Steve

Steve...I'm too lazy to look up all of the EO's' date= but this one is tooooooooo easy. After removing one's tin hat, it could easily be assumed that the detention facility is for wetback processing/holding pending deportation. :content: HH[/quote] Granted, these facilities may be being built for one purpose but as often is the case, they can (and sometimes are) used for other purposes. The goverment has always comandeered facilities for emergency uses. Understandable in the vast majority of cases. A football field for example to process many people in a disaster. The government will find loopholes when it serves its purpose. Cuba for the terrorists for example. I will admit to being one that doesn't trust the government and think it always has our best interests.

yep. The following executive orders, acts, etc, some going back to Kennedy, can be used to circumvent civil liberties in the even of a national emergency. Executive Order #12656: Appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. Executive Order #1103: Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft. Executive Order #11005: Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private. Executive Order #10990: Allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports. Executive Order #10995: Allows the government to seize and control the “communication mediaâ€Â. Executive Order #10997: Allows the government to take over all electric power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals, public and private. Executive Order #10998: Allows the government to take over all food supplies and resources, public and private, including farms and equipment Executive Order #11921: Allows the government to control the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined National Emergency. It also provides that when a state emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the declaration for a period of six months. Executive Order #11051: Grants authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis. Executive Order #11000: Authorizes the government to mobolize American civilians into work brigades under government supervision. The Patriot Act: Third-party holders f your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue, and mosques records can be searched without your knowledge and consent. Allows Law Enforcement to conduct warrantless searches of yoour records, place of residence and confiscate your personal property without your knowledge or consent. The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003: Instructs Government to build a mammoth database of citizen DNA information, aimed at “detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activitiesâ€Â. The Military Commissions Act: Strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider habeas corpus appeals of anyone held in US custody as an “unlawful enemy combatantâ€Â. Defines an Unlawful Enemy combatant as “an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.†The definition of “Hostilities†is broad enough to include any American citizen who is acting in a way the President deems “hostile†to the United States. Prohibits any person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or their protocols as a source of rights in any action in an US court. National Security Presidential directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidentual Directive 20. Signed by President Bush in May. 2007 NSPD/HSPD 51, and 20: The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President’s lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies Allows the President to control and coordinate all three branches of government in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergencyâ€Â. “Catastrophic Emergency means any incident, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions†Kellog Brown and Root recently was awarded a 385 million dollar open ended contract by the Department of Homeland Security. Which provides for establishing “temporary detention†facilities and “progressing areas†on American soil. As for FEMA I've read that a lot of its funding has been used for the " construction of underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency – foreign or domestic"

No. If you believe this you have never worked for a large company as a junior guy. Again, you are watching too many movies and projecting that to the real world. The problem was the focus of the FBI was on other things. With regards to your point. Yes, I agree they were focused on other issue (I think it was narcotics at the time but not sure). However, its is not supposed to be their SOLE purpose. The FBI covers all matters of national security. Someone deemed it not important enough. Why don't we know that someone? Her direct boss told her not to pursue and said he was told by someone higher. Why don't we know who the specific person or persons were. I have worked for very large corporations. I worked for one that was a 40 billion dollar subsidiary of AIG, who were mammoth at the time. I know about things getting lost as go up the chain of command. I was a first line manager and told not to take actions in my department that I thought were uwise. He told me verbally and I knew it would be my word against him so I followed it up with an email to him saying 'Per our discussion today in your office, I won't pursue..blah, blah, blah'. I documented other e mails, etc. so when it hit the fan and I knew my ass was covered. I had a boss that was eventually fired for that and other mishaps in other departments under his auspices. She (the FBI agent) had proof she alerted supeiors. There were other reports as well I thought I at the time like Israeli intel being concerned. The dismissal of the alert was particularly onerous given that we suffered the World Trade bombing in the early '90s by a similear such group. So, it wasn't like it was the first time.

