10000. judithathome - 10/13/2001 1:00:54 PM
at least.
10001. mgleason - 10/13/2001 1:01:06 PM
Is it true that POJ is his body double?
10002. don s. - 10/13/2001 1:01:18 PM
*
10003. judithathome - 10/13/2001 1:01:19 PM
:-)
10004. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 1:01:20 PM
Crap. One more f and I would have time it right.
10005. Absensia - 10/13/2001 1:01:34 PM
Yes he did!
10006. don s. - 10/13/2001 1:01:58 PM
One more d and you would have spelled it right.
10007. Absensia - 10/13/2001 1:02:03 PM
Grrrrrr
10008. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 1:03:59 PM
And Francis thinks I expect too much out of this forum.
Well, I've had my thrill for the day.
10009. judithathome - 10/13/2001 2:51:06 PM
This article looks a little scary:
Officials think al Qaeda has some type of nuclear arms
10010. LohrM - 10/13/2001 3:27:51 PM
Radiological-- i.e., designed to use ordinary high-explosive to scatter radioactive dust. And it's not really likely.
10011. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:34:59 PM
Some people thought they were too stupid to pull off something like 9/11, too...
10012. AceofSpades - 10/13/2001 3:39:49 PM
Radiological weapons are good terror weapons but not very good actual weapons.
Consider: If you had a pound or so of nuclear material, you could make an actual nuke (in theory). Most likely, these radiological weapons are not made with pounds of uranium then; but a mere two or three ounces.
Now, nobody wants two or three ounces of uranium scattered in NYC. But let's face it, you'd have to be very close to ground zero or very unlucky to get a dangerous amount of uranium in your lungs.
We are bombarded with dangerous radiation every day of our lives. A radiological weapon would be no more dangerous than a bit of steam released from a nuclear power plant. Sure, it sucks, but it's not like we're all going to suddenly keep over from cancer or radiation sickness.
10013. judithathome - 10/13/2001 3:41:34 PM
I don't keep over easily, anyhow. :-)
10014. Indiana Jones - 10/13/2001 6:31:39 PM
Per my earlier post on the terrorists' lack of imagination:
Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group vowed on Sunday to hit U.S. and British interests in retaliation for U.S.-led strikes against Afghanistan.
In a statement broadcast on Qatar's al-Jazeera television network, Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Bu Ghaith also warned Americans and Britons, especially Muslims, children and "all those who oppose U.S. policy", not to "ride planes or live in high buildings".
10015. ronski - 10/13/2001 7:01:14 PM
With scores of Muslims dead in the WTC attacks, now he tells them.
10016. jexster - 10/13/2001 7:13:42 PM
Are we on highest alert yet or are we going about our business
10017. jexster - 10/13/2001 7:19:13 PM
10018. arkymalarky - 10/13/2001 7:48:57 PM
Jex,
Both. I almost stepped on a snake (copperhead) today. I think it was planted on our property.
10019. jexster - 10/13/2001 8:40:17 PM
hehehe....must have been don s. bin laden!
Say arky...fine job today over the gamecocks....I couldn't help but notice and laugh at the latest craze among Razorback fans...BUCK TEETH!
10020. jexster - 10/13/2001 8:41:28 PM
Al Jazeera Rocks!
10021. arkymalarky - 10/13/2001 10:35:20 PM
Thanks Jex. Nice change of pace for us from losing. We Arkies are trend setters, that's for sure.
10022. RustlerPike - 10/14/2001 7:20:43 AM
I once saw a 'no arking' sign in Arkansas.
This is not true, of course, but I did once see a very large sign in Hebron which said 'no barking'.
Arabs have a problem with p's and b's.
10023. RustlerPike - 10/14/2001 7:21:10 AM
Or should I say - broblem.
10024. RustlerPike - 10/14/2001 8:28:12 AM
This BBC report is full of coolness.
10025. joezan - 10/14/2001 8:56:13 AM
Our B-2s have to fly over the North Pole to get to Afghanistan?
Wow.
10026. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 9:07:49 AM
I've been meaning to ask about the route of the B-2s. I haven't seen any reports that Russia has allowed the use of its air space but I guess it must have.
10027. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 9:11:11 AM
Rustler
You may call me Belle, many Arabs did.
10028. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 9:56:27 AM
In listening to the coverage and commentary on the original WTC attack and the subsequent anthrax situations, there is one obvious response that I have not seen seriously advocated -- deport all non-citizens from predominantly Moslem nations who currently reside in the US, and don't let any more in. (Of course we would have to make an exception for diplomats.)
Yes, this would be a drastic measure. And, yes, the vast majority of Moslems in the US are peace loving and America loving individuals ... yada yada yada.
However, it appears all the Al-Qaida operatives involved in the Sept. 11 attacks were in fact non-citizens from Moslem nations. And if there are currently "sleepers" here in the US planning future attacks, they are likely to be in the same situation. So, by deporting this group we would greatly reduce the chances of a future attack, and would likely get rid of the ones who are currently sending out anthrax.
10029. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:07:10 AM
Greystoke,
I agree that your proposal is worth seriously examining.
But keep in mind the last anthrax-laced letter, delivered to Nevada, was postmarked in Malaysia.
10030. joezan - 10/14/2001 10:10:21 AM
Grey:
I agree.
Now, someone will want to say, Well, at least one of these letter attacks came from Malaysia, so...
...but it is much easier to monitor mail coming in from overseas.
10031. joezan - 10/14/2001 10:11:07 AM
Hah! - x-post, Pinch.
10032. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 10:16:03 AM
Pincher
"But keep in mind the last anthrax-laced letter, delivered to Nevada, was postmarked in Malaysia."
What Joe said.
The letter to Tom Brokaw came from New Jersey. And I'll bet my bottom dollar that it was from a non-citizen who came from a predominantly Moslem nation.
10033. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:16:28 AM
Joe,
Under the circumstances, I still have no problem kicking every last Muslim citizen from Algeria to Indonesia out of the United States until they learn to control their crazies.
10034. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:18:51 AM
Greystoke,
I agree your proposal is worth seriously considering.
10035. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 10:24:22 AM
Pincher
I see the deportation proposal not as punishment for the innocent Muslims who failed to "control their crazies", but rather as a national security action to prevent future attacks.
No doubt Al-Qaida would adapt to such a policy by trying to recuit US citizens, or immigrants from non-Moslem nations, to do their dirty work. But it would certainly disrupt any plans that are currently underway for near-future attacks.
10036. judithathome - 10/14/2001 10:32:34 AM
As soon as it is announced we are going to deport people, all hell will break loose and if any who were planning to do anything, they will step up their timetable.
10037. judithathome - 10/14/2001 10:33:21 AM
Delete who from that...
10038. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:34:18 AM
Greystoke,
I have considered something along the lines of your proposal. In the end, however, I believe that this would be a mistake. Consider, for example, the possibility that such a policy could deprive us of such interesting characters as pseudoerasmus, who to my understanding is half Pakistani. More profound, though, is the danger of isolating a significant portion of the world's population from the chance of becoming "Americanized" in their outlook on the world. If anything, I think the events of the last month have demonstrated the need to increase understanding of our way of life in the Muslim world. As I have often told my mother-in-law in the past (who frets over the "touristization" of Prague), there is a price to being an open, democratic society. Part of that price is that you risk opening your country to people with dangerous ideas. But as for us, in the long term I honestly believe that this price is counter-balanced by the benefit of exposing people to American institutions and American society.
Nevertheless, I also believe that our immigration has failed us in one important respect: The politics of multiculturalism has led us astray from the duty of, for lack of a better term, "Americanizing" those who come here to seek a new life. This is what we constantly see demonstrated here in Miami, where the identity of Cuban emigres as exiles still takes precedence over their identity as Americans, despite their conservative political leanings. And the naturalization process is a joke; although it seems patriotic to require new citizens to know how many stars and stripes are in the flag, it is worthless information as far as respecting the ideals of our nation and her institutions.
10039. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:37:51 AM
Greystoke,
I see the deportation proposal not as punishment for the innocent Muslims who failed to "control their crazies", but rather as a national security action to prevent future attacks.
What you fail to understand is that once you deport these terrorists, they will continue their acts. If they were in the United States, the U.S. law enforcement agencies would be much more likely to track them down and take them into custody than if they were in a Muslim country.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but these "innocent" Muslims have given little cooperation with the U.S. authorities. If we send these terrorists abroad, and they continue their attacks on Americans there, do you think you will have an easier time tracking them down?
10040. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:39:41 AM
Judithathome,
In case you haven't noticed, hell is already breaking loose. The question is what are you going to do about?
10041. joezan - 10/14/2001 10:47:19 AM
LC:
Multiculturalism was institutionally adopted as an alternative to assimilation, which had been seen as a failure.
You ask me, everything that was purported as being "wrong" or "failed" in the Melting Pot theory is multiplied exponentially in multiculturalism - the most glaring example of which is the outright refusal of many large immigrant groups to learn the language.
10042. judithathome - 10/14/2001 10:47:21 AM
Pincher...I have no idea what to do about it; I wasn't trying to put a damper on the idea, I was only trying to engage in the discussion.
10043. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:48:47 AM
Having said all that, I also recognize that these hijackers were not here on immigrant visas; they entered the country, mostly legally, as students and tourists, as far as I know. And it is also well-known in immigration circles that it is almost impossible to track somebody once they are in the country, and attempting to do so would require vastly increasing the size and powers of an already notoriously incompetent and bumbling federal bureaucracy - the INS. We could try doing what many European democracies do and require foreigners to register their U.S. addresses with local police, but even in Europe this largely depends on the honor system, and is only useful when a foreigner who is suspected of a crime is good enough to remain at his registered address.
Looking at what factors opened the way for the 9-11 attacks to occur, at least three or four significant failures stand out. First, there was obviously a failure to screen these guys when they were issued their student visas by the U.S. consulates or embassies abroad. Then there was the failure of cross-checking them at the point of entry, and the failure of their schools in the U.S. to report that they were not attending classes (or if they did report it, the INS should have had a standing policy to focus enforcement efforts on holders of student visas who "skip out" on attending college).
(Cont'd)
10044. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:49:06 AM
Finally, there was the failure of airport/airline security. This is a very thorny problem which, I have concluded, can only be ultimately resolved by allowing pilots to be trained and licensed to carry guns, and also by allowing law enforcement officers and perhaps specially licensed citizens to also carry weapons on board. Even the most professional airport screeners are not going to prevent every potential weapon from getting onboard, and to suggest that this is even possible would be a fraud on the public. No, I have concluded that, if the pilots had been armed on those flights, the hijackers probably wouldn't have even bothered to try. That's why I support the bill currently pending in the House that would allow pilots to arm themselves. People have got to get over their "guns are scary" paranoia and realize that most pilots have military experience in the first place, and should be counted on to behave professionally with a gun if they can be trusted to fly a $100 million airplane with hundreds of people aboard.
10045. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:52:08 AM
LadyChaos,
I have considered something along the lines of your proposal. In the end, however, I believe that this would be a mistake. Consider, for example, the possibility that such a policy could deprive us of such interesting characters as pseudoerasmus, who to my understanding is half Pakistani.
That would really be a shame, but you can't be serious in this moral calculus: lose an interesting character that you interact with online or stop an act that could potentially kill thousands of civilians.
Besides PE can post from overseas. Since he has made it clear that he intends to leave the United States as soon as possible, the only difference for both the U.S. and for himself would be the inconvenience he suffers by perhaps having to leave it a few months early.
