This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1modalursine
The full article is here:
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2009/12/security-fails.html
But his point 2 which I reproduce below in full, claims that privacy zealots are preventing the authorities from disambiguating terrorist names and aliases from the names of obvious innocents (seniors and children) because of privacy concerns.
Here's his argument.
2. The intelligence/security agencies would like the consular officials in Nigeria to take the fall for this. The agencies seem to be telling journalists that the father's warning wasn't relayed to them with enough detail to justify putting Abdulmutallab on a no-fly or selectee list, so they just stuck him in the 550-thousand-name catchall database (known as TIDE, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment) rather than a more active 400-thousand-name database. But neither database would have made him a automatic "selectee" for special screening (roughly 14 thousand people are on that list), let alone no-fly status (4 thousand). And it's hard to imagine that even transmitting a full transcript of the father's warning would have boosted Abdulmutallab onto the selectee or no-fly list.
Why is it so hard to get on the selectee or no-fly lists? In part because privacy campaigners have made the lists less effective and more controversial by raising phony privacy concerns -- and getting Congress to buy into those concerns. Here's the problem: The lists are full of aliases and alternative spellings that the terrorists might use to defeat screening. As a result, many, many people (kids, Senators, grandmas) end up as selectees because their names resemble the aliases of terrorism suspects. The resulting hassles and complaints make officials cautious about adding large numbers of names to the selectee list.
So why doesnt the US use other information, like date of birth, to "disambiguate" the lists -- to separate terrorist suspects from regular folks? After all, we knew Abdulmutallab's birthdate, along with a lot of other information; there was no need to stop every Abdul Mutallab or Abdul-Mutallab or abu Mutallab from flying to the US. But DHS hasn't been able to disambiguate the list because privacy campaigners and Congress prohibited DHS from gathering birthdates from passengers. That information was too sensitive to share with the government, said the privacy groups, and they insisted that Congress prohibit DHS from running the selection process for years while DHS got over a series of privacy hurdles.
All those infants and grandmas on the selectee list were, I've said before, privacy victims. Years after the Congressional barriers were put in place, DHS finally got over them, and it has now started running the screening system. But the result the privacy campaign was years of delay in setting up a more effective selectee database and years of complaints from the privacy victims. As a result, the agencies got a bit gunshy about putting people on the selectee list, since the larger the list, the more complaints it generated from ordinary folks.
Privacy advocates don't want to force ALL passengers to disclose their date of birth. I agree with them. If EVERYBODY had to disclose their date of birth, SOME fraction would suffer routine identity theft. A small part of a big number can be a pretty big number all by itself.
"Aha!" I hear you cry (and the point is made by our author as well), "the babes and seniors are victims of the privacy vultures."
Not at all. The idea is nonsense on stilts.
Record the date of birth of terrorists. Exclude from consideration all people whose age is clearly NOT that of the terrorist. If you can't tell that my 6 month old grandson is not 23 years old, you're not DHS material. (Er...or maybe, actually you are). Similarly, if you can look at me and think I may be 23 years old hint: I've been carrying a Medicare ID card for several years now, ditto.
That won't help many innocent 30 somethings, or many innocent 18 or 18 year olds but it gets us closer to eliminating obvious non candidates and doesn't expose the entire travelling population to ID theft.
There are many many travelers but only a miniscule number of terrorists. Figure it out.
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2009/12/security-fails.html
But his point 2 which I reproduce below in full, claims that privacy zealots are preventing the authorities from disambiguating terrorist names and aliases from the names of obvious innocents (seniors and children) because of privacy concerns.
Here's his argument.
2. The intelligence/security agencies would like the consular officials in Nigeria to take the fall for this. The agencies seem to be telling journalists that the father's warning wasn't relayed to them with enough detail to justify putting Abdulmutallab on a no-fly or selectee list, so they just stuck him in the 550-thousand-name catchall database (known as TIDE, the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment) rather than a more active 400-thousand-name database. But neither database would have made him a automatic "selectee" for special screening (roughly 14 thousand people are on that list), let alone no-fly status (4 thousand). And it's hard to imagine that even transmitting a full transcript of the father's warning would have boosted Abdulmutallab onto the selectee or no-fly list.
Why is it so hard to get on the selectee or no-fly lists? In part because privacy campaigners have made the lists less effective and more controversial by raising phony privacy concerns -- and getting Congress to buy into those concerns. Here's the problem: The lists are full of aliases and alternative spellings that the terrorists might use to defeat screening. As a result, many, many people (kids, Senators, grandmas) end up as selectees because their names resemble the aliases of terrorism suspects. The resulting hassles and complaints make officials cautious about adding large numbers of names to the selectee list.
So why doesnt the US use other information, like date of birth, to "disambiguate" the lists -- to separate terrorist suspects from regular folks? After all, we knew Abdulmutallab's birthdate, along with a lot of other information; there was no need to stop every Abdul Mutallab or Abdul-Mutallab or abu Mutallab from flying to the US. But DHS hasn't been able to disambiguate the list because privacy campaigners and Congress prohibited DHS from gathering birthdates from passengers. That information was too sensitive to share with the government, said the privacy groups, and they insisted that Congress prohibit DHS from running the selection process for years while DHS got over a series of privacy hurdles.
All those infants and grandmas on the selectee list were, I've said before, privacy victims. Years after the Congressional barriers were put in place, DHS finally got over them, and it has now started running the screening system. But the result the privacy campaign was years of delay in setting up a more effective selectee database and years of complaints from the privacy victims. As a result, the agencies got a bit gunshy about putting people on the selectee list, since the larger the list, the more complaints it generated from ordinary folks.
Privacy advocates don't want to force ALL passengers to disclose their date of birth. I agree with them. If EVERYBODY had to disclose their date of birth, SOME fraction would suffer routine identity theft. A small part of a big number can be a pretty big number all by itself.
"Aha!" I hear you cry (and the point is made by our author as well), "the babes and seniors are victims of the privacy vultures."
Not at all. The idea is nonsense on stilts.
Record the date of birth of terrorists. Exclude from consideration all people whose age is clearly NOT that of the terrorist. If you can't tell that my 6 month old grandson is not 23 years old, you're not DHS material. (Er...or maybe, actually you are). Similarly, if you can look at me and think I may be 23 years old hint: I've been carrying a Medicare ID card for several years now, ditto.
That won't help many innocent 30 somethings, or many innocent 18 or 18 year olds but it gets us closer to eliminating obvious non candidates and doesn't expose the entire travelling population to ID theft.
There are many many travelers but only a miniscule number of terrorists. Figure it out.
2modalursine
By the way, I'm not opposed to having people disclose their dates of birth if the privacy of the info is respected the way for example, my bank handles PIN numbers.
If you go to the bank branch and want to transact business with a (human) teller, or with an information officer, you might be asked to swipe your bank card, and enter your pin into a keypad. The information is not disclosed directly to the teller etc. It is checked against the database and returns a "Go"/"No Go".
Something of that sort could be used by TSA or DHS or
whomever it is that runs the security at the airports.
If they think you may be Mr X, they have you enter your date of birth, and the system tells them whether that's the same as the DOB they're looking for or not.
Your actual DOB isn't available to be casually harvested.
If you go to the bank branch and want to transact business with a (human) teller, or with an information officer, you might be asked to swipe your bank card, and enter your pin into a keypad. The information is not disclosed directly to the teller etc. It is checked against the database and returns a "Go"/"No Go".
Something of that sort could be used by TSA or DHS or
whomever it is that runs the security at the airports.
If they think you may be Mr X, they have you enter your date of birth, and the system tells them whether that's the same as the DOB they're looking for or not.
Your actual DOB isn't available to be casually harvested.
3jjwilson61
But if you're a terrorist why would you key in your real birthdate. It's on your passport anyway, isn't it?
4K.J.
1> First, you have to understand that many on that No-Fly list were placed there for political reasons, including a mother and her 15 year-old son. The mother wrote a critical article about King George W.
Naomi Wolf has her luggage searched every time she flies, and it took her a while to get one of the USA Gestapo to admit that she was 'on the list.' She wrote a book about King George W and his activities, entitled: The End of America. She asked how she might go about getting her name off the list and she was told that that wouldn't happen. Many people have written of the same situation, and their names are still on the list, as well.
Perhaps, if the list was actually used for strictly security reasons and not for political ones, it might be simpler for the secret police to disseminate the information necessary to actually protect folks.
Naomi Wolf has her luggage searched every time she flies, and it took her a while to get one of the USA Gestapo to admit that she was 'on the list.' She wrote a book about King George W and his activities, entitled: The End of America. She asked how she might go about getting her name off the list and she was told that that wouldn't happen. Many people have written of the same situation, and their names are still on the list, as well.
Perhaps, if the list was actually used for strictly security reasons and not for political ones, it might be simpler for the secret police to disseminate the information necessary to actually protect folks.
7K.J.
5> The ten steps taken by the Nazis before WWII are the same steps taken by the Bush Admin during 2000-2008, and are fully documented in Naomi's book among other places. When I mentioned her bags are searched, I am referring to the letter they leave inside her luggage, letting her know that her bags were searched again, after she had checked them in. Also, she was informed, by the HS agent that she was on 'the list.' Read more, learn more.
