<p>“Of course Ben Laden knows his videos help Bush - he wants to help Bush. I believe having a president who is so easy to manipulate into war is Ben Laden’s actual desire - he doesn’t want a party in power in the US who actually could resist a war if it’s not a good idea for the US.”</p>
<p>George Bush is a walking recruiting poster for Al-Qaeda. Bin-Laden will be very sorry to see him leave, regardless of who takes his place.</p>
<p>If I had to guess, I’d be confident that someone with the name LaxAttack09 has already been pretty throughly checked out by some branch of DHS. I mean…we know it means lacrosse but there is this airport…</p>
<p>Haha…I realized this a couple of days after I made the name. I’m pretty sure I’m under watch or something…</p>
<p>
dmd, like I said earlier, I wouldn’t make too much out of what a renegade judge did or didnt do. There are wacky judges on the bench anywhere.</p>
<p>I assumed it (LAX) was the airport since this thread was the first post I saw by the poster!</p>
<p>Um, bin Laden is dead. The latest video was a fake. The media hasn’t made much of this (pretty much ignored it, in fact) but did you notice all of the references to recent events in the voice-over were made while the image was frozen? </p>
<p>It just serves both al Qaeda’s AND the US government’s interests to pretend he is alive.</p>
<p>Yourworld… let me get this straight. Am I right that you think ALL judges that disagree with you are “renegade judges”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Following up on dmd, Yourworld, what is your legal basis for contending that the judge’s ruling was decided incorrectly?</p>
<p>They descented against majority of prudent jurists who understand we are living in an extraordinary time, confronted by medieval fanatics who are out to kill us all. Need I remember you, Bin Laddie’s last msg calls for ‘caravans of martyrs’. Empty rhetorics ? Reasonable, decent people would thinks so
but not in the middle east. It’s not hard finding men there who needs little encourgement to get their 72 virgins. That is why we need extraordinary measures like the Patriot Act to protect us. Any loss of civil liberties will be small change. </p>
<p>These renegade judges wouldn’t understand that and interpret the law like they would in the most peaceful of times.</p>
<p>YourWorld: Is English your first language? Are you an American citizen?</p>
<p>So, your world, the judge’s ruling “descented [sic] against majority of prudent jurists”. Was this put up for a vote, by any chance? How do you know? </p>
<p>But let’s ignore that for a moment. In fact, I guess we have to ignore the fact that you are not using any legal justification at all. If I understand your main argument, you are saying that “any loss of civil liberties will be small change”.
That’s “any” as in “any” ? You say that the judges should interpret the Constitution differently, based on how insecure you feel. You are really willing to give up the first 10 amendments in the Constitution? Or perhaps just one of them? Which of our rights do you think are worth sacrificing? </p>
<p>Man, you are in the wrong country. People have fought and died for our freedoms, and you’re prepared to toss them away. And if all governments were to do what you suggest, where could we ever go to find America again?</p>
<p>How do I know ? The fact that Congress passed this bipartisan legislation in record time following 9/11 is proof. </p>
<p>Give up 1st 10 ammendments ? Yes it can get there. But how likely will an average American get investigated than someone the authorities have reason to suspect, like maybe a real terrorist or sympathizer? Surely we will hit a few wrongful targets. Don’t forget, in a war, the innocents die too. And we are in a war like none before. Go back to your infant-like belief that America can fight this war without costs to the average citizens, only those brave soldiers have to pay by dying on unwelcomed foreign soil, if that suits you. When you stand over the heap of the ruins that once was (name an American city), feel good that the privacy of the beasts who attacked us were protected.</p>
<p>dmd, I dont bother editing for grammarical correctness when I got the main point right. Comprende ?</p>
<p>yourworld–But you didn’t get the main point right.</p>
<p>Our government loves this “war on terror”–because it never ends. There will never be “victory” and never any reason to restore the rights that were taken away from its citizens. Our children will never know what freedom used to be and I pity THEIR children.</p>
<p>So our government is evil again ? I thought we answered that one.</p>