More profound, though, is the danger of isolating a significant portion of the world's population from the chance of becoming "Americanized" in their outlook on the world. If anything, I think the events of the last month have demonstrated the need to increase understanding of our way of life in the Muslim world. As I have often told my mother-in-law in the past (who frets over the "touristization" of Prague), there is a price to being an open, democratic society. Part of that price is that you risk opening your country to people with dangerous ideas. But as for us, in the long term I honestly believe that this price is counter-balanced by the benefit of exposing people to American institutions and American society.
Well, this is a more serious argument, but I still say that until we get the threat under control, it has to be an option we look at seriously. Of course, it wouldn't be a permament measure, which is why I told Greystoke it would be "until they get their crazies under control," that is, until we get more cooperation from Muslim countries on policing these organizations in their countries.
10046. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:56:34 AM
Nevertheless, I also believe that our immigration has failed us in one important respect: The politics of multiculturalism has led us astray from the duty of, for lack of a better term, "Americanizing" those who come here to seek a new life. This is what we constantly see demonstrated here in Miami, where the identity of Cuban emigres as exiles still takes precedence over their identity as Americans, despite their conservative political leanings. And the naturalization process is a joke; although it seems patriotic to require new citizens to know how many stars and stripes are in the flag, it is worthless information as far as respecting the ideals of our nation and her institutions.
You're leaving out the information that many --perhaps most -- of these people come in on visas that have nothing to do with putting them on the fast track to Americanization.
10047. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:57:58 AM
until we get more cooperation from Muslim countries on policing these organizations in their countries.
I'm afraid that, as soon as we have taken care of Al-Quaeda, we will have to give them the phyrric victory of ending our support for Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime, because they have chosen to resolve their own problems with Islamic extremism by allowing their crazies to vent against us. This is hardly the behavior that we should expect from allies. I would think that marginally democratic fundamentalist regime that mostly keeps to itself would be preferable to what we have now in our Arab "allies." Besides, our policy toward the Saudis is premised on the ludicrous notion that, if somebody else is in charge, they might shut off the spigot to Arab oil. The global oil picture has changed significantly from the early 70s, and whoever is in control of Arab oil would hurt themselves more than us by instituting an embargo.
10048. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 10:59:01 AM
Judith,
Okay, sorry if I sniped at you.
10049. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 10:59:37 AM
Pincher,
See Message # 10043, etc.
10050. pseudoerasmus - 10/14/2001 11:00:30 AM
I have UK citizenship.
10051. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:02:57 AM
I'm afraid that, as soon as we have taken care of Al-Quaeda, we will have to give them the phyrric victory of ending our support for Saudi Arabia and the Mubarak regime, because they have chosen to resolve their own problems with Islamic extremism by allowing their crazies to vent against us.
Well, I'm all for it. I have had a sea change in my attitude towards the Saudi regime since 9-11.
10052. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:03:30 AM
Did PE really say that he wants to get out of America asap? Where does he want to go, Peshawar?
I suspect that he would much rather return to Switzerland, or London. I can't imagine him being happy amongst the equivocating French, though.
Btw, has he reported on his journey to Peshawar? I understood that he was to go there for an uncle's funeral.
10053. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:03:51 AM
LadyChaos
As Pincher said, this would be a temporary measure to prevent near-future attacks. If we are able to develop better screening and tracking mechanisms for non-citizens, we could allow visitors from Moslem nations in the future.
Judith
"As soon as it is announced we are going to deport people, all hell will break loose and if any who were planning to do anything, they will step up their timetable."
If that is a prediction, then I agree that could happen.
If that is intended as an argument against deportation, then I don't understand. If the attack is going to occur, what difference does it make whether its sooner or later ?
10054. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:04:25 AM
Aha. There he is.
Greetings, PE. How goes it?
10055. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:04:41 AM
I have UK citizenship.
Well that solves it for me; let's begin deporting as soon as possible.
10056. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:07:03 AM
pseudoerasmus
"I have UK citizenship."
OK. You can stay.
Until the UK becomes a predominantly Moslem nation.
10057. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:07:34 AM
Pincher, thank you.
Do you think the media is contributing to a sense of panic by focusing on this anthrax scare too much? I mean, if they are this gungho on 4 or 5 cases, what will happen if something much more serious occurs like smallpox which can spread from person to person like wildfire?
I think it's important to keep the public as calm as possible because we're going to need our wits about us if anything like smallpox is set loose...and yet, I also want the public to be as imformed as possible about the dangers they may be facing. Because I think the Bush people saying go on about your lives is fine but I wish they would stress more about the serious need to be more vigilant.
10058. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:10:21 AM
Greystoke:
If that is intended as an argument against deportation
As I have explained already, it was not intended as an argument against, it was merely to engage in the discussion.
10059. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:10:23 AM
LadyChaos,
I don't see anything I disagree with in your 10043 and 10044, but you do seem to be fighting the last war with your measures for arming pilots, etc.
If these Anthrax attacks are Bin Laden-inspired, which appears more and more likely, then it's obvious that the group has thought of numerous measures beyond using jet-liners for attacking civilians targets. Their proximity to civlians in the U.S. gives them richer targets to hit than if they were deported in mass.
10060. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:11:22 AM
Pincher
"What you fail to understand is that once you deport these terrorists, they will continue their acts. If they were in the United States, the U.S. law enforcement agencies would be much more likely to track them down and take them into custody than if they were in a Muslim country."
My goal is to prevent attacks inside the US. What the terrorists do outside our country is still a concern, but largely beyond our control.
Are you saying that because US intelligence / law enforcement did such a great job of preventing the Sept. 11 attacks that we can depend on them to prevent future attacks by terrorists residing in the US ?
10061. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:13:20 AM
Judith
"As I have explained already, it was not intended as an argument against, it was merely to engage in the discussion."
That's fine. I was just seeking clarification.
10062. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:21:24 AM
Judith,
Do you think the media is contributing to a sense of panic by focusing on this anthrax scare too much? I mean, if they are this gungho on 4 or 5 cases, what will happen if something much more serious occurs like smallpox which can spread from person to person like wildfire?
I think that the use of Anthrax in a few letters in the post 9-11 environment is worthy of all the media attention it has been given.
I also think that if a serious epidemic broke out then the panic would probably be both inevitable and understandable. These extreme type of attacks are worthy of extreme, even excessive responses.
I think it's important to keep the public as calm as possible because we're going to need our wits about us if anything like smallpox is set loose
If smallpox breaks loose, then your wits ought to be telling you to do everything in extremis: don't go out in public places, carefully monitor everything coming into your house, go to carefully controlled places for food, etc.
...and yet, I also want the public to be as imformed as possible about the dangers they may be facing. Because I think the Bush people saying go on about your lives is fine but I wish they would stress more about the serious need to be more vigilant.
Well, it's a tough balance: on the one hand you don't want to give the terrorists too much respect, because it validates their tactics. But on the other hand, you want a vigilant and responsible public. Tough call at this stage.
Bu it wouldn't be if smallpox broke out.
10063. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:21:40 AM
A lot of our government's failure to protect us from terrorism has arisen from a failure to think like terrorists. One looming failure is this nonsense about missile defense. The ultimate wet dream for a guy like Bin Laden is, of course, to detonate a nuclear device in a major American city. If I were Bin Laden, I would have focused a great deal of energy on trying to get my hands on a crude nuclear bomb. Indeed, he has announced this as one of his purposes. But once they get ahold of a nuke, an organization like Al-Quaeda or a terrorist state is unlikely to then spend the hundreds of billions of dollars required to develop an ICBM to lob at the U.S. They are neither so patient nor so rich, and they have demonstrated that an important aspect of their m.o. is to leave as little evidence as possible. If I were Bin Laden, and I had a crude nuke, I would arrange to have it placed in a shipping container in the hold or on the deck of a vessel bound for a major port in the U.S. And there is no shortage of available vessels for doing this. In the week after 9/11, my law firm had to arrest a vessel in the Port of Miami that turned out to be owned by the Egyptian government and to have an all-Egyptian crew. There is no way the Coast Guard or customs can screen every container that comes into the country (if they could, we would have a lot less cocaine on the streets). Missile defense is a fraud, a white elephant waiting to be gestated, and our politicians should stop disinforming the public that such a system could ever be useful.
10064. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:22:04 AM
Grey:
That's okay...I may be a tad touchy because I've been mislabeled as an apologist for the terrorists by a few on this thread simply because I suggested doing what Colin Powell eventually did.
10065. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 11:25:18 AM
Judith
"I've been mislabeled as an apologist for the terrorists."
Hey, someone has to present their point of view.
Just kidding.
10066. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:29:18 AM
Btw, for those of you who may not live near a port city, a cargo container is a 40-foot long metal box, although they also come in the 20-foot variety. One can get a sense of the scope of the problem there just passing by the Port of Miami, where you can glance across the waterway and see the containers piled four stories high.
10067. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:29:24 AM
My son is an adult now and since I really haven't paid attention to many children starting school these days, I have a question...are kids still required to have smallpox vaccinations these days like they were when we and our adult children were starting school?
10068. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:31:02 AM
LadyC:
My husband is in the moving business and he has speculated the same thing...shipments of household goods in containers come into this country every day from overseas.
10069. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:31:33 AM
Perhaps one way to secure our ports would be to pass legislation to revive the American Merchant Marine. Ever since Congress made it economically unfeasible to operate an American-flagged vessel, we have gone from having the largest maritime fleet in the world to having virtually none.
10070. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 11:32:37 AM
Greystoke,
Are you saying that because US intelligence / law enforcement did such a great job of preventing the Sept. 11 attacks that we can depend on them to prevent future attacks by terrorists residing in the US?
Oh, I think it's a given that the intelligence services have never been more alert and on top of the situation in their entire histories, than they have been in the post 9-11 environment. Every non-citizen Muslim man in the U.S. between 20 and 45 probably has a bug in his beard and a camara in his Koran right now.
But the U.S. agencies working on these cases would be seriously handicapped, both in finding out the entire scope of the terrorist's operations and in foiling future attacks, if we sent the entire demographic group the terrorists belong to back overseas.
Yes, sending them overseas gives them less access to rich targets of numerous Americans, but I think it's a tougher call than you suggest. I would hate to have some important terrorists leaders in our grip, and under our surveillance, only to ruin our chances at getting at more of these bastards by sending them overseas.
10071. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:36:21 AM
Judith,
I have yet to hear a sensible answer to my scenario in Message # 10063 from NMD advocates.
10072. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:40:47 AM
have yet to hear a sensible answer to my scenario in Message # 10063 from NMD advocates.
I doubt you will because there is none.
10073. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 11:41:50 AM
Re: Message # 10063,
Hell, for that matter, you wouldn't even have to use a shipping container. There are several shipping companies that ship private yachts as on-deck cargo from the Mediterranean, and I know for a fact that these vessels are not inspected whatsoever (except perhaps to check that the fuel tanks have been either capped or emptied). It would be a cinch to have one of these delivered water-to-water, and have it dropped right at the mouth of the Miami River. From there, it would be easy to chug up right next to one of the most densely populated areas south of D.C.
10074. judithathome - 10/14/2001 11:46:09 AM
If these containers had fake household goods in them, they could be trucked to anyplace in the country...how many moving company vans do you see on the road daily?
10075. Andonly - 10/14/2001 12:03:09 PM
"We could try doing what many European democracies do and require foreigners to register their U.S. addresses with local police, but even in Europe this largely depends on the honor system, and is only useful when a foreigner who is suspected of a crime is good enough to remain at his registered address."
