Terror Plot Exposed By Policies Liberal s Opposed

“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008785

'Mass Murder' Foiled
A terror plot is exposed by the policies many American liberals oppose.

Friday, August 11, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Americans went to work yesterday to news of another astonishing terror plot against U.S. airlines, only this time the response was grateful relief. British authorities had busted the "very sophisticated" plan "to commit mass murder" and arrested 20-plus British-Pakistani suspects. As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11 without another major attack on U.S. soil, now is the right moment to consider the policies that have protected us--and those in public life who have fought those policies nearly every step of the way.
It's not as if the "Islamic fascists"--to borrow President Bush's description yesterday--haven't been trying to hit us. They took more than 50 lives last year in London with the "7/7" subway bombings. There was the catastrophic attack in Madrid the year before that left nearly 200 dead. But there have also been successes. Some have been publicized, such as a foiled plot to poison Britain's food supply with ricin. But undoubtedly many have not, because authorities don't want to compromise sources and methods, or because the would-be terrorists have been captured or killed before they could carry out their plans.

In this case the diabolical scheme was to smuggle innocent-looking liquid explosive components and detonators onto planes. They could then be assembled onboard and exploded, perhaps over cities for maximum horror. Multiply the passenger load of a 747 by, say, 10 airliners, and this attack could have killed more people than 9/11. We don't yet know how the plot was foiled, but surely part of the explanation was crack surveillance work by British authorities.

"This wasn't supposed to happen today," a U.S. official told the Washington Post of the arrests and terror alert. "It was supposed to happen several days from now. We hear the British lost track of one or two guys. They had to move." Meanwhile, British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."
Let's emphasize that again: The plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications. Which leads us to wonder if Scotland Yard would have succeeded if the ACLU or the New York Times had first learned the details of such surveillance programs.

And almost on political cue yesterday, Members of the Congressional Democratic leadership were using the occasion to suggest that the U.S. is actually more vulnerable today despite this antiterror success. Harry Reid, who's bidding to run the Senate as Majority Leader, saw it as one more opportunity to insist that "the Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists."

Ted Kennedy chimed in that "it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win." Mr. Kennedy somehow overlooked that the foiled plan was nearly identical to the "Bojinka" plot led by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to blow up airliners over the Pacific Ocean in 1995. Did the Clinton Administration's "misguided policies" invite that plot? And if the Iraq war is a diversion and provocation, just what policies would Senators Reid and Kennedy have us "focus" on?

Surveillance? Hmmm. Democrats and their media allies screamed bloody murder last year when it was leaked that the government was monitoring some communications outside the context of a law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA wasn't designed for, nor does it forbid, the timely exploitation of what are often anonymous phone numbers, and the calls monitored had at least one overseas connection. But Mr. Reid labeled such surveillance "illegal" and an "NSA domestic spying program." Other Democrats are still saying they will censure, or even impeach, Mr. Bush over the FISA program if they win control of Congress.

This year the attempt to paint Bush Administration policies as a clear and present danger to civil liberties continued when USA Today hyped a story on how some U.S. phone companies were keeping call logs. The obvious reason for such logs is that the government might need them to trace the communications of a captured terror suspect. And then there was the recent brouhaha when the New York Times decided news of a secret, successful and entirely legal program to monitor bank transfers between bad guys was somehow in the "public interest" to expose.

For that matter, we don't recall most advocates of a narrowly "focused" war on terror having many kind words for the Patriot Act, which broke down what in the 1990s was a crippling "wall" of separation between our own intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. Senator Reid was "focused" enough on this issue to brag, prematurely as it turned out, that he had "killed" its reauthorization.

And what about interrogating terror suspects when we capture them? It is elite conventional wisdom these days that techniques no worse than psychological pressure and stress positions constitute "torture." There is also continued angst about the detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, even as Senators and self-styled civil libertarians fight Bush Administration attempts to process them through military tribunals that won't compromise sources and methods.

