"Complex" plot of blow up UK airlines foiled

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Actually if you'd lived in N.Ireland then you might well have got terrorists doing most, if not all these things.

In which case, terrorism would probably rank very high on my list of worries. The point is risk assesment. I'm in more danger from my government, so I ***** more about my government. When ther terrorists are greater threat, I will bith about that. The fact is, for most people, the fear of terrorism is a vast overraction to the likelihood of every being harmed by a terrorist. At the same time, when the government is actively undermining the Constitution, they do nothing. They let the infintesinally small chance of being hurt by a terrorist allow authoritarianism a bigger chance to take control.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im not sure if its a civil war, but its definitely the highest item on the political agenda of every Iraqi. Did i say otherwise?

It was a general statement, not directed at you, lotm.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
given the situation in Lebanon, it would have been irresponsible not to have had a plan in place.

In 2003, the United States had plans both to invaded Canada and Iraq. One was just a plan. The other was being prepared to be acted upon. Israel didn't merely have a plan. They were preparing to act the moment Hezbollah gave them a pretext.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No attack by Hezbollah, no 'pretext'.

The day before North Korea invaded the South, the South launched a raid into the North, capturing a small village on the 38th paralel. By your logic, the invasion by the North was justified and the UN was on the wrong side.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
No attack by Hezbollah, no 'pretext'.

The day before North Korea invaded the South, the South launched a raid into the North, capturing a small village on the 38th paralel. By your logic, the invasion by the North was justified and the UN was on the wrong side.

Is this something like polands "aggression" against nazi germany in 1939?

I hadn't heard about it until now. Maybe you should add this tidbit of info to the wiki korean war article.

[Toby Rowe]

Hi all,

I dunno,

Some freedoms might have to be given up in order for the Government to attempt to deal with fighting an INVISIBLE enemy, and proving who you are at any given time might be one of them. Whilst I'm waning on the idea of ID cards i'm in favour of bugging- British Intelligence two years ago stated to Parliament they could only track 6 people at any given time. 6?!! 6!!!!!!!!!

Given the British Home minister admitted the number of British Muslim suspects are in the low thousands (1000's), then clearly either they fund both MI5 and MI6 fully or they introduce other measures that fit with Gordon Browns' "prudence" once he takes over. Wire tapping is cheap, but effective, give me a party that actually comprehends the problem the UK faces, that still happily imports Muslims however noble they are as a majority, they won't or can't deal with the nutters claiming their religion.

What I don't understand is unless your Turkish what on earth is the point of choosing the UK as a point of refuge from a strict Sharia-law nation?

Now 40% of British Muslims want Sharia Law in the UK, and the government falls upon it's knee's to keep Muslims happy- Why? Fit in or **** off is how I feel, like all previous communities that have arrived in the UK over the many centuries have managed.

Why do you want to come to the UK? It's a Liberal democracy for gods sake- so go elsewhere please- Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, et al etc....

We are starting to tire of religious nuts, after all, us British lost thousands freeing ourselves from religion via the Inquisition onwards, and only gained freedom from the Church in the late 1960's.

Toby

[Solly]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe Fit in or **** off

[Solly]

Who are you Toby? Jack Straw...?

Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5411954.stm

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Toby Rowe

We are starting to tire of religious nuts, after all, us British lost thousands freeing ourselves from religion via the Inquisition onwards, and only gained freedom from the Church in the late 1960's.

Toby

There was a British Inquisition ?

[Urban Ranger]

How is the case progressing? Did the police actually uncover nasty chemicals and such?

[Toby Rowe]

Hi Molly,

Yep, sadly it's true, our version was called the "Witchfinder general" The US had their own version later on in an informal contex, even though the Protestant faith had formed as a reaction to the intolerance of the Catholic faith, and the "founding fathers" were Protestant.

I wonder how long it will be before Muslims react against the ever harsher dictums the scholars (or male scholars, as that is all they have) now bring them?

My wish is to make all religious Muslim males dress up in BLACK hijabs (soaks up heat and worn by women) whilst the women wear WHITE (reflects heat and worn by males), odd that.... then make the males go out all day and toil in the fields, and be invisible to all around you, to the point that you only recognise a friend by the height of the person combined with the gait as they walk towards you on a street.......(someone needs to show a face to another or else society would cease to function)

I'm a bloke, this makes me annoyed.

