« IBD: Keeping the Flying Imams Airborne | Main | It's Not Your Father's Picket Line Anymore »

"I Find Your Lack Of Faith Disturbing"

I tend to be a "reactive" thinker. Most of the time, I get my best thoughts as an instinctive response to something someone else says, when their words catalyze something in the back of my head and bring it to the forefront.

That happened last night, when I was reading through the discussion of the John Doe Protection Bill Kim posted yesterday.

In the comments, "jim" repeatedly lauded the defeat of the measure, while others defended the necessity of it. I heartily agree with those people who argued with jim, but I read both sides of the argument -- and came to an insight.

Whenever I get into a discussion of politics, an underlying presumption lies under my thoughts and arguments -- that the other party is just as interested as I am in a serious conversation, that they are serious about the matter at hand and will engage in principled arguments and honest debate.

And I am often proven wrong in that presumption, as the discussion will often degenerate into personal attacks, diversions, and other underhanded moves.

I haven't surrendered those beliefs of mine, as I find more often than not that there are more people who can disagree without being disagreeable, who aren't so much interested in victory at any cost as finding truth, who can admit error -- and graciously accept when others make that admission.

The core of that principle was crystallized in me in that debate about the John Doe thing, when Robin Roberts actually quoted the amendment. The relevant portion:

1) IN GENERAL.-Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such report.

This part is the part that is so often overlooked not only in the argument about the John Doe Amendment, but in so many other things.

My colleague Paul touched upon that yesterday, when he discussed a certain video that is making the rounds. It shows statements by various members of the Bush administration discussing Iraq and the War On Terror, making statements that events have proven to be misstatements, mistaken, unfounded, or just plain wrong. The conceit of the video is that these are all deliberate falsehoods, deceptions, and out-and-out lies, all in furtherance of a grand conspiracy to con the American people.

I've always operated under the theory that a crucial element of a lie is intent -- that the speaker has to know that their words are false, and speak them anyway. That there is a distinction between being wrong and lying.

In one of the comments on Paul's piece, Synova brought up a Michael Moore statement:

I saw Moore on television (I'm sure it was by accident) talking about "Bush Lied." I don't remember who he was talking to but the interviewer asked him flat out, "Is it a lie if, at the time, you believe it is the truth."

Moore said absolutely it was a lie even if you thought you were right when you said it. And he said something about 7 year olds knowing that.

Moore seems to be summarizing a lot of the anti-Bush thinking.

I see things differently.

In 1991, Saddam admitted that he had a great deal of WMDs, materials, and research. He also agreed to destroy them in a verifiable manner. And then he spent 12 years avoiding that as best he could.

As late as 1998, it was the official policy of the United States government that Saddam had not complied with those terms, and in fact was in such gross violation of that that we made it our official policy to support removing him from power and actually did carry out military strikes on his facilities.

I have not seen a single conclusive piece of evidence that those strikes destroyed all his WMD material, nor any accounts that after those attacks, he complied completely with the terms of his 1991 surrender.

Saddam had no right to the presumption of innocence. Normally I don't like comparing the War On Terror to a criminal proceeding, but there is a nearly perfect metaphor here.

In 1991, Saddam pleaded guilty to major felonies. Part of his sentence involved probation, and a condition of that probation was that he account for and verifiably destroy his WMD programs. The presumption was that he was guilty, and he had to prove his innocence -- much like a parolee might have to repeatedly submit to drug testing in order to keep free.

Saddam kept resisting and refusing to submit to the agreed-upon testing. Period. He continued to sponsor terrorism around the world. Period. He tried to assassinate a former president of the United States in revenge for deeds that president had carried out as part of his duties of office. Period.

In brief, Saddam violated numerous terms of his 1991 surrender -- and one of the possible results of violations of terms of surrender is a resumption of the original war. Sometimes the consequences of such things are overlooked and indulged, such as the violations of the Treaty Of Versailles. And other times, such violations are taken seriously.

In 2002, President Bush chose to take those violations seriously. And a sizable majority of Congress -- including several of the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- agreed with him.

I believe that Bush acted in good faith, on the best intelligence available. And I believe that the majority of Congress also did -- both those who voted for and against the Authorization of Use Of Military Force.

Where I find the lack of good faith today is in those who have chosen to repudiate their 2002 vote. Their explanations would be entertaining, if the subject wasn't so damned serious. I think my favorite is Hillary Clinton's, who has put forth numerous rationales for her vote and change of heart. The best one has to be the time she said that she thought the bill was just a demand to allow the weapons inspectors back in. Apparently The Smartest Woman In The World didn't read the title -- " To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" -- or Section 3 of the resolution:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

If the Congresscritters were serious and sincere about ending the war, they would not be assing around with moves like "non-binding resolutions" and "deadlines" "impeachment" and cheap, sniping attacks. All it takes is a simple move: repealing the AUMF. It's that frigging simple. And their refusal to actually do the one thing that would put some teeth to their words speaks volumes: they don't want to actually take a stand to end this "illegal, immoral, based-on-lies, fraudulent war," but just want to look like they're doing something.

That's why I have a modicum of respect for Senator Obama and Representative Kucinich. I think Obama's an empty suit and Kucinich is just plain nuts, but they have been principled and consistent in their opposition to the war. John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd all voted in support of the Resolution -- and now are desperately running from that vote.

I will continue to presume my opponents in debates are arguing in good faith, until they prove otherwise. A single mantis is worth at least 12,000 Lee Wards -- who, as recently demonstrated, has no problem shooting his mouth off when he's completely in the wrong, and (once proven beyond the slightest shred of a doubt) will admit he was wrong, but is nowhere near adult enough to apologize to those he slandered.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22827.

Comments (187)

An important point is that ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

An important point is that Moore's definition of a lie (to be wrong) is how Democrats will be judged. They had their chance and it was their obligation as public figures to denounce Moore if they didn't agree with his standard. Embrace Moore and you embrace his standards. Now lets see if the Democrats can live up to them.

Repealing the AUMF means we... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Repealing the AUMF means we never invaded Iraq and no soldiers died fighting there right? If not, then repealing the AUMF is just another level of stupidity aspired to by Democrats.

Doesn't matter Jay.<p... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

Doesn't matter Jay.

If the wingnuts want to believe the "Bush Lied" meme, all the facts in the world won't change their mind. "Bush Lied" is their alpha and omega. It is the lodestone of their universe. It is the ultimate truth on which everything else exists. It is the ultimate confession of faith and truth. It is their religion and they are its priests.

To quote H. Beam Piper, "you cannot argue religion with a priest."

A key to understanding this... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

A key to understanding this is to understand the effectiveness of Desert Fox and the reasons the Bush administration chose to disregard the intel on it. Why they chose to disregard their own inspectors, their own State Department. The easy answer was ABC, anything but Clinton, if a report or intel came from a Clinton era person it was thrown out.

To get the full depravity of this you have to read Thomas Ricks book "Fiasco" and Peter Galbraiths, "The End of Iraq"

also

"Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone" by Rajiv Chandrasekara

These guys were all there as it happened.

If there was no lying then why the desperate measures to conceal.


A third possibility is that... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

A third possibility is that Bush was not lying because he was not wrong.

We know from satelite that many trucks left Iraq for Syria prior to the US going in.

We have heard the former #2 in the Iraq air force tell us that many yellow barrels were flown to Syria in commercial planes with the seats removed.

We have heard from a Syrian defector and journalists where the Iraqi WMD are hidden.

We know that Saddam had lots of WMD - indeed Clinton tried to bomb them - and no evidence that they were destroyed.

Moved to Syria is the best explaination so far.

Wow, lava, that explains so... (Below threshold)

Wow, lava, that explains so much. Why Bush didn't keep a single Clinton administration official on as a holdover. Why he fired every single US attorney as soon as he got into office. Why he spent so much time blaming Clinton for everything that went wrong.

At least, that's what happened in your little fantasy world, isn't it?

J.

A key to understan... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry Author Profile Page:
A key to understanding this is to understand the effectiveness of Desert Fox and the reasons the Bush administration chose to disregard the intel on it. Why they chose to disregard their own inspectors, their own State Department. The easy answer was ABC, anything but Clinton, if a report or intel came from a Clinton era person it was thrown out.

Bill Clinton believed Saddam had WMD and said so while in office and after. If your "anything but Clinton" theory was correct then Bush would have claimed there were no WMD regardless of all the evidence and consensus for WMD prior to the invasion of Iraq. To this day stockpiles of WMD known to exist after GW1 have never been accounted for. Did Saddam destroy them, move them out of Iraq, or are they still hidden in Iraq? The answer that they never existed is known to be false.

I would add the whole "shou... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I would add the whole "should have listened to the generals" argument to that this subject.

There is no business in the world that will launch a new initiative with absolutely every person in perfect agreement. For PR purposes, staff may "say" they are in agreement, but they aren't. Inevitably people of good faith can look at the same information and can come to different interpretations. Then, you have those staff who - angry at being passed over for the leadership role will take a contrary view and and engage in "I told you so" at the first opportunity.

The Kuwait invasion was in 1991 - technology has changed greatly since then everywhere including the battlefield. The military itself had undergone an extreme change in the intervening years due to Clinton era cost cutting measures. (A nephew took twice as long as expected around 1999 & 2000 to finish flight training because the facility lacked the equipment to do the whole class at once.)

Added to the mix was the issue was the reluctance to "look" like an invasion force.

So, at the beginning of the war, the generals DID make a decision based on technology, equipment availability, and mission goals. Not all the generals agreed but no one could logially expect that they would.

Hindsight being 20/20, I would hope and expect some lessons were learned by the military that will be incorporated into future ventures.

One thing not demonstrated, however, was that anyone else's plan would have been the "perfect one". Nonetheless, we were treated to the myth that "Bush didn't listen to his generals" for several years.

Until the most recent election ..... Now, we are in the midst of the surge. Before the surge was authorized, I had a major news magazine delivered to my home with a cover story headline of "Why the surge won't work". Despite virtually no opposition to his appointment and some concrete evidence that the surge is working, the general who was the architect of the surge has seen nothing but criticism from those who claim that "we should listen to the generals".

Apparently, what they really mean is that we should listen to the "other generals" - the one who have no authority to implement their plan nor accountability for anything going wrong.

Those people aren't making a good faith effort to make this situation work - they are more concerned about maintaining their "rightness" option.

Unfortunately the left and ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Unfortunately the left and most of the lefty commenters here are a one trick pony. "Bush Lied." It is a bore. Their hatred is immense. I have said before, Iraq has nothing to do with it. The 2000 election does. That is the genesis of their hatred and inablility to discuss or debate. Tragic. So many potential good minds going to waste. ww

paying the price for the ... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

paying the price for the Clintons and their Criminal team "Clintonista" for failed attempt to steal an election. Democrats have ran on hate and lies ever since. They will never run just by being honest or by merit. Mrs. BJ Clinton proves that once again by redefining the word liberal and reinventing herself as a "PROGRESSIVE". They just cannot be honest about what they are , lying criminal frauds.

Moore's assertion that you ... (Below threshold)

Moore's assertion that you can lie unintentionally is utterly ridiculous and contrary to the primary definition of the word -- which raises the question of whether Moore himself is lying when he makes the claim -- or whether he is simply a bullshitter, which is arguably worse, as Professor Frankfurt explains at the link.

Don't forget that most demo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Don't forget that most democratic leaders were asking for more troops. We just sent them in and now they say we lost. The left keeps changing the goal posts. They keep changing the rules. NO core values. Unfortunately at this stage, I totally disregard anything they say, because next week they will have a new plan that they will be equally convinced is the best one. Oh, and I wouldn't pay any mind to Jim, he is a one trick pony. ww

Jay:And t... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Jay:

And their refusal to actually do the one thing that would put some teeth to their words speaks volumes: they don't want to actually take a stand to end this "illegal, immoral, based-on-lies, fraudulent war," but just want to look like they're doing something.

They don't want to 'own' the war, niether do they want to 'own' the consequences if they end the war and hundreds of thousands die as a direct result.

So they're trying to maneuver and swerve and snipe to achieve what they're too afraid to stand for.

