Kicking them out

Tony Blair announced new measures against terrorism in Britain today and they are focused on finding and deporting people with connections to terrorism and taking action against speech that would incite terrorism. The latter is tricky here, what with our First Amendment. I’m not sure how one can craft laws to get rid of these people without basing it on speech. But I do want to get rid of them.

But here in New York, the twits at the New York Civil Liberties Union are fighting the bag searches on the subways. Would they try this for airplanes? Oh, I’m afraid they would.

But at least we have a sense of humor, we New Yorkers. I saw this billboard remix on the R yesterday:

  • http://www.ioerror.us/ IO ERROR

    And why should they not fight the bag searches? They’re completely useless, quite possibly unconstitutional and do nothing to prevent actual terrorist attacks.

  • http://www.zeitgeist.com/ David Spector

    Jeff,
    You’re too smart for this… random check of bags is an empty, feel-good publicity stunt.

    G-d forbid something actually does happen, then the police will be blamed for no finding the perp and we’ll begin a new round of finger pointing.

    You know, as does anyone else who has two brain cells to rub together, that stopping this BS begins with OJ would surely have said, “looking for the real killers”… in the case all the regimes that the administration is busy fellatiating…

    Everything else is just a distraction game and make you ignore the facts that your rights are being frittered away.

    _DHMS

  • kat

    {Everything else is just a distraction game and make you ignore the facts that your rights are being frittered away.} Let’s fritter away the rights of these hate mongers, instead. Deport the bastards.
    {Blair said the government also would compile a list of Web sites, bookshops and centers that incite hatred and violence. British nationals involved with such organizations could face strict penalties. Foreign nationals could be deported, he said.
    “They come here and they play by our rules and our way of life,” Blair said at his monthly news conference. “If they don’t, they are going to have to go.”}
    {“You only have to read the demands coming from al-Qaida to realize there is no compromise possible with these people,” Blair said.}
    Yes, stop trying to understand why the garbage stinks and just get rid of it. And don’t allow new garbage into our countries–let it rot where it is, not in our back yard.

  • MisterPundit

    Oh please, random bag checks are far from completely useless. I would have liked every single bag to be checked, but I’ll settle for random searches. If nothing else, it will force a prospective terrorist to be more creative, more nervous, and thus more likely to screw up and/or spot. Nobody is saying this is a fool-proof measure, but alongside other measures such as survailance cameras I think it has it’s place.

    My right to safety trumps your right to privacy. Sorry.

  • kat

    This Connecticut laymaker agrees with MisterPundit.
    http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3684684
    {In the next session, he plans to propose a bill that would allow police around the state to specifically question people of Middle Eastern descent, as well as other ethnic groups, for the sake of national security.

    “Regardless of the color of your skin or your nationality, you should not be offended by someone asking you a question or inconveniencing you, because the question will serve to protect the public,” says Noujaim.

    Noujaim says he realizes that being pulled aside for questioning can be an inconvenience. In fact, since September 11, he knows that firsthand.

    “I have already been questioned twice, one time I was boarding a flight in Amsterdam, they asked me, I showed them the documentation. I, of course, was inconvenienced, but it was to protect everyone on that flight.” } AMEN.

  • http://cellar.org/iotd.php Undertoad

    It’s very simple. Make it a violation of Federal law to use any anti-terrorism measure for any other purpose.

    Searching the bags for bombs? OK, I’m cool with that. Find a sack of weed in my backpack? Or even a kilo of coke? Smile and send me on my way.

    Racial profiling to catch bombers? Cool. Racial profiling to catch anything else? A bitter offense to the very nature of America. Tracy Morgan said it best on SNL just after 9/11. You want to racial profile? PLEASE DO IT. But if you find my bag of weed, let me on my way, I’m no terrorist.

  • http://blogebrity.com/blog Nick Douglas

    We all want terrorists out of our countries. But blacklists of public organizations aren’t the way to go. Even Western governments are still utterly incapable of properly distinguishing true incitation to violence and hate from ethnic pride, mild but nonviolent rebellion, and counterculture. Like Cory Doctorow (or maybe Jason Kottke) said, the average geek looks shifty, avoids eye contact, has wires hooked up, has a backpack…

    And the accidental killings a few months ago, one more in a long series of mistakes by cops who weren’t following proper procedure, show that we’re not ready for an “aim for the head” policy when chasing just-discovered suspects.

