Slashdot Mirror
Liquid Terror Charges Dropped
A Pakistani judge has decided to drop terrorism charges against the man described as a "key figure" in the alleged plan to blow up flights out of London using liquid explosives. Instead of facing charges of terrorism for the plot, which forced many travelers to follow strict guidelines with respect to liquids, Rashid Raud now faces charges such as forgery. From the article: "Several commentators said the threat was deliberately exaggerated to bolster the anti-terror credentials of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and that it helped to demonise British Muslims of Pakistani origin. The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK said the dropping of charges against Mr Rauf in Pakistan would "make no difference" to the case against the men charged in Britain."
I'd assume this means we're not going to have to take off our shoes or check our liquids anymore? Oh wait, I keep on assuming the TSA isn't a government agency run by the retarded and/or blind.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
who didn't see this coming?
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Now that that's cleared up, can I finally bring my oh-so-dangerous fifth of vodka in the same carry-on I use to hold my laptop so I can drink myself back into unconsciousness when the oh-so-harmless lithium batteries run out?
What's the punishment for forgery? Rape of your sister by 12 men?
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Slashdot readers might be interested in a more level-headed take on the whole idea of "binary liquid explosives", as provided by the chaps at el Reg: The Flying Toilet Terror Laboratory
It'd be comedy gold, if actual people weren't being stripped of their inalienable human rights and kept imprisoned where habeas corpus doesn't apply. If there ever was a plot, then it's been a plot by people who were either elected, election-frauded their way into office or were put there by good friends of theirs.
Numerous experts have said there's no practical or safe way to make a bomb from separate liquids onboard an airplane. Google for it, you'll be amazed how vaccuus the allegation from London police is.
Which leaves us with only one reason why the UK government would make such a noise around this fantasy: to raise the terror feeling in the general population in order to pass more restrictive laws and embed the police state a little deeper.
I keep wondering why nobody stands up to these clowns. There isn't a shred of evidence to support the current rules that prevent people from bringing soda pops and baby bottles in airplanes. Quite the contrary. Yet people seem to accept this. It's 1984 unfolding before our very eyes in Britain and in the US and that makes me sad...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It's not physically possible to do the "mix household liquids" terrorist plot in a plane. It takes hours, releases a lot of fumes, and requires control over the temperature. The officials know this.
The "safety" measures were a show.
They had nothing to do with keeping people safe, and everything to do with keeping people affraid.
You can't take the sky from me...
"Not all liquids are terrrorists, but all terrorists are liquids?" At least somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of them, anyway.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Not sure if 'safety' would be a top priority.
I have a very importnant comment to make regarding the threat level. And it's dead serious.
We are no longer the knights who say Ni!
"Ekky-ekky-ekky-ekky-z'Bang, zoom-Boing, z'nourrrwringmm".
Don't worry, there will be connections to the US soon as the politicians behind the current war on ter'rists use this case as an excuse to scrape away a few more civil liberties.
I take it the guy will disappear soon, just before some unlisted American flights out of the country. Well, at least he will never be charged again, tortured^Wharsly talked to and imprisoned maybe, but never charged. Ah, American 'justice'.
Je ne parle pas francais.
The fact that the courts are not finding enough evidence to convict only support this theory. Combine that with timing of the event, and the new scare policies implemented in Airports, along with the speeches made by certain political parties (i.e. better not vote for our opponents or next time this would have killed your newborn child, puppy dog, and a baby seal) and you have yourself what appears to be a bonified piece of engineered political propaganda.
Interesting, are the times we live; the methods used to influence public opinion, and therefore events and public control, are no different than they were 50-60 years ago when the world was in turmoil. We never really learn do we?
Insert a mental comma and it works.
"Your Rights, online"
I know the FAQ says the politics section is for US politics only, but US politics encompasses the entire world. Try having a discussion about terrorist plots without having the USA come into play.
:p
As for the "My Rights Online" maybe they mean "My Rights on AIRline"
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
There were other arrests made here, so let's review:
- Suspects carrying potential ingredients for creating explosives
- Raul is one of many (one potential ingredient)
- was not carrying a bomb per-se
- Raul is however suspect in other outstanding cases
Raul was found not guilty on terrorist charges which (IANAL) are inconclusive as he was tried seperate from the `other ingredients` in this particular event. Would Raul have been able to assemble a bomb if he had the possessions of each of the other suspects (known suspects or not) on that particular flight? Pakistan should have allowed the suspect to be extradited to the UK for trial both for the 2002 murder case and in conjunction with the other suspects arrested in the plane threat to be taken in as a whole and not one part.Nowadays all politics are global. Pakistan is in America's back yard, Britain is a puppet state. Stories like this on Slashdot just reflect reality, not how some anonymous coward from Outer Fencepost, Wyoming would like things to be.
