Actually, she seemed "naslly" to me... and if men wrote the "ca-ca" she writes and in the manner by which she writes, they might be punched in the mouth... having said that...
Heeding the 9/11 Panel
By David S. Broder
Proceed with caution.
That, in essence, is the advice that the terrorism experts I know have for President Bush and Congress when it comes to handling the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.
Because the trade-offs between organizational simplicity and bureaucratic resistance are complex and difficult, these experts are nearly unanimous in saying it's important to take the time needed to sort through all these questions.
Members of the commission, starting with Chairman Tom Kean of New Jersey and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, are mounting a full-scale national campaign to have the package of proposals that were unanimously endorsed by the commission late last month adopted without change -- and soon.
They picked up one important ally in Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee. Kerry barely had time to read the recommendations before giving them his unqualified support. It suits his purpose to favor forceful action against terrorism, the one major issue where voters say they trust Bush more than the Democrat.
But those who have studied the issue with care over the years urge a more deliberate pace of decision making. "It is more important to do it right than to do it fast," former senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire told me.
Rudman was the Republican co-chairman of a counterterrorism commission, along with former Democratic senator Gary Hart of Colorado, that warned the nation in January 2001 of exactly the kind of attack that stunned Americans eight months later. Their credentials as serious and committed activists against terrorism need no burnishing.
When I saw Hart in Boston during the Democratic National Convention, he was full of praise for the Sept. 11 commission -- but unequivocal about a few points. Referring to the suggestion that a new "intelligence czar" be named to ride herd on the CIA and all the other intelligence agencies, Hart said, "It would be a disaster" if the new official went into the Cabinet or onto the White House staff -- the latter being the commission recommendation.
"You have to have a clear organizational separation between those responsible for generating intelligence and those policymakers who are the consumers," Hart said. "You mix them and you will inevitably get political pressures affecting the quality of the information."
When Hart and I talked, Bush had not yet weighed in on the subject, but it turned out he agrees. The president said the new national intelligence director and his staff should be in their own unit of government, not part of the White House or the Cabinet. Keep them insulated.
But Hart voiced a second concern that has only grown since Bush expressed his views. "Unless the new man has control over the whole intelligence budget of government," Hart said, "you simply have added a new layer of bureaucracy and set it up to fail."
"Every past proposal," Hart said, rattling off a half-dozen such efforts during his Senate years and since, "has foundered on the refusal of the Pentagon to give up an inch of control of its own intelligence spending."
The numbers he cited are those I read regularly in the media: Of the roughly $40 billion a year the government spends collecting and analyzing intelligence, about 80 percent is lodged in the Pentagon.
Rudman told me that as a practical matter the military would fight to the end to keep control of "tactical intelligence," the specific data that allow it to plan battles and monitor their progress. But he said the generals have a weaker case for running their own strategic intelligence operations.
The president has left this vital area murky, saying only that as he envisions it, the new director would "coordinate" the budgets of the CIA and 14 other intelligence services. But as any good bureaucrat knows, there is a world of difference between "coordinating" government operations and "controlling" them.
The impression is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended his turf very well during the internal administration debates over the Sept. 11 commission and came away with the president's support. Now it will fall to Congress to see if the Rumsfeld-Pentagon viewpoint prevails -- and, if it does, whether there is any point in just creating a new title and a new office in government.
As with most issues, what makes this one hard is that there are legitimate considerations tugging in different directions. But the stakes here are very high -- the safety of the nation. Congress needs to take the time to get it right.
[email protected]
Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers
Carmel Zucker for The New York Times
F.B.I. agents and Denver police officers visited Sarah Bardwell, right, and a housemate, Sarah Graves, and two neighbors, Christopher Riederer, second from right, and Blake, who would not give his last name, at their homes to ask them about political and antiwar protest activities.
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 16, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions
Single-Page Format
READERS' OPINIONS
Forum: Join a Discussion on The 2004 Presidential Election
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Demonstrations and Riots
Violence
Republican Party
ASHINGTON, Aug. 15 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.
F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence. They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not on dissent, at major political events.
But some people contacted by the F.B.I. say they are mystified by the bureau's interest and felt harassed by questions about their political plans.
"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''
The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads. The F.B.I. bulletins that relayed the request for help detailed tactics used by demonstrators - everything from violent resistance to Internet fund-raising and recruitment.
In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, in a five-page internal analysis obtained by The New York Times, disagreed.
The office, which also made headlines in June in an opinion - since disavowed - that authorized the use of torture against terrorism suspects in some circumstances, said any First Amendment impact posed by the F.B.I.'s monitoring of the political protests was negligible and constitutional.
The opinion said: "Given the limited nature of such public monitoring, any possible 'chilling' effect caused by the bulletins would be quite minimal and substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order during large-scale demonstrations."