    Listen, we do need to take out the trash…but don’t throw out our wedding photos along with the old scrap paper.

  • http://moveleft.com Eric Jaffa

    There are differences between bag searches before getting on a train and getting on a plane.

    Firstly, New Yorkers ride trains all the time. They don’t ride planes all the time.

    Secondly, a small amount of explosive can take down a plane, killing everyone on board.

    Explosive on a train is about as dangerous as other places crowded with people.

  • MisterPundit

    Searching the bags for bombs? OK, I’m cool with that. Find a sack of weed in my backpack? Or even a kilo of coke? Smile and send me on my way.

    Agreed. I can live with that.

    Explosive on a train is about as dangerous as other places crowded with people.

    To terrorists, a succesfull attack on NY’s transport system has much more value than just the lives being taken. Besides, if the explosion derails the train, the casualties could be very high.

    Anyway, I think we should do what we can and what is most practical, even if it’s not perfect. Just because you can’t search bags at every busy mall, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t search bags at the train station.

  • http://moveleft.com Eric Jaffa

    Why not use bomb-sniffing dogs to search people who actually seem to have explosives, instead of searching at random?

  • MisterPundit

    Why not use bomb-sniffing dogs to search people who actually seem to have explosives, instead of searching at random?

    Let’s do both, unless the NYPD can provide (at the very least) a few dogs at every boarding station. How many dogs does the NYPD have at it’s disposal? Anyone know?

  • Gunther

    “But here in New York, the twits at the New York Civil Liberties Union are fighting the bag searches on the subways. Would they try this for airplanes? Oh, I’m afraid they would.”

    Yeah, civil liberties are so pre-9/11. What evidence do you have that the ACLU (or NYCLU) has tried to stop searches of luggage for airplanes? None? I thought so.

  • Gunther

    “Why not use bomb-sniffing dogs to search people who actually seem to have explosives, instead of searching at random?”

    “Let’s do both, unless the NYPD can provide (at the very least) a few dogs at every boarding station. How many dogs does the NYPD have at it’s disposal? Anyone know? ”

    How many subway or bus stops are in NYC? How many dogs would be required for this? Do the dogs get time off, or do they work 24 hour shifts? What if the dogs get tired and need to sleep? Do we need to breed some kind of “super dog” that can stay awake indefinitely? What if someone brings their cat to the vet via the subway? Do the dogs get distracted? Can terrorists use this strategy to sneak bombs on board trains? Where do the dogs relieve themselves? Do they stay in the subway or leave it? If they relieve themselves in the subway, won’t it get pretty disgusting after a while? What if you’re allergic to dogs? Do you need to stop using the subway? Is this grounds for a lawsuit under the ADA? I’m all for enhanced security, but I think this proposal raises too many questions.

  • ted

    People have a right to travel unmolested. People who say using the subway or flying are privileges should move to Iran or North Korea where you’ll feel safer with no due process and all rights emanating from the state.

    During times like this though things need to change a little, but only a little. During bag searches the police must confiscate anything illegal such as drugs, weapons, etc. But, if it’s not a terrorist weapon then the bag carrier needs to be let go. Otherwise it will appear that this is just an excuse by law enforcement to reduce our rights and move us towards a Stasi state.

  • http://moviesandmore.typepad.com Patricia

    Based on historical precedent, such as Europe in the 60s, I think such “useless” exercises as bag searching are fine because they just might catch someone (the homegrown jihadis are pretty amateur) and because of their cumulative effect. Every seemingly useless tightening of the noose makes it hard for terrorists to have freedom of movement, free access to money, free access to apartments, cars, food, weaponry. It takes two people on the outside to support one person who is covert, and every law or raid makes the ratio higher–as the terrorists who survived that era said in memoirs.

  • Gherm

    Mister Pundit – On September 11th I looked up and saw a second explosion coming from the Towers. I was dumbfounded. Weeks before I had gone through the tight security where bags were checked, Ids were recorded, cameras watched everything. “How did they get the explosives up there?” was my only thought.

    Bag checks are a Maginot line.

    While we’re at it I’d like to get rid of the whole cops with machine guns thing. Assault weapons on a crowded street? That’s just brilliant. Thanks Bloomie.