No. You have been watching too many movies. Hey Corinthian' date=' thanks for your response, I'll address your responses individually. I do watch too many movies..lol..I also do some reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency [b']Lying to Congress[/b] Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has stated that the CIA repeatedly misled the Congress since 2001 about waterboarding and other torture, though Pelosi admitted to being told about the programs.[106][107] Six members of Congress have claimed that Director of CIA Leon Panetta admitted that over a period of several years since 2001 the CIA deceived Congress, including affirmatively lying to Congress. Some congressmen believe that these "lies" to Congress are similar to CIA lies to Congress from earlier periods. Covert programs hidden from Congress On July 10, 2009, House Intelligence subcommittee Chairwoman Representative Jan Schakowsky (D, IL) announced the termination of an unnamed CIA covert program described as "very serious" in nature which had been kept secret from Congress for eight years.

The problem is there are numerous things the CIA does NOT tell the Congress or even the White House. Sometimes they hide things under the 'national security' tag which doesn't work most of the time but can be dragged out on occasion as being so covert and secret it can't inform about specifics if at all. The FBI could have stopped 911. One of the great mysteries is who specificaly said to the agent who was noticed the hijackers taking air line lessons and other suspicious acts and was told not to pursue it. It must have been someone important because when it was investigated everyone above her said 'I was told not to' but we were never told whom. My guess it was someone big because typically there is a fall guy in these things. The problem was the focus of the FBI was on other things. Since 911 the fear of another attack has given the government or specifically its law enforcement and intel agencies a freer reighn in doing whatever it likes. Its chaos that gives license. Just like the financial crisis. The people allowed the government to do things it wouldn't have otherwise. The same chaos will finallly let the government do things its always wanted to do like tax the internet. Posse comitatus, etc. will all be 'temporarily ceased' (that's what they'll say) in a major crisis. FEMA seems the likely agency to effect. It practically has powers to suspend civil liberties and rights and impart martial law if the event is serious enough.

The CIA doesn't operate in a vacuum. It is accountable...on paper at least. Congress authorizes the money for all government functions. The CIA's budget is secret as far as I know but there have been leaks that its over 40 billion a year. There are also Congressesional committees that are privy to what they are doing. They are controlled, at least organizationally by the Executive Branch (President) by the chain of command. The problem to me at least is that so much of their work is deemed secret and under 'national security'. Its how they've hidden things in the past but it got tougher for them to do that when acts that were either deemed improper, immoral, unethical or illegal came to light. Since 911 though I think they got a freer hand than before 911. Just my guess. I think (but not sure), I am like most Americans with regards to them (and the FBI, and most law enforcement and intelligence agencies we have). You are glad to have them but fear them. You want them to stop the 'bad guys', stop terrorism, etc., but also you dread the day you are ever the focus of their attention. You have a feeling that even if you're innocent, if they deem you a threat you are f*cked. To some extent what they do overseas to a lot of Americans is like like the old adage about bacon. You enjoy it but don't want to see or know how its made. If the CIA needs to get their hands dirty in a 'ends justifying the means' situation that ultimately protects us, a lot of folks would just want to stay ignorant. Personally, I'd rather we do things above board. Yes, there are gray areas. However, I'd rather operate in the lighter part of that gray area if push comes to shove.

I've been saying Obama has governed as a moderate or centrist with a slight left of center slant and the left don't like it because they thought he'd be solidly left. The right hates him no matter what. Even if he did all the things the right wants, if its not a Republican doing it then it doesn't matter. Its about power of the party for both sides. Not the actual actions. There are southern dems who do things more right of center than Republicans elsewhere but are still not liked by any Republican. Same with some Republicans who are like Rockerfeller Repubs but will still not be liked ever by the left. Rudy is no far rightwinger for example, his stance on immigration for example is very much in the Democrat template but he is not liked by a lot of Dems and a lot on the left for no other reason he is a Republican. BOTH parties say they want what is best for the country but I am now certain they just want raw naked power for their party and if they have to modify their platform to retain power so be it. Obama is f*cked though I think for the time being because he is not as strong with his base in Dems and is hated almost as much as Clinton was by the right. I actually think Clinton was hated for being successful. To a lesser degree Reagon to the left. Both enjoyed a great economy but were hated by the opposition in good times.

