Condoleeza Rice: Worse NSA Ever?

[Agathon]

9/11 was reasonably preventable.

Ask anyone who has been through check ins for flights in the UK in the last 20 years. They were serious about terrorism.

Al Qaeda were pretty blunt about wanting to attack the US and Islamic terrorists had already attacked the WTC once.

People in important places were simply not serious enough about the threat.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Ramo
So if the Chinese gov't says that there's reason to suspect the pro-democracy people were planning terrorist acts, without any judicial oversight, it'd be ok to detain them indefinitely.

No, I said if there's a reason, not if they say there is a reason.

That's what we've been saying for quite some time now. Bush is pissing all over the Bill of Rights.

I don't see how one case amounts to "pissing on the Bill of Rights". This is a complicated area with few clear rules. Hell, on the walk home from work I thought of several arguments for why classifying Padilla as an enemy combatant was the correct decision...

[Ramo]

No, I said if there's a reason, not if they say there is a reason.

That's not what Bush and Ashcroft (and Gonzales) believe. That's not even what SCOTUS believes; it's still guilty until proven innocent in their opinion.

I don't see how one case amounts to "pissing on the Bill of Rights". This is a complicated area with few clear rules. Hell, on the walk home from work I thought of several arguments for why classifying Padilla as an enemy combatant was the correct decision...

Not really. Citizens who are arrested in the US get due process. That's pretty well established legal precedent. Gutting that idea is equivalent to gutting the most important parts of the Bill of Rights.

[Pekka]

Something says to me most people here have very weird concept of security and how it works. First of all, airport security is a joke. Do you think it will prevent any serious criminal, let alone terrorists? And especially in the US?! It's all eye work. Just have a passport, and walk. That's it. Do you think they need to be carrying weapons coming from foreing countries? Of course not.

Do you think they will carry out attacks within the month they arrive? Of course not. Do you think the security is toughter in domestic flights than international flights, especially that comes INTO the US? Of course not. They still aren't. I went through the max security check in Seattle, including me sacks getting a magical david cup-a-feel, and so did the rest of my crew. It wasn't just padding down, it was teh check up. All I can tell you is that you only catch people who carry too much booze, weed or pirated dvd's. I could have been carrying a shotgun for all I care. Of course I wasn't.

SO, how can it be then, aren't they doing OK? Sure they're doing OK. It just isn't possible to check up people on airports properly, except maybe one at a time in some room.

I'm telling you, if terorists are going to attack the US, they are already in the country, or they come in with ease, or they are domestic made. You can only stop high profile dudes coming in,and that's IF you're lucky.

That's just the reality of things. It's LATE to prevent them then. Where the prevention happens, is when the intelligence picks up information in the target location (original location), and see unusually active movement. It doesn't necessarily get to know the plan, but it sure knows who, and against who and why and when. Then it tries to learn how, but if it fails, to goes in to **** them up. You don't arrest them before going into airplane because they have a knife. I mean sure but..yeah.

basically the only viable solution in protecting is to know what's happening all the time, all around the world INCLUDING inside own borders, and react to hightened activities in direct action or passive action. That's it. That's how it's always been and that's how it continues to be.

We could just remove ALL airport security for all I care. THe people who work there are good folks I'm sure and do what their job is, but we don't need it.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


No, I said if there's a reason, not if they say there is a reason.

That's what we've been saying for quite some time now. Bush is pissing all over the Bill of Rights.

I don't see how one case amounts to "pissing on the Bill of Rights". This is a complicated area with few clear rules. Hell, on the walk home from work I thought of several arguments for why classifying Padilla as an enemy combatant was the correct decision...

Not really, habeus corpus is really put and cut and try.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon
Ask anyone who has been through check ins for flights in the UK in the last 20 years. They were serious about terrorism.

Never flown in the UK, but I've been surprised at the low pre-WTC standards of airport security in countries like Spain and Turkey.

[Ned]

Re: Condoleeza Rice: Worse NSA Ever?

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
After thinking about this, its a wonder that rice hasnt been asked to resign yet. It was under her watch as NSA, that al qaeda attacked america. it was her job to protect america, and she failed miserably by not listening to her counterrorist chief Clark, and by ignoring 'al qaeda determined to strike within the US.'

her job was the protect america, and she didnt do it. the last time americ was attacked on its own soil was 1942. thats a long time ago. everyone else did their jobs. she failed.

