Re:Here's some evidence
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
While I don't blame you for trying to change the subject away from your original
allegations, now that you've failed to turn up any evidence for them, you really
should go back and look at what I posted.
In particular, refering to the findings of the duly appointed sub-body of the Chilean
legislature charged
with investigating Allende's conduct as `` accusations by some elected politicians'' is
rather silly. Do you refer to a finding of fact by a judge as ``a list of accusations
from an appointed official''?
Re:Here's some evidence
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
Let's go through what you're saying here:
Thanks for the links. I can find many criticisms of Allende in there, but nowhere can I find evidence that he cancelled or suspended elections.
Look again at what Chile's duly constituted chamber of deputies found in their
declaration:
``the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state''
``the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government''
``[The administration] has usurped Congress's principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country's social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power
``It has consistently mocked the National Congress's oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land''
``Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.''
``It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;''
``It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives''
``It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law''
`` It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association.''
`` It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;''
In light of these abuses of power, many of them (such as the arrest and torture of journalists and political opponents) used to corrupt the results of various local elections, and all of them siezures of power in contravention of the Chilean constitution, are you really claiming that Allende meant to hand back all this power and hold elections in 1974? Really?
No, I would not have proposed invading Chile to affect political change: I am not a neocon. I propose that Carter and his successors ought to have not only ceased all weapons sales, but also stopped the CIA from providing covert aid, publicly cut ties with Chile, introduce resolutions aginst the Pinochet regime in the UN and other international bodies where the US holds sway, and introduced economic and other sanctions.
Umm, hello? No one's discussing the navally-launched seersucker which impacted
outside a shopping mall in Kuwait city. We are discussing the fourteen or so
SCUDs which were fired on ballistic trajectories from southern Iraq into Kuwait
in the first week and a half of the war.
In case you weren't paying attention, here are some stories on those attacks.
I mean really, faced with fourteen SCUDs fired at Kuwait, your answer is `look, this
one attack was with another type of missile, so there are no SCUDs'? Iraqi information
minister Mohammad Sayeed Sahaf would be so proud...
Re:Here's some evidence
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
When did Allende suspend elections, as claimed in your first and third points?
A list of Allende's constitutional violations was prepared by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies in August of
1973, and can be read here. Here is a report on Allende's abuses
from the September 15, 1973 issue of The Economist, while a more modern take can be found
here.
You'll find a good paper on the history of constitutional law in Chile here (.doc format, sorry), which details in passing some of how the Constitutional review process broke down early in Allende's
rule, as Allende overruled and/or repeatedly refused to enforce laws passed by the legislature.
Incidentally, one of the best primary documents on Allende's abandonment of the Chilean constitution
is the open letter which the Supreme Court of Chile wrote to the New York Times after they were forcibly
dissolved by Allende. I haven't yet found this on the web, but I'll keep looking. Any good history of
the era reproduces it, as well.
You also claim the CIA had no knowledge of their contacts' illegal actions, ostensibly including that of
Manuel Contreras and the DINA assassins of Letelier and Moffitt, and demand evidence of this knowledge. May I
ask what sort of evidence would satisfy you that they knew?
Kind of an odd question, really, since so far you've provided no evidence at all. In either case, I've already
mentioned or linked to the known archives of Chile-related material, none of which (as far as I can tell) provide
such evidence.
Even such knowledge, however, would be a far cry from evidence of US involvement in Pinochet's rise to power, however, no?
Finally, you claim that pressure from the Reagan adminstration forced Pinochet to step down, and that this is
an "uncontested fact". Yet the Reagan administration were selling helicopters to Pinochet's regime, all the
while they were supposedly "pressuring" for elections.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Chile.htm
What confuses you about the idea of providing aid coupled to demands for reform? The fact is that Reagan
aided Chile and demanded elections, and the result was elections, while Carter had cut ties to Chile and
demanded elections, which resulted in nothing at all.
In other words, the result of Reagan's pressure was the stable democracy that Chile is today. And you propose that
what, exactly, would have been a better course of action? Invasion?