Those same concerns are now central to the vigorous efforts by the F.B.I. to identify possible disruptions by anarchists, violent demonstrators and others at the Republican National Convention, which begins Aug. 30 and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.
In the last few weeks, beginning before the Democratic convention, F.B.I. counterterrorism agents and other federal and local officers have sought to interview dozens of people in at least six states, including past protesters and their friends and family members, about possible violence at the two conventions. In addition, three young men in Missouri said they were trailed by federal agents for several days and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury last month, forcing them to cancel their trip to Boston to take part in a protest there that same day.
Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information.
A handful of protesters at the Boston convention were arrested but there were no major disruptions. Concerns have risen for the Republican convention, however, because of antiwar demonstrations directed at President Bush and because of New York City's global prominence.
With the F.B.I. given more authority after the Sept. 11 attacks to monitor public events, the tensions over the convention protests, coupled with the Justice Department's own legal analysis of such monitoring, reflect the fine line between protecting national security in an age of terrorism and discouraging political expression.
For those of you going to the convention....Be very careful.......and have a blast.
Carmel Zucker for The New York Times
F.B.I. agents and Denver police officers visited Sarah Bardwell, right, and a housemate, Sarah Graves, and two neighbors, Christopher Riederer, second from right, and Blake, who would not give his last name, at their homes to ask them about political and antiwar protest activities.
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 16, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions
Single-Page Format
READERS' OPINIONS
Forum: Join a Discussion on The 2004 Presidential Election
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Demonstrations and Riots
Violence
Republican Party
ASHINGTON, Aug. 15 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.
F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence. They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not on dissent, at major political events.
But some people contacted by the F.B.I. say they are mystified by the bureau's interest and felt harassed by questions about their political plans.
"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''
The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads. The F.B.I. bulletins that relayed the request for help detailed tactics used by demonstrators - everything from violent resistance to Internet fund-raising and recruitment.
In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, in a five-page internal analysis obtained by The New York Times, disagreed.
The office, which also made headlines in June in an opinion - since disavowed - that authorized the use of torture against terrorism suspects in some circumstances, said any First Amendment impact posed by the F.B.I.'s monitoring of the political protests was negligible and constitutional.
The opinion said: "Given the limited nature of such public monitoring, any possible 'chilling' effect caused by the bulletins would be quite minimal and substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order during large-scale demonstrations."
Those same concerns are now central to the vigorous efforts by the F.B.I. to identify possible disruptions by anarchists, violent demonstrators and others at the Republican National Convention, which begins Aug. 30 and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.
In the last few weeks, beginning before the Democratic convention, F.B.I. counterterrorism agents and other federal and local officers have sought to interview dozens of people in at least six states, including past protesters and their friends and family members, about possible violence at the two conventions. In addition, three young men in Missouri said they were trailed by federal agents for several days and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury last month, forcing them to cancel their trip to Boston to take part in a protest there that same day.
Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information.
A handful of protesters at the Boston convention were arrested but there were no major disruptions. Concerns have risen for the Republican convention, however, because of antiwar demonstrations directed at President Bush and because of New York City's global prominence.
With the F.B.I. given more authority after the Sept. 11 attacks to monitor public events, the tensions over the convention protests, coupled with the Justice Department's own legal analysis of such monitoring, reflect the fine line between protecting national security in an age of terrorism and discouraging political expression.
For those of you going to the convention....Be very careful.......and have a blast.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''
Welcome to the world of responsibility, young lady...
your freedoms, all of our freedoms, come with a price.
Welcome to the world of responsibility, young lady...
your freedoms, all of our freedoms, come with a price.
Democrats... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, daily!
slap my salmon, baby
slap my salmon, baby
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Doctor in anthrax probe flaunted 'connections'
By Chris Osher and Luis Fabregas
Sunday, August 15, 2004
To some friends and acquaintances, Dr. Kenneth Berry appeared to be far more than an emergency room physician.
He listed prestigious names as references. He established impressive-sounding conferences to heighten public awareness about anthrax as a tool for international terrorists. And he won U.S. patents for systems to fight bioterror.
But a different picture began to emerge after the FBI recently searched homes in Dover Township, N.J., and Wellsville, N.Y., connected to Berry. They also searched Berry's white Mercury Sable parked at the Connellsville Airport in Fayette County, where his former wife and two children live.
An FBI spokesman said the searches were connected to the investigation into the 2001 anthrax mailings that killed five people, closed the Hart Senate Office Building and left the U.S. Postal Service in disarray for months.
No one has been charged in the investigation. Berry, 46, of Wellsville, N.Y., told Point Pleasant Beach, N.J., police who arrested him on unrelated charges last week that he is innocent of wrongdoing.