In short, Democrats who claim to want "focus" on the war on terror have wanted it fought without the intelligence, interrogation and detention tools necessary to win it. And if they cite "cooperation" with our allies as some kind of magical answer, they should be reminded that the British and other European legal systems generally permit far more intrusive surveillance and detention policies than the Bush Administration has ever contemplated. Does anyone think that when the British interrogate those 20 or so suspects this week that they will recoil at harsh or stressful questioning?

Another issue that should be front and center again is ethnic profiling. We'd be shocked if such profiling wasn't a factor in the selection of surveillance targets that resulted in yesterday's arrests. Here in the U.S., the arrests should be a reminder of the dangers posed by a politically correct system of searching 80-year-old airplane passengers with the same vigor as screeners search young men of Muslim origin. There is no civil right to board an airplane without extra hassle, any more than drivers in high-risk demographics have a right to the same insurance rates as a soccer mom.

The real lesson of yesterday's antiterror success in Britain is that the threat remains potent, and that the U.S. government needs to be using every legal tool to defeat it. At home, that includes intelligence and surveillance and data-mining, and abroad it means all of those as well as an aggressive military plan to disrupt and kill terrorists where they live so they are constantly on defense rather than plotting to blow up U.S.-bound airliners.
As the time since 9/11 has passed, many of America's elites have begun to portray U.S. government policies as a greater threat than the terrorists themselves. George Soros and others have said this explicitly, and their political allies in Congress and the media have staged a relentless campaign against the very practices that saved innocent lives this week. We doubt that many Americans who will soon board an airplane agree.”

“You're basically an idiot, aren't you?

What 'liberals' and true conservatives oppose is illegal, unconstitutionsl surveillance. You know... 'rule of law' and all that.”

“Good thing we have spent billions on this war in Iraq, I sure feel safer now.

We never would have caught these guys, huh?

Oops, we didn't, huh.

Perhaps we should be going after a guy in Pakistan.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Iraq is the real threat.”

“Ya gotta remember, we are dealing with wing nuts that think Iraq was flying those planes into the Towers.

Duh.”

“The editorial writer is a spin artist. In the US a primary criticism of Bush ordered domestic spying is that he did it all under his own authority without looking for authorization. Even some of his allies criticized him for going around the mechanisms that are supposed to place a check on unbridled presidential power.

Very few people think there should be no domestic spying - FAFSA, which was done before 9/11 was an attempt to provide a way to allow for spying when needed, but in a regulated way - with checks and balances. Bush had all the support he needed after 9/11 to revise the system. He chose instead to arogate these powers to the presidency, without checks and balances.

Anyone who worries abhout unbridled and unresponsive government power should be concerned.”

“The editorial writer is a spin artist

i thought it was a given that every cut and paste by constitutionstomper was from a spin doctor

BIG EVIL GRIN
last edited: 8/12/06 9:18:57 AM”

“Speaking of a Mack truck full of rice crashing into the front door of a saturday church wedding.”

“"As the time since 9/11 has passed, many of America's elites have begun to portray U.S. government policies as a greater threat than the terrorists themselves"

One other thing that is really funny about the Bush sales team... they keep talking about their political opponents "elites" These guys run the country, almost every member of the Supreme Court was Republican appointed, they have the White House and COngress. They control K Street and most of the lobbyiststs and they keep talking as if they are somehow powerless and disposses. It's a strange site to see how they keep using a rhetoric of resentment, and play on class tensions.

“Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” —George W. Bush
last edited: 8/12/06 3:52:12 PM”

“Hows this one:

By JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON

While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.

"The committee is extremely disappointed with the manner in which S&T is being managed within the Department of Homeland Security," the panel wrote June 29 in a bipartisan report accompanying the agency's 2007 budget.

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who joined Republicans to block the administration's recent diversion of explosives detection money, said research and development is crucial to thwarting future attacks and there is bipartisan agreement that Homeland Security has fallen short.

