Citizen Army/Citizen Alert

Good idea. I'm not opposed to profiling, not now. We were attacked on our soil by people who used the freedom of our country against us. 6,000 innocent souls were murdered by freaks that infiltrated our communities, they plotted, planned and waited for years to hurt us. If their neighbors has been a little more aware, paid a little more attention to their activities, perhaps they would have been discovered before they carried out this terrible act. Certainly, not all Arabs or muslims are hijacking, murdering thugs but we are 100% certain that all 19 hijackers on 11 September were. If the muslim communites in this country have a problem with profiling then they ought to do a little housecleaning, weed out those who twist and pervert their faith and turn them over to the authorities. Then we wouldn't need to do profiling and everyone would be free to enjoy the limitless possibilities available to all Americans. So, be vigilant and if your instincts tell you something is not right, document it and pass it along.

BINGO!

"You should always carry a disposable camera in your car, not for this, but in case you are in an accident. "

I know a guy who kept a camera in his car at all times specifically in the hope that he'd pass by an accident scene. He always stopped and took pictures which he later sold copies of to the insurance companies for a nice fee. These pictures were also purchased by the attorneys representing their particular clients in court cases. Needless to say, he turned a smart idea into a hefty profit.

If we declared war...
Sigh...>>>one more time<<<...no formal "declaration of war" has been passed by Congress!
you do know what "Use of Military Force" is don't you.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

It is not the same thing, no matter how it might be twisted to be construed as such.

Does that clarify things for you?
Do you need any more help in understanding?

To be fair, years ago I asked some of my Middle Eastern classmates why so many of them were in Civil Engineering instead of one of the sexier engineering disciplines.

Their response was "you should see our country! There's nothing there! We have got to go home and build it!"

No tear-jerking intended, mind you, just a simpler explanation of why the study what they study.

FWIW, I think it is not the STUDENTS who come here to study, it is the TERRORIST who come conveniently POSING as students. The trick is to find out what the real mix actually is.

cool. I got 10 of 10!

A forlorn BTTT.

Does that clarify things for you?
Do you need any more help in understanding?

THANK YOU for your wisdom! You are correct after all; the president is acting under the war powers act. (Klinton loved this tool and exceeded the 60-day period, as reported by Human Events, but nobody seemed to care then) My statement was incorrect and we did not declare war- gee I guess after the president called it war so many times I got caught up in the moment. My mistake - happy? By golly, you showed me.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Is the president authorized to take action domestically if we are harboring terrorists? So why shouldn’t we kick out foreigners in from countries supporting terrorists? I know – this isn’t a war! Right.

Do you need help in understanding?

Actually, I agree with you. I DO think all their visas need to be revoked, and they sent back home. It just makes sense from a security point of view.

Of course, perhaps the Feds think that it's better if they're HERE where we can keep an eye on 'em. I'll bow to their superior understanding of what constitutes the best strategy for security.

Do you need help in understanding?
No, actually, I don't. You, however, are still asking questions...
Is the president authorized to take action domestically if we are harboring terrorists?
So why shouldn’t we kick out foreigners in from countries supporting terrorists?
...that you should be able to answer for yourself, so I guess you are the one who still needs help in understanding. Excuse me for trying to be helpful.
BTW...just so you don't throw something back in my face, I've used the expression "at war" myself.

THANK YOU for your wisdom!
Thank you for your sarcasm. Did you ever stop to think that others might not know what you know and the post was intended to inform them too? Probably not. You just took it as a personal slight and replied. Don't feel bad, I've responded just like that before too.
I probably should have apologized, but hey...barroom brawls and all, being what they usually are...

I'm so animated over our NOT revoking all visa ASAP, like yesterday, that I posted this thread! I think we the people must end this 'no profiling' crap and take picutres of anyone we think is behaving suspiciously, since the darn government won't deport them all! I know the usual excuses ... we have Muslims from nearly every nation, so we can't tell which ones, etc ... but I don't recall any of the murderers of 9/11 being from any place except Middle Eastern Muslim domains, so profile them and deport all, then pass each who wants readmittance through a very careful scrutiny. What the hell is so difficult to understand in that scenario? It at least takes some action that will stop some from future easy terrorist acts. Who give a flyin' loon whether the Saudis like it or not! We're at war, not AT peace.

I probably should have apologized, but hey...barroom brawls and all, being what they usually are...

I was just responding in kind to the condescension in your unsolicited remarks to me. Does the fact that we are not at technically at war change the premise of my earlier post? That’s a rhetorical question – no need to reply. Thanks for stopping by. </sarcasm>

No hard feelings here by the way. Had this been a real bar, we’d be having a brewski by now.

How YOU can assist/support HOMELAND DEFENSE

FBI Website

FBI Most Wanted Terrorists Page With Pictures

America's Most Wanted website

Call the FBI Toll Free at 1-866-483-5137
if you see or hear anything that threatens our national security.

The US State Department Rewards for Justice Program
was established by the 1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism, Public Law 98-533.
Under the Rewards Program, cooperating individuals and their immediate family members
may be eligible for relocation to the United States or elsewhere,
and they are assured complete confidentiality.
Rewards, totaling millions of dollars, have been paid in dozens of cases.
Innocent lives have been saved and terrorists put behind bars.

Had this been a real bar our facial expressions and body language would have made all of this moot. There are so many more things that are understood when you actually see the person you are communicating with.
You would have seen that I was not trying to be condescending, but I would have first been able to see how you originally meant your statement too.
Ahhh..."The Perils of the Internet"...or is that "The Perils of Pauline"?