Berry, an emergency room physician at UPMC McKeesport, could not be reached for comment. On Friday, hospital spokesman Frank Raczkiewicz said Berry's employment ends Nov. 8 and he will be on leave until then.
Big 'connections'
Edward Wicks, 81, of Danbury, Conn., who shares a patent with Berry for an invention that pumps air into contaminated buildings, was one who thought Berry had powerful connections.
Berry told Wicks that he flew in his private twin-engine Cessna every other week to talk with former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn and retired Adm. William J. Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"He came across as a real American who was concerned about his country," Wicks recalled.
But Crowe's spokesman, Jay Coupe, said the retired admiral "has no knowledge whatsoever of Kenneth Berry, no recollection of ever meeting him or of ever even hearing his name."
Lisa Cutler, an aide to Nunn, said the Georgia Democrat met Berry at a 1997 conference. After that, Berry wrote him several letters about the need to improve training of first responders.
"That is really the extent of any relationship that existed," Cutler said.
Jerome M. Hauer, a nationally known expert on biological and chemical terrorism, said he met Berry once or twice but was not impressed with his credentials.
"He kind of came out of nowhere," said Hauer, former director of public health preparedness for the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Hauer directed the New York Office of Emergency Management under Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Hauer said he became concerned Tuesday when he noticed Berry's Web site listed him as participating in conferences Berry planned in 1997 and 1998 in Philadelphia. Hauer said he never attended either conference.
"I was not comfortable with the conferences," Hauer said. "I felt there were other agendas for the conferences, and they were not regular training conferences, so I never went."
Berry received three patents related to bioterrorism. One involves a system that would detect a biological attack through a sensor system, which would seal a building. Another was for a system that would identify attacks over a wide area.
That patent application was filed only days after the first anthrax letters were processed at a postal center in September 2001.
Berry also formed the company PREEMPT, which stands for "Planned Response Exercises and Emergency Medical Preparedness Training." The firm held conferences around the nation urging better training for doctors and nurses in the event of a bioterror attack.
Forgery case
In 1999, Berry became ensnared in a forgery plot that one accomplice now says was an effort to raise money for Berry's fight against bioterror.
Authorities in New York's Allegany County accused Berry and his PREEMPT secretary, Cathy Litzburg, of conspiring with Mary Colletta to forge a will for the late Andrew Colletta, a prominent Wellsville physician whom Mary Colletta portrayed as her common-law husband.
But Andrew Colletta had never divorced his legal wife, Carol Colletta. Authorities learned of the forgery scheme after she began raising questions.
In a recent interview, Mary Colletta said Berry's motivation in the scheme was to raise funds to fight bioterrorism.
She said Berry tried to convince her to invest in a firm that would prepare the nation for bioterrorism attacks. He also wanted her to help him buy an airplane.
"His whole life was in protecting our nation, and to somehow get the Pentagon to listen to him," Colletta recalled.
She said the FBI asked her questions about Berry last week.
In the will scheme, Berry eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and received a $300 fine, recalled the Allegany County District Attorney Terrence Parker. Colletta was convicted of perjury and sentenced to probation, Parker recalled.
The case, at Berry's request, was sealed from public view, the prosecutor recalled.
'He has a passion'
"They are going to owe this man a major apology," said Richard "Pastor Dick" Helms, a close friend of the physician. Helms said he is an ordained independent evangelical pastor who ministers over the Internet.
Helms, of Wellsville, described Berry as a nice guy who is a brilliant doctor. Berry obtained his medical degree at the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles.
"It's not that he is fascinated with bioterrorism," Helms said. "He has a passion to protect the American people."
Berry's passion stems from a strong Catholic faith, Helms said.
Helms said Berry has six stepchildren in addition to a son with his current wife. He has two children, Michele and Nicole, from his first marriage.
Berry moved to Wellsville, N.Y., where he built a new life and remarried after a divorce in 1995 in Fayette County.
Joan Hand, a neighbor and former co-worker in Wellsville, said Berry is very firm in his beliefs.
"He was a big proponent of the anthrax vaccine," said Hand, 64, who shared an office with Berry at Jones Memorial Hospital. She was the emergency room manager.
"I can't believe that he's hurt anyone," she said. "He's in the business of saving lives."
Hand said Berry typically works four or five shifts in a row at UPMC McKeesport, then spends five days at home in Wellsville before returning to work.
At Jones Memorial he usually worked a lot of night shifts because there weren't enough doctors to fill the schedule, she said.
xHe worked at Jones Memorial, a 70-bed hospital south of Buffalo, from November 1996 until he resigned in October 2001, said Judy Burt, a hospital spokeswoman.