"They clearly have been given lots of resources that they haven't been using," Sabo said.

Homeland Security said Friday its research arm has just gotten a new leader, former Navy research chief Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, and there is strong optimism for developing new detection technologies in the future.

"I don't have any criticisms of anyone," said Kip Hawley, the assistant secretary for transportation security. "I have great hope for the future. There is tremendous intensity on this issue among the senior management of this department to make this area a strength."

Lawmakers and recently retired Homeland Security officials say they are concerned the department's research and development effort is bogged down by bureaucracy, lack of strategic planning and failure to use money wisely.

The department failed to spend $200 million in research and development money from past years, forcing lawmakers to rescind the money this summer.

The administration also was slow to start testing a new liquid explosives detector that the Japanese government provided to the United States earlier this year.

The British plot to blow up as many as 10 American airlines on trans- Atlantic flights was to involve liquid explosives.

Hawley said Homeland Security now is going to test the detector in six American airports. "It is very promising technology and we are extremely interested in it to help us operationally in the next several years," he said.

Japan has been using the liquid explosive detectors in its Narita International Airport in Tokyo and demonstrated the technology to U.S. officials at a conference in January, the Japanese Embassy in Washington said.

Homeland Security is spending a total of $732 million this year on various explosives deterrents and has tested several commercial liquid explosive detectors over the past few years but hasn't been satisfied enough with the results to deploy them.

Hawley said current liquid detectors that can scan only individual containers aren't suitable for wide deployment because they would bring security check lines to a crawl.

For more than four years, officials inside Homeland Security also have debated whether to deploy smaller trace explosive detectors _ already in most American airports _ to foreign airports to help stop any bomb chemicals or devices from making it onto U.S.-destined flights.

A 2002 Homeland report recommended "immediate deployment" of the trace units to key European airports, highlighting their low cost, $40,000 per unit, and their detection capabilities. The report said one such unit was able, 25 days later, to detect explosives residue inside the airplane where convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid was foiled in his attack in December 2001.

A 2005 report to Congress similarly urged that the trace detectors be used more aggressively, and strongly warned the continuing failure to distribute such detectors to foreign airports "may be an invitation to terrorist to ply their trade, using techniques that they have already used on a number of occasions."

Tony Fainberg, who formerly oversaw Homeland Security's explosive and radiation detection research with the national labs, said he strongly urged deployment of the detectors overseas but was rebuffed.

"It is not that expensive," said Fainberg, who retired recently. "There was no resistance from any country that I was aware of, and yet we didn't deploy it."

Fainberg said research efforts were often frustrated inside Homeland Security by "bureaucratic games," a lack of strategic goals and months-long delays in distributing money Congress had already approved.

"There has not been a focused and coherent strategic plan for defining what we need ... and then matching the research and development plans to that overall strategy," he said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said he urged the administration three years ago to buy electron scanners, like the ones used at London's airport to detect plastics that might be hidden beneath passenger clothes.

"It's been an ongoing frustration about their resistance to purchase off-the-shelf, state-of-the-art equipment that can meet these threats," he said.

The administration's most recent budget request also mystified lawmakers. It asked to take $6 million from Homeland S&T's 2006 budget that was supposed to be used to develop explosives detection technology and instead divert it to cover a budget shortfall in the Federal Protective Service, which provides security around government buildings.

Sens. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the top two lawmakers for Senate homeland appropriations, rejected the idea shortly after it arrived late last month, Senate leadership officials said.

Their House counterparts, Reps. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., and Sabo, likewise rejected the request in recent days, Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Kirsten Brost said. Homeland said Friday it won't divert the money.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/11/D8JEK3LG0.html”

“Spend half of your money to fill up your tanks
And spend the other half avoiding terrorist pranks”

“Are your squiting through the sights affixed to the barrel over which your hang?”