Toby

[Ramo]

Hmmm.. it seems like I missed this thread. Lemme go back to it.

lotm:

Lots of folks in the center think that given the time it takes to prepare a FISA request, it makes sense to have a faster process. The problem with what the admin did was that they didnt get their alternate process passed by Congress.

While I'm on the far-left, I think that sentiment is shared by the mainstream left in general (i.e. the type that can get elected to Congress) - that the executive cannot operate in defiance of Congress. That the assumption of arbitrary executive powers based on Article II is an extraordinary and dangerous idea.

Edit: And also that there needs to be *some* process where an independent body makes sure that the searches are reasonable.

At the time, the secular state that imprisoned Qutb, Nassers Egypt, was a bitter enemy of the West. IIUC Qutbs beef with the west was NOT about say, military aid to secular dictatorships. Thats YOUR beef. It was about the way that the ideologies from the West infected the muslim world.

Actually, that was OBL's beef. Qutb lived in a different era and his beef with the West was therefore somewhat different. Whether it's secularists in Moscow or DC that have Arab Nationalist clients in the Islamic world fundamentally doesn't make much of a difference. And it's important that the Muslim Brotherhood's first and perhaps most substantial militaristic expression was in fighting the secularists in Moscow, in Afghanistan. The main point here is that Islamist discontent against foreigners is fundamentally grounded on their facilitation of secular (edit: changed from non-secular) regimes in the Islamic world. True that this facilitation is both cultural and militaristic, but it's the latter aspect that is more powerful since, even if it's less important in the long term, it obviously produces a more visceral reaction.

its now being said that the info that revealed key details of the plot came from the guy being held in Pakistan. And that the Pakistani interrogators used very harsh methods, possibly including torture.

Andrew Sullivan had been writing some interesting stuff about this, i.e. that the extent of the plan might have been overblown due to the methodology of intelligence gathering. Perhaps even it set the program back by not letting law enforcement pick up all the connections. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Ramo]

Ogie:

We've been round this a thousand times and you still are wrong. Appelate court ruling held the executive had the inherent authority to run the intellegince services as required to maintain national security especially in the province of foreign powers.

Yes we have. And as I keep saying, the Appellate decisions were pre-FISA. Thus, executive actions were not in defiance of statute at the time.

While they dealt with pre Fisa ruling the next most pertinent case is sealed case 02-001 from the FISA review court. There they plainly state that the president has constitutional authority to do warrnatless searches and that FISA is merely a means to amplify that power. In other words to give it force of proper evidentiary consideration. In some cases that might not be the case.

If you want to bring the Youngstown case into the mix and apply the Jackson test you've got issue because then you need to likewise consider sealed case 02-001.

No, it's not. Certainly no more than you need to consider the recent over-ruling of the NSA program. Plenty of other decisions have cited Jackson's concurrence (i.e. Hamdan to pick a totally random decision ). No one has ever cited the ridiculously pathetic Re: Sealed Case decision so this off topic part of the decision ain't law, and ain't grounded in real law (again, it cites pre-FISA cases to make its argument).

And I'll remind you, FISA has been upheld as Constitutional.

The three part test Jackson refered to was a matter of the sphere of influence the various branches held. In matter of foreign policy the executive branches powers are near supreme.

It's not about foreign policy. If that were the case, there'd be little legal argument (except by crazy lefties like me). It's about spying on Americans.

The pertinent laguage being "probable cause" and "unreasonable". There are any number of situations where search and seizure happens without judicial oversight.

That's totally absurd. It's the judicial branch that adjudicates disputes about what constitutes probable cause. It's your Constitutional right to get this review. What Dear Leader is doing is conducting searches on Americans without any independent body to determine their reasonableness in even the most cursory way. It's a totally reactionary idea. Almost as reactionary (though thankfully less broad) as his scrapping of habeas corpus.

[Toby Rowe]

Huh?

The Muslim faith is based upon the single tenet that Sharia law dictates all life, from when you wake up untill you sleep.

Nation states are unimportant within this context and thus Sharia law is all that matters, from birth to death.

The only arguement that matters with Muslim clerics is how you order the daily life of your peoples, thus we see prayers rather than education, history rather than innovation.

Toby

[Ramo]

1. That's a totally absurd generalization. Do you even know any Muslims?
2. How does that have anything, at all, to do with what I posted?