  • kat

    You won’t need these searches if you just kick the scum out. That’s the only solution. Save us lots of grief and money. Empty the trash.

    “If they don’t like our way of life, there is a simple remedy – go to another country, get out,” Mr Howarth told The Scotsman newspaper.

    Asked what if those people were born in Britain, Mr Howarth replied: “Tough. If you don’t give allegiance to this country, then leave.”

    He added: “There are plenty of other countries whose way of life would appear to be more conducive to what they aspire to.

    “They would be happy and we would be happy.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=358019&in_page_id=1770

  • MisterPundit

    People have a right to travel unmolested.

    Not to mention un-exploded.

    People who say using the subway or flying are privileges should move to Iran or North Korea where you’ll feel safer with no due process and all rights emanating from the state.

    Let’s not blow things out of proportion.

  • http://tryaches.blogspot.com OTTami

    Targeting people for hate speech puts you right on top of the slippery slope that first amenment advocates like myself wish to avoid more than anything. The phrase “I don’t agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” even applies to those people saying truly heinous things.

    Short of slander or libel, of course.

    I don’t think it’s unwise to watch the activities of people who publicly state offensive things, but it’s going to far to arrest or detain them for it. Ultimately, all I’m saying is that you have to be very careful with something like this, and I sincerely hope that the British recognize this as fact.

  • kat

    These people are using our democratic principles to help them kill us. I refuse to worry about the rights of scum. Scour it out of our midst, I say. Why should this piece of pigshit be allowed to carry on open terrorism? Are we nuts? http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007530.php
    {In any given democracy, the constitution protects individuals
    from other individuals.
    In the old world (since the Greeks, who invented these very
    principles) this principle was called bound liberty.
    The democracy protects its citizens only as long as these
    same citizens respect its civil laws (and therefore each
    individual’s fellow citizen) and of course its constitution.
    In return the citizen who respects the lawmaker is protected
    by the very state.
    The latter is the base of the very existence of the state, in
    which laws are made by chosen representatives from these
    same citizens.
    In the antique form of democracy, anyone actively going
    against the constitution OR not respecting law, was sort of
    placed “outside of” it.

    Most Western democracies have never been confronted
    with religious groups that are potentially anti-democratic or
    able to bring political instability.
    Lately however, Immans in Europe. have, for instance,
    openly declared to have understanding for the punishment
    of homosexuals.
    Luckily they will probably be sentenced to jail for a few
    months, since homosexuals are treated like other citizens
    over there, unlike in Muslim states…
    Democracy can only offer freedom as long as it is not used
    against others with equal rights.
    A society should give us all freedom but at the same time
    protect us from others who abuse it.
    Most democracies are extremely reluctant to “address” in a
    political or legal sense, religious groups, political parties or
    ethnic groups from within their society, simply because their
    freedom is guaranteed by its very constitution.
    As soon as these groups’ behaviour becomes politically
    destabilising or a clear and proven danger to others (like,
    say, a terrorist threat)….then that may need to change.} TIME FOR CHANGE!!
    Tony Blair has the right idea.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    I believe the last time Britain expelled a bunch of dangerous religious radicals they ended up settling along the coast of New England. I wonder how that all turned out…

  • http://vidiot.typepad.com Vidiot

    the twits at the New York Civil Liberties Union are fighting the bag searches on the subways. Would they try this for airplanes? Oh, I’m afraid they would.

    Um, no. They’ve been searching air passengers since the ’70s. How many lawsuits has the NYCLU filed against the airlines, the private security contractors, or the TSA over air travel searches? None.

    Oh, I’m afraid they wouldn’t.

  • kat

    Umm, at least one because the poor muslim felt humiliated. Scare tactic to ensure no further searches of muslims?? Should the head thing mean she is above the law?? Screw her, I say! If she prevails, watch out!
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/17/airport.search.lawsuit/
    Oh, I’m afraid they would.

  • NameWithheld

    I’m guessing Kat’s highest wish is to deport all muslim (fanatics or not) and then put the christian fanatics in charge. I’m guessing that after that she probably wants to see if WW3 triggers the second coming of Christ. I also wonder if she stopped reading the Bible after she had finished the Old Testament. But I guess we all have eternity after we are dead to find out what Jesus would have done.

    Come to think about it I wonder exactly where we are going to deport Muhammed Ali. Maybe Kat knows.