It's more logical to conclude that Pinochet was planning to step down, and the US was simply applying the
same sort of "pressure" that Israel currently enjoys from the US, meaning mild, periodic press releases
requesting the client state to do the decent thing. The Republicans put Pinochet there, should we
congratulate them for asking him to step down years later, all the while suppressing documents on US
involvement, all the while turning a blind eye to the torture and murder of tens of thousands, including that
of US citizens?
As you have yet to provide any evidence that the US `put Pinochet there', you have no grounds to base further
claims on this allegation. When you have demonstrated that this wild conspiracy theory is true, then
you may rationally theorize about `what it tells us', and not before...
And while we're at it, perhaps you can provide a source for your claims of `tens of thousands' killed under
Pinochet's rule? Most credible reports which I've seen put the number of deaths at around 1,000 or 2,000,
and even the site remember-chile.org which you link to
Re:Here's some evidence
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I've read that site, as well as the much more thorough
archive at Georgetown University (who have put the entirety of the
declassified documents online). What you'll notice is that although
there are a lot of repetitions of the same claims at that site, there
are no pointers to actual evidence. The `proof' they cite falls into
a couple of categories:
evidence that the CIA was monitoring Chile closely after Allende
suspended the rule of law and cancelled elections, something no one
denies (and it would be absurd for them not to do so).
evidence that some contacts which the CIA had worked with were involved
(apparently without the CIA's knowledge -- at least no one has ever provided
evidence of such knowledge) in the assassination of a one General Schneider
two years before Pinochet's coup
evidence that the US state department considered Allende's nationalization
of industry and suspension of free elections a negative development (again,
hardly surprising).
These are all accepted fact. Compared to copious evidence of these facts, however,
there is no evidence of US involvement in Pinochet's rise to power.
In contrast, by the way, it is well known and uncontested fact that it was sustained
pressure by the Reagan administration which forced Pinochet to step down after a little
more than a decade in power, and to re-establish free elections. Do you think Allende
would have done the same? Did Allende's buddy Fidel Castro do the same?
Ah yes, the old/. standby, demonstration by repetition.
Keep telling us `Iraq didn't even have a single SCUD' if you
want, but given that they fired several at Kuwait during
the recent battle, you're not exactly helping your credibility
by doing so.
Likewise, if after months of telling us that if Hans Blix and his
merry band hadn't found WMD in six months this meant that they
needed more time, you're not helping your credibility much by
claiming that if US troops haven't found more than traces of such weapons in three weeks
since the fighting ended, this means they weren't there.
So I think we understand enough about your credibility for me to repeat that
you should provide evidence of your wild claims about Woolsey or stop making
them.
Re:CIA overthrows dictatorships
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes, the old/. standby, proof by assertion.
While I certainly never asserted that the CIA has never lied (though
you have yet to provide us with a single documented example),
if you have any evidence that they are lying in this case you really should present it.
Otherwise, you're just blowing FUD and hot air.
Re:CIA overthrows dictatorships
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
Do you have some evidence? Or are you suggesting that random FUD
spewed by AC's on slashdot is a more reliable source?
C'mon, that doesn't even pass the laugh test...
I mean it's all very well to allege government lying. But unless you are
alleging that the government saying something makes that thing false,
you need to provide some evidence. The CIA denies that they are storing
UFOs at Roswell, too, after all, but that doesn't mean they are, now does it?
Or are you, in fact, moving on to a new accusation, just as unbacked as the last
one, now that you were asked for evidence of that one?
Re:CIA overthrows dictatorships
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
I don't think I said it was any consolation for his victims, any more
than Allende's being deposed was any consolation for his, or any more than Castro's
eventual death will be any consolation for the families of the tens of thousands
he has murdered.
What I did say, and am now repeating, is that as opposed to the random unbacked accusations
which you are making, the actual evidence
is now on the table, and it shows that we were not involved in the Pinochet coup.
To quote the report:
Although some of these residual propaganda operations may have benefited Pinochet and the putchists indirectly, officers of the CIA and the Intelligence Community were not involved in facilitating Pinochet.s accession to President nor the consolidation of his power as Supreme Leader. For most of the period, CIA had no covert action authority for Chile. While the CIA had liaison relationships with various security services over the years, there is no indication that any service asked for, or that the CIA offered, any assistance to promote Pinochet to the Presidency.
and the documents are there to back this conclusion.
