Posted on 05/30/2002 8:36:48 PM PDT by tgslTakoma
You being informed and all know that even the president cannot just "clean house" without congressional authority? You being so informed and all remember that there was NO transition activity due to the contested election and Bush was denied ANY personnel records until a week before his inauguration? You being so well informed and all know that Ashcroft was not confirmed for almost 2 months following inauguration? You being so well informed and all know that Mueller was confirmed took office on 9-05-2001?
"...However, even if the law says that the FBI can spy on a citizen without a court order, it's still illegal." - exodus********************
"...There is nothing at all to prevent the FBI, CIA OR any national security apparatus from "spying". That is their job. Just as the pre-Church FBI had Carte' Blanche to infiltrate and "spy" on communist organizations and fronts, the FBI is justified to do that with terrorist organizations and fronts. The FBI was never conceived to be a law enforcement agency in the first place. Its original mission was to PREVENT assaults on national security. Muller re-organization announcement has placed the FBI back into that mission.
# 39 by Texasforever
Of course nothing can prevent spying on citizens by any government agency.
I've been complaining about their un-Constitutional powers on almost every thread.
You know that.
The only people that the FBI can legally spy on without a court order are foreign nationals. That would fall in the purview of the Executive power. To spy on a citizen requires a higher test.
Wrong my young friend. NOT when the national security is at stake.
You being informed and all know that even the president cannot just "clean house" without congressional authority? You being so informed and all remember that there was NO transition activity due to the contested election and Bush was denied ANY personnel records until a week before his inauguration? You being so well informed and all know that Ashcroft was not confirmed for almost 2 months following inauguration? You being so well informed and all know that Mueller was confirmed took office on 9-05-2001?********************
# 41 by Texasforever
I, being so well informed, know that the Waco murders took place in Texas. Being so well informed, I know that Bush was Governor of Texas. Being so well informed, I know that the murderers have not been brought to justice.
I also know that if Bush had any interest in upholding the rule of law, he would have had all the information he needed before he took office, even before he ran for the office. Unless you believe the stories that Bush is stupid. I don't.
Bush didn't need ANY personnel changes to increase security on our airlines. He didn't need any personnel changes to round up Islamic terrorists, either.
Ashcroft wasn't confirmed for almost 2 months? That didn't remove the President's authority. It's good to have an Attorney General, but the President could act without one.
Mueller took office on 9-05-2001? Was our country helpless all that time? There are other people that could have done the job. In fact, other people DID the job until Mueller took over.
That would fall in the purview of the Executive power.********************
To spy on a citizen requires a higher test.
Wrong my young friend.
NOT when the national security is at stake.
# 43 by Texasforever
You might be right.
I can see how that would fall under the Executive authority.
"...The FBI was never conceived to be a law enforcement agency in the first place. Its original mission was to PREVENT assaults on national security. Muller re-organization announcement has placed the FBI back into that mission."********************
# 39 by Texasforever
That will leave a huge vacuum.
I don't remember reading what law enforcement organization would move in.
Do you know?
That's right.
What is the primary constitutional function of federal government? Hint. It's not to provide you with a federal police department. It is to provide for the common defense of the nation. So where should the law enforcement come from? The states should hold most of those powers. Federal Marshalls should be used only for federal crimes such as Interstate trafficing of counterfiet money, stolen goods, disruption of commerce, transportation, or the overthrow of the federal government. About 90% of the current federal policing agencies could be and should be disbanned and the states assume the authority.
Use the U.S. Marshalls and FBI for federal crimes. Use limited in power DOD, Dept of Energy, and Dept of Interior officers to protect governemt property with police powers limited to that sole function. As well the nations borders should be protected through a disciplined Imigration Department as this is as well National Security and the FBI should conduct background checks for imigration. Think about it. No ATF, DEA, EPA, TVA, IRS, or other such agencies no longer having their private federal police department running around free to do as they please by departmental decree. The state can enforce most laws better.