  • kat

    Are you implying Mohammed Ali is a terrorist? I’m talking about deporting terrorist trash.
    “They come here and they play by our rules and our way of life,” Blair said at his monthly news conference. “If they don’t, they are going to have to go.”

  • NameWithheld

    Kat, getting rid of all US muslims has been a recuring theme for you. And last time I checked Muhammed Ali is a muslim. Personally I don’t have a problem with muslims except for a very small number. So you got any idea on where he should be deported?

  • kat

    He plays by our rules and only became a muslim because it served a purpose. I have no problem with him. If he decides to go jihading, then that’s a different matter. I have a real problem with muslims willing to gutblow and jihad. I don’t know where you get this very small number crap. In Britain a recent poll showed 100,000 Muslims in Britain think terrorist attacks are “justified”, and more than 150,000 describe themselves as “not at all loyal” to Britain, ” Those are the creeps who should go and find another country where they would feel more at home. I believe we have 10-15% of simlar trash here….not a very small number.

  • NameWithheld

    Kat, and what purpose was that? What are _you_ implying about Mohammed Ali? Do you belittle his faith?

    You only got a problem with muslims willing to gutblow and jihad OR do you have a problem with them who says the attacks are justified. And while I don’t believe your numbers are correct and you haven’t posted any url as a proof for them I’m guessing the first group is way smaller than the second.

  • kat

    Let’s just say I wouldn’t be very proud if my dad had become a muslim to avoid WW11. It’s not his faith I’m belittling– You fill in the blanks.
    I don’t have the URL for the article–just the graphs. I’m sure you can do the math or search for the original article. I have stuff to do.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/07/23/npoll23big.gif;jsessionid=HKDYM0WLZ0MDDQFIQMFCM5WAVCBQYJVC

  • kat

    {You only got a problem with muslims willing to gutblow and jihad OR do you have a problem with them who says the attacks are justified.} BOTH!!

  • http://moviesandmore.typepad.com Patricia

    “People have a right to travel unmolested.”
    On what do you base that statement?

    Ottami, better a slippery slope than a bombed train. At least with the slope, the democratic process has a chance to correct itself when necessary.

  • Eileen

    “You only got a problem with muslims willing to gutblow and jihad OR do you have a problem with them who says the attacks are justified.”

    NameWithheld, you don’t have a problem with one or both?

  • http://whataretheysaying.powerblogs.com mary

    The latter is tricky here, what with our First Amendment. I’m not sure how one can craft laws to get rid of these people without basing it on speech. But I do want to get rid of them.

    When piracy became a threat to established states and trade, pirates were declared to be “Enemies of the Human Race”. The basic reasoning was – if pirates had no respect for our laws, we had no respect for them.

    If our old piracy laws were applied to terrorism, the simple fact of membership in a terrorist group would be a crime, punishable by imprisonment or death. Terrorism has already been declared a crime against humanity. Making open support of a crime against humanity a punishable offence is the next logical step.

    In the bad old days of piracy, all nations declared war against these enemies of the human race. The idea of applying piracy laws to terrorists was written up in the magazine Legal Affairs. It appeals to liberals because it doesn’t give too much power to George Bush. It appeals to conservatives because it doesn’t preach appeasement or tolerance of terrorism.

  • Anon

    The search policy is that anyone may refuse a random search and simply use a different entrance to the same station. The security value of such a policy is _nil_. Furthermore, by making it clear that possession of any contraband (from drugs to illegal DVDs) will also be actionable, the NYPD will end up wasting its time on corraling the stupidest of petty offenders, while the marginally intelligent petty offenders will find different travel routes and potential weaknesses in the network (information that will surely find its way onto the net). Innocent people will stand in line while the terrorists use a secondary entrance or a slightly less trafficked stop a few blocks down. What a waste of time, money, and manpower.

    And if you can find body characteristics common to Egyptians, Saudis, Somalis, Pakistanis, and Chechens, with the occasional Jose Padilla or Richard Reid thrown in…well, please, let the rest of us know. I think the Egyptians and the Chechens will be the most difficult. To make sure we get the Pakistanis we might as well stop the Indians, too, because after all, how many of them can there be in NY?

    Maybe some visible Muslim identification would be useful.