So Keith Olberman and MSNBC part ways! I know he was hated by the right as essentially being exactly what the left accuses Rush and others of being, and that is completely partisan. Maybe he was (in fact he definitely was) but I found him entertaining and honest. I actually thought he believed in what he was spouting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians Not to long into his gubernatorial career the new Alabama governor said that if you have not accepted Jesus as your Lord and savior you are not his brother or sister. Obviously a stupid, asanine thing to say. However, before you all start going on about the evils of religion and Christianity, I want to say that whenever you hear things lik this, its not Christianity that is to blame. Its HOW its practiced and guys like this do not reflect what the bible says. In fact, he is in complete violation of what the bible preaches. It says to LOVE everyone as your brother. Guys like this practice what I call a Christian elitism. Its the I'm better than you because I have Jesus mentalliy. The fact is Jesus said the complete opposite. He said to humble yourself, ESPECIALLY to non Christians. Okay, the sermon from the chruch of the depraved and LOS loving Chocolat Steve is now over.

I'm a rarity. I saw the original The Office (or the UK Office as we say here). It was always talked about on the 'soccer' forums I went on so I got to see a few episodes from DVDs Brit friends had. I actually like the American version and watch it religiously. No accounting for taste perhaps but its a subjective thing. If most people agree or disagree on any thing that is subjective, it doesn't make it fact. I do think the UK version was better but I don't think the American version is bad. I like Carrell and I love Will Farrell. I was never a big fan of Carey. To show you just how out there I am, I never got or liked Monty Python. Sacralege, I know but I recall being bored senseless anytime that or Dr. Who was on. Okay, please throw fresh fruit and veggies. :nahnah:

Generally, I've found the same about Brits on my 'soccer' forums. I hzve a few very dear Brit friends and they are the exceptions. However, on the forum I go to which is largley Londoners as well as going to a British pub in LA for several years, I am not sure who the Brits like. I can't think of one country generally speaking that the majority of them have a kind word about. That includes America. Americans love the Brits and have a positive feeling generally to a few other countries. Canada to some extent, Sweden, Austrailia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland to some extent. I wold include Brazil, most of the english speaking Caribbean islands. We are neutral to positive on a few European countries like Holland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, etc. However, although they visit it quite often, even Spain is not spoken of in high regard other than a fun holiday. History may have something to do with that. Overseas and my LA pub would iclude this, they congregate according to where they are from in England. Londoners with Londoners and within that, south of the Thames v. north of the Thames, northerners with northerners and that is broken down to the midlands, peninines, northeast, etc. to some extent. As for Ricky Gervais, I cringed but loved it. He did cross the line but he didn't care. Crossing the line to me meant what the audience thought and they were uncomfortable.

Sarkozy loves all things American though. The french aren't too happy about that. I can certainly understand the Brits being miffed. I have to assume Obama likes Britain as other Presidents have as well. However, I do recall some flap when he 1st went there. can't remember what it was and then the demonizing (fair or unfair) about BP and the oil spill.

Yesterday, I saw a CNN clip where it showed several people, including Bush, Rice, Hillary Clinton, Cheney and a few others saying the same thing as Obama about Israel, Canada, Korea and several other countries. Almost quoting each one said 'no greater friend and ally' Apparantly its said quite a few times but this one got ink. I was shocked initially but see it in a different context now. Still, its not a good thing to do. The word 'special' is only used for England as far as I know.