If any credence is to be given to Congress' poll numbers, I'm not the only one who sees it this way.

wavemaker:<blockquote... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

wavemaker:

Moore's assertion that you can lie unintentionally is utterly ridiculous and contrary to the primary definition of the word -- which raises the question of whether Moore himself is lying when he makes the claim --

This is despite the fact that his "documentaries" are replete with inaccuracies, misinformation and deliberate distortions. He's essentially discrediting himself (as if that was necessary).

No one learns anything by always being right, and Moore would have us believe that not being right makes you a liar. This skewed theory on lying incriminates everyone who can, or ever has spoken.

I love how all you guys for... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I love how all you guys forget that inspecters were on the ground. They had conducted hundreds of inspections and submitted a handful of reports with the last ones indicating almost no violations and cooperation by the Iraqis. Therefore there was no need:
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq (because there were none)

And
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq. (because the Iraqis were not violating the resolutions at the time of the invasion)

You can argue that what the Bushies said in the summer and fall of 2001 to be in good faith or you can say they cherry picked the information, but there is no doubt that Bush rushed us into war when there was no imminent danger and no signs of stock piles or weapon programs.

"there is no doubt that Bus... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"there is no doubt that Bush rushed us into war"

This is another great lefty talking point. How exactly does 12 plus years of putting up with stonewalling and sanction busting equal a "rush" to war?

BG, I do not remember a rus... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

BG, I do not remember a rush. I remember a very slow presentation to the UN and a long wait for another (19) resolution. Then the congress debated the issue to approve the Iraq war and I recall a number of democrats giving a very hardy yea vote.
I also guess the many attempts at getting our fighting jets in the no fly zone was just Saddam "playing around." Admit it, our representative government approved this war. We own it. All of us. That is the way it works. Oh! I know. GW Bush is not your president because you didn't vote for him. You are the pre 9/11, 2000 election hating liberal that I talked about earlier. Your opinion for the most part is irrelevent. Sorry. ww

I got nothing, Jay. You're... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I got nothing, Jay. You're right on all counts. The first time I even looked at the John Doe provision issue was prompted by kim's comment on this thread, and I read the text of the amendment. My thoughts on the Senate Democrats' actions on the provision were brief:

Yeah, that was dumb. The good faith & reasonable suspicion provision was in there.

And it is. If someone reports suspicious activities in bad faith, they can still be sued. The Democrats were pandering to the "we see race in everything" constituency.

On the other hand, I don't think it will make much difference one way or the other regarding whether people will report suspicious activity, so I didn't pay much attention to it. I'm always annoyed with myself when I get into a protracted back and forth with other commenters and after a while I realize the issue we're debating doesn't matter to me anyway.

Regarding the war votes, I agree again. I have much more respect for those who opposed it from the beginning, as I did. I have even more respect for them if they were against it not for reasons of illegality or immorality, but because it was a bad idea. Sure Saddam's regime needed to end, and sure there was plenty of justification to end it, but it was just an impractical proposition, and in the end I think it set us back in the fight against terrorism, instead of moving it forward. Sure the administration were pretty full of shit regarding nuclear activities in Iraq, but that's not exactly Gulf of Tonkin stuff, and Saddam had pursued nukes in the past. I remember before the inspectors went in and people started talking about removing Saddam; my first thought was "then what?" Too bad we had to find out.

Oh wait, one thing. I'm pretty sure I saw the interview Synova did, and I'm pretty sure that Moore said it's a lie if you don't believe it's the truth when you say it, and that even a 7 year old would know that.

Ok, found the <a href="http... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ok, found the interview with Moore. I was wrong, Synova, but he didn't really say what you put forth either. He really seems to be saying that the "bad information" excuse is a lie as well (a lie like a seven year old would tell).

MOORE: Oh, he lied to the nation, Bill, I can't think of a worse thing to do for a president to lie to a country to take them to war. I mean, I don't know a worse...

O'REILLY: It wasn't a lie.

MOORE: He did not tell the truth, what do you call that?

O'REILLY: I call that bad information, acting on bad information; not a lie.

MOORE: A seven year old can get away with that...

O'REILLY: All right, your turn to ask me a question...

MOORE: "Mom and Dad it was just bad information..."

O'REILLY: I'm not going to get you to admit it wasn't a lie. Go ahead.

MOORE: It was a lie, and now, which leads us to my question.

"Rushing us into war" would... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

"Rushing us into war" would mean missiles launched on 9/12.

Let's not kid ourselves. Many Americans wanted it ... more would have understood it .... and some were even furious that they weren't launched the next day.

Afghanistan is generally considered to the be 'just war' ... even many of those who oppose Iraq say that they can support Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, there was no massive airstrike launched on 9/12. We had two aircraft carriers in the region and could have launched an impressive and deadly attack on Afghanistan within hours. (Why two aircraft carriers? The Carl Vinson relieved the Enterprise on 9/10 in their previouls scheduled rotation.)

Certain processes were begun in case they were needed, obviously, but President Bush still gave the Taliban the option to cooperate first. I don't particularly like the guy, but his restraint under those circumstances (when he probably would have had greater public support) is one of the things he's done that I admire.

As to Iraq, I am constantly amused at the "adjusted" memory that it requires to call that war "rushed". In addition to the points already covered, people seem to 'forget' that Hussein hadn't 'embraced' the inspectors nor was he in the mood to repent. Only after 100,000 or so troops were parked on his border did he suddenly get in the mood to come clean ... or so he said. Even then, he was given a window of opportunity to put up or shut up and missed it.

"I believe that Bush acted ... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

"I believe that Bush acted in good faith,"

That's your perogative, Jay.

I had been of that opinion, but subsequent
events and WH behaviors have convinced me
that just like the "Gut Feeling' of Cherthoff
regarding future attacks on the US, gut feeling is not enough, because when you have such instincts, all you do is look for
evidence supporting that feeling.

There was a drive to go 'five-by-five' and
no one was going to convince the WH of anything
they had not already predetermined on Iraq.

And if 'good intentions' is the best thing you can say in defense of this President remember,
it's the cheapest of the virtues.

The United States should hu... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

The United States should hunt down the $10 per month Private that managed to destroy the WMD without leaving any trace evidence. Currently we are spending billions of dollars in an attempt to destroy our own WMD and it has been and will be a long project. Just think how much that Private could save the taxpayers. Enough to pay the democrats welfare for a day of so. Everytime I hear someone say there was not WMD I back off from that person. Insanity is not catching (is it?, it's spread throughout the democrat party, but that could be drug induced insanity) but people suffering long term insanity are truly dangerous.

Regarding the war votes, I agr... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Regarding the war votes, I agree again. I have much more respect for those who opposed it from the beginning, as I did. I have even more respect for them if they were against it not for reasons of illegality or immorality, but because it was a bad idea. Sure Saddam's regime needed to end, and sure there was plenty of justification to end it, but it was just an impractical proposition, and in the end I think it set us back in the fight against terrorism, instead of moving it forward.

Manits:

I think that you have touched on an issue that probably should be it's own topic.

When should intevention into the internal policies of another country be used for humanitarian purposes? After Rwanda, people said "never again", but did they mean it?

I can respect those who say "Yes, Hussein was a murderous tyrant, but it isn't the US's job to stop murderous tyrants". I would expect those people to also have opposed Bosnia and to oppose intervention in Darfur now.

There are many things that we may want to do for others but we must ask if we can do those things and at what cost.

It's when the same politicians call one such intervention laudable but another a disaster that I start to question their motives. Even some of those who debated last night and think we should be out of Iraq suggested involvement in Darfur last night. Does anyone really think that 2500 troops will "solve" Darfur?

I really do wish that we - as a nation - would have an honest and open debate about our role as the "superpower" and what that means. That debate, should IMO include the same honesty in discussing the United Nations and its role as well.

At an earlier time in the i... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

At an earlier time in the interview, he seems to say Bush believed what he was saying, but still lying:

O'REILLY: [ed]...This is not a lie if you believe it to be true, now he may have made a mistake, which is obvious...

MOORE: Well, that's almost pathological. I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true; they could pass a lie detector test...

O'REILLY: All right, now you're dancing around a question...

MOORE: No, I'm not. There's no dancing.

O'REILLY: He didn't lie.

MOORE: He said something that wasn't true.

O'REILLY: Based upon bad information given to him by legitimate sources.

MOORE: Now you know that they went to the CIA, Cheney went to the CIA, they wanted that information, they wouldn't listen to anybody.

O'Reilly then corners Moore and gets him running in circles over it:

O'REILLY: OK, he says in his book George Tenet looked the president in the eye, like how I am looking you in the eye right now and said, "President, weapons of mass destruction are a quote, end quote, 'slam dunk.'" If you're the president, you ignore all that?

MOORE: Yeah, I would say that the CIA had done a pretty poor job.

O'REILLY: I agree. Tenet was fired.

MOORE: Yeah, but not before they took us to war based on his intelligence. This is a man who ran the CIA, a CIA that was so poorly organized and run that it wouldn't communicate with the FBI before September 11th and as a result in part we didn't have a very good intelligence system set up before September 11th.

O'REILLY: Nobody disputes that...

MOORE: OK, so he screws up September 11th. Why would you then listen to him, he says this is a "slam dunk" and your going to go to war.

O'REILLY: You've got MI-6 and Russian intelligence because they're all saying the same thing that's why. You're not going to apologize to Bush, you are going to continue to call him a liar.

...then the interview continues with what mantis blockquoted, with Moore calling him a liar.

Even despite him being confronted and showing he was wrong in his thinking, he just goes back to saying "Bush Lied".

I guess "Bush was mistaken, people died" just doesn't have the same bumpersticker-y ring to it.

Since Synova summarized what was said altogether, I think the gist remains that Moore mistakenly ended up saying you are lying even if you think you have the truth.

Maybe now instead instead of "LIAR!" we can say "MISINFORMED!" since it's now the same thing.

Notice that jim wanted to d... (Below threshold)

Notice that jim wanted to distill the entire discussion into accusations of lying. He wanted to be called a liar so that he could act indignant and escape from having to defend his position. And that he would repeat his misrepresentations of the amendment, even in the face of the clear and unambiguous language.

Mantis,My apologie... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Mantis,

My apologies for screwing up the paragraph above that was your quote.

Can anyone tell me how do you put those in boxes again?

Never mind. I fig... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Never mind. I figured out my mistake.
I revisited the thread and ... (Below threshold)

I revisited the thread and noticed that jim reduced his whole argument to once again misrepresenting the amendment and calling us all racists. I reported the comment and will no longer deal with him as an honest commenter.

Of course Robin, jim's enti... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Of course Robin, jim's entire argument is based on his belief that the immams were targeted because of their RACE and that we are all reactionist racists, instead of the truth, which is that they were targeted based on their ACTIONS.

Not surprising since the de... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Not surprising since the demacratic party are the biggist benifactors from these greedy trial lawyers then the demaccrats wonder why their polls are falling

Cheap, maybe, but necessary... (Below threshold)
kim:

Cheap, maybe, but necessary, Cleo.
======================

Since Synova summarized ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Since Synova summarized what was said altogether, I think the gist remains that Moore mistakenly ended up saying you are lying even if you think you have the truth.

Now that I've read more of it (I jumped to the seven year-old part), that does seem to be the case.

In any case, LIA--MISINFORMED!!!1!

So why did Clinton and Schu... (Below threshold)
kim:

So why did Clinton and Schumer vote with the Republicans to allow New Yorkers, in good faith, to report suitcase bombs under train seats?

So why didn't the rest of the Democrats follow these two VERY HIGH PROFILE Democrats in their votes?
============================

You know the answer, mantis... (Below threshold)
kim:

You know the answer, mantis; it's because they have BDS.
===================================

Good summary here<... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Good summary here

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/suing_antiterror_tipsters.html
If you see something, hire a lawyer. Then, perhaps, you can say something.
...
Because we can't have police everywhere, civilian tips are indispensable. A video-store clerk alerted authorities to the Fort Dix plot after he saw a tape of men in Muslim attire firing guns -- but not before he wondered, "Should I call someone or is that being racist?" Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'"
...
The Democrats oppose fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, oppose key provisions of the Patriot Act, oppose President Bush's electronic-surveillance program, oppose Guantanamo Bay, oppose the aggressive interrogation of terrorism suspects, and now they oppose lawsuit-free passenger vigilance. If only they took the terror threat as seriously as that man who may have to defend his cell-phone call in court.

In any case, LIA--... (Below threshold)
Heralder:
In any case, LIA--MISINFORMED!!!1!