The police in the USA now have military-grade weapons, and use them. Just look at the video for that Texas religious compound, where they went to take the children away from their families - for protection, of course. There are armored personnel carriers in attendance and mini-tanks - to pick up women and children. Police that I have met here are stunned by the grade of weapons issued as standard, to USA police.
If you are an American, you should also be aware that you no longer have the right of Habeas Corpus. Your citizenship can be revoked by any federally-authorized person, merely by their invocation of the enemy-combatant issue. They can then incarcerate you for an indefinite time, without benefit of counsel, without a speedy trial and even without telling you what the charges are. Were you asleep when Bush signed that Presidential Order? Were you also asleep when Obama won the right to continue with this madness, two weeks ago Monday, when the Supreme Court ruled that he can do this? You must have been, because that is also when the SC ruled that 'torture is a consequence of war.' So, torture is now okay, with the USA, even though your Constitution prohibits this (eighth amendment).
As of February, 2009, the A.P.I.S. determines whether or not you will be allowed onto a plane, boat or train, to cross continental an/or state borders, in the USA. Your boarding pass is issued with their approval, not the airline's. They can, without even getting a warrant, restrict ANYONE's travel, into or out of the USA.
Federal law enforcement personnel may enter your home, and search it when you are away, and they do not have to inform you that they have been there.
Does any of this ring a historical bell for you? Do your homework, before your criticize someone.
6> Yes, this is another side of the coin, although I find it very hard to swallow that they are hindered from adding to the list, when it is obvious that they have persons on the list who don't belong there. They can't have it both ways, although they frequently attempt to do so.
The police in the USA now have military-grade weapons, and use them. Just look at the video for that Texas religious compound, where they went to take the children away from their families - for protection, of course. There are armored personnel carriers in attendance and mini-tanks - to pick up women and children. Police that I have met here are stunned by the grade of weapons issued as standard, to USA police.
If you are an American, you should also be aware that you no longer have the right of Habeas Corpus. Your citizenship can be revoked by any federally-authorized person, merely by their invocation of the enemy-combatant issue. They can then incarcerate you for an indefinite time, without benefit of counsel, without a speedy trial and even without telling you what the charges are. Were you asleep when Bush signed that Presidential Order? Were you also asleep when Obama won the right to continue with this madness, two weeks ago Monday, when the Supreme Court ruled that he can do this? You must have been, because that is also when the SC ruled that 'torture is a consequence of war.' So, torture is now okay, with the USA, even though your Constitution prohibits this (eighth amendment).
As of February, 2009, the A.P.I.S. determines whether or not you will be allowed onto a plane, boat or train, to cross continental an/or state borders, in the USA. Your boarding pass is issued with their approval, not the airline's. They can, without even getting a warrant, restrict ANYONE's travel, into or out of the USA.
Federal law enforcement personnel may enter your home, and search it when you are away, and they do not have to inform you that they have been there.
Does any of this ring a historical bell for you? Do your homework, before your criticize someone.
6> Yes, this is another side of the coin, although I find it very hard to swallow that they are hindered from adding to the list, when it is obvious that they have persons on the list who don't belong there. They can't have it both ways, although they frequently attempt to do so.
9Doug1943
The Nazi comparison is so utterly ridiculous that it's not worth discussing. The United States was far more repressive in the past than it is today. Anyone who is ignorant of this fact is hopeless.
That said, we need to be vigilant about our own civil liberties. The struggle against radical Islam has, and will, necessitate restrictions on our own liberties, just as every war has. This doesn't mean we need to become a full-fledged police state, like some fetid Communist or Islamic society. And nor have we.
That said, we need to be vigilant about our own civil liberties. The struggle against radical Islam has, and will, necessitate restrictions on our own liberties, just as every war has. This doesn't mean we need to become a full-fledged police state, like some fetid Communist or Islamic society. And nor have we.
10margd
> 8 A former boss had an experience similar to Naomi Wolf's. Because he had law enforcement background and political connections, he was able to uncover and correct the problem, but it took two years. Apparently, too tired and cranky one night to kowtow when crossing the US-Canadian border, he was fingered by the offended guard for hassle every time he crossed in future: the guard wrote down "admits to using drugs". (That would be prescription heart medicine!) Anyway, from then on, every crossing for the next two years was an ordeal. My boss didn't figure very many people would have the time or connections to correct such situations.
Definitely, some ombudsman or appeal process--short of political intervention--is needed to deliver the innocent from these kind of watch lists!
Definitely, some ombudsman or appeal process--short of political intervention--is needed to deliver the innocent from these kind of watch lists!
11jjwilson61
'm puzzled by the whole concept. There are billions of people in the world, so there must commonly be at least 10s of thousands of people sharing the same name. So ho can a list of names ever work?
Isn't a visa required to get into the US and those are issued by state dept. personnel actually in the country who are better able to determine if someone is a threat? So, if their a threat just don't issue them a visa and they won't be able to fly.
And in that Waco, Texas incident, that was the FBI, not local police, although I do think their conduct was outrageous in that case.
Isn't a visa required to get into the US and those are issued by state dept. personnel actually in the country who are better able to determine if someone is a threat? So, if their a threat just don't issue them a visa and they won't be able to fly.
And in that Waco, Texas incident, that was the FBI, not local police, although I do think their conduct was outrageous in that case.
12MatthewN
The police in the USA now have military-grade weapons, and use them. Just look at the video for that Texas religious compound, where they went to take the children away from their families - for protection, of course. There are armored personnel carriers in attendance and mini-tanks - to pick up women and children. Police that I have met here are stunned by the grade of weapons issued as standard, to USA police.
Those vehicles came from nearby Fort Hood. They were the US Army's on loan to the FBI/ATF. No matter though. The government DID overreact and innocent people died during that raid/siege.
13Doug1943
I hate to recommend the book of this man, but if you think that things are bad in the US today, with respect to civil liberties, go read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. It's not an objective history, but it does bring together all the nasty incidents of violence and repression that were carried out against perceived enemies of the social order over the last three hundred years or so.
One small marker: when the liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson took the US into World War I, his Justice Department prosecuted Eugene Debs for speaking against the war (technically, for obstructing the draft), and he was sentenced to ten years in prison Over 900 others were sentenced to prison under the same Act. Nor would Wilson pardon Debs after the war was over. (That act of decency remained for the new Republican President Warren Harding to do, who also invited Debs to the White House where he was "warmly greeted".)
Not only is the comparison of the US to Nazi Germany insane, there is simply no comparison of the US (and, for that matter, other liberal democracies, who have roughly the same history of the expansion of liberty that the US does) today, and the US of our grandparents.
There is progress in human history. It's not without price, however, and seldom smooth and peaceful, which explains a lot of the turmoil in the world today.
One small marker: when the liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson took the US into World War I, his Justice Department prosecuted Eugene Debs for speaking against the war (technically, for obstructing the draft), and he was sentenced to ten years in prison Over 900 others were sentenced to prison under the same Act. Nor would Wilson pardon Debs after the war was over. (That act of decency remained for the new Republican President Warren Harding to do, who also invited Debs to the White House where he was "warmly greeted".)
Not only is the comparison of the US to Nazi Germany insane, there is simply no comparison of the US (and, for that matter, other liberal democracies, who have roughly the same history of the expansion of liberty that the US does) today, and the US of our grandparents.
There is progress in human history. It's not without price, however, and seldom smooth and peaceful, which explains a lot of the turmoil in the world today.
14geneg
In that Waco, Texas incident, David Karesh was sexually abusing the girls and women and mentally abusing everyone Do you have any idea how fragile the psyches are of most cult followers? He controlled the men with armed guards and fear. It was a hell hole and needed to be cleaned out. The rights being violated were not those of David Karesh, but his followers.
The FBI did a good thing in Waco.
The FBI did a good thing in Waco.
16K.J.
9> Your statement exhibits the height of ignorance, on this issue, yet I feel with a little education, you won't be hopeless. Without specifically challenging any of my points, you dismiss them all with a wave of your hand. Show me where I am wrong. Ah, therein lies the rub: I'm not.
he struggle against radical Islam has, and will, necessitate restrictions on our own liberties, just as every war has.
You mean like the Japanese internment camps? Yeah, that's something to be proud of. Have you returned all of the assets the Japanese-Americans lost with that brilliant move?
As for the rest of that, I think Ben Franklin said it best:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Your Constitution has been gutted, and yet you think the USA has grown and is not more repressive? How many of your civil liberties are you prepared to lose? The next one on the list is your right to bear arms, so keep your eyes open.
he struggle against radical Islam has, and will, necessitate restrictions on our own liberties, just as every war has.
You mean like the Japanese internment camps? Yeah, that's something to be proud of. Have you returned all of the assets the Japanese-Americans lost with that brilliant move?
As for the rest of that, I think Ben Franklin said it best:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Your Constitution has been gutted, and yet you think the USA has grown and is not more repressive? How many of your civil liberties are you prepared to lose? The next one on the list is your right to bear arms, so keep your eyes open.