I'll take one on the knuckles if this was reported as well on here but Obama has upset our British friends by saying that Sarkozy and the French are our strongest allies. Maybe he didnt' really mean it. Maybe he does. I don't know. But its not going down well. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100071241/barack-obama-france-is-americas-strongest-ally-the-president-gives-britain-the-boot-again/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/12/barack-obama-snubs-britain-by-saying-france-is-his-biggest-ally-115875-22842843/

Admittedly, I have not read all the posts regarding mines so this may have been said already. I'm not gonna comment on the merits of it or the ethics of it, we can all make our own opinions on it. I will say this though, its a non starter in terms of it actually coming to frution and being a reality. There is no way on God's green earth that America will lay land mines on the border. From the ACLU to what ever group that starts with Z, it won't ever happen. The international community will be up in arms (if we care to even heed them). I am no expert on border patrol but I do know if we wanted to we could secure it. There just isn't the motivation. I said this before, if we knew that al Qaida or some such similar threat are planning to come across the border or a domestic act of terrorism happened from someone coming across the southern border, you can bet pretty damn quick, we'd secure it pronto. There would b a public demand and I fear that is the only way it will ever be secured. Lives will have to be lost first...well, at least American lives.

Personally I think Palin is unelectable in a national election. She could get the nomination. Its Republicans that vote in those things and lately people have been voting emotion and not who is electable. The 'machine' may have another person but she's linked into the machine from her stint as a VP nominee. I don't think she'll get it though. Romney looks a good bet. Huckleby won't get elected but he will take votes and may be a kingmaker.

I blame the perp in this case as well. By just about all accounts save his parents, he was described as being mentally disturbed. As I stated before, with that kind of person anything could have set him off. If we're talking joe sixpack, normal life, etc. then I could see it but ths guy could be influenced by a church, rock music, or a break up with a girl, etc, and after examining his state of mind, we would conclude he was just a disturbed mind. I'm on record as being no big admirer of Palin and the rest. Infringments on free speech is a huge issue with me. Its one of the cornerstones of what we believe in, in this country. I think a lof of us are way too quick to label some of the rhetoric as not being protected by free speech. Its a little scary frankly. We have a recent history of using tragedy to curtail civil rights and liberties. 911 being the most obvious. As I said, ironically enough, some of the very rhetoric of the people that created and approved free speech in the constitution may be deemed not free speech going by the curbs I'm reading on this thread.

When Cam fumbled i turned it off. I just knew Oregon would win. It wasn't his best game but the guy is legit.

I remember that case actually. As crazy as it sounds at the time I don't think he incited the guy but I'm fuzzy on the details. I have a very high standard though I must admit.

Free speech is a cornerstone of all the western republics and its probably the most protected in the USA than anywhere else in the western world. Its a dangerous, slippery slope when we start talking about limiting free speech. Any action MUST be made without any emotional reaons and never in the heat of the moment from any tragedy that involves free speech. What eventually comes from any limits on civil liberties and civil rights is someone or some group....or some political party that uses it in ways it was not originally intended. History, especially, American histoy is replete with such examples. Although some think McCarthy era actions are in the past and we've advanced as a society to prevent such things again, only have to look around you. We're told we have no presumption of privacy and authorities can pretty much do what ever they want. We can't even move freely in our society any longer. Ever move is monitored directly or indirectly. Talk of a national ID card, etc. Under such a scenario, even quoating one of our founders own words 'the government should fear the people' could easily be labled as speech promoting violence. If what some of us are proposiing becomes liable, then the British were right in that the speech by the colonists were inciteful and promoted violence. Essentially isn't that the same thing? We honor a history and honor events and speech leading up to our independence from Britain that are illegal by standards proposed on this forum ironically enough.