Maybe we can call that being "Bushwhacked".?


Yes and I put a . and a ? j... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Yes and I put a . and a ? just to be certain the sentence was ended, for really real.

Notice that jim wanted t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Notice that jim wanted to distill the entire discussion into accusations of lying. He wanted to be called a liar so that he could act indignant and escape from having to defend his position.

Sorry Robin, you were in my head the whole time? You're a mind-reader, isn't that right?

If you're not a mind-reader, that sort of deliberate misrepresentation on your part sounds like slander, doesn't it?

And that he would repeat his misrepresentations of the amendment, even in the face of the clear and unambiguous language.

Hey, it's not my fault that you want to

a) accuse me of lying at the drop of a hat
b) run from your accusations
c) continue to pretend that a provision that was **written** because some falsely accused Muslims were suing people, has nothing to do with preventing falsely accused Muslims suing people.

It's part (c) that really blows my mind. But hey, you're in my mind, so you already know that.

Jim keeps ignoring reality.... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim keeps ignoring reality. IN the end, you are willing to suffer another 9/11 or worse to give the terrorists and their sympathizers the maximum protection of the law. In other words, you would rather have scenario#2 in my post. You would rather give the terrorists the maximum advantage in exploiting our laws and make it harder for us to fight against them.


------------------------------------
Obviously this wouldn't have happened if the men weren't Muslim, but fears of Islamic terrorism necessarily focus on Muslims. If the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London, and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant an extra measure of suspicion. This is not discrimination, but a common-sense reaction to the facts of life.

A good-faith response from the flying imams would have been to say, "We don't like it, but we understand." Instead they seek damages for their "fear, anxiety to fly, humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and financial injury." Their agenda -- and that of CAIR -- is to make everyone ignore the association of Islam with terror that has been forged by jihadists, and to punish anyone who acts on knowledge reinforced in headlines every day.

Because we can't have police everywhere, civilian tips are indispensable. A video-store clerk alerted authorities to the Fort Dix plot after he saw a tape of men in Muslim attire firing guns -- but not before he wondered, "Should I call someone or is that being racist?" Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'"


Just to clarify, so I'm not... (Below threshold)
jim:

Just to clarify, so I'm not accused of misrepresentation again: I don't think the bill was specifically written to oppress Muslims; but I think that's a specific and easily predictable outcome of the bill.

I am now hoping, in good faith, that I won't again be accused of lies and misrepresentations for my opinion.

Woo.

Just to clarify, so I'm not... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Just to clarify, so I'm not accused of misrepresentation again: I don't think the bill was specifically written to oppress Muslims; but I think that's a specific and easily predictable outcome of the bill.
------------------------------------
IS this predictable outcome is a result of racism? No, this is because if the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London, and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant an extra measure of suspicion. This is not discrimination, but a common-sense reaction to the facts of life.

Note that this is a recommendation of the 9/11 committee. So much for the left 's respect for the 9/11 committee recommendation. What was the predictable outcome if John Doe is defeated? Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'" . So, Jim again, you are willing to tolerate this predictable outcome of another 9/11.

I don't think the ... (Below threshold)
I don't think the bill was specifically written to oppress Muslims; but I think that's a specific and easily predictable outcome of the bill.

Except it is not.

Due to the "good faith" clause obviously included in the bill, if someone levies a fallacious charge against a Muslim for the purposes of oppressing them just because they are a Muslim, and there is no actual terrorist threat, then the "tipster" is wide open to being sued however many ways the Muslim can get away with.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Of course, I am not really sure which aspect you are not understanding - that the bill does not allow fallacious tipstering (is that a word?) for the purposes of oppression, or that it really is radical Islamics who are the largest threat to America, her military, and her people at the moment.

Care to clarify?

As for Bush and good faith,... (Below threshold)
jim:

As for Bush and good faith, being a liberal and progressive, for me it's like this:

I knew, and a lot of my friends knew, and a lot of us tried to tell the rest of the country for a long time, that there were no WMD's. We thought this way for a variety of reasons. I can get into them, if anyone wants to hear them.

The important thing is, it turns out that, according to the evidence, we were right. So how could we know this, and the Bush administration could not?

Then information comes forward about pressured CIA analysts; discredited informants like 'curveball' suddenly treated as reliable by higher-ups; forged Niger documents being held back from review by the IAEA until the last possible moment, and then are revealed as a childishly clumsy forgery in less than a day, by doing a freaking Google search!

And we play back the video and see shifting rationalizations. Colin Powell's embarassing UN speech, deliberately filled with outright distortions, meaningless scare tactics, and some nonsense about "We have pictures of trucks! Trucks can only be mobile weapons labs!"

And it just becomes hard to believe that a President who is acting in good faith could make this many mistakes in a row, that just happen to coincide with an invasion of Iraq that he's publicly stated he wanted **since before he got in office**.

So to me and others, Bush has abused the good faith we gave him after 9/11 , and damaged the country's future as a result.

Now, I actually think accusations towards the Democrats who voted for the authorization and are now backing away from it, are fair. I think there is no way that authorization should have been approved. I don't know what the Democrats were thinking. They were probably scared to vote against the wishes of a President with an 80-something approval rating; but that's no excuse for having no spine.

So I no longer extend good faith towards Hillary and others, who were derelict in their duty, and helped get us into this mess.

But it saddens me that so many conservatives and Republicans continue to support this President - because to me he was taken advantage of that good faith on your part from day one.

Hmm, fallacious tipstering.... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Hmm, fallacious tipstering. Sounds dirty.

Jim, If you are hon... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
If you are honest, Bush simply followed the policy of Clinton administration in good faith after 9/11. The dems' attempt to whitewash their past policies and statements to demonize Bush was not in good faith. So I am not sure of your good faith in your arg here. Looks like you are willing to ignore all the facts contrary to your assertion.

Due to the "good faith" ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Due to the "good faith" clause ...if someone levies a fallacious charge against a Muslim for the purposes of oppressing them just because they are a Muslim, and there is no actual terrorist threat, then the "tipster" is wide open to being sued however many ways the Muslim can get away with.

That's not good enough. Why?

***Because people don't have to act in bad faith, for someone to be falsely accused.***

People were once hung as witches, you know. Those who hung the witches acted in good faith, and they really thought they were good people. And they really were no different than you or me.

It used to be, in this very country, if there was some crime in a town then a mob might form and lynch the first available black man they could get their hands on.

And just a few of years ago, in Philipsburg NJ, a couple of idiots went to a house where they thought a child molester lived, and beat the guy inside to death. It turns out they had the wrong address.

People falsely accuse other people in good faith ****all the time****.

In this particular, exact case we are talking about, these people freaked out a bunch of passengers by basically being Muslim. They did things that I've seen done on planes by others, and caused no fear or suspicion. And certiainly I've never heard of people being investigated, found innocent, and then blacklisted from the airline.

Now, people should report things that make them suspicious. It's just that, if it turns out those they accused are investigated and found innocent of any wrongdoing, and the accused are still persecuted as if guilty, then the accused should be able to sue. And if the suit is baseless, it'll get laughed out of court.

jim:I kne... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

jim:

I knew, and a lot of my friends knew, and a lot of us tried to tell the rest of the country for a long time, that there were no WMD's. We thought this way for a variety of reasons. I can get into them, if anyone wants to hear them.

The important thing is, it turns out that, according to the evidence, we were right. So how could we know this, and the Bush administration could not?

So, you're confounded that you based your suppositions on less evidence and still it happened to turn out in your favor?

You had a 50/50 chance with that one....hardly a reliable foundation for conspiracy.

People were once hung as wi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

People were once hung as witches, you know. Those who hung the witches acted in good faith, and they really thought they were good people. And they really were no different than you or me.
-------------------------------------
Jim, you are not acting in good faith here. This is a dishonest comparison. Were the imams being burned? If they are persecuted so bad in this country, why not move to a Muslim country like Iran?

Here is the arg for you again.
Scenario#1: In the worst case, the accused suffered inconvenience like being interrogated and delayed in their flights. We all have been affected by extra security measures.

Scenario#2: In the worse case, the terrorists will take advantage of this loophole in the law to cause another 9/11 or worse.

Looks like, you would rather have scenario#2 unfortunately.

jim:***Be... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

jim:

***Because people don't have to act in bad faith, for someone to be falsely accused.***

No bill or measure is going to be it's own vehicle. That's why we have courts.

If you get people to shy away from making any accusation because they fear litigation, it's counterproductive to the justice system. There are measures in place for other situations where anoymous people can provide information and not suffer retribution for doing it.

The only reason there's a snag here is race and religion.

People were once hung as witches, you know. Those who hung the witches acted in good faith, and they really thought they were good people. And they really were no different than you or me.

On the surface it looks like a good analogy, but the context and a single assumption is wonky.

People were different from you and I. It's in how you think, it's in why you think that way, and if the society you live in perpetuates and noursishes that thought process. Ours does not...though it's evident that others to this day still do.

That's not good en... (Below threshold)
That's not good enough. Why?

Because you said so?

I can only assume that is the reason, because here is a little newsflash for you: that is exactly the same system we have already. As it is now, if someone were to levy false charges against someone else, and it was conclusively decided by a court that the charges were false, the chargee can sue the charger for whatever the appropriate "damages" are these days (defamation, slander/libel, emotional distress, whatever).

What the "John Doe Provision" seeked to accomplish was protecting those people who levy "good faith" charges against someone, and those charges turn out to be accurate. As the laws are now, the tipster can still be sued. I assume, due to your flagrant dislike for this bill, you have no problems with that situation?

As for your three straw men, I am not even going to delve into how much you are abusing the English language, the concept of logic, or your debate skills - that would just take too bloody long.

The airline can do whatever the airline wants to do, being a private entity and all. In this particular case, the "John Doe Provision" would not protect them. As such, I honestly have no idea why you keep bringing them up - if anything, they point out the holes in your own "argument".

Now, people should report things that make them suspicious. It's just that, if it turns out those they accused are investigated and found innocent of any wrongdoing, and the accused are still persecuted as if guilty, then the accused should be able to sue.

Absolutely. And the "John Doe Provision" would still allow this. I am not sure how much more clear I can make that. All it does is protect those who report things which are suspicious, and when the accused are investigated and found guilty of wrongdoing, the accused/guilty can no longer sue those who accused them... like they can now.

Well, thank you for clearing up the fact that you have no idea what the "John Doe Provision" is meant to accomplish... I can only assume tacit agreement that you do not understand the primary threat vector to the US these days, as well, due to your silence.

At any rate, I believe Robin was accurate in his/her statements, and from here on out, I will be following the same course of action.

As I said earlier, Jim is a... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

As I said earlier, Jim is a one trick pony. Same line, everyday, ad nauseum. He ilk hasn't the ability to think past GW. Jim and his "friends" decided to hate GW after the 2000 election. All their opinions are based on that one event. No matter what GW does, whether in Iraq or for the economy, jobs, whatever, it will come up way short to Jimmy and his "friends." There is no honest dialogue with liberals such as him. He does not come to the table in good faith. As I said earlier, Muslims are the ones that want us to be killed because of how we look, how we live and what we believe. Who is demonstrating bad faith? I wonder? ww

You had a 50/50 chance w... (Below threshold)
jim:

You had a 50/50 chance with that one....hardly a reliable foundation for conspiracy.

Heralder, I could give you all the evidence behind my and others' thinking. And we could push that around all day.

But I've done it before so many times here, that I wonder if I proved my case, you would still believe Bush acted in good faith anyway.

No bill or measure is go... (Below threshold)
jim:

No bill or measure is going to be it's own vehicle. That's why we have courts.

Agreed.

So I think the cases should go to courts as lawsuits, and be decided on their own merits. Rather than have another section of life where people who are wrongfully accused, are impeded in their efforts to get redress.

But I've done it before so ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But I've done it before so many times here, that I wonder if I proved my case, you would still believe Bush acted in good faith anyway.
------------------------------------
Bush in fact acted in good faith given that Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" before 9/11 and all the solemn warnings by all the Dem leaders in Congress. It is the dems who haven't acted in good faith in ignoring their past policies/statements. Today, the dems are still not acting in good faith towards Gen Patreaus for example.