17K.J.
RE: my comment about the use of military grade weapons at a religious compound:
I was NOT referring to Waco. I was referring to the one that took place in the last two years, where they rounded up all of the children because some of the men were marrying minors, and the children were removed, illegally, from their homes, by law enforcement. A judge later ruled that the removal was unlawful and overreaching. It is to that event that I was referring.
I will try to find the name of the compound, and some dates. Sorry for the confusion.
I was NOT referring to Waco. I was referring to the one that took place in the last two years, where they rounded up all of the children because some of the men were marrying minors, and the children were removed, illegally, from their homes, by law enforcement. A judge later ruled that the removal was unlawful and overreaching. It is to that event that I was referring.
I will try to find the name of the compound, and some dates. Sorry for the confusion.
18K.J.
13> Have you read Naomi's book? Have you reviewed the direct parallels between her book, the Nazis process of taking over, and King George's activities of the previous eight years? No, I think not. The Nazis had a ten-step program, and three years ago, the USA was at step 8. George brought you up to step 10, and Obama inherited it.
As a bit of history, it was a Holocaust survivor that pointed out the parallels to Naomi, and caused her to write this book. In Germany, I have spoken with several who lived through that horror, and they concur with Naomi's analysis of the progression of the USA. Their question to you is: "When will you wake up and see history in the process of repeating itself?"
14> The FBI did a good thing in Waco.
By this logic, one would assume that you think the children were better off dead, than trying for a less militant resolution. Somehow, that does not lessen my tears for these young people one iota.
We also heard all of this propaganda after the event. I don't believe anything put out by the FBI, nor Janet Reno.
Added after posting:
I just found this, for those that don't believe that the police in the USA are 'going Gestapo':
http://www.librarything.com/topic/79039#1683144
As a bit of history, it was a Holocaust survivor that pointed out the parallels to Naomi, and caused her to write this book. In Germany, I have spoken with several who lived through that horror, and they concur with Naomi's analysis of the progression of the USA. Their question to you is: "When will you wake up and see history in the process of repeating itself?"
14> The FBI did a good thing in Waco.
By this logic, one would assume that you think the children were better off dead, than trying for a less militant resolution. Somehow, that does not lessen my tears for these young people one iota.
We also heard all of this propaganda after the event. I don't believe anything put out by the FBI, nor Janet Reno.
Added after posting:
I just found this, for those that don't believe that the police in the USA are 'going Gestapo':
http://www.librarything.com/topic/79039#1683144
19Amtep
#17: Were the children ever returned to their families? I remember that CPS was resisting that even after the ruling.
22krolik
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Well, on this one, Franklin was full of shit. Even people who make poor judgments deserve liberty and safety. This is a very hollow sort of ideological litmus test. There are plenty of good things to be said about Franklin, but in some ways he was a pompous prig. His autobiography makes that clear.
I've spend plenty of time talking and writing against George W but these Nazi comparisons are historically ignorant and lobotomize discussions. What is accomplished is the banalisation of Nazis. No thanks.
Well, on this one, Franklin was full of shit. Even people who make poor judgments deserve liberty and safety. This is a very hollow sort of ideological litmus test. There are plenty of good things to be said about Franklin, but in some ways he was a pompous prig. His autobiography makes that clear.
I've spend plenty of time talking and writing against George W but these Nazi comparisons are historically ignorant and lobotomize discussions. What is accomplished is the banalisation of Nazis. No thanks.
23K.J.
22> Well, on this one, Franklin was full of shit. Even people who make poor judgments deserve liberty and safety. This is a very hollow sort of ideological litmus test. There are plenty of good things to be said about Franklin, but in some ways he was a pompous prig. His autobiography makes that clear.
Of course, this is only your opinion, which is not shared by everyone. If you are willing to give up your freedom, that's fine. But when you vote to do so you take away mine, as well, and I don't like giving up my freedom just so you can feel 'safe.' And, how safe are you, really? Last week's airline fiasco should help answer that question.
I've spend plenty of time talking and writing against George W but these Nazi comparisons are historically ignorant and lobotomize discussions. What is accomplished is the banalisation of Nazis. No thanks.
Have you read Naomi's book? Have you tracked the ten steps the Nazis took to secure power? Have you compared these activities to the activities of the preceding eight years, before BO? Have you been in a room with elderly people living in Europe who lived through the Nazi era, listened to them tell their stories and what they see today? I have. If you have not, how can you discount this point, without doing your homework? That would seem ignorant, from this perspective.
Of course, this is only your opinion, which is not shared by everyone. If you are willing to give up your freedom, that's fine. But when you vote to do so you take away mine, as well, and I don't like giving up my freedom just so you can feel 'safe.' And, how safe are you, really? Last week's airline fiasco should help answer that question.
I've spend plenty of time talking and writing against George W but these Nazi comparisons are historically ignorant and lobotomize discussions. What is accomplished is the banalisation of Nazis. No thanks.
Have you read Naomi's book? Have you tracked the ten steps the Nazis took to secure power? Have you compared these activities to the activities of the preceding eight years, before BO? Have you been in a room with elderly people living in Europe who lived through the Nazi era, listened to them tell their stories and what they see today? I have. If you have not, how can you discount this point, without doing your homework? That would seem ignorant, from this perspective.
24StormRaven
And, you expect the government to confirm this? That's just plain silly.
FOIA the documents.
FOIA the documents.
26StormRaven
By this logic, one would assume that you think the children were better off dead, than trying for a less militant resolution. Somehow, that does not lessen my tears for these young people one iota.
You do realize that in the Waco incident at least, it appears that the fire that killed the bulk of the people who died in the incident was started inside the compound, by the cultists themselves.
You do realize that in the Waco incident at least, it appears that the fire that killed the bulk of the people who died in the incident was started inside the compound, by the cultists themselves.
27K.J.
24> The docs for the No-Fly list were requested during King George's reign, and he never revealed the list, citing 'National Security issues' as his reason. What are the odds that I would be more successful than the well-healed organizations which tried to get them before? He didn't even release the White House visitor records under the FOIA, even after the courts told him he had to do so. Guess which President went to court last spring, to fight the same battle, and still has not released the records? Can anyone say transparency?
28K.J.
26> Any psychiatrist in the world will tell you that when you corner a desperate person(s), irrational acts will occur. With the safety of the children as the most important issue, I do not understand why LEA did not back off, and let the situation cool down. After all, wasn't it the safety of the children that brought them to this compound? Seems like the outcome was more than heavy-handed, from any perspective.
29StormRaven
28: Umm, they did back off. There was an extended stand-off, during which the ATF (that was the origanization that handled the raid) moved almost a mile away.
30GirlFromIpanema
I hope someone is going to take the fall for this.
After all, the US security services made everyone hand over their data to them. If you're travelling to or via the USA, you must give them dozens of info , including name, date of birth (at check-in/border control), credit card/account/payment info, etc. (see page 4 in the link). They make everyone from visa-waiver nations jumping through the APIS hoop (in essence an online visa application with instant check against a database and immediate fly/no-fly decision). By a 2009 treaty, they have secured their access to the international banking database, SWIFT, meaning that they can access the transaction data should I transfer money from my bank account in Germany to my sister's bank account in the UK (NB: No involvement of a US bank). Details here.
They really should get on with this. If a few heads at the Agencies will roll now, I won't be sad. They clearly haven't done their job, with all the data and intelligence that was available to them (at the expense of our very good local data protection regulations).
After all, the US security services made everyone hand over their data to them. If you're travelling to or via the USA, you must give them dozens of info , including name, date of birth (at check-in/border control), credit card/account/payment info, etc. (see page 4 in the link). They make everyone from visa-waiver nations jumping through the APIS hoop (in essence an online visa application with instant check against a database and immediate fly/no-fly decision). By a 2009 treaty, they have secured their access to the international banking database, SWIFT, meaning that they can access the transaction data should I transfer money from my bank account in Germany to my sister's bank account in the UK (NB: No involvement of a US bank). Details here.
They really should get on with this. If a few heads at the Agencies will roll now, I won't be sad. They clearly haven't done their job, with all the data and intelligence that was available to them (at the expense of our very good local data protection regulations).
31K.J.
30> How refreshing it is to see that someone else is aware of all of these shenanigans. Although, I did not realize that Europeans and others will have to give them CC info. With that info, they can track a person's activity with ease. George Orwell would be proud.
As for the banking issue, I had a sense that that was coming. After the initial outrage, there was too much silence, and no action. The EU has the backbone of an octopus and one has to remember that the leaders over here are as 'owned' as the leaders over there. Also keep in mind that they are considering Tony Blair for the leadership of the EU, and we all know what a political whore he is.
Good post and thank you for the new information.
As for the banking issue, I had a sense that that was coming. After the initial outrage, there was too much silence, and no action. The EU has the backbone of an octopus and one has to remember that the leaders over here are as 'owned' as the leaders over there. Also keep in mind that they are considering Tony Blair for the leadership of the EU, and we all know what a political whore he is.
Good post and thank you for the new information.
32K.J.
29> Umm, it apparently wasn't enough to let the situation calm down though, was it? Moving a mile away hardly removes the sense of being threatened.