“I’m glad the Brits were able to stop this attack. However I’m not willing to give up freedoms for safety which does nothing but open Pandora’s Box and gives my government carte` blanch to do whatever it wants in the name of safety. If the government is able to show probable cause and get a court ordered warrant and they do not bypass the constitution I’m all for it. Otherwise we are but sheep to the slaughter.”

“We've learned almost nothing so far about this terrorist plot. Almost everything is "classified."

How many times have we heard about officials busting a terrorist ring only to find out later that it was a whole lot of nothing?

So, while I am willing to believe that this is a serious threat, I find it almost impossible to judge correctly.

That's why I think that the government should follow rules and work openly. It gives credibility to legitimate investigations and kills unwarranted conspiracy theories.

Fight terrorism with Democracy!”

““You're basically an idiot, aren't you?

What 'liberals' and true conservatives oppose is illegal, unconstitutionsl surveillance. You know... 'rule of law' and all that.”
Violin
8:24:08 AM



YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know I 'got' violin when he says silly things like that!
[VBG]”

“Violin, is basically a Pregnant Goldfish....and it looks like we may win this war in spite of the liberals who are still stuck on November 2000.”

“These geniues seem to think I write these cut n pastes myself.
[VBG]”

““These geniues seem to think I write these cut n pastes myself.
[VBG]”


Trust me SS...NO ONE thinks that :-)”

“violin does. ;-)”

“Would that be the war on constitutional democracy that you're referring to, XL?”

“"...it looks like we may win this war..."

Oh, I don't know. We have 25 guys arrested in London. There are 20 to 25 more groups being monitored in England currently. That's just one smallish, island nation in Europe.

We are far away from "winning" the war on terror.

And there are very few leaders in this country right now with a credible plan to do anything about it.

I'd say we're losing this war.”

“http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=4459148

Did you read about this "terrorist plot"? I was up in Michigan this last weekend and this story was all the rage. The way I was told it these guys had the gall to be both of Middle eastern decent *and* purchase (what I was told) 800 phones from WalMart...

Now I know many will say there is reason not to trust them because they are from the Middle East and also because they shop at WalMart...

I told one person that told me the story, "Why would you need 1000 cell phones to blow up the Mackinaw Bridge?"

"Well, they were probably going to blow other things up as well.", I was told.

"Why were they taking the batteries out of all the phones? Wouldn't the phones need to have their batteries installed and fully charged?"

"They were probably going to attach them to a bomb with a seperate battery."

"What were they going to blow the bridge up with? You can't blow up a bridge with a cell phone."

"Somebody else was going to provide the explosives."

... and most importantly ...

"What law did they break? Last I checked it's not even close to illegal to own 1000 cell phones as long as they paid for them. I think I have owned close to that many in my life."

"They had pictures and videos of the bridge. They were going to blow up the Mackinaw Bridge."

... America... *uck Yeah!”

“YOU know, a couple of weekends ago I was at a little get together and a bud of mine had just returned from his second tour in Iraq.

One of the more libsocialist women (had a BUSH NO pin) was over there running her mouth and she walked over to the adoring masses around my friend and (trying to fit in) said, "I just want you to know I support the troops."

He looked at her and replied, "No YOU DON'T, that is the same liberal tripe we have heard since 2001. You are deluding yourself into believing you are good rather than a supporter of the scum who seek to wipe us out as a nation. If you support the troops that means supporting us completing the mission. You support neither us nor the victory. You remind me so much of the reporters we would have to babysit. The first week or so they are the typical maggot infested liberal crapholes. Then after a couple of weeks they start seeing the war the way it is. And you know what? You NEVER see their later stuff in the main media."

She walked off and left the party.”

“a big ole "sig heil" to that XL!”

“"sig heil"?? Is that German for "visors are gay"?”

“maggot infested liberal crapholes

So he resorted to name calling? Does/did he post on TT? Is he a SARGent by any chance?

