quote:Pentagon's false-news plan sets off alarm bells
By JOHN IBBITSON
With reports from AP, Reuters and AFP
Wednesday, February 20, 2002 � Print Edition, Page A1
WASHINGTON -- Defence and media experts were alarmed yesterday by a report that a little-known Pentagon office wants to plant false stories in the international media to bolster support for the U.S. war on terrorism.
The New York Times said that the Office of Strategic Influence, which was established after Sept. 11, is proposing to plant news stories -- some of which may be deliberately false -- with foreign media, using outside publicity firms or manufactured agencies to cover the source of the information.
"We shouldn't be in that business. Leave the propaganda leaks to the CIA, the spooks," one defence official said.
Media analysts agreed. "Setting out to deliberately lie or 'spread misinformation' can't have anything but a terrible impact down the road for any nation that claims to be an open and democratic society," Freedom Forum analyst Paul McMasters said. "The only thing more dangerous than reacting in panic is to set out on a deliberate policy of lying and deception, where it is next to impossible for ordinary people, Americans or otherwise, to know what is the truth and what is a lie."
Such policies could also put U.S. journalists in harm's way while they are reporting overseas, "even more than they are now," Mr. McMasters said.
"There is already the perception among some abroad that American journalists are instruments of American foreign policy, in league with government agencies," he said, pointing to the kidnapping of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan as an example.
The proposal has not been finalized, sources in the Pentagon and State Department said. Nor has the idea of deliberately misinforming media outlets been submitted to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for approval.
Mr. Rumsfeld, who has become something of a media darling in his Pentagon press briefings, promised reporters after the Sept. 11 attacks that he would never lie to them.
"The mission is being carefully reviewed by the Pentagon," Defence Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said yesterday. "We're trying to make clear distinctions on the appropriateness of who does what when it comes to effective communications."
But although there was little detailed information about the new office available to the media, an official confirmed that its activities could include "black" disinformation, which the Times said could include false reports e-mailed to foreign journalists, government officials and civic leaders.
"The return address will probably be a dot.com, not a dot.mil," the official was quoted as saying. Another way could be to contract publicity firms to promote the stories, without revealing their source.
The Central Intelligence Agency has long used covert disinformation campaigns in unfriendly countries. However, those operations require presidential approval and may not target U.S. citizens.
But critics said false information sent to foreign outlets will doubtless filter back to the United States.
"Anything they spread overseas will come back here, because information travels so quickly. . . . Our own population will then hear it and believe it," said Shibley Telhami, Middle East expert at Washington's Brookings Institution. "It will affect our decisions, and I see that as a tremendous danger."
The U.S. government worries it is losing public support overseas, especially among Muslims who believe the United States is hostile toward Islam.
"This is a battle for minds," deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz said yesterday in a speech to U.S. defence contractors. "Our victory on the ground in Afghanistan has already changed substantially how this conflict is perceived, even in the Muslim world."
Mr. Wolfowitz did not comment directly on the proposed new campaign.
During the Second World War, the United States and other allied governments had great success in spreading disinformation that hampered the German war effort, in particular convincing Hitler that the D-Day landings would occur at Calais, not Normandy.
Makes you wonder if we are getting the truth about anything. They claim this has not been approved but is that just put out as dis-information about this department.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Why Albania?" "Why not?" "What have they done to us?" "What have they done FOR us? What do you know about them?" "Nothing." "See? They keep to themselves. Shifty. Untrustable."
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The U.S. government worries it is losing public support overseas, especially among Muslims who believe the United States is hostile toward Islam."
And, of course, lying to them is the best way to gain their trust.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The news of the 'disinformation campaign' is ITSELF disinformation!
Lying to the enemy = smart. Lying to the neutral = irrelevant. Lying to fair-weather friends who are just as likely to report everything you say to the enemy = smart. Lying to your friends, while the enemy might be listening = conditionally smart. Lying to your staunch supporters (if there were any) = not too smart... but we'd probably let the governments of our staunch supporters in on the falsity anyway, that's smart.
