Poindexter?
 

Noted crazed left-winger Bill Safire (actually he was a Nixon speechwriter and normally a Republican apologist) has some interesting things to say about the collection of your personal information, by Homeland Security. His Op Ed in the NYTimes.


Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

So, Poindexter is the guy in charge of my personal information, at least they picked someone of unimpeachable integrity. There is nothing conservative about the direction this government is going.

You have more faith in the system than I do Griff, I think this will be used against political dissent from day one, no matter who the President is or which political party he/she represents.

This is frighteneing to me personally and I'm sure many other share my fears. It reeks of 1930s Nazi Germany. Its crazy that we should have more info collected on the people, we need more info on the government made more available for the people to see and use against them.

I'd move out of the country, if there were only someplace better.

I've been kind of hoping for the "winning the lottery and buying an island" option ...

Century purple Of course, what Bill Safire neglects to mention is the fact that all this information on us is already available to the Agencies in the form of separate databases....
"A virtual, centralized grand database" just pulls the information they already have into one streamlined database.
If you think your information was not out there years ago, you are a fool! What? Just because you didn't know that they knew your business made you fearlesss?....C'mon, Our Government doesn't know any more about you than they have known for years,
the difference is in the tracking ability.
However, they still can't track you without a Judges Court Order.
So, all this, "The sky is falling" routine is very
un-necessary and knee-jerk, people.

U.S. watch list has 'taken on life of its own, FBI saysVersions of watch list distributed to private sector and can't be corrected or updated by authorities.

No, I don't. I meant to put the sarcasm tags around that Poindexter endorsement.

Would be fun to be a techie for them.

<Joe> Hey, Bob! You up for some pizza?
<Bob> Mmm...Pizza! Sounds good!
<Joe> Okay! Lemme grab some cash. SELECT CC_Name, CC_Number, CC_Expire FROM bigScaryTable WHERE lastname LIKE, eh...'G%' ORDER BY, say, petName DESC...

--Sk

<h4>I disagree Cairo, I'd like to explain why</h4>

This is based mainly on intuition because I cant find a copy of the complete bill online, but you may be able to relate. If I missed the bus, by all means , tell me, I dont want to believe this is a real big deal. There are some concerns I can't ignore though.

Having all the data in one database allows the Homeland Security Bureau to create "redflags" for specific activities, locations, etc. A redflag to me would be a list of normal purchases or activities that have lead to a certain crime or activity in the past or that seem "suspicious" to someone. The actual formation of what constitutes a redflag is important. For instance, if you buy a box of garbage bags, and an axe, and some rags, and some heavy duty floor cleaner from a local dept store, that might seem suspicious. If you happened to buy them at 3 am, it might seem all that much more suspicious. Did you just kill your wife and now you're looking to do a little cleanup, or is there another perfectly reasonable explaination for buying these specific things together? What can I expect them to deem suspicious?

Being on a <a href="http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/091102/loc_mussarra.shtml"> watchlist </A>doesn't necessarily damage a person or their reputation, but I would lean towards it not helping you. Who exactly would have access to their intell? What penalties are there for sharing that information with an unauthorized entity? What are the realistic chances that a citizen would find effective recourse should there be a breech? Theoretically, can my friend's wife, who works for the BHS, use the information from the bureau against me if I piss them off somehow? Do you doubt this happens now with smaller agencies? I dont, but that's just my opinion. Maybe I've overlooked the details, but I'd like to know. I also think battling this BHS through the legal system for indiscretions would be impossible. In my opinion, it's a bad idea and we need to just clean up the old intrusive agencies instead of making a new enormous one.

Add to that the fact that often law enforcement, particularly Federal, tend to be a bit aggressive and you have potential abuses from the "ground troops". The <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-03.htm">FBI</A>, DEA, and <a href="http://www.flinthills.com/~jalee/batf.html">BATF</a> are well known for being heavy handed, or at least quick to assert their authority without just legal cause. Giving them the political momentum of being a part of this glorious new bureau to save us all won't help. I think it's a bad idea.