33StormRaven
32: I'm still trying to figure out what you expected them to do, given that there was really no question that children were being sexually abused, and the fire was started from the inside. Leave? You said they should have backed off, which they did. You said they should have calmed the situation down, which they did. The only thing further they could have done would have been to simply ignore the crimes being committed and walk away. Do you really think that would have been the right solution?
34K.J.
33> I'm still trying to figure out what you expected them to do, given that there was really no question that children were being sexually abused...
Uh, well, I disagree. There is a question about whether or not the children were being sexually abused. Let's begin with the fact that the crimes are alleged, by third parties. No trial ever took place, so no convictions. Isn't that the country of 'Innocent until proven guilty?' Show me something besides propaganda that demonstrates solid evidence that these activities were taking place, and I mean solid evidence that would stand up in a court of law. I wouldn't condone such activities if they were taking place, of course, yet I would not wish to be branded before a trial anymore than the next guy. Would you? Please don't quote the FBI or Janet Reno for substantiation of your point.
You said they should have backed off, which they did. You said they should have calmed the situation down, which they did.
I'm still trying to figure out why you can't see that is is obvious that they did not calm it down enough. Perhaps if they had not gone in with such a show of force, the situation would not have escalated to the extent that it did. It was poorly done from the get go, and only got worse. Backing off a mile does not remove the threat.
The only thing further they could have done would have been to simply ignore the crimes being committed and walk away.
No, that is not correct, and we still have the issue of alleged crimes. There were many other solutions at hand, and many of them much more peaceful and less threatening than the show of force - including loaned military equipment - that presented itself as the solution. How calm can a person be when faced with tanks and heavy weaponry? No rational outcome could be expected from this, and it is usually the method of choice for FBI, ATF, and the likes, when confronting issues. They do not like people who do not fall into line when told to do so. You know, the pepper-spray-and-taser mentality.
Peaceful solutions:
1 Send in a team of local religious leaders with a psychiatrist dressed in the same attire, to see what the issues are, inside the compound, to properly assess the situation.
2 Send in one 'everyday person' to let them know that there are issues pending that need to be addressed, and do it in a calm manner. I, for one, would volunteer, if it meant that the children might still be alive today.
3 Send in a monk who is actually a Mafia hitman who will put a 22 caliber into the temple of David K. the moment he is alone with him. (yeah, I added this for the folks that like that sort of thing). I mean, if you are going to do that kind of job, then do it right, for crissakes. You could insert CIA operative for Mafia hitman, if you like. They are, after all, interchangeable.
4 Find out which lawyer David K works with and go in with him, to discuss the issues. A good lawyer will work hard to keep things calm in a discussion and can work well with LEA to convince the defendant that getting his side of the story on record can only help him. In other words, lie.
These are just some ideas, and with all of the folks who were working on this, one would think they could come up with much more creative suggestions that can I.
Uh, well, I disagree. There is a question about whether or not the children were being sexually abused. Let's begin with the fact that the crimes are alleged, by third parties. No trial ever took place, so no convictions. Isn't that the country of 'Innocent until proven guilty?' Show me something besides propaganda that demonstrates solid evidence that these activities were taking place, and I mean solid evidence that would stand up in a court of law. I wouldn't condone such activities if they were taking place, of course, yet I would not wish to be branded before a trial anymore than the next guy. Would you? Please don't quote the FBI or Janet Reno for substantiation of your point.
You said they should have backed off, which they did. You said they should have calmed the situation down, which they did.
I'm still trying to figure out why you can't see that is is obvious that they did not calm it down enough. Perhaps if they had not gone in with such a show of force, the situation would not have escalated to the extent that it did. It was poorly done from the get go, and only got worse. Backing off a mile does not remove the threat.
The only thing further they could have done would have been to simply ignore the crimes being committed and walk away.
No, that is not correct, and we still have the issue of alleged crimes. There were many other solutions at hand, and many of them much more peaceful and less threatening than the show of force - including loaned military equipment - that presented itself as the solution. How calm can a person be when faced with tanks and heavy weaponry? No rational outcome could be expected from this, and it is usually the method of choice for FBI, ATF, and the likes, when confronting issues. They do not like people who do not fall into line when told to do so. You know, the pepper-spray-and-taser mentality.
Peaceful solutions:
1 Send in a team of local religious leaders with a psychiatrist dressed in the same attire, to see what the issues are, inside the compound, to properly assess the situation.
2 Send in one 'everyday person' to let them know that there are issues pending that need to be addressed, and do it in a calm manner. I, for one, would volunteer, if it meant that the children might still be alive today.
3 Send in a monk who is actually a Mafia hitman who will put a 22 caliber into the temple of David K. the moment he is alone with him. (yeah, I added this for the folks that like that sort of thing). I mean, if you are going to do that kind of job, then do it right, for crissakes. You could insert CIA operative for Mafia hitman, if you like. They are, after all, interchangeable.
4 Find out which lawyer David K works with and go in with him, to discuss the issues. A good lawyer will work hard to keep things calm in a discussion and can work well with LEA to convince the defendant that getting his side of the story on record can only help him. In other words, lie.
These are just some ideas, and with all of the folks who were working on this, one would think they could come up with much more creative suggestions that can I.
35StormRaven
Uh, well, I disagree.
Of course you do.
There is a question about whether or not the children were being sexually abused. Let's begin with the fact that the crimes are alleged, by third parties. No trial ever took place, so no convictions. Isn't that the country of 'Innocent until proven guilty?' Show me something besides propaganda that demonstrates solid evidence that these activities were taking place, and I mean solid evidence that would stand up in a court of law. I wouldn't condone such activities if they were taking place, of course, yet I would not wish to be branded before a trial anymore than the next guy. Would you? Please don't quote the FBI or Janet Reno for substantiation of your point.
No trial took place because all the potential defendants died in a fire they started. Suicide to avoid trial doesn't really seem to mitigate the fact that serious credible allegations were made. Perhaps you should look up David Bunds, Jenine Bunds, Kiri Jewell and James Tabor.
I'm still trying to figure out why you can't see that is is obvious that they did not calm it down enough. Perhaps if they had not gone in with such a show of force, the situation would not have escalated to the extent that it did. It was poorly done from the get go, and only got worse. Backing off a mile does not remove the threat.
Yes, hindsight is twenty-twenty. On the other hand, numerous other incidents have been handled involving people holed up in their apocalyptic compound, several taking place prior to the Waco incident. As far as I know, the only one in which a mass suicide resulted is this one. Could you have predicted this would happen a priori? I didn't think so. Oh, and at least 20 of the cultists died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, it appears that several adults shot several children and then killed themselves. Evidence of this was provided at the trial that followed the incident. Yeah, no crimes were committed.
No, that is not correct, and we still have the issue of alleged crimes. There were many other solutions at hand, and many of them much more peaceful and less threatening than the show of force - including loaned military equipment - that presented itself as the solution. How calm can a person be when faced with tanks and heavy weaponry? No rational outcome could be expected from this, and it is usually the method of choice for FBI, ATF, and the likes, when confronting issues. They do not like people who do not fall into line when told to do so. You know, the pepper-spray-and-taser mentality.
Gosh, serial rapists are usually so kind and loving when the police come to arrest them too.
Peaceful solutions:
1 Send in a team of local religious leaders with a psychiatrist dressed in the same attire, to see what the issues are, inside the compound, to properly assess the situation.
Koresh alleged that he was the messiah, and other religious figures were heretics. He had a shootout with a rival cult leader prior to taking over the Waco compound for which he had been put on trial for attempted murder (with a mistrial as the outcome). Yeah, that would have been a great way to deescalate the situation. Koresh's previous violent activity is also a good indication that any of the "peaceful" solutions you listed would have been ultimately fruitless and probably counterproductive, and was the reson the ATF proceeded the way they did initially. In any event, the FBI did let Koresh talk to some Biblical scholars, who tried to use scripture to get him to surrender. It didn't work (obviously).
2 Send in one 'everyday person' to let them know that there are issues pending that need to be addressed, and do it in a calm manner. I, for one, would volunteer, if it meant that the children might still be alive today.
The FBI negotiated for 51 days. Do you not think anyone tried to let them know that there were "issues pending"?
3 Send in a monk who is actually a Mafia hitman who will put a 22 caliber into the temple of David K. the moment he is alone with him. (yeah, I added this for the folks that like that sort of thing). I mean, if you are going to do that kind of job, then do it right, for crissakes. You could insert CIA operative for Mafia hitman, if you like. They are, after all, interchangeable.
This is so stupid as to not even need a response. The CIA is prohibited from operating in the U.S. anyway. An FBI sniper might have been used, but they were a mile away.
4 Find out which lawyer David K works with and go in with him, to discuss the issues. A good lawyer will work hard to keep things calm in a discussion and can work well with LEA to convince the defendant that getting his side of the story on record can only help him. In other words, lie.