I can immediately see a way around this problem. It involves some sort of certification process by which real estate owners could be assured that they were selling or renting to foreigners known to the state. Compliance could be assured via threat of federal prosecution of the property owners, on whom it would be legally incumbent to determine that their foreign clients had registered with police/FBI. The private sector could be involved: the equivalent of title companies would provide real estate owners with researched assurance that prospective renters/buyers checked out with local and national law enforcement. The cost would be born by the foreign student/visitor, or his sponsors.
10076. judithathome - 10/14/2001 12:08:41 PM
They would have to lift the non-discrimination laws on realtors first. They can be sued for any type of discrimination now.
10077. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:12:37 PM
LadyChaos,
I've been amazed at how many people have looked at the events surrounding 9-11, and read into it a sign that their political agenda is correct.
Those who were for a strong U.S. alliance with Israel, say they have been proven right by these events: that the Israelis are the only civilized group in that region.
Those who have been against the strong U.S. relationship with Israel have also been equally validated in their opinion.
NMD proponents suggest that the insaneness surrounding 9-11 shows there are some people in the world willing to do anything to hurt the U.S., and so mutually assured destruction no longer applies.
Those against NMD point to the destruction caused by terrorists and say this shows that someone can harm the U.S., by working secretly inside the states, as much as they could by lobbing a missile at the U.S. from outside.
Those inclined to pacifism say that 9-11 shows the Gulf War was a failure, and that military force never works (blowback, they say).
Those for military force point at the weak and ineffective response by Clinton towards terrorist attacks during his tenure and say this shows that you need to have a more forceful and decisive response to these kinds of attacks.
Andoly, bless her heart, thinks it shows that SUVs have to go, so as to lessen U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.
Basically, the events surrounding 9-11 become a gestalt for a person's political views. I've been amazed at how many people have come out of the woodwork to assure me they knew this was coming. I've also been equally amazed at how little it has changed anyone's views on the matters dear to their heart.
10078. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:14:10 PM
continued ...
But I'll admit, here and now, that 9-11 has changed a few views of mine in almost radical ways.
Before 9-11, I would have argued, and indeed did argue several times in this very forum, that terrorism would never be a effective use of force.
In the same vein, I also argued that effective bio/chemical terrorism, radiological terrorism, and other advanced forms of terrorism were beyond the kin of even the most advanced terrorist group ... that a terrorist with several guns or a truck ful of fertilizer could kill just as many if not more than someone armed with chemical or biological weapons.
I also believed in accomadation with the repressive regimes in the Middle East, so long as we reached an understanding of sorts.
Those beliefs of mine, well-thought out and in most cases backed up with credible sources, bit the dust on 9-11.
But one belief of mine which hasn't chnaged is the idea that the U.S. will need missile defense of some sort in the future. One type of threat to the U.S. does not preclude another, and given the fast development by many regimes hostile to us to develop these long-range missiles, I want to have both secure harbors and airports as well as missile defense.
10079. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:17:40 PM
In the spirit of my last two posts, I hope to hear ways that other people here have not been confirmed in their previous thinking by what happened on 9-11.
It gets a little tiresome to hear someone say, "yes, this just goes to show that I was right all along."
10080. Andonly - 10/14/2001 12:32:18 PM
"Besides, our policy toward the Saudis is premised on the ludicrous notion that, if somebody else is in charge, they might shut off the spigot to Arab oil. The global oil picture has changed significantly from the early 70s, and whoever is in control of Arab oil would hurt themselves more than us by instituting an embargo."
Is there any doubt that a fundamentalist takeover of Arabia would not hesitate to cut off its nose to spite its face? These people are ideologues, not economists.
Moreover, the issue isn't just the supply of oil but the amount of investments in oil development that western countries currently have in Saudi Arabia. And proposed investments--the west has committed to about $100 billion in oil investments in Saudi over the next 20 years. At $3.5 billion, our good friend Britain currently is the second largest investor in SA, plus it has 90+ joint British-Saudi ventures. How far would the US go toward anti-Saudi policies that would wind up putting the UK in the hot seat?
And of course we're not so philanthropic as to be worried about England alone. We've got our own interests. SA is the biggest mideast market for US products, including weapons and probably agricultural stuff; we are their primary trading partner.
Would that apple cart remain upright if the Wahhabi clerics ousted the House of Saud & formally took over? I'm guessing a lot of apples would sure fall. A key objective of people with bin Laden's mindset is to punish western power, so I think it silly to assume they wouldn't stoop to attempting to bring about another world-wide economic tumble as Saudi and Egypt did with the first oil shock.
They'd do it even if their own people starved as a consequence. After all, the serfs would be suffering for a holy cause.
10081. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:34:32 PM
PincherMartin - and what's your own explanation regarding the cause of 911?
10082. CalGal - 10/14/2001 12:37:08 PM
Well, 9-11 only served to prove two views I've held for the past ten or fifteen years, but since neither of them are political (much) I figure I can be forgiven.
10083. judithathome - 10/14/2001 12:39:30 PM
I was never one that thought "it could never happen here" and I will admit, seeing it happen in real time shook me to my bones. I wasn't a supporter of the VietNam war and I thought the Gulf war was more for oil than a defense of people we wanted to aid but I was for serious retaliation and deadly force against those who did this from about 9:45am on September 11 and it surprised me. I did feel we needed to wait to strike until we knew exactly who we were striking but other than that, I found myself in support of a war. (Despite what some here have implied my feelings were...)
So I think this event has changed what my natural inclination seems to have been in the past which was to avoid war. I no longer think that is an option...my world view has changed dramatically so I could never claim I was right all along. I guess I was naive all along.
10084. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:40:03 PM
DesertLily,
I think there is a virulent strain of Islam that finds the notion of a powerful infidel country that interferes in the affairs of Muslims too much to bear.
10085. Andonly - 10/14/2001 12:41:09 PM
"Andoly, bless her heart, thinks it shows that SUVs have to go, so as to lessen U.S. dependence on Middle East oil.'
Pincher, isn't your historically pro-SUV view (implying unchecked US oil consumption in the US is not a political problem) unchanged in the wake of 9-11?
The direction of investment has to change. We can enagage in all sorts of trade as long as it doesn't contribute to a dependency on despots that becomes intractable. Energy dependency is a fundamental thing.
If you want to drive an SUV, fine, but it's got to be a hybrid.
10086. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:41:14 PM
I have none.
10087. dusty - 10/14/2001 12:42:18 PM
CalGal!
Been wondering where you were.
10088. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:43:58 PM
I meant to say "I have no explanation for 911" ----not that I don't have a SUV, words that appeared above my last post, ha, ha.
10089. CalGal - 10/14/2001 12:44:14 PM
Hi, Dusty. Nice to see you.
10090. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:46:04 PM
So PincherMartin - did you think that before 911 too, or have you changed your views since then?
10091. desertlily - 10/14/2001 12:51:14 PM
By the way...I never did understand that national SUV-hate. I figured it got spread around in the same way that Microsoft-hate did, which was via.........does anybody know?
10092. judithathome - 10/14/2001 12:54:12 PM
I think SUV hate got spread around by us sports car drivers who can't see over the damned things.
10093. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 12:57:20 PM
Andoly,
Pincher, isn't your historically pro-SUV view (implying unchecked US oil consumption in the US is not a political problem) unchanged in the wake of 9-11?
The direction of investment has to change. We can enagage in all sorts of trade as long as it doesn't contribute to a dependency on despots that becomes intractable. Energy dependency is a fundamental thing.
If you want to drive an SUV, fine, but it's got to be a hybrid.
I just don't see the West's (including Japan) energy dependence on the Third World changing anytime soon, and I don't see how banning SUVs would make a difference in and of itself. If that proposal would make a difference, then yes I would probably be for it.
One major problem you haven't considered is that Europeans and Japanese are both much more dependent on Middle East oil than the U.S. is, and they don't drive SUVs in significant numbers.
So even if banning SUVs would make a difference in the U.S., that still leaves the country with two major trade partners, ones we are economically dependent on, who would still be dependent on Middle East oil.
Like it or not, the developed world is dependent on Third World oil.
10094. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 1:09:41 PM
Hello CalGal
DesertLily,
So PincherMartin - did you think that before 911 too, or have you changed your views since then?
No, that part has not changed, but I never considered them a serious threat before. I mean everyone knew that they might blow up a plane or a cafe, but I never thought their organizational ability went much beyond that.
When you read about how fumblefingered the Aum Shinryko Cult was in its biological and chemical attacks, you'll have a better appreciation of what I mean. And this was the best-educated and best-financed terrorist group around. It seemed likely given this that only a state could pull off an attack of this magnitude. Some scholars of terrorism actually said as much (much to their current embarrassment).
Now I know better. While the 9-11 attacks did not use chemical and biological weapons, they were equally impressive in how well-organized and planned they were. After this, I don't think anyone will ever underestimate terrorists again. I know I won't.
10095. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:14:02 PM
Hi back, but you didn't answer my post. I am most devastated.
BTW, has anyone given serious thought to how an Arab terrorist would hide in the country these days? If they aren't calling themselves Jose, Fernando, and Jesus I'd be most surprised. Where better for an oliveskinned terrorist to hide out than in our biggest group of "good" illegals?
Why the feds aren't rousting all illegals is more than I can figure, really.
10096. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 1:15:01 PM
Good night.
I hope to read someone honestly answer my question of how 9-11 changed a political view they held.
10097. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 1:16:15 PM
CalGal
"The problem with Grey's proposal is that it focuses on countries, which surely won't do."
I think it would work just fine. Do you agree that the 9/11 hijackers and their co-conspirators identified so far were all from predominantly Moslem nations ? Then if we kicked out all non-citizens from those nations, isn't it likely that we would get rid of most of the Al-Qaida operatives in this country ? (Of course I realize that the terrorists wouldn't all go willingly, but we could hunt down the ones who remained.)
"Step 1, deport all illegals, regardless of country of origin.
Step 2, put severe travel restrictions on people coming here on temporary visas, and require all people here on student or business visas to have permission from their sponsor.
Step 3, along Andonly's lines but further, restrict the ability of those in the country temporarily or permanently to rent or purchase anything other than disposables."
I agree with your proposals. But I still think deporting those non-citizens who are here legally based on country of origin is a good idea, also.
10098. PincherMartin - 10/14/2001 1:16:58 PM
Sorry. It's almost one thirty in the morning here and I'm beat.
Try me again next time.
10099. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 1:17:05 PM
I know that many folks have been arrested already, a couple hundred at least is my recollection.
I dont't know that hiding among Mexicans would work all that well.
10100. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:18:05 PM
Pincher--but I did answer your question, the one you just said you'd like for someone to answer. I was joking about the devastation part, though.
10101. Greystoke - 10/14/2001 1:19:00 PM
pincher
"I hope to read someone honestly answer my question of how 9-11 changed a political view they held."
The main change in my views is that previously I cared nothing about what happened in other countries, while now I care to the extent that we make the bastards pay for what they did on 9/11 and prevent future attacks on American soil.
10102. judithathome - 10/14/2001 1:24:38 PM
I hope to read someone honestly answer my question of how 9-11 changed a political view they held.
I did answer your question and very soon after you asked it, too.