I seriously doubt 911 could have been totatly stopped. If not 9/11 when? I think with reasonable certainty we took a terrorist hit on Flight 800. Where was the outcry? I think we have been very lucky not to have more problems considering the low threshold of our borders as far as International Waters go. In the 1970's while in the Navy we were seeing survielance {SP} boats far too close to our shores. It's not so hard for me to believe that a small craft snuck in popped a missle off Long Island and was gone before we could respond.
It's not hard for me to believe the then occupant of the Oval Office would rather we not know it. How do we stop it? That does fall under federal law. It is disrupting transportation and commerce which as well endangers national security. So with the federal dollars saved firing the surplus agencies hire more U.S. Marshalls to ride planes. Arm Pilots and cabin crews as well. Hey if you're gonna die anyway at least have all options open to prevent it. I'll even go this far. The planes are private property of the airlines. Use existing technology and have onboard cameras in the cabin with an airline employee as monitor. Unconstitutional? No because it is their property they have a right to defend it. This would end the need for most personal searches in airports. But terrorism can hit anywhere any time.
BTW 9/11 was not the first time a hi-jacked airliner was taken with a threat to destroy a government installation. It happened in Tennessee in the 1970's.
BTW 9/11 was not the first time a hi-jacked airliner was taken with a threat to destroy a government installation. It happened in Tennessee in the 1970's.********************
# 49 by cva66snipe
Do you have a link to that story?
If not a link, could you tell me about it?
What is the primary constitutional function of federal government? Hint. It's not to provide you with a federal police department. It is to provide for the common defense of the nation. So where should the law enforcement come from?********************
I also believe that federal police forces are un-Constitutional, but the federal government has assumed police powers anyway. I don't believe that they will give up those powers.
Since the FBI reportedly is abandoning it's enforcement powers, some federal organization will appropriate those powers. My best guess would be the new Homeland Security folks, who need to find a reason to gobble up funds.
How serious do we take national defense? In this same area is the first TVA dam that was build about 15 miles upstream from Oak Ridge. While the Manhattan Project was going on during WW2 the dam had gun placements below it. There was concern that a rouge plane from Japan or Germany, or possibly a stolen plane would work it's way up the Missippi & Tennessee River and take it out. Oak Ridge was a secure city and the old guard stations still stand today in some places. The Air Force up till I think the late 1960's operated a radar base north of Oak Ridge.
We need to rethink our International Water Boundry and set it to at least 15 miles out with a Coast Guard beefed up to enforce it.
Bryan the host was most shocked!
ON CHRISTMAS DAY [2001], Wallid Shatter, an Arab-American member of President Bush's Secret Service detail, was ordered off American Airlines Flight 363 from Baltimore to Dallas. He was on his way to join the president at his Crawford, Texas, ranch...Specifically, Shatter was taking Flight 363 because he had been bumped from an earlier flight. According to the captain, the information he gave on the form for the second flight didn't match the information he'd given on the same form for the first.
Then, to top it off, the guy tries to get back on the plane ...
The guys name is Robert Passalaqua or something like that.
He was mad .
He said that he had given a speech (a few days ago ?)and told the crowd that a Stinger hit the plane.The host was surprised.I dont think FOX realizes what they have.They should be obsessing like crazy and dredging up all the tapes of the government stooges(Kalstrom) telling all the witnesses that saw the missle they were crazy.
What will our beloved Clinton say?
What will Bushs excuse be?
True, but you'll find it everywhere. That doesn't mean it's right, but it's there...even in the military. We're our own worst enemies. This has been going on for years and years. It isn't anything new. Like I said previously, creativity and productivity are stifled and then complacency sets in. The failure to communicate important information between different levels within an agency and between agencies is rampant. The old saying: "It's on a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to know" is alive and well. It isn't going to be easy to correct years of this mind-set. You might have to totally clean house and start from scratch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.