Koresh's lawyer? There is no way a lawyer could have ethically done any of the things you want him to do. He's not supposed to lie to his client, and he's supposed to work in his client's interest at all times. No lawyer anywhere in the U.S. would do this. Koresh's lawyer, if I remember correctly, was also a Branch Davidian. That checks him off the list of people who would "talk Koresh down" even if he was willing to overlook his responsibilities as counsel.
These are just some ideas, and with all of the folks who were working on this, one would think they could come up with much more creative suggestions that can I.
They did. They negotiated for the better part of 7 weeks to try to resolve the situation. They tried numerous ways. They sent in supplies so that the children didn't go hungry, and gave Koresh plenty of time to finish his manuscript (which was what was allegedly keeping him from surrendering). I don't think you really understand what happened at all.
Of course you do.
There is a question about whether or not the children were being sexually abused. Let's begin with the fact that the crimes are alleged, by third parties. No trial ever took place, so no convictions. Isn't that the country of 'Innocent until proven guilty?' Show me something besides propaganda that demonstrates solid evidence that these activities were taking place, and I mean solid evidence that would stand up in a court of law. I wouldn't condone such activities if they were taking place, of course, yet I would not wish to be branded before a trial anymore than the next guy. Would you? Please don't quote the FBI or Janet Reno for substantiation of your point.
No trial took place because all the potential defendants died in a fire they started. Suicide to avoid trial doesn't really seem to mitigate the fact that serious credible allegations were made. Perhaps you should look up David Bunds, Jenine Bunds, Kiri Jewell and James Tabor.
I'm still trying to figure out why you can't see that is is obvious that they did not calm it down enough. Perhaps if they had not gone in with such a show of force, the situation would not have escalated to the extent that it did. It was poorly done from the get go, and only got worse. Backing off a mile does not remove the threat.
Yes, hindsight is twenty-twenty. On the other hand, numerous other incidents have been handled involving people holed up in their apocalyptic compound, several taking place prior to the Waco incident. As far as I know, the only one in which a mass suicide resulted is this one. Could you have predicted this would happen a priori? I didn't think so. Oh, and at least 20 of the cultists died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, it appears that several adults shot several children and then killed themselves. Evidence of this was provided at the trial that followed the incident. Yeah, no crimes were committed.
No, that is not correct, and we still have the issue of alleged crimes. There were many other solutions at hand, and many of them much more peaceful and less threatening than the show of force - including loaned military equipment - that presented itself as the solution. How calm can a person be when faced with tanks and heavy weaponry? No rational outcome could be expected from this, and it is usually the method of choice for FBI, ATF, and the likes, when confronting issues. They do not like people who do not fall into line when told to do so. You know, the pepper-spray-and-taser mentality.
Gosh, serial rapists are usually so kind and loving when the police come to arrest them too.
Peaceful solutions:
1 Send in a team of local religious leaders with a psychiatrist dressed in the same attire, to see what the issues are, inside the compound, to properly assess the situation.
Koresh alleged that he was the messiah, and other religious figures were heretics. He had a shootout with a rival cult leader prior to taking over the Waco compound for which he had been put on trial for attempted murder (with a mistrial as the outcome). Yeah, that would have been a great way to deescalate the situation. Koresh's previous violent activity is also a good indication that any of the "peaceful" solutions you listed would have been ultimately fruitless and probably counterproductive, and was the reson the ATF proceeded the way they did initially. In any event, the FBI did let Koresh talk to some Biblical scholars, who tried to use scripture to get him to surrender. It didn't work (obviously).
2 Send in one 'everyday person' to let them know that there are issues pending that need to be addressed, and do it in a calm manner. I, for one, would volunteer, if it meant that the children might still be alive today.
The FBI negotiated for 51 days. Do you not think anyone tried to let them know that there were "issues pending"?
3 Send in a monk who is actually a Mafia hitman who will put a 22 caliber into the temple of David K. the moment he is alone with him. (yeah, I added this for the folks that like that sort of thing). I mean, if you are going to do that kind of job, then do it right, for crissakes. You could insert CIA operative for Mafia hitman, if you like. They are, after all, interchangeable.
This is so stupid as to not even need a response. The CIA is prohibited from operating in the U.S. anyway. An FBI sniper might have been used, but they were a mile away.
4 Find out which lawyer David K works with and go in with him, to discuss the issues. A good lawyer will work hard to keep things calm in a discussion and can work well with LEA to convince the defendant that getting his side of the story on record can only help him. In other words, lie.
Koresh's lawyer? There is no way a lawyer could have ethically done any of the things you want him to do. He's not supposed to lie to his client, and he's supposed to work in his client's interest at all times. No lawyer anywhere in the U.S. would do this. Koresh's lawyer, if I remember correctly, was also a Branch Davidian. That checks him off the list of people who would "talk Koresh down" even if he was willing to overlook his responsibilities as counsel.
These are just some ideas, and with all of the folks who were working on this, one would think they could come up with much more creative suggestions that can I.
They did. They negotiated for the better part of 7 weeks to try to resolve the situation. They tried numerous ways. They sent in supplies so that the children didn't go hungry, and gave Koresh plenty of time to finish his manuscript (which was what was allegedly keeping him from surrendering). I don't think you really understand what happened at all.
36K.J.
35> I disagree with the majority of what you suggest, and until a person is tried and convicted, I assume innocence. Isn't that what you are supposed to do for any human who has been accused? Would you not wish for the same treatment, should you be accused of anything so heinous? Keep in mind, that America was also the home of the McMartin trials. Do you remember the outcome of that fiasco, or just the accusations?
This is so stupid as to not even need a response. The CIA is prohibited from operating in the U.S. anyway. An FBI sniper might have been used, but they were a mile away.
First, it was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. Have you no sense of humour at all? Second, you can't possibly be that ignorant, and I use this word with the understanding that further education will change that status. Do you think you can actually convince me that the CIA is not fully operative within the boundaries of the USA? Even the Taliban will smile at that one. No educated person could possibly believe that the CIA has a 'don't touch' attitude with any country, including the USA. Sheeesh! But, I do thank you for the hearty laugh you provided with my morning yoghurt.
Find out which lawyer David K works with and go in with him, to discuss the issues. A good lawyer will work hard to keep things calm in a discussion and can work well with LEA to convince the defendant that getting his side of the story on record can only help him. In other words, lie.
I stand by my suggestion that his lawyer could have been of benefit, for it is his responsibility to help keep his client out of trouble. As for the latter, it would appear that sarcasm is lost in this discussion. But, please don't tell me that some American lawyers don't lie (or did you mean obfuscate). Please. I have too much history with them for you to suggest otherwise.
My suggestions were based on what I know, and I did not expect to provide profound revelations. I also don't accept your interpretation of events.
The point is, that the ATF did it wrong from the very first step, and it should have been handled with less aggression. Aggression never gets positive results, which is an aspect of reality that some do not understand. The outcome was horrific.
Backing off a mile does not remove the threat. I just can't seem to get that point across to you, so I will give up trying. We disagree, and that is okay. Happy New Year.
Post Script: I followed your link for Bunds and you might want to read this: http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/koresh/waco.html
Koresh repeatly asked to speak to people who understood the Bible, but this was denied.
Sounds to me like the ATF and FBI didn't follow my suggestion #1 at all, although it was your contention that they had done so.
This is so stupid as to not even need a response. The CIA is prohibited from operating in the U.S. anyway. An FBI sniper might have been used, but they were a mile away.
First, it was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. Have you no sense of humour at all? Second, you can't possibly be that ignorant, and I use this word with the understanding that further education will change that status. Do you think you can actually convince me that the CIA is not fully operative within the boundaries of the USA? Even the Taliban will smile at that one. No educated person could possibly believe that the CIA has a 'don't touch' attitude with any country, including the USA. Sheeesh! But, I do thank you for the hearty laugh you provided with my morning yoghurt.
Find out which lawyer David K works with and go in with him, to discuss the issues. A good lawyer will work hard to keep things calm in a discussion and can work well with LEA to convince the defendant that getting his side of the story on record can only help him. In other words, lie.
I stand by my suggestion that his lawyer could have been of benefit, for it is his responsibility to help keep his client out of trouble. As for the latter, it would appear that sarcasm is lost in this discussion. But, please don't tell me that some American lawyers don't lie (or did you mean obfuscate). Please. I have too much history with them for you to suggest otherwise.
My suggestions were based on what I know, and I did not expect to provide profound revelations. I also don't accept your interpretation of events.
The point is, that the ATF did it wrong from the very first step, and it should have been handled with less aggression. Aggression never gets positive results, which is an aspect of reality that some do not understand. The outcome was horrific.
Backing off a mile does not remove the threat. I just can't seem to get that point across to you, so I will give up trying. We disagree, and that is okay. Happy New Year.
Post Script: I followed your link for Bunds and you might want to read this: http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk/koresh/waco.html
Koresh repeatly asked to speak to people who understood the Bible, but this was denied.
Sounds to me like the ATF and FBI didn't follow my suggestion #1 at all, although it was your contention that they had done so.
37jjwilson61
How can you try someone before they are arrested? The ATF was attempting to arrest Koresh and the standard of proof is a little less for that.
38K.J.