10103. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:28:22 PM
Grey,
No need to deport them if you basically castrate them. If someone from Pakistan, Sweden, or Germany has an H1B visa and a legitimate job, let them stay. But they can't rent an apartment without approval from their employer, they can't get on a plane without permission of their employer, and the moment their job ends, their apartment complex gives them 30 days and they can only get on a plane to leave the country.
Then if we kicked out all non-citizens from those nations, isn't it likely that we would get rid of most of the Al-Qaida operatives in this country ?
The majority were here illegally, I believe (only 6 of 19 legally and on joke student visas, I think?). And all the terrorists would have to do is get fraudulent ids--or disappear completely and pretend to be illegals from another country (eg, Mexico).
So no, it wouldn't get rid of anyone reliably. My objection to getting rid of people on basis of country isn't a concern for their rights, it's just that it will reduce the scrutiny of people from other countries, where the terrorists will naturally turn to next.
Also, remember that many of the people who are here "legally" are here on a student or business visa and can't be found. In fact, I've always thought it mildly unfair that the attack was viewed as an intelligence failure. The CIA notified the FBI, the FBI checked up with the INS, the INS said "hey, they're at the Marriot hotel, we think." That's an immigration failure, not an intelligence one.
So we'll only be able to nail down the people who are here on H1B visas, who are probably the least likely to include terrorists, and the people who are actually going to school and findable which again makes them unlikely to be terrorists.
No, I'd start with the people who are here illegally, no matter what country, and make it impossible for them to live here, travel, or make a purchase of any kind.
10104. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 1:30:09 PM
Erin,
Around 700 have been arrested or detained and they're looking for about 190 more.
Arabs look nothing like Mexicans or any other Hispanics.
Nice to know y'all elected to let PE stay in the country if he wanted. Mighty white of you.
10105. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:31:13 PM
Brooklyn Boy Predicts the WTC Attack and this one, for a change, isn't an urban myth.
There are only three possibilities. One, the youth was clairvoyant. Two, the youth, knowing about the 1993 bombing, was just venting anger in a particularly timely way. Three, word of the attack on the World Trade Center was rumored in his neighborhood and he heard about it.
Sorry if this has been posted.
10106. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 1:31:52 PM
Well, not nothing like. They have dark hair and eyes and skin.
Oh no. I do too.
10107. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:32:26 PM
Arabs look nothing like Mexicans or any other Hispanics.
Arabs look nothing like Sikhs or Indians, either. Have you noticed this making a difference to Whitey?
Me, neither.
10108. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 1:34:19 PM
They weren't trying to hide out in the middle of a bunch of Hispanics.
10109. jexster - 10/14/2001 1:35:35 PM
10110. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 1:36:40 PM
I have been told that I could easily pass for a Saudi, and I am 100 percent non-Arab.
Your point is correct, though: look for illegals in those communities where they would look more like the population.
10111. desertlily - 10/14/2001 1:38:38 PM
I wonder if people will ever understand that calling someone "whitey" is as racist as calling someone "nigger", "kike", etc., ad nauseum?
10112. desertlily - 10/14/2001 1:45:01 PM
If it's 1AM for you, PincherMartin - where are you, Indonesia?
Your question made me realize that I did have a theory and that not only didn't I discard it after 911, but it got amplified while I re-discovered it, just now.
I'm not writing it down here beause I first need to think it through and see if it holds up if I challenge it myself :-)
10113. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:45:16 PM
Desert,
That was the point.
They weren't trying to hide out in the middle of a bunch of Hispanics.
Exactly. So if you were an oliveskinned Arab and noticed that anyone from the middle or central part of Asia was being subjected to extra scrutiny, why not move to North Carolina, get a driver's license and checking account under the name of Jose Colon, move into a community of mostly illegals, and look furtive whenever anyone asks you your name?
10114. jexster - 10/14/2001 1:45:39 PM
In the years prior to the Big One, WWII, Europeans were mezmerized by fear of ariel bombing...BUT that fear was short-lived
PESHAWAR, Pakistan --As American bombs slammed into Afghanistan for a seventh day Saturday, fighters of the ruling Taliban have taken cover in the mountains or in heavily populated urban areas, according to refugees and the extensive military intelligence network here in neighboring Pakistan.
In fact, city centers are sufficiently tranquil that large numbers of regular Taliban have brought their small arms with them, these sources say.
However, many Afghans fleeing to this border town--most of them ethnic Pushtuns, the same ethnic group that makes up the majority of the Taliban--also say the attacks have strengthened, not weakened, internal support for the regime.
Always Does
10115. CalGal - 10/14/2001 1:46:38 PM
Erin--hey, when did you go back to being Erin? Was I gone that long?
I don't think you could pass for Saudi at all. But you could certainly pass for Egyptian.
10116. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 1:55:27 PM
My husband's Saudi friends seemed to think I could pass for one. A former boss of mine is white and has three biracial (African-American) daughters. Her daughters are scrutinized by security whenever they travel overseas.
I can't seem to find my password for the "racehorse" moniker.
10117. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 1:57:40 PM
I can immediately see a way around this problem. It involves some sort of certification process by which real estate owners could be assured that they were selling or renting to foreigners known to the state. Compliance could be assured via threat of federal prosecution of the property owners.... The cost would be born by the foreign student/visitor, or his sponsors.
I'm afraid that this would raise equal protection issues that would drive our courts crazy.
Pincher,
You haven't addressed the central issue, which is how NMD would really make us any safer. Do you really think that, if we had such a system in place, that we would have the luxury of relying on it? Do you think that if someone like Hussein had a nuclear ICBM, that we would say, "Go ahead and fire away?"
No, I don't think so. In the end, we would have to rely on all the other things that prevent states from launching nuclear attacks, national survival being the primary motivating factor. Saddam may be crazy, but he's not stupid.
10118. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:00:28 PM
I'm afraid that this would raise equal protection issues that would drive our courts crazy.
Why? We don't owe non-citizens equal access.
10119. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:02:38 PM
I don't know what it will take to convince people that there are 'Hispanics' in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ethnicities. Before the revolution, for example, there was a sizable Lebanese contingent in Cuba, inexplicably called Polacos (Poles).
10120. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:03:56 PM
mgleason, you mean you can't ID them by their sombreros?
10121. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:06:49 PM
Erin,
When I lived in Saudi Arabia, I was surprised to discover that most of the people living there weren't Saudis, but from some other Arab country, and that every darkskinned Arab I met was from one of those. I've never met a darkskinned Saudi, or even heard of one. But I wouldn't consider myself an expert, there might be a whole 'nuther appearance type I'm unfamiliar with.
It's also possible that you have lighter skin than my memory filed away, which sounds odd but I imagine you know what I mean.
10122. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:07:05 PM
Well, yeah, Don, but you need a secret decoder ring for the various sombreros.
10123. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:07:11 PM
Hispanics do come in all colors, etc., which is why people often walk up to me and attempt to speak to me in Spanish!
But Arabs have a distinctive "look," which is quite different than that of most Hispanics.
10124. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:10:52 PM
Well, I could post a photo and take the conversation in a whole different direction...
I think Saudis are largely outnumbered by foreign workers within their own country. My husband, who has worked there off and on over the years, says that Saudis for the most part hire most of their work out.
10125. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:11:23 PM
I don't know what it will take to convince people that there are 'Hispanics' in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ethnicities.
Oh, I agree. In fact, one of the Times articles on racism discussed the different experience of black Cubans vs. "white" Cubans.
The Arab terrorists, on the other hand, seem to have a general uniformity of skin color--I don't recall any of them being darker than cafe au lait.
The point only was that there is a large population of olive skinned people who are quite often here illegally, speak with an accent, don't ask questions, and are currently not under much scrutiny. Great place to hide out, if you're an Arab terrorist.
10126. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:11:42 PM
ˇOlé!
10127. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:12:18 PM
I think Saudis are largely outnumbered by foreign workers within their own country.
Yep.
10128. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:16:25 PM
ˇGloria seculorum amen!
10129. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:21:15 PM
My point was that there are certainly individuals of Arab descent within the Spanish-speaking world, not the least because of the Moorish occupation of Spain.
10130. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:21:58 PM
ˇ-21r5 + 45r4 - 25r3 + 1!
10131. mgleason - 10/14/2001 2:21:59 PM
You're on the right track, Don!
10132. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:23:34 PM
My point was that there are certainly individuals of Arab descent within the Spanish-speaking world, not the least because of the Moorish occupation of Spain.
Oh! Lord, that whooshed right over my head. Yes, of course.
10133. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 2:25:25 PM
What about people with dual passports? Aren't they suspect too. And people who just recently have become citizens? Couldn't they have ulterior motives? On the whole is citizenship in itself a guarantee for loyalty to the country?
10134. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 2:28:01 PM
CalGal
Welcome back!
There are dark-skinned Saudis, remnants from the slave trade.
10135. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:28:42 PM
Pelle,
Whether they are or not, they are citizens, and have rights.
But as I mentioned in my first post, I think we are at a real risk of creating citizen terrorists. The media has been providing interviews of any number of Muslim teens living in America, being raised and schooled as Muslim, and their comments haven't encouraged me in the slightest.
10136. joezan - 10/14/2001 2:29:26 PM
Judith:
I think smallpox vaccines ended in '72.
10137. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:30:38 PM
Hadn't seen your welcome, thanks!
Okay, there are darkskinned Saudis. Thanks for clearing that up. Although if I were Erin and wanted to "pass", I'd go with Egyptian, it would raise less questions.
BTW, I had the opportunity to go to Qatar on a contract. Just a couple weeks. I wanted to go, but the contract agency said the client had unrealistic rate limitations. Bummer.
10138. Cellar Door - 10/14/2001 2:31:07 PM
10139. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:32:31 PM
ˇceci n’est pas un sombrero!
10140. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:33:36 PM
Cal: just in case I would want to pass and wreak havoc on the Arab world, it's nice to know where I would most effectively carry out my evil plans.
10141. Property of Jesus - 10/14/2001 2:35:44 PM
I think it was wise for Spudboy to leave mote. He's at TT now arguing that the FBI was somehow responsible for the WTC homicide bombings.
Even MSNBC, #4 in cable news, was smart enough to can him.
10142. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:36:39 PM
"Before 9-11, I would have argued, and indeed did argue several times in this very forum, that terrorism would never be a effective use of force."
One of the people you argued with was me. My views, needless to say, have not changed on that subject (except that I'm actually less concerned about biologicals than I was two weeks ago).
"In the same vein, I also argued that effective bio/chemical terrorism, radiological terrorism, and other advanced forms of terrorism were beyond the kin of even the most advanced terrorist group ... that a terrorist with several guns or a truck ful of fertilizer could kill just as many if not more than someone armed with chemical or biological weapons."
The obvious argument against this position being that the fact that a fertilizer weapon is useful does not make a radiological or biological weapon less useful. The latter also arguably have a more profound psychological impact.
"I also believed in accomadation with the repressive regimes in the Middle East, so long as we reached an understanding of sorts."
So did I. Now I don't--or rather, I believe now the criteria by which we decide to be accommodating must drastically change. I'm thinking we need a return to ideology, and a clearer vision of what we believe is worth dying over.
10143. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:36:52 PM
"But one belief of mine which hasn't chnaged is the idea that the U.S. will need missile defense of some sort in the future. One type of threat to the U.S. does not preclude another..."
I was never against NMD, just very skeptical of its cost and pace of development relative to immediate needs. I had gradually decided the idea was probably worth pursuing, but had reservations about whether we could afford to get there in time. I should add that among right thinkers it is an article of faith that NMD is a vile and loathsome plan for world domination; therefore I had not discussed my views on this subject with many people. All such exchanges had proven pointless.
