Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[Fragbait]

Hi,

while many of you will already know what the report of the intelligence committee of the senate concludes, some may not know yet.
I'll provide some links:

usatoday.com
cnn.com
news.bbc.co.uk

I'm not saying that this is something new, or that we didn't know before.
Nevertheless this is disturbing.
I hope I'm not the only one who's disgusted with how the American government and populace can be manipulated seemingly without effort.


Greetings, Fragbait

[Jester]

Hey, just because there weren´t any WMDs, and there wasn´t any link whatsoever between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein, doesn´t mean this was an illegal, unjustified waste of lives, money and international goodwill.

Oh, wait, no.

That´s *exactly* what it means.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I hope I'm not the only one who's disgusted with how the American government and populace can be manipulated seemingly without effort.
Greetings, Fragbait

Hey! What happened to the skeptic of anything the US government says? It seems you believe what you want to believe. I'm not sure, since I've heard conflicting evidence. Just because the senate had some meetings doesn't make it true in my book.

And then, I keep seeing news like;

Who is Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi?
Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, listed by Iraqi officials as a native of Mosul, was recently named #29 on Iraq's "Most Wanted" list.
According told NEWSWEEK magazine's intelligence sources (and at least one of the journalists involved in the story was detained by Pakistani officials) and other reports, al-Iraqi is one of Osama bin Laden's top global deputies (challenging the notion that Iraqis have not held prominent positions in al-Qaeda), personally chosen by bin Laden to monitor al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. His duties have connected him to numerous attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and found him shuttling information between al-Qaeda's branch in Iraq and remaining leadership in the Afghanistan/Pakistan borderland.
What is also noteworthy is al-Iraqi's background in Saddam Hussein's Army (see Laurie Mylroie). During his military service over a decade ago, al-Iraqi worked his way up to the rank of Major before moving to Afghanistan to fight "jihad" against the occupying Soviet Union. This is not to assert that al-Iraqi maintained contact with Iraqi officials over the past decade (though many other Intelligence and Military officers from Saddam Hussein's regime, who were later found to be assisting al Qaeda, reportedly did) but his knowledge of the country and contacts within Iraq certainly played a role in al-Iraqi being Osama bin Laden's personal choice to monitor al Qaeda's operations in Iraq. al-Iraqi's military background likely was of great use in the terrorist training camp(s) he commanded in Afghanistan. Those camps were destroyed by U.S. forces in late 2001 around the same time that al-Iraqi's funds were beingfrozen by the United Nations.
The former Iraqi Major's network may now stretch into Europe, where captured al-Qaeda affiliates have admitted meeting with al-Iraqi and other top al-Qaeda leaders. According to Pakistani officials, Zeeshan Siddique, arrested for preparing terrorist attacks (suicide bombing) and membership to al-Qaeda, told his interrogators that Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi was among the remaining al-Qaeda leadership still provoking attacks with whom he had met while traveling the Afghanistan/Pakistan borderland.

[eppie]

I hope I'm not the only one who's disgusted with how the American government and populace can be manipulated seemingly without effort.
Greetings, Fragbait

To add to this story.I just read in a dutch paper (so no use posting the link here I guess), that the US has government has been paying journalist (in the Miami area) to write negative articles about the Castro regime in Cuba.

[kandrathe]

To add to this story.I just read in a dutch paper (so no use posting the link here I guess), that the US has government has been paying journalist (in the Miami area) to write negative articles about the Castro regime in Cuba.

It's not like you have to make stuff up. They are pretty evil and they do evil stuff to their own people.

[SwissMercenary]

It's not like you have to make stuff up. They are pretty evil and they do evil stuff to their own people.

What's the deal with 'their own people' part? Does it make someone who does 'evil stuff to other people' morally superior to them?

Why do you cherrypick what you believe

I don't know about you, but an admission of guilt from someone you percieve is a lier is pretty believable. Either it's true, and they are guilty, or they just lied, which makes them liers.