37> But you have tried and convicted him, anyway, on only preliminary and uncontested testimony? You are going by the information provided for an arrest warrant, as proof positive, without a trial to hear both sides? Where is your sense of justice? Or, as is the climate in the States today, when 'child' is mentioned the supposed perpetrator is automatically evil? Do I need to invoke the McMartin case again?
You see, I accept the fact that I don't know the true facts about what actually happened, and neither do you.
You see, I accept the fact that I don't know the true facts about what actually happened, and neither do you.
39StormRaven
I disagree with the majority of what you suggest, and until a person is tried and convicted, I assume innocence. Isn't that what you are supposed to do for any human who has been accused?
Well, you know, when someone kills themselves and several dozen other people rather than surrender, that usually is taken as a good indication that the allegations against them had some truth to them.
Do you think you can actually convince me that the CIA is not fully operative within the boundaries of the USA? Even the Taliban will smile at that one. No educated person could possibly believe that the CIA has a 'don't touch' attitude with any country, including the USA.
The CIA is prohibited by its enabling statute from acting in the U.S. Do you have any information that they are violating this law? Or do you just assume it to be true based upon hearsay and unproven allegations? Funny how your standards seem to change when you aren't defending a serial rapist and murderer.
But, please don't tell me that some American lawyers don't lie (or did you mean obfuscate). Please. I have too much history with them for you to suggest otherwise.
I'm sure some do. Those that lie to their clients usually lose their license and their careers. Which is what you have advocated them doing. That doesn't change the fact that (as far as I remember) Koresh's lawyer was a member of the cult, making your suggestion less then useful.
Backing off a mile does not remove the threat.
Which threat? The threat of enforcing the law, as the ATF and FBI are supposed to do when credible allegations of serious crimes are presented? You keep casting this as the evil government putting pressure on someone who was innocent. But that is such a mischaracterization of the facts as to be ludicrous.
Sounds to me like the ATF and FBI didn't follow my suggestion #1 at all, although it was your contention that they had done so.
You might want to read all of the links you rely upon:
"Eventually two Biblical scholars were able to communicate with Koresh and they argued for him to write his message in a book to the world."
Which obviously didn't work.
Well, you know, when someone kills themselves and several dozen other people rather than surrender, that usually is taken as a good indication that the allegations against them had some truth to them.
Do you think you can actually convince me that the CIA is not fully operative within the boundaries of the USA? Even the Taliban will smile at that one. No educated person could possibly believe that the CIA has a 'don't touch' attitude with any country, including the USA.
The CIA is prohibited by its enabling statute from acting in the U.S. Do you have any information that they are violating this law? Or do you just assume it to be true based upon hearsay and unproven allegations? Funny how your standards seem to change when you aren't defending a serial rapist and murderer.
But, please don't tell me that some American lawyers don't lie (or did you mean obfuscate). Please. I have too much history with them for you to suggest otherwise.
I'm sure some do. Those that lie to their clients usually lose their license and their careers. Which is what you have advocated them doing. That doesn't change the fact that (as far as I remember) Koresh's lawyer was a member of the cult, making your suggestion less then useful.
Backing off a mile does not remove the threat.
Which threat? The threat of enforcing the law, as the ATF and FBI are supposed to do when credible allegations of serious crimes are presented? You keep casting this as the evil government putting pressure on someone who was innocent. But that is such a mischaracterization of the facts as to be ludicrous.
Sounds to me like the ATF and FBI didn't follow my suggestion #1 at all, although it was your contention that they had done so.
You might want to read all of the links you rely upon:
"Eventually two Biblical scholars were able to communicate with Koresh and they argued for him to write his message in a book to the world."
Which obviously didn't work.
40K.J.
39> Let's review my previous statement: I disagree with the majority of what you suggest, and until a person is tried and convicted, I assume innocence. Isn't that what you are supposed to do for any human who has been accused? Would you not wish for the same treatment, should you be accused of anything so heinous? Keep in mind, that America was also the home of the McMartin trials. Do you remember the outcome of that fiasco, or just the accusations?
Well? Until you can prove that the allegations are irrefutable, you cannot prove his guilt. It's as bloody simple as that.
As far as the CIA is concerned, I suggest you Google and read, especially look for Mike Ruppert, and the Phoenix Project, for two quick ones. There is an abundance of information out there, and you can even go to YouTube and watch the vids of testimony, by former CIA agents, that the CIA and GHWB are the reason you have cocaine on the streets of America. I saw the interview of one ex-CIA agent stating that he was with GHWB in Columbia, reviewing shipments at a cutting center for cocaine distribution. He disappeared the following week.
You might then follow the trail of the CIA to Mena, Arkansas and Florida. Ask Bill Clinton about Mena, Arkansas, and you'll get stony silence, or worse. Any statement made that the CIA is not active in the USA is made from a lack of knowledge. You have lots of laws in the USA, and your snoops don't bother with any of them. Does wiretapping without a warrant ring a bell?
Here are some places to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ-TSOpnauU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIEUhpxeuP4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI8ELglUgKY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QYZBMIBOck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oszATUJ4IRE
Well? Until you can prove that the allegations are irrefutable, you cannot prove his guilt. It's as bloody simple as that.
As far as the CIA is concerned, I suggest you Google and read, especially look for Mike Ruppert, and the Phoenix Project, for two quick ones. There is an abundance of information out there, and you can even go to YouTube and watch the vids of testimony, by former CIA agents, that the CIA and GHWB are the reason you have cocaine on the streets of America. I saw the interview of one ex-CIA agent stating that he was with GHWB in Columbia, reviewing shipments at a cutting center for cocaine distribution. He disappeared the following week.
You might then follow the trail of the CIA to Mena, Arkansas and Florida. Ask Bill Clinton about Mena, Arkansas, and you'll get stony silence, or worse. Any statement made that the CIA is not active in the USA is made from a lack of knowledge. You have lots of laws in the USA, and your snoops don't bother with any of them. Does wiretapping without a warrant ring a bell?
Here are some places to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ-TSOpnauU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIEUhpxeuP4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI8ELglUgKY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QYZBMIBOck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oszATUJ4IRE
41StormRaven
Well? Until you can prove that the allegations are irrefutable, you cannot prove his guilt. It's as bloody simple as that.
No, it isn't. In the first instance, your standard would mean that you could not arrest someone without first proving them guilty. This is obviously stupid, like most of the rest of your suggestions. In the second instance, do you doubt that, for example, Mohammed Atta was involved in 9-11? There was never a trial, so he must not have been guilty, according to your standard, which, as I pointed out earlier, is idiotic.
When someone commits suicide and kills a bunch of people on the way out, there is usually a pretty good case that the crimes with which they were accused were probably true. The standard is not "irrefutable" as you seem to think, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I would note that several survivng cult members were put on trial, and are all now serving extended sentences following their convictions. But those don't count. Obviously, you will now say the FBI fabricated all the evidence and paid off the judge and jury to get the convictions. Because, I have now figured out, after seeing you work in a couple threads, you are nothing more than a standard issue, nutty "the U.S. government is all evil" conspiracy theorist.
No, it isn't. In the first instance, your standard would mean that you could not arrest someone without first proving them guilty. This is obviously stupid, like most of the rest of your suggestions. In the second instance, do you doubt that, for example, Mohammed Atta was involved in 9-11? There was never a trial, so he must not have been guilty, according to your standard, which, as I pointed out earlier, is idiotic.
When someone commits suicide and kills a bunch of people on the way out, there is usually a pretty good case that the crimes with which they were accused were probably true. The standard is not "irrefutable" as you seem to think, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I would note that several survivng cult members were put on trial, and are all now serving extended sentences following their convictions. But those don't count. Obviously, you will now say the FBI fabricated all the evidence and paid off the judge and jury to get the convictions. Because, I have now figured out, after seeing you work in a couple threads, you are nothing more than a standard issue, nutty "the U.S. government is all evil" conspiracy theorist.
42K.J.
41> What does it take for you to discuss things without insulting people? Ah, they have to agree with you, before you are polite! I get it. Darn! It took me a while, so you have to forgive me. I was slow on the uptake, it was right there all along, and I missed it. Bugger! Can you ever forgive me?
Listen, grasshopper, you can't prove irrefutably that the man was guilty. Give it up. You are making assumptions, nothing more. You have failed to make your point to me, now move on to a more receptive target. You didn't convince this one.
As for the insults, how about you just lay off that kind of rhetoric? It's unseemly, at best.
Listen, grasshopper, you can't prove irrefutably that the man was guilty. Give it up. You are making assumptions, nothing more. You have failed to make your point to me, now move on to a more receptive target. You didn't convince this one.
As for the insults, how about you just lay off that kind of rhetoric? It's unseemly, at best.
43StormRaven
Listen, grasshopper, you can't prove irrefutably that the man was guilty. Give it up. You are making assumptions, nothing more. You have failed to make your point to me, now move on to a more receptive target. You didn't convince this one.
