Osama bin Laden's Views on the Assassination

[Cliff Varnell]

Podhoretz: Well, as I often say, someone must be doing something right. Which means that the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI, with the help of the Patriot Act and the surveillance tools that so many liberals are so eager to take out of their hands, have been able to head off any new attacks. [/i]

Every year 40,000 or so Americans die from auto accidents.

That's the price we pay for living in a free society.

Every year 20,000 or so Americans die from gunshot.

That's the price we pay for living in a free society.

IF (mega-IF) the repeal of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act 2006

lead to multiple Nine One Ones a year -- that is the price any American patriot would

pay to live in a free society.

Under a democratic President, it won't be Islamic terrorists we'll have to

worry about -- it'll be right-wingers like McVeigh and Rudolph.

Isn't it sad that the people who get the most uptight when an American flag

is burned will cheerlead the burning of our sacred Constitution.

Norman the Pod is a traitor working for another traitor -- Rudy Mussolini.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff, can you please cite what specific freedoms you have lost since 9/11?

Let me suggest that the risk if a terrorist should detonate a nuclear device in a major metropolitan area the risk is far greater than the numbers you have posted.

I for one am willing to let Robert Mueller eavesdrop on every phone conversation I have and read every letter and e-mail I write rather than have Osama incinerate me or my loved ones in a nuclear explosion.

But then I understand that is simply my own preference. Perhaps you would rather keep your communications secret and risk a nuclear device blowing up SF. The problem is that not all of your neighbors will agree with that assessment.

The freedoms I value and still have include freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religious liberty, etc etc.

Cliff as long as you can link Rudy's first name to the last name of a vicious fascist villain and not be locked up I don't think you have too much to worry about! So, ironically, your very post demonstrates we have not in fact lost important freedoms including freedom of political dissent.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff wrote:

Every year 40,000 or so Americans die from auto accidents.

That's the price we pay for living in a free society.

Every year 20,000 or so Americans die from gunshot.

That's the price we pay for living in a free society.

Cliff, respectfully, I also think we should work to prevent carnage from highway deaths and intentional or accidental death by guns. I think things can be done to minimize those results without giving up our freedoms (including the freedom to arm bears).

More on point, however, is that the number of highway deaths that occur does not justify any laxness re trying to prevent terrorist violence. I think that argument is senseless.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff wrote:

IF (mega-IF) the repeal of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act 2006

lead to multiple Nine One Ones a year -- that is the price any American patriot would

pay to live in a free society. [Empasis supplied.]

Totally false statement. I am a patriot and I will not support the repeal of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 if it will lead to "multiple" 9-11s.

Let us be generous and say by "multiple" you mean as little as three. So 3 times about 3,000 9-11 deaths is about 9,000. You would have nine thousand Americans DIE per year to eliminate those Acts?

Goodness gracious!!!

****************************************************

Ironically, right after posting the above I saw on tv repeat coverage of NBC's coverage of the collapse of the WTC buildings. Believing as I do that in God's eyes all humans are of equal value, the tragedy of 9-11 drawfed the tragedy of 11-22. I cannot believe that anyone would blithely advocate allowing 9,000 innocent Americans to die to obtain the repeal of those laws, or any portion thereof. The number of highway deaths is irrelevant. As I said, we ought to try to minimize those as well but a single terrorist nuclear attack could equal total highway deaths for several years!

Edited September 12, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, can you please cite what specific freedoms you have lost since 9/11?

There's been a wholesale gutting of the the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendments

to the Constitution.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0928-20.htm

http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/11/this...-like/#comments

Let me suggest that the risk if a terrorist should detonate a nuclear device in a major metropolitan area the risk is far greater than the numbers you have posted.

Let me suggest you save your bogeyman for the rubes and marks among us.

Valerie Plame headed an intel operation that sought to prevent the very same

scenario you've outlined. That operation was put out of business by the very

same prosecutors of your "War On Terror," who outed Ms. Plame for petty

political reasons.