If it doesn't meet the standard of violaton of free speech then its acceptable. End of story. It may be unpopular to some but the standard INCLUDES speech that will incite violence or cause harm. Therefore, the Rush, Palin and other such people's words can not be blamed. Can't have it both ways. Blaming them but then agreeing it doesn't meet a legal standard for blame criminally. Again, there is speech done by militias in Idaho, NOI, Supremists, etc. that aren't widely listened but have a hard core audience. These speeches are often way past the standard and do incite violence. Nothing happens. It takes a helluva lot for a normal person to pick up a gun and go kill someone based on someone's rhetoric. There has been vandalism done to property and just to do that for your average working stiff who is pissed off takes a lot. Its why only a few will even do that. Those folks rarely pick up a gun and shoot. Many of us on here and on this thread are very, very pissed off at some things but wouldn't even come close to doing something like that or even destroy property. As far as gun control. I grew up in a city that was very violent and had a lot of guns. I also spent my college years in a city and a county that I would guess had more guns per capita and a gun crime was almost non existent. If America ends gun ownership constitutionally (4/5 of Governors, 2/3 of Congress, President signing off) then to me that would indicate its the will of the people and our culture has changed. Just like a lot of other amendments. Slavery being one, women's vote another. Society changed. People's minds changed. If you want to reduce gun crime the best way to do it is not taking away guns. Improve society. People with jobs, people with hope, people with a decent education, people who come from a family with a loving mother and father generally do not commit gun crimes. Hell, resolve the drug situation and you'd cut a lot of gun crime significantly. Improve the human condition in America and crime will go down. Easier said than done obviously, but lets not blame the existence of guns for the real problem. There are areas of Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas where just about every home has a shotgun or some weapon and nothing happens. These areas have a community, strong family bonds and a culture of mutual respect.

LK, you have your opinion and I respect that. It doesn't make it fact. Neither does mine. The kind of person that will carry out things like that can be influenced by just about anything. Even rhetoric that is not 'hate filled'. Millions of folks listen to Rush and company and only one has pulled a trigger. I'm tellin' ya, if that guy was in a church he'd have done the same thing but to a doctor who did abortions. I can't in no way see the rhetoric, as bad as it seems to approach anything close to the yelling fire in a crowded theater that the framers used as an example. I'm confident even the most liberal supreme court would agree that Palin, Rush and company aren't to blame. Heck I've heard much worse stuff from Nation of Islam guys with a speaker at a corner in Philly do that for hours every day ad nauseum and no one went out to kill 'whitey'. Trust me, these guys, many of whom were ex cons didn't mince words. They were explicit. Same with some of the stuff you hear from guys out in the middle of Idaho. I have a feeling had it been some liberal guy who shot a conservative you'd be taking my stance. Just a guess.

Tragic events regarding the shooting in Arizona. If there is anytihng good can at least come out of it, I hope its it reduces the harsh rhetoric from both sides. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. However, I don't think her Facebook page can be blamed and neither can the Republcan party. I've been no big fan of the party for some time now so this is not coming from a member of the party. Nutcases like this guy, are going to do things like that for whatever demented reasons their minds can come up with. You can't blame a political party for motivating him anymore than you can someone who shoots someone because they played a rock record backwards. As angry as some of us have been about what politicians or a party does, we are not going to consciously pick up a gun, leave our homes with the intent of shooting someone. The actual physical process of going through all that can only be done from a truly disturbed mind. Therefore I'm leaving Palin blameless as well as the sometimes over the top comments from Republicans.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039945,00.html Booker turned the microblogging site into a public-service tool. Residents of the city, which has a population of around 280,000, swarmed Booker's account (@CoryBooker) with requests for help, and the mayor responded. He and his staff have bounced around Newark shoveling streets and sending plows to areas where residents said they were still snowed in. I love this guy. I wrote about him during the election as s future political star. He and Ron Paul are the only two I would trust in the white house. This guy is young but has the two things you want (and perhaps only need) in a pol. He's very smart and very principled. This may be the only mayor whom the city may not deserve. Yes, he's that good.

What I find disgusting is are the pols that makes these cuts, speak ill of people getting this and that and give themselves packages that only CEOs would not be envious of.