I hadn't heard about that. I think you'll find the last (and only) time it was suspended in the U.S. was by Lincoln, during the Civil War. Actually, the Supreme Court EXPANDED the right to petition for habeas in a case a couple years ago, to include anyone the U.S. is holding anywhere in the world.

You're buds are a bit late blooming there, my friend.


Senate Passes Dangerous Bush Military Commissions Bill, ACLU Says Legislation Upends the Rule of Law (9/28/2006)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/26947prs20060928.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union expressed distress as the Senate adopted S.3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. That bill is identical to legislation adopted by the House yesterday, and removes important checks on the president by: failing to protect due process, eliminating habeas corpus for many detainees, undermining enforcement of the Geneva Conventions, and giving a "get out of jail free card" to senior officials who authorized or ordered illegal torture and abuse.

"This legislation gives the president new unchecked powers to detain, abuse, and try people at Guantanamo Bay and other government facilities around the world," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "Unfortunately for America, the Senate chose not to deliberate today. Instead, it joined the House and President Bush in jamming through a hastily written bill before running home to try to campaign."

Senators rejected several amendments that would have corrected shortcomings in the legislation. The bill gives the president license to weaken enforcement of the basic protections in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. As passed, the president would have new power to decide much of the scope of authorized conduct and the severity of punishment, giving him unparalleled power to unilaterally determine whether the government can carry out cruelty and abuse.

Additionally, the bill undermines the American value of due process by permitting convictions based on evidence literally beaten out of a witness or obtained through other abuse by either our government or other countries. Government officials who authorized or ordered illegal acts of torture and abuse would receive retroactive immunity for many of these acts, providing a "get out of jail free" card that is backdated nine years.

In the closest vote today, the Senate rejected by a 51-48 vote an amendment by Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to preserve minimal protections of the courts in their historical and constitutional role as a check on the executive branch, through habeas corpus.

"Nothing could be less American than a government that can indefinitely hold people in secret torture cells, take away their protections against horrific and cruel abuse, put them on trial based on evidence that they cannot see, sentence them to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and then slam shut the courthouse door for any habeas petition," said Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "But that’s exactly what Congress just approved."

The ACLU’s letter on S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, is up at: www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/26861leg20060925.html
 LoonyTunz
Joined: 8/11/2006
Msg: 84
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 7:04:06 PM

You're admittedly "not all that bothered" to inform yourself, yet that didn't stop you from popping about America's attempts to defend itself.

Defends itself from people it arms you mean. Like Noriega, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussien, Osama Bin Laden, just to name a few. Perhaps a moment to review foriegn policy is in order and will do much more to make Americans safer.

And I see you consider it irrational to use violence to settle arguments. Being a stupid American and a lawyer, I'm not so civilized. If more people in England sixty years or so ago had felt like you do, it probably wouldn't exist today. God forbid we should use violence to deal with Muslim savages! What would YOU do? Ask them nicely? I suppose the Nazis would have been amenable to the same sort of friendly request.

Welllllllllll, might I suggest NOT giving them arms! And every Muslim is not a savage..... just the ones that get a warm and fuzzy recetion at the Whitehouse.

The U.S. citizens held in brigs back then got almost nothing. The detainees now get at Gitmo, some of whom are sadistically cruel torturers and murderers, get good food, medical treatment, international inspections, etc. The U.S. actually chose to give them everything a legitimate P.O.W. gets under the Geneva Accords of 1949, although it doesn't recognize that they have that status

You missed the reports of waterboarding obviously, threats to exterminate entire families and so on? Or that the US buried reports which cast doubt on some cases against underage foreign nationals. Sure some detainees are little better than animals, others misguided and others yet innocent. But cinsiderations such as that don't prevent illegally holding people, torturing them and so on.

It would be a good thing if more American insisted on their constitution being upheld to teh highest standard. It is by no means a perfect document, but it is a good place to start for a country if it wishes to be a a decent world citizen and respect teh desires of her own inhabitants.
 OneBlend
Joined: 3/31/2007
Msg: 85
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 7:21:00 PM
It would be a good thing if more American insisted on their constitution being upheld to the highest standard. It is by no means a perfect document, but it is a good place to start for a country if it wishes to be a a decent world citizen and respect teh desires of her own inhabitants.

Unfortunately the majority of inhabitants seem to prefer to ride the partisan broomstick that is shoved up so far up their butts they forgot defending the constitution is paramount to a free society. It appears it's easier to play the game then to remember for the people BY THE PEOPLE. I guess thats what happens when you're fed bullshit day in and day out by the media. You just start compliantly going along with it and ignore crimes against our own citizens and against humanity. (That is, until it turns on you personally).
 Meistro1
Joined: 10/6/2007
Msg: 86
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/10/2008 11:13:21 PM
Virtually everything the federal government does violates the constitution, it's a little late to start caring now.
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 87
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/11/2008 6:37:27 AM
Still, I think you are dead wrong, like many people are, about this administration's foreign policy.