That act of treason doesn't seem to resonate very well with you, Tim, so your

fear of the nuke-terror scenario rings a tad hollow.

Besides, the old Soviet arsenal had to be maintained to remain operable, which

it wasn't. The whole "suitcase bomb" scenario is right-wing hysteria. What else

to expect from a pack of chicken hawks?

I for one am willing to let Robert Mueller eavesdrop on every phone conversation I have and read every letter and e-mail I write rather than have Osama incinerate me or my loved ones in a nuclear explosion.

As Ben Franklin said, those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.

But then I understand that is simply my own preference. Perhaps you would rather keep your communications secret and risk a nuclear device blowing up SF. The problem is that not all of your neighbors will agree with that assessment.

I live in the Haight. We're not a blue hood -- we're green.

I guarantee my neighbors agree with my assessment.

We do not consent to the loss of our rights merely because some of our fellow

Americans are cowards.

The freedoms I value and still have include freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religious liberty, etc etc.

Cliff as long as you can link Rudy's first name to the last name of a vicious fascist villain and not be locked up I don't think you have too much to worry about! So, ironically, your very post demonstrates we have not in fact lost important freedoms including freedom of political dissent.

Tell it to the Rev Lennox Yearwood. He got a broken leg for wearing a

"I love the people of Iraq" button.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff wrote:

Tell it to the Rev Lennox Yearwood. He got a broken leg for wearing a

"I love the people of Iraq" button.

Another non sequitur. I am not aware of any provision of the Patriot Act that allows an American to physically assault another American over a political button. If I missed that provision please let me know.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff wrote:

Valerie Plame headed an intel operation that sought to prevent the very same

scenario you've outlined. That operation was put out of business by the very

same prosecutors of your "War On Terror," who outed Ms. Plame for petty

political reasons.

That act of treason doesn't seem to resonate very well with you, Tim, so your

fear of the nuke-terror scenario rings a tad hollow.

Number one: I am not aware of Plame's specific job.

Number two: Plame was outed by Richard Armitage, not a neocon by any stretch of the word! I cannot remember why Armitage disclosed that Plame was Kubark. My understanding is that the statute in question did not apply to Plame because she did not work overseas (an over-simplification of the exclusion I know) but if Armitage in fact violated the law he ought to be prosecuted.

[Tim Gratz]

From the Molly Ivans column you linked:

The bill also expands the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to cover anyone who has “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” Quick, define “purposefully and materially.” One person has already been charged with aiding terrorists because he sold a satellite TV package that includes the Hezbollah network.

Cliff, I seriously, seriously doubt that her factual assertion in the last sentence is true.

Can you support it?

Also, please tell us with a straight face that you are really willing to let 9,000 Americans die per year because you honestly fear you might be labeled an "enemy combatant." If you really worry about THAT, seek professional help.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff wrote:

Valerie Plame headed an intel operation that sought to prevent the very same

scenario you've outlined. That operation was put out of business by the very

same prosecutors of your "War On Terror," who outed Ms. Plame for petty

political reasons.

That act of treason doesn't seem to resonate very well with you, Tim, so your

fear of the nuke-terror scenario rings a tad hollow.

Number one: I am not aware of Plame's specific job.

Google: Brewster Jennings.

My point is, Tim, since Bush/Cheney & Co. obviously weren't concerned about

the threat of nukes -- why should the rest of us be?

Number two: Plame was outed by Richard Armitage,

Factually incorrect. Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame. His first

source was Armitage, but his second source was Karl Rove.

Scooter Libby was a busy beaver outing Plame himself.

Scooter wasn't worried about his kids being incinerated, why should

you, Tim?

[Tim Gratz]

From the Sen Feingold speech you posted:

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.