So I think the cases should... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So I think the cases should go to courts as lawsuits, and be decided on their own merits. Rather than have another section of life where people who are wrongfully accused, are impeded in their efforts to get redress.
------------------------------------
Again you affirm that you would rather have another 9/11 to ensure that the terrorists can exploit the same loophole again as pointed out by the "esteemed" 9/11 commission.


Jim, you are not acting ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jim, you are not acting in good faith here. This is a dishonest comparison.

LAI, you are not acting in good faith, because the first words out of your mouth are to accuse me of dishonesty.

I'm used to it from you. Calling people dishonest always seems to be the first statement out of your mouth.

Were the imams being burned? If they are persecuted so bad in this country, why not move to a Muslim country like Iran?

My point there, was to illustrate with historical examples we can all agree on, that people ***can*** be falsely accused in good faith, and be persecuted because of it.

Why should they have to flee to Iran, to be able to have their day in court? What's wrong with America, that we can't give people a day in court here? I say we can give people a day in court here, and I think we should.

Here is the arg for you again.
Scenario#1: In the worst case, the accused suffered inconvenience like being interrogated and delayed in their flights. We all have been affected by extra security measures.

YOu're wrong, right out of the gate.

They weren't only inconvenienced. They were found innocent, kicked off the flight anyway, and were then blacklisted from the entire airline. ***Even though they were found completelly innocent.***

This is why they were suing. I think they should be able to sue for this, and have their day in court.

Why do you think they should not be able to sue for this?

LAI, you'll also notice tha... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, you'll also notice that, even though you got the "worst case" portion of your argument wrong, I'm not accusing you of dishonesty in doing so.

Try it some time.

ww, this quote of yours is ... (Below threshold)
jim:

ww, this quote of yours is actually pretty funny:

There is no honest dialogue with liberals such as him. He does not come to the table in good faith. As I said earlier, Muslims are the ones that want us to be killed because of how we look, how we live and what we believe.

Ha hahah hahah!!!!!

So to recap:
I'm not demonstrating good faith. But ww, you are demonstrating good faith. And incidentally, Muslims want us dead because of our looks, lives and beliefs.

Wow.

Who is demonstrating bad faith? I wonder? ww

Who indeed, ww? Who indeed.

They weren't only inconveni... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

They weren't only inconvenienced. They were found innocent, kicked off the flight anyway, and were then blacklisted from the entire airline. ***Even though they were found completelly innocent.***
-------------------------------------
Again, you are not honest wrt your comparison. Noone was burned today. What happened today were the two worst case scenarios I laid out for you. So you admitted that you would rather have scenario#2 of another possible 9/11 attack.

Wrt the imam flying case, you totally ignored their behavior. The terrorists could use this lawsuit to stage more acting up to arouse people 's suspicion and sue them in court. You haven't argued in good faith. You ignore all the contrary evidences laid out for you. And then used a dishonest comparsion. Robin is right, you made a dishonest comparsion. When called on it, you act indignant.


Here is what happened.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/016093.php
Contrary to press accounts that a single note from a passenger triggered the imams' removal, Captain John Howard Wood was weighing multiple factors.

* An Arabic speaker was seated near two of the imams in the plane's tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside and, in a whisper, translated what the men were saying: invoking "bin Laden" and condemning America for "killing Saddam," according to police reports.

* An imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extender - the extra strap that obese people use because the standard belt is too short. According to both an on-duty and a deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one.

A seat-belt extender can easily be used as a weapon - just wrap one end around your fist, and swing the heavy metal buckle.

* All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.

And, Pauline [Miniter's pseudonym for passenger on the flight] said, they spread out - just like the 9/11 hijackers. Two sat in first class, two in the middle and two back in the economy section, police reports show. Some, according to Rader, took seats not assigned to them.

* Finally, a gate attendant told the captain she was suspicious of the imams, according to police reports.

So the captain made his decision to delay the flight based on many complaints, not one. He also consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground-security coordinator and the airline's security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams were acting suspiciously, [US Airways spokesman] Rader told me.

One more odd thing went unnoticed at the time: The men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Yet observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.

Miniter's column concludes:
Tucked away in the police report is this little gem: One imam had complained to a passenger that some nations don't follow sharia law and had said his job in Bakersfield, Calif., was a cover for "representing Muslims here in the U.S."

What are the imams really up to? Something more than praying, it seems.


LAI, you'll also notice tha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, you'll also notice that, even though you got the "worst case" portion of your argument wrong, I'm not accusing you of dishonesty in doing so.

Try it some time.
-------------------------------------Cheap distraction and "indignant" tactic again. Try not to use a dishonest comparison again.


What the "John Doe Provi... (Below threshold)
jim:

What the "John Doe Provision" seeked to accomplish was protecting those people who levy "good faith" charges against someone, and those charges turn out to be accurate.

Linoge, looking at the provision, that's not the case.

I just looked over it, and there's nothing that says anything about the charges turning out to be accurate or not. All it says is "good faith".

If I were to act in good faith, I would think that you didn't realize the contents of the Provision, and that you overstated your case.

Should I accuse you of misrepresenting things, instead?

Should I say you were lying, when you said something was in there, which is not?

I await your answer.

OK, LAI. You win. I'm disho... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, LAI. You win. I'm dishonest for not accusing you of dishonesty.

Why do you think they shoul... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Why do you think they should not be
able to sue for this?
-------------------------------------
Here is the reason why for you again.

Obviously this wouldn't have happened if the men weren't Muslim, but fears of Islamic terrorism necessarily focus on Muslims. If the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Madrid, London, and Bali bombings had been Episcopalian, a group of strange-acting priests traveling in their vestments would warrant an extra measure of suspicion. This is not discrimination, but a common-sense reaction to the facts of life.
A good-faith response from the flying imams would have been to say, "We don't like it, but we understand." Instead they seek damages for their "fear, anxiety to fly, humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and financial injury." Their agenda -- and that of CAIR -- is to make everyone ignore the association of Islam with terror that has been forged by jihadists, and to punish anyone who acts on knowledge reinforced in headlines every day.

By the way, LAI, why did yo... (Below threshold)
jim:

By the way, LAI, why did you leave that information you of your "worst case" scenario, of the full consequences and treatment of those passengers, once they were found innocent?

I'm curious.

OK, LAI. You win. I'm disho... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

OK, LAI. You win. I'm dishonest for not accusing you of dishonesty.
------------------------------------
Cheap tactic again, Jim. John Doe is the 9/11 commission recommendation. Again, you would rather have another possible 9/11 attack than John Doe?

By the way, LAI, why did yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

By the way, LAI, why did you leave that information you of your "worst case" scenario, of the full consequences and treatment of those passengers, once they were found innocent?
-------------------------------------
Why did those people act the way it was outlined there? Why did you ignore their behavior? Did they promise to change their behavior? Were they completely "innocent" in the way they act? Or are you trying the legal definition of "innocent" again to allow the terrorists to act up and file lawsuit?

Well, LAI, you have your op... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, LAI, you have your opinion and the passengers in question have theirs.

Extra measures of suspicion are fine - if it stops after the suspects are investigated and found innocent.

Once they were investigated and found to be innocent, I find the further treatment of them to be completely ridiculous.

We can agree that people who have been found innocent shouldn't be treated as if they are guilty, right?

So I think they should be able to have their day in court. And I would prefer to live in a nation where they can do so.

Why is it a cheap tactic, L... (Below threshold)
jim:

Why is it a cheap tactic, LAI? Because you're caught and don't want to answer it?

And setting up a comparison of "either the falsely accused who are persecuted after having been found innocent can file lawsuits, or we'll have 9/11!!!" - do you honestly believe that? Really?

If they insist on their rig... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If they insist on their right to continue acting the way they acted on that flight, then they intended to provoke suspicion intentionally. Did they apologize for the way they acted? No they insisted on their right to do so after 9/11, Madrid bombing, London bombing .... They took advantage of the American freedon to impose their way of life on other passengers even at the risk of another possible 9/11 attack.

Again, you are willing to go against the 9/11 commission recommendation to close this loophole. So basically, you are willing to risk another possible 9/11 attack or worse.

Or whatever argument you're... (Below threshold)
jim:

Or whatever argument you're making. Hm, I guess it's more like, "IF the falsely accused who are persecuted after having been found innocent can file lawsuits, THEN we'll have 9/11!!!"

Whatev...

Here's some other great unc... (Below threshold)
jim:

Here's some other great unconscious hilarity:

They weren't only inconvenienced. They were found innocent, kicked off the flight anyway, and were then blacklisted from the entire airline. ***Even though they were found completelly innocent.***
-------------------------------------
Again, you are not honest wrt your comparison. Noone was burned today.

I'm not being honest...which you show by bringing in a different comparison I used in another argument, rather than face my argument.

wow.

Are you actually Stephen Colbert?

And setting up a comparison... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And setting up a comparison of "either the falsely accused who are persecuted after having been found innocent can file lawsuits, or we'll have 9/11!!!" - do you honestly believe that? Really?
-------------------------------------
Jim, you are caught again in your statement here. So much for your honesty. SO the question for you is this. The terrorists can act up to arouse suspicion and then file the lawsuits to intimidate others. So you are saying that the 9/11 was wrong to recommend this measure? Also, you would rather see the old couple to be sued until they are broke. This is the loophole the terrorists exploited before 9/11. Why don't you want to close that loophole?

And you denied this
Debra Burlingame points out that an airline employee who checked in two of the 9/11 passengers didn't ask for a special search of them because "I was worried about being accused of being 'racist.'"

If they insist on their ... (Below threshold)
jim:

If they insist on their right to continue acting the way they acted on that flight, then they intended to provoke suspicion intentionally.

How did they act?

Let's see: they prayed before they got on the plane; they spoke in Arabic; they didn't all sit together; one guy asked for a seatbelt extender; another guy asked to switch seats to sit next to his friend.

How dare they.

Did they apologize for the way they acted? No they insisted on their right to do so after 9/11, Madrid bombing, London bombing ....

Had they just been able to get back on the plane after they were investigated and found to be completely innocent, they probably wouldn't be filing a lawsuit.

I think I get it:

You guys really do think all Muslims are in a plot together, to destroy America, don't you?

Come on, be honest.

2 quick points:1) "T... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

2 quick points:
1) "The easy answer was ABC, anything but Clinton, if a report or intel came from a Clinton era person it was thrown out."
dr lava

Rebuttal: George Tenet and "slam-dunk."

2)"They had conducted hundreds of inspections and submitted a handful of reports with the last ones indicating almost no violations and cooperation by the Iraqis."
Barney (who else?)

Rebuttal: They almost didn't violate the cease-fire agreement and we almost didn't depose him and the Iraqis almost didnt try and execute him, so where's the problem?

[all emphasis mine]

I'm not being honest...whic... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I'm not being honest...which you show by bringing in a different comparison I used in another argument, rather than face my argument.
------------------------------------
What is your arg? People should be sued even when they reported in good faith? In other words, you would rather have the same loophole that led to 9/11?

he terrorists can act up... (Below threshold)
jim:

he terrorists can act up to arouse suspicion and then file the lawsuits to intimidate others.

All sorts of hypothetical things can happen, LAI. Adulthood means not abandoning American's principles in the face of fear.

What is your arg? People... (Below threshold)
jim:

What is your arg? People should be sued even when they reported in good faith?

No, my arg is:

If people are still treated as criminals ***after they have been investigated and found to be innocent****, they should be able to sue.

And if their suit is baseless, it'll be thrown out of court.

Please respond to that argument, 'cause that's the one I'm making.

Adulthood means not abandon... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Adulthood means not abandoning American's principles in the face of fear.
------------------------------------
You have no fear of another 9/11 attack or worse. Good for you. Real people do worry about this.

This is the recommendation of the 9/11 commission to close this loophole.

If people are still treated... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If people are still treated as criminals ***after they have been investigated and found to be innocent****, they should be able to sue.
-------------------------------------
Were they put in jail as a criminal?

Jim is just an apologist fo... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim is just an apologist for the terrorists. He lives in his pre 9/11 world. ww

Let's see: they prayed befo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Let's see: they prayed before they got on the plane; they spoke in Arabic; they didn't all sit together; one guy asked for a seatbelt extender; another guy asked to switch seats to sit next to his friend.
------------------------------------
Honestly Jim, did you read the whole post I gave you? Or you intentionally ignore other things they did?