It was under Clinton's watch that al Qaeda first attacked America - the WTC bombing in 1993. There were numerous other attacks after that -- all under Clinton.

There is also the matter that Clinton or his admin deliberately passed up the opportunity to arrest or kill OBL numerous times.

Now, given this record compared to Rice's record, I'd take Rice's record any day.

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, this Admin seems to have a wealth of underqualified staff at the top. Condie, however, is definately near the top.

we could always blame affirmitive action

[Pekka]

Ned, the old 'it was like that when I got here!' again?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Probably just arresting a few people.

It would have envolved rounding up a few Arab foreign nationals. Hardly a peep would have been heard.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Condoleeza Rice: Worse NSA Ever?

Originally posted by Ned
It was under Clinton's watch that al Qaeda first attacked America - the WTC bombing in 1993. There were numerous other attacks after that -- all under Clinton.

There is also the matter that Clinton or his admin deliberately passed up the opportunity to arrest or kill OBL numerous times.

Now, given this record compared to Rice's record, I'd take Rice's record any day.

Ned, that has to be one of the weakest excuses I've heard in years. Since the US had previously been attacked and Clinton's people repeatedly said they considered counter terrorism to be the number one priority how can you justify Bush's slashing of counter terrorism pre-9/11? It is clear as crystal that Bush didn't care about counter terrorism even tough he was repeatedly warned by both the previous adminstration and his own people.

It is absolutely criminal that they ignored the warning signs especially since everyone in the business kept telling him what was coming.

[Ming]

It is absolutely criminal that they ignored the warning signs especially since everyone in the business kept telling him what was coming.

The original threats about al Qaeda and mention of potential plans of using Airplanes as weapons came up early in Clintons first term. The FAA did nothing to beef up security or change things like having locked and stronger cockpit doors... And there was not specific effort to stop or attack al Qaeda. So is Clinton as equally in the wrong?

Warnings and threats are a regular event, and were all ignored by not only Bush, but Clinton as well... Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Condoleeza Rice: Worse NSA Ever?

Originally posted by Oerdin


Ned, that has to be one of the weakest excuses I've heard in years. Since the US had previously been attacked and Clinton's people repeatedly said they considered counter terrorism to be the number one priority how can you justify Bush's slashing of counter terrorism pre-9/11? It is clear as crystal that Bush didn't care about counter terrorism even tough he was repeatedly warned by both the previous adminstration and his own people.

It is absolutely criminal that they ignored the warning signs especially since everyone in the business kept telling him what was coming.

Some of Clinton's people may have thought terrorism was the most important threat. But more than once others wanted to warn Pakistan and the Arabs shieks first before they conducted an attempt to take OBL. Naturally, OBL was warned and moved out of harm's way.

If Bill Clinton himself thought that OBL was the most important issue facing America, why didn't he accept his surrender when it was repeatedly offered? As Ming said, why didn't they do something to beef up security on planes when Clinton was warned of al Qaeda's intent to hijack airplanes.

Clark made it clear that Bush wanted a whole new direction on al Qaeda. He wanted to carry the fight to them rather than treat al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem or simply respond with nuisance attacks on infrastructure as did Clinton. What would have happened had OBL not attacked just when he did we cannot know. But I can guarantee you this: Bush would have made a serious attempt on OBL, not at all like the laughable state of affairs we saw under Clinton.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He wanted to carry the fight to them rather than treat al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem or simply respond with nuisance attacks on infrastructure as did Clinton.

You mean like when Bush slashed funding for counter terrorism and took it off his agenda when the Clinton folks were saying focus on it? What evidence was there that Bush would have made a serious attempt at OBL before 9/11? All the evidence points the other way.

[Garth Vader]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Condoleeza Rice: Worse NSA Ever?

Originally posted by Ned
Clark made it clear that Bush wanted a whole new direction on al Qaeda. He wanted to carry the fight to them rather than treat al Qaeda as a law enforcement problem or simply respond with nuisance attacks on infrastructure as did Clinton. What would have happened had OBL not attacked just when he did we cannot know. But I can guarantee you this: Bush would have made a serious attempt on OBL, not at all like the laughable state of affairs we saw under Clinton.

What are you basing that on? The fact that Bush was making no effort towards OBL before 9/11, or that after the fact Bush has said OBL is of no concern to him anymore. He let OBL kill 3000 Americans and then doesn't even care if he is ever caught!