[kandrathe]

What's the deal with 'their own people' part? Does it make someone who does 'evil stuff to other people' morally superior to them?
I don't know about you, but an admission of guilt from someone you percieve is a lier is pretty believable. Either it's true, and they are guilty, or they just lied, which makes them liers.

I guess evil is evil no matter who is doing it to whom. Politicians are liars, and both sides are outing each other for political reasons. I tend not to trust any of them, since it's very hard to tell what is the truth. I guess that is better than dishonest collusion. I would rather see better independant investigative journalism, its just that right now they end up beheaded, or otherwise dead. Dead journalists tell no tales.

[SwissMercenary]

I would rather see better independant investigative journalism, its just that right now they end up beheaded, or otherwise dead. Dead journalists tell no tales.

Oh, I'd most certainly love to see more of that. Bummer that money makes the world (And in this case, the media) go round.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

while many of you will already know what the report of the intelligence committee of the senate concludes, some may not know yet.
I'll provide some links:

usatoday.com
cnn.com
news.bbc.co.uk

I'm not saying that this is something new, or that we didn't know before.
Nevertheless this is disturbing.
I hope I'm not the only one who's disgusted with how the American government and populace can be manipulated seemingly without effort.
Greetings, Fragbait

News? It is not news in any sense other than the report that a political play is being made. The Saddam/OBL issue was DOA before March 2003.

Occhi

[Thecla]

News? It is not news in any sense other than the report that a political play is being made. The Saddam/OBL issue was DOA before March 2003.

As Fragbait himself says it's not news in the sense of providing new imfomation; the lack of cooperation betweeen Saddam and Al-Qaida was, or should have been, obvious to any reasonably well-informed person long before the Iraq war began.

Neverthess, a recent Zogby poll (Sept 5, 2006) still has 46% of American voters (and 65% of GOP voters) agreeing with the statement that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks. Whatever the accuracy of those figures, it is a staggering result, and it belies your blithe dismissal of the issue as DOA.

If you want to look at the real political ploy, look to the Bush adminstration and why they have done everything they can to foster this misconception -- from the moment they decided (very early on after 9/11) to invade Iraq, up till today. It's about time there was truth and clarity on this issue, as with many others connected with the Iraq war, though I have no doubt that the Bush administration PR machine will continue to do everything they can to muddy the waters.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . a recent Zogby poll . . .

Interesting poll. Looks like the Republicans have given up on the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights. Damed inconvenient for them when the personal freedoms of the citizens interferes with their GOD given right to do what they want to increase their power and wealth. Good thing that most people don't have a clue about their basic rights. And lucky for them that at least half the nation is stupid enough not only to let them get away with it, but to actively encourage them.

Time to follow Jefferson's advice, rip up the constitution and start over. But just what form of document should we write to establish the basis of a tyrannical fully capitalistic theocracy? And what should we name it? Perhaps we could be honest, call it the Consolidate Nation of the States of the Morons.

--Pete

[Thecla]

And what should we name it? Perhaps we could be honest, call it the Consolidate Nation of the States of the Morons.

Or perhaps the "Consolided Nation of States with Morons who have Big Guns and a Lot of Money".;)

I know people who say that the current state of affairs in the US shows that democracy is a failed system, and perhaps it is, but I don't believe that the US population is any more, or less, moronic than that of any other country. We are the same everywhere, whether it''s the UK (with more cameras per square foot than anywhere else in the world, and much less legal protection of freedom of speech and infomation than in the US), or Iran, or China. And Iran and China are both extraordinarily diverse and complicated countries, just like the US.

That's not to downplay the damage tht the Bush administration has managed to cause during their time in power, damage that will unfortunately long outlast their tenure in the Whitehouse.

[kandrathe]

Hi,
Interesting poll. Looks like the Republicans have given up on the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights. Damed inconvenient for them when the personal freedoms of the citizens interferes with their GOD given right to do what they want to increase their power and wealth. Good thing that most people don't have a clue about their basic rights. And lucky for them that at least half the nation is stupid enough not only to let them get away with it, but to actively encourage them.