After 9-11, a plan of "world domination" that deters distant countries from attacking our distant interests (because they couldn't hit us back if we retaliated) is looking increasingly attractive, and I'm less ambivalent about taking a position on NMD. Barring new information, I'm for it.
10144. judithathome - 10/14/2001 2:37:30 PM
Thanks, joezan...
10145. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 2:38:47 PM
Yes, I for one know the variety of physical appearances in the Hispanic community, having lived and worked and attended school with a variety of Hispanic groups most of my life. Just among the Brazilian exchange students I've taught alone I've had from lighter-skinned blonde to students of African descent. What was said was in the context of the general idea of Arabs "hiding" within a Hispanic community, which I find exceedingly unlikely anyway.
10146. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:39:42 PM
and just in case anyone misses the clowns and the kittens … 
10147. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 2:41:07 PM
Rose, shut up.
10148. don s. - 10/14/2001 2:43:42 PM
10149. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:44:08 PM
What was said was in the context of the general idea of Arabs "hiding" within a Hispanic community, which I find exceedingly unlikely anyway.
What's so unlikely about it? These folks were able to go to flying schools and get lessons in turning only. They had midnight meetings that confused their neighbors, who did nothing.
You think any of the others still here might not have realized that things would get a little hot for Arabs after the attack? All they need to do is find a way to hide in plain sight again.
I'm not saying they are definitely in that community, but it's stupid not to at least consider it. It's certainly not "unlikely", but instead a pretty clever notion that doesn't seem outside their capabilities, from what we've seen so far. They don't have to be brilliant, they just have to understand Americans and their ways.
10150. judithathome - 10/14/2001 2:45:58 PM
These folks were able to go to flying schools and get lessons in turning only. They had midnight meetings that confused their neighbors, who did nothing.
Are these things Hispanics routinely do?
10151. CalGal - 10/14/2001 2:47:29 PM
No, Judith. Try again.
10152. judithathome - 10/14/2001 2:50:33 PM
Cal, I understand what you are saying perfectly well; I just don't think they are doing what you suggest they are doing...or should do...
10153. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:50:51 PM
Oh, and Pincher, I didn't call for banning SUVs. I called for surtaxing the sale of SUVs and other inefficient vanity vehicles not used for work, I called for massive subsidies of alternative fuel development (the sort which Bush said at Genoa he would not fund), I called for drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and other protected sites, I called for subsidies to existing public transportation and for additional public xpo development.
Moreover, I'd like to see an ad campaign that claims that oil dependency is un-American while innovation is the heart and soul of America. We should make it a WPA-like crusade to spearhead the development of safe, fast, oil miserly vehicles, which we could then recoup some of our investment on by selling them to Europe and Japan. Why not fight big oil with big industry? The public investment wouldn't be about the public sector betting on markets but about betting on increased political manoueverability.
Plus, I'd like to see a pan-western anti-drugs campaign that points out that if you use heroin, you're a traitorous supporter of the Taliban.
10154. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:51:36 PM
JAH: I'm not sure that that is relevant. I think the point is that people should have been a lot more diligent. I am astonished that the fact that the terrorists didn't want to learn how to take off or land, just manuver, didn't raise huge red flags.
As for the neighbors, I don't see that behaviour to be atypical. Lots of people get together to do things that seem strange to other people. I don't even see how this behaviour could be reported.
10155. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 2:55:32 PM
It's relevant to the fact that those are things anyone from any country would do. It's not the same as trying to blend into a completely different culture within the US without being noticed and reported, firstly by the culture you're trying to hide in. In the current climate, any suspicious activity reported would be investigated.
Erin,
it did raise a huge flag for one hijacker. That's why only four were on 93 in PN.
10156. Andonly - 10/14/2001 2:56:24 PM
"Like it or not, the developed world is dependent on Third World oil."
I find this too fatalistic a view.
This country has had a lack of vision for some time (Bush pere). And when we've had vision, we've lacked hardbitten realism (Clinton) or compassion for our own people (Reagan).
Wonder if we're ever going to pull it together. Or will the isolationsit right join hands with the isolationist left in a vain attempt to extract us from the world?
10157. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 2:57:43 PM
Is meeting at midnight with a bunch of friends illegal? Who would have arrested these folks or even investigated.
10158. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:00:13 PM
Erin,
I'm not saying they should have reported it either--although I think they would have been within bounds. My point was that they were able to act rather oddly in plain sight, so that all they needed to do was become non-Arab, and do it again.
I am astonished that the fact that the terrorists didn't want to learn how to take off or land, just manuver, didn't raise huge red flags.
Totally agree. Worse, one school did report a guy, and the FBI picked him up on an edxpired visa or something. They are whining because they weren't able to get a warrant to examine his hard drive. But they haven't mentioned why it is they didnt' wonder at his odd request and put out an alert to all flying schools to be on the lookout for Arabs who weren't interested in landings.
I read somewhere that James Woods, on the Boston to LA flight, noticed four Arabs sitting in first class, not eating, drinking, reading, or talking. He thought it was odd, mentioned it to the flight attendant, who shrugged. This was a week before 9/11, it was the same flight that crashed into the WTC, and he almost certainly witnessed a dress rehearsal.
But if they weren't citizens, would it have violated any rights for the flight attendant and airline to hold them and call the cops? I dunno. I know there would have been a lot of fury at the time, but I'm not sure that Woods' wasn't right to try and draw attention to it.
10159. Cellar Door - 10/14/2001 3:00:52 PM
Rose/Jesus/Tiernan is a loon, arky. We all know that.
Thinking of opening a hat shop don?
Love your Urban Sombrero !
10160. robertjayb - 10/14/2001 3:02:08 PM
CalGal! Howzit?
10161. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:03:03 PM
It's not the same as trying to blend into a completely different culture within the US without being noticed and reported, firstly by the culture you're trying to hide in. In the current climate, any suspicious activity reported would be investigated.
Well, at least this is more well thought out than your first try, that Arabs don't look like Hispanics.
But in fact, an illegal community is exactly the sort that wouldn't ask any questions and is certainly resistant to report anything--even given they recognized them as Arabs. Besides, since the Arabs wouldn't need a job, they wouldn't have to interact much with them directly. They'd just have to pick up a few words and speak with an accent to any non-Hispanic they ran into .
10162. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:03:50 PM
Hi, BobbyJ. Nice to see you!
10163. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:07:36 PM
I think it was right for Woods to report the incident to the authorities. I am sure people will begin to report things that seem suspicious. People are already suspicious on airplanes--you can see folks casually sizing you up when you walk down the aisle.
10164. robertjayb - 10/14/2001 3:08:48 PM
Article in the Houston paper today about an attempted airliner hijacking in 1954 where the pilot used a required handgun to shoot and mortally wound the hijacker.
Seems that in those times the pilot was directly responsible for any mail aboard and was required to be armed.
10165. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:09:05 PM
Why the feds aren't rousting all illegals is more than I can figure, really.
This would not be a realistic undertaking. It would be at least as difficult as smoking bin Laden out of his cave. Besides that, it would decimate the economies of cities like Miami and Los Angeles, let alone hurt our agricultural industry.
As for the idea of deporting all Muslim immigrants, the result would be a whole lot of people made to sulk in their third world homeland with a great deal of resentment towards the U.S.
10166. joezan - 10/14/2001 3:09:16 PM
CalGal Message # 10105:
There are only three possibilities. One, the youth was clairvoyant. Two, the youth, knowing about the 1993 bombing, was just venting anger in a particularly timely way. Three, word of the attack on the World Trade Center was rumored in his neighborhood and he heard about it.
There is a 4th possibility - that he was a fan of nihilistic rap: 
10167. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:09:48 PM
I don't discount that terrorists in hiding would pick any illegal community in which to hide. I don't think anyone should make any assumptions anymore.
10168. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:11:57 PM
As for shaking our dependence on Saudi oil, I thought that this article by Larry Kudlow (a disagreeable curmudgeon, imho) was interesting.
10169. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:12:38 PM
I don't think deporting all Arab or Muslim immigrants is the answer.
10170. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:12:41 PM
Joe,
He would have mentioned that, and he hasn't.
LadyC,
You really can't be arguing that we should still wink and nod at illegal aliens, so long as they are from the right countries?
If the economies need them, they can push for a guest worker program, with cards, and the restrictions I mentioned above.
In the meantime, I see no reason why it wouldn't be feasible, if unpleasant. At least it would prove that the government understood the real problem, which is not that Arabs hate us, but that we provide an environment where they can come on over and attack us with our blessings. After all, we can't decimate the Miami and Los Angeles economies, so we must let them decimate the economy of New York ($105 billion and countintg).
10171. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:14:33 PM
I don't discount that terrorists in hiding would pick any illegal community in which to hide. I don't think anyone should make any assumptions anymore.
Yes, one would have thought this was obvious. But it seems there are still people who have difficulty thinking outside the box. Since it apparently isn't obvious, let me express my appreciation for your grokking. (g)
10172. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:32:08 PM
CalGal,
You really can't be arguing that we should still wink and nod at illegal aliens, so long as they are from the right countries?
No, I'm just saying that it isn't feasible to "round up all the illegals" and deport them. The INS doesn't have enough manpower, and our jails don't have enough space.
This is all part and parcel of my own determination, reached over the years, that such problems require counterintuitive thinking (e.g., the drug problem would be better solved by easing drug laws than by making them more draconian). We have "winked" at illegal immigrants for years, now, and Bush has been in talks with Vicente Fox about essentially legalizing most of them (at least, the Mexican ones).
My long-term solution to this problem would be to move toward a non-interventionist foreign policy. We can't do that now without looking like we're appeasing the terrorists, but eventually we should consider it. We have become a bully nation around the globe, and since the Gulf War we have been a bit too enamored of our ability to project our power into remote areas of the world. We are giving too many people reasons to hate us, and we should heed the advice of George Washington and remain non-interventionist whenever at all possible.
So, my advice is to finish off Al-Quaeda, help rebuild Central Asia, then fold up our tent and bring the boys home. Then get rid of the welfare state and have a more liberal (and less hypocritical) immigration policy that welcomes people who want to come here to make something of themselves.
10173. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:35:43 PM
The INS doesn't have enough manpower, and our jails don't have enough space.
I don't think we need jails, just buses and planes. As for manpower, staff up. We have lots of unemployed lately.
I disagree that our foreign policy has anything to do with it. I think it is a cultural problem and were we just sitting here minding our own business doing nothing worse than buying oil, we'd be on the receiving end of just as much hate. I'm for a return to cultural imperialism, myself.
10174. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:40:30 PM
I think our foreign policy is suspect in that we support foreign governments that repress their citizens.
10175. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:41:40 PM
I don't think we need jails, just buses and planes. As for manpower, staff up. We have lots of unemployed lately.
Contrary to popular belief, an INS officer doesn't have the power to just roust someone out of bed and put them on the next bus to Guadalajara. You have to detain them (which means putting them in jail) pending a hearing before an immigration court. The immigration court has to issue an order finding the alien deportable and issuing an order of deportation. This order is appealable to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which usually just rubber stamps the IJ, but still it takes time and resources. There are a lot of immigration attorneys out there who would have a field day gumming up the works after the BIA issued its final orders, petitioning for writs of habeas corpus, etc.
In short, it would be a bureacratic nightmare. Congress could trim these procedures somewhat, but it's not clear how far the courts would let them go.