Re:misinformation
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1, Funny
The CIA isn't as dumb as Bush is pretending to be?
Or your understanding of grammar isn't as bad as you are pretending it to be?
Re:CIA overthrows dictatorships
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
You know, I hate to disappoint you, but under the Clinton administration, all of the CIA's
records of the coup in Chile were declassified and analyzed. The truth, unfortunately, is
rather less sinister, though perhaps more disappointing, than your little black-helicopter
theory.
See, although the CIA were spending lots of budget dollars to monitor the situation in Chile
after Allende nullified the Constitution there and cancelled elections,
when Pinochet siezed power, they were as surprised as anyone else.
Pinochet, by the way, stepped down a little more than a decade later, under pressure from the US
to hold free elections. When he lost the ensuing election, he retired to private life. Do you think
that Allende, who had brought in over three hundred guerillas from Cuba to act as a personal bodyguard
after he nullified the Chilean constitution, would have done the same?
Where `too pushy' means `he objected to the fact that over two years passed after
his appointment before Clinton would meet with him', eh? But given the rest of the parent post,
I'm sure you're about to tell us that Clinton actually did care about intelligence
issues...
Inside the CIA, a common joke around the time a lone crackpot landed a small plane on the
whitehouse lawn was to claim that it had been Woolsey, desperately trying to get in to see
his boss.
No, really -- if you're going to make such serious claims about Woolsey, you should provide
hard evidence. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
Re:CIA DOES blow up US commercial planes though!
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
Heh. Anyone tempted to take this claim seriously should check out the front page of the
linked site. Real nutjob stuff -- it's hard to see how they get any sleep, what with all those black helicopters
circling overhead...
Re:Not a fair accounting....
on
IT at the CIA
·
· Score: 1
This is undoubtedly true, but pointing at systems whose deployment
was originally expected in the period '87-'91 when the Soviets were
backing away from the Brezhnev doctrine, and scaling back defense
spending accordingly is not necessarily good evidence of incorrect
predictions.
After all, the US military has had more than its share of platform
rollouts pushed back as much as decades by development problems
or budget cuts, or even cancelled. MV-22 Osprey, anyone? Crusader artillery
piece?
Alright, let's go through what you're claiming here:
You and I can both be arrested with no charges, no trial or no access to a lawyer on the mere unsubstantiated allegation that we are somehow linked to terrorism.
Simply untrue. No one has been arrested with no charges, no trial, or access to a lawyer. However, those who commit
acts of war illegally against this nation are subject to trial under military jurisdiction. You may not like this, you
may think this should change, but you can't claim that this is something new -- this practice has existed since the
earliest days of this republic (as I mentioned above, presidents Madison and Jefferson both used it, for example -- but
perhaps you will tell us that the author of the Constitution didn't know what it said), and has been repeatedly
upheld by the Supreme Court.
What act of war have the thousands of people who have been disappeared commited?
And here you go off the deep end again. No one has been `disappeared'. Not one person. Much less `thousands'.
If you want to claim that someone has, you will have to provide examples. Otherwise, you're just spouting hot air.
You, I and everybody else in the world is now subject to being taken away without charges and without recourse to the law.
Simply untrue. Show us a single instance where this has happened.
The mere allegation that I am in any way associated with terrorists allows the governemnt to take me away without any due process whatsoever.
Again, simply untrue. This is the third time you've repeated this claim in one post, but repetition is not proof.
I know at least one person through my father in law to whom this has happened.
``My roommate knows this guy, and like his girlfriend has this cousin, and like her friend heard that...''
That's your `evidence'?
There was the article about the Intel guy.
Maher Hawash (``the Intel guy'' you say, and then expect us to believe that you're familiar with the case) is being held as a material
witness in an ongoing case, to testify before a grand jury. Beyond the obvious point that if he was `disappeared', you wouldn't know
where he was (duh!), this is a perfectly legal procedure, and is certainly not something new (the Material Witness Statute is twenty
years old).