"In this particular, exa... (Below threshold)

"In this particular, exact case we are talking about, these people freaked out a bunch of passengers by basically being Muslim."

Again with the misrepresentations.

These people freaked out some passengers because they exhibited several behaviors reminiscent of the behavior of the 9/11 hijackers.

I listed those behaviors in a previous post. Their behavior was highly suspicious. The fact that they were Muslim was secondary. And the fact that they were found not to have been plotting anything other than to purposefully cause a climate of fear does not mean they should be able to sue those passengers who acted in good faith. I keep saying this and jim keeps ignoring this.

Jim, please cite your source that these men may never fly again; that they are indeed "blacklisted". You have asserted this twice now.

> my favorite is Hillary... (Below threshold)
Arthur:

> my favorite is Hillary Clinton's, who has put forth numerous rationales for her vote and change of heart. The best one has to be the time she said that she thought the bill was just a demand to allow the weapons inspectors back in. Apparently The Smartest Woman In The World didn't read the title -- " To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" -- or Section 3 of the resolution:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.


Reminds me of the critcism Condi Rice got about her testimony (for the 9/11 commission?) where she was asked about whether she told Bush that Osama was planning to attack the US and the heading of the releveant intel brief was "Osama plans to attack inside US" (paraphrasing because I'm not looking it up).

Rice caught a lot of heat for that and the video of her reading the the reports heading gets played over and over again. Hillary mostly escapes such notice.


Oyster, there are 3 separat... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oyster, there are 3 separate arguments going on here. I'm happy to deal with them all, I just want to separate the 3 for clarity.

1) whether or not the Muslim passengers' behavior warranted suspicion

2) whether or not the Muslim passengers' treatment after they were found to be innocent, was justified (and I'll cite what you asked for here. btw, I cited this in the previous article also.)

3) whether or not they should be able to sue about it.

As for (1), what you cited at 7:47 in the other post was:
- praying loudly to Allah (= being Muslim-y)
- one guy asking a passenger to switch his seat, to sit next to one of the other Muslims
- one guy asking for a seat belt extender, when he maybe didn't need one
- passengers claiming to hear anti-US sentiment
- one guy (maybe even the same guy) going back to talk to one of the other Muslims, before the plane has taken off

You also mentioned them switching seats and refusing to change them back. I couldn't find any confirmation of that.

Now, from what I was able to confirm, I personally don't think that's enough. But I understand people wanting to err on the side of safety. And finally it's the Captain's call to make, and he made it, and I'm fine with that.

My problem is with #2: What happened to the Muslim passengers after they were investigated and found innocent.

I cited this in the previous post, but here's the link again:

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/826056.html

Left behind by US Airways

...an agent and his supervisor, without giving a reason, refused to sell him replacement tickets Tuesday morning.

...The US Airways supervisor told Shahin that his tickets had been refunded and that he would have to go to another airline.

I think that, under those circumstances, someone should be able to sue.

Which takes us to #3. I think the John Doe Provision, if enforced as written, makes it too difficult for accused people who are found to be innocent, to do anything about it.

"I want to go home. I don't... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

"I want to go home. I don't want phone numbers," Shahin said. "They have no reason to refuse service to us just because of the way we look."

He bought six one-way tickets at the Northwest Airlines counter, and the men flew to Phoenix without incident.
-------------------------------------
Yup these people were still able to fly home to Phoenix on another airline. They caused a ruckus for US Airways (which cost the airway a lot of time/money to go through the whole extra security measure). Under these circumstances, who would pay for the extra cost? Should the airline be allowed to charge these people the extra cost to fly them home? Or should the airline be allowed to sue them if they refuse to pay? Can it be a 2-way street?

Jim, the point here is that... (Below threshold)

Jim, the point here is that the Imam wants to sue the PASSENGERS who brought his behavior to the airline's attention. That -- NOT the airline -- is the defendant at risk here.

J.

Jay, That is an exc... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jay,
That is an excellent point. Should John Doe be protected from lawsuits?

JT, the Muslim passengers a... (Below threshold)
jim:

JT, the Muslim passengers are suing both the Airlines and the passengers who accused them.

So if we can agree that they should be able to sue the Airlines, fine. I think the John Doe Provision, if enforced as written, would make that difficult to impossible.

As for the passengers being sued, I personally am still comfortable with the accused being able to sue. If the other passengers were justified in acting as they did, then the accused's lawsuit will be seen as baseless and will be thrown out of court.

I don't think the hypothetical chilling effect on passengers reporting the sort of "suspicious behavior" these Muslim passengers exhibited, is more likely to produce danger. Quite the contrary, I think if there is any chilling effect at all, it will be to produce less false leads.

LAI, in my opinion they "ca... (Below threshold)
jim:

LAI, in my opinion they "caused a ruckus" basically by flying while Muslim.

But sure, if the airlines want to sue people who are accused and found innocent, to recover the airlines' "extra cost" - I say, sure.

And let it all be sorted out in court.

jim, #84Let's just... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

jim, #84

Let's just take the word Muslim out of it, and see if the argument holds.

So if I report suspicious activity, in good faith, and the person that I thought was hinkey turns out to be innocent BUT was treated poorly by another party (police, FBI, airline, McDonalds or what have you), I should be liable?

I agree that if the person is treated poorly they have the right to seek redress. But how is the hypothetical John Doe in this scenario different than a wistle blower in the corporate arena?

Jim, now you're just being ... (Below threshold)

Jim, now you're just being stupid. Really, really stupid.

Go and read the actual amendment. The link is above. It protects INDIVIDUALS. INDIVIDUALS ONLY. The airlines as corporations are NOT exempted, only the PEOPLE -- passengers, airline employees, and federal agents. The airlines can be sued for the misconduct of their employees.

That is the measure that the Democrats fought so hard to kill -- and succeeded. That is the measure which defeat you are celebrating.

Care to reconsider, or do you have your heart set on being an idiot?

J.

jim, #89,Have you ev... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

jim, #89,
Have you ever been sued? Even if the case is baseless, you need to go to court to defend yourself, and that means hiring a lawyer. That is a lot of time and money, enough that many people will think long and hard about before putting their neck out.

Also, if the whistle blower isn't afforded protection, what is to stop them from being subjected to things outside of the courts? Things like threats on their person or their famliy?

Jay, jim's only interest is... (Below threshold)

Jay, jim's only interest is in calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist. It is his only drumbeat.

Perhaps this conduct of his exceeds the bounds of permissable conduct.

LAI, in my opinion they "ca... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

LAI, in my opinion they "caused a ruckus" basically by flying while Muslim.
-----------------------------------
Again this is a misrepresentation at best. You keep ignoring the facts to the contrary to that claim. Are you honest here? You kept repeating the lie about racism which was dismissed by the court!

http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/12/06/the-flying-imam-investigation-concludes-everyone-did-their-job-correctly-except-the-imams/
The Flying Imam investigation concludes everyone did their job correctly- except the Imams- Updated

One imam was found not telling the truth here.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/016084.php

jim is an idiot, he still c... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

jim is an idiot, he still contends that the imams were singled out because of their religion as oppsed to their inappropriate behavior. Since he firmly believes this, there is no reasoning with him. Further, he has RIDICULOUSLY misplaced faith in our judicial system to simply "let it all be sorted out in court", I'd say the case of Mahamu D. Kanneh, the immigrant child molester of a seven and a one and a half year old let off because of a lack of a translator is a pretty timely case in point. I'd say another would be the two border guards who are currently in federal prison while a big time drug dealer walks the streets and continues to break the terms of his immunity.

You have no fear of anot... (Below threshold)
Stevenrobb:

You have no fear of another 9/11 attack or worse. Good for you. Real people do worry about this.

...and, therefore, your fears taint every one of your opinions, thus making them less valid and you more ripe for manipulation from anyone who tells you, "It's alright, LAI, I'll protect you if you just believe me."

Brave people - those who really support the idea of America - do not allow the subversion our freedoms and the essence of our democracy so we can be sung to sleep and feel secure at night. And our soldiers are obviously far more brave than you are, and are defending those freedoms you are so willing to throw aside for a little comfort.

Stop being a little child and get some backbone. This kind of thinking is exactly the reason people like you are the only one's supporting a propagandist like Bush and his ilk. Start being something other than a nancy boy and you might find your entire mindset will change.

And just to bring the whole... (Below threshold)

And just to bring the whole thing full circle, Stevenrobb shows up to demonstrate just what "not arguing in good faith" is like. Thanks, Stevenrobb -- your one bad example is worth a thousand admonitions.

J.

JT and others, if you notic... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JT and others, if you noticed, Jim is taking a break. Seems the foundation of his argument was a little shakey to say the least. Now he is scrambling to the DNC links to see what he can say. If he finds nothing, he will not come back. That is how they operate. JT, you summed Jim up quite nicely, stupid. I try to be nice, but this guy is whiney. I don't like whiney. ww

jim:First: The beh... (Below threshold)

jim:

First: The behavioral items you ticked off were not the same as what I cited. Yet, you attributed them to me. Let's not even get into the fact that you downplayed them as only 1 asking for an extension, 1 going to the back of the plane (without the fact that he did it at least three times), and I did not say one switched seats and refused to switch back. You also neglected to mention the configuration of their chosen seating preferences.

And since you're such an expert, please tell me how you know that praying loudly to Allah is Muslim-y.

Second: you did not cite a source saying that they could never fly again or that they were blacklisted; two things that you emphatically said in your posts.

And third: The Airlines acted with due dilligence, taking into consideration the safety of the other passengers. They had a right to remove them from the plane and not let them back on based on their cumulative behaviors.

"I think that, under those circumstances, someone should be able to sue."

And again I ask you: Sue who?

Sue the authorities because they were humiliated by being handcuffed? Read the police report. Turns out no one was handcuffed as Shahin claimed they were. He also claimed they were intimidated by dogs. There was one dog brought in to sniff their carry-on luggage. That's it. They were detained, questioned and when it was determined that they posed no risk, they were released. And now they go on and on about their horrible treatment - most of which was fabricated.

But you go ahead on, jim. Keep arguing that they should be suing. But suing who and for what?

Why are we arguing this on this thread anyway?

The "in good faith" qualifi... (Below threshold)

The "in good faith" qualification would essentially grant to everyone the same privilege the press is granted under NYT v. Sullivan to defame public figures with impunity.

Accusing someone "in good faith" would require the accuser to be without either knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

Not being a big fan of NYT v. Sullivan, I am more reticent about this, since it permits private parties to be destroyed with impunity.

Jay, jim's only interest... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jay, jim's only interest is in calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist. It is his only drumbeat.,

Robin, this is a complete misrepresentation of my record.

Completely.

Please find one place in this current post where I have called you racist.

Now please find one place in this post where I have called Oyster, JT, Linoge, or Heralder racist.

What is up with you?

I consider a false accusation pretty strong. I consider that a violation of good faith, in the least.

Brave people - those who re... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brave people - those who really support the idea of America - do not allow the subversion our freedoms and the essence of our democracy so we can be sung to sleep and feel secure at night. And our soldiers are obviously far more brave than you are, and are defending those freedoms
-------------------------------------
These folks can post such an obvious hypocrisy without a hint of shame. In their twisted view, our soldiers are risking their lives so that the dems can give the terrorists maximum protection of the law and maximum advantage to kill our soldiers and our civilians.

Here is an example of the left 's tactic/policy. If another 9/11 occurs because of their opposition to John Doe, what redress do we have? Looks like liberals are willing to tolerate more American troops being killed to ensure that the terrorists have the maximum protection of the law. So much for caring about the lives of American troops! Now, looks like they are willing to suffer another 9/11.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010608.php
Former Gitmo Prisoner In Suicide Bombing

So if I report suspiciou... (Below threshold)
jim:

So if I report suspicious activity, in good faith, and the person that I thought was hinkey turns out to be innocent BUT was treated poorly by another party (police, FBI, airline, McDonalds or what have you), I should be liable?

I think that the accused should be able to file a lawsuit if they want, and the question of your liability should be settled by a judge.

I agree that if the person is treated poorly they have the right to seek redress.

Thank you. I appreciate that, at least.

But how is the hypothetical John Doe in this scenario different than a wistle blower in the corporate arena?

I don't know if whistleblowers are immune to lawsuits, if their accusations turn out to be unfounded. But let's say that they are immune to lawsuits.