Time to follow Jefferson's advice, rip up the constitution and start over. But just what form of document should we write to establish the basis of a tyrannical fully capitalistic theocracy? And what should we name it? Perhaps we could be honest, call it the Consolidate Nation of the States of the Morons.

--Pete

It's not just the R's. I recall quite a few rights tramplings during the Clinton years. Also, when has this nation ever had an educated populace? One that could meet your standards? It seems that Americans have been treated as nearly savage, and uneducated by Europe since before the revolution. We ourselves have been so xenophobic that we came close to barring recent German emigrants, Catholics, and other so-called unwashed miscreants from voting in the late 1850's.

What is the rule of honor to be observed by a power so strongly and so advantageously situated as this Republic is? Of course I do not expect it meekly to pocket real insults if they should be offered to it. But, surely, it should not, as our boyish jingoes wish it to do, swagger about among the nations of the world, with a chip on its shoulder, shaking its fist in everybody's face. Of course, it should not tamely submit to real encroachments upon its rights. But, surely, it should not, whenever its own notions of right or interest collide with the notions of others, fall into hysterics and act as if it really feared for its own security and its very independence.

As a true gentleman, conscious of his strength and his dignity, it should be slow to take offense. In its dealings with other nations it should have scrupulous regard, not only for their rights, but also for their self-respect. With all its latent resources for war, it should be the great peace power of the world. It should never forget what a proud privilege and what an inestimable blessing it is not to need and not to have big armies or navies to support. It should seek to influence mankind, not by heavy artillery, but by good example and wise counsel. It should see its highest glory, not in battles won, but in wars prevented. It should be so invariably just and fair, so trustworthy, so good tempered, so conciliatory, that other nations would instinctively turn to it as their mutual friend and the natural adjuster of their differences, thus making it the greatest preserver of the world's peace.

This is not a mere idealistic fancy. It is the natural position of this great republic among the nations of the earth. It is its noblest vocation, and it will be a glorious day for the United States when the good sense and the self-respect of the American people see in this their "manifest destiny." It all rests upon peace. Is not this peace with honor? There has, of late, been much loose speech about "Americanism." Is not this good Americanism? It is surely today the Americanism of those who love their country most. And I fervently hope that it will be and ever remain the Americanism of our children and our children's children.

— Carl Schurz, The True Americanism, April 18, 1859

[kandrathe]

Hi,
...
Greetings, Fragbait

Ok, I found one tidbit that is at least enlightening on how either the press or the government spins the facts. So let's link to the horses mouth, rather than the media spin meisters. Right? We should read the documents ourselves, rather than parrot the talking heads.
Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

From page 315,

One of the strongest links identified by the CIA between the Iraqi regime and terrorist activities was the history of IIS involvement in training, planning, and conducting terrorist operations. Beginning before the 1991 Gulf War, intelligence reports and public records documented that Saddam Hussein used 11s operatives to plan and attempt terrorist attacks. The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, XXXXX documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks. Each of the reports provided by the CIA was accurately reflected in Iraqi Support for Terrorism and the majority of them were summarized as examples to support the CIA’S assessment.

You can at least see why for those who are paying attention, the waters are not as clear as you make them out to be. If this testimony is refuted and these people have recanted as liars, then well I have not heard them do that. Rather, what I read were things such as "If we judge, or leave open to interpretation,that repeated questioning and challenging of intelligence assessments is inappropriate,we do ourselves a disservice as United States Senators, and limit our own ability to demand rigorous review of intelligence. We also discount the tremendous efforts and dedication of our analytic professionals by implying that they cannot perform effectively in the most critical of times. Our terrorism analysts made careful, appropriately caveated .judgments regarding Iraq’s links to terrorism, they should be commended, not characterized as weak and inclined to yield to political influence."