;)”

“Jimmy, the plain truth shines a light on those living in the dark, often the light hurts their eyes....


Buddah, are you commenting negativly about a HERO in the war????Shame on you....(LOL)....or wait...the german translation is HAIL VICTORY...I appreciate your support for the war.”

“concentration camp searchlights do the same thing...”

“!!!ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A DITTOHEAD STARTING IT, NOT A LIBBIE, AS IS OFTEN CLAIMED BY SARGE AND STOMP!!!”

“CB, "MOOOOOMMMMMY>>>>>>He hit back first!"”

“LMAO!”

“I'm the innermost leaves of of a cabbage, I'm the focal point, I'm the focal point, I'm the innermost leaves of a cabbage, you want to get a knife, you want to get a knife,I'm the tender leaves of a cabbage, here comes my wife ,here comes my wife shes got a knife.............”

“knives cause cabbages suffering”

“I'm already boiledtender to a tender scrumptious mouth full-----eat me.”

“Didn't that, sorry.”

“Jimmy San!

I loved that "terrorist conspiracy" :) The Mackinac Bridge is 5 miles long and I'd bet it rarely has more than 50 people on it at any one time.

Almost every traveler who passes by the bridge takes "surveillance photos" of the thing.

And if I had $5 for every convenience store in SE Michigan run by Middle Easterners who sell phone and pager plans, I'd be a VERY rich man.

I think that there are terrorists out there. But they aren't going to waste their time blowing up the Mackinac Bridge.

We all laughed when they reported it on the news.

BTW, last I heard the SE Ohio police who apprehended the "terrorists" had decided not to press charges.

Why does it not surprise me that this story started in Ohio?”

“CARO, Mich. - The FBI said Monday it had no information to indicate that the three Texas men arrested with about 1,000 cell phones in their van had any direct connection to known terrorist groups.

Also, a prosecutor in a separate Ohio case said he can't prove a terrorism link to two men arrested after buying large numbers of cell phones and will drop terrorism charges against them.

Rest of story”

“real wizard of oz kind of stuff...”

“What the liberal Congressional leaders want is to put further restraints on Bush's Constitutional anti-terrorists policies that have been 100% successful in protecting Americans on U.S. soil since 9-11-01. Without the ACLU-Democratic hated NSA eavesdropping and Patriot Act Law, America would not have had such successes.”

“So did they catch the Anthrax terrorist who hit us after 9-11 or don't you count that?”

“violin is being silly again.”

“

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/CoastToCoastExclusive.htm”

“That web page is amazing.
last edited: 8/15/06 8:08:38 AM”

“I think it’s long overdue that the Justice Department turns their attention to Little Faluja, I mean, Dearborn Michigan and start rooting some of these bassturds out. Any city that gets 10,000 muslims marching in SUPPORT of Hezbollah needs looked at.”

“Of course one could have said the same sort of thing about the "libbie freaks" that protested in Kent, Ohio on May 4, 1970.”

“Hay four strings, how did I come up with 107%?”

““Of course one could have said the same sort of thing about the "libbie freaks" that protested in Kent, Ohio on May 4, 1970.”


Jimmy, I know you are smarter than to equate peace protesters to a specific religious group that supports terrorist groups. I know you’re not that stupid so lets not try and fool me here. LOL!

We really do need to shed this fear of profiling.”

“Nixon thought they were radical "bums" and that they needed to be more than investigated for undermining the war effort by vocally protesting the bombing of Cambodia.”

“Kent State Shootings. Weird I was reading about it last night?

May 3rd (1 day before the shooting):

During a press conference, Governor Rhodes called the protesters un-American and referred to the protestors as revolutionaries set on destroying higher education in Ohio. "They're worse than the brownshirts and the communist element and also the nightriders and the vigilantes," Rhodes said. "They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
last edited: 8/15/06 9:24:29 AM”

“I wish I was smart enough to argue on this thread. Hell, I was not even alive in 1970.”