Within a short time, Mr. Hawash will be called to testify to a grand jury, presumably about the $10,000 which he is alleged to have
given to the `Global Relief Foundation', a front organization with ties to al Qaeda, which even the UN calls a front for terrorism.
As with any material witness, Mr. Hawash has full access to the courts to appeal his detention, and must be released as soon as his testimony
is needed or if his testimony has not been needed within a certain time. He may also, of course, be charged with a crime before that time.
In either case, to claim that a.) this is a new procedure, b.) that Mr. Maher has `disappeared', or c.) that he has no access to appeal his
case is simply lying.
There are articles about the thousands who were tricked into showing up at INS centers and have now essentially vanished off of the face of the earth.
Again, nonsense. Not one person has `vanished' off the face of the earth. Some people who were here illegally have been deported when they
showed up as asked to (not `tricked' as you allege). But perhaps you have a problem with this?
Look it up. Find a single scrap of evidence to contradict this.
Believe it or not, every random claim you make is not automati
Heh. Hehehe. Let's get this straight: your answer to a request to provide evidence of your
earlier post is to repeat an earlier post? I already answered this post last time you posted it. Go
read my response there if you wish.
You seem, how shall we put it, a bit confused. For one thing, you are conflating
USA PATRIOT with the detention of enemy combatants -- two completely unrelated
matters. Those who commit acts of war against the United States have always been
subject to military jurisdiction. This has been true since the earliest days of
this republic (presidents Madison and Jefferson, for example, used this presidential
power against port saboteurs working for the French government -- but perhaps you
are going to tell us that the author of the Constitution was unfamiliar
with its provisions?), and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most
recently in the case Ex Parte
Quirin.
Second, nothing in USA PATRIOT at all changes your right to due process, judicial review
of search and siezure, or anything else. If you want to allege otherwise, please show
us the language which you allege affects these rights.
I'm asking you again, it's a simple question: since you allege that your rights are being
taken away, tell us one thing you had a right to do on September 10, 2001, which you claim
you do not have a right to do now. Well?
But then you go and give yourself away: you link to a black-helicopter theory site alleging
that Bush and `the Israelis' carried out the September 11 attacks -- yet you are too ashamed
to repeat this claim for yourself. Tell us, Darby, is this what you're claiming?
And finally, your `evidence' for your final claim is to post to another post of you saying
the same thing? Ha!
Ah yes -- the tried and true slashdot arguing technique: repeat yourself often enough and
you can convince yourself that what you're saying is making sense.
Simple fact: every day, you sacrifice liberty for security. I've given you two examples, I'm
sure you can think of more. So when you allege that it is unacceptable to give up any liberty
for any security, you are simply a hypocrite.
Second fact: the constitution defines a specific balance between liberty and security. Now you
allege, with no examples, that the constitution is being violated. If you believe this, and you
seem to, provide us an example of any provision of the Constitution which is being violated.
Well? Repetition is not reasoning. Defend your position, don't repeat it.
Independently of the incoherence of your position, I'd like to speak to your black-helicopter accusations.
You allege that USA PATRIOT has `taken away your rights', yet you fail to explain how a bill which merely extended
to organized terrorism practices which had already been declared constitutional sixty years earlier when JFK
extended them to organized crime can be said to `take away' your rights.
I counter this with a simple point:
If you believe that you have lost liberties
in the wake of September 11, please point to even a single right which they believe they had on
September 10, 2001, but do not have now. A single one. Well?
You make an odd eliptical claim about Bush and the Saudis, with no evidence. Rather than beat around the
bush (pun intended), tell us what you are alleging, and show us some evidence. Or are you so ashamed of your
own accusations that you are unwilling to make them openly?
And last, you allege that the election in Florida was stolen. This may have seemed like a cute accusation to
make late in the year 2000, but two and a half years after dozens of independent media institutions -- including those
like the New York Times and the Washington Post which quite openly believed Gore had won -- finished their own recounts
and confirmed that by any standard they applied, Bush won by as many or more votes than the certified amount, you
just make yourself look silly by bringing such a claim.
No amount of insults wrapped around the type of position you present would make it more coherent. Cough up the evidence,
or you're just spouting hot air.