Leading Al Quaida, their friends, supporters, allies, and apologists into traps, then blowing them off the surface of the Earth... = Priceless.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, since Rob seems to have missed the point that the government's "disinformation" scheme is targeted at everybody (up to and including him), I can now say that Robert's whining about a "powerful government" is all hipocracy. He's willing to let the government, that under Bush and Ashcroft have taken away more freedom then any in recent memory, lie to the U.S. people. And he's willing to defend it. And the next time he says he's against Big Government, you remember his defense of it in this thread. And you laugh at him.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
FOT seems quite happy to be lied to by his gov., strange. You do understand that this lying extends to the info we get about the prisoners they have, the reasons for going into Iraq(reminiscent of the Gulf War babies incident)or any other country they decide. If this was a democratic government you would be all over this, but it is OK for the republicans to lie to you?
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Man, Bush is just a "Stalin wanna-be".
He got his "secret police" on the airplane, to label any man he deem "suspicious" and raise hell on them, no sir, no more "innocent until proven guilty". Man, just a while ago, some guy wanna go to washroom 30 mins before the airplane lands. Dude was told not to by one of them police guy, but understably, he needed to go, so he went anyway. After he got out of the washroom, he was cuffed, and all the passengers on the airplane are asked to put their hands above their head or else until the plane landed. Washroom dude was later on threw into brig for questioning.
What kind of a fucking justice is that?
Bush also got his military all spread all around the world, for the purpose of so called fighting "terrorism". Fuck that, it's more like forceing other nations to do what he wants done under the gun. Hell, he's got the perfect excuse too, "We're just doing what we can to fight terrorism, all is necessary to fight terrorism."
Now he's planning on using propaganda with false information.
I'm tired of Bush using terrorism as an excuse to make the world into a police state.
It's a good thing that at least some politician are smart enough to come up with the "Sunset cluase".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The ORIGINAL article which started this whole fuss (for those of you who read BEFORE you react) is here:
1) The activities cited in the article are not permitted DOD activities per authorizing statutes. They fall outside the permitted limits of military information warfare. Those not consumed with paranoid delusion will realize the press got the story wrong - again.
2) Other agencies do perform some types of operation similar to those described in this fiction. DOD does not want those duties, nor has DOD ever shown any particular skill at anything along these lines.
3) Anyone with half an insight into reality would realize that you couldn't perform the supposed mission by merely opening an office in the DOD. Implementation takes specialized deep cover people, units and training. None of which exist or are planned or are even useful in fulfilling DOD's mission.
4)The evil mysterious office in the bowels of the Pentagon which exercises dark control over the world's collective mind is an episode in the X Files. Adults should not confuse this with reality.
The only true aspect to this story is the interesting sidelight that it has given the terminally paranoid an excuse to panic and scream abuse at the government.
[ February 20, 2002, 16:08: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Man, just a while ago, some guy wanna go to washroom 30 mins before the airplane lands. Dude was told not to by one of them police guy, but understably, he needed to go, so he went anyway. After he got out of the washroom, he was cuffed, and all the passengers on the airplane are asked to put their hands above their head or else until the plane landed. Washroom dude was later on threw into brig for questioning.
You got a source for this, or are we in Urban Legend land again?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
That happened, but he never got to the washroom. He was instructed to sit down, when he didn't, he was placed under arrest and the passengers on the airline were told to keep their hands over theirs heads until the plane landed.
quote:Those not consumed with paranoid delusion will realize the press got the story wrong - again.
Nice try at diversion, Rob. We all know the law stops the government. At least, thats what you've been ranting about until very recently.
quote:The evil mysterious office in the bowels of the Pentagon which exercises dark control over the world's collective mind is an episode in the X Files.
This from the guy who has convinced himself he's going to be world dictator some day.
quote:The only true aspect to this story is the interesting sidelight that it has given the terminally paranoid an excuse to panic and scream abuse at the government.
Try and get a nationalized health care? Rob says its an infringement on freedom. Get angry when the government abuses its trust in the name of "war on terror", Rob says you're paranoid. Anyone else notice a big flaw with what is going on in Rob's brain?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: That happened, but he never got to the washroom. He was instructed to sit down, when he didn't, he was placed under arrest and the passengers on the airline were told to keep their hands over theirs heads until the plane landed.
Source, or U.L. Dubiousness quotient: Where did the cops on the plane (who arrested him) come from... we haven't re-instituted air marshals yet, to my knowledge.
quote:This from the guy who has convinced himself he's going to be world dictator some day.
All those who actually believe anything I post relating to my dictatorship (of the USA, not WORLD, at least get your facts straight, can't you?) is at ALL serious (aside from the fact that I think it would be a good idea), please raise your hands, evolution is looking for stupid people to deselect.
