CLOSED!!Political Discussion - A Place to &quot;duke it out&quot; (7400+)

--
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printo...

Top 924. Jul 29, 2003 3:11 PM

» mitelo - Empire Lite

Take notice.

-- posted by mitelo

Top 925. Jul 29, 2003 8:10 PM

» collguy - Re: Pentagon Building a Terrors Futures Market

The Bushies not only emulate Enron accounting, but they also employ their use of trading scams.
Maybe, they could bring back Fastow and Skilling to run the program.

-- posted by collguy

Top 926. Jul 30, 2003 4:43 AM

» Fred2000 - Another government decision?

.
WASHINGTON, July 29 — Despite renewed warnings about possible airline hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration has alerted federal air marshals that as of Friday they will no longer be covering cross-country or international flights, MSNBC.com has learned. The decision to drop coverage on flights that many experts consider to be at the highest risk of attack apparently stems from a policy decision to rework schedules so that air marshals don’t have to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels.

This decision was probably made to compensate for the tax cuts. You know, we wouldn't want to let that deficit go too high.

-- posted by Fred2000

Top 927. Jul 30, 2003 7:39 AM

» Lawhawk - Re: Another government decision?

In response to message posted by Fred2000:

Fred, if you bothered to pay any attention at all to the TSA, you'd note that there have been problems with the expanded air marshall service from the get-go. Marshalls complained that they were being forced to work more than they bargained for, back to back flights on jet lag, etc. There were also complaints that some of the new hirees were not qualified for the positions. In other words, there were staffing problems.

The decision to stop or reduce coverage on high risk flights can be taken two ways - one is that they are still being staffed and figure this might be a way to smoke out additional AQs or that the risk of additional terrorist attacks isn't as great as hyped in the media.

Either version isn't a good one and I think the staffing of those flights should be higher.

To say that it's all because of the tax cuts is crazy because TSA and Homeland Security have essentially a free tab from Congress.

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 928. Jul 30, 2003 8:15 AM

» Lawhawk - Re: Re: Another government decision?

In response to message posted by Lawhawk:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st... - this article suggests that the TSA may reduce the staffing, but because there are numerous priorities that must be balanced. Congress isn't opening the purse strings as I indicated in my last posting (I was wrong).

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 929. Jul 30, 2003 11:10 AM

» Lawhawk - Re: Re: Re: Another government decision?

In response to message posted by Lawhawk:

http://msnbc.com/news/945774.asp?0cv=CA01 - no cuts to the air marshall service after all.

-- posted by Lawhawk

Top 930. Jul 30, 2003 7:49 PM

» Fred2000 - Re: Another government decision?

In response to message posted by Lawhawk:

"The decision to stop or reduce coverage on high risk flights can be taken two ways - one is that they are still being staffed and figure this might be a way to smoke out additional AQs or that the risk of additional terrorist attacks isn't as great as hyped in the media."

Lawhawk... You're just making up reasons without an iota of substantiating evidence.

"I think the staffing of those flights should be higher."

Glad you concur especially now that increased terrorism is expected even though the color remains yellow.

"To say that it's all because of the tax cuts is crazy."

That information didn't originate with me. Cost saving was reported as the reason for their action by the organizations in charge. They never even alluded to complaints by Marshalls. As stated, the main reason was to save the cost of Marshalls over night hotel expenses.

-- posted by Fred2000

Top 931. Jul 30, 2003 8:21 PM

» Fred2000 - Abuses bring wariness on Patriot Act

.
Twenty-one months after approving the USA Patriot Act, which gives the government more power to fight terrorism, lawmakers are having second thoughts following some abuses.

By RICHARD B. SCHMITT
Los Angeles Times
7/30/2003

WASHINGTON - Six weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho, was a lone wolf, arguing that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft didn't need more power to fight home-grown terrorists.

Otter was the only member of Congress to argue against the USA Patriot Act when the terror-fighting law was debated on the House floor.

But these days, he has plenty of company. And the Justice Department, which in recent months has drafted a measure that would expand its powers under the measure, may be on the retreat.