OK, so let me get this straight. This administration decided no to send nearly enough troops into Afghanistan to search for Bin Laden because we were afraid we would be risking the construction of and the future access of the Caspian Pipeline (oil pipeline) that is currently being built through Afghanistan, but instead decided to attack a country that we have been holding under our thumb for 11 years and who had not attempted to attack anyone in that time. And you say that there is nothing wrong with this administration's foreign policy?

Need I remind you that the only weapons that we were able to find in Iraq that were in violation of the peace treaty were weapons that our government gave them?

I would also like to point out a much more recent event that proves our president's complete lack of understanding of how to maintain a working foreign policy. In January, Mr. Bush traveled to Iraq with 3 topics topping is agenda. In no particular order they were, (a) to sell them 20 billion dollars worth of weapons (including guided missiles), (b) in an attempt to persuade them to lower their oil prices, and (c) to bolster support for his notions of attacking Iran.

I would like to focus on the last two issues first, as they heavily tie into one another. Saudi Arabia had already been saying that Iran is their ally and they would not support any invasion of their country. So by our president pressing this Issue, he only succeeded in offending King Abdullah and his staff. And by doing so, he in turn prevented the success of convincing them to lower their oil prices. I'm sorry, but any moron should understand that you can't offend someone while asking them for a favor. It just doesn't work out in your favor.

As far as selling weapons goes, George Bush said that it was to promote peace in the middle east. Is that not a contradiction? Besides, why are we selling 20 billion dollars worth of weapons to the long-time allies of a country that we are contemplating attacking (Iran)? How do we know those same weapons would not end up being used against us?

Other foreign policy mistakes that are being made today include:
(a) Placing too much focus on Iraq when we are supposed to be fighting a war on global terrorism
(b) Alienation of Allies
(c) A severe lack of coordination in our war efforts
(d) Providing the American public with the impression that all Muslims are radical extremists that hate Americans. If all Muslims do hate Americans, it's because our public has shown no qualms about hating them for the greater part of the last decade.
(e) Going to war under false pretenses
(f) Stabbing the UN in the back. I think this is probably one of the worst things that we could have ever done. How can we really expect the middle east to take our views of democracy seriously while at the same time we are turning our backs on the biggest democracy in the world? I realize that many people do not like the UN. But please remember that the reason we got involved in Vietnam was to persuade France to join the UN. How can something that was worth the lives 60 thousand American troops only 40 year ago be worthless now?

I don't see how anyone can sit around and pretend that our current administration has great foreign policy when crap like this is going on.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 88
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/11/2008 6:44:15 AM
.
Yes literally every concern the antifederalists argued and much more is or has come true.

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/

.
 matchlessm
Joined: 11/11/2007
Msg: 89
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/11/2008 9:55:24 PM
Oneblend,

No, I don't believe I'm late at all. Nothing in the Constitution of the U.S. grants *anyone* *any* right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The only mention it makes of habeas is in Art. I, sec.9, cl.2, which limits authority to suspend the privilege of the writ to "cases of rebellion or invasion" when "the public safety may require it." It is Congress that grants the right to habeas, through a very old statute which remains in the Federal Code today. In habeas, someone being "detained" (not necessarily in jail) petitions a court to issue an order for them to brought before that court, so it can determine if, for any of a great many possible reasons, they're being held illegally.

I repeat--President Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ during the Civil War, and that is the first, last, and only time it was done. The article from the ACLU you include claims that the Military Commissions Act "eliminated" habeas for some detainees. Apparently it's referring to the fact that this Act partly overrides the decision in Rasul v. Bush, a 2004 case in which the Supreme Court held that the habeas statute applied to anyone the U.S. was detaining overseas, at Gitmo or anywhere else. I'm far from the only one who believes Rasul was horrible, about as poorly reasoned as any Supreme Court decision of the last ten years.

If the Constitution itself granted the detainees a right to habeas, the Court in Rasul could have based its holding on constitutional grounds, rather than on a re-interpretation of a federal statute. But it couldn't, and didn't. So, Congress later said, in effect, "OK, the Court's held the detainees have a right to habeas under existing statutes. We don't believe all of them should have that right, so we're enacting a new statute that makes that clear." Not a thing unusual about that--changing federal statutes in response to Supreme Court decisions has been standard operating procedure since this country began, and Congress has done it hundreds of times.