Pining for the fjords
You haven't got on a plane lately, have you ? Not with liquids, anyway. And the reason you can't is directly realted to this case
So, unless you are willing to wait 10+ years for the changes to actually occur, someone will have to walk through security and refuse to follow the rules. Of course, they will just be carried off by security or shot of he/she resists. If 20+ people refuse to follow the rules, many more people will either be carried off or shot (and the next day the number of security guards would be multiplied by 10). In the end, it's a very very very sad situation.
That's as clear cut as can be.
International stories, no problem. But international political stories doesn't look like it belongs in politics.slashdot.org. It's time the editors follow their rules.
However it appears an increasing number of my rights have been going offline as of late...
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
A Pakistani judge...
Oh, well, all right then.
Don't mind me. I'm currently in full bore year end burnout mode.
While I am no chemist, I did marry one. I remember seeing a British TV show on G4 or something where they dropped a metal pellet into a ceramic bathtub. In a few seconds, the tub was demolished. I could only imaging what would happen if someone were to flush 10 of these down the toilet. Before I'm flamed and corrected, I understand that this pellet is not a liquid and making everyone toss their toothpaste will not stop this kind of attack. Anyone see the show I'm talking about and provide a link? I seem to remember them mixing a couple of benign chemicals to form explosions before the tub was blown apart.
However, Googling for the show mentioned above, I came across this link that shows a white powder and two liquids mixed together. When this mixture set (after 30 minutes) a match-head size drop of this stuff blew a watermelon to pieces. The video did not list the chemicals involved, but could this be something similar to what these guys were planning to smuggle aboard? I could see security testing for the finished product, but is it possible to test for the components that make it up?
And to those that say this is not possible, can you watch the video and explain to me how this could *not* be done?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The right to carry liquids in containers above 1oz on an airplane; Locke must be rolling over in his grave. Don't get me started on me feet's constitutional right to privacy.
It doesn't matter what's true...
It matter to Slashdot editors that it FEELS true!
And wish to subscribe to your newsletter!
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Chechnya
India / Pakistan
ETA
Real IRA
ALF
Uganda
The US is not the whole world, despite what Fox & CNN might tell you.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
* I guess it's often claimed that a lot of the IRA's funding and support came from the USA, but that's a slightly different matter.
Sounds like the batch of home-made beer my dad made when I was 10...
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I agree with everything you said, but there is something I would like to add: what the authorities did wasn't even sound police work. It was a lame attempt for some good PR to justify the cost and inconvenience of all these policies designed to make us feel safe, even if they don't actually work.
Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group, gather more evidence and when there is a case, quietly arrest the suspects and let the justice system do it's job. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the people in charge of the investigation were not subject to political interference at home, or abroad.
Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Perhaps to travel with my documents secure (and not searched) and unfettered travel between states? There must be a reason this was spelled out by our forefathers...
This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
Uzo
Man...I do NOT know what state you live in...hehehe, but, that certainly isn't true in southern LA or TX for the most part.
I moved down here to LA years back...and most everyone I met...had guns, and lots of them. Frankly, I'm amazed anyone has the guts to ever break in a house down here...
I went to one friend's house...he opened a small closet, and the handguns alone were stacked in the bottom of it (door opened about waist high off the floor) about 1-2 ft high, and almost pouring out on the floor. Many people I know..even without carry conceal keep a loaded firearm under the seat of their car at all time.
So, I guess it depends on what part of the country you live in...they have lots of guns down here. Hell, there was a HUGE uproar over the police in NOLA overstepping their bounds, and trying to confiscate legal gun owners from their weapons post flood..which sucked...anyone that stayed here needed them to keep the looters at bay....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Scratch the IRA, they already agreed to lay down their weapons awhile ago, at least the Provisional IRA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Rep ublican_Army#End_of_the_armed_campaign
Now the fragment you mention, Real IRA, is still quite active although much less so than in years past.
Just wanted to clear that up for anyone who sees IRA and doesn't realize there are a dozen smaller factions of the IRA.
