posted
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").
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
"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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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).
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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 ]
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
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.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
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
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.
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
posted
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?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"...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".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