Images and text copyright © 2004 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from PittsburghLIVE.
By Chris Osher and Luis Fabregas
Sunday, August 15, 2004
To some friends and acquaintances, Dr. Kenneth Berry appeared to be far more than an emergency room physician.
He listed prestigious names as references. He established impressive-sounding conferences to heighten public awareness about anthrax as a tool for international terrorists. And he won U.S. patents for systems to fight bioterror.
But a different picture began to emerge after the FBI recently searched homes in Dover Township, N.J., and Wellsville, N.Y., connected to Berry. They also searched Berry's white Mercury Sable parked at the Connellsville Airport in Fayette County, where his former wife and two children live.
An FBI spokesman said the searches were connected to the investigation into the 2001 anthrax mailings that killed five people, closed the Hart Senate Office Building and left the U.S. Postal Service in disarray for months.
No one has been charged in the investigation. Berry, 46, of Wellsville, N.Y., told Point Pleasant Beach, N.J., police who arrested him on unrelated charges last week that he is innocent of wrongdoing.
Berry, an emergency room physician at UPMC McKeesport, could not be reached for comment. On Friday, hospital spokesman Frank Raczkiewicz said Berry's employment ends Nov. 8 and he will be on leave until then.
Big 'connections'
Edward Wicks, 81, of Danbury, Conn., who shares a patent with Berry for an invention that pumps air into contaminated buildings, was one who thought Berry had powerful connections.
Berry told Wicks that he flew in his private twin-engine Cessna every other week to talk with former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn and retired Adm. William J. Crowe, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"He came across as a real American who was concerned about his country," Wicks recalled.
But Crowe's spokesman, Jay Coupe, said the retired admiral "has no knowledge whatsoever of Kenneth Berry, no recollection of ever meeting him or of ever even hearing his name."
Lisa Cutler, an aide to Nunn, said the Georgia Democrat met Berry at a 1997 conference. After that, Berry wrote him several letters about the need to improve training of first responders.
"That is really the extent of any relationship that existed," Cutler said.
Jerome M. Hauer, a nationally known expert on biological and chemical terrorism, said he met Berry once or twice but was not impressed with his credentials.
"He kind of came out of nowhere," said Hauer, former director of public health preparedness for the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Hauer directed the New York Office of Emergency Management under Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Hauer said he became concerned Tuesday when he noticed Berry's Web site listed him as participating in conferences Berry planned in 1997 and 1998 in Philadelphia. Hauer said he never attended either conference.
"I was not comfortable with the conferences," Hauer said. "I felt there were other agendas for the conferences, and they were not regular training conferences, so I never went."
Berry received three patents related to bioterrorism. One involves a system that would detect a biological attack through a sensor system, which would seal a building. Another was for a system that would identify attacks over a wide area.
That patent application was filed only days after the first anthrax letters were processed at a postal center in September 2001.
Berry also formed the company PREEMPT, which stands for "Planned Response Exercises and Emergency Medical Preparedness Training." The firm held conferences around the nation urging better training for doctors and nurses in the event of a bioterror attack.
Forgery case
In 1999, Berry became ensnared in a forgery plot that one accomplice now says was an effort to raise money for Berry's fight against bioterror.
Authorities in New York's Allegany County accused Berry and his PREEMPT secretary, Cathy Litzburg, of conspiring with Mary Colletta to forge a will for the late Andrew Colletta, a prominent Wellsville physician whom Mary Colletta portrayed as her common-law husband.
But Andrew Colletta had never divorced his legal wife, Carol Colletta. Authorities learned of the forgery scheme after she began raising questions.
In a recent interview, Mary Colletta said Berry's motivation in the scheme was to raise funds to fight bioterrorism.
She said Berry tried to convince her to invest in a firm that would prepare the nation for bioterrorism attacks. He also wanted her to help him buy an airplane.
"His whole life was in protecting our nation, and to somehow get the Pentagon to listen to him," Colletta recalled.
She said the FBI asked her questions about Berry last week.
In the will scheme, Berry eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and received a $300 fine, recalled the Allegany County District Attorney Terrence Parker. Colletta was convicted of perjury and sentenced to probation, Parker recalled.
The case, at Berry's request, was sealed from public view, the prosecutor recalled.
'He has a passion'
"They are going to owe this man a major apology," said Richard "Pastor Dick" Helms, a close friend of the physician. Helms said he is an ordained independent evangelical pastor who ministers over the Internet.
Helms, of Wellsville, described Berry as a nice guy who is a brilliant doctor. Berry obtained his medical degree at the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles.
"It's not that he is fascinated with bioterrorism," Helms said. "He has a passion to protect the American people."
Berry's passion stems from a strong Catholic faith, Helms said.