You're kiding, right? Congress has some right to regulate the airline industry, but this is ridiculous - would you object to a rule requiring all airline passengers to where govt issued jumpsuits?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It was fairly extensively reported in the British media over the summer.
In closing, I am not embarrassed in the least. It is usually the person who thinks that there are no connections between events that ends up with shit on their face. Everything is connected.
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
For example. As a half chinese half puerto rican female with a degree in french underwear design, I might propose that nigerian dope smugglers could be duped into swallowing explosives instead of heroin for the purpose of wreking havoc on the airline industry and I'd be ignored. As an iraqi grad student with a PhD in chemistry who'd been deported for smoking reefer, my proposal would result in mandatory purging of all air travelers. "Sir, please remove your shoes and shit in the bucket".
The IRA received most of their funding from the USA, and the 'Real IRA' probably still has weapons left over from that. The big benefit of the WTC attacks from a British perspective was that the USA suddenly decided that funding terrorists wasn't cool anymore.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Guns are *not* difficult to get in most of the US. Maybe in some Northeastern areas - NJ, NYC, DC, and MA being the ones with the most evil gun laws - and California to a lesser extent. A few states, VT and AK, don't even require licenses to carry concealed handguns. About 30 of the other states are "shall issue" states - if you have no felony convictions in the past, they're required to issue a concealed gun permit to you.
Britain? Aren't they the people who banned the private ownership of all handguns in 1998 or so in response to the Dunblaine, Scotland school shootings?
-b.
I remember seeing a British TV show on G4 or something where they dropped a metal pellet into a ceramic bathtub. In a few seconds, the tub was demolished.
That was one of the alkali metals. They skitter around on the surface of the water creating a light show, but that's all. If the tub was demolished, it was not by that. In fact, ceramic bath tubs are incredibly tough.
When this mixture set (after 30 minutes) a match-head size drop of this stuff blew a watermelon to pieces
Looks fake to me. Unless my calculations are way off, I think it's physically impossible for such a small amount of stuff to "vaporize" a melon through any chemical reaction; even under ideal conditions, I think it could at best raise the temperature of the melon by about 20C.
Check camping supplies section of your local super markets.
U.S. Constitution, 9th Amendment. Quote: U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment. Quote:
It's also hard to be a leading superpower when our leadership is so incompetent, the rest of the world doesn't respect us. Right now, the only reason anyone listens to us is because we have bigger guns and lots of consumers to buy crap, and that's embarrassing. I'd rather be respected than feared.
So, with regards to my original post, if we all went out and got guns in order to 'level' the playing field with those in power that we do not with to listen to, people are going to die. It's a very very sad situation.
This was posted to YRO; TSA has nothing to do with it. The news is that now you're finally allowed to keep your shoes on and use liquids, online. This should cut down on McAfee's warnings about your computer getting Athlete's Foot.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The only amendment to the Constitution which judges recognize nowadays is the one that has never been legally ratified, you know the one. The one that they use to extort about 1/3 of your paycheck. Yes, you guessed it -- the 16th amendment.
Yeah, like Japan or China or France are really fearing the wrath of American firepower or our nuclear weaponry if they don't do what we say.
Get over your Bush hatred for one second to think rationally. The US was the leading superpower 6 years ago, and still is to this day. It's because the US has the most successful economy, most influential culturally and socially, and does have the mightiest military force in human history. None of that is going to change anytime soon, and that's why we will remain the leading superpower.
It's sad that self-hating Americans like you have beaten us down to think we are not so great.
Umm...you still can do that by car or by foot. So we have not ignored our forefathers.
Meanwhile, traveling unfettered in an airliner with hundreds of other passengers and carrying thousands of pounds of jet fuel is not a right. No serious person can claim you should have the right to prance onto an airplane without being searched.
MA is, on paper, a "shall issue" state, but good luck getting the permit. You pretty much have to "service" the DA to get the permit application looked at, let alone approved.
Constitutional right? Consider it a responsibility.
I'm ashamed to admit I don't own a gun, so I'm posting AC.
It always brings a tear to my eyes to see my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendment rights being respected and enforced by my government, unlike some tinpot 3rd world countries out there. Oh, wait....
Liquid Terror would make an awesome title for a porn flick
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Now do your homework on what those amendments are actually for and not for. (Hint: Do I have a right to commit murder?)
