Pending terror attack

[John81]

Very true Jerry. We can't trust those in government to do what is right. We all know Obama is a far left liberal socialist and we know his views. Sadly, President Bush has set the stage to make it easier for Obama to further socialise America.

By partially nationalizing (socialism) the banking industry and soon the automobile industry, Bush has opened the door for Obama to easily lead America into even greater socialism.

Not only that, with the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security, the stage is set for Obama (or another President) to easily make America a police state, to declare martial law, etc.

I'm not saying President Bush did this on purpose as some part of a conspiracy or plot, he may well have had the best of intentions, but the results of what he has implimented and put forth have put America that much closer to socialism in a police state.

Eventually, either folks will welcome the socialist state or we will see some folks literally fighting against such. Much will depend upon the state of the economy and how much people believe the government is the answer to their problems at the time socialism/police state are pushed forward as to how many folks will react.

Consider that when congress was looking over the bank bailout they were receiving calls from citizens which were about 90% against the plan. Even so, they voted the plan in and the people accepted it.

[Guest Guest]

I'm not saying President Bush did this on purpose as some part of a conspiracy or plot' date=' [b']he may well have had the best of intentions, but the results of what he has implimented and put forth have put America that much closer to socialism in a police state.

Highlighted area: President Bush did have the nation's best interests at heart. :thumb He was cleaning up the mess that was left to him from the previous administration. :Green

[HappyChristian]

Few here at OB are old enough to remember Kent State, May 4, 1970

Uh - the problems at Kent State were precipitated by the students who were rioting. The news media bent it all out of proportion to make it seem like the Ohio National Guard were just mad murderers. Actually, there were war protests going on (specifically against Nixon's announcement about invading Cambodia). And they were not peaceful, either.

May 4 was the culmination of a few days of violent protesting, beginning actually Friday night, May 1.

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.

The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.

We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm

I'm not too young to remember it. I remember clearly how the news media villified the Guard - and praised the students. Rioting, violent protesting students across the nation were looked upon by the media in favor in those days...

[Guest Guest]

Uh - the problems at Kent State were precipitated by the students who were rioting. The news media bent it all out of proportion to make it seem like the Ohio National Guard were just mad murderers. Actually' date=' there were war protests going on (specifically against Nixon's announcement about invading Cambodia). And they were not peaceful, either. [/quote']

Yes, HC. I remember what happened at KSU quite well. I was very young, but I remember it! The governor of the state of OH (had to make a judgment call) called in the national guard because the "hippies" were out of control!! They were rioting in the streets of Kent, OH. Merchants stores were being vandalized and burned. Civilians lives were at stake!! The safety of the whole town and campus was a crucial matter!!

Again, our wonderful **sarcasm** Liberal media!!

Between them and Holly Weird---oh, what a mess! :roll

[John81]

Highlighted area: President Bush did have the nation's best interests at heart. :thumb He was cleaning up the mess that was left to him from the previous administration. :Green

At this time, we really can't know this. It will take time to sort through the pro-Bush rhetoric and the anti-Bush rhetoric in order to reach the truth. The truth always reaches the surface eventually.

Also, there was no need to create a Department of Homeland Security or put forth the Patriot Act to clean up anything from the previous administration. These two things alone have created far more of a mess, and the potential for horrific future mess, than what the previous administration left behind.

With regards to Iraq, we can go back to Bush the First and see where that turned messy.

Both the Republicans and Democrats are corrupt Parties and most often they work for their own private agendas rather than what is in the best interest of the country. They wrap their political and private agendas in the flag, in children, if flowery prose, but in the end it's just covering for getting their way rather than putting the actual best interests of the nation first.

[HappyChristian]

I've asked this before and never gotten an answer. To all of you who believe the Patriot Act is such a horrible thing - have you read it?

[trc123]

I have, I oversee the IT Applications for the Compliance department of New England's largest locally operated bank. The Patriot Act, Graham/Leach/Bliely, Sarbanes-Oxley, OFAC Scanning, PEP Scanning, BSA/AML................the list goes on.........

If you only knew what every Bank (and financial institution) is required to do with your financial information...............you'd be shocked. Most of it, was enacted prior to Bush and it was actually initiated by Congress, not Bush.

[HappyChristian]

I have, I oversee the IT Applications for the Compliance department of New England's largest locally operated bank. The Patriot Act, Graham/Leach/Bliely, Sarbanes-Oxley, OFAC Scanning, PEP Scanning, BSA/AML................the list goes on.........