"Irrefutable proof" isn't even the standard in a criminal trial, so you're basically just making crap up now. Basically, your entire argument is inane (you might note that you have not been insulted, despite your yelping, but rather the quality of your arguments). I also note that you don't bother to respond to concrete elements, like the fact that the surviving cultists who were inside the compound were tried, convicted, and now are serving extended prison sentences. Do you expect that Koresh (actually, Vern) would have met a different fate had he not killed himself? (Or, as appears more likely, had one of his followers kill him, who then killed himself). But I suppose that was based upon the fabricated evidence that you dreamed the FBI put together.
And "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't even the standard for proceeding with an arrest. "Probable cause" is the standard. Do you deny that the allegations made constituted probable cause? Or do you deny that arrest should preced a trial when credible allegations of multiple felonies are presented to law enforcement?
"Irrefutable proof" isn't even the standard in a criminal trial, so you're basically just making crap up now. Basically, your entire argument is inane (you might note that you have not been insulted, despite your yelping, but rather the quality of your arguments). I also note that you don't bother to respond to concrete elements, like the fact that the surviving cultists who were inside the compound were tried, convicted, and now are serving extended prison sentences. Do you expect that Koresh (actually, Vern) would have met a different fate had he not killed himself? (Or, as appears more likely, had one of his followers kill him, who then killed himself). But I suppose that was based upon the fabricated evidence that you dreamed the FBI put together.
And "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't even the standard for proceeding with an arrest. "Probable cause" is the standard. Do you deny that the allegations made constituted probable cause? Or do you deny that arrest should preced a trial when credible allegations of multiple felonies are presented to law enforcement?
44jjwilson61
I think he's also referring to the court of public opinion, but the standard there has to be decided by each individual. I think that OJ was guilty even though he was acquitted but I also think the McMartin's were the victims of an over-zealous prosecutor. I'm undecided about Waco...there are so many different accounts out there.
45StormRaven
45: It doesn't really matter at this point, since K.J. has exposed himself as a conspiracy theorist wingnut.
46jjwilson61
Um, what was that you said about attacking the arguments and not the person?
47K.J.
43> Yes, I do agree that probable cause is the standard, and yes, in a court of law, in the USA, the standard for prosecution is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no issue with these points, and never did. What I do have an issue with is your condemning a man on this evidence alone, without trial. Would I invite David K. to dinner, if he was still here and the charges were pending? Highly unlikely. Would I want him to be proven guilty before I passed a moral judgment? Highly likely. Would you expect less for any person who had a pending case? If your specialty is defense, then wouldn't you want your clients viewed with the same unjaundiced eye? Or do you relish the challenge of weeding through a biased jury pool?
Irrefutable is the word I used for the discussion, and was not meant to articulate the nomenclature of the US judicial system. Not all of us live there, you know. There is this huge orb, and water, and other land masses...
As for my yelping, perhaps it seems like this, in the presence of your bellowing. One would have a tendency to overpower the other. Unfortunately for you, your presentation of your point of view does not go along with this theory. You cannot prove that he was guilty, and what is so hard about admitting that? You have evidence, yes, that was untested by the rigors of a trial, further investigation and cross-examination of those making the accusations.
you are nothing more than a standard issue, nutty "the U.S. government is all evil" conspiracy theorist. Hmmmm. That's not insulting, now, is it? Naw. Shucks, you was just joshin' me, wasn't ya?
If you do practice law as a defense lawyer, and I ever need legal counsel and have to rely on a public defender in the area of your practice, please be out of the office that day.
Irrefutable is the word I used for the discussion, and was not meant to articulate the nomenclature of the US judicial system. Not all of us live there, you know. There is this huge orb, and water, and other land masses...
As for my yelping, perhaps it seems like this, in the presence of your bellowing. One would have a tendency to overpower the other. Unfortunately for you, your presentation of your point of view does not go along with this theory. You cannot prove that he was guilty, and what is so hard about admitting that? You have evidence, yes, that was untested by the rigors of a trial, further investigation and cross-examination of those making the accusations.
you are nothing more than a standard issue, nutty "the U.S. government is all evil" conspiracy theorist. Hmmmm. That's not insulting, now, is it? Naw. Shucks, you was just joshin' me, wasn't ya?
If you do practice law as a defense lawyer, and I ever need legal counsel and have to rely on a public defender in the area of your practice, please be out of the office that day.
49StormRaven
Unless he thinks being a conpiracy theorist is an insult (and he has embraced it wholeheartedly here with his "9-11 was an inside job" foolishness, then I hardly see it as an insult to call him what he calls himself.
50K.J.
49> Ease up SR, you've made this personal and I want no part of it. Go for a walk, take a swim, smoke a cigar or anything else that calms you down. Just go find another target for your anger.
I missed this part, somehow: then I hardly see it as an insult to call him what he calls himself.
conspiracy theorist wingnut I never used this term to describe myself, not even when under the influence of excessive consumption of Stilton and Chardonnay.
I disagree with you, intensely, on many levels, and yet I have not been rude to you. That is a sign of maturity. Try some, it's actually nonfattening and very rewarding.
added comment)
I missed this part, somehow: then I hardly see it as an insult to call him what he calls himself.
conspiracy theorist wingnut I never used this term to describe myself, not even when under the influence of excessive consumption of Stilton and Chardonnay.
I disagree with you, intensely, on many levels, and yet I have not been rude to you. That is a sign of maturity. Try some, it's actually nonfattening and very rewarding.
added comment)
51geneg
I guess if you're on board with charismatic, paranoid-delusional-megalomaniac, serial rapists who demonstrate a willingness to kill to get what they want, and with whole families in thrall, then David Karesh is your kind of guy.
Believe me, there's a reason this guy didn't stand trial and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the FBI did or did not do.
Believe me, there's a reason this guy didn't stand trial and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the FBI did or did not do.
52prosfilaes
18> By this logic, one would assume that you think the children were better off dead, than trying for a less militant resolution.
There's always better options, but they had the right and duty to make the arrest, and what do with armed people with hostages is never an easy question. If they'd had pulled back and Koresh had started a mass suicide, there would be complaints that they should have pushed harder. Even hindsight isn't anywhere near 20/20 in these situations; not only did they not know what Koresh might do, we don't even know what Koresh might have done.
There's always better options, but they had the right and duty to make the arrest, and what do with armed people with hostages is never an easy question. If they'd had pulled back and Koresh had started a mass suicide, there would be complaints that they should have pushed harder. Even hindsight isn't anywhere near 20/20 in these situations; not only did they not know what Koresh might do, we don't even know what Koresh might have done.
53K.J.
51> I guess if you're on board with charismatic, paranoid-delusional-megalomaniac, serial rapists who demonstrate a willingness to kill to get what they want, and with whole families in thrall, then David Karesh is your kind of guy.
I think I remember hearing some rather strong rhetoric about the McMartin's, too, and yet, there was a stony silence, when they were acquitted. Where were all the name-callers, then? Hmmm? Did any of them publicly state that theywere sorry for condemning them before they had a 'fair trial?
I never said I would like the guy, and the inference that a reasonable person would is not really part of the discussion that I thought I was a part of. The issue for me is the willingness to assume that the evidence that is currently on the table is absolute. When I consider the country of origin, I have take into account how many people are now being freed because even the evidence presented in court, which was deemed 'absolute' and beyond reasonable doubt, has often turned out to be tainted and/or incorrect. There is also the issue of over-zealous prosecutors looking out for their careers, but that is another topic. And, yes, this can happen anywhere.
I had thought the latter part of the discussion was concerning innocence until guilt is proven. It would seem, from this discussion that that is not the case, at all, from the point of view of many.
My point was, and is: David K was not convicted of the crimes and the evidence was never put to the rigors of a trial. That is all. My statement is: any statement to the contrary is an assumption. Where am I wrong in this, when taking into account the American judicial system's supposed mantra of innocent until proven guilty?
I think I remember hearing some rather strong rhetoric about the McMartin's, too, and yet, there was a stony silence, when they were acquitted. Where were all the name-callers, then? Hmmm? Did any of them publicly state that theywere sorry for condemning them before they had a 'fair trial?
I never said I would like the guy, and the inference that a reasonable person would is not really part of the discussion that I thought I was a part of. The issue for me is the willingness to assume that the evidence that is currently on the table is absolute. When I consider the country of origin, I have take into account how many people are now being freed because even the evidence presented in court, which was deemed 'absolute' and beyond reasonable doubt, has often turned out to be tainted and/or incorrect. There is also the issue of over-zealous prosecutors looking out for their careers, but that is another topic. And, yes, this can happen anywhere.
I had thought the latter part of the discussion was concerning innocence until guilt is proven. It would seem, from this discussion that that is not the case, at all, from the point of view of many.
My point was, and is: David K was not convicted of the crimes and the evidence was never put to the rigors of a trial. That is all. My statement is: any statement to the contrary is an assumption. Where am I wrong in this, when taking into account the American judicial system's supposed mantra of innocent until proven guilty?
54K.J.
52> You are correct. I have the benefit of hindsight, so my suppositions are tainted by that aspect. However, I do remember people publicly calling for other steps to be taken, even as the activities took place. We don't know what could have happened, and I am sure we all wish it had ended differently.
55prosfilaes
53> "David K was not convicted of the crimes and the evidence was never put to the rigors of a trial."