10176. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:45:51 PM
LadyC,
I thought that rigamarole was only in place for those who were here legally but needed to be deported. If that is true for people who are here illegally, then it can be changed, and I'm not sure there is much the courts can do about it.
Anyone who is here illegally has no right to gum up our court system. That makes a mockery of legal immigration. They aren't here with a legal visa, they go home. Nuff of that nonsense.
10177. alistairconnor - 10/14/2001 3:47:39 PM
We should make it a WPA-like crusade to spearhead the development of safe, fast, oil miserly vehicles, which we could then recoup some of our investment on by selling them to Europe and Japan.
Ando, that's a scream. Only fifty years or so of lagging research to catch up on.
More to the point : why don't you people import economical European or Japanese cars? I mean the real thing, not the upsized models you buy now.
10178. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:48:21 PM
I find it utterly appalling that we waste time and money on illegal aliens, other than booting them out. The only issue should be whether or not they have to spend time in our jails for some crime first.
So what is the law that gives them the right to cost us so much money? And don't say the Constitution. They might have the right not to languish in jail, but I don't see where they have the right not to be booted out immediately.
10179. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:49:57 PM
CalGal,
There are "summary deportation" procedures in place, but these have been notoriously abused. The typical INS employee is too poorly trained to be trusted not to royally fuck up somebody's life.
10180. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:50:25 PM
We need bigs cars to carry home all the crap we buy at the mall. ;^)
10181. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:52:20 PM
They might have the right not to languish in jail, but I don't see where they have the right not to be booted out immediately.
The issue is finding whether or not they are deportable. This can sometimes be contentious, and they are entitled to procedural due process in reaching that determination. But once they are found deportable, unless we don't have a repatriation agreement with their home country, the actual removal goes pretty quickly.
10182. clydefo - 10/14/2001 3:54:32 PM
If we're going to start deporting illegals,
please don't start with the maids, babysitters, busboys and gardeners.
10183. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 3:55:52 PM
CalGal,
If they're caught before entering the country, they are subject to summary removal. But once they have entered, it gets more difficult.
10184. joezan - 10/14/2001 3:56:35 PM
I agree with Cal's # 10176.
What has galled me (in part because I was so ignorant of our failings here) was all the people who come here on student visas, and simply stay, while we have virtually no mechanism for checking to see if they'd ever left when they were supposed to.
The most galling part (this came from folks in academia and gov't in the report I heard on NPR -and this is post 9-11, folks) was the excuse that, "Well, these foreign students account for 10s of billions in tuition, and a greta number of them come from countries whose students would likely be subject to greater scrutiny..."
Unfuckingbelievable.
10185. Property of Jesus - 10/14/2001 3:56:49 PM
Hundreds of Christians in Nigeria were murdered this weekend by Moslems because the USA attacked the Afghan's "evil doers."
Remember when AIDS/HIV was the biggest killer of people in Africa?
10186. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 3:58:08 PM
There was a program on a few weeks ago about a new program to grant seasonal visas to Mexicans who want to do menial work here. The catch is that they have to be sponsored by an American employer.
10187. CalGal - 10/14/2001 3:58:56 PM
There are "summary deportation" procedures in place, but these have been notoriously abused.
Not for illegals. You can't abuse a deportation procedure if someone is not here legally. So there is no need to "find" whether they are deportable or not. They are, by definition, deportable.
Clyde,
Sure, start with them--oh, and btw, fine people $10K an instance for hiring them.
10188. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:00:50 PM
There was a program on a few weeks ago about a new program to grant seasonal visas to Mexicans who want to do menial work here.
Yes, and give them visas of some sort to prove it, and they must go home when they are done. They also can't rent an apartment without permission, and they should have to keep their own license from their country and just get a sticker with an expiration date that gives them the right to drive (and insure) in the US.
I could go along with that.
10189. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:01:45 PM
There is already a lot of tension between Muslims and Christians in African countries. And since the calls to murder Christians were aimed at Americans, I don't know that there is a direct connection.
10190. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:02:12 PM
But once they have entered, it gets more difficult.
Truly, how is that so? What law makes it so? It needs changing and I can't believe there is any constitutional issue, provided we just boot them out and not put them in jail.
10191. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:03:08 PM
Not for illegals. You can't abuse a deportation procedure if someone is not here legally.
There have been cases where the INS mistook someone as being illegal, and summarily deported them to places like Haiti. One Haitian American man died in a Haitian jail because he didn't have access to his HIV medication. INS officers are dumb, dumb, dumb.
I think that it would be much smarter, in the long run, to stop giving people reasons to want to attack us. You're never going to shut down our borders. Never. It's simply an unrealistic undertaking.
10192. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:08:56 PM
There have been cases where the INS mistook someone as being illegal, and summarily deported them to places like Haiti.
Oh, bullshit. He's either a citizen, has a visa, or he doesn't. To argue against sensible immigration procedures because of an anecdote like that is just asinine--to say nothing of the fact that we didn't put him in the Haitian jail, and the fact that he had access to American drugs for his AIDs was due to our generosity in the first place, not something he had a right to.
And your notion that we "give people reasons" to attack us is fucking garbage.
10193. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:09:21 PM
Truly, how is that so? What law makes it so? It needs changing and I can't believe there is any constitutional issue, provided we just boot them out and not put them in jail.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that, once someone has entered and established ties to this country, they are vested with all the protections of the Bill of Rights (b/c, you see, the BoR uses the term "persons", not "citizens"). Overturning this would require either a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court to indulge in unabashed sophistry.
10194. joezan - 10/14/2001 4:11:47 PM
...a great number of them...
10195. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:12:03 PM
How do they in fact document citizenship? If this is true, while they guy didn't have a right to the AIDS drugs, he certainly has the right not to be deported if he is an American.
10196. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:16:20 PM
Oh, bullshit. He's either a citizen, has a visa, or he doesn't.
Have you ever been in a country legally at a time that you didn't have all your papers in order, perhaps due to a lost passport or visa? That's all it takes to fall under a summary removal proceeding.
To argue against sensible immigration procedures because of an anecdote like that is just asinine--to say nothing of the fact that we didn't put him in the Haitian jail, and the fact that he had access to American drugs for his AIDs was due to our generosity in the first place, not something he had a right to.
It's rather asinine to suggest that a Haitian American professional could have only been getting AIDS drugs due to American "generosity."
And your notion that we "give people reasons" to attack us is fucking garbage.
Having an interventionist foreign policy in which the military is treated as an arm of the State Department has created all kinds of resentments, not just in the Muslim world. It is the Muslims, however, who have chosen terrorism as a means of expressing themselves. (The Arab-Islamic world has, for some reason, never turned out a Ghandi.) But don't forget our own home-bred terrorists; McVeigh was triggered by the stupidity of an overzealous government.
Trusting freedom takes more courage than trusting force.
10197. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:19:57 PM
The Supreme Court has consistently held that, once someone has entered and established ties to this country, they are vested with all the protections of the Bill of Rights
Nonsense. If it is possible to deport them in the first place, it means that they aren't covered by the Bill of Rights. If a "person" has the rights of a citizen, they can't be thrown out of the country. But guess what? They can be thrown out of the country.
If the Supreme Court wants to make all people citizens, then all they have to do is make any immigration law unconstitutional. I'm thinking not.
The nonsensical due process we give illegals can stop, and I wouldn't be surprised if it requires a lot less than you propose. Where are the cites that make it illegal to toss an illegal out upon verifying that he is an illegal? I don't mean the jail time--which only comes about because of the idiotic insistence on due process--I mean the one that gives them that right. I'd like to read up on it.
That said, this country can be very efficient when it wants to be. If due process is required, we can open up a lot of "processing centers" in a hurry, run them day and night, and people can just wait in line.
Bad press, but with any luck the illegals who can afford to will start running in a hurry.
10198. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:22:47 PM
I do think the Bill of Rights should apply to non-citizens, but there must be ways to expedite the process.
10199. joezan - 10/14/2001 4:23:06 PM
I dunno, LC..
Trusting force = No attacks on our soil in over 200 years.
Trusting freedom = WTC
"Don't Tread On Me" has always been a fine motto. I'm hoping for its strong return in popularity.
10200. Property of Jesus - 10/14/2001 4:25:37 PM
America is not going to give up on its alien working-class people.
Most of them are better citizens than the native population.
10201. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 4:25:52 PM
You know, Sweden keeps track of people to an extent that Americans probably would find unacceptable. But if someone enters on a visitor's visa and then goes to ground it is virtually impossible to track him or her down.
10202. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:28:02 PM
Have you ever been in a country legally at a time that you didn't have all your papers in order, perhaps due to a lost passport or visa? That's all it takes to fall under a summary removal proceeding.
Yes. Exactly. And any one who is in a country legally hustles to their embassy for a copy of their passport, or they leave the country. I have no problem with that approach.
It is the Muslims, however, who have chosen terrorism as a means of expressing themselves. (The Arab-Islamic world has, for some reason, never turned out a Ghandi.)
I fucking hate it when people can't spell Gandhi.
You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Islamic people hate us for reasons that have nothing to do with our foreign policy. If you're going to be an ass and blame it on our foreign policy, I suggest you read the Lewis essay in the Atlantic that has been much discussed here (long before the attack, I might add), and answer the many points he makes about the idiocy of such a viewpoint. You want to espouse a cheap viewpoint, do the work to justify it.
10203. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:29:58 PM
I do think the Bill of Rights should apply to non-citizens, but there must be ways to expedite the process.
It should apply to anyone who is in this country. For example, a non-citizen gets the same rights in criminal court. But there is nothing preventing us from expelling someone who isn't here legally, and I see nothing wrong with summarily deporting someone who is not here legally.
Oh, and I forgot to mock LadyC's "trust freedom". Keerist.
10204. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:30:04 PM
Pelle,
That's the basic problem.
CalGal,
Nonsense. If it is possible to deport them in the first place, it means that they aren't covered by the Bill of Rights.
Gee, can anybody here tell what the difference might be between giving people the protections of due process and granting them citizenship?
Any answers, class?
10205. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:33:01 PM
Gee, can anybody here tell what the difference might be between giving people the protections of due process and granting them citizenship?
I know the difference. But there is nothing stopping us from deporting them. There are plenty of cases where even citizens have to try and fix the mess after the government has acted (IRS, anyone?).
The illegal alien population has benefited from years of a sympathetic lobby and a business population that wants cheap labor. But to pretend that an illegal alien has the same rights as a non-citizen here legally is just bullshit.
10206. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:35:06 PM
But if someone enters on a visitor's visa and then goes to ground it is virtually impossible to track him or her down.
You don't necessarily track them down, although there is more you can do. For example, if a visitor doesn't show up at his or her next destination, the cops are called. They won't be able to get on a plane, because they won't be able to buy a ticket without it being noticed that they weren't on their scheduled itinerary. They won't be able to rent a car, much less buy a car. They won't be able to rent an apartment or buy a house. And so on.
10207. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 4:36:26 PM
But if they are covered by the Bill of Rights, in what ways do they not have the same rights?
10208. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:36:42 PM
joe,
Trusting force = No attacks on our soil in over 200 years.
Um, that's not entirely correct, but I'll grant you that, for the sake of argument, we were not attacked in 200 years. But do you really think that it was "force" that prevented it, or was it luck of geography? What was it?
I have no problem with force, btw, in response to an attack, which is why I think that the current actions are entirely justified. But I also recall that, before September 11, most of the people in this forum probably would have said that the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was an embarrassment. Are we really going to allow ourselves to stoop to such racial hysteria again? We could, but I think that we would again cringe with regret in fifty years.