The U.S. had never extended the right to habeas to war prisoners it held overseas before the Rasul decision in 2004. Just after WWII, the U.S. was holding more than a million war prisoners, mostly P.O.W.s, but also some presumed war criminals. In fact, in a 1950 case, Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Court held just that, emphasizing the logistical and security problems, and the undue burden on U.S. forces that would result, if a million captives had the right to file habeas petitions in U.S. courts. In this case, the court interpreted the exact same statute it re-interpreted in Rasul 54 years later. One of the many reasons Rasul is not convincing is that the Court's doctrine of stare decisis requires it not to change its earlier interpretation of the same statute. The Court often reinterprets some provision of the *Constitution* and overturns one of its earlier decisions. But it almost NEVER changes its interpretation of a statute enacted by Congress.

Under the Geneva Accords and the Hague Convention, "grave" war crimes may be punished by death. Congress has provided the death penalty for many of these grave war crimes, as U.S.C. Art. I, sec. 8, cl.10 authorizes: [The Congress shall have power] "to define and punish . . . offenses against the law of nations." Britain, France, Holland, and China executed Japanese they were holding who had committed some of the cruelest atrocities imaginable. The Navy tried and hanged more than 950 Japanese who had committed the same sorts of atrocities. (BTW, to compare anything the U.S. has done to captives to what these sadists did every day is like saying a child's balsa wood toy with a rubber band for a motor and a 747 are the same, because they're both "airplanes.") Nothing gave any of these war criminals any legal right to have their crimes tried in a U.S. court, any more than the Nazis tried at Nurmberg had.

In 1942, eight Nazi saboteurs landed by U-boat in New York and Florida. Two of them turned the others in to the FBI, and FDR had rules drawn up for a military tribunal within SIX DAYS. The tribunal tried the six in about two weeks. Although they were represented by some of the finest criminals defense lawyers in the U.S., there was far too much evidence against them. The Supreme Court heard their habeas petition in Ex Parte Quirin, which is still good law today. It rejected all their arguments on constitutional grounds, and all six were electrocuted only a couple months after they'd landed. Of course, everyone knows how stupid and uncivilized President Franklin Roosevelt was.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 90
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 12:26:35 AM
.
Petitioning for a writ of habeous corpus "technically" is or should not have been necessary in the first place if we were functioning within the original intent of a constitutional republic, (however that is not the case so it is needed), because it does nothing more than re-iterate the constitution in regard to the inalienable rights of persons to be formally charged and have a trial.

The federal constitution extends to all persons in all areas under US control.
.
 Crash1967
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 91
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 2:00:54 AM
.
You seem to prefer slogans to thinking.


...nice cop out... esquire....

... the only good thing attorneys do is bill.....like that slogan?
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 92
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 8:46:06 AM
I hope you will keep your word.
Here are several things president Bush has done for the American People:
1.Protecting the Homeland
America is safer today because of the President's policies to strengthen the security of our Nation's infrastructure and our borders.
2.Hurricane Preparedness
More than two years after Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Coast is rebuilding and the Nation is better prepared for future natural disasters.
3.Jobs & Economic Growth
The U.S. economy has created more than 7.8 million since August 2003, with nearly 2 million jobs created over the last 12 months. Our economy has now added jobs for 43 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.4 percent.
4.Judicial Nominations
President Bush has nominated outstanding judicial candidates to fill vacancies on the Federal courts of appeals.
5.Fighting a Global War on Terror
President Bush is committed winning the War on Terror by defeating our enemies abroad so we do not have to confront them here at home.
6.Strengthening Social Security
The President is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security for today's retirees and those nearing retirement and strengthening Social Security for our children and grandchildren.
7.On October 9, 2007, the President issued an updated National Strategy for Homeland Security, which will serve to guide, organize, and unify our Nation's homeland security efforts.
8.On February 1, 2001, President Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative - a comprehensive program to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, and promoting increased access into daily community life. The Administration is committed to the full enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Administration Is Increasing Access For People With Disabilities Through Technology
8.The President reformed Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit and give beneficiaries more private plan choices. These programs have been a great success for our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries.
9.Empowering Americans With Affordable Options For Health Care
President Bush Calls On Congress To Pass Standard Deduction For Health Insurance, Lays Out Key Elements Of Agenda To Empower Consumers And Make Basic Private Health Insurance More Affordable
10.THE PRESIDENT’S FY09 BUDGET
Addresses Immediate Economic Challenges
Ensures Sustained Prosperity
Keeps America Safe
Balances the Budget by 2012

If you research these issues ,through www.whitehouse.gov you will find that facts are based upon independant sources and are not just hoopla by the Bush Administration.
 andy7372
Joined: 4/11/2008
Msg: 93
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 8:55:17 AM
hello ronjo,

I can't comment on everything but:


1.Protecting the Homeland
America is safer today because of the President's policies to strengthen the security of our Nation's infrastructure and our borders.