Convinced myself? Your grasp of reality is more tenuous than I feared.
quote:Get angry when the government abuses its trust in the name of "war on terror", Rob says you're paranoid.
No, I said it wasn't true, and I posted reasons why #'s 1-3, which you carefully ignored in order to post your personal attack... again.
Oh, there may have been some statements about people who believed that garbage being 'paranoid,' and perhaps that's the wrong word... 'gullible, unquestioning media zombies' might have been more apt.
So are you going to argue the argument, or are you going to resort to further name-calling?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Well FoT reading that artcle does not clear the issue up at all. So the government is telling you that the government agency that they haven't set up yet but are going to set up is not going to lie to you. It gets even confusing to write.
quote:Implementation takes specialized deep cover people, units and training
Or a degree in advertising, how hard do you think it is to send out false news reports. And as for just setting up an office, that and money is all you need to put a hoax on. And this department seems to have a budget of millions, and governments have been known to lie to get sympathy on their side. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p243_Weber.html
I know you think that the republicans are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but FOT they lie to you the same as any politician will.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Here's what may be the story of the 'washroom' guy...
Note several differences between this and the 'poor guy' way in which the story was reported here.
quote:Bizarro was on a Delta flight from Los Angeles on Saturday when he allegedly left his seat 25 minutes before landing, despite two warnings from the captain to the 90 passengers to stay put as required under the 30-minute rule adopted for Salt Lake City by the Federal Aviation Administration
quote:Authorities said a flight attendant instructed Bizarro to return to his seat immediately after he left the bathroom. She said Bizarro, who is 6-foot-2 and 220 pounds, ignored her orders and stared at her for about a minute before returning to his seat, according to the FBI (news - web sites).
The incident was seen by two of three undercover air marshals on board, the FBI said. One of the agents said he saw Bizarro give what appeared to be a "thumbs up" to another passenger as he returned to his seat, prompting the marshals to take control of the cabin.
The Salt Lake City rule requiring no passenger movement during the last 30 minutes went into effect Feb. 5. It already had been in effect for flights to Reagan International Airport in Washington.
He knowingly broke the rules (I could have held it for thirty damn minutes), glowered at a waitress silently (oh, no, that's not at ALL suspicious behavior), and gloated about it.
So, er... tough for him. I've always disliked people who used their size and intimidation to get their way, and now one of 'em pays dearly for it. I couldn't be happier.
"Thumbs up" is not only a 'ok' signal, it's a 'victory' and an 'all clear' and a 'go' signal, too. Given the climate and his other suspicious behavior...
[ February 20, 2002, 18:47: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:we haven't re-instituted air marshals yet, to my knowledge.
Apparently we have. Wow! Rob is in the dark!
quote:So are you going to argue the argument, or are you going to resort to further name-calling?
It's not name calling. It's identifying what traits you have and calling you on them. Paranoia, hyopcracy, stupidity, irrationality.
quote:Anyone with half an insight into reality would realize that you couldn't perform the supposed mission by merely opening an office in the DOD. Implementation takes specialized deep cover people, units and training. None of which exist or are planned or are even useful in fulfilling DOD's mission.
As Grocka pointed out, a degree in advertising would be enough.
quote:Other agencies do perform some types of operation similar to those described in this fiction. DOD does not want those duties, nor has DOD ever shown any particular skill at anything along these lines.
Oh, so the government has been lying to people for a long time? And you support this?
quote:The activities cited in the article are not permitted DOD activities per authorizing statutes. They fall outside the permitted limits of military information warfare. Those not consumed with paranoid delusion will realize the press got the story wrong - again.
Those not consumed with complete reasoning failure would've realized some time ago that George W. Bush, John Ashcroft and many others are using 9/11 to remove their personal freedoms.
Those same people, consumed with paranoid delusions about a "liberal media", who also yell that the government can't be trusted, might want to realize they're trusting the government that is coming right out and saying its lying to them. Obviously, these few idiots are beyond reason and will continue their insane delusions and hopefully not hurt anyone in the process.
quote:Note several differences between this and the 'poor guy' way in which the story was reported here.
Rob, see? You're a bafoon. How was it reported in a 'poor guy' way? You make stuff up to fit "your" way of looking at things even when reality doesn't support you.