I used to think that if I ever wanted to do something nice for my fellow travellers, I'd get on an airplane and try to light an obvious looking fuse on my pants. Voila! All pants must henceforth be taken off and sent through the X-Ray Machine! Surely that would make them see this "security theatre" for the farce it is, and institute some real security, the non-glamorous kind.
I realized I was too optimistic when the Kip Hawley Is An Idiot story broke. Even the TSA themselves know that they're nothing but a farce!
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Here's a bit of post-dot-com legacy. I looked at the words "Liquid Terror" in the title and I assumd it was the name of a company.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
EvilSS you can get StrikeAnywhereMatches in any supermarket, near the BBQ coal section. If you cannot find them in your vicinity, I will be happy to mail you a few boxes. They are, truly, much
fun on a tiny stick.
Now do your homework on what those amendments are actually for and not for. (Hint: Do I have a right to commit murder?)
Constitutionally? Yes. The tenth amendment tells us that any power not in the constitution is reserved to the individual states (or to the people). The power to pass laws prohibiting murder (or abortion, or wearing green pajamas to school) is reserved to the states (or o the people). The constitution only talks of few *federal* crimes, namely treason, piracy and counterfeiting, the founding fathers allowed each individual state to define their own criminal system. Most states constitutions therefore make it one of their first priorities to adhere to similar items as the bill of rights at the state level.
They are both somewhat redundant, but it was put in to make sure that its meaning was implicit. Their main purpose (as with the rest of the Constitution) is to limit the power of the Federal Government: to give it bounds.
Now, do *your homework* and try to trace when and why this amazing document got corrupted by reality.
If such a leading luminary of non-violent daydreams as John Carmack says it's possible, then hey, it has to be real, right?
Thank-you again, Mr. Carmack, for stepping in at the appropriate moment to provide the world with yet another on-ramp toward hostility, and this time while claiming the high ground. I don't know what's worse, that you sound earnest and convincing, or that you are well-respected enough among the circles of geekdom to actually have an effect upon the status quo. Ugh, either way. Just go back to making your, 'de-sensitize-the-hot-young-bucks-in-time-for-war
Whatever the case. . .
Dudes with bombs and box-cutters working independently is still the false reality which needs to be understood here. The myth of terrorists is the preferred tool for building the fascist state. Luckily, this is increasingly well understood. It's the 'How' which seems to be causing some hiccups.
I've heard every well-meaning argument in the book. --One of the main contenders being, "Well, if you continue to oppress a people, eventually they will rise up! It's the only way left to them."
Semi-true on one level, but still. . . Fascist empire builders have agendas to keep and can't really be expected to wait around for angry oppressed individuals from far away to blow up airliners on schedule. So how does the war machine kick it into gear?
How about a little mind control?
--It would certainly go a distance in explaining the actions of some of the supposedly fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the prelude to the grand 9-11 performance acting in ways most un-Islamic. (Booze and Cocaine and Women won't win the devout many points with Allah.) So what's the story here? Were they fundamentalist terrorists, or were they dupe mercenaries who didn't know what they were signing up for, and who were allowed to bring off their clutzy plan while the US secret services conveniently looked the other way, while the secret/shadow government provided access to the remote controlled jets actually capable of performing the precision flying which badly-trained mercenary goof-balls could not have been asked to manage, and while the Israeli-owned security companies which held contracts at each of the airports involved during 9-11, gave them fast-lane service at the boarding check points?
Well, I can't say pardner, but I do know that when you're calling those kinds of shots, you're in the High Country!
-FL
Obviously this "fact" is clear without any references at all. After all, we all know that the US, one of the few free societies (you don't think it's free ? Try visiting Egypt or Morocco or Turkey and see, and let's not mention other muslim countries like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, that you really shouldn't visit).
So the US is "evil", and funds every terrorist on the planet, obviously. Euhm no, this is not obvious. If you want to make this point you're gonna need proof, and something more reliable than www.conspiracylunatics.org. So where is it ? Let's see your proof.
I don't disagree that the U.S. is flirting with the loss of its global dominance, in no small measure because of the Bush administration having one of the most incompetent foreign policies ever, but characterising its current position as being purely military-based is a severe oversimplification. Its dominance comes from a whole range of things, including leadership positions of various kinds in science, technology, finance, higher education, media, etc.
Even if its military were somehow de-emphasised as a source of power, none of those other things would change automatically. Certainly, all of those things are potentially under threat by other countries in various ways, but the space of future possibilities is huge. For example, China is still a third-world nation in many ways, and it's far from clear that it can sustain a rise of the kind you suggest, particularly in just, say, a few decades.