Helms said Berry has six stepchildren in addition to a son with his current wife. He has two children, Michele and Nicole, from his first marriage.
Berry moved to Wellsville, N.Y., where he built a new life and remarried after a divorce in 1995 in Fayette County.
Joan Hand, a neighbor and former co-worker in Wellsville, said Berry is very firm in his beliefs.
"He was a big proponent of the anthrax vaccine," said Hand, 64, who shared an office with Berry at Jones Memorial Hospital. She was the emergency room manager.
"I can't believe that he's hurt anyone," she said. "He's in the business of saving lives."
Hand said Berry typically works four or five shifts in a row at UPMC McKeesport, then spends five days at home in Wellsville before returning to work.
At Jones Memorial he usually worked a lot of night shifts because there weren't enough doctors to fill the schedule, she said.
xHe worked at Jones Memorial, a 70-bed hospital south of Buffalo, from November 1996 until he resigned in October 2001, said Judy Burt, a hospital spokeswoman.
Images and text copyright © 2004 by The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from PittsburghLIVE.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
So intimidating people planning to exercise their rights to free speech is acceptable?Simply Joel wrote:"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''
Welcome to the world of responsibility, young lady...
your freedoms, all of our freedoms, come with a price.
Be the change you seek in the world.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
No, a hazard along the road of democracy.Stormy wrote:So intimidating people planning to exercise their rights to free speech is acceptable?Simply Joel wrote:"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''
Welcome to the world of responsibility, young lady...
your freedoms, all of our freedoms, come with a price.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
DES MOINES, Iowa - Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record) pushed the name-calling in the presidential race to a new level, calling Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) a coward for not serving in Vietnam and cowardly for his criticism of John Kerry (news - web sites).
Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, recently said that if elected he would pursue a more effective and "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."
Cheney, in campaign speeches, has been mocking that reference to sensitivity.
Harkin, D-Iowa and a former Navy fighter pilot, said Monday, "It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had 'other priorities' at that time would say that."
He said President Bush (news - web sites) and Cheney are "running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't." He said of Cheney, "What he is doing and what he is saying is cowardly. The actions are cowardly."
"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," said Harkin. "He'll be tough, but he'll be tough with someone else's kid's blood."
It's about fuckin time the dems grew some balls and started calling these collosal assholes for what they are. Fight Dems! Fuckin Fight!!!!!
Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, recently said that if elected he would pursue a more effective and "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."
Cheney, in campaign speeches, has been mocking that reference to sensitivity.
Harkin, D-Iowa and a former Navy fighter pilot, said Monday, "It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had 'other priorities' at that time would say that."
He said President Bush (news - web sites) and Cheney are "running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't." He said of Cheney, "What he is doing and what he is saying is cowardly. The actions are cowardly."
"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," said Harkin. "He'll be tough, but he'll be tough with someone else's kid's blood."
It's about fuckin time the dems grew some balls and started calling these collosal assholes for what they are. Fight Dems! Fuckin Fight!!!!!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Lilly Flower
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:33 am
C.I.A. Officer Denounces Agency and Sept. 11 Report
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 17, 2004
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A senior officer for the Central Intelligence Agency who led the unit that tracked Osama bin Laden has written a blistering letter to the Sept. 11 commission, attacking both the C.I.A. and the commission itself over what he sees as a failure to punish "bureaucratic cowards" in the intelligence agencies.
The officer, Michael F. Scheuer, has written a best-selling book under the pseudonym "Anonymous" that is sharply critical of the way the United States has pursued its global campaign against terrorism.
In a signed e-mail letter sent to the commission, he lashed out in angry and highly personal tones at the failure by the commission and the C.I.A. to hold anyone directly accountable for Sept. 11 failures and aimed sharp criticism at George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, without mentioning his name.
In the Sept. 11 commission's final report, "you never mention that the D.C.I. starved and is starving the bin Laden unit of officers while finding plenty of officers to staff his personal public relations office, as well as the staffs that handled diversity, multiculturalism, and employee newsletters," he wrote in a letter that was sent July 31.
He also said that the United States gave short shrift to protecting American lives before the Sept. 11 attacks so that it could pursue the sale of fighter jets to an unnamed Arab government, which other officials identified as the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Scheuer's e-mail, a copy of which was made available to The New York Times, was a dissenting note in what has otherwise been largely glowing reaction to the Sept. 11 commission's final report last month, which has set off broad debate about how best to restructure the intelligence community. His letter, which says restructuring is not the answer, is also extraordinary in that it comes from a current senior case officer at the C.I.A., where internal whistle-blowers are rare. From 1996 to 1999, he led the C.I.A. unit that tracked Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and he continues to serve in a senior counterterrorism post.
While some intelligence officials took issue with Mr. Scheuer's version of events, the C.I.A. and the Sept. 11 commission declined to respond to his specific accusations.