See, this is the basic problem with you. National Health Care? EVIL! Take away civil liberties? GOOD! You Republicans are an odd bunch of fools.
[ February 21, 2002, 06:50: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
I'll never forgive the Office of Strategic Influence. I can never forgive them for the death of my boy...
(sorry I beat you to it CaptainMike...)
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
quote:...20 years in prison on charges of interfering with a flight crew...
Fucking up to 20 years for trying to take a piss? Give me a fucking break!
quote:...ignored her orders and stared at her for about a minute before returning to his seat...
"Oh my God! He's gonna get us by standing there and giving us that icy stare of his!" Did he display any kind of violent behaviour? Hell no, sound to me he's just kinda surprise for people telling him when and when not to take a piss, then return to his seat WITHOUT A FIGHT!
quote:One of the agents said he saw Bizarro give what appeared to be a "thumbs up" to another passenger
Yes, we all knew that the police never lies, ha! And the fact that only he saw it make it that much more unreliable.
quote:...I could have held it for thirty damn minutes...
Just how old are you FOT, 20 plus a little over? The Guy is FREAKIN' 59, he's bladder ain't as good as it used to be, give him a break.
Most of all, isn't this "can't-leave-your-sit-for-30-mins" a violation of a person's constitutional rights? I seem to recall something along the line of "freedom of mobility" or something like that.
So not only that the government has taken away my right to move around, they're also telling me now when to take a piss? "Hold it right there mister, now is not the time for washroom, the government has now inform you that the next piss break is not until 30 mins later". Silly me, I should've told my bladder not to make any urine, while I'm at it, maybe I'll tell my brain to get smarter.
[ February 20, 2002, 22:45: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
It's a stupid rule. It can take more than an hour to get off a plane and through the airport, that means you could be looking at an hour and a half dying for a piss. Plus any terrorist who's managed to get on board with the means and incentive to cause an incident is hardly going to be deterred.
All this does is cover up the fact that airport secuirty is still so lax. "It's OK, honey, flying is perfectly safe again - we can't stop the ragheads getting on the plane with their knives, but as soon as they make their move we'll know because they shoulda stayed in their seats like they'd been told."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Blue, I've said it before, I'll say it again. You're an idiot. The guy had time in the airport, plus the first hour of the flight to use the toilet. The only time in question was the last half an hour. The air marshalls did their job, and bravo to them.
Vogon: might want to read the article. You got some key facts wrong.
Wether or not this calls for jail-time is, however, another matter altogether.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Those not consumed with complete reasoning failure would've realized some time ago that George W. Bush, John Ashcroft and many others are using 9/11 to remove their personal freedoms.
You know, Jeff, you keep saying this, and you never provide real examples. "Oh, no, it's easier for the FBI to get a wiretap on non-citizens, whom the Constitution doesn't cover! How horrible!"
Also, you're getting quite verbally abusive. Might want to be careful, Snay. We were both warned about that.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Omega,
As has been painstakingly pointed out to you (although I'm not surprised you didn't take notice of them, you have a habit for ignoring truth, reality, and law in favor of your own little dream world), anyone in the U.S. -- citizen or non -- is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
And your President is weakening it. Well, congratulations, Omega. Big Brother is here, and the Republican Party is responsible.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Needless to say, this guy hasn't been tried or convicted YET, so whether or not he'll get jail time is still very much up in the air. I would tend to suspect he won't be punished too severely.. I mean, they let him go on his own recognizance. They generally don't do that to people they consider to be dangerous threats.
I should mention something about my 4-point post RE: the supposed new DOD office...
I plagiarized it. Took it word-for-word (actually omitted more harsh words) from a former DOD employee who posted it on a familiar 'debunking' website.
Naughty First, I shouldn'a done that. But he just said it so much better than I could have.
I notice that Rumsfeld held a press conference this morning.
If this were REAL news, one would think he'd have had to endure a BUNCH of questions about it, him being the #1 in-the-know guy about these sorts of things, and the primary news outlet on everything pertaining to the War on Terrorism, wouldn't you think?
I admit I didn't watch the whole conference, but... nada. zip, zilch zero, while I was watching.
Anyone else catch anything I missed?
Because if the press doesn't follow up on a story that's actually as HUGE as you'ns seem to think this is, they should all be fired.