With due respect, how many dead people have you ever seen speak freely, worship freely, publish
freely, or exercise any of the other basic rights which we hold dear? Is that really your argument?
Are you really saying `they're not trying to take our rights away, they're trying to kill us, so that's
okay'?
To quote a recent post of mine:
It seems to me that people who throw that quote around so lightly do so out of the assumption that the only entity which could possibly take away their
liberty is the government. While we have been lucky enough to live in an era where this often seemed to be the case, it isn't actually correct.
See, when someone comes over here and flies a 747 through the window of your office, you've also lost liberty -- dead people do not speak freely,
worship freely, publish, or do any of the other things we rightly consider as basic liberties.
This is why in addition to providing a specific and limited definition of the powers of government, the constitution also details the responsibilities
of government, including providing for the common defense.
All of political science is the art of trying to find the right balance between making sure government neither destroys the liberty of the citizenry
nor is so weak that it is unable to prevent other entitiess from doing so (as the original government created by the Articles of Confederation was). It
is my humble opinion that the US Constitution strikes an excellent balance between these two needs.
The truth is, every day you give up some liberty for security. You don't keep all of your paycheck so that the nation can afford an
army to stop other entities from coming here and taking your rights. You can't walk right into your friendly neighborhood nuclear plant
because if you could, others could to.
But that's not what you're saying -- you're saying `give me liberty, even if it means death for a bunch of other people'.
In short, you're arguing that as long as the government doesn't take something you consider your `liberty' away, you're perfectly
fine with them abrogating their responsibility -- which is just as much a part of the contitution as your liberty is -- to prevent
other people coming here and taking even more basic liberties away.
Heh, nice try. You can't find any actual facts in the article itself, so you allege
that it must be true because of the publication it appears in?
So next time something not clearly true appears in the Sun, I'll point out to you that you said
that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't let false things in a paper he owns?
That's really not much of an argument, you know...
Yes, yes it is. And to apply that meaning to the common-sense practice of choosing for
yourself what you yourself will say is simply nonsensical.
Or do you believe that you are `censored' every single time you speak? By your definition,
no speech is evey uncensored, and thus by pushing your definition, you insult all those who suffer under actual censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't blame you for trying to change the subject away from your original allegations, now that you've failed to turn up any evidence for them, you really should go back and look at what I posted.
In particular, refering to the findings of the duly appointed sub-body of the Chilean legislature charged with investigating Allende's conduct as `` accusations by some elected politicians'' is rather silly. Do you refer to a finding of fact by a judge as ``a list of accusations from an appointed official''?
Let's go through what you're saying here:
Look again at what Chile's duly constituted chamber of deputies found in their declaration:
In light of these abuses of power, many of them (such as the arrest and torture of journalists and political opponents) used to corrupt the results of various local elections, and all of them siezures of power in contravention of the Chilean constitution, are you really claiming that Allende meant to hand back all this power and hold elections in 1974? Really?
Umm, hello? No one's discussing the navally-launched seersucker which impacted outside a shopping mall in Kuwait city. We are discussing the fourteen or so SCUDs which were fired on ballistic trajectories from southern Iraq into Kuwait in the first week and a half of the war.
In case you weren't paying attention, here are some stories on those attacks.
I mean really, faced with fourteen SCUDs fired at Kuwait, your answer is `look, this one attack was with another type of missile, so there are no SCUDs'? Iraqi information minister Mohammad Sayeed Sahaf would be so proud...
A list of Allende's constitutional violations was prepared by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies in August of 1973, and can be read here. Here is a report on Allende's abuses from the September 15, 1973 issue of The Economist, while a more modern take can be found here.
You'll find a good paper on the history of constitutional law in Chile here (.doc format, sorry), which details in passing some of how the Constitutional review process broke down early in Allende's rule, as Allende overruled and/or repeatedly refused to enforce laws passed by the legislature.
Incidentally, one of the best primary documents on Allende's abandonment of the Chilean constitution is the open letter which the Supreme Court of Chile wrote to the New York Times after they were forcibly dissolved by Allende. I haven't yet found this on the web, but I'll keep looking. Any good history of the era reproduces it, as well.