"A lot of people call and e-mail us with their thoughts," said Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission. "Some people criticize us, some people praise us and we don't respond. The report is out there for the American people to judge. "
In recent weeks, Mr. Scheuer has given numerous anonymous interviews promoting his book, "Imperial Hubris," including some television appearances in which his face was not shown. But the C.I.A. has now ordered him to curtail his public commentary sharply, and to get advance approval for future statements. A publicist for Mr. Scheuer's book said Monday that he could not comment on the letter to the commission because of the C.I.A.'s new restrictions.
While some Web sites and media outlets have disclosed Mr. Scheuer's identity before, The Times has previously referred to him only as "Mike" at the request of an intelligence official because of concerns about his safety. Now that he has signed his name in his letter to the Sept. 11 commission and the C.I.A. has sought to curb his public comments, the newspaper is using his name.
Some government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Monday that they regarded Mr. Scheuer's latest accusations as exaggerated or unfounded.
On the question of whether Mr. Tenet put public relations staffing ahead of combating terrorism, for instance, an intelligence official said that the C.I.A. quadrupled the number of counterterrorism analysts and doubled the number of counterterrorism officers in the year after the Sept. 11 attacks and that these numbers have risen further since then.
A second intelligence official noted that Mr. Scheuer had testified privately at length before the Sept. 11 commission. "If they didn't buy what he had to say, that ought to tell you something," the official said.
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 17, 2004
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A senior officer for the Central Intelligence Agency who led the unit that tracked Osama bin Laden has written a blistering letter to the Sept. 11 commission, attacking both the C.I.A. and the commission itself over what he sees as a failure to punish "bureaucratic cowards" in the intelligence agencies.
The officer, Michael F. Scheuer, has written a best-selling book under the pseudonym "Anonymous" that is sharply critical of the way the United States has pursued its global campaign against terrorism.
In a signed e-mail letter sent to the commission, he lashed out in angry and highly personal tones at the failure by the commission and the C.I.A. to hold anyone directly accountable for Sept. 11 failures and aimed sharp criticism at George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, without mentioning his name.
In the Sept. 11 commission's final report, "you never mention that the D.C.I. starved and is starving the bin Laden unit of officers while finding plenty of officers to staff his personal public relations office, as well as the staffs that handled diversity, multiculturalism, and employee newsletters," he wrote in a letter that was sent July 31.
He also said that the United States gave short shrift to protecting American lives before the Sept. 11 attacks so that it could pursue the sale of fighter jets to an unnamed Arab government, which other officials identified as the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Scheuer's e-mail, a copy of which was made available to The New York Times, was a dissenting note in what has otherwise been largely glowing reaction to the Sept. 11 commission's final report last month, which has set off broad debate about how best to restructure the intelligence community. His letter, which says restructuring is not the answer, is also extraordinary in that it comes from a current senior case officer at the C.I.A., where internal whistle-blowers are rare. From 1996 to 1999, he led the C.I.A. unit that tracked Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and he continues to serve in a senior counterterrorism post.
While some intelligence officials took issue with Mr. Scheuer's version of events, the C.I.A. and the Sept. 11 commission declined to respond to his specific accusations.
"A lot of people call and e-mail us with their thoughts," said Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission. "Some people criticize us, some people praise us and we don't respond. The report is out there for the American people to judge. "
In recent weeks, Mr. Scheuer has given numerous anonymous interviews promoting his book, "Imperial Hubris," including some television appearances in which his face was not shown. But the C.I.A. has now ordered him to curtail his public commentary sharply, and to get advance approval for future statements. A publicist for Mr. Scheuer's book said Monday that he could not comment on the letter to the commission because of the C.I.A.'s new restrictions.
While some Web sites and media outlets have disclosed Mr. Scheuer's identity before, The Times has previously referred to him only as "Mike" at the request of an intelligence official because of concerns about his safety. Now that he has signed his name in his letter to the Sept. 11 commission and the C.I.A. has sought to curb his public comments, the newspaper is using his name.
Some government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Monday that they regarded Mr. Scheuer's latest accusations as exaggerated or unfounded.
On the question of whether Mr. Tenet put public relations staffing ahead of combating terrorism, for instance, an intelligence official said that the C.I.A. quadrupled the number of counterterrorism analysts and doubled the number of counterterrorism officers in the year after the Sept. 11 attacks and that these numbers have risen further since then.
A second intelligence official noted that Mr. Scheuer had testified privately at length before the Sept. 11 commission. "If they didn't buy what he had to say, that ought to tell you something," the official said.
You are watching too much TV.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Where is John Kerry on all of this? Where is the left on national defense? All the ideas (good and bad) seem to come from the right... hmmmmm?