[ February 21, 2002, 12:52: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
It's not in their best interest. Why do they want to give fire to Conservative whackos who keep talking about the inaccuracies in the press?
I mean, c'mon. They talk about one thing too much and you yell about them not having anything IMPORTANT to do. They don't talk about something too much, you yell that they're not doing their jobs. All in all, it's a convenient little game you play, but it's not very convincing. You'd have us believe that because they didn't talk to Rumsfield about this, it must not exist. Gee, why does that sound silly?
Maybe *you* can explain why the Department of Defense said it created this office for this purpose ... instead of your current track of blaming the media for making it up. Which they didn't.
Just more info: the office is led by USAF Brig General Simon Worden and former Army Col. Thomas A. Timmes, and has a staff of about a dozen. "One of the office's proposals calls for planting news items with foreign media organizations through outside concerns that might not have obvious ties to the Pentagon, officials familiar with the proposal said."
I've said it before ... I'll say it again. The Republican Party and George W. Bush have brought Big Brother to the United States of America. I thought you guys were supposed to be opposed to that? I guess we see where you really stand.
[ February 21, 2002, 13:26: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Actually Rumfield got pissed off at the reporters at the Olympics because thats all they wanted to talk about.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:I plagiarized it. Took it word-for-word (actually omitted more harsh words) from a former DOD employee who posted it on a familiar 'debunking' website.
This website wouldn't be hosted by the government or by a republican dupe ,eh?
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Sure, the guy had time before that, but why should he be limited by it?
And why should government have the power to tell him when and when not to go? What happened if a guy has an upset stomach, and really needed to go, should he be punished by that? Should he be foreced to remain at his shit and crap in his pants?
And why should all the passengers on the airplane needs to put their hands above their heads for half an hour?
To implement a regulation on when a passenger can go to washroom just show how ignorant and paranoid the government is. The precautions against terrorism should be taken BEFORE the terrorist even got on to the airplane.
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty", it looks to me that these Air Marshals are treating every single one of these passengers as potential terrorists until proven otherwise.
And obviously, these Air Marshals have authorities equal to that of "Judge Dread". I for one, think that a FREE COUNTRY such as US should not have that.
[ February 21, 2002, 15:28: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
New data, (not that this will allay the fears of any of our truly paranoid brethren, but it always helps to provide balance in reporting):
quote:"Consistent with Defense Department policy, under no circumstances will the office or its contractors knowingly or deliberately disseminate false information to the American or foreign media or publics."
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
BE: Did you know that there are certain times during which you CANNOT be allowed to use your cell phone and/or laptop computer while you're on a plane?
Better look out! They took that freedom away years ago, and you didn't even notice! They're interfering with your freedom of speech!
(Of course, they CLAIM that the interference may cause a malfunction, but how likely is that really?)
How DARE they tell you to put your tray table up, and your seat back in the full upright position! They're interfering with your right to eat and sleep when you want to! What if you're HUNGRY? What if you just eat SLOWLY and chew 32 times like grandma said? What if you're TIRED?
Gawd, sometimes I feel like a mommy talking to a ten-year-old... Timmy, we made these rules for a REASON. They're not just arbitrary things pulled out of our collective arses.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Cellphone and other electronics might interfere with normal airplane functions, taking a piss does not, and they do have scientific prove for it.
Personal freedom only works when you're not intruding on freedom of other people. The tray example shows that you're impeding on others, therefore it does not hold. I don't see how taking a washroom breaks interfere with others, can you?
Plus, "personal freedom" is just one of the concern I raised, how about others?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Governments deliberately disinform their citizens. Nothing new here, really. Happens all the time.
But after 9-11 it's suddenly so much more transparent. People are finally beginning to wake up, it seems.
[ February 21, 2002, 15:45: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Cellphone and other electronics might interfere with normal airplane functions, taking a piss does not, and they do have scientific prove for it.
It does when you aren't allowed to do it. Getting out of your seat during the last 30 minutes of a flight is NOT ALLOWED, period. Doing anything that is NOT ALLOWED on an airplane IS interfering with normal airplane functions. Just not the mechanical ones.
It doesn't matter WHY you did it. It only matters THAT you did it. It doesn't even matter if you think the rule is stupid. It doesn't matter if it was for a 'good reason', which it wasn't. I will consider it an extenuating circumstance if you could PROVE that the guy had bladder control problems, (and certainly the court should, too) but then again, that would be an even BETTER reason to go BEFORE the deadline.