Kind of an odd question, really, since so far you've provided no evidence at all. In either case, I've already mentioned or linked to the known archives of Chile-related material, none of which (as far as I can tell) provide such evidence.
Even such knowledge, however, would be a far cry from evidence of US involvement in Pinochet's rise to power, however, no?
What confuses you about the idea of providing aid coupled to demands for reform? The fact is that Reagan aided Chile and demanded elections, and the result was elections, while Carter had cut ties to Chile and demanded elections, which resulted in nothing at all.
In other words, the result of Reagan's pressure was the stable democracy that Chile is today. And you propose that what, exactly, would have been a better course of action? Invasion?
As you have yet to provide any evidence that the US `put Pinochet there', you have no grounds to base further claims on this allegation. When you have demonstrated that this wild conspiracy theory is true, then you may rationally theorize about `what it tells us', and not before...
And while we're at it, perhaps you can provide a source for your claims of `tens of thousands' killed under Pinochet's rule? Most credible reports which I've seen put the number of deaths at around 1,000 or 2,000, and even the site remember-chile.org which you link to
Actually, I've read that site, as well as the much more thorough archive at Georgetown University (who have put the entirety of the declassified documents online). What you'll notice is that although there are a lot of repetitions of the same claims at that site, there are no pointers to actual evidence. The `proof' they cite falls into a couple of categories:
- evidence that the CIA was monitoring Chile closely after Allende
suspended the rule of law and cancelled elections, something no one
denies (and it would be absurd for them not to do so).
- evidence that some contacts which the CIA had worked with were involved
(apparently without the CIA's knowledge -- at least no one has ever provided
evidence of such knowledge) in the assassination of a one General Schneider
two years before Pinochet's coup
- evidence that the US state department considered Allende's nationalization
of industry and suspension of free elections a negative development (again,
hardly surprising).
These are all accepted fact. Compared to copious evidence of these facts, however, there is no evidence of US involvement in Pinochet's rise to power.In contrast, by the way, it is well known and uncontested fact that it was sustained pressure by the Reagan administration which forced Pinochet to step down after a little more than a decade in power, and to re-establish free elections. Do you think Allende would have done the same? Did Allende's buddy Fidel Castro do the same?
Ah yes, the old /. standby, demonstration by repetition.
Keep telling us `Iraq didn't even have a single SCUD' if you want, but given that they fired several at Kuwait during the recent battle, you're not exactly helping your credibility by doing so.
Likewise, if after months of telling us that if Hans Blix and his merry band hadn't found WMD in six months this meant that they needed more time, you're not helping your credibility much by claiming that if US troops haven't found more than traces of such weapons in three weeks since the fighting ended, this means they weren't there.
So I think we understand enough about your credibility for me to repeat that you should provide evidence of your wild claims about Woolsey or stop making them.
Ah yes, the old /. standby, proof by assertion.
While I certainly never asserted that the CIA has never lied (though you have yet to provide us with a single documented example), if you have any evidence that they are lying in this case you really should present it.
Otherwise, you're just blowing FUD and hot air.
Do you have some evidence? Or are you suggesting that random FUD spewed by AC's on slashdot is a more reliable source?
C'mon, that doesn't even pass the laugh test...
I mean it's all very well to allege government lying. But unless you are alleging that the government saying something makes that thing false, you need to provide some evidence. The CIA denies that they are storing UFOs at Roswell, too, after all, but that doesn't mean they are, now does it?
Source? Transcript?
Or are you, in fact, moving on to a new accusation, just as unbacked as the last one, now that you were asked for evidence of that one?
I don't think I said it was any consolation for his victims, any more than Allende's being deposed was any consolation for his, or any more than Castro's eventual death will be any consolation for the families of the tens of thousands he has murdered.
What I did say, and am now repeating, is that as opposed to the random unbacked accusations which you are making, the actual evidence is now on the table, and it shows that we were not involved in the Pinochet coup.
To quote the report:
and the documents are there to back this conclusion.The CIA isn't as dumb as Bush is pretending to be?
Or your understanding of grammar isn't as bad as you are pretending it to be?