If you only knew what every Bank (and financial institution) is required to do with your financial information...............you'd be shocked. Most of it, was enacted prior to Bush and it was actually initiated by Congress, not Bush.

Oh, I know that a lot of these things were initiated by Congress and not Bush! Many of the things we are quick to lay at his feet are not his doing at all.

Since you have read it, trc, what do you think of it? I haven't read it myself, but I have talked to people who have - people in the business of working with criminals. These people are very conservative, and they like what's in there. Could you tell us what you think?

[IM4given]

I've asked this before and never gotten an answer. To all of you who believe the Patriot Act is such a horrible thing - have you read it?

Just in case anyone here HASN'T read it here is the link: http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[John81]

I've answered this before but will answer again. I've not sit and read it in one sitting but I do believe I've read the entire thing section by section.

The problem with some conservatives is they are so gung-ho for "law and order" type of stuff that they ignore or don't care about things they see as being toward that end even if it violates the Constitution and sets a danergous precedent for abuse.

Whoever the sitting president is they are the "point man" and anything they have to sign off on is laid at their feet regardless of whether they are Dem or Repub. In this case, had Bush vetoed the Patriot Act and congress overrode his veto, then all blame for such could be placed upon those in Congress who forced it into being. As it is, Bush pushed for and signed the Patriot Act so whatever good or bad is there belongs at his feet primarily and secondarily at the feet of those in Congress who voted for it.

History proves that in times of national crisis (whether real or invented, it doesn't matter) that governments grow in bad ways and citizens lose out as the Constitution is ignored. History also shows us that only in very rare cases does any of the damage done during a crises ever get revoked. Rather, such is eventually expanded and becomes much more and much worse than originally put forth.

There were so many other reasonable, logical and constitutional actions the government could have pursued after 9-11 but because of political correctness, the rush to "do something", and the inevitiable attitude the government must expand and take control, we have seen the further eroding of the Constitution and our liberties.

[trc123]

Oh, I know that a lot of these things were initiated by Congress and not Bush! Many of the things we are quick to lay at his feet are not his doing at all.

Since you have read it, trc, what do you think of it? I haven't read it myself, but I have talked to people who have - people in the business of working with criminals. These people are very conservative, and they like what's in there. Could you tell us what you think?

That all depends on your frame of reference. The person who is not doing anything they need to hide and who live within the laws probably won't have too much of an issue with most of it. There are definitely privacy concerns with this law (as there is with the other laws). The best assumption EVERY CITIZEN should make is that there is NOTHING about them, their life, their financial transactions, their internet habits, their work e-footprint, etc. that is private. There is no longer any assumption of privacy! Even our posts here are monitored in some degree by super-computers using algorithms to spit out suspicious items to be looked at by thousands of analysts to determine real threats, illegal activity, money laundering, terrorism.....................

It was these laws that brought down NY Governor Elliot Spitzer. He was "structuring" money in his accounts in an attempt to hide payments to his call-girl from his wife. His doing this was picked up by a PEP (Politically Exposed Persons) scan by the local banks that triggered a Federal investigation for corruption. The Feds were looking for possible bribery and such, they didn't find that....they found a sex scandal that got out in the newspapers.

[HappyChristian]

Right, trc, our privacy hasn't truly been privacy in many years. Do you agree with what you've worked with regarding the Patriotic Act? If that seems to be pushing you into a corner, I'm sorry and disregard the question. I'm not spoiling for an argument, I'm simply curious.

John - the people with whom I've spoken are not so gung ho law and order that they are willing to give up their basic civil rights. They are people, however, who work with terrorist types often...

[trc123]

Right, trc, our privacy hasn't truly been privacy in many years. Do you agree with what you've worked with regarding the Patriotic Act? If that seems to be pushing you into a corner, I'm sorry and disregard the question. I'm not spoiling for an argument, I'm simply curious.

John - the people with whom I've spoken are not so gung ho law and order that they are willing to give up their basic civil rights. They are people, however, who work with terrorist types often...

While I may dislike portions of a law, I look at what I do as protecting my employer from risk in order that we stockholders have a better profit margin! The way to change the law is to write to your representatives encouraging them to change the laws.

[HappyChristian]

Okay, trc - I understand. And I'm in agreement with you, I think.

John - you mentioned there were other things that could have been done...could you be specific?

[Guest Guest]

At this time' date=' we really can't know this.[/quote']

I do, John.



Right, trc and HC.