No america is not safer today, I think you'll find you have more enemies now than ever before, and if the borders were so secure why are drugs still getting in? more than ever before.


2.Hurricane Preparedness
More than two years after Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Coast is rebuilding and the Nation is better prepared for future natural disasters.

how is your nation better prepared?

5.Fighting a Global War on Terror
President Bush is committed winning the War on Terror by defeating our enemies abroad so we do not have to confront them here at home.

yes he is committed to it because he declared the "war on terror" being committed to it and having sound policies to win it are two different things.


If you research these issues ,through www.whitehouse.gov you will find that facts are based upon independant sources and are not just hoopla by the Bush Administration.

do you really think they would put stuff on their website that criticises them?
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 94
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 5:08:21 PM
1.Protecting the Homeland
America is safer today because of the President's policies to strengthen the security of our Nation's infrastructure and our borders.

You can't be serious. How are we any more safe today? Did you even read my last post? We just got threw selling 20 billion dollars worth of weapons, including guided missiles, to the middle east. Missiles that can easily be used against us.


2.Hurricane Preparedness
More than two years after Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Coast is rebuilding and the Nation is better prepared for future natural disasters.

How exactly are we better prepared for natural disasters? Not only did president Bush drastically cut funding to maintain the levees of New Orleans 4 years in a row, but we still have people on the coast who are fighting with insurance companies to get the money that they deserve for lost property. What will be better now? Will it only take 4 days to get fresh water to the victims next time?

Need I remind you that it was Bush who also decided that appointing his long time friend and horse breeder as the director of FEMA was a good idea? A man who had no experience for a job like this.

I would also like to point out that last year's fires in California were just as much of a disaster. Where were all of the retrofitted fire fighting helicopters when they needed them? Oh yeah, I forgot. George Bush cut the funding on them too.


3.Jobs & Economic Growth
The U.S. economy has created more than 7.8 million since August 2003, with nearly 2 million jobs created over the last 12 months. Our economy has now added jobs for 43 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.4 percent.

In case you didn't know, unemployment statistics are based on the number of people currently receiving unemployment. It doesn't include people who are unemployed and not on unemployment. So by George Bush putting an end to unemployment plan extensions, it not only reduced the amount of people who were eligible for unemployment, but also required many people to take jobs of far less salary just to make end meet.

It's true that more jobs are being created. But the fact is, the average salaries of the jobs that are being created are far less than the average salaries of the jobs that were lost in '01 and '02.


4.Judicial Nominations
President Bush has nominated outstanding judicial candidates to fill vacancies on the Federal courts of appeals.

Please! He Nominate people like William G. Myers III, who has never been a judge in his life, but instead worked as a paid lobbyist for the coal and cattle industries. One can hardly say that adding more special interest groups in Washington is doing what is providing for the greater good of the people. That's why they are called "special interest groups".


5.Fighting a Global War on Terror
President Bush is committed winning the War on Terror by defeating our enemies abroad so we do not have to confront them here at home.

If he is so dedicated to fighting the war on global terror, then why did he stop looking for Bin Laden almost 4 years ago? He's not fighting a war on terror. He's fighting a war against those who control the oil that he wants.

Wake up and smell the roses. George Bush is just as much a terrorists as anyone else. You can't fight a war an terror by being a terrorist.


6.Strengthening Social Security
The President is committed to keeping the promise of Social Security for today's retirees and those nearing retirement and strengthening Social Security for our children and grandchildren.

He's the one that ****ed up social security in the first place. Less than 3 months after entering office he took 3 trillion dollars out of social security and Medicare. He's not trying to strengthen it. He's only interested in a little damage control. He's putting a band aid on the grenade wound that he created.


7.On October 9, 2007, the President issued an updated National Strategy for Homeland Security, which will serve to guide, organize, and unify our Nation's homeland security efforts.

The president had no part in the writing of our Homeland Security Strategy, nor did he have a hand in revising it. This was the job of the Council on Homeland Security. The only thing Bush did was unveil it to the world. He is nothing more than a celebrity endorsement for an automobile advertisement.


8.On February 1, 2001, President Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative - a comprehensive program to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, and promoting increased access into daily community life. The Administration is committed to the full enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Administration Is Increasing Access For People With Disabilities Through Technology

While I can't say that this is a bad thing, I would like to point out that it is certainly not for the greater good of our population. Once again, we are dealing with a special interest group. Remember, I said that you had to name me one thing that he did for the greater good of our nation.


