On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 02:43:02 GMT, (Lee Huddleston)
wrote:


You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton
administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the
2001 attack.

That is not true. The Clinton administration was successful in
fighting terrorism. When Bush took over he was warned repeatedly
about the terrorist and he and his team fell asleep for nine months.
The 2001 WTC attack was easily preventable. Keep in mind that it
occurred while George Bush was President. But, as is usual for
everything that has occurred during his administration, he never takes
any responsibility. Instead of fighting terrorist Bush has ****ed
away all of our money and the lives of our finest men and women (not
to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) to fight a battle we did
not need to fight. Iraq is not part of the "war" on terrorism; it is
a very dangerous distraction. If anything, it has been an excellent
recruiting tool for the terrorist.

Lee Huddleston

How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
. ..


On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:




Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which is
why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.







This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it takes
is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve that the
prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry, Chuck, or
you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v. Padilla, you
guys already have enough doubt before the case even begins. That's the
fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when politics gets in the
way.



This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's rights?
What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a serial sex
offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the power to hold the
guy under existing law?



You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect of
'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"


Not when it comes to terrorists.


terrorists as defined by whom?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an act.
In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know under
what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to hand him
over.

Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles?

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html


From your reference:

"Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on
Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300
Africans.

Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which
officials insisted was not aimed at him."

Yet nothing more was done...

And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about doing
nothing more...

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:

How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:59:23 -0500, John H wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles?

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html


From your reference:

"Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin
Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin
bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans
and nearly 300 Africans.

Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which
officials insisted was not aimed at him."

Yet nothing more was done...

And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about doing
nothing more...

Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting
attention from a BJ.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:52:33 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
...


On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:




Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which is
why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.







This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it takes
is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve that the
prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry, Chuck, or
you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v. Padilla, you
guys already have enough doubt before the case even begins. That's the
fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when politics gets in the
way.



This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's rights?
What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a serial sex
offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the power to hold the
guy under existing law?



You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect of
'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"


Not when it comes to terrorists.


terrorists as defined by whom?

Bill O'Reilly

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:03:52 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:59:23 -0500, John H wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered to
hand him over.

Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles?

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html


From your reference:

"Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin
Laden,
the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin
bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans
and nearly 300 Africans.

Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which
officials insisted was not aimed at him."

Yet nothing more was done...

And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about doing
nothing more...

Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting
attention from a BJ.

That blow job sure gave him a lot of excuses, didn't it?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:02:09 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:

How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?

Only if we had a policy of allowing stewardesses to be killed to prevent a
hijacking. Did we have such a policy?

John, You really have Harry on the run.



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H wrote:
More delusional screed.

John H wrote:

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:02:09 -0500, thunder wrote:


On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:


How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston?

As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple
cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes?


Only if we had a policy of allowing stewardesses to be killed to prevent a
hijacking. Did we have such a policy?

At the time it wold have been an airline policy, subject to
interpretation of the Captain. I'd like to think that if I were
captain, I would not sacrifice my plane and passengers for a stewardess.
(yes i would feel guilty about the decision, and it would bother me for
quite a while, but as with a ship captain, the safety of the vessel and
passengers comes before one of the crew.