Hey Sec, Question..

[sq764]

Muslim internet cafe's, Muslim money transfer offices, Muslim butcher shops???!?!

Why would Italian officials target these places?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_re_eu/italy_security_crackdown_1

[DJofSD]

Because they can't read and they think it's Mussolini?

[Tom]

:lol:

[Indulto]

Muslim internet cafe's, Muslim money transfer offices, Muslim butcher shops???!?!

Why would Italian officials target these places?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_re_eu/italy_security_crackdown_1
"The latest raids targeting Muslims in Italy triggered the ire of a spokeswoman for the Islamic Anti-Defamation League in Italy.

"More than 4,000 people were stopped and humiliated to allow police to arrest 12 chicken thieves and 28 clandestine" migrants, the Italian news agency Apcom quoted spokeswoman Dacia Valent as saying."


I guess the terrorists were expected to SNEAK explosives aboard in EGGS. ;)

[Secretariat]

"The latest raids targeting Muslims in Italy triggered the ire of a spokeswoman for the Islamic Anti-Defamation League in Italy.

"More than 4,000 people were stopped and humiliated to allow police to arrest 12 chicken thieves and 28 clandestine" migrants, the Italian news agency Apcom quoted spokeswoman Dacia Valent as saying."


I guess the terrorists were expected to SNEAK explosives aboard in EGGS. ;)

:D That's "alleged" terrorists. Perhaps, the chickens should be arrested as well.

[sq764]

:D That's "alleged" terrorists. Perhaps, the chickens should be arrested as well.
didn't think you would answer

consistent with your idiocy

[kenwoodallpromos]

A sweep is the same thing Jerry "moonbeam" Brown is doing in Oakland, Ca- the cops are harrassing the main suspected drive-by shooters on small violations as a warning they are being watched closely.
The fact that we in the USA only do that in situations few and far between does not take away the legitimacy of such actions here or in Italy.
This complainer said a few were found committing immigration violation but (of course) those kind of crimes of using false ID's or immigration violations should not be enforced in some people's minds- the minds of people who simply do not believe in the law- and those are exactly the kind opf peole who need watching the most!

[sq764]

:D That's "alleged" terrorists. Perhaps, the chickens should be arrested as well.
What's sad about you is you would rather let 10 terrorists pass by to kill Americans rather than have one non-terrorist angry over being questioned.

If a few people get offended by being searched for the safety of the country, then too f-ing bad.

[Secretariat]

What's sad about you is you would rather let 10 terrorists pass by to kill Americans rather than have one non-terrorist angry over being questioned.

If a few people get offended by being searched for the safety of the country, then too f-ing bad.

No, what's sad, is that you categorize people in a way that doesn't even remotely represent what they beleive.

I have never had a problem with searches in this country according to the law. I just believe in the Constitution which you apparently do not. Because if you don't beleive in that, well, in essence, they've won.

[DJofSD]

I just believe in the Constitution which you apparently do not.

Looks to me like in this instance, you prefer a strict interpretation of the document.

Tell, me where does it say there's a right to abortion?

[sq764]

No, what's sad, is that you categorize people in a way that doesn't even remotely represent what they beleive.

I have never had a problem with searches in this country according to the law. I just believe in the Constitution which you apparently do not. Because if you don't beleive in that, well, in essence, they've won.
Do you think a country's government has an obligation to protect it's citizens against terrorism?

You seem more concerned with 'violating' a foreigner's 'rights' than trying to protect this nation.

Which would you rather have as an end result - 12 downed planes with thousands of innocent people dead or tighter security and a few Muslims angry about being searched?

Never mind, we all know your answer..

[PaceAdvantage]

didn't think you would answer

consistent with your idiocy

Calling someone an idiot is pretty much against the terms of this board....

Just thought I'd point this out....

[sq764]

Calling someone an idiot is pretty much against the terms of this board....

Just thought I'd point this out....
I should have been more clear.. The accurate comment was 'your idiotic responses'

[Secretariat]

Do you think a country's government has an obligation to protect it's citizens against terrorism?

You seem more concerned with 'violating' a foreigner's 'rights' than trying to protect this nation.

Which would you rather have as an end result - 12 downed planes with thousands of innocent people dead or tighter security and a few Muslims angry about being searched?

Never mind, we all know your answer..

sigh...please list a post that stated I would rather have 12 downed planes with thousands of innocent people dead. The truth thus far is that none of these alleged terrorists had even purchased a ticket yet, and it has been reported today that Scotland Yard was not ready to arrest anyone but that they were pressured to arrest them earlier than they wanted to.

But that's beside the point. The framing of your question is so far away from what I stated. First off, in this thread, I stated they are alleged terrorists. Do you have a problem with the word alleged?

Second, I spoke of the Constitution and the protections of all citizens, regardless of religion. Do you have a problem with the Constitution? If you do fine, then petition to change it via amendment. If the Supreme Court decides that it is ok to aribitrarily profile and inter Muslim citizens then it will be considered constiutional. But I doubt that, even with a Conservative court as we have since they've already told GW that he exceeded his exeutive power in the Guantanomo case.

What bugs me SQ is you frame things in your questions as one or the other. For example, the suggestion is that if we do anger muslims with unlawful searches then we are guaranteed 12 down planes. That simply is NOt what occurred here. These arrests did not occur as a result of random airport searches of muslims, but occurred as the result of police and surveilance work.

[sq764]

sigh...please list a post that stated I would rather have 12 downed planes with thousands of innocent people dead. The truth thus far is that none of these alleged terrorists had even purchased a ticket yet, and it has been reported today that Scotland Yard was not ready to arrest anyone but that they were pressured to arrest them earlier than they wanted to.