Under this provision, the government can apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone. All it has to allege in order to get an order for these records from the court is that the information is sought for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering. That’s it. On that minimal showing in an ex parte application to a secret court, with no showing even that the information is relevant to the investigation, the government can lawfully compel a doctor or hospital to release medical records, or a library to release circulation records. This is a truly breathtaking expansion of police power.

Cliff, do you mean to tell us that it is so important to you to keep secret the library books you read that you would require or endorse the death of 9,000 innocent Americans to keep that secrecy? As I said before, good gracious. I am not willing to let my daughter die to preserve that "secrecy".

It would be one thing if the deaths you sanction would be limited to civil libertarians such as yourself, if you really take the position you would rather die than give up privacy re your library reading habits. But when it gets right down to it I don't think you really mean that.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff wrote:

Factually incorrect. Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame. His first

source was Armitage, but his second source was Karl Rove.

Scooter Libby was a busy beaver outing Plame himself.

Scooter wasn't worried about his kids being incinerated, why should

you, Tim?

No, Cliff, in the LEGAL sense it was Armitage who violated the law, if in fact the law was violated.

As I said, if Armitage violated that law, he ought to be punished.

And may I then assume that you are a strong advocate of the CIA being able to maintain secrecy? probably NOT a popular position on this Forum.

Perhaps you could explain in what manner you believe the disclosure of Plame's identity as a KUBARK agent or officer increased even incrementally the risk of nuclear terrorism. I fail to see the nexus but perhaps I overlooked something.

[Cliff Varnell]

From the Sen Feingold speech you posted:

And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.

Under this provision, the government can apparently go on a fishing expedition and collect information on virtually anyone. All it has to allege in order to get an order for these records from the court is that the information is sought for an investigation of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence gathering. That’s it. On that minimal showing in an ex parte application to a secret court, with no showing even that the information is relevant to the investigation, the government can lawfully compel a doctor or hospital to release medical records, or a library to release circulation records. This is a truly breathtaking expansion of police power.

Cliff, do you mean to tell us that it is so important to you to keep secret the library books you read that you would require or endorse the death of 9,000 innocent Americans to keep that secrecy?

Tell me how many Americans have died to preserve our liberties, Tim.

Does the blood of America's patriots over 230+ years mean so little

to you and your daughter that you'd give it all up for some crack pot

fear tactic?

As I said before, good gracious. I am not willing to let my daughter die to preserve that "secrecy".

Move to another country.

It would be one thing if the deaths you sanction would be limited to civil libertarians such as yourself, if you really take the position you would rather die than give up privacy re your library reading habits. But when it gets right down to it I don't think you really mean that.

Your fear-mongering is hysterical. I only hope your daughter grows up

to have sterner stuff.

[Tim Gratz]

Cliff, respectfully, the fear-mongering is yours: that the loss of secrecy of library records is such a great loss to your civil liberties that it would be worth sanctioning the deaths of thousands of Americans to protect your library secrecy.

It is not MY fear-mongering re the possible death of my daughter.

Remember it was you who POSTULATED that you were willing to permit "multiple 9-11s" to obtain repeal of the Patriot Act. It was you who submitted, understandably for the sake of argument, that you would sanction the death of 9,000 (I was being generous to you by defining "multiple" to be as few as three) innocent Americans to keep your book list free. I have every right to personalize the argument by suggesting that my family members could be among the 9,000 American deaths you would condone to protect your library records.

Let me ask you this just to make it clear: Is there any number of deaths that you would say would be too many to justify repeal of the Patriot Act? How about 5,000,000? Would you think it worth sanctioning 5,000,000 deaths to repeal the Patriot Act? How about 10,000,000, then?

And the bottom line is this: since the tragic loss of your civil liberties following the passage of the Patriot Act, not a single American on US soil has died as a result of a terrorist attack.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

How is it possible that OBL was capable of masterminding or orchestrating the Nine-One-One horrors, but since that time has been unable to so much as blow up a mailbox on US soil? Should that odd unwillingness to continue what was begun not make people wonder who the true author/s of the original event was/were? And should they not likewise wonder what the intent of the original event might have been?