Trusting freedom = WTC
No. WTC was caused by not trusting freedom -- i.e., not allowing pilots and specially licensed citizens to be armed on flights.
10209. judithathome - 10/14/2001 4:40:58 PM
They won't be able to get on a plane, because they won't be able to buy a ticket without it being noticed that they weren't on their scheduled itinerary. They won't be able to rent a car, much less buy a car. They won't be able to rent an apartment or buy a house. And so on.
Why couldn't they get someone to do these things for them, though?
10210. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:41:27 PM
But if they are covered by the Bill of Rights, in what ways do they not have the same rights?
In that Congress has the nearly absolute right to determine the conditions for allowing aliens to be in this country, and once an alien is found deportable, they no longer have a right to remain in this country. However, a proceeding for finding someone deportable requires comportment with due process.
CalGal,
I didn't make this legal stuff up out of whole cloth. I don't why you're getting so hysterical. I just got a Cuban bomber out of INS detention a couple of months ago, for god's sake. I have not been personally involved in a deportation proceeding, but I have a general grasp of the law. Hell, some of this stuff is first year law school material.
10211. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:43:58 PM
But if they are covered by the Bill of Rights, in what ways do they not have the same rights?
Can we just take away someone's citizenship if they are born here? No--or at least, not without criminal acts that I can't even envision (espionage, I suppose). Can we take away a non-citizen's visa? Sure, we have a whole list of things that they can't do. But should we be required to prove that they've committed these acts? Absolutely.
So what rights does an illegal alien has? Do they have to have committed one of a list of acts in order to be booted out? No, their mere presence here is sufficient to justify it. So what rights do they have to prevent them from being thrown out? None, short of the right to prove that they aren't illegal after all. But there's no reason to require a court to do that, since any proof is easily verifiable.
Now, where illegal aliens have rights is when they aren't thrown out, but are put into our system. For example, if they commit a crime that we want to punish them and put them in jail, they have the same rights.
10212. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:47:45 PM
I didn't make this legal stuff up out of whole cloth.
I didn't say that you were; I asked for cites on the specific issue. I know the areas you practice in.
I was not "hysterical", and to the extent that I was scathing I was responding to your asinine suggestion that our foreign policy caused the attack, not your comments on illegal aliens. I am quite aware of the idiocy that passes for SOP as far as our immigration policies go; that's why I said that it was the single biggest contributor to the terrorists' ability to attack as they did.
Again, I'd like to see cites on illegal aliens being tossed out. Not that I don't think we couldn't figure out a legal way around it (24 hour processing centers separate from our regular criminal courts) but I don't see anything that prevents summary booting for anyone who can't prove they have a legal right to be here.
10213. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 4:48:41 PM
CalGal
Do you realise what you are proposing?
For example, if a visitor doesn't show up at his or her next destination, the cops are called.
Systems like that have been in existence. In the Soviet Union and its allies.
10214. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:52:48 PM
Pelle,
So? What reason does a tourist have not to show up at their next destination?
10215. Absensia - 10/14/2001 4:53:57 PM
I know of no single instance in which a US citizen, naturalized or natural born can lose his/her citizenship. There is no provision in the Constitution. If such a person were to commit treason, there is punishment for them, but stripping one of his or her citizenship is not one.
Hi Cal. Good to see you.
10216. judithathome - 10/14/2001 4:53:58 PM
Medical emergency; transportation snafu...
10217. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:53:59 PM
How do they in fact document citizenship?
It's not just citizenship, it's "legal right to be here". Birth certificate, green card, passport and valid non-expired visa.
10218. ronski - 10/14/2001 4:55:50 PM
A difference between Japanese-Americans in WW2 and Middle Eastern visitors and illegals today is this: Japanese-Americans had committed absolutely no sabotage when they were quite suddenly interned. Middle Easterners have comitted atrocities.
(In February of 1942, Lt. Gen. Dewitt concluded that the fact that no sabotage had been committed was proof that it was about to be. One is tempted here to say, borrowing in part from an old book title, that military logic is to logic as military music is to music.)
I am not in favor of expelling all Middle Eastern non-citizens myself, but in the event of continued attacks on our soil, I would not be surprised if it became a very popular idea among Americans to do just that.
And while it is clear that cultural attitudes among Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere contribute greatly to their hatred of us, I believe it is very largely our interventionist foreign policy, specifically support of Israel and of local governments these people detest, and keeping troops and military advisors in Saudi Arabia (as well as about a hundred other countries), that has caused us to become a target today.
10219. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:56:01 PM
Hi, Abs.
I didn't think there was; I just wasn't sure there wasn't grounds for booting someone if they betrayed the country. Probably due to having read Man Without A Country as a child, I suppose.
10220. ronski - 10/14/2001 4:56:24 PM
Btw, Cal, nice to see you back.
10221. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 4:57:15 PM
CalGal,
I am supposed to be working on a brief today, and honestly don't have time to go through my old research materials to cite you the Code of Federal Regulations. I have not said that it is necessarily difficult to show that someone is removable; however, even de minimus due process requires resources that would be stretched beyond their breaking point if we decided to engage in a zero-tolerance crackdown on illegals.
And I have never argued that our foreign policy "caused" these atrocities. Everyone has the choice to act or not act in certain ways on their grievances. However, our foreign policy, especially our use of military power, has earned us the enmity of many, and it has given others the pretext for attacking us, though not a valid reason. Explaining a killer's motives and justifying his act is not the same thing. No one seems to be angry at Switzerland, right?
10222. Absensia - 10/14/2001 4:57:22 PM
Let us also remember we have a lot of natural born second or third generation citizens of all ethnic backgrounds. Some of whom could be converted to be "terrorists." So do we include them too, if they are arabs and/or muslims? And what about pure "white" RME US citizens who convert to Islam.
Getting rid of "illegals" isn't going to solve a lot. And the ones who hijacked the planes seem as if they were careful re having the right credentials so as not to be thought illegal.
10223. CalGal - 10/14/2001 4:59:00 PM
Ronski,
Again, I can't stress sufficiently how bad an idea it would be to divide our immigration policy into "good" countries and "bad"--particularly when every European country I can think of has Arab citizens/immigrants. It just creates a monster loophole. No, we have to treat all aliens equally.
The only legitimate objection I can see, that no one has made yet, is that Europeans will be pissed off at the rough treatment our new policy would give them. But I think we could forestall that by asking if they have an open policy as far as Americans go.
10224. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 5:00:52 PM
Absensia
know of no single instance in which a US citizen, naturalized or natural born can lose his/her citizenship
I think they can if they have lied in their application for citizenship. I seem to remember a case several years back when a Nazi war criminal was stripped of citizenship and deported.
10225. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:02:16 PM
So? What reason does a tourist have not to show up at their next destination?
A change in plans? I was recently in Austria, and we didn't exactly follow a rigorous itinerary.
I know of no single instance in which a US citizen, naturalized or natural born can lose his/her citizenship.
A naturalized citizen can be stripped of U.S. citizenship if it is proved that the granting of citizenship was based on fraud of some kind. This has happened to certain Nazi war criminals, and it seems like it's about to happen to a Cuban who, it turns out, may have tortured political prisoners in Cuba. But this is a rare proceeding, and it requires the very highest degree of due process.
10226. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:03:58 PM
That would be a naturalized citizen who got citizenship by fraud. Yes, you are right. Unfortunately we are stuck with the real frauds, such as Farwell. And if a naturalized citizen got the citizenship honestly and then did some heinous thing, I think we are stuck with him/her.
10227. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 5:04:45 PM
CalGal
What reason does a tourist have not to show up at their next destination?
Calm down. Your grammar suffers. But to answer your question: they simply changed their minds?
10228. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:05:05 PM
Hi, Ronski--thanks. Nice to see you, too.
Abs,
Again, getting rid of "illegals" and doing a hard line on them will do a lot to eliminate the environment that allowed the terrorists to have a nice life over here while not having a right to be here in the first place.
I don't agree with expelling people who are here legally, although I certainlyh think it's a good idea to review their associations.
10229. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:08:16 PM
Your grammar suffers.
Whether it does or not, I'm quite calm. Upon reviewing my sentence, I would only reverse the "not" and the "to", but they say the same thing to me. So I'm ungrammatical calm, too.
They can change their mind, but they have to call the hotel, tell them where they are, and the hotel can confirm that. If so, they don't call the cops.
I also see no reason to provide 90 day visas, but that's a different issue.
The more problematic one is the business visa, but I'm still chewing on that.
10230. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:08:38 PM
What no one has suggested is that Congress simply change the immmigration laws to favor white Europeans over other groups. But do we want to go there?
Speaking dark-skinned people, I happen to think that the people of India are wonderful, and their country could be a very important ally in the near future. Do we want to piss them off, too?
10231. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:11:41 PM
Cal, here is basic immigration law site:
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/lawsregs/
here is the site for the appropriate regs 8 CFR
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/lawsregs/8cfr.htm
Sorry I did't link it, but I'm not into html much as of yet...and I'm also watching the Mariners go down to defeat. Sigh. I'll try to find the other stuff in a while.
10232. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:12:26 PM
CalGal,
Why don't you take a stab at re-writing the U.S. Immigration Code? Be sure and cc: my Congresswoman, Ileana Ross-Lehtinen, R. (Cuban) Fla.
10233. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:13:38 PM
What no one has suggested is that Congress simply change the immmigration laws to favor white Europeans over other groups.
We would literally have to favor white Europeans--not citizens of white European countries. And I can't see us going for that. There isn't a country in the world that discriminates on immigration by skin color, is there?
How would we piss off the Indians? We've already bonded with Pakistan, what immigration policy could upset them more? I think if you checked immigration legality, India would have the highest percentage of legals.
10234. Andonly - 10/14/2001 5:15:40 PM
"But Arabs have a distinctive "look," which is quite different than that of most Hispanics."
Not all Arabs do.
The Colombian gas station attendant down the street could pass for Arab.
10235. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:16:32 PM
LadyC,
There is a difference between what I think is legal now and what I am saying we should do. I was asking for a cite on illegal aliens and deportation because I am suspicious about how illegal it is to summarily boot them out. I am not under any illusion that my proposed restrictions on non-citizens here legally are within current law. I also don't think they are all that unattainable.
10236. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:18:14 PM
I think that the Indians understand our tactical reasons for needing Pakistan, right now.
As for discriminating by skin color, German immigration policy discriminates by blood, which translates into discrimination by race. It's very easy to get German citizenship if you are of ethnic German blood, while it's extremely difficult if you're not. Nearly all those Turks that you hear about are "guest workers," not citizens. Even their children who are born in D-land have trouble getting citizenship.
In any case, the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority in writing immigration law. Theoretically, we could discriminate on the basis of ethnic origin.
10237. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:20:44 PM
Andonly: that why I said "most." Did you miss the entire side conversation about my own "look."
10238. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:22:15 PM
You can be of German descent without being white. How do the Germans verify descent?
10239. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 5:22:30 PM
Well, at least this is more well thought out than your first try, that Arabs don't look like Hispanics.
No, it was what I was thinking all along. It just didn't occur to me that you wouldn't get it without my spelling it out.
10240. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:22:38 PM
I think India does too, I'm just not sure why you think immigration policy such as I suggest would upset India unduly.
I know that much of Europe doesn't grant citizenship by birth in their countries, but Arab terrorists would probably be much more interested in getting citizenship if it got them through an American loophole.