The two situations are different, because the Muslims passnegers and the other private citizens are equals, with a relative lack of power over each other. Whereas whistleblowers need a certain level of protection, because their employers have a greater level of power over their lives.

Thanks for some more humor,... (Below threshold)
jim:

Thanks for some more humor, ww.

Still waiting for you to respond to my statements. Take your time.

Over 100 comments and no on... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Over 100 comments and no one has said a thing about Jay's title.

Can't help linking to teh funny.

The two situations are diff... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The two situations are different, because the Muslims passnegers and the other private citizens are equals, with a relative lack of power over each other. Whereas whistleblowers need a certain level of protection, because their employers have a greater level of power over their lives.
-------------------------------------
So you want airline passengers to be sued even if they were found to report suspicious behavior in good faith?

Way to show me how to argue... (Below threshold)
jim:

Way to show me how to argue in good faith, JT - call me stupid and an idiot.

By the way, did you read my response to you at 4:42?

Here it is again:

As for the passengers being sued, I personally am still comfortable with the accused being able to sue. If the other passengers were justified in acting as they did, then the accused's lawsuit will be seen as baseless and will be thrown out of court.

I don't think the hypothetical chilling effect on passengers reporting the sort of "suspicious behavior" these Muslim passengers exhibited, is more likely to produce danger. Quite the contrary, I think if there is any chilling effect at all, it will be to produce less false leads.

Is that clear enough for you?

Now I could call you stupid, an idiot, a poopyhead, etc. etc. , for skipping over this statement of mine in your frenzy.

Would I be wrong to call you those things? Would that mean that I wasn't acting in good faith?

I await your answer.

So you want airline pass... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So you want airline passengers to be sued even if they were found to report suspicious behavior in good faith?

I want them sued for falling all over me while sleeping in the next seat. And for kicking the back of my seat. And for having screaming children on the plane. And wanting to discuss whatever inanity they happen to be reading in People.

So you want airline passeng... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So you want airline passengers to be sued even if they were found to report suspicious behavior in good faith?

I want them sued for falling all over me while sleeping in the next seat. And for kicking the back of my seat. And for having screaming children on the plane. And wanting to discuss whatever inanity they happen to be reading in People.
-------------------------------------
Is this an arg in good faith after all this discussion?

Jim stated in previous thre... (Below threshold)

Jim stated in previous thread:

Then note that a lot of the people posting here think that being Muslim on a plane qualifies as objectively reasonable suspicion.

When I called him on it, he pointed to these comments as justifying his claim:
go read the comments here on this very page by Zeldorf at 7:42, Ran at 10:17, jhow66 at 10:31 .

Zeldorf at 7:42 states:

Maybe if Muslims didn't survive these confrontations they would happen less frequently. If I fear for my life, I am entitled to defend it with deadly force. Possibly a force of vigilaties is necessary

While that comment is over the top, it is not stating that being muslim is an "objectively reasonable suspicion".

Ran at 10:17:

So what Jim's saying, is that these POOR mistreated men of God were just trying to get home to wife and kid? If I looked past the how did you say it "Muslimy" looks.. and all the ALLA Akbars!.. I see people just like me!.. Yeah, right.. call it racism, but if I had been on that plane, you can bet your A$$ I'd have said something to get them booted or ME off that plane! Somehow, blasting a building in a passenger jet seems kinda final. Someone wiser might wanna explain to me, isn't US Airlines a PRIVATE AIRLINES? able to refuse flight to anyone? (for acting like fools and refusing to follow directions) Or, if I get 86ed from a bar, cuz I'm Irish, can I sue them?

This one again does not in fact state that someone should be blocked from flying for being muslim, the references to the conduct of the imams is implied but clear none the less.

jhow66 at 10:31:

Hey jimie can I sue them there muslumies for sticking their ass up in the the air and making the air around them unclean. Got my rights to you know.

This one is the closest to be a racist comment by a commenter although the possibility that jim is making a false accusation to someone who is really just making fun of jim is possible. If it turns out that this is the intention of jhow66, jim would of course support jhow66's right to sue jim for the false accusation of course.

However, it does not actually state that a muslim flying on an airline is a "objectively reasonable suspicion".

So I observe that when challenged on his claims that commenters here were claiming that muslims were suspicious in and of themselves, jim's own attempt to cite such comments failed to find any. These were not my choice of comments, but jim's own justification for his slanders against other commenters. Accordingly, I submit that it is a valid inference to state that jim's only purpose here is to call others racist. This is just a further example that jim has been shown to be a less than honest commenter and a troll. The point of Jay's original posting here was to bring attention to the less than adult style of argument being employed.

First: The behavioral it... (Below threshold)
jim:

First: The behavioral items you ticked off were not the same as what I cited.

I got them from the post of yours at "IBD: Keeping the Flying Imams".

The bottom of the comment said this:

"76. Posted by Oyster | July 24, 2007 7:47 AM"

That's not you?


Let's not even get into...

Good, we won't.

And since you're such an expert, please tell me how you know that praying loudly to Allah is Muslim-y.

Are you freaking kidding me?

What else is it? Jew-y?

Second: you did not cite a source saying that they could never fly again or that they were blacklisted; two things that you emphatically said in your posts.

I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table.

I said they were kicked off the flight and blacklisted, because that's what it's called when someone puts you on a list where you're denied service. US Airways did that to these guys, which is why they're suing US Airways. That's the article I cited.

And third: The Airlines acted with due dilligence...

Which I agreed with.

Sue who?

Sue whoever they want. The freakin' sniffing dog, if they feel like it. And if the lawsuit is baseless, it'll be laughed out of court, and they'll be open to all the laws we currently have on the books for filers of frivolous lawsuits.

Why are we arguing this on this thread anyway?

It's all revolving around 'good faith'.

Robin, it's interesting tha... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin, it's interesting that you switch back to a disagreement we had on a separate article, rather than answer my response to your comment on THIS article.

In your previous comment on THIS article, you stated:

Jay, jim's only interest is in calling everyone who disagrees with him a racist. It is his only drumbeat.,

Note that you don't say "some people". Or even "a lot". No, what you say is ********everyone********.

Now, present any evidence at all that I have called you, Oyster, JT, Linoge, or Heralder racist in any of our quite massive disagreements.

Or have the integrity to admit this argument of yours is inaccurate.

Once you've done that, I'll be happy to get into a discussion of the previous post.

And further delicious irony... (Below threshold)
jim:

And further delicious irony abounds there. But one thing at a time.

Jim writes above: <blockquo... (Below threshold)

Jim writes above:

I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table.

I said they were kicked off the flight and blacklisted, because that's what it's called when someone puts you on a list where you're denied service. US Airways did that to these guys, which is why they're suing US Airways. That's the article I cited.

On the previous thread, jim wrote this:

Suspect the Imams, pull them off the plane, and search them, and investigate them - that's fine. I'm all for that.

But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America.

Once again, we see the honesty of jim here. Oyster's representation of jim's comments was completely correct, and jim's representation of his own comments were not. If jim thought he had been misunderstood because of his own ambiguity, that might have been a legitimate response but no, jim does not bother to offer that excuse.

Frankly, I've had it up to here with jim, and his lack of integrity, I'm finished with him and will ignore the troll from now on. I can only hope that others will see the lesson.

This should have been in th... (Below threshold)

This should have been in the first blockquote instead of outside of it:

I said they were kicked off the flight and blacklisted, because that's what it's called when someone puts you on a list where you're denied service. US Airways did that to these guys, which is why they're suing US Airways. That's the article I cited.

and this should have been i... (Below threshold)

and this should have been in the second blockquote:

But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America.

Robin, Robin, Robin. ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Robin, Robin, Robin.

Still avoiding answering for your innacurate accusation on this thread, by bringing up points referring to previous threads.

You accused me of accusing ***everyone*** of being racist, and said that's my ***sole purpose*** here.

When asked twice for evidence of me accusing everyone of racism, you have now twice brought up separate issues, rather than:

a) responding to me directly, or
b) showing the evidence of me accusing ***everyone****.

I ask you again, for a third time:

Show evidence I've accused everyone of being racists (which we both know you don't have), or retract this statement.

Once you retract that statement, which may have been a simple overstatement on your part, I'll be happy to get into all the other side issues you're bringing up.

But first, you have leveled an accusation at me which you cannot support.

Making accusations that fit observed acts, and retracting those accusations if you realize you were at fault, is part of arguing in good faith and in an adult manner. Don't you think, Robin?

jim, I've wasted enough tim... (Below threshold)

jim, I've wasted enough time attempting to discuss issues with a dishonest and hypocritical troll like yourself. I've shown your misrepresentations time after time. No retraction will be forthcoming because I've backed up each and every one of my statements. I'll waste no more time on you.

But then deny them the righ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America.
-------------------------------------
Jim again is not correct with his facts here.

OK, Robin.Of cours... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK, Robin.

Of course, you haven't backed up the statement that I'm talking about, because I clearly haven't called everyone racist. And you haven't backed this up, because you can't.

And you know it, and I know it, and everyone who is reading this knows it.

And I understand why you don't want to admit it: pride. And I get that, I really do. I can be prideful myself.

So, just don't accuse me of things which are clearly and demonstrably untrue, and we need never speak again.

Seems to me if you shout "W... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Seems to me if you shout "We're gonna hijack this plane!", you've got no right to bitch about the repercussions of your actions.

The flying Imams acted in a manner that was, apparently, designed to draw attention. Why would they do this? What was their purpose in doing so, knowing that others would be looking at them and going "Something isn't right here..."?

The assumtion always seems to be made that our enemies are going to act in the way we expect. But they're not stupid, and would gladly use our systems against us. Getting the public afraid to act, afraid to even SAY anything if they see something suspicious for fear of a lawsuit would be enough to make the most hardened jihadi giggle with glee.

After all, how often can you get the enemy to tie his own hands so you can cut his throat?

Jim, Robin have caug... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jim,
Robin have caught you red-handed in a number of mis-statements at best here. Stop spinning. Again your statement is clearly wrong

But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America.

Whoops - didn't finish that... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Whoops - didn't finish that first paragraph.

Seems to me if you shout "We're gonna hijack this plane!", you've got no right to bitch about the repercussions of your actions. Even if you later say "Ha-ha, only kidding!" the people around you aren't going to be willing to take the chance. And after 9/11, who wants to?

And the rest of the post stands as is...

Robin has a good post here<... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Robin has a good post here

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/07/23/ibd-keeping-the-flying-imams-airborne.php#comment-620000

Of course, something else that people like jim won't acknowledge is that in circumstances such as the flying imams, the fact that they are released does not necessarily mean that they are indeed "innocent". It is always possible that a misunderstanding has occurred, but it is also possible that the people had been probing security for weaknesses without the intention of completing a terrorist act. If so, law enforcement would have a difficult time finding a chargable offense.

There may be increased probes of security done in deniable manner. If such people succeed in suppressing reports based on fear of suit by activists like the imams, then these probes will succeed in setting the stage for a successful terrorist attack.

Well, LAI, I think there's ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, LAI, I think there's no spinning there. And I can get into the 'why' I think that. But I don't want to get into side issues, which I think were brought up as deliberate distractions from the main point.

And it's kind of surprising to me, actually, that this main point hasn't been resolved. All Robin has to do is say something that reflects reality, like "When I said 'everyone', I was wrong. Clearly you haven't accused everyone."

Then I'll be happy to get into these other issues.

But how about you, LAI? Do you think Robin is right, when she says I accuse everyone of disagreeing with me a racist?

Especially when I actually haven't accused everyone who disagrees with me as racist? Including Robin?

If you want to weight in on that, I'll be happy to discuss these side issues.

Hey Jim, But the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hey Jim,
But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out?

This is wrong on the fact.

Here is another statement of yours. After the fact was pointed out to you, you still repeated this lie that it was racism against Muslim. Robin caught you red-handed. A number of your statements have been proven wrong already.

LAI, in my opinion they "caused a ruckus" basically by flying while Muslim.

Hi Jim, YOu insiste... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hi Jim,
YOu insisted that it was racism against Muslim the flying imam case despite all the contrary facts. In essense, you insisted that anyone who supported this legislation supports racism against Muslim. Be honest about it.
Your statement above was clearly a mis-statement of facts.

I think Robin is right (as ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I think Robin is right (as I also concluded) about Jim. Good luck, Jim.