<p>And you ARE going to feel good the privacy of the beasts who attacked us were protected? Consider this scenario:</p>
<p>Let’s say we had credible leads, but the thing is happening so fast and they are about to arm a weapon or somesuch ( too much 24 ). Are we going to bust in with guns blazing or nice it by trying to convince a judge to sign a warrant which would have been too late…fast fwd to where you stood over the ruins that once were (name an American city). No you got it wrong.</p>
<p>"Our government loves this “war on terror”–because it never ends. There will never be “victory” and never any reason to restore the rights that were taken away from its citizens. "</p>
<p>Who exactly is “our government?” Bush leaves office in just over a year. Will he be pulling the strings after he leaves office?</p>
<p>The problem, yourworld, is that the only people under this system who have the power to say ‘you’re guilty’ are the very ones with the most invested in finding people guilty. We’ve had citizens, US and Canadian, taken away without warrants, without anyone knowing what had become of them, and some of them were tortured. There is nothing to stop ‘someone’ in government from deciding <em>you</em> (nice, sweet, nothing to hide <em>you</em>) are guilty of some knowledge or part of some plan. How exactly do you propose to prove that you are not guilty when some gov’t entity comes banging on your door in the middle of the night? Right now, all you need is somebody to put an address in a computer wrong or misspell a name and you’re on a watch list, a no-fly list or a rendition list and you’ve got no recourse. Even a false/mistaken appearance on a no-fly list keeps appearing for 7 yrs. </p>
<p>How safe do you feel now? Maybe you have absolute faith in every government employee from the local meter maids right up to the White House, but I’m not so sanguine.</p>
<p>Yourworld - Mike Nifong was one of the guys entrusted with deciding whose rights should be protected and whose rights should be ignored if “necessary”. Feel better now?</p>
<p>Mike Nifong is a bad prosecutor therefore all prosecutors are bad ?</p>
<p>This is why I think liberal thinking is wrong thinking. They will point to some grotesque argument, no matter how rare or special the circumstance or how weak and then generalize and readily sacrifice the public good for it. </p>
<p>You, a reasonable soul, found something workable. The liberals will proceed to tell you that such and such doesnt work either and trash your contribution. I have seen it over and over. This all goes back to as young adults,the liberal minds are influenced by ,some but not all, that the liberal position, the liberal way of looking at things was the more colorful way, and conservatives precepts are square, boring, unexciting. Twisting a wrong to appear right is capricious and many are shaped by those misguided beliefs.</p>
<p>
Let me see, you are wrongfully accused of aiding and abetting the terrorist this way: you had an arab neighbor and you went hunting with him couple of times. Later he was arrested for some genuine offense and you are drawn into it. Because maybe he used your knoweledge of terrain to scout out for a training camp. None of this you know of course. Now you have to prove to Home Land Security why you went with him to the woods. I am sure something like that does happen once awhile. But I also know, even captured GitMo prisoner - who really fought Americans - were expatrioted back to home country. I will venture to say in your case after exhaustive efforts, the gov’t will let you go because they had no real evidence against you, that you were an innocent bystander. It is not like the hopeless case you depicted it. Do innocent people go to jail. Yes. This case is no different than any other innocent bystander cases. It’s a stretch to say the US govt will become gestapo like in its treatment of the masses.</p>
<p>Here’s what I think will happen:</p>
<p>The Democratic Party will nominate some made-for-tv careerist swine. (probably Clinton)
The Republican Party will nominate some GWOT fear-mongering blowhard. (probably Giuliani)</p>
<p>Giuliani will be trailing badly in the months leading up to the election. Then there will <em>coincidentally</em> be a massive, visually impressive terrorist attack – one with lots of fire and smoke and broken glass and people crying so that it’s appealing to FOX and CNN – that gives Giuliani a huge, perfectly timed jump in the polls. From there all it will take is more fear-based nationalist rhetoric broadcast 24/7 on the tee-vee to rally the proletariat behind the New Great Commander.</p>