I mean, what, it takes only about 4 active brain cells to, when the people say "...and don't leave your seat for the last 30 minutes of the flight" think to oneself, "Jeez, I'd better go pee before that time limit hits" (y'know, you CAN pee when you don't 'have to').
[ February 21, 2002, 16:52: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
Even though I haven't read all the posts for this thread, I do have an anecdotal story.
In 1969, at the pike of the Vietnam War, my mother heard the US Government denied most vigoursly claims alleged by the North Vietnamese that American pilots had bombed hospitals. When she moved to the UK, she saw BBC reports which confirmed the NV's version of the incident. Hospitals had been bombed and there were civilian fatalies.
Our government has been in the business of disseminating misinformation for as long as the republic has existed. This is to both promote a national agenda and to provide cover for the government ("plausible denial").
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Insufficient data.
"Bombed" as in 'dropped a bomb on while flying over on a standard bombing mission, that happened to hit something other than its intended target,' or "bombed" as in 'deliberately targeted.'
See, there's a difference. One is accidental, one is deliberate. If one person denies 'deliberate targeting,' and someone else proves 'accidental hit,' it really doesn't mean anything at all. The denier wasn't lying.
But it could easily have been the other way around. There's not enough data in your anecdote to justify forming either opinion.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:New data, (not that this will allay the fears of any of our truly paranoid brethren, but it always helps to provide balance in reporting):
Not that it matters that the DOD specificly said they were doing this. This will not awaken those who would rather remain ignorant that the guy they elected is bringing to them Big Brother.
quote:See, there's a difference
No, Rob.
If you're asked "did you bomb a hospital?" then the correct answer is "we did, but accidently." You don't say "no" and then defend it years later by saying "we dropped bombs accidently."
The US Government denied bombing hospitals AT ALL. They lied. This is plain, simple, and obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
BlueElectron is still an idiot, however much his grammar has improved (and it did so quite remarkeably in his one early post).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Not that it matters that the DOD specificly said they were doing this. This will not awaken those who would rather remain ignorant that the guy they elected is bringing to them Big Brother.
Not exactly. The NYT said that someone in the DOD said it MIGHT be considering doing this, and in choppy sentences with little context.
Saying you're considering the possibility that you might do something, or not, is not the same as saying you are DOING it. However, saying you're NOT "under any circumstances" going to do something IS pretty much the same as saying you're NOT going to do something.
The NYT may or may not have IMPLIED that the DOD was GOING to do it. It's difficult to tell, but it seems that if the article slants at all, it's in that direction.
That various people with fearful mentalities seized upon that possibility with both hands and all their teeth, and won't let go, is something else entirely.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Actually it seems more of a case where the people have been protected by the 5th Estate. Had this not come out in the press then they would not have had to deny that it would never happen they would have just gone ahead and done it. Wait till the heat dies down and then they will covertly start this all over again.
On a side note, didn't Steve Austin work for the OSI. How many bionic people do they have working for them that we don't know about too.
[ February 21, 2002, 19:17: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
What if some passenger on a plane became sick to his stomach.and needed to vomit in the bathroom? i for one would not want to sit beside a guy who just spewed all over himself, just because of some dipshit law saying that you can go to the can while in this 30 minute time period. Would they really arrest a guy for needing to throw up? And what if the poor bastard did have some kind of problem. i would not want to sit beside a guy who just shit in his pants because he wasn't allowed to get up. it sounds like another stupid law. like in the Northwest Territories. it's illegal for female hairdressers to give haircuts to boys over 7 years old. or in New Brunswick it's illegal to wash your windows after 9 am. pretty stupid eh? i don't know any dumb law that have floated around the american judicial system for more than a hundred years. but you get the point.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Er, what? What "key facts" did I get wrong? I merely said it was a stupid rule that isn't going to deter the people it's meant to. I can't find a single word in the article - which I did read, but what the hell, it's obviously have-my-intelligence-insulted-by-a-pizza-pusher week - to contradict the opinion I expressed.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'm pretty sure someone could find a bathroom after the plane landed. Why couldn't you just use the one on the airplane itself? That's my main flaw with your post, Lee, and I really don't think you need to get snippy over it.
[ February 22, 2002, 06:48: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You telling LEE not to get snippy? There's a laugh...