Misconceived Military Shuffle
Published: August 17, 2004
The troop redeployment plan announced yesterday by President Bush makes little long-term strategic sense. It is certain to strain crucial alliances, increase overall costs and dangerously weaken deterrence on the Korean peninsula at the worst possible moment. Meanwhile, it will do nothing to address the military's most pressing current need: relieving the chronic strain on ground forces that has resulted from failing to anticipate the long, and largely unilateral, American occupation of Iraq.
Mr. Bush provided few new details yesterday, confirming only that over the next 10 years, about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed troops, along with some 100,000 family members and civilian employees, would be transferred from bases and other military installations in Europe and Asia to the United States.
It has been known for some time that the Pentagon wants to pull back perhaps half of the roughly 70,000 soldiers now in Germany and a third of the nearly 40,000 troops in South Korea. Further cuts in Europe and Asia will be needed to reach Mr. Bush's totals, especially since some of those withdrawn from South Korea may be headed toward other parts of Asia.
The Bush administration justifies these movements by pointing to fundamental changes in the geography of threats since the end of the cold war. In Asia, however, that geography has not changed all that much.
The most dangerous threat still comes from North Korea, which is now thought to be building nuclear weapons. At a time when negotiating a halt to that buildup is imperative, Washington has inexplicably granted Pyongyang something it has long coveted - a reduction in American troop levels - instead of building those reductions into a bargaining proposal requiring constructive North Korean moves in return. The Korean pullback also sends a dangerous signal to the North that America is devaluing its alliance with South Korea.
In Europe, the withdrawals are less immediately dangerous, but they will be expensive because Germany pays a hefty share of the costs for the American military bases located there.
While sending military personnel back to Kansas or Colorado may avert some base closings and make local politicians happy, it will cost the taxpayers money. Furthermore, the military will also lose the advantage that comes with giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of living in other cultures.
The administration seems to be planning to establish new installations in Eastern Europe, but they are more likely to be used for occasional exercises than as permanent bases. An increased presence in Eastern Europe is fine, but it need not come at the expense of our German bases. Although it is certainly true that American troops no longer have to sit in Germany to protect Western Europe from the Red Army, many of today's battlefields, like Iraq and Afghanistan, are in fact closer to Germany than they are to the United States.
The Pentagon is right to stress lighter, more mobile Army brigades. It is also good to aim to reduce the number of job and location changes in a typical Army career. With the huge personnel demands of Iraqi operations forcing repeated tours, extended tours and involuntary callbacks, such sensible steps aimed at raising morale and encouraging re-enlistments are welcome. But over all, this plan marches in the wrong direction. Instead of reflecting and reinforcing America's core alliances, the new plan dilutes them.
Despite the Pentagon's denials, it seems deliberate that the two largest withdrawals have been proposed for countries that the Bush administration has had serious differences with in recent years, over Iraq in the German case, and over negotiating strategy with North Korea in the case of Seoul. Both countries have been working hard to patch up relations - South Korea is one of the few American allies with troops in Iraq - but the Pentagon does not seem interested in reciprocating.
Misconceived Military Shuffle
Published: August 17, 2004
The troop redeployment plan announced yesterday by President Bush makes little long-term strategic sense. It is certain to strain crucial alliances, increase overall costs and dangerously weaken deterrence on the Korean peninsula at the worst possible moment. Meanwhile, it will do nothing to address the military's most pressing current need: relieving the chronic strain on ground forces that has resulted from failing to anticipate the long, and largely unilateral, American occupation of Iraq.
Mr. Bush provided few new details yesterday, confirming only that over the next 10 years, about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed troops, along with some 100,000 family members and civilian employees, would be transferred from bases and other military installations in Europe and Asia to the United States.
It has been known for some time that the Pentagon wants to pull back perhaps half of the roughly 70,000 soldiers now in Germany and a third of the nearly 40,000 troops in South Korea. Further cuts in Europe and Asia will be needed to reach Mr. Bush's totals, especially since some of those withdrawn from South Korea may be headed toward other parts of Asia.
The Bush administration justifies these movements by pointing to fundamental changes in the geography of threats since the end of the cold war. In Asia, however, that geography has not changed all that much.
The most dangerous threat still comes from North Korea, which is now thought to be building nuclear weapons. At a time when negotiating a halt to that buildup is imperative, Washington has inexplicably granted Pyongyang something it has long coveted - a reduction in American troop levels - instead of building those reductions into a bargaining proposal requiring constructive North Korean moves in return. The Korean pullback also sends a dangerous signal to the North that America is devaluing its alliance with South Korea.
In Europe, the withdrawals are less immediately dangerous, but they will be expensive because Germany pays a hefty share of the costs for the American military bases located there.