But that's beside the point. The framing of your question is so far away from what I stated. First off, in this thread, I stated they are alleged terrorists. Do you have a problem with the word alleged?

Second, I spoke of the Constitution and the protections of all citizens, regardless of religion. Do you have a problem with the Constitution? If you do fine, then petition to change it via amendment. If the Supreme Court decides that it is ok to aribitrarily profile and inter Muslim citizens then it will be considered constiutional. But I doubt that, even with a Conservative court as we have since they've already told GW that he exceeded his exeutive power in the Guantanomo case.

What bugs me SQ is you frame things in your questions as one or the other. For example, the suggestion is that if we do anger muslims with unlawful searches then we are guaranteed 12 down planes. That simply is NOt what occurred here. These arrests did not occur as a result of random airport searches of muslims, but occurred as the result of police and surveilance work.
No, my suggestion is that if possibly angering certain religions by searches prevents tragedies and death to Americans, then I am not going to feel bad for being all for it.

Again I will ask you - How would YOU tighten airline security in this country without violating the Constitution?

[kenwoodallpromos]

No, my suggestion is that if possibly angering certain religions by searches prevents tragedies and death to Americans, then I am not going to feel bad for being all for it.

Again I will ask you - How would YOU tighten airline security in this country without violating the Constitution?
__________________
How about a security rating by type and size of building, vehicle, venue etc. and establishing allowed measures since "controlled access" would be in play, and is play at many locations now?
Now entering places such as nightclubs, sporting events, airports, banks, etc. you are already subject to a certain amount of "inconvenience". At least you would know the rules before you go.

[sq764]

__________________
How about a security rating by type and size of building, vehicle, venue etc. and establishing allowed measures since "controlled access" would be in play, and is play at many locations now?
Now entering places such as nightclubs, sporting events, airports, banks, etc. you are already subject to a certain amount of "inconvenience". At least you would know the rules before you go.
No no no!! We might offend the ACLU or Rainbow Coalition or PETA or The Jockey's Guild or The World Poker Tour or GALA

[Secretariat]

Again I will ask you - How would YOU tighten airline security in this country without violating the Constitution?

Alas, the answers are not always easy. Our ports for example are screened at a very substandard level for the amount of cargo coming in. The potential for substances to arrive that could be used for explosives are immense. Yet, the admisntration chose to push for an Arab nation to run our port security. Fortunately, sensible heads in Congress on both sides rebuked that.

Imagine, if we're afraid of a glass of water getting onto a plane, what kind of liquids arrive in our ports daily with the same potential for destruction.

We cannot be consumed by fear, but we can be vigilant. Right now in the port area we are not. As to the airline security, we are already tightening security within the consitution as no cases have been made successfully challenging that. My point is (a) tightening airline security has nothing to do with the arrests in Britain a none of the alleged terrorists had evn purchased a ticket yet (b) This ocurred in another country which raises interesting questions about security when it involves two different nations. fortunately, this was a British to American flight. A flight from say Turkey to the US may involve different issues.

So, in short. Institute these searches as the Justice Department deems contitutional, and if it involves a lawsuit, (as occurred with Guantanamo Bay for instance where it was determined GW exceeded his contitutional authority), let the courts decide the constitutionality of the action.

At this point, increasing airline security, was not the cause of arrests here. Unless you know of one person arrested boarding a flight with liquid explosives in the past few days.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sec, is it possible for you to compose a post in off-topic without invoking the name of George W. Bush?

The man asked about how you would increase airport security while balancing the rights and freedoms that Americans currently enjoy.

He didn't ask for a sermon on Gitmo and another "GWB" clubbing over his head.

[sq764]

Alas, the answers are not always easy. Our ports for example are screened at a very substandard level for the amount of cargo coming in. The potential for substances to arrive that could be used for explosives are immense. Yet, the admisntration chose to push for an Arab nation to run our port security. Fortunately, sensible heads in Congress on both sides rebuked that.
.
You act as if port security just became an issue in 2000..

What was being done prior to this to tighten port security? You know, the years of 1992-2000?

[BenDiesel26]

My point is (a) tightening airline security has nothing to do with the arrests in Britain a none of the alleged terrorists had evn purchased a ticket yet (b) This ocurred in another country which raises interesting questions about security when it involves two different nations. fortunately, this was a British to American flight. A flight from say Turkey to the US may involve different issues.

Ticket Purchase (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122006/news/worldnews/evil_genius_a_key_qaeda_link_worldnews_lukas_i__al pert.htm)

...British police also found United Airlines tickets dated Aug. 16 in the home of one the terror suspects, leading them to believe that was the day jihadists set for attempting their doomsday plan, The Daily Mirror reported.

[Secretariat]

Ticket Purchase (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08122006/news/worldnews/evil_genius_a_key_qaeda_link_worldnews_lukas_i__al pert.htm)

...British police also found United Airlines tickets dated Aug. 16 in the home of one the terror suspects, leading them to believe that was the day jihadists set for attempting their doomsday plan, The Daily Mirror reported.

THat may or may not be correct as THe Daily Mirror is a tabloid and known for printing incorrect information.

I checked as many of the Scotland Yard briefings as I could, and could find nowhere they've made that statement, and have promised to be forthcoming with informaiton. The London Times has not reported this either. It could be The Mirror scooped them, but I find it odd that Scotland Yard has not yet confirmed this. Did The Mirror reveal who in Scotland Yard stated this or was it like the Seymour Hirsch article?

[Tom]

Sec, still waiting for your solution to airport security.

[rastajenk]

"Imagine, if we're afraid of a glass of water getting onto a plane, what kind of liquids arrive in our ports daily with the same potential for destruction."

Not much, really. A small explosion against the thin skin of an airliner would be catastrophic, for sure. But the same explosion inside a steel shipping crate would damage some goods, but that's about it.