Wow, LAI - can you not answ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Wow, LAI - can you not answer a straight question either?

This is the question I'm asking:

Do you think Robin is right, when she says I accuse everyone of disagreeing with me a racist?

Especially when I actually haven't accused everyone who disagrees with me as racist? Including Robin?

Please respond to this question, and I'll be happy to get into the side issues after.

It is always possible th... (Below threshold)
jim:

It is always possible that a misunderstanding has occurred, but it is also possible that the people had been probing security for weaknesses without the intention of completing a terrorist act. If so, law enforcement would have a difficult time finding a chargable offense.

Hence the term "innocent until proven guilty." This does make it harder for law enforcement. The trade-off is, it helps create justice for the innocent.

You know, that old chestnut.

Someone probing to help com... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Someone probing to help commit a future crime are not innocent.

Someone probing to help ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Someone probing to help commit a future crime are not innocent.

They were thoroughly investigated. No evidence was found. No evidence = not guilty = innocent.

That's the law, and it makes sense.

I don't think no evidence + suspicion = guilty, is an improvement.

jpm100, we don't know that ... (Below threshold)

jpm100, we don't know that the imams were probing security. There are in fact other explanations, consistent with the reports of behavior that alarmed the passengers and crew, that also result in no criminal charges but still mean that they are not "innocent" actors.

Is it not amazing that "jim... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Is it not amazing that "jim' and his "friends" knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq yet he has not told us how? Are you some insider in the goverment? Or are you just BSing us again? Just amazing that you knew and let the war happen. Shame shame.

Hey, people! Remember the o... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Hey, people! Remember the old adage:

Never mud-wrestle with a pig. You're wasting your time, you aren't going to get a prize if you win, you end up getting covered in mud, and the pig enjoys it.

jhow66, happy to go into th... (Below threshold)
jim:

jhow66, happy to go into that. As you can see from my post at 12:59, I offered to go into them further.

We thought this way for a variety of reasons. I can get into them, if anyone wants to hear them.

Yours is the first post I've noticed to take me up on that.

I'm about to leave work here and won't be home until later, btw. Just to forestall accusations of deliberately not responding.

So, how'd I and others know?

Well, I and many, many other people were of the opinion, from the second Bush came into office, that invading Iraq was at the top of his wish list.

Here's just one example of how widely held this opinion was. The Onion is of course satire. I present it's satire as evidence of a widely held opinion. And this article, in particular, reads almost like a prophecy.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

"During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

How did we figure Bush like this? Well, I'd like to say it's because we were so smart. But to be honest, we were cynical. So, rightly or wrongly, we watched him like a hawk.

And as soon as the invasion of Afghanistan was completed, we could see the rationales start to pile up.

And the bottom line was simple:

1- there was no solid connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There was no evidence presented, which even came close to the sheer size of evidence pointing towards Saudi Arabia.

Yet the Bush admin tried many ways to link the two. This including Cheney declaring there was conclusive evidence when there was none, and Bush mentioning 9/11 and then Saddam Hussein.

This indicated to me and others, that Bush wanted to get into Iraq, with 9/11 as an excuse. Right or wrong, that was our impression.

2 - No solid evidence of WMD appeared. Powell's speech before the UN, one of the few UN speeches that I've ever seen televised in the US, seemed to be a clear attempt to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people.

Yet this presentation contained no solid evidence, just supposition.

So it appeared to us that this evidence was being used as the excuse Bush was looking for, in #1.

3 - The Bush administration constantly argued against the weapons inspections continuing, as long as the weapons inspectors received full cooperation.

This was a further indicator that the WMD's were an excuse - if Bush was really concerned about WMD's, every option to find the things would be exhausted **before** an invasion, not afterwards.

4 - our allies didn't want us to invade.

Germany, France, Russia and others were clearly against our invading Iraq. Many of the nations opposing the Iraq invasion, were our allies in the first Gulf conflict.

Nations act in their own self interest. IF a madman like Hussein had WMD's or anything cloe to nukes, they'd be joining us in a hearbeat.

That so many would join against Saddam the first time, but not this time, seemed to indicate that they didn't think Saddam and his WMD were actually a credible threat.

That was the real clincher, for me.

5 - the Middle East wanted us to leave to Saddam alone.

No other governments in the Middle East appeared to particularly like the Taliban. They may not have been ecstatic about our invasion of Afghanistan, but they didn't complain that much. They appeared to see it was direct self-defense. They also generally appeared to support our defense of Kuwait, back in the first Gulf conflict.

The Middle East would logically have the most to fear from a madman like Hussein armed with super-deadly weapons and making deals with terrorists. But they wanted us to not invade Iraq, much more than they were against our invasion of Afghanistan.

So to sum up:

We didn't trust George Bush, and thought he was likely to try and find a way to invade Iraq - and then:

1 - We saw the attempts to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda as weak at best - but the attempts continued. This looked like they were looking for this as an excuse.

2 - We saw no credible evidence for WMD's

3 - We saw our allies for several decades oppose our invasion of Iraq

4 - We saw the Middle East, which was closest to Saddam Hussein's WMD's, not want us to invade Iraq

There you have it.

Why does anyone on this thr... (Below threshold)

Why does anyone on this thread argue with Jim? Jim is a dissembler, and I am being polite about that. He sprays opinions like your grandfather's "organic" fertilizer. And when you stand up to him all you can walk away with is the smell.

Ignore him. Why? Because when he gets caught red handed he either lies, dissembles or hides.

Wizbang deserves better.

Hugh, I think a goo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hugh,
I think a good number of us have come to the same conclusion about Jim. He is not worth the time anymore. We should just ignore him.

See! I told you old jimmie ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

See! I told you old jimmie boy was BSing us.There ain't noboby but a BSer that could come with an answer like that. lol My my you should have been Sec. of Defence with "knowledge" such as that. snicker snort
(sorry guys one has to have a good laugh once in awhile)

A couple of things.<p... (Below threshold)
DCE:

A couple of things.


First to Jay Tea: Saddam did not surrender at the end of the Gulf War. It was a cease fire (UNSC 698). That meant that all hostilities would cease. If Saddam had surrendered we would have hung him in 1991 or 1992. There were a number of conditions that Saddam was obligated to meet as part of the cease fire, most of which he violated within short order.

Second, I find it hard to believe that Saddam's regime had no records about the destruction and/or disposal of his WMDs. Like most dictatorships, Saddam's government kept meticulous records about all kinds of things, places, and people. But not a goddamn thing was found about the WMDs we know he had prior to the Gulf War in 1991. That leads me to believe that all of the records were destroyed.

An acquaintance from my Defense industry days is an expert in chemical and biological weapons (he worked at Fort Detrick, the US Army's bioweapons rsearch facility). He pointed out that the chemical weapons he had could have been moved from Iraq to Syria using four tractor trailers. Who would notice four tractor trailers moving between Baghdad and Damascus months before we invaded in 2003?

While the warheads necessary to deliver the chemical weapons on to a target take up a lot of space, the chemicals themselves take up very little. Since most of them were probably binary weapons, meaning that the two chemicals used for the final mix are inert and relatively non-toxic when apart, they become deadly once they are mixed together. A thousand gallons or so of each chemical would be easy to move and even easier to make disappear.

DCE-According to W... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

DCE-

According to Wiki, the standard tank truck is between 4000 and 9000 gallons.

The desert can hide many things. After all - Saddam even buried MIGs. Who's to say how many bunkers may still be covered and lost?

Ignore him Hugh.So... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

Ignore him Hugh.

Some time ago we got him to believe that he would get a Happy Meal for every 100 inane comments.

The feeble minded are easily fooled.

My my you should ha... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

My my you should have been Sec. of Defence with "knowledge" such as that.

I wouldn't expect a celery-eating monkey to connect the dots of some very deliberate "seed planting" that this administration did early on (in addition to what Jim mentioned, I was also taken aback at a mention of Iraq by Bush in the first few months of his Presidency. The country had many more things on their minds, yet he decided to mention Iraq in an early speech. The "re-emergence" of Iraq in speeches shortly after 9/11 was when I made the first connection to something possibly fishy ).

And, yes, you have to be a little cynical to expect the worst from these people, but, quite honestly, it is your DUTY as an American citizen to question your governments motives. To walk in lockstep with these "leaders" because you think it's patriotic to do so is derelection of your duties as a citizen.

But, then again, most of the drips on this site have long since thrown their true patriotism out the window once they began apologizing for this dick in office after every screwup he made - and continues to make.

Oh, and go ahead and respond, LAI, since you feel it necessary to have the last word on every thread (no matter how old they may be). A little insecure are we?

hansel, You are ano... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

hansel,
You are another one not worth my time anymore. You are in the same league as Jim. You guys kept posting the same lies that have been debunked already. You don't even know that AP and Reuters were caught red-handed photo-shopping and lying as well. Jim 's honesty has been exposed in this thread for all to see. But you still need to jump in and join his club now. That 's my last words for you, Hansel. Happy now!

hansel2, President Bush "me... (Below threshold)

hansel2, President Bush "mentioned" Iraq in an early speech because it was a problem he inherited from the previous administration. We had a large military commitment in the region to contain Iraq and attempt compliance with cease-fire terms, and disarmament requirements that were not being met. It would only be responsible to consider how to resolve a long-term, lingering problem.

There is no need for silly conspiracy theories.

hansel2Didn't noti... (Below threshold)

hansel2

Didn't notice you were back....

To walk in lockstep with these "leaders"

You just can't get that brown shirt vernacular out of your head, can you?

"Even despite him being ... (Below threshold)
rrita m:

"Even despite him being confronted and showing he was wrong in his thinking, he just goes back to saying "Bush Lied"."

This is the theme that sells his stupid-ass documentary you used to be able to download for free. That is, until the owner (understandably) had a problem with the freebie part. Why should he stop the train now?

O'Reilly should have segued into a new set of questions about the stock that Moore "didn't own". This discussion would fit in with the "lied" theme quite nicely.

"He [Saddam] tried to assas... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"He [Saddam] tried to assassinate a former president of the United States in revenge for deeds that president had carried out as part of his duties of office. Period. -- Mr. Tea

Yep, and the fact that Saddam tried to kill off Chimpy's dad was a primary reason Dumbya was gunning for Saddam from Day One.

"I believe that Bush acted in good faith, on the best intelligence available. -- Mr. Tea

Completely idiotic. The "best intelligence" available was coming from the UN Weapons Inspectors, you know, the guys on the ground actually looking for the damn things. They found none. But, fearing a final report from the weapons inspectors declaring to the entire world no WMD, Bush invaded before the inspectors had finished their work. And so later after Bush got his desired war we had the Kay Report and the Duelfer report indicating no WMD, and later still BUSH HIMSELF admitted that there were no WMD.

That last part's got to sting, doesn't it, conservatives????

Deal with it.

"All it takes is a simple move: repealing the AUMF." -- Mr. Tea

Damn, this is dumb. There's no way a bill to repeal would get by the filibuster-happy Senate Republicans, let alone survive a veto from Chimpy.

Herman, first of all, the i... (Below threshold)

Herman, first of all, the inspection team was not the "best intelligence" - the UN team got its intelligence from the national intelligence services like the British and the US. They couldn't and didn't tell us that the WMD didn't exist.

Second, that's not what the Duelfer report said.

And your claim about George W. Bush having a "primary" reason of the assassination attempt on his father for "gunning" for Saddam from "day one" is just silly. George W Bush did very little about Saddam Hussein for many months into his administration. You are inventing a motivation without evidence, not to mention your fantasy about Bush's focus on Saddam Hussein before September of 2001.

Your comment is just silly BDS devoid of real facts.

"best intelligence" avai... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

"best intelligence" available was coming from the UN Weapons Inspectors...


LMAO.....

To sum up, jim, what's this... (Below threshold)
kim:

To sum up, jim, what's this about forged Niger documents being held from the IAEA until the last minute? You want to lay that to Bush?

Check it out Jim. You've been hornswoggled.
=============================

Hugh SYou might ac... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Hugh S

You might actually try looking up a word before you get all snarky and stupid. Lockstep simple means a way of marching close togetehr, as for example our military does. Brownshirts marched in goosestep.

Okay, I guess I'll have to ... (Below threshold)

Okay, I guess I'll have to spell it out:

My comment:
-----------------------
1) Several witnesses and the gate agent said "they were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding.