    Anon

  • NameWitheld

    Eileen, sure I have a problem with both. But unless you want to implant some futuristic implant into everyone you probably won’t be able to tell which of them that would support the attacks.

    Also I have a problem with neo nazis, KKK, people who think it is justified to blow up abortion clinics, people who would support overthrowing the government and making it a communist state etc. But as long as it is only thoughts and they don’t act on them like killing jews, blowing up a clinic or trying to overthrow the goverment I don’t think you should send them to prison, deport them or fine them. But perhaps you support the thought police?

    Which brings me to my next question to Kat, I’m guessing you want to deport both groups. Then how are you going to know which muslims would support terror attacks? Are you going to ask them? Lie detector tests?

    So once more, where do you believe Muhammed Ali should be deported? You obviously don’t know what his real thoughts are. So how could you be sure?

    BTW if Muhammed Ali converted to islam just to avoid Vietnam then why didn’t he convert back when the war was over? And if he wanted to use religion to get out of the army then why didn’t he become a Quaker?

    “got nothing against no Viet Cong”, “No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger”. Seems like religion wasn’t his reason. Clinton avoided it with a student deferment and Bush hid in the National Guard, Muhammed Ali on the other hand stod up for his views, lost his championship belt and was sent to prison. Ok, so you belittle both him and his faith.

  • tonynoboloney

    I find this argument mostly pointless. I assure you that if the U.S. experiences anything similar to 9/11 or even 7/7 in the near future that we will not only learn to tolerate bag searches at subway stations but most will be demanding that our government enact much more stringent deterents. I predict that we will see an era where mass deportation and limited imigration will be the norm. Racial profiling will be our only logical choice. foriegn policy decisions will be based on who in the world is co-operating in the war on terror. The dept. of Defense will take on a whole new meaning. Rather than dollars flowing out of this country for aid to other countries congress will produce bills to beef up security at our borders, and will begin to dump billions into intellegence. I seriously doubt that Americans will have much tolerance for a war fought by foriegn terrorists on our soil.

  • Ravo

    This article is on what a country does when it is at war.
    Are we at war?

    Excerpts from “Exclude And Deport” : Muslim Murderers”

    http://faithfreedom.org/oped/GrantSwank50805.htm

    “Islam is not really a world religion among world religions; it is a killing cult. No other world religion espouses killing those who disagree with its tenets; Islam does have that as its baseline.

    However, the reality is that there are no truly peace-oriented Muslims in the world. All Muslims are bound to the Koran’s Allah who has dictated that every Muslim see through the slaughter of every non-Muslim.

    Therefore, every Koran disciple is bound to be a potential killer or be killed by a Muslim who is in fact a killer.

    Blair is then caught with a dilemma when he opens the door for so-called peace-oriented Muslims to remain in Britain for no one can guarantee any Muslim dweller as being totally for peace. No one.

    There are sleeper cells in all freedom-based countries. These cells are waiting to explode, such initiated by so-called peace-oriented Muslims. Therefore, we live alongside the enemy every day, everywhere.

    What Blair is coming to is what Mr. Bush must come to. I envision that as soon as the United States experiences a London-type bombing, Mr. Bush will be dittoing the same words as Blair.

    What is needed is for Mr. Bush to make such declarations now. Americans cannot wait for more carnage. We have already had our London bombing in the horrific scenes of 9/11. What then are we waiting for?
    Deport the Muslims or place them in internment camps. “

  • Jim Dermitt

    The best thing to do is travel light. Instead of a briefcase, take a PDA. It stores more information anyway. Maybe bags and backpacks made of clear plastic are a solution. If you just have a bunch of books and junk you need to take with you, you shouldn’t really care who sees this stuff. The best security is visual, so the more that can be seen the better the security you will get. Don’t expect a lot of privacy in public places. That is why they are called public. Of course, some people want to make things more difficult and complain how little privacy you have in public. Move out to the sticks and live on a farm and you will have great privacy. The city is less private. Imagine that.

  • Jim Dermitt

    How to make trouble for dummies:

    Buy one way plane ticket to a big city.
    Wear heavy dark clothes in 90 degree heat.
    Carry a backpack with a skull and crossbones emblem.
    Wear a wool cap and gloves even though it is summer.
    Stare at the police and mill around outside of government buildings with cameras all over the place.
    Ride subway between two stations all day.
    Talk to strangers about how you want to die.
    Go to the airport and stand around the baggage area for an hour.
    Call lawyer and complain about unwanted police attention.