You know, I hate to disappoint you, but under the Clinton administration, all of the CIA's records of the coup in Chile were declassified and analyzed. The truth, unfortunately, is rather less sinister, though perhaps more disappointing, than your little black-helicopter theory.
See, although the CIA were spending lots of budget dollars to monitor the situation in Chile after Allende nullified the Constitution there and cancelled elections, when Pinochet siezed power, they were as surprised as anyone else.
Pinochet, by the way, stepped down a little more than a decade later, under pressure from the US to hold free elections. When he lost the ensuing election, he retired to private life. Do you think that Allende, who had brought in over three hundred guerillas from Cuba to act as a personal bodyguard after he nullified the Chilean constitution, would have done the same?
Where `too pushy' means `he objected to the fact that over two years passed after his appointment before Clinton would meet with him', eh? But given the rest of the parent post, I'm sure you're about to tell us that Clinton actually did care about intelligence issues...
Inside the CIA, a common joke around the time a lone crackpot landed a small plane on the whitehouse lawn was to claim that it had been Woolsey, desperately trying to get in to see his boss.
No, really -- if you're going to make such serious claims about Woolsey, you should provide hard evidence. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.
Heh. Anyone tempted to take this claim seriously should check out the front page of the linked site. Real nutjob stuff -- it's hard to see how they get any sleep, what with all those black helicopters circling overhead...
This is undoubtedly true, but pointing at systems whose deployment was originally expected in the period '87-'91 when the Soviets were backing away from the Brezhnev doctrine, and scaling back defense spending accordingly is not necessarily good evidence of incorrect predictions.
After all, the US military has had more than its share of platform rollouts pushed back as much as decades by development problems or budget cuts, or even cancelled. MV-22 Osprey, anyone? Crusader artillery piece?
Alright, let's go through what you're claiming here:
Simply untrue. No one has been arrested with no charges, no trial, or access to a lawyer. However, those who commit acts of war illegally against this nation are subject to trial under military jurisdiction. You may not like this, you may think this should change, but you can't claim that this is something new -- this practice has existed since the earliest days of this republic (as I mentioned above, presidents Madison and Jefferson both used it, for example -- but perhaps you will tell us that the author of the Constitution didn't know what it said), and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
And here you go off the deep end again. No one has been `disappeared'. Not one person. Much less `thousands'. If you want to claim that someone has, you will have to provide examples. Otherwise, you're just spouting hot air.
Simply untrue. Show us a single instance where this has happened.
Again, simply untrue. This is the third time you've repeated this claim in one post, but repetition is not proof.
``My roommate knows this guy, and like his girlfriend has this cousin, and like her friend heard that...''
That's your `evidence'?
Maher Hawash (``the Intel guy'' you say, and then expect us to believe that you're familiar with the case) is being held as a material witness in an ongoing case, to testify before a grand jury. Beyond the obvious point that if he was `disappeared', you wouldn't know where he was (duh!), this is a perfectly legal procedure, and is certainly not something new (the Material Witness Statute is twenty years old).
Within a short time, Mr. Hawash will be called to testify to a grand jury, presumably about the $10,000 which he is alleged to have given to the `Global Relief Foundation', a front organization with ties to al Qaeda, which even the UN calls a front for terrorism.
As with any material witness, Mr. Hawash has full access to the courts to appeal his detention, and must be released as soon as his testimony is needed or if his testimony has not been needed within a certain time. He may also, of course, be charged with a crime before that time. In either case, to claim that a.) this is a new procedure, b.) that Mr. Maher has `disappeared', or c.) that he has no access to appeal his case is simply lying.
Again, nonsense. Not one person has `vanished' off the face of the earth. Some people who were here illegally have been deported when they showed up as asked to (not `tricked' as you allege). But perhaps you have a problem with this?
Believe it or not, every random claim you make is not automati
Heh. Hehehe. Let's get this straight: your answer to a request to provide evidence of your earlier post is to repeat an earlier post? I already answered this post last time you posted it. Go read my response there if you wish.