As for discriminating by color, I think it's a terrible idea, and wouldn't fly anyway. Would you be suggesting revoking all greencards of non-whites?
10241. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 5:22:43 PM
CalGal
I was referring to the unusual construct "a tourist ---their".
But leaving the nitpicking aside, you propose the erection of an enormous control and surveillance mechanism which at the end of the day will produce nothing, nada, zilch. Any terrorist worth his salt will adapt to these regulations with no difficulty at all. He will truthfully fill in his next destination as SF when his intention is to hijack the plane and crash it into the Bridge.
10242. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:23:53 PM
I was asking for a cite on illegal aliens and deportation because I am suspicious about how illegal it is to summarily boot them out.
I'll give you a shorthand example: If you catch someone at the border who doesn't have proper entry documents, you can put them on the next plane or bus out. That's summary deportation.
If you catch them working somewhere, with kids in the local school, etc., it's a bit more thorny. It is my understanding that, in such cases, they are entitled to a hearing before an IJ.
10243. arkymalarky - 10/14/2001 5:24:05 PM
Erin,
I don't think anyone should make any assumptions anymore.
I do certainly agree with that.
10244. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:25:36 PM
Many Indians and Pakistanis are similar in looks. Pakistan only became a country in 1947. Some are of Indian descent, and also their family has been muslim too. Many Indians are also muslim.
10245. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:26:48 PM
My comment about "pissing off" India was directed more generally at those who are suggesting that we immediately deport all non-citizens who look even vaguely Arab or Central Asian.
10246. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:27:53 PM
However, our foreign policy, especially our use of military power, has earned us the enmity of many, and it has given others the pretext for attacking us, though not a valid reason.
No, it hasn't given them a pretext for attacking us. It has given the righteous prigs a pretext for showing them sympathy. Besides, if you are seriously suggesting that we should withdraw from the world in the hopes that then people won't pick on us, you're dreaming. Hell, I'm an isolationist and I don't feed on such manure.
I have not said that it is necessarily difficult to show that someone is removable; however, even de minimus due process requires resources that would be stretched beyond their breaking point if we decided to engage in a zero-tolerance crackdown on illegals.
I am saying that the burden is only for them to establish that someone is not here legally. That is sufficient "due process" and it doesn't require a judge. But if it did, we could easily ramp up an expulsion process until we got around to changing such asinine--and expensive--procedures.
10247. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:31:33 PM
If you catch them working somewhere, with kids in the local school, etc., it's a bit more thorny. It is my understanding that, in such cases, they are entitled to a hearing before an IJ.
And I'm saying that there's no reason for it to be a bit more thorny. There's nothing "summary" about refusing entry to someone who isn't in yet. Summary involves what happens when you find someone who is here illegally. I see no reason to give them more incentive to have children--why should they have more rights?
Which reminds me--all schools will only accept children whose parents can establish legal right to be here, too.
10248. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:34:37 PM
That seems reasonable.
10249. Andonly - 10/14/2001 5:36:50 PM
Yes, very interesting:
"While U.S. energy policymakers dither in their plans for expanded domestic production, Russia is showing the way. Could it be that Russia and the U.S., perhaps joined by Britain's North Sea oil producers, will work together to finally break OPEC's stranglehold on oil and the world economy? This could be yet another benefit of the new world order that is standing against terrorism and transforming international relationships in politics and the economy."
[From the Weekly Standard article Lady Chaos linked in Message # 10168.]
10250. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:39:05 PM
CalGal,
Do you really think that Palestinians would be celebrating bin Laden's name if we had remained neutral on Israel, or that middle class families in Cairo would have thrown a thousand little soirees to celebrate WTC if we were not propping up the Mubarak regime? An interventionist foreign policy reaps unforeseen problems. George Washington seemed to understand the potential for what the spooks call "blowback."
At a minimum, we should decline to engage in policies abroad that make us look hypocritical. We should stop waging chemical warfare on Colombian peasants in order to protect Americans from their drug habits, and we should stop propping up corrupt Arab regimes for what will ultimately turn out to be relatively short-term gains.
10251. wonkers2 - 10/14/2001 5:40:38 PM
Seems to me that along with security and military steps, in the long run, the real battle is within the Arab and Muslim communities and between these communities and the western religious communities and industrial societies. And I find it hard to come up with easy solutions to bridge the ideological chasms withing the Arab/Muslim world and between them and the West. I suppose leaders and thinkers from all religions should try to promote a greater sense of ecumenism and tolerance among their respective flocks. The United Nations can perhaps do more to promote the same. Western industrial nations can be better world citizens in their approach to worker rights, environmental conservation and terms of trade with less developed countries. This might help ameliorate feelings on the part of people in the Arab world of exploitation by the United States and other advanced industrial countries and broaden support among them for dealing firmly with terrorists. Military action without greater generosity and economic justice is unlikely to end terrorism.
10252. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:42:07 PM
Which reminds me--all schools will only accept children whose parents can establish legal right to be here, too.
Hahaha.... Go to Findlaw.com and see if you can find Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).
10253. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:44:42 PM
Here it is: Plyler v. Doe.
10254. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:46:39 PM
Now that's just ridiculous. Why should communities have to support illegal immigrants in the local schools?
10255. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:48:15 PM
wonkers makes an interesting point, that this is more a war of the mind than anything else. Even though this writer, Hani Shukrallah, is an equivocating America-Hater, I thought that his recent column was thought-provoking.
10256. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:49:16 PM
Erin,
I don't think that today's Supreme Court, if they encountered the issue anew, would have ruled the same way. But now it's constitutional law.
10257. judithathome - 10/14/2001 5:49:58 PM
Why should communities have to support illegal immigrants in the local schools?
Because we are the Land of Opportunity and welcome everyone, the tired, the poor, the teeming masses?
10258. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:52:03 PM
Yes it is the land of opportunity...but it seems it's the land of the handout.
10259. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:52:13 PM
LadyC,
Do you really think that Palestinians would be celebrating bin Laden's name if we had remained neutral on Israel, or that middle class families in Cairo would have thrown a thousand little soirees to celebrate WTC if we were not propping up the Mubarak regime?
Yes, and yes. Again, you need to read up.
BTW, explain why Indonesia is having pro bin Laden riots. Or Pakistan. Are they pissed about Palestine, too?
You really don't know what you're talking about, and it's quite clear you don't have the first foggiest notion about either Arabs or Islam. I don't mean that they are bad, evil, or ignorant. But they're different, and your absurd First World assumptions don't hold up.
As for the Plyler vs. Doe, again, I've said that I don't think my proposed stuff is currently within the law. That's differnet from deportation of illegals. Of course, given that illegal aliens won't be able to rent houses, it will be very tough for them to send their kids to school anyway, within the new CalGal world.
10260. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:53:29 PM
Well, I think that the underlying logic was that the children's parents were paying state taxes, so why shouldn't their kids be allowed to attend a state-funded school?
Of course, when you look at the line-up of the court, the only liberal justice remaining is Stevens. It would have gone the other way, had it been heard ten years later. But now it is Supreme Court precedent, and it could not be easily overturned.
10261. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:53:47 PM
I don't think that today's Supreme Court, if they encountered the issue anew, would have ruled the same way. But now it's constitutional law.
Hadn't seen this yet--hell, don't go citing it then. If someone wanted to make an issue of it, it'd be overturned. And then it wouldn't be constitutional law anymore.
Judith--we don't give that for illegals, remember? We have the most generous immigration policy in the world as it is, so it's not like you can whine about how mean we are.
10262. CalGal - 10/14/2001 5:56:26 PM
Well, I think that the underlying logic was that the children's parents were paying state taxes, so why shouldn't their kids be allowed to attend a state-funded school?
Lord, it's enough to make me embarrassed for liberals. Disgusting, really.
10263. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:57:15 PM
We do have a liberal immigration policy. I was stunned to learn many years back that most if not all European countries do not allow citizenship simply because someone is born in the county.
10264. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 5:58:05 PM
If the illegals are not allowed to stay, then they can't pay taxes, can they?
10265. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 5:58:12 PM
CalGal,
My cite of Plyler was in direct response to a more narrow assertion you made about schools.
As to your assessment of Arabs and Islam, I would agree that they are of a "different" mindset. But I am a sort of person who prefers to play the moral high ground as much as possible -- i.e., don't even given them a pretext for hating us. Then if they attack us, our response would be unquestionably justified in the eyes of the world.
10266. Absensia - 10/14/2001 5:59:07 PM
It wasn't a handout per se. Parents were working and paying state taxes that supported school systems in Texas. And, the Supreme Court doesn't lightly reverse previous case law. It might if presented now, but who knows how it would be decided. A lot of cases that seemed to be sure
reversals ended not, because of a "surprise" swing vote.
10267. Andonly - 10/14/2001 6:01:03 PM
"My long-term solution to this problem would be to move toward a non-interventionist foreign policy. We can't do that now without looking like we're appeasing the terrorists, but eventually we should consider it. We have become a bully nation around the globe, and since the Gulf War we have been a bit too enamored of our ability to project our power into remote areas of the world. We are giving too many people reasons to hate us..."
I hate this sort of slop. What does it mean, exactly, to be a "bully nation" or to "project our power" or to give people "reasons to hate us"? People who make such comments are invariably short on defensible specifics. That is, examples of instances in which having acted differently would not have proven disastrous in some other way than this.
Personally, I'm coming to the conclusion that we need to become much more forthright and committed to becoming a proper imperial power. That means more intervention, not less. Better propaganda. Free gifts.
It'll cost us, and we won't have many fewer problems than we do now. But at least we'll all know what the hell we're about and why we do what we do. And we can lighten up on the moral equivalency crap.
10268. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:01:09 PM
If someone wanted to make an issue of it, it'd be overturned. And then it wouldn't be constitutional law anymore.
That's what conservatives thought would happen to Roe v. Wade. It didn't die, though. Ironically, although the doctrine of Roe was narrowed in subsequent attacks, its position was largely solidified more than anything.
10269. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:02:20 PM
Actually, I didn't see anything about taxes, but I didn't read the whole thing.
However, if I understand it the ruling didn't allow Texas to prevent funding schools that accepted illegal aliens.
So they won't stop funding. They will just require all children to provide proof that their parents are here legally and then notify the INS of any parents who aren't here legally. Parents will be deported and there aren't any children to be denied an education.
10270. Erin R. - 10/14/2001 6:02:40 PM
Roe v. Wade is entirely different.
10271. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:05:09 PM
Andonly,
I'm toting the Libertarian Party line on this one. Steve Dasbach does a better job of explaining it than I have.
10272. CalGal - 10/14/2001 6:07:37 PM
That's what conservatives thought would happen to Roe v. Wade.
You say this as if it is relevant. For one thing, your assertion is wrong. Conservatives have won almost every major court decision on Roe vs. Wade save the basic right. Nothing "ironic" about that. But in any event, there is a huge difference between the American attitude towards abortion and that of illegal immigrants.
But as I said, having read the decision, it's not even really on point. There are plenty of ways around it, and nothing that I can see that prevents a school from requiring that they establish parental immigrant standing and notifying those who aren't legal. Nothing to do with withholding funding.
10273. PelleNilsson - 10/14/2001 6:07:55 PM
The bin Laden brand of terrorism has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except rhetorically.
And with that pontification I'm off to bed.
10274. LadyChaos - 10/14/2001 6:09:17 PM
Actually, I didn't see anything abou