The Great Police Work Thread

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
More than half of congress heard the false data that was provided to them and came to the same conclusion. It wasn't a decision made in a vacuum by Bush. Even half of the democrats bought into the erreronous intelligence. In retrospect it was a mistake but we have the benefit of hindsight.
Erroneous intelligence provided by Bush's administration in what was ostensibly an intentional deception by him and his cronies to lead us into war.

Admittedly this was quite proactive.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Erroneous intelligence provided by Bush's administration in what was ostensibly an intentional deception by him and his cronies to lead us into war.

Admittedly this was quite proactive.
Care to back that up.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,712
So Stephen Hayes, the writer for Weekly Standard, should not be able to buy a gun just because he's an outspoken conservative?
I'm not sure if you realize it but the terrorist watch list isn't even a civil action like a restraining order. An idiot bureaucrat can put you on it and there's no appeal. If you want to make some kind of radicalism based restraining order where people show cause and there's a hearing, fine, I support that. Some random list with no criteria? No thanks.
If there's an issue with how the list works, then we should fix it. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't want a bunch of potential terrorists running around this country able to legally buy guns.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The Senate intelligence committee found the information provided to the administration was false.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

World of difference in providing to or provided by.
From the committee chairman
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent," the Committee chairman, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said on releasing the 172-page report. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

"There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence," he added. "But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
From the committee chairman
That was in retrospect after it was determined it was false. The administration at the time as well as Congress was relying on it. The CIA was the chief culprit in all this at the onset.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The Senate intelligence committee found the information provided to the administration was false.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

World of difference in providing to or provided by.
a good breakdown of the difference between available intelligence and the description by the Bush administration in an be found here:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intelligence-committee-unveils-final-phase-ii-reports-prewar-iraq-intelligence
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
I'm not sure if you realize it but the terrorist watch list isn't even a civil action like a restraining order. An idiot bureaucrat can put you on it and there's no appeal. If you want to make some kind of radicalism based restraining order where people show cause and there's a hearing, fine, I support that. Some random list with no criteria? No thanks.
Yeah, an agency just being able to unilaterally strip people of rights is one of the scariest things I could imagine. I mean I'm not surprised Iamtdg is on the other side of the argument since he puts his total and complete faith in the police force but when you give government this type of power you are in dangerous territory.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
a good breakdown of the difference between available intelligence and the description by the Bush administration in an be found here:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intelligence-committee-unveils-final-phase-ii-reports-prewar-iraq-intelligence
I had rather trust the Senate intelligence committee report. Go to their conclusions and it it pretty clear who that blame. This article is an opinion based on their reading of the report. Too much opinion based on another opinion.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,712
Yeah, an agency just being able to unilaterally strip people of rights is one of the scariest things I could imagine. I mean I'm not surprised Iamtdg is on the other side of the argument since he puts his total and complete faith in the police force but when you give government this type of power you are in dangerous territory.
I think I'm more in favor of a stricter watchlist. Or, maybe different levels on the list. The most dangerous on the list not being able to own a gun. But, this problem isn't temporary and it isn't going away. We have to be pro-active about it or we will start seeing the San Bernadino type of thing happening more and more often. I have made it very clear where I stand on gun regulation, but this is a different animal.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Yeah, an agency just being able to unilaterally strip people of rights is one of the scariest things I could imagine. I mean I'm not surprised Iamtdg is on the other side of the argument since he puts his total and complete faith in the police force but when you give government this type of power you are in dangerous territory.
In support of the Dawg' s position he raises an issue that does need to be addressed. When do you put lives at risk which the government is responsible for to allow freedoms to those who would kill citizens whom the government is responsible to protect? Giving terror suspects the abilities to acquire weapons seem to be a contradiction that needs to be examined.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
In support of the Dawg' s position he raises an issue that does need to be addressed. When do you put lives at risk which the government is responsible for to allow freedoms to those who would kill citizens whom the government is responsible to protect? Giving terror suspects the abilities to acquire weapons seem to be a contradiction that needs to be examined.
If someone is a terror suspect then bring charges against them. The problem is, if you don't have the evidence to actually charge someone with a crime such as that, then you really don't have the evidence to be taking their rights away. And if they are charged with a crime then they have all the of the due process that our courts allow. People out on bond often usually have a condition about firearms. If they aren't out on bond, they are sitting in jail.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
If someone is a terror suspect then bring charges against them. The problem is, if you don't have the evidence to actually charge someone with a crime such as that, then you really don't have the evidence to be taking their rights away. And if they are charged with a crime then they have all the of the due process that our courts allow. People out on bond often usually have a condition about firearms. If they aren't out on bond, they are sitting in jail.
Bring charges?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Your ridiculous views on Obama, Bernie Sanders and economics annoy me but I couldn't agree with you more on this issue. The government shouldn't be allowed to take away citizens rights and ask questions later.
I was a staunch Ron Paul supporter back in 2012. I voted for Gary Johnson that same year. If there was a serious Libertarian candidate I would be supporting him instead.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Criminal charges? Like federal charges. There are statutes in place for that purpose.
That's all well and good if everything in this circumstance fell under the legal system. War and fighting wars don't always come with a structured legal answer to deal with some of the issues. Sometimes practical solutions are necessary. When that happens then the lawmakers of the land have to decide how to address the problem and do what is necessary for the greater good. Finding ways to prevent potential terrorists from acquiring weapons would seem to fall into that category. I do not know the solution but I think it merits trying to find one.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
If someone is a terror suspect then bring charges against them. The problem is, if you don't have the evidence to actually charge someone with a crime such as that, then you really don't have the evidence to be taking their rights away. And if they are charged with a crime then they have all the of the due process that our courts allow. People out on bond often usually have a condition about firearms. If they aren't out on bond, they are sitting in jail.
Or at least make an injunction against firearms purchase a legal order from a judge, like a restraining order. That's a framework for a civil action (imperfect and sometimes abused but not unilateral) than can make it illegal for someone to purchase a gun.

If the FBI gets a tip that someone is radicalized, has contact with ISIS or another group, they can print out his tweets or his forum posts or whatever evidence he's shown that he is a potential terrorist, then take it to a judge.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Or at least make an injunction against firearms purchase a legal order from a judge, like a restraining order. That's a framework for a civil action (imperfect and sometimes abused but not unilateral) than can make it illegal for someone to purchase a gun.

If the FBI gets a tip that someone is radicalized, has contact with ISIS or another group, they can print out his tweets or his forum posts or whatever evidence he's shown that he is a potential terrorist, then take it to a judge.
That's a fair compromise, tantamount to a search warrant.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,712
Or at least make an injunction against firearms purchase a legal order from a judge, like a restraining order. That's a framework for a civil action (imperfect and sometimes abused but not unilateral) than can make it illegal for someone to purchase a gun.

If the FBI gets a tip that someone is radicalized, has contact with ISIS or another group, they can print out his tweets or his forum posts or whatever evidence he's shown that he is a potential terrorist, then take it to a judge.
I think I would be okay with that.
 
Top Bottom