Back in the '70s, many thought that Japan was going to take over from the U.S., or even that it already had, but that turned out to be a temporary thing. Which brings me to your other point, about the U.S. becoming powerful by a fluke: again, that's an oversimplification which misses some important real sources of U.S. dominance. One of those is the way in which immigrants have affected the demographics of the country. A large part of the U.S. population is self-selected for risk-taking and competitiveness. It attracts some of the best and the brightest from around the world (which again, is admittedly under threat now that obtaining a visa virtually requires an anal probe).
I think it's far more likely that U.S. dominance will not be destroyed by China or by events in the Middle East, but rather by the increasing incompetence of its political leaders and damage to its political system via the undue influence of corporate lobbying and campaign finance, etc. That has resulted in a myriad of poor policy decisions in many different areas, which attacks the source of U.S. advantage on multiple fronts in a way that no other single nation could. But even this could be corrected with some halfway-decent leadership, and one might hope (for the sake of humanity) that there's nowhere to go from Bush but up. I wouldn't count the U.S. out just yet.
2 whole seconds on Google gets you http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119. stm
You must be confused about that.
The 3rd has never been trampled.
It was only once used and the guy who used it as an excuse won.
In case you are wondering it is the "quarenteening soldiers" amendment.
The rest of the Const. being thrown out the window though you are correct.
P.S. Ignore my misspelling; I don't feel like spell-checking right now.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
So you're saying he's inconclusively innocent?
Let's do a little sanity check. He was found with h30 at *disinfectant* concentrations, (typically 3-5%) which *cannot* be used to make a bomb. In order to raise the concentration he would need to distill it, and that would require a much larger volume of peroxide and distillation equipment.
"Would Raul have been able to assemble a bomb if he had the possessions of each of the other suspects (known suspects or not) on that particular flight?"
No, even ignoring the impossibility of making a 4 hour bomb in the bathroom of a plane with a hugh ice supply, he didn't have the right ingredients or the tools to make the right ingredients.
You would have him on trial, claiming 'intent' to create a bomb and citing the bottle of peroxide as evidence, and a chemist would explain to the jury how you're trying to fool them.
Plane toilets are small and cramped little things. The facilities in the airport are probably much more suitable, spacious and still past the security checkpoint. Plus you could get a dozen people smuggling different components that far, and dress up as maintenece people so they can close the toilet and keep other people away.
Still not plausible but if you're going to rubbish the idea, rubbish the least implausible version of it.
Umm...you still can do that by car or by foot. So we have not ignored our forefathers.
Meanwhile, traveling unfettered in an airliner with hundreds of other passengers and carrying thousands of pounds of jet fuel is not a right. No serious person can claim you should have the right to prance onto an airplane without being searched
Excellent, we should extend this to include City Buses, which carry tens of people and carries hundreds of pounds of fuel. City buses are already affiliated or even owned by the local governments, what is wrong with allowing the federal government to force an inspection of my person for my safety and that of other around me. Those Taxi cabs pick up people every day that are not searched for explosives or firearms. I mean, any passenger could be going anywhere the cabby would take them without getting a sniff test or even a background check. This is a horrible breach of the publics trust and security. Anyone getting onto a freeway must be searched, because cars are an excellent delivery platform of terror. The government issues a license and you're already driving on a public road, consent to be searched is obviously implied. Since the streets are public areas and we know people carry guns and even blow them self up, anyone on the street must simply be searched and have their personal items checked for our safety..........just like when you fly.
> Potential terrorist plots are reported constantly, in the US and elsewhere.
How do you know this? Where do you get this information? Have you ever questioned the source? Is the source influenced by the people making the policies? Or vice versa? Do these people have any motives to tell you that there is a "constant threat"? "Make no mistake, there is a constant threat, they are out to get freedom"?
Remember, it is not unamerican or unpatriotic to get your leaders to do a good job for you. Some would even say it's your duty. Don't be fazed by all that "you're either with us or against us" crap. Look at what is happening, and look at the big picture. Look at what is happening to your civil rights. Sure, terror is bad and should be prosecuted, but it's not worth the price you are paying.
> slightly more suspicious [foxnews.com]
Ah... Forget what I asked, I have my answers.
Thank you and have a nice day!