"Ask Bill Clinton about Mena, Arkansas, and you'll get stony silence"
So when Bill Clinton invokes his right to remain silent, you use that as evidence against him, despite the fact that that evidence wouldn't pass the rigors of a trial, but good evidence against Koresh should be ignored because we can't bring him to trial?
"Ask Bill Clinton about Mena, Arkansas, and you'll get stony silence"
So when Bill Clinton invokes his right to remain silent, you use that as evidence against him, despite the fact that that evidence wouldn't pass the rigors of a trial, but good evidence against Koresh should be ignored because we can't bring him to trial?
56K.J.
55> Can you show me where I stated that? What I would like, is the opportunity for Bill Clinton and GHWB to be brought to trial, so that we can take the facts that are being presented by police and CIA operatives and make a full determination of what took place. Those very men I just mentioned are still trying to do just that. And, yes, BC and GHWB are innocent until proven guilty.
57StormRaven
My point was, and is: David K was not convicted of the crimes and the evidence was never put to the rigors of a trial. That is all.
Of cpurse, his followers were put on trial, and the evidence was actually tested in court. Resulting in multiple convictions and lenghty prison sentences. Perhaps you'd care to explain how Koresh himself would have been acquitted on the exact same evidence that apparently stood up pretty well in an actual trial.
Of cpurse, his followers were put on trial, and the evidence was actually tested in court. Resulting in multiple convictions and lenghty prison sentences. Perhaps you'd care to explain how Koresh himself would have been acquitted on the exact same evidence that apparently stood up pretty well in an actual trial.
58geneg
Supporting David Karesh is either 1) not paying attention to the facts of the situation, 2) denying the existence of evil, real evil, in the world and/or 3) blindly falling in with the general opinion the government had no business interfering when the situation at Waco is why we have governments and police to begin with.
Does anyone remember the way the media constantly hounded the Justice Department during the standoff for not being able to deal with a nutcase? It reminded me of the Challenger disaster, the way the media hounded NASA for its reluctance to launch in freezing weather. The media is a piss poor judge of what to pay attention to and to what not. I don't suppose anyone who laughed at the media driven goading at the government's inability to bring the standoff to an end is willing to take any of the blame for this when the FBI finally did move in.
David Karesh was no Billy Jack, if anything he was Satan.
Does anyone remember the way the media constantly hounded the Justice Department during the standoff for not being able to deal with a nutcase? It reminded me of the Challenger disaster, the way the media hounded NASA for its reluctance to launch in freezing weather. The media is a piss poor judge of what to pay attention to and to what not. I don't suppose anyone who laughed at the media driven goading at the government's inability to bring the standoff to an end is willing to take any of the blame for this when the FBI finally did move in.
David Karesh was no Billy Jack, if anything he was Satan.
59Doug1943
Hmmmm..... the problem was, and it will be repeated over and over, that people like Koresh do their evil on the boundary between what the current consensus is with respect to what the state should regulate.
There are probably dozens of little Koreshes around the US, cult leaders who have a following of idiots who will do whatever their master wants, including turning their 12 year old daughter over to him. The cult doesn't have to be religious, either. Until the Leader of the cult actually commits a felony, we leave them be, which is probably the right attitude. But it's a lesser evil.
There are probably dozens of little Koreshes around the US, cult leaders who have a following of idiots who will do whatever their master wants, including turning their 12 year old daughter over to him. The cult doesn't have to be religious, either. Until the Leader of the cult actually commits a felony, we leave them be, which is probably the right attitude. But it's a lesser evil.
60K.J.
58> I do not support Koresh, and never have. I am just illustrating, rather well, that there is no real belief in innocence until proven guilt in the USA culture - and maybe anywhere. In this thread, my position is and always has been:
... David K was not convicted of the crimes and the evidence was never put to the rigors of a trial ... any statement to the contrary is an assumption. Where am I wrong in this, when taking into account the American judicial system's supposed mantra of innocent until proven guilty?
Nothing more, nothing less.
... David K was not convicted of the crimes and the evidence was never put to the rigors of a trial ... any statement to the contrary is an assumption. Where am I wrong in this, when taking into account the American judicial system's supposed mantra of innocent until proven guilty?
Nothing more, nothing less.
61Doug1943
For anyone wanting to read further about David Koresh and the events at Waco, may I recommend The Ashes of Waco by Dick J. Reavis. I haven't read it, but I know the author and trust him to do a competent job. If you read the Amazon customer reviews (which give it a good rating) you might get the impression that the author is a right-winger. But, although he is quite critical of the FBI and ATF, he is anything but a right-winger, for whatever that's worth.
Incidentally, if you click on the Touchstoned book title, you can click through to an LT member's review of the book, which lists the book's main points.
Incidentally, if you click on the Touchstoned book title, you can click through to an LT member's review of the book, which lists the book's main points.
62StormRaven
Nothing more, nothing less.
Except the evidence was put to the rigors of a trial. A point you have studiously ignored.
Except the evidence was put to the rigors of a trial. A point you have studiously ignored.
63prosfilaes
53> The Los Angeles Times got a Pulitzer Prize for dissecting the bias on their articles on the McMartin's.
60> I don't see any reason a person in their private life should hold an "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" attitude, especially not towards someone dead or otherwise outside the reach of the law. Especially in this case, where StormRaven has pointed out repeatedly that he has effectively been tried in a court of law, and found guilty, a point you have evaded touching upon.
I feel this is especially rich coming from someone who refers to President George W. Bush as King George. The relevant courts have never ruled that George W. Bush personally engaged in any unconstitutional behavior in office. That, mind you, is a generous interpretation, because what you are literally claiming, that he tried to become monarch, absurd.
60> I don't see any reason a person in their private life should hold an "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" attitude, especially not towards someone dead or otherwise outside the reach of the law. Especially in this case, where StormRaven has pointed out repeatedly that he has effectively been tried in a court of law, and found guilty, a point you have evaded touching upon.
I feel this is especially rich coming from someone who refers to President George W. Bush as King George. The relevant courts have never ruled that George W. Bush personally engaged in any unconstitutional behavior in office. That, mind you, is a generous interpretation, because what you are literally claiming, that he tried to become monarch, absurd.
64StormRaven
I feel this is especially rich coming from someone who refers to President George W. Bush as King George. The relevant courts have never ruled that George W. Bush personally engaged in any unconstitutional behavior in office. That, mind you, is a generous interpretation, because what you are literally claiming, that he tried to become monarch, absurd.
Well, let's just think for a bit about K.J.'s standards of evidence. He believes that 9-11 was an inside job, citing a crackpot engineer as his source (never mind the NIST, Popular Mechanics and the contributors to egineering journals like Structure on the subject). He believes that the H1N1 vaccine is dangerous because it containes squalene (which it doesn't, and squalene isn't dangerous anyway according to the FDA) and themerisol (despite numerous studies showing themerisol is safe) citing a video put out by a crackpot creationist numerologist as his source, a video that was quickly shown to be a complete forgery. He believes in homeopathic medicine. And of course, here he believes that the ATF and FBI should have done more (although they did do just about everything he says they should have done during the 51 days of negotiations). Do we really need to take anything K.J. says seriously, given this track record of apparent gullibility and almost willful ignorance of actual reality on his part?
Well, let's just think for a bit about K.J.'s standards of evidence. He believes that 9-11 was an inside job, citing a crackpot engineer as his source (never mind the NIST, Popular Mechanics and the contributors to egineering journals like Structure on the subject). He believes that the H1N1 vaccine is dangerous because it containes squalene (which it doesn't, and squalene isn't dangerous anyway according to the FDA) and themerisol (despite numerous studies showing themerisol is safe) citing a video put out by a crackpot creationist numerologist as his source, a video that was quickly shown to be a complete forgery. He believes in homeopathic medicine. And of course, here he believes that the ATF and FBI should have done more (although they did do just about everything he says they should have done during the 51 days of negotiations). Do we really need to take anything K.J. says seriously, given this track record of apparent gullibility and almost willful ignorance of actual reality on his part?
65jjwilson61
Maybe you should pace yourself there, StormRaven. Like actually wait until he shows his head before you whack-a-mole him again. Wouldn't want to sprain anything.
66StormRaven
65: Well, I figured it would be a good idea to get all the insanity together into one post just so everyone can see the true depth of the wackiness being espoused here.
I doubt we'll see a response on the merits from K.J. He's already announced that he won't "engage" me. Which is pretty typical behaviour from someone espousing theories of this sort. When the truly bankrupt nature of the conspiracy theory is exposed, get indignant, claim you were just "giving out alternate information", accuse your opponent of being close minded (I'll admit it, when it comes to whackjob theories lacking in any kind of supporting evidence, I'm decidedly closed-minded), and slink away.
I doubt we'll see a response on the merits from K.J. He's already announced that he won't "engage" me. Which is pretty typical behaviour from someone espousing theories of this sort. When the truly bankrupt nature of the conspiracy theory is exposed, get indignant, claim you were just "giving out alternate information", accuse your opponent of being close minded (I'll admit it, when it comes to whackjob theories lacking in any kind of supporting evidence, I'm decidedly closed-minded), and slink away.