  • sil

    I thought inciting violence is already illegal. You can’t use the freedom of speech as protection. Just like you can’t say “bomb!” in a crowded subway. You can”t con people etc. Is inciting violence against people of color okay? Against gays? And abortionist? I think the Left will see the wisdom of the law when one of their own start getting killed because of incitement

  • Jim Dermitt

    War is violence. The war was promoted, so I guess this could be considered inciting violence or it could just be called promoting policy. The result is still the same, which is violence. Terrorism incites fear, which doesn’t need promoted it comes naturally. War isn’t natural, which is why so much machinery is required. Peace is natural and the basic human need is freedom. War compromises freedom, unless you consider death a form of freedom. Whatever your position is, it is reasonable to want freedom and life more than slavery and death. This is why it is so difficult to stop a war. Life is predictable and war is not. War and terrorism both serve the same master, which is death. Death isn’t very popular in polling among the political left or the right. The war is a toss up, but appears more popular with the right. It seems to me that war increases the violence associated with terrorism, which makes peace all the more difficult to accomplish. Power without peace is a problem. I’m not sure how war is going to solve that problem if it can be solved. Race, gender, abortion or issues of sexuality don’t seem to enter into it. People are going to think what they will regardless of left and right politics.

  • Jim Dermitt

    If you are in favor of unlimited war just say so. Violence will not stop terrorism. Turning the whole thing into a debate about race or abortion won’t help solve a problem. Censorship won’t work, so the tactic becomes the use of a steady stream of propaganda about the wisdom of the law. If a whole lot of people are killed today in the war, nobody or not many at least will care if they were left or right, black or white, in favor of abortion or pro-life. We have all sorts of people on the front lines being shot at and targeted. We don’t need a culture war in the United States when we have more important problems to solve. Iraq is full of problems and people are being killed, so discussing this left-right crap is a waste of time sil. We will make progress with answers, not by playing 20 questions about the wisdom of law.

  • kat

    And what is your answer to stop terrorism by muslims in every country on earth?
    “You only have to read the demands coming from al-Qaida to realize there is no compromise possible with these people,” Blair said. Blair is right. You can’t make progress with answers when terrorist scum are intolerant and uncompromising. Give them a plane ticket. And kindly wave good-bye–that’s not violent.

  • kat

    Even Liberal Canada is going to conduct searches–all CARS. And they are going to follow the US lead in having a no fly list.
    http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2005/08/06/1161675-sun.html

  • Jim Dermitt

    I don’t think terrorism can be stopped. If people are into destroying themselves for some reason or another, it isn’t like you can start a program or write laws that will stop them. Terrorism has been around for longer than I have and will be around after I am gone from this world. Believing that the war in Iraq is going to stop terrorism is not sensible. What we have seen is an increase in terrorism. I guess there are methods for control and slowing it down and preventing it from spreading. I just don’t think a long war in the conventional military sense is the best use of resources. The money being poured into Iraq could be used for better domestic or ‘homeland’ security. Right now the BRAC process and Pentagon is looking at closing military bases across the United States. The BRAC is also looking at closing our local Air Force Reserve unit that has been here since before me. Does anybody think that this makes sense? I’d rather have a military base in my backyard, than ten in Iraq or Saudi Arabia. It’s not a liberal or conservative political issue. I care about the homeland security, not some fantasy of a Bush democracy in the Middle East with the Saudis as partners. I remember the Saudis of 9/11/01. Never again!

  • Jim Dermitt

    The atomic age began on a hot August morning in 43 seconds.
    We are much more advanced today. We have new ways to shorten a war.
    The violence in Iraq could be ended in less than a minute and save more American lives. War means total destruction and then victory. You just can’t screw around and make excuses while your own soldiers are being killed by enemy bombs.

    We have better and more lethal bombs than the enemy. The lawyers want to write laws to get rid of people. It won’t work. “I’m not sure how one can craft laws to get rid of these people without basing it on speech.” Jeff wrote. We have bombs for that sort of job. They don’t come back and the others get the message without a single word being spoken. Not even sorry.

  • Ravo

    Muslim demands are non-negotiable. Convert, be killed, or be a dihimmi. The people on the left who think this is something to be solved are referred to by terrorists as “useful idiots”.