Saddam Hussein was aided by the USA. The Taliban (back then they were called Jihad freedom warriors or something, see Rambo3 for your history lesson on that) was aided by the USA. Want more? Visit a news site sometimes.
I can think of a bunch of countries that I feel are more free than the USA as it exists today. It's pretty pathetic that the "beacon of freedom and democracy", the "land of the brave and free" needs to be compared to Afghanistan to be considered free anymore.
If this whole thing was such a big deal, and so many lives were at risk, why are the police here threatening to walk away from the site if they don't get more money?
So I went through Heathrow security a few weeks back: I had to take my shoes off, have them scanned, I went through the metal detector and of course enjoyed a healthy frisking. They also had a full body scanner that certain lucky people were envited to try out. So, past security, I was truly safe: no gels, matches or lighters. I could never be a threat!
Then I went to the waiting area where I promptly picked up a pack of matches and was browsing the duty free. Nothing would stop me from buying a 1 liter bottle of vodka, going on board, smashing it over someone's head, setting them on fire, then terrorising the plane/whatever with the remainder of my broken bottle (the weapon of choice for many louts in the UK which can scar, blind and even kill). If people want to be a dick and terrorise people, it's going to happen one way or another. Why not detonate their bombs in the packed ques for security checks?
If we live in fear and terror the terrorists have won.
http://www.frenchgeek.com/
How can they be done for treason when they are attacking a foreign government?
They often blow up caravans on this show (which is always a good thing) but whenever they claim to have destroyed one with high explosives there is always a huge fireball. IIRC high explosives tend to flameless and low explosives or acclerents tend to cause fireballs. Just another example to TV misleading the public
April 9, 1865, but that is neither here nor there. Are you telling me that you would not object to security screenings were individual states' port authorities to enact restrictions and conduct searches? Are your problems with the TSA and its restrictions really based on principles of states' rights?
April 9, 1865, but that is neither here nor there. Are you telling me that you would not object to security screenings were individual states' port authorities to enact restrictions and conduct searches? Are your problems with the TSA and its restrictions really based on principles of states' rights?
No, of course not. Based on solid and reasoned Libertarian principles. I'm not a strict constitutionalist by any means, but it is a start, and if security screenings were done by the states one could argue that I'd have a choice on travel. Even so, I haven't read many state constitutions, just California's where I reside and it adheres to the bill of rights, I'll assume many other states do so as well; other arguments such as unwarranted searches and seizures still apply.
It's my understanding that the concentration of bomb-quality hydrogen peroxide is many times higher than anything found in drugstores.
Of course you are not a strict constitutionalist, you are a selective one who is interpreting the 9th and 10th amendments in a way as to prohibit any federal laws not in support of the constitution. Although this was an original goal of the Constitution, and far more so the Articles of Confederation, it is a goal that was never terribly realistic or adhered to, even by its backers.
Instead of modding me troll, how about responding to the points you disagree with?
http://www.jewishmag.com/99mag/nobel/nobel.htm
I think when the POTUS justifies the continuation of a genocide for the sake of the soldiers who have already died there (and this is bought line hook by his supporters) the spirit of the 3rd Amendement has already been crushed.
Oh boy. That article is so incredibly broken I forget to debunk it sometimes because I can't believe anybody takes it seriously.
I'm not even going to bother with links. Go look up the de-bunking yourself. It'll take you like thirty seconds. --The one point I will mention from memory is that Popular Mechanics did their research in several parts by calling up the Pentagon to ask if the people accusing the military were right or not on a variety of points. When the accused said, "No." Popular Science took that as a defacto truth and called it a successful debunking.
How ridiculous is that? The accusers are pointing the finger at the military. If the military is really up to wrong-doing, then of course they're not going to give honest answers. A real journalist recognizes this blazingly obvious fact and seeks to find information from third parties. Popular Mechanics didn't do this, probably because they haven't clicked yet to the fact that the government has a long track record of lying. Either that, or the Popular Mechanics editors have family on the Homeland Secuity staff.
As for all those other wins for the good guys you linked to? Geez. You're also taking the media and government announcements at face value. There's something we call 'conflict of interest' which makes doing that a dubious practice at best. The media is owned by the very, very wealthy, who in turn own the government, and those people WANT there to be a war. That means very little the media says, especially with regard to terrorism, can be taken at face value. --And I know a number of journalists in both print and television who tell me this directly and cite numerous personal examples of how the truth molded to suit the state.
-FL