1) They switched from their assigned seats to be in a pattern associated with the seating of the 9/11 terrorists covering all exits. At least two of them moved to the first class section even after they were told their seats could not be upgraded.

2) Three of the men, who were not oversized, asked for seat-belt extenders and then placed them on the floor, not using them.

3) They were overheard making anti-American statements and talking about bin Laden and al Qaeda. They spoke in Arabic and English and some of what they said was clearly understood.

4) One man went to the back of the plane to talk to another at least three times.

Now any one of these actions is not cause for alarm, but combined, they represent suspicious behavior.

Your interpretation of my comment:
-----------------------
- praying loudly to Allah (= being Muslim-y)
- one guy asking a passenger to switch his seat, to sit next to one of the other Muslims
- one guy asking for a seat belt extender, when he maybe didn't need one
- passengers claiming to hear anti-US sentiment
- one guy (maybe even the same guy) going back to talk to one of the other Muslims, before the plane has taken off

You also mentioned them switching seats and refusing to change them back. I couldn't find any confirmation of that.

**********************
Is it because I numbered them wrong? Is that what threw you off?

So, JFO, is a goosestep a l... (Below threshold)
kim:

So, JFO, is a goosestep a lockstep? Are there bundles of muscle fibers acting in unison? How fascist.

Good Godwin.
========

mantis should meditate on h... (Below threshold)
kim:

mantis should meditate on his memory of the interview. Why did he remember it backwards?

The diagnosis goes by an acronym.
======================

Thank you Kim. So well put.... (Below threshold)

Thank you Kim. So well put. Goosestepping out of the room in lockstep.....beautifully redundant, if I do say so.

I'm still waiting for jim t... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

I'm still waiting for jim to answer for this:

jim, "I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table."

jim, "But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America."

He can't, so he ignores and ignores, mumbling some bullshit abut not answering "side" issues. Pathetic.

Kim, your ignorance is only... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Kim, your ignorance is only exceeded by Hugh's. But, unlike Hugh you remain good for a laugh.

As jim "eagerly awaits" rep... (Below threshold)

As jim "eagerly awaits" replies to his accusations, he doesn't seem to be so eager to respond to his own fallacies when they're exposed.

I eagerly await his reply to why he misquoted me and even attributed to me things I did not say.

D-Hogg, Hugh S, Oyster, LAI... (Below threshold)
jim:

D-Hogg, Hugh S, Oyster, LAI -
Any one of you guys want to publicly state the obvious, that I'm not being racist to everyone here?

That's Robin's accusation, that she refused to back away from. And which she twice introduced side issues ***from another article***, rather than respond to directly.

It's completely obvious that I haven't been racist to everyone here. So if any one of you want to look at my statements, and agree that this accusation of Robin's was not true, I'll be happy to go on and discuss the side issues she introduced.

I mean, how can it be worth my time arguing those other points, if I let something that's ***this freaking obviously untrue*** stand without acknowledgement?

To sum up, jim, what's t... (Below threshold)
jim:

To sum up, jim, what's this about forged Niger documents being held from the IAEA until the last minute? You want to lay that to Bush?

There's two parts to that, Kim. What I'm saying is - these documents were so false that once the IAEA got them, they were revealed with a freakin' Google search.

Yet on these docs he made the case for an invasion of Iraq.

That seems to me to indicate he was more interested in invading, and looking for any intel he could find to twist into a rationale.

But you'll let your own cla... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

But you'll let your own claims that are "***this freaking obviously untrue***" stand? jim you really are ridiculous, you just keep stonewalling on this issue. You FLAT OUT LIED.

jim said: "I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table."

but before that jim said: "But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America."

You FLAT OUT LIED and no amount of your trying to skirt the issue by trying to act like some honest debater that is simply trying to right a wrong will change that fact. If you are so damned honest jim, why don't you address your FLAT OUT LIE?

As far as your whining goes, "Any one of you guys want to publicly state the obvious, that I'm not being racist to everyone here?"

I believe your BDS is clouding your already cloudy head jim, nobody here claimed YOU were being racist, rather, that you claim WE are racist. The basis of that thought comes from the following:

jim, "I think I get it:
You guys really do think all Muslims are in a plot together, to destroy America, don't you?
Come on, be honest."

jim, "LAI, in my opinion they "caused a ruckus" basically by flying while Muslim."

LoveAmericaImmigrant is exactly correct when stating, "In essense, you insisted that anyone who supported this legislation supports racism against Muslim."

Spin it however you like jim but that is EXACTLY what you have been getting at all along, that we are all racists here because we support John Doe, that the imams were targeted for NOTHING more than flying while muslim, forget about all of their sketchy behavior and the things they were saying. Now, I have addresed what you wanted, now answer for your FLAT OUT LIES jim.

jim said: "I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table."

but before that jim said: "But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America."

Forgot to point out that ji... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Forgot to point out that jims line, "because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out?" is yet another instance of him saying that we are racists, because obviously the persons on the airplane weren't freaked out by the imams actions and sayings, no, no, they were freaked out simply because the men are muslims. And the airline treated them poorly simply because they are muslims. And all of us support John Doe only to get them muslims.

Oyster, I'll respond to you... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oyster, I'll respond to you at least this once, because at least you haven't falsely accused me.

You're mad at me, because you think I misrepresented your statements. So let's go over them:

You say:
1) Several witnesses and the gate agent said "they were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding.

I say:
- praying loudly to Allah (= being Muslim-y)

That's a one-to-one match there. Sorry.

You say:
1) They switched from their assigned seats to be in a pattern associated with the seating of the 9/11 terrorists covering all exits. At least two of them moved to the first class section even after they were told their seats could not be upgraded.

I say:
- one guy asking a passenger to switch his seat, to sit next to one of the other Muslims

And I've looked at the accounts, on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, USATOday - it's the same basic Associated Press release. And I haven't found any mentioning of them changing their seats and refusing to move back.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15824096/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/21/national/main2202120.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-21-passengers-removed_x.htm

The only thing I was able to find close to this, was one of the Muslims asking another pasenger to switch seats with him. The passenger declined, and that appears to be the end of the story -

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed/

So that's not a "misrepresentation" - that's me thinking you don't have the right information.

If you have some citation that it was multiple Muslims who changed their seats and refused to return where they were assigned, please post it. Otherwise this claim of yours doesn't hold water.


You say:
2) Three of the men, who were not oversized, asked for seat-belt extenders and then placed them on the floor, not using them.

I say:
- one guy asking for a seat belt extender, when he maybe didn't need one

I looked at the accounts, and it was three and not one. So you're right there, and I was wrong.

You say:
3) They were overheard making anti-American statements and talking about bin Laden and al Qaeda. They spoke in Arabic and English and some of what they said was clearly understood.

I say:
The Muslims say they didn't. So there you have it.

Personally, I think it highly likely that freaked-out passnegers were hearing things more manifested by fear than reality. When people are hearing a language they don't know, it becomes quite easy to misinterpret.

But also - so what if the Muslims did? That combined with the other things is grounds for taking them off the plane - not to deny them redress once they're found to be innocent.

You say:
4) One man went to the back of the plane to talk to another at least three times.

I say:
- one guy (maybe even the same guy) going back to talk to one of the other Muslims, before the plane has taken off

And that's a one-to-one match there.

Hope that answers most of your questions, Oyster.

Forgot to point out that... (Below threshold)
jim:

Forgot to point out that jims line, "because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out?" is yet another instance of him saying that we are racists,

Hold it right there, D-Hogg.

Are you the passengers?

Is everyone here, everyone there?

Why, obviously not. So you are obviously misrepresenting my statements.

Why are you doing that?

And Oyster, now I'm going t... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Oyster, now I'm going to work. Just to head off another false accusation from you, that I'm avoiding you. It might take me another couple of hours to respond.

By which time I'm sure you guys will have a fresh batch of accusations at me. But whatever. I'd like to think different; but let's see how it all works out.

But you'll let your own ... (Below threshold)
jim:

But you'll let your own claims that are "***this freaking obviously untrue***" stand? jim you really are ridiculous, you just keep stonewalling on this issue. You FLAT OUT LIED.

Oh SHOVE IT!

Jesus.

I am a liar, but those who falsely accuse me and refuse to retract are __ ?

I am a liar, but someone who could merely take the statement "everyone" and change it to "some", but introduces side issues rather than make this modest adjustment to come into step with reality, is a __ ?

I mean, let's be for real here.

No jim, no misrepresentatio... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

No jim, no misrepresentation needed, that is just more evidence that you are trying to paint anyone in favor of John Doe, or anyone skeptical of a bunch of imams acting out on a plane, as racists. Because as you have said before several times, these men were accused because they are muslim, not because of their actions. So, you have called the people here that support John Doe racists, and you have ALSO called the whistle blowers on the airplane racists. Now, care to answer for your LIES yet or are you going to keep conveniently ignoring that? Thought so.

jim said: "I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table."

but before that jim said: "But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America."

"I mean, let's be for real ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"I mean, let's be for real here."

Ok jim, lets, lets be real. How do you square these two statments?

jim said: "I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table."

but before that jim said: "But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out? That doesn't seem right in America."

Once again jim, no retracti... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Once again jim, no retractions are necessary, your own words speak for themselves:

"I think I get it:
You guys really do think all Muslims are in a plot together, to destroy America, don't you?"

"LAI, in my opinion they "caused a ruckus" basically by flying while Muslim."

"because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out?"

According to jim, these men weren't singled out because of their actions, they were singled out because they are muslim, in other words, racism.

Wow. D-Hogg. You are now do... (Below threshold)
jim:

Wow. D-Hogg. You are now doing exactly the same thing Robin did.

I call you on one **very specific*** statement that YOU made - and you run from it, and introduce side arguments regarding OTHER people's statements, that have nothing to do with the statement that I'm calling you on.

Let's look again, at your original statement. Key parts bolded.

Forgot to point out that jims line, "because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out?" is yet another instance of him saying that we are racists,

I point out to you that this is obviously not true:

Are you the passengers?

Is everyone here, everyone there?

Why, obviously not. So you are obviously misrepresenting my statements.

And you continue to attempt to distract with side arguments, and refuse to make this acknowledgement of reality.

I am very happy to go on, and discuss the side arguments that you are bringing up.

So, just admit I was not and have not called everyone on this site a racist, and we can move on.

Otherwise, I see no reason why it's worth my time to even get into these side issues with you, if you can't even acknowledge an accusation that is ****this clearly false***.

Oyster, as to your statemen... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oyster, as to your statements re: "never flying again" -

On the other page in question,
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/07/23/ibd-keeping-the-flying-imams-airborne.php

In comment #7, at 8:05, I did state:

"But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again, because some passengers didn't like their appearance, and freaked out?"

In comment #9, Robin thought I was saying the provision itself denied them the right to fly again.

The John Doe amendment does not deny anyone the ability to fly - that's completely ridiculous.

So, in comment #11, I cleared this up - I thought. You can see this citation as comment # 11, at 8:15 pm:


http://www.startribune.com/462/story/826056.html

"The US Airways supervisor told Shahin that his tickets had been refunded and that he would have to go to another airline. The supervisor offered Shahin a customer service phone number.

"I want to go home. I don't want phone numbers," Shahin said. "They have no reason to refuse service to us just because of the way we look.""

They were found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, and were denied any further service on that airplane anyway. They were told to go to another airline.

In comment # 12, I should have realized this wasn't clear. Robin said:

No part of the John Doe amendment prevents the imams from flying 'ever again'.

Robin still thought I was saying this was in the John Doe amendment. Even though I was not saying that it was, and even though she had read my quote stating that the **airline** had refused further service to the Muslim passengers.

I could say this was deliberate misrepresentation on her part. But I think it was a misunderstanding. I think Robin get the reason I was bringing this up, and so apparently thought I was implying the Provision required this.

The reason I brought the airline denying them further service, **after** they've been found innocent, is that I think it's something that the innocently accused should be able to sue for.

Which is all fine - but then Robin had to accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting things. And so it has spilled out until now we are here.

So Oyster, your recollection of my first comment was correct. I cleared it up 2 comments later, or so I thought; and I think my quote, comment and intent showed in comment 11 makes it clear I wasn't trying to say the government was blacklisting these or other