Of course he ignores the obvious answer.

From an interview of Norman Podhoretz by Kathryn Lopez of "National Review"

Lopez: Knock on wood … but why haven’t we been attacked again?

Podhoretz: Well, as I often say, someone must be doing something right. Which means that the Dept. of Homeland Security and the FBI, with the help of the Patriot Act and the surveillance tools that so many liberals are so eager to take out of their hands, have been able to head off any new attacks.

Mr. Podhoretz rightly characterizes the war on fundamentalst muslim terrorists as WW IV.

Link to the interview:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjUwN...DE0YmE5ZjUzYmM=

Tim G. accuses me of ignoring "the obvious answer." Point already raised and dealt with, ex-counsellor, in my post directly above your own, posted some three hours prior to your pithless observation, to wit:

"When people theorize that the absence of secondary attacks on US soil are attributable to improved US security regimes, I can provide just as much evidence that this absence of violence is because I pray very hard to a pet rock in my basement which is all powerful. Which is to say, there is no evidence for either conjecture."

Compounding Tim's error is the fact that I wrote this in response to Len Colby, who'd already raised the very same cavil. When it comes to ignoring the obvious, I've got nothing on you, old chap.

I've taken the liberty of placing the above in bold so it does not escape Tim's notice repeatedly, as is so often the case with our ex-lawyer-cum-carnival-barker.

Cherry picking what suits one's intent is one thing, and quite popular among Republicans shilling for war, one notes.

However, ignoring what has already been stated - and then pretending it hasn't been said - just makes one look quite stupid, wouldn't you agree?

Oh dear, one notes that this too is quite popular among Republicans.

Rather like certain politicians contending that nobody could imagine an attack upon the US using hijacked airplanes, only to have Richard Ben Veniste point out precisely that scenario had been envisioned, warned against, but went un-read by The Decider because he was on vacation and couldn't be bothered.

Tim's post is only the most recent reminder of what happens when people ignore what transpires around them, and confront only that which they think, misguidedly, they can rebut or explain away.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, respectfully, the fear-mongering is that the loss of secrecy of library records is a great loss to our civil liberties.

It is not MY fear-mongering re the possible death of my daughter.

Oh, I beg to disagree. If you were SO concerned about your

daughter you'd know ALL about the Valerie Plame case and

you'd be livid over the flat-out treason of Bush.

But as your comments indicate, you know little about the case.

Scooter Libby isn't concerned about a nuke-terror attack; you're not

really concerned about a nuke-terror attack; and since I mentioned

"multiple Nine One Ones" before you introduced this strawman -- I'd

have to conclude this whole "nuke terror" scenario is mere rhetorical

froth.

Remember it was you who POSTULATED that you were willing to permit "multiple 9-11s" to obtain repeal of the Patriot Act. It was you who submitted, understandably for the sake of argument, that you would sanction the death of 9,000 (I was being generous to you by defining "multiple" to be as few as three) innocent Americans to keep your book list free. I have every right to personalize the argument by suggesting that my family members could be among the 9,000 American deaths you would condone to protect your library records.

And every time you take the wheel you potentially threaten my family

members.

I do not ask you to give up your driving because it "might" possibly

lead to a car wreck with my relatives.

You haven't convinced me your fear of a nuke-terror attack justifies

the loss of rights hard won.

That you would trivialize the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments as mere "protection

of library records" indicates to me that you're not really into this "American

Experiment" thing.

Let me ask you this just to make it clear: Is there any number of deaths that you would say would be too many to justify repeal of the Patriot Act? How about 5,000,000? Would you think it worth sanctioning 5,000,000 deaths to repeal the Patriot Act? How about 10,000,000, then?

How many car accidents will you tolerate before you forbid people

to drive?

You're using a transparently hysterical fear to rationalize a revolutionary

overthrow of the American Constitution.