While sending military personnel back to Kansas or Colorado may avert some base closings and make local politicians happy, it will cost the taxpayers money. Furthermore, the military will also lose the advantage that comes with giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of living in other cultures.
The administration seems to be planning to establish new installations in Eastern Europe, but they are more likely to be used for occasional exercises than as permanent bases. An increased presence in Eastern Europe is fine, but it need not come at the expense of our German bases. Although it is certainly true that American troops no longer have to sit in Germany to protect Western Europe from the Red Army, many of today's battlefields, like Iraq and Afghanistan, are in fact closer to Germany than they are to the United States.
The Pentagon is right to stress lighter, more mobile Army brigades. It is also good to aim to reduce the number of job and location changes in a typical Army career. With the huge personnel demands of Iraqi operations forcing repeated tours, extended tours and involuntary callbacks, such sensible steps aimed at raising morale and encouraging re-enlistments are welcome. But over all, this plan marches in the wrong direction. Instead of reflecting and reinforcing America's core alliances, the new plan dilutes them.
Despite the Pentagon's denials, it seems deliberate that the two largest withdrawals have been proposed for countries that the Bush administration has had serious differences with in recent years, over Iraq in the German case, and over negotiating strategy with North Korea in the case of Seoul. Both countries have been working hard to patch up relations - South Korea is one of the few American allies with troops in Iraq - but the Pentagon does not seem interested in reciprocating.
-
Lilly Flower
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:33 am
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
Not going, wish I could, yet defining an environment for two young men to flourish requires some sacrifice... and I intend to scarifice their butts with my boot if they don't "wake the fuck up" and do well in school.DVD Burner wrote:Man that was corney.
So are you really not going this year or are you just pulling our legs?
You should go if you're not.
-
CoworkerLurker
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location: the office
I remember hearing that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. To me, that means, for instance, being on the lookout for people in authority who try to intimidate people planning on exercising their rights to free speech.Simply Joel wrote:No, a hazard along the road of democracy.Stormy wrote:So intimidating people planning to exercise their rights to free speech is acceptable?Simply Joel wrote:"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''
Welcome to the world of responsibility, young lady...
your freedoms, all of our freedoms, come with a price.
And not letting them get away with it.
That's our responsibility. Letting them know that we're watching them, too.
*Applause* So are you someone's sock or a new entity here?CoworkerLurker wrote: I remember hearing that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. To me, that means, for instance, being on the lookout for people in authority who try to intimidate people planning on exercising their rights to free speech.
And not letting them get away with it.
That's our responsibility. Letting them know that we're watching them, too.
Be the change you seek in the world.
-
Rian Jackson
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
- Location: In Rob's Head
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Rian Jackson
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
- Location: In Rob's Head
-
Rian Jackson
- Posts: 3903
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:30 pm
- Location: In Rob's Head
-
CoworkerLurker
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location: the office
Well the more personal ones would probably be more interesting.Rian Jackson wrote:mostly oil and care..unless you meant something else?Stormy wrote:Hee, hee. More details please.Rian Jackson wrote:if he's a sock, he's talented.
he fixed my playa bike on sunday.
Be the change you seek in the world.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
No offense meant at all. Just curious about someone who shows up and starts making interesting comments in General Discussion. Was wondering if you're a newbie or perhaps someone who has already posted here under another persona. I guess there's a general Intro section, but I don't read it.CoworkerLurker wrote:Oddly enough, a sock was one of the main bike maintenance tools on Sunday (used as a rag).Rian Jackson wrote:if he's a sock, he's talented.
he fixed my playa bike on sunday.
Was it all a hallucination, laden with meaning? And if so, whose?
.
Be the change you seek in the world.
-
CoworkerLurker
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 11:00 pm
- Location: the office
None taken whatsoever. Just intrigued by the concept(s) of a bike being fixed by a sock. In some sense. Thanks for the applause, btw. Anyway, I don't even qualify as a newbie, to my mind. I just got sucked into the wild swirling vortex that is Rian. But yes, these are really my first posts. There's a general Intro section? Ah, nevermind. Back to lurking...Stormy wrote:No offense meant at all. Just curious about someone who shows up and starts making interesting comments in General Discussion. Was wondering if you're a newbie or perhaps someone who has already posted here under another persona. I guess there's a general Intro section, but I don't read it.CoworkerLurker wrote:Oddly enough, a sock was one of the main bike maintenance tools on Sunday (used as a rag).Rian Jackson wrote:if he's a sock, he's talented.
he fixed my playa bike on sunday.
Was it all a hallucination, laden with meaning? And if so, whose?
.
P.S. Rian will no doubt vehemently protest that I am not her sock. Hard to say if it will do her any good.