8.The President reformed Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit and give beneficiaries more private plan choices. These programs have been a great success for our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries.

Once again, this is a special interest group. Besides, like social security, it was Bush who ****ed it up in the first place.


9.Empowering Americans With Affordable Options For Health Care
President Bush Calls On Congress To Pass Standard Deduction For Health Insurance, Lays Out Key Elements Of Agenda To Empower Consumers And Make Basic Private Health Insurance More Affordable

Under President Bush's proposal most people will see a tax break - at first. But workers covered by their employers may ultimately see a tax hike.

Bush proposed changing how spending on health insurance is taxed, and reallocating federal funds to help those states with affordable insurance subsidize low-income and hard-to-insure people. What about the states with not-so-affordable insurance?

With this plan we will more than likely see employers deciding to discontinue work health-care plans.

While this plan may or may not benefit the great good in the long run. Bush isn't doing it with the greater good in mind. Right now, the biggest threat to the republican party in their attempt to maintain occupancy in the White House is the fact that McCaine doesn't have a well established idea and goal for health-care such as those of Clinton and Obama. This will cause many people to vote Democrat. But if Bush can establish a plan before election day, it will become a dead issue, and his party will have a much better chance at taking the stage once again. No one wants to leave knowing that they screwed it up for their own party. Once again, this is damage control. He's not doing it for the greater good of the people. He's doing it to save face.


10.THE PRESIDENT’S FY09 BUDGET
Addresses Immediate Economic Challenges
Ensures Sustained Prosperity
Keeps America Safe
Balances the Budget by 2012

WASHINGTON, March 13 (Reuters) - "The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday approved a fiscal 2009 budget plan that attempts to produce a surplus by 2012 while rejecting many of President George W. Bush's domestic spending cuts."

If Bush's budget plan was so great, then why did the House approve the Democratic Plan?
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 95
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 6:57:55 PM
Thank you for your answer. allow me to reply.
1.No america is not safer today, I think you'll find you have more enemies now than ever before, and if the borders were so secure why are drugs still getting in? more than ever before.

America is much safer today because of Homeland Security and the Patriot act. There have been quite a number of attacks that were stopped abroad and here at home. How
many attacks from Muslim Terrorists have you seen in the USA since 9/11? The answer none. Not because it hasn't been in the plans but because of the actions of Homeland Security and Federal Agencies with the power now to prevent attacks.

2.how is your nation better prepared?
Allow me to first let you know what is being done on the gulf coast and how our govn is helping.
The Federal Government Has Provided More Than $114 Billion In Resources – $127 Billion Including Tax Relief – To The Gulf Region.
Over $96 Billion Of The $114 Billion (84 Percent) Either Has Been Disbursed Or Is Available For States To Draw From. The Federal government plans to obligate every dollar – the funds are there and ready to be used, and we are working with State and local leaders to help them take advantage of the remainder of this funding to rebuild the region.
Over The Past Year, $24 Billion In Federal Funds Have Been Spent To Rebuild The Gulf States And To Further Assist Hurricane Victims. Federal dollars have been used to build houses and schools, repair damaged infrastructure, and provide victims with a place to live and other essential assistance as the region continues to get back on its feet.
The Administration Has Secured $7.1 Billion From Congress For The U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers To Repair And Enhance The Levees, Make The Entire Hurricane Protection System Better And Stronger, And Begin To Restore The Wetlands Surrounding The Greater New Orleans Area.
Today, The New Orleans Area Has The Best Flood Protection In History, And Work Continues On Improvements.
In His FY 2009 Budget, President Bush Will Request The Federal Share Of The Additional $7.6 Billion Needed To Complete These Improvements. This funding will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete its work to improve storm and flood protection infrastructure in Greater New Orleans to a 100-year protection level by 2011. It will also fund a $1.3 billion network of interior drainage projects to ensure the area has a more complete hurricane protection system.
I could go on and on but instead I will give you the site:http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/katrina/
I would rather you go and read this site which is factual and not propaganda to make the Bush Administration look better. It is the government working hard to fix the mistakes that were made long before Bush took Office. Those problems did not apeear at the election of Bush or even Clinton. To play the blame game of everything under the sun thrown at a President that has a rough way to go is not fair in any case.
As far as war being declared,it was not Bush that originally declared war. It was Al Queada and Saddam. In fact Saddam called His war against the USA, the 13 year war. That goes back to the gulf war. That Bush had to respond was something any elected President would have done, bar none.
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 96
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 7:10:57 PM
r.swindol, thank you for your answer. that the democrats would approve anything Bush places before them, is at best false hope. The Democrats sadly are the ones doing our country a great injustice by defying even the good plans that Bush has tried to get through. The house led by Pelosi, has done nothing. that is why this Democrat Senate and House have lower ratings than Bush himself. They are worse loud mouth whiny do nothing Congress in the History of the US.
Of course that is only my humble opinion,but then they do have that low rating don't they?
 RSwindol
Joined: 8/25/2005
Msg: 97
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 9:05:49 PM
The Federal Government Has Provided More Than $114 Billion In Resources – $127 Billion Including Tax Relief – To The Gulf Region.
Over $96 Billion Of The $114 Billion (84 Percent) Either Has Been Disbursed Or Is Available For States To Draw From. The Federal government plans to obligate every dollar – the funds are there and ready to be used, and we are working with State and local leaders to help them take advantage of the remainder of this funding to rebuild the region.
Over The Past Year, $24 Billion In Federal Funds Have Been Spent To Rebuild The Gulf States And To Further Assist Hurricane Victims. Federal dollars have been used to build houses and schools, repair damaged infrastructure, and provide victims with a place to live and other essential assistance as the region continues to get back on its feet.
The Administration Has Secured $7.1 Billion From Congress For The U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers To Repair And Enhance The Levees, Make The Entire Hurricane Protection System Better And Stronger, And Begin To Restore The Wetlands Surrounding The Greater New Orleans Area.
Today, The New Orleans Area Has The Best Flood Protection In History, And Work Continues On Improvements.
In His FY 2009 Budget, President Bush Will Request The Federal Share Of The Additional $7.6 Billion Needed To Complete These Improvements. This funding will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete its work to improve storm and flood protection infrastructure in Greater New Orleans to a 100-year protection level by 2011. It will also fund a $1.3 billion network of interior drainage projects to ensure the area has a more complete hurricane protection system.
I could go on and on but instead I will give you the site:http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/katrina/