You seem, how shall we put it, a bit confused. For one thing, you are conflating USA PATRIOT with the detention of enemy combatants -- two completely unrelated matters. Those who commit acts of war against the United States have always been subject to military jurisdiction. This has been true since the earliest days of this republic (presidents Madison and Jefferson, for example, used this presidential power against port saboteurs working for the French government -- but perhaps you are going to tell us that the author of the Constitution was unfamiliar with its provisions?), and has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in the case Ex Parte Quirin.
Second, nothing in USA PATRIOT at all changes your right to due process, judicial review of search and siezure, or anything else. If you want to allege otherwise, please show us the language which you allege affects these rights.
I'm asking you again, it's a simple question: since you allege that your rights are being taken away, tell us one thing you had a right to do on September 10, 2001, which you claim you do not have a right to do now. Well?
But then you go and give yourself away: you link to a black-helicopter theory site alleging that Bush and `the Israelis' carried out the September 11 attacks -- yet you are too ashamed to repeat this claim for yourself. Tell us, Darby, is this what you're claiming?
And finally, your `evidence' for your final claim is to post to another post of you saying the same thing? Ha!
Ah yes -- the tried and true slashdot arguing technique: repeat yourself often enough and you can convince yourself that what you're saying is making sense.
Simple fact: every day, you sacrifice liberty for security. I've given you two examples, I'm sure you can think of more. So when you allege that it is unacceptable to give up any liberty for any security, you are simply a hypocrite.
Second fact: the constitution defines a specific balance between liberty and security. Now you allege, with no examples, that the constitution is being violated. If you believe this, and you seem to, provide us an example of any provision of the Constitution which is being violated.
Well? Repetition is not reasoning. Defend your position, don't repeat it.
Point taken. Poor fellow.
Independently of the incoherence of your position, I'd like to speak to your black-helicopter accusations.
You allege that USA PATRIOT has `taken away your rights', yet you fail to explain how a bill which merely extended to organized terrorism practices which had already been declared constitutional sixty years earlier when JFK extended them to organized crime can be said to `take away' your rights.
I counter this with a simple point:
If you believe that you have lost liberties in the wake of September 11, please point to even a single right which they believe they had on September 10, 2001, but do not have now. A single one. Well?
You make an odd eliptical claim about Bush and the Saudis, with no evidence. Rather than beat around the bush (pun intended), tell us what you are alleging, and show us some evidence. Or are you so ashamed of your own accusations that you are unwilling to make them openly?
And last, you allege that the election in Florida was stolen. This may have seemed like a cute accusation to make late in the year 2000, but two and a half years after dozens of independent media institutions -- including those like the New York Times and the Washington Post which quite openly believed Gore had won -- finished their own recounts and confirmed that by any standard they applied, Bush won by as many or more votes than the certified amount, you just make yourself look silly by bringing such a claim.
No amount of insults wrapped around the type of position you present would make it more coherent. Cough up the evidence, or you're just spouting hot air.
With due respect, how many dead people have you ever seen speak freely, worship freely, publish freely, or exercise any of the other basic rights which we hold dear? Is that really your argument?
Are you really saying `they're not trying to take our rights away, they're trying to kill us, so that's okay'?
To quote a recent post of mine:
The truth is, every day you give up some liberty for security. You don't keep all of your paycheck so that the nation can afford an army to stop other entities from coming here and taking your rights. You can't walk right into your friendly neighborhood nuclear plant because if you could, others could to.But that's not what you're saying -- you're saying `give me liberty, even if it means death for a bunch of other people'.
In short, you're arguing that as long as the government doesn't take something you consider your `liberty' away, you're perfectly fine with them abrogating their responsibility -- which is just as much a part of the contitution as your liberty is -- to prevent other people coming here and taking even more basic liberties away.
Now that's cowardice.
Heh, nice try. You can't find any actual facts in the article itself, so you allege that it must be true because of the publication it appears in?
So next time something not clearly true appears in the Sun, I'll point out to you that you said that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't let false things in a paper he owns?
That's really not much of an argument, you know...
Yes, yes it is. And to apply that meaning to the common-sense practice of choosing for yourself what you yourself will say is simply nonsensical.
Or do you believe that you are `censored' every single time you speak? By your definition, no speech is evey uncensored, and thus by pushing your definition, you insult all those who suffer under actual censorship.
Nice try, but I'm not buying it.