    There cannot be any lasting peace. A “truce” may be in order, but only if it serves an immediate purpose. Lying is a tool to be used, so nothing agreed to can be trusted.

    “Rules” for lying to infidels found here:
    http://mythopoet.blogspot.com/2005/01/al-taqiyya-i-sunni-reasons-for.html

    …and on “truces” from another article – sorry, don’t have a link to…..

    “According to Moslem thought, no permanent peace can ever be permitted between an Infidel power and a Moslem one.

    The principle that rules in Western legal thought, that “treaties are to be obeyed” or PACTA SUNT SERVANDA, has no place in Moslem legal thought.

    The rule is that based on the model of an agreement, or treaty, that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. This was the famous Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya, where Muhammad agreed to not invade Mecca if the Meccans would give him rights to visit the city each year. The treaty was to last ten years.

    The first year, the Meccans allowed Muhammad and his followers to enter Mecca and to worship.

    But before the second year was out, Muhammad had found a reason to break the treaty – he had gotten more powerful during that time, and now thought he could conquer Mecca.

    The reason given was that a tribe allied to the Meccans had attacked a tribe allied to the Moslems – but it was a flimsy excuse, and Moslems ever since have praised Muhammad’s cunning in first making, and then in breaking, that agreement.

    It has been taken as the model, and endlessly discussed, for making agreements with Infidel states. For example, all agreements with Israel are not about “peace” but about a “truce” – though this is not really understood, even by Israelis, very few of whom have actually studied Islam.”

  • kat

    They certainly know how to use the system and are only using the Iraq war as an excuse. These creeps were using Britain for years.
    {POLICE are investigating allegations that the four suspected July 21 bombers collected more than £500,000 in benefits payments in Britain.

    The claim was made as the Bank of England moved to freeze financial accounts belonging to the men. Bank officials also disclosed the financial details of the suspects, Ramzi Mohammad, Yasin Hassan Omar, Muktar Said-Ibrahim and Hussain Osman. These showed how the men, all in custody, have used multiple aliases and addresses in recent years.

    Mr Ibrahim, is said to have had six aliases. Some are also shown to have claimed several nationalities, ages and national insurance numbers while in Britain. Investigators believe that bogus names were used to make some benefit claims. } Who wants this pondscum in your country. Flush it out.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1723196,00.html

  • Jim

    Follow the money. Terrorism is just like the illegal drug trade. It’s widespread, ruled by greed and hate and can only be tracked by transaction. The laws now on the books are more than enough to bust plenty of things up. We seem to be seeing the wrong things busted. Drugs are the perfect thing for terrorism to spread. They bring in huge amounts of cash, destroy the people and create other crimes of opportunity. Maybe what they can do is just poison big batches of the coke and H and we’ll see a massive number of deaths across the world and it will put the right people out of business. People don’t seem to fear a bad load of dope from unknown sources.

  • kat

    Actually osama tried to cut a deal with Columbia druggies to poison loads of cocaine and thus kill thousands of Americans. The druggies thought the millions paid now by osama was not worth a ruined drug trade in the future, so they declined his generous offer.

  • Jim

    Kat, That’s the point we are at now. The illegal drug trade is protecting us from terrorism. I guess the coke heads are doing a public service. If people buy more coke, the drug dealers are helping to protect America. We are too busy saving Iraq and setting up a new democracy. Maybe they should just bring the coke heads and dealers to Iraq to set the security systems up and pay people with coke.

  • kat

    The illegal drug trade is more than likely financing terrorism.

  • Jim

    If you start figuring out the connections between terrorism and other illegal activities you have a chance to identify sources and see patterns. All the connections are financial, so the linkages can be made. Drug dealers have political influence to keep the heat off. Tons of coke moving globally 24/7, with billions in profit keeps things going. The terrorists figure it poisons America so they must be for it. If they can make a buck at the same time, I guess they figure all the better. I haven’t seen a really big drug bust for years now. There was just a little meth lab bust here a couple of weeks ago in a trailer park. There was a bust of some street level lowlifes last month. The big players are protected and terrorism is protected financially. If they hit harder the next time, people might wake up. Raiding villages and homes in Iraq is not going to change US or UK security. It could make things worse. The leadership is bad.