Well forgive me for saying...But while it may not be too little, it's definitely too late. In 2004, Al Naomi, the director of the Corp of Engineers stated "The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them." He also said "The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink. I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

Al Naomi told president Bush that 20 million would be needed to fix the problem. Bush gave him 3.9 million.

So once again, we have damage control. It's not a matter of saving lives, but a matter of saving face. Between incompetence and poor management, G.W. screwed the pooch once again and and is now having to kiss and make up.

As a Mississippi resident, I am well aware of the help received from the federal government. Disaster prevention is much cheaper than disaster relief. But you couldn't have convinced Bush of that before Katrina.
 NwMke
Joined: 8/1/2007
Msg: 98
view profile
History
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 9:30:57 PM


America is much safer today because of Homeland Security and the Patriot act. There have been quite a number of attacks that were stopped abroad and here at home. How
many attacks from Muslim Terrorists have you seen in the USA since 9/11? The answer none. Not because it hasn't been in the plans but because of the actions of Homeland Security and Federal Agencies with the power now to prevent attacks.


no kidding? do cite them for us. There werent any attacks since pearly harbor either before we had the SS.
.
 *thebestguyhere*
Joined: 3/30/2008
Msg: 99
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/12/2008 10:26:19 PM

How
many attacks from Muslim Terrorists have you seen in the USA since 9/11? The answer none.

The irony is that I use this statement exactly to the opposite with people.Why would the saudi's (al CIA da ) take the initiative and perform the amazing task of destroying the towers , which required getting through Norad and then .................Nothing............ That was it ? They had no plan after that for eight years ? It was like children on halloween lighting a bag of dog shit on your porch and running away ? How much sense does it make to you that they really didn't have any further intent ?
It's just illogical to think that that was all they could do. especially whenthe bin laden family was in the states at the time it was done , ( escorted safetly home by Bush after the attacks by the way. )
There were no terrorist attacks and their will not be any except for the ones planned for america by Bush and his followers.
Fox news is a joke but they did report this back in 2001 but notice the day and date.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
 ronjo58
Joined: 2/10/2006
Msg: 100
Uphold the constitution?
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:26:12 AM
Jose Padilla, May 2002

U.S. officials arrested Padilla in May 2002 at O'Hare Airport in Chicago as he returned to the United States from Pakistan, initially charging him with being an enemy combatant and planning to use a "dirty bomb" (an explosive laced with radioac­tive material) in an attack against America.[4] Prior to his conviction, Padilla brought a case against the federal government stating that he had been denied the right of habeas corpus (the right of an individual to petition against his or her imprisonment). The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, found that the case had been filed improperly.[5] In 2005, the government officially indicted Padilla for conspiring with Islamic terrorist groups.[6]

In August 2007, Padilla was found guilty by a civilian jury after a three-month trial and a day and a half of deliberations.