I'm specifically curious how the BHS will address the "right wing extremists" that were said to be more dangerous than international terrorists. The resources of the FBI have been<a href="http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress99/freehct2.htm"> diverted </a>more into pursuing RWEs, so much so that they may very well have missed warnings of Islamic terrorism that led to the 911 attacks. It can reasonably be said in this case that while the FBI was
<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28400">chasing</A> after those <B>preparing</B> for Armageddon, it completely ignored those attempting to <B>start</B> Armageddon. Many of the RWEs challenge the Federal government and the tax "authorities". I understand they may be threatened by this, but is a tax protester more dangerous than an islamic terrorist wanting to meet his virgins in the afterlife? This whole bill makes me wonder exactly what will be required for someone to be catagorized as being a potential "home grown" right wing terrorist.


True, but now they're on a mission. The defense of the country, individuals be dammned.
This doesnt give me any comfort. Even if this is done in the beggining of the bureau's creation, it may very well erode as other safeguards have before it. Some great "emergency" will set a precedence and we'll see the same incrimental encroachment we see throughout government. Eventually I wont be able to scratch my ass without having some BHS or other agency taking notes. I don't like it.

<a href="http://hsc.house.gov/legislation/final.asp"> Anyway, here's an official outline of the bill from the US House </A><br>

Hi Nic Name,
The unwillingness of our Agencies to share information is exactly the reason 9/11 was not stopped! The FBI and CIA are notorious for hoarding their "dots" to themselves, hoping to collar alone and recieve all the glory.
Wake up call after 9/11 has taught us that having the "dots" and "connecting the dots" are two different outcome realities, Homeland Security will
"connect the dots", and save American lives....
and the FBI is pissed that they have to share????
They can just pick up their ball, and bite me!

Hey, I'm on your side guys.

Like y'all, I just hope we don't set up a KGB to secure us against UBL.

We just spent half a century resisting that system in the Soviet Union.

I'd suggest that the reason right wing extremist groups were the target of so much FBI scrutiny is twofold: a) we can understand them as they're not of a different culture (maybe a subculture) and b) al Qaeda was not taken as seriously as it should have been. We underestimated their ability to target and carry out missions on our soil. Remember as well that up until 9/11, the largest terrorist attack on our soil was from Timothy McVeigh, who is very much a right wing extremist.

As for the justification for Homeland Security... I don't think it's necessarily correct that we need to create more bureacracy to combat terrorism. I think we need to streamline things. We need to follow a similar approach as terrorists do in organizational and attack structure. Obviously, we cannot allow for autonomous cells inside our government, but you can't fight a network with a monolithic structure. However, I do think that the information sharing strategies can be good for our fight against terrorism. On the other hand, they can be horrific for our privacy.

I'm going to stop here, because I just finished an entirely too long paper, part of which was on this networked approach (netwar). I don't want to get going on this topic and end up on some mindless ramble.

Hey, just think of the potential benefits of hacking into this combined database. Talk about a honeypot for Chinese spies!

Doesn't it really bother you that they seriously want to connect the "dots" between what books you take out of the library or buy on Amazon.com with what country you visit.

All perfectly legal:

*visit your public library
* buy a book about an historical American figure
* shop on amazon.com
* visit our ally in the war on terror

Live your life, go about your business, continue to shop and travel.

Petition your Government openly exercising free speech and seeking justice.

Get on the list.

Be a person of interest.