This will not awaken those who would rather remain ignorant that the guy they elected is bringing to them Big Brother.
For which you have still provided no example. anyone in the U.S. -- citizen or non -- is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Not according to said Constitution. Only according to the Supreme Court, which is subordinate to it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Sorry, Omega. You can decide whatever the Constitution means in your own little secluded world, but "reality check" is that anyone in the U.S. is entitled to protections under the Constitution, and Bush and Co. are working to thwart that.
You, as usual, are proved once again to be orbiting Mars. Check in with the rest of the world here on Earth at some time, m'kay?
quote:For which you have still provided no example.
But, Omega, countless examples have been provided. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and humming "it's not true, it's not true, I want to have Dubya's baby."
quote:Only according to the Supreme Court,
You really need to read the Constitution at some point, Omega. You clearly have no understanding of what it says, or what it means. Try reading Article III, Section 2 at some time. It might prove enlightening to you, since whomever is homeschooling you is obviously not doing very good at instructing you in the "reading" or "comprehension" department.
Especially since we're discussing the Fourteenth Ammendment, and not the Supreme Court. OH! OH! Omega's feeling a bit stupified at the moment.
You see, while YOU can claim that you don't buy in the Constitution, Bush & Co. clearly do -- that's why the prisoners from Afghanistan went to Cuba, not to the U.S. Because if they came into the country, then they'd have the protection of the Fourteenth Ammendment: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now, your President, has changed laws to weaken this Ammendment -- to weaken the Constitution of the United States of America. This is reality, Omega, whether you choose to open your eyes and see it or not.
[ February 22, 2002, 07:31: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
since whomever is homeschooling you is obviously not doing very good at instructing you in the "reading" or "comprehension" department.
Perfect scores in that department on both SAT and ACT, thank you very much.
But, Omega, countless examples have been provided.
Such as?
Try reading Article III, Section 2
And maybe you should read article six, clause two.
that's why the prisoners from Afghanistan went to Cuba, not to the U.S. Because if they came into the country, then they'd have the protection of the Fourteenth Ammendment: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Of course. You don't try POWs according to your own internal laws, you try them under a military tribunal. Duh. Hardly circumventing the Constitution to keep POWs on foreign soil.
Yeah, people have equal PROTECTION under the law, whether they're citizens or not. The police have to defend everyone, and the DA has to prosecute crimes against everyone. But they don't have all the same rights, ie wiretaps and such.
Now, your President, has changed laws to weaken this Ammendment -- to weaken the Constitution of the United States of America.
Example?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Such as?
I can't even begin to recall the number of times you've posted that, and the number of times it has been spelled out for you. Your blind ignorance only hurts you, Omega.
quote:And maybe you should read article six, clause two.
Um, nice but rather pointless, given that the Constitution demands that the Supreme Court interpret it. In other words, since the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land", and it says that the Supreme Court is responsible for "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made ..."
... well, I'm sure you know that you've just provided the ammunition that proves the error of your arguement. Thank you for answering your own question.
quote:Of course. You don't try POWs according to your own internal laws, you try them under a military tribunal. Duh. Hardly circumventing the Constitution to keep POWs on foreign soil.
No one said they were circumventing the Constitution to bring prisoners to Cuba (I notice you're calling them POWs. I'll remember that). One said that they were circumventing the Constitution by other methods they were using to try and find terrorists or suspected terrorists INSIDE the U.S. Again, more comprehension problems?
quote:Yeah, people have equal PROTECTION under the law, whether they're citizens or not. The police have to defend everyone, and the DA has to prosecute crimes against everyone. But they don't have all the same rights, ie wiretaps and such.
Really? Where'd you get this gem from? Its certainly not in the Constitution. You know, the part about EQUAL PROTECTION under the law? Due process? Equal protection extends to the methods the government can use to obtain evidence against them. This is just plain common sense.
quote:Perfect scores in that department on both SAT and ACT, thank you very much.
Congrats on your 1600.
[ February 22, 2002, 11:28: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
1590. I missed a math question.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...anyone in the U.S. -- citizen or non -- is protected by the U.S. Constitution."
"Not according to said Constitution. Only according to the Supreme Court, which is subordinate to it."