Lackawanna Six, September 2002

When the FBI arrested Sahim Alwan, Yahya Goba, Yasein Taher, Faysal Galab, Shafal Mosed, and Mukhtar al-Bakri, the press dubbed them the "Lackawanna Six" (also the "Buffalo Six" or "Buf­falo Cell"). Five of the six had been born and raised in Lackawanna, New York.[7] The six Amer­ican citizens of Yemeni descent were arrested for conspiring with terrorist groups. They had stated that they were going to Pakistan to attend a reli­gious training camp but instead attended an al-Qaeda "jihadist" camp.
A naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Kash­mir and living in Columbus, Ohio, Iyman Faris was arrested for conspiring to commit a terrorist act. He was suspected of planning to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge.[9] The New York City Police Department had learned about the plot and increased police surveillance around the bridge. Faced with this additional security, Faris and his superiors decided to cancel the attack.
Virginia "Jihad" Network, June 2003

In Alexandria, Virginia, 11 men were arrested for weapons counts and for violating the Neutrality Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens and residents from attacking countries with which the United States is at peace. Of these 11 men, four pled guilty. Upon further investigation, the other seven members of the group were indicted on additional charges of conspiring to support terrorist organizations. They were found to have connections with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-i-Taiba, a terrorist organization that targets the Indian government.[12] The authori­ties stated that the Virginia men had used paintball games as a form of training and preparation for bat­tle.[13] The group had also acquired surveillance and night vision equipment and wireless video cameras.[14]

Dhiren Barot, August 2004

A terrorist cell under the leadership of Dhiren Barot was arrested for plotting to attack the New York Stock Exchange and other financial institu­tions in New York, Washington, and Newark, New Jersey, and later accused of planning attacks in England. The plots included a "memorable black day of terror" with the employment of a "dirty bomb."[18] A July 2004 police raid on Barot's house in Pakistan discovered a number of incriminating documents in files on a laptop computer that included instructions for building car bombs.[19]

Dhiren Barot pled guilty and was convicted in the United Kingdom for conspiracy to commit mass murder and sentenced to 40 years.[20]

James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj, August 2004

James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj were arrested for plotting to bomb a subway station near Madison Square Garden in New York City before the Republican National Convention.[21] The New York City Police Departments Intelligence Division helped to conduct an investigation leading to the arrests. An undercover agent infiltrated the group, provided information to authorities, and later testi­fied against Elshafay and Siraj.[22]

Elshafay, a U.S. citizen, pled guilty and received a lighter sentence for testifying against his co-conspir­ator. He received five years. Shawhawar Matin Siraj was sentenced to 30 years in prison.[23]

Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, August 2004

Two leaders of an Albany, New York, mosque were charged with plotting to purchase a shoulder-fired grenade launcher to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat.[24] An investigation by the FBI, the Trea­sury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the local police contributed to the arrest. With the help of an informant, the FBI was able to set up a sting that lured Mohammed Hos­sain into a fake terrorist conspiracy.[25] Hossain brought Yassin Araf, a Kurdish refugee, as a wit­ness. The informant offered details of a fake terror­ist plot, claiming that he needed the missiles to murder a Pakistani diplomat in New York City. Both agreed to help.[26]

Both Aref and Hossain were found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to conceal mate­rial support for terrorism.

Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat, June 2005

In Lodi, California, Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat, a Pakistani immigrant and his American son, were arrested after allegedly lying to the FBI about the son's attendance at an Islamic terrorist training camp in Pakistan.

The son, Hamid Hayat, was found guilty of sup­porting terrorism and was sentenced to 24 years.[27] Umer Hayat's trial ended in a mistrial. He later pled guilty to lying to a Customs agent in his attempt to carry $28,000 into Pakistan.

Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, Hammad Riaz Samana, and Kevin James, August 2005

Arrested in Los Angeles, California, the mem­bers of the group were charged with conspiring to attack Los Angeles National Guard facilities, syna­gogues, and other targets in the Orange County area.[28] Kevin James allegedly founded a radical Islamic prison group and converted Levar Wash­ington and others to the group, which was known as JIS, short for Jamiyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh.[29] The JIS allegedly planned to finance their operations by robbing gas stations. After Washington and Patter­son were arrested for robberies, police and federal agents began a terrorist investigation when a search of Washington's apartment revealed a suspicious target list.[30]

Michael C. Reynolds, December 5, 2005

Michael C. Reynolds was arrested by the FBI and charged with being involved in a plot to blow up a Wyoming natural gas refinery; the Transcontinental Pipeline, a natural-gas pipeline stretching from the Gulf Coast to New York and New Jersey; and a New Jersey Standard Oil refinery.[31] He was arrested while trying to pick up the $40,000 owed to him for planning the attack.[32] His purported contact, Shan­nen Rossmiller, was a Montana judge who was working with the FBI.[33] The FBI later found explo­sives in a locker in his home town, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.[34] Reynolds claimed that he was working as a private citizen to find terrorists.[35]

Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi, Zand Wassim Mazloum, February 2006

In Toledo, Ohio, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Mar­wan Othman El-Hindi, and Wassim Mazloum were arrested for "conspiring to kill or injure people in the Middle East" and providing material support to terrorist organizations. They allegedly intended to build bombs to be used in Iraq.[37] The investigation was begun through the help of an informant who was approached to help train the group.[38]

Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, April 2006

Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee from Atlanta, Georgia, were accused of conspiracy, having discussed terrorist targets with alleged ter­rorist organizations.[39] They allegedly met with Islamic extremists and received training and in­struction in how to gather videotape surveillance of potential targets in the Washington area. They videotaped places such as the U.S. Capitol and the World Bank headquarters as potential targets and sent the videos to a London extremist group.[40]

Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine, June 2006

Seven men were arrested in Miami and Atlanta for allegedly being in the early stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as the FBI offices and other buildings. The arrests resulted from an investigation involving an FBI informant. It is alleged that Narsearl Batiste was the leader of the group and first suggested attacking the Sears Tower in December 2005.[41]
Assem Hammoud, July 2006

Conducting on-line surveillance of chat rooms, the FBI discovered a plot to attack underground transit links with New Jersey.[42] Eight suspects, including Assem Hammoud, an al-Qaeda loyalist living in Lebanon, were arrested for plotting to bomb the New York City train tunnels.[43] Ham­moud was a self-proclaimed operative for al-Qaeda and admitted to the plot.[44] He is currently in cus­tody in Lebanon, and his case is pending. Two other suspects are in custody in other locations, and investigators continue to hunt down the other five suspects.
Liquid Explosives Plot, August 2006

British law enforcement was able to stop a terror­ist plot to load 10 commercial airliners headed to the United States with liquid explosives.[45] The areas said to be targeted were New York, Washington, D.C., and California.[46] Approximately 24 British persons were arrested in the London area. The style of the plot has raised speculation that al-Qaeda was behind it, but no concrete evidence has proven this.

The United Kingdom has charged 15 of the 24 arrested individuals, and trials are expected to begin in 2008.[47] The charges vary from conspiring to com­mit murder to planning to commit terrorist acts.[48]

Fort Dix Plot, May 2007

Six men were arrested in a plot against Fort Dix, a U.S. Army base in New Jersey. The plan included attacking and killing soldiers using assault rifles and grenades.[49] Five of the alleged conspirators had conducted training missions in the nearby Pocono Mountains. The sixth helped to obtain weapons. The arrests were made after a 16-month FBI opera­tion that included infiltrating the group. The inves­tigation began after a store clerk alerted authorities when he discovered a video file of the group firing weapons and calling for "jihad." As far as is known, the group had no direct connections to any world terrorist organization.[50]

Five of the defendants have been charged with conspiracy to kill military personnel. The sixth is facing weapons charges.

JFK Plot, June 2007

Four men plotted to blow up a jet fuel artery that runs through residential neighborhoods at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. It is alleged that they believed this would create more destruction than September 11. Authorities stated that the attack would have caused major damage.[51]

Russell Defreitas, the leader of the group was arrested in Brooklyn. One of the men was a former airport worker, and two other individuals had links to Islamic extremists in South America and the Car­ibbean.[52] Two others, Abdul Kadir and Kareem Ibrahim, are being held in Trinidad. Kadir was an imam in Guyana, former member of parliament, and mayor of the town of Linden, Guyana. Ibrahim is a Trinidadian citizen. The fourth suspect—Abdel Nur, a Guyanese citizen—remains at large.[53]

Cases are pending.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, March 2007

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, captured in 2003, is alleged to have been involved in a number of terrorist plots and is among the most senior of Osama bin Laden’s operatives to have been captured. He is currently held at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Mohammed admitted in March 2007 to helping to plan, organize, and run the September 11 attacks and also claimed responsibility for the first bombing at the World Trade Center and the bombings of nightclubs in Bali in 2002 and a Kenyan hotel. He has stated that he decapitated American journalist Daniel Pearl and took responsibility for helping to plan the failed attack by Richard Reid, along with plots at Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf, and Big Ben, as well as targets in Israel and the Panama Canal. He also helped to develop plots surrounding Los Angeles, Chicago, and the Empire State Building as well as U.S. nuclear power stations. He also had plotted to assassinate Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton.

I hope this is satisfactory in answering your request. You may find this at:http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Uphold the constitution?