Last week, the House overwhelmingly passed a measure that would repeal a portion of the Patriot Act, which had been passed while the rubble at the Pentagon and World Trade Center still smoldered. The so-called Otter amendment would take away federal investigators' power to conduct "sneak-and-peek" searches - unannounced searches of homes and businesses.

The measure would mean a small adjustment to the Patriot Act, but it indicates a growing feeling among some lawmakers that some investigators have abused their new powers and need to be held more strictly accountable. Those concerns may diminish any prospects for a sequel to the Patriot Act.

Whatever the final fate of the Otter amendment, the Justice Department has voiced strong objections to the measure, declaring it the "Terrorist Tip-off Amendment" in a letter to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., last week. No comparable measure been introduced in the Senate, although proponents hope to find a sponsor soon.

When Congress approved the Patriot Act 21 months ago, the measure amounted to the legislative equivalent of a blank check. It was formally known as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001."

The sequel, dubbed Patriot Act II by critics but never officially proposed by the Justice Department, would have made it easier to hold suspects and deny them bail. It included provisions setting up a DNA database for people associated with terrorist groups and lifting court orders barring police from spying on dissidents, among other features.

But the recent release of a joint congressional report investigating the Sept. 11 attacks - and the nearly 900-page document's portrayal of the intelligence community as stunningly inept in tracking down clues before the attacks - has given some members of Congress pause about giving the same agencies much new clout.

The Justice Department already seems to be adjusting its sights. One person familiar with the department's agenda said the original "Patriot II" proposal is dead.

Congressional sources said they have not heard anything from the department regarding any broad new legislation for months, and they believe that any major proposals may not come until next year, if at all.

One top Capitol Hill aide said lawmakers seem primarily interested these days in their role as watchdogs. "We are going to do aggressive oversight, looking into how the act is working," one person said. The idea of expanded powers, he added, may not be addressed until the end of 2005, when the current Patriot Act is set to expire.

The swinging pendulum shows how critics of the law are becoming more astute in organizing opposition and getting lawmakers' attention. Dozens of cities have passed what are largely symbolic ordinances that oppose the Patriot Act.

The law is also inspiring some strange bedfellows and odd alliances: Besides the conservative Otter, opponents of the sneak-and-peek search provision included the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The Otter amendment is the first unequivocal indication that lawmakers are taking seriously a broad, grass-roots backlash against excessive government powers," said Laura Murphy, the ACLU's chief Washington lobbyist. "Hopefully, this is the first trickle in a flood of Patriot fixes."

She said she expected that the Justice Department would launch more of a stealthlike movement to win new powers by slipping proposals into other pending legislation not necessarily related to terror-fighting.

"They are not going to have as much success as they did in the immediate aftermath of 9/11," she said. "The further we get from 9/11, the more people want accountability."

Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, said officials intend to seek additional terror-fighting legislation from Congress, though he declined to discuss the nature or timing of the proposals, including the status of "Patriot II."

"We are pressing forward with constitutionally sound, common sense measures to protect the American people from terrorism," he said.

Both Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III have said the Patriot Act has been instrumental in helping them track down and prosecute suspected terrorists.

Its key feature is that it broke down a legal wall that had existed since the 1970s that prohibited the intelligence community from trading clues and tips with criminal prosecutors.

But critics say the law has become a tool to spy on citizens and pick up innocent immigrants.

The Otter amendment, which the House last week approved by a 309-118 vote, would block the Justice Department from using any funds to conduct sneak-and-peek searches, in which a judge approves a search warrant but agrees to delay notifying the target for a "reasonable" period.

Such searches have been common in criminal cases for years. Prosecutors say such searches are appropriate where the targets may flee or destroy evidence or harm others.

Justice officials argue that the amendment would have a devastating effect on their ability to detect and prevent terrorism and to combat other serious crime. They say the provision has been used judiciously, in a total of 47 cases over the last two years.

-- posted by Fred2000

Top 932. Jul 31, 2003 5:35 AM

» Fred2000 - The clowns

.
123 Californians Take Out Papers To Run For Gov -- So Far!

Republicans make a mockery of democracy and the democratic process.

-- posted by Fred2000