Perhaps you could post the part of the US Constitution that says "This stuff only applies to citizens; if you come into our country and you're not a citizen, kindly turn around and grab your ankles.". 'Cause I can't seem to find anything that actually says who falls under the jurisdiction of the constitution. Seems logical to me that, since it's the United States Constitution, it would apply to the whole of the United States.
And even in the parts that do happen to use the word "citizen", are you sure they were using the word citizen the way you're using it? "Citizen" can simply mean "someone who lives in a given place".
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
In other words, your rebuttal to my post was to direct me to read an article which had absolutely no bearing on the part of said post to which you took objection. Well, that's certainly representative of the high standard of debate which goes on around here.
Now, I will confess ignorance of certain things, two points in particular. First, I've never been to the USA so I don't know a lot about US airports apart from what I saw in, er, Airport and Die Hard II; however, my experience of other airports around the world is probably far greater than many other people here. Second, I've been unable to determine whether this Salt Lake Rule applies to only internal flights, or all flights landing in the USA.
So, I'll say this: I've seen it take an hour just to get off the plane. I've seen queues at Immigration/Passport Control, baggage reclaim, and customs that have doubled or tripled that time. I've rarely seen toilets available before these milestones, and if you were smart you concentrated on getting the hell out of there as soon as you could, and if you had to go to the toilet you made damn sure you went on the plane before it landed.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Ok, ok, sorry Lee. I didn't realize you British were low on bathrooms.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Again, obviously having difficulty with the "around the world" concept. . .
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Fine, I didn't realize that in addition to consuming more everything then everyone else in the world, that we Americans are also guilty of having more toilets per capita then everyone else in the world.
On a serious note, the 30-minute restriction extended only to flights over or near the Olympic area. Given the events of recent months, and the visibility of the Olympics as the target, I don't see why this restriction is such a hardship.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I didn't see ANY rule about not going to the potty AFTER the plane had landed. You know, after the plane touches down, the bathrooms are STILL THERE. They don't magically disappear into the 8th dimension.
And for whoever asked "what if he gets sick to his stomach?" They have air-sickness bags there for a reason. And wandering minstrels called "flight attendants" to pick them up and take them away.
As for these other cases... people with that little control over their bodily functions shouldn't be travelling anyway.
[ February 23, 2002, 05:25: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: As for these other cases... people with that little control over their bodily functions shouldn't be travelling anyway.
Which pretty much rules out the current president's father.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
How wise, how profound, how full of useful data or insightful commentary. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, gosh, Robert, I'm so sorry my little joke lacked that vital Clinton element so essential to your alleged sense of humour. In fact, I'd like to apologise to all of you for having the indecency to make any sort of joke here, where truly serious matters are debated to the death. I'm sure such an act will soon be made illegal by some other silly piece of post-September 11th legislation, in which case you can turn me in.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
We love you, Lee. Have a Bass Ale. Have Rob's car.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Oh, so your comment is inoffensive, while my sarcastic reply somehow merits that venomous response?
Someone's been riding the Porcupine Train.
*Doesn't remember mentioning Clinton for a very long time now.* *Also doesn't remember any previous mentions of presidents by him in this post*
You must be confusing me with someone else.
Unsurprising. So much nonsense to keep track of, eventually it must get muddled a bit.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Oh, so your comment is inoffensive, while my sarcastic reply somehow merits that venomous response?"
The difference, of course, is that Lee's comment was a joke, while yours was just a complaint about said joke.
"...where truly serious matters are debated to the death."
Now that's just not true. If it were, the matters would have to actually die at some point...
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
been gone a few days...
I see I didn't miss much.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Thoughtychops: nope, business as usual for the most part. 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Bass Ale is horrible. Although Lee did go to university in Newcastle, where people have beards and burn anyone using a mobile phone in case they are a witch, so it's possible Lee likes it.
"Unsurprising. So much nonsense to keep track of, eventually it must get muddled a bit."
What a brilliant summing up of most of the arguments waged around here.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
And the fun part is, that summing-up was courtesy of the person who insists on waging most of said arguments. An American would probably define that as "ironic."
And as for Newcastle, well, you've already proved you have it confused with Manchester. 8)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Just combine them and call it Newchester.
Or Mancastle.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, I suppose someone who rides the Man-Train would want to live in Man-Castle ...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And people with at least half a brain wouldn't want to live in either.
No, wait, this is unfair. We shouldn't pick on a city just because of it's location or lack of indoor toilets.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)