Hi slang,
I completely understand your concern, I call it
The Post Clinton Traumatic Syndrome...where every
time our Government raises their hand, we flinch!
We were battered and abused.
But, I digress...
As our system is now, after a murder occurs the authorities track databases and find that indeed the perpetrator did buy garbage bags,an axe,rags,
and heavy duty floor cleaner at 3:00 AM....after
the fact. I bet the victim would have been grateful
(albeit maybe even still ALIVE) if authorities had a clue before the murder. And, all information is deemed suspicious,constitutional,relevant,or not
by a Judge....not any Agency.
All of your public information is already public,
I could access it. The private information needs a Judges order, so if you piss off your neighbors, they will need to plead their case to the Judge...
my bet is he says No!
My husband and I were driving home through a neighboring County, he had a warrant outstanding at the time for unpaid traffic tickets in our City, he was stopped for speeding, but because the databases from our City do not communicate with that County, they had no information and we were on our way.
Don't get me wrong, with a 5 month old with us,
I am very, very glad they didn't arrest him. However, I also realize that this also happens to terrorists who want to kill us!
No, the lack of communication between the Agencies is what missed the warnings of 9/11. The dots were never connected and it cost 3,000 lives....now you tell me to give them another chance? At the cost of tens of thousands of American lives? I'm not willing to roll the dice and gamble away human life! You say, just clean up the old intrusive agencies and you think they will connect the dots?
Well, our "old intrusive agencies" are telling you right now that they have connected the dots on what Saddam and terrorists are planning....guess what?
YOU don't believe them! Now that they are working to prevent another 9/11, it's too vague...nobody in their right mind would fly a plane into a building,
it's reaching to think that Saddam would sell nuclear capability to terrorists to bring America to it's knees, etc,etc....Really?

The individuals in this Country will be damned if this Country is not defended!!!!
A Judge decides if the Agency is able to track someone, always been that way, always will....
nothing has changed in that area.

LOL...maybe you scratching your ass IS a terrorist act?....a Judge will decide.

Hi Nic Name,
Does it bother me that for years now, any individual layperson who cares to can access any public information on me if they want to? Not really. Does it bother me that our Agencies are forbidden to do what I, and everybody and their mother....even Agents themselves off duty can do?
Yes, because terrorists use this bureaucratic nonsense to kill us.
The private information on me STILL needs a Judges court order to access.

Cairo,

I think we are discussing two distinct situations.

Poindexter is developing for the DOD a system for scanning aggregated data to flag patterns of behavior and then identify individuals who would be persons of interest.

You are suggesting that there are judicial safeguards for the surveillance of individuals, similar to seeking a search warrant or wire tap.

Of course, you understand that Poindexter's system of surveillance is not going to require judicial authority to run patterns of suspicious activities against the database to determine "persons of interest" and that no judicial order need be sought to keep an eye on such persons by following, enquiring of neighbors and employers, etc.

If wiretapping or other invasion of privacy is deemed desirable by the Agency, the judges who will authorize such will be nameless faceless judges of a secret court, who will not hear any submissions except from the Attorney General, if current practises are any indication.

If a person is arrested he may be held without legal representation or charge at the discretion of the Commander in Chief, as in the case of Padilla. (Is he still alive? Does anyone know or care?)

I'm feeling better already.

Hey Cairo, your posts are formatted very strangely. Is this intentional? How about some nice, neat paragraphs?

Anyone say Macarthy?

So Ciaro your argument is only terrorists babykillers and evil rapists should fear total destruction of remaining privacy because everyone else has nothing to hide right?

Of course it was a lack of legal powers not one-upmanship and human incompetence that cause an intel failure, of course not.

I would have thought he would have alligned them to the far right, not the left.

Hermit22

First para - good point, I agree but think they're still too interested in chasing recreational pot smokers and technical violations of gun regs. while flatly ignoring foreign terror evidence.

Second - completely agree, not required, streamline

mindless ramble? Never stopped me :)

Juju
(sharp sarcasm) Come on now.....no one was ever CONVICTED of spying for China

Nic Name

So....all I need to do is set up an alias to buy my next copy of The Catcher in the Rye.
I agree 100%
nice post, not too long (like mine) well layed out.

Cairo

The answer to all the world's problems is a good defensive handgun.
I have been unable to provide credible evidence that that may happen but if it does, I'm not sharing my long term storage MREs and disaster survival gear with anyone carrying a Democratic voting card (unless she's got ammo).

I don't feel good about this accountability because of the whole SS number and it's evolution, hope your right about the judges.

Nice to have you here at the cellar Cairo.

Hermit could you post the paper, or the part on netwar? The concept interests me.

There's an entire RAND book about it, and that's probably the best source.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1382/

Pay special attention to Chapters 1 and 10.