Sherman, set the way back machine to 2003. HEARING OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, July 9th 2003 Let's skip to some older testimony (excerpted below) before Congress by Judith Yaphe, fellow at the National Defense University. If someone works for the CIA for 20 years studying Iraq, Iran and the Persian Gulf -- well I'm going to tend to think they might know more about it than I do. So in case it doesn't just jump out at you, she said "Iraq under Saddam was an active sponsor of terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, logistical support -- requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. " and then Now, the al Qaeda connection, to move swiftly along, Did Iraq need al Qaeda? Probably Saddam might have liked a group like that, but I don't think he would have needed them. I've said given the reasons why I thought -- and it is in my testimony -- I think he saw him as a threat, Osama as a threat, rather than as a potential partner." Her opinions reflect what I understand the intelligence communities views are on the Saddam -- al Queda link. I still think it is possible that there were some IIS connections developing with al Queda, and for the record, I also think there is a slight possibility that Russia organized transport of WMD materials into Syria prior to the war. Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms

Also, of interest I found this juicy tidbit. Text of President Clinton's address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff, February 17th, 1998 Of note: " In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production." So, is it not interesting how history is reviewed over time? What was fact in 1998, was suspect in 2003, and now a lie in 2006.

Meanwhile, Amitage On CIA Leak -- gets buried on page 4. since it makes the hatchet wielding press and Dems look bad for spending 50 million dollars and making Karl Rove deny to the Grand Jury leaking Plame to the CIA 4 or 5 times. Not that I like Karl, but its wrong to do that to people just because you despise him and for political grandstanding.

MS. YAPHE: Thank you very much inviting me. I want to thank the committee very much for inviting me to testify. And for purposes of full disclosure -- you may know this already, but let me state it for the record -- I worked for more than 20 years for the Central Intelligence Agency as a senior analyst on Iraq, Iran, the Persian Gulf. I continue to follow this in my career now, where I am at National Defense University. The comments and analysis that I am offering are my own. They don't represent the Agency, they don't represent the Department of Defense or the university. And I say that for pretty obvious reasons.

My testimony focuses on the role and actions of Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism under the control of Saddam Hussein. Iraq under Saddam was a major state sponsor of international terrorism. They almost wrote the book, and I've read the books that have been written. Iraq under Saddam was an active sponsor of terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, logistical support -- requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam's objectives. Terrorist groups were not permitted to have offices, recruitment or training facilities or freely use Iraqi territory under the regime's control without explicit permission from Saddam. To mix a metaphor, if you took Iraq's shilling you did Iraq's bidding -- or Saddam's bidding, more directly.

Saddam used foreign terrorist groups and terrorism as instruments of foreign policy. Groups hosted by Saddam were denied protection. If he wanted to improve relations with a neighboring country and encourage to attack the same countries when Saddam wanted to pressure them. If they refused Saddam's requests, they were exiled.

Now, conventional wisdom casts Saddam as a terrorist, a primary consumer of the terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. And that is all true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism, and that is all true. If the mathematics is correct and the conventional conclusion must be that Saddam and Iraq are responsible for acts of terrorism against the United States, going back to the 1993 Trade Towers attack to perhaps 9/11.

Furthermore, this argument would say Saddam and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden cooperated in planning and conducting operations on U.S. targets. These assessments are incorrect in my personal view and in my professional judgment as a scholar and intelligence officer on Iraq.

Simply put, Saddam Hussein supported extremist groups that would respond to his orders and work against his enemy. This unfortunately does not make him the primary suspect or the eminence gris for al Qaeda's attacks on the United States. Now, there are a couple of truths to keep in mind. He used terrorism to intimidate Iraqis at home and abroad, and he did that, as we all know, very well. We know by the way we have an unsolved murder in McLean of an Iraqi businessman. That was almost certainly an act of an Iraqi intelligence officer, and a very good one. Now, could there have been an al Qaeda connection? Oh, let me before I do that let me some other truths. The reasons to do that, to support Iraq's revolutionary credentials and ensure his own role as a great Arab leader, intimidate rival leaders and governments, he gave safe haven and training to a wide range of groups, the Abu Nidal group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a Hawari group. He created the Arab Liberation Front as a personal surrogate in the war, which he used recently to pledged $25,000 to every martyr in the intifada against Israel.

Abu Nidal is one of the primary evidences. He urged Abu Nidal to attack Hafez al Asad, his primary rival for Arab leadership and Ba'athist leadership. He also encouraged attacks -- we've heard a lot about the Muslim Brotherhood this morning. They were also a group he liked. He used the Syrian faction, but only against Syria. Other than that, Saddam was not interested in religious-based Islamic extremists, because he knew he was their next target after they finished their primary target. And I would argue that spreads itself to al Qaeda, which Saddam certainly was aware had him on their list after he got the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, after the ruling families in the Gulf were liberated, Saddam would have been next on his list of undesirables to be replaced.

And you know what's interesting, because we have seen Sabri Banna, Abu Nidal, in and out of Iraq for several years. When he refused to cooperate with Baghdad on attacks against Syria, he was told to leave. He came back again later when he was found to be useful. He died last summer, almost a year ago, of four gunshot wounds to the head. The Iraqis describe this as suicide. I don't think so. I would imagine that Saddam decided to remove the evidence of his links to one of the most notorious of international terrorists at a time when the United States was increasing pressure on him to reveal weapons of mass destruction and accusing him of sponsoring al Qaeda. What could be more convenient?

Abu Abbas. Remember Abu Abbas, the Achille Lauro? He also lived for many years, and still did up until the war, in Iraq, and threatened targets during the intifada, just a year ago, from Iraq. Saddam again helped many others. But to show how this was a policy, beside the Palestinians, they are targeting the Israeli Jewish, Western and moderate Arab targets. In the 1980s he sheltered the anti-Turkish PKK, the Kurdish Workers Party.

When he wanted to pressure Turkey he let them go loose against the Turks. When he wanted to be nice to Turkey, he let them cross the border in hot pursuit to eliminate the PKK. He sheltered the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, the Iranian anti-regime group which helped him in his fight against us. He supported their attacks against Iran when it was to his benefit, and on occasion he would threaten to close them down when he wanted to get closer to Tehran for whatever reasons.

Now, Saddam security services and surrogates were successful in certain areas, especially internal, especially defectors, especially businessmen abroad were kind of sloppy. But the security services showed little success in planning or ordering operations against foreign targets. Palestinian dependents refused to launched operations against us in the prelude up to the Gulf War in late 1990, early 1991. They failed to get their own agents abroad to conduct attacks on the eve of that war. They were all arrested as they got off the plane. Very sloppy trade craft. And their attempt to assassinate President George Herbert Walker Bush I think was another example of incompetence on their part.

Now, the al Qaeda connection, to move swiftly along, Did Iraq need al Qaeda? Probably Saddam might have liked a group like that, but I don't think he would have needed them. I've said given the reasons why I thought -- and it is in my testimony -- I think he saw him as a threat, Osama as a threat, rather than as a potential partner. Do Osama and al Qaeda need Iraq? I would disagree with my colleague. I don't think they did. I think the groups were and remain global in scope, decompartmented in design and membership, in organizational infrastructure and operational planning. Many of the leaders are well educated -- you had that all this morning in earlier testimony. They operate on a need-to-know principle. It's not one just restricted to the intelligence community, the Soviets. The Muslim Brotherhood used it. The Muslim Brotherhood was effective. You've heard a lot about them. I would simply point out that they never needed state support, state sponsorship, to conduct their activities.

So we have questionable assumptions. I find troubling the use of circumstantial evidence and a corresponding lack of credible evidence. To jump to conclusions on Iraqi support for al Qaeda, I will look for credible, reliable records, open sources from the community, or clandestine. I worked on terrorism, in the Counterterrorism Center for three years. I know the kind of information you get. Nice people, heroes of their country, do not give you information. They are not patriots, they are not untarnished sources. They are people who do this stuff, people who do terrorism that you have to deal with. And you have to use your skills -- especially hard to sort out truth from fiction, who has a grudge, who is trying to convince you of something for their purposes. I don't think that guilt by circumstance should trouble anyone. I think it should trouble us. I think the chain of evidence is not good. And I would also say that because a person or an agency or a government does not agree with one's assumptions, it does not mean they are mistaken, stupid or deliberately obstructive. It means we have a trouble in gathering intelligence and gathering proper evidence, and we need to be careful.

Let me go quickly to just a few other points that I wanted to make in my few minutes remaining. It's not -- the unwillingness of Saddam and Osama to consider cooperation is not because they had different sects -- one's Sunni, one's Shi'a -- or different ideologies. Saddam was no ideologue. I think the point again was I think it was more of a danger to Saddam. It was a risk he didn't need to take. And I don't think that the evidence -- now, I do want to point just briefly, because we have had a very interesting turn of events just this morning announced, and that was the arrest of one of the al Qaeda -- excuse me, the Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague who was supposed to have met with Mohammad Atta. Now, evidence about those meetings I think we have an excellent opportunity to find out if they took place. We also have in our control the Iraqi intelligence officer, the senior operative who was also an ambassador in Turkey, Tunisia and Jordan, who allegedly went to Kabul and met with Osama both then and in Sudan in 1994, and that's Farouk Hijazi. And I don't see we've seen any evidence of his interrogation either, but we have them in custody.

My point would be simply this -- and maybe it's not so simple -- that I would expect an intelligence agent to have contact with any organization -- I don't care if it would be al Qaeda, the Soviets or any one who was willing to operate against the United States. I'd be disappointed. They wouldn't be doing their jobs. His purpose would have been to assess intent, operational capability and recruitment potential. It would not have been sufficient for both to just simply hate the United States. Saddam always demanded total loyalty from and control over any group he supported. And I don't think al Qaeda would have agreed to any of that kind of subordination or control. So I think that complicity -- we need to talk.

Now, this will bring me to my conclusion. I know my time is up. I have three simple -- three recommendations. First, I think you have to all recognize the limits as well as the strengths of intelligence. It's not a science. I think it 's an art. I especially think when you deal on Iraq and when you deal on these issues of terrorist infrastructures, networks and support, you have to do a lot of homework, you have to read a lot, and you have to I think -- it's not all going to be a smoking gun and looking for clear evidence. That's the science -- it would be nice if it were that science. So I would say that, again, recognize the limits what can and cannot be given you. And also I think one has to read carefully. Always check reliability statements and do not just accept what is not vetted or because someone says it's true it must be true, it sounds like it 's true. Again, I think we all have to remember that the sources on any of this are not the best you'd like.

My final plea would simply be intelligence does not make policy. Policy should not shape intelligence. I think one has to look very carefully. If anything, the metaphor of the onion and the Middle East is true: the more layers you peel away, the more complicated the story gets. Thank you very much.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's not just the R's.

No, it is indeed not. However, the D's have been so ineffectual for so long and are so disorganized and so unfocused that the only thing they are a threat to is themselves.

I recall quite a few rights tramplings during the Clinton years.

Must be old age, but I don't remember anything in particular from the Clinton era that threatened to diminish the Bill of Rights. If by 'rights', you mean some of the crap that has been introduced since the mid fifties, then I agree on the trampling, but less so on the 'right'.

Also, when has this nation ever had an educated populace? One that could meet your standards?

Through most of the first half of the twentieth century. After public education became widely available and before the focus shifted away from the basics (reading, writing, reasoning, arithmetic, history, geography).

It seems that Americans have been treated as nearly savage, and uneducated by Europe since before the revolution.

Largely true, but a non-sequitor. The European opinion of the American educational level is of no importance or value. What is of value is the educated American's opinion of the average American educational level. And what is of even more value are the objective, quantitative measurements of that level. And those are pretty much uniformly low (e.g., a recent test showed that about two thirds of the Chicago public high school graduates could only read at an eight grade level -- the question is clearly, how did they get past eight grade?).

We ourselves have been so xenophobic that we came close to barring recent German emigrants, Catholics, and other so-called unwashed miscreants from voting in the late 1850's.

Again true, but again largely moot. Note that the requirements imposed on voters was, at that time and for quite a while after, left to the States. It may not have been in the spirit of "all men are created equal", but it was completely constitutional to limit the franchise to white, male, property owners. Only the religious factor was borderline, but neither the body of the constitution (which simply bans religious tests from being used to hold or to be excluded from public office) nor the First Amendment (which simply bans the establishment of a state church) actually forbids such a practice. It isn't until a series of Supreme Court decisions 'interpreted' the constitution that such restrictions on voting became unconstitutional.

If you are looking for examples from earlier in our history, try the alien and sedition acts (1890's and 1910's IIRC), the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and the internment of the Japanese Americans.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

...
Must be old age, but I don't remember anything in particular from the Clinton era that threatened to diminish the Bill of Rights. If by 'rights', you mean some of the crap that has been introduced since the mid fifties, then I agree on the trampling, but less so on the 'right'.
...
--Pete

Here are a few things that come to mind; Clinton's commitment of 20,000 troops in Bosnia without congressional consent is a continuation of the Imperial presidency. Moves during that administration to bring the US under jurisdiction of the Internation Criminal Court. The implementation of somewhat covert national ID system, through requiring SS# be electronically encoded on DL's by States. The Brady Bill, and numerous 2nd amendment erosions (e.g. military styled guns). Legislation introduced and signed to limit encryption, and allows the Feds to control our access to encryption technology which prevents citizens from insuring their own privacy. EO 13083, which attempts to rewrite the Tenth Amendment in favor of the Federal Executive rather than for States. Also, many EO's by Clinton (as emergency powers) were done as power play in order to circumvent congress. The Clinton sponsored cyberspace harrassment law suppressing free speech on the internet whether it be bigoted political advocacy, sexually themed jokes, potentially offensive art, or religious proselytizing?

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
No, it is indeed not. However, the D's have been so ineffectual for so long and are so disorganized and so unfocused that the only thing they are a threat to is themselves.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers --

Must be old age, but I don't remember anything in particular from the Clinton era that threatened to diminish the Bill of Rights. If by 'rights', you mean some of the crap that has been introduced since the mid fifties, then I agree on the trampling, but less so on the 'right'.

The three strikes and your are out laws, and mandatory sentencing, are part of his legacy. I consider them both bad. He increased the War on Drugs nonsense, which accreted power to the Feds at the expense of the State. Abuse of the FBI files on his political opponents.
In his defense, the Patriot Act wasn't something he tried to foist on America, however, his efforts to make gun control more onerous were vigorously defeated by an opposition congress. What Bush has is both houses in his party. Had Clinton had that, there is no telling what he would have pushed through.

The European opinion of the American educational level is of no importance or value. What is of value is the educated American's opinion of the average American educational level. And what is of even more value are the objective, quantitative measurements of that level.

This whole being reasonable and rational thing really has to stop, ya know? :D What about the self esteem of people who have mastered nothing? What about the children? What about . . . sorry.

Note that the requirements imposed on voters was, at that time and for quite a while after, left to the States. It may not have been in the spirit of "all men are created equal", but it was completely constitutional to limit the franchise to white, male, property owners. Only the religious factor was borderline, but neither the body of the constitution (which simply bans religious tests from being used to hold or to be excluded from public office) nor the First Amendment (which simply bans the establishment of a state church) actually forbids such a practice. It isn't until a series of Supreme Court decisions 'interpreted' the constitution that such restrictions on voting became unconstitutional.

Oh, those activist judges. :lol:

If you are looking for examples from earlier in our history, try the alien and sedition acts (1890's and 1910's IIRC), the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and the internment of the Japanese Americans.

I'd like to see "an {illegel} alien soaks up munitions" act passed, but I don't expect one.

Now, about decriminalizing marijuana . . . who's with me?

DR

[Merlinios]

Largely true, but a non-sequitor. The European opinion of the American educational level is of no importance or value. What is of value is the educated American's opinion of the average American educational level. And what is of even more value are the objective, quantitative measurements of that level. And those are pretty much uniformly low (e.g., a recent test showed that about two thirds of the Chicago public high school graduates could only read at an eight grade level -- the question is clearly, how did they get past eight grade?).

Pretty simple, really, although there are quite a few possibilities. My favorite is the schools are afraid of funding cuts if they don't appear to be teaching students. So instead of actually teaching them, they just put on the appearance of doing so. It's the American Way!

So in order to combat this, I propose an equally bass-ackward solution of removing all warning labels. This should increase the percentage of "true" promotions on a grade-by-grade basis, although the actual number may go down slightly.

Now, about decriminalizing marijuana . . . who's with me?

Now there's a thread-hijacking statement if I ever saw one.

Sounds like a plan, though. Appalling how closed-minded most people are on the issues. They outright ignore the upsides--you can tax the hell out of the stuff, regulate the market, and (I believe, anyway) that use will actually DECREASE (after the first week or two), not to mention the decrease in illegal border activity.

--me, not actually a stoner

[Lissa]

Here are a few things that come to mind; Clinton's commitment of 20,000 troops in Bosnia without congressional consent is a continuation of the Imperial presidency.

As I seem to recall, he was asked to intervene by Europe and/or UN. There was no war declaration as well, so Congress had no real say so.

Moves during that administration to bring the US under jurisdiction of the Internation Criminal Court.

Why is this a bad thing™? If someone of power in the US Government/Military service does something worthy of a war crime, they should be dealt with. Let's look at the facts, when it has come to war crimes commited, it has always been an international organization that has held the trials, so why shouldn't the US be just as subject to those trials as anyone else?

The implementation of somewhat covert national ID system, through requiring SS# be electronically encoded on DL's by States.

This has been in the works a lot longer than Clinton. The government has always wanted to act in a big brother role since the early 30s across all political parties.

The Brady Bill, and numerous 2nd amendment erosions (e.g. military styled guns).

Why in god's name does a civilian need access to the AR-15? Don't tell me it's so they can hunt with it cause that's a bunch of crap. (I grew up in an area where just about everyone hunted and no one used anything outside a standard hunting rifle.) There is no good reason for civilians to have access to military grade hardware, none.

Legislation introduced and signed to limit encryption, and allows the Feds to control our access to encryption technology which prevents citizens from insuring their own privacy.

Have you used PGP and other encryption methods available? They're pretty hardy items as is. In order to break the encryption that most people use, you have to have several hundred PCs working in concert to break the encryption in a decent amount of time for encrypting things like files and the like (decrypting wireless signals on the other hand is fairly easy).

EO 13083, which attempts to rewrite the Tenth Amendment in favor of the Federal Executive rather than for States.

The states have been losing power every since the 17th Amendment was put in (may be wrong on the number, but it was were Senators were changed to general election instead of appointment by the state government).

Also, many EO's by Clinton (as emergency powers) were done as power play in order to circumvent congress.

And this is different from any of the prior Presidents? All branches have tried to get a leg up on all the others and this has been something that has been happening since the early 30s atleast.

The Clinton sponsored cyberspace harrassment law suppressing free speech on the internet whether it be bigoted political advocacy, sexually themed jokes, potentially offensive art, or religious proselytizing?

Congress has been trying to regulate the internet since it started being used by the general populous. Government overall has been trying to control what they really can't. (One of the best analogies I every heard was from a tech saavy Congressman that pointed out that the internet is like a gigantic highway with innumerable lanes where everyone and their brother can drive on it with their ferrari or their lawn tractor. That there were onramps and offramps everywhere and there was no speed limit. Yet Congress still didn't get it after he made a beautiful and easy to understand explaination.)

[Occhidiangela]

Why in god's name does a civilian need access to the AR-15?

To shoot you, and anyone else who wants to pry it from my cold dead fingers.

I don't have an AR-15, the "toys for Occhi budget" isn't that robust. They are cool, and fun to shoot. Guns are fun. Drinking and shooting are also fun. Dangerous as hell, but fun. :D

Occhi