Netwar is especially interesting if you know a bit about computers and networks. The basic idea is that the networked structure exists on the organizational, doctrinal and tactical levels in the most successful modern terrorist organizations. al-Qaeda, for example, is both a "hub and spoke" arrangement, with the cells communicating directly with one central command and a "wheel" arrangement, wherein they can communicate with any other cell in the network directly. Interesting stuff.

You people seem to be missing the big picture -- Our government's purpose is to prevent all crime before it happens. As the Foundering Fathers said, "better 1000 innocent men go to jail than one guilty man be freed." (I believe they said something else, but that's what they meant, hence the 'foundering'.) They didn't have the ability to do this back then, but today our computers are fast enough and large enough to track the info needed to prevent crime. And over time, the database will improve, and fewer innocents will be bagged in the pursuit of each criminal. If you cooperate with the system, then you're less likely to be bagged yourself. But if you are called on to go to jail, it's your duty to 'pay your dues' as it were; that's the cost of freedom.

You can't possibly be serious. Are you joking?

And i always do ... :shotgun:

(i guess you could say i'm a D.I.N.O.)

Check out this list of things the Information Awareness Office says they'd like to implement.

<ul style="margin-top: 0in; margin-bottom: 0in" type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Collaboration and sharing over TCP/IP networks across agency boundaries</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Large, distributed repositories with dynamic schemas that can be changed interactively by users</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Foreign language machine translation and speech recognition</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Biometric signatures of humans</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Real time learning, pattern matching and anomalous pattern detection</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Entity extraction from natural language text</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Human network analysis and behavior model building engines</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Event prediction and capability development model building engines</span></li><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Structured argumentation and evidential reasoning</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Story telling, change detection, and truth maintenance</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Business rules sub-systems for access control and process management</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Biologically inspired algorithms for agent control</span></li> <li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; font-family: Arial">Other aids for human cognition and human reasoning</span></li> </ul>

Some of these sound pretty far-fetched to me. What exactly is a biological algorithm? Are they really going to try to perfect speech recognition and natural language translation?

Many, many years ago (approx 1983) I attended a lecture that was given by one of the developers of AI (I think it was Weisman or Weisbrod or something like that ... but I'm getting old and my memory is failing ...)

Anyway, instead of a lecture on the latest in AI, we were treated to a two hour treatise on the coming dangers of the information age ... THIS is the stuff he was talking about ...

It's more than scary to see this kind of thing coming to pass ... and i keep worrying that this will go the rest of the way, to a cashless society so NOTHING is off the database.

Now, as it happens, I'm you're basic, law-abiding citizen, however, i do still wonder if some mail order purchases and magazine subscriptions made in my impetuous youth will someday come back to haunt me ... in the form of the BATF, FBI, and AEC showing up at the door to discuss my reading habits.

The problem of the database lies not solely in its existence but in its ability to red flag certain clusters of behavior. Think of the PK Dick story, and recent movie, "Minority Report". Our system of justice is REacvtive, not PROactive.

I don't think you can be proactive in a free society.

The danger may not be in the government finding out what we've already read. Our children might grow up thinking that there a books that are just not a good idea to read ... nothing good can come of reading this or that ... and "people should watch what they say" following the advice ofAri Fleischer.

"Never use your real name on the Internet" will be understood as a necessary first step to protecting ourselves from having the government know what we're thinking, rather than protecting our children from the risk meeting "evil doers" online.

Don't talk politics on the telephone. Never question the government's actions. It's just not worth the risk.

Sure, we can all buy our books using aliases and get credit cards in our pets' names. No big deal.

I'm sure that our children will figure out how to live their lives away from the prying eyes of the government.

Bitman


Would you point me to some background on the thought that the founding fathers were in favor of convicting 1000 innocent men rather than let one guilty man go free?

That wasn't how I remember that thought being written but I can rarely find the background or quotes that I look for.

The phrase I see with a basic Google search says " better for 100 guilty men to go free than one man be unjustly convicted ". There are many places this is quoted but I cant find the source from the founding fathers.

If your quote is correct , I have another reading assignment as well as another re-evaluation of my opinion.

The only time I've ever heard it phrased that way was in the context of a joke ...

I think Bitman was being sardonic. He's making a point with humor. Don't heckle him.

good, then I havent lost my mind. :)

I wouldn't go so far as to say THAT just yet ... ;)

Elements of Style
 

There's been an increasing level of chatter in the threads taking exception to unorthodox "punctuation' and illogical
paragraph structure,
not to mention vociferous disagreement about how words should be spelt or weather spelling matters atoll.

As the Cellar has grown in membership, it is natural that the community should grow in diversity. However, some have argued that we must all speak the same language to be clearly understood.

There is no debate that such a language should be English (or what passes for English in Philadelphia) as a minimum standard. ;) However, German or Spanish may be attempted in User-hosted Forums or sigs.

It's often difficult to be sure how to express oneself without fear of being whacked with the nearest post if an error becomes evident.

This is not a mute point. I will be heard.

It's not Cellar style to be bound by rules that Strunk in 1918. Free students may follow the Standard of Style from The Free Student, which make sense IMHO... and it's a publication that contains other good articles about politics, as well.

Editor's note: Anyone who is humourously challenged can be assured that I am only pulling your leg.

Hi Nic Name,
Sorry for the delayed response....had to sleep and work.
I never said public information would have judicial boundries, why would it? I can access public information without a Judges approval.
Private information will not be in the database at all. Example: Banking information is private, if the Feds wish to look at your bank accounts, they will have to go to a Judge with evidence or probable cause. Just as they do now...are you implying that the Judges and procedure we follow right now are unconstitutional or cow-tow to the Agencies? See? Nothing will be changed with regards to private information, but everything will be changed with regards to public information.
Example: Professor Sami Al Arian, the old separate databases couldn't track and recognize him until after they had his name, with the streamlined one database flag system he would have been recognized before they knew of him, and a Judges order could have tracked him to other terrorists.
As for Padilla? I know he's not on our streets making and planting dirty bombs!

No, my argument is that I can access anyone's public information and fight terrorism better than the Agencies who's job is to fight terrorism!
Seems to me, your ilk are more fond of Tribal Law(hiding the terrorists) than Democracy(the people's will).

Far Right? I wish!.....I am pro-choice. I believe that the other life in that body should have the choice to live or die. *wink and a smile*

Just remember Cairo...we live in a republic, not a democracy. ;)

Thanks for the welcome slang. This is a very nice place to debate. During the hot and heavy exchanges, can I hold you to that welcome? LOL...

You got a source for the McVeigh Padilla connection? I know I saw that many places and I'll be damned if I can find anything on it now, not even a retraction. I think John Ashcroft is suppressing information again.


You have my welcome so long as you don't break into the electronic files that have the notes of me scatching in "a suspicious way"

Hi wolf,
If our Government is supposed to be REactive to safety and protection issues, we are in BIG trouble! You are advocating that our Government should not do anything until another 3,000 civilians are dead! That's exactly what the terrorists are hoping for, makes their "duty" to kill "the infidel" much easier!

BTW, if Agents take your red flagged reading preferences to a Judge as evidence or probable cause to track you further, they would be laughed out of the courtroom...and the Agents know this!
Having a subscription to "High Times" has never been evidence to a Judge.

Hi slang,
My bad, I meant to type Terry Nichols was married to Lana Padilla, Jose Padilla's sister...
It's a Nichols-Padilla connection.

http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/1997/N...s/6457168.html

Cairo,

It is noted here that Lana Padilla told the Wall Street Journal that she was not aware of having any relation to Jose Padilla.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final note: Much has been made of the fact that Terry Nichols was married at one point to a woman named Lana Padilla. Lana Padilla acquired that surname — a common name — through a subsequent marriage. There is no known relation between Lana Padilla (who gained the surname by marriage) and Jose Padilla, according to Lana Padilla, quoted in the Wall Street Journal on June 17, 2002.

Cairo, can you please show us where you discovered that Lana Padilla is Jose Padilla's sister?

Re: Elements of Style
 

I'm not trying to attack anyone, it was just a helpful suggestion. Also, I was thinking, perhaps it's something that only looks bad in 1280x1024 resolution. If that's the case, I can see how you'd think I was being nitpicky.

Cairo: Does the name Macarthy ring a bell?
When patriotism rules the roost you don't need to convict someone to destroy them. Secondly i haven't read the bill myself but if the data is automatically collated therfore a judge's apporval would nto be needed to access it would it?

Hey, is there any chance that either is related to Manuel Padilla? (He played Jai on TV's Tarzan)

Hi Nic Name,
Lana Padilla was paid $20,000.00 to say the things she says, so I wouldn't credit her too much.
To ignore the obvious "dots" would be intellectual suicide.
Padilla is Lana's maiden name...her married name was also Nichols, but she dropped that in a heartbeat! These people change their name like underwear, so it's difficult to get a handle on the truth. I saw a document on another board verifying that Lana's mother is Jose's mother, but the mother has also changed her name many times...5 kids 4 different fathers, or something. I tried to run a search for that document, and it comes back costing money to access it...so I decided I don't need to know that badly.

Jaguar,
No, but when I read your stuff, the name Cleric in the Tribal area of Pakistan rings a bell.
Explain to me how loving ones Country destroys someone else?...Unless that "someone" is an Anti-American fanatic who wants to kill us!
Public information is collated into a single database that all authorities can access, instead of many bureaucratic bases that only certain Agencies(who don't like to share, and need to go back to kindergarten to learn)
Homeland Security streamlines and organizes the information they already have. Private information is kept with the private database. Example: your DMV records will be in the Homeland Security hub, but your banking accounts will not, they will remain in your banks database.

I think the facts are that she divorced Nichols long before he became notorious. Whether she dropped it in a heartbeat or a heartache, you would know better than I. But it would seem appropriate not to keep it after she married another Mr. Padilla, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

I don't know what other board you're getting your facts from, but it seems that the Wall Street Journal has the financial resources to confirm her story and the one you've come up with to connect the dots in this important story.

For a major newspaper to ignore a story like the one you've got figured out would be more than intellectual suicide.

I suggest you get in touch with the WSJ asap and see what your facts are worth. Imagine what they'd pay you for the facts in such an important story.

I'd be insulted if it wasn't so stupid and you hadn’t done such a good job of vindicating my previously stated opinion, good job, keep it up and I’ll barely have to bother posting at all!

So how about they get sent back to kindergarten? How about the reality is that it is more incompetence, arrogance and one-upmanship that cause these fuckups than a lack of information access. Yes your bank records would be kept at your bank, but they'd also be kept at this one big database, correct? I thought the idea was you could track everything a person did?

Huh? As I said, are you familiar with the name Joe McCarthy?

You've yet to provide any reason why we should credit <b>you</b> very much.

Simply put, Nic Name thinks you're full of shit, and I agree with him. The myth has been debunked numerous times. Your argument doesn't hold water. Lana Padilla and Jose Padilla aren't related, and that's all there is to it.

The WSJ didn't pay her $20,000.00, and I never said it did...you assume too much. Lana was paid to not implicate co-conspirators(ie:Jose Padilla) by her "broke" ex-husband Terry Nichols.
Think about it, Nichols leaves ~her~ a message saying,"You're on your own now, go for it!"...
makes no sense because Lana had been "on her own" for years. And "go for it"??? Go for what? No sense. However, if she was supposed to pass that message to Jose, what better way than announce it in court for the world to hear. And the message makes sense if it were from Nichols to Jose Padilla, bin Laden style, because as we found out recently Padilla did try to "go for it!" on his own!!!!
Even concluding(which I am not ready to do until I see proof) that there is no relation, you can not deny the connections.
Confining ones research to a major newspaper is, I think, what the Communists do...am I right?

Jaguar,
You say,"I'll barely have to bother posting at all."
Great! Then we'll all be happy! To sum up your argument to me....you said, I can not defend or take responsibility for my positions, so I'll call you stupid....annnnd McCarthy!
Typical....pitiful, but typical.

dave,
Seems you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing!...Does that mean you are "full of shit" as well? Give some proof.
Simply put, how the @#$%!! do you know what Nic Name thinks? Speaking for other people is a signal that the speaker has no backbone to stand alone!

<h3>Homeland Security cabinet level agency = bad idea</h3>
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11355&c=206">Holy crap , I agree with the ACLU! </a>

"Getting these rogue programs back in check is like trying to lasso a runaway train."

<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/business/story/38068p-35915c.html"> Homeland a megamerger mess</a>

"The new super-sized security bureau could take years to fully put in place. And there's no assurance that we will be any safer than when we started."

<a href="http://www.aclu.org/Cyber-Liberties/Cyber-Liberties.cfm?ID=11332&c=58"> J. Edgar Ashcroft </a> "What are the dangers to a democracy of a national police organization, like the FBI, which operates secretly and is unresponsive to public criticism?" The essay question that pissed off Hoover. It was optional question number 7 on UC's 1959 English aptitude test for high school applicants

WASHINGTON - Ruling for the first time in its history, the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review today gave the green light to a Justice Department bid to broadly expand its powers to spy on U.S. citizens.

"We are deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests that this special court exists only to rubberstamp government applications for intrusive surveillance warrants," said Ann Beeson, litigation director of the Technology and Liberty Program of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"As of today," she said, "the Attorney General can suspend the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment in order to listen in on phone calls, read e-mails, and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices [and take notes of suspicious scratching]."

<h3> And another thing, where in the hell is the ACLU in defense of 2a issues? </h3>

If you can't see the link between patriotism and McCarthy and how it relates to this i'm clearly wasting my time here. I'm joining Xugumad he's depressingly correct. If anyone wants to contact me privately sharvari at optus dot net is the address> Have a nice circlejerk, I doubt i'll be sorely missed.
chow all.

<h3>Thank you Cairo!!!</h3> :)

Slang, please calm yerself down a wee bit.

You have been in the Cellar only a few weeks and have contributed only 50 posts. It's a bit too early, don't you think, to be thanking Cairo, who arrived this week and has contributed 16 posts ... all but 2 of which are in this single thread.

I suspect we haven't heard the last of Mr. Jaguar, who has contributed 1751 posts over a couple of years and has earned his bones. Jag is a part of this community ... whether he likes it or not. ;)

I'm prepared to cut him some slack for his hissy fit and make allowances for him cuz he's an Aussie. If he were to leave, he'd surely be missed by those of us who have disagreed with him more than by those who are more often agreeable. :(

Frankly, I'm not too worried about that happening anytime soon, anyway.

Slang, I suggest you stick around for another year or so and see who's still contributing to the Cellar.

Ok Nic, I'm calm
I'm not sure what you are saying here. I was thanking Cairo for pushing Jag out of this thread.
I dont doubt this for a minute and I dont want him to stop posting here. I do think he has some very insightful things to say. It's his delivery that makes people want him to disappear. He believes that he is the smartest human being ever to walk the earth and yet doesn't understand why people think he's an ass. It's the delivery stupid!!! It's the sarcasm stupid!!! It's the assumption that your info is 100% right and all others are incorrect stupid!!! That's why I completely ignore his posts, even when I agree with him. There are a few people that I have recieved from feedback from after making my points. Very few agree with me but I can respect their opinions and the way they reply. Not Jag though, hes an ass. He's cutting even when you are trying to agree with him. Am I the only one that thinks that?
That's your right, I dont have a problem with that. I will just continue to ignore him and try learn and explain as I have been. I'm interested in dealing with people that want to debate and have fun. Most people here do too, not all, but most.
See who's contributing sharp cutting commentary? And consistently pissing people off? I dont doubt that. I heard about this asshead looooong before I became a member here. But I will respect your direction. I do respect you personally also. I will continue to ignore him and make an honest effort to bring a different perspective to the cellar and maybe some humor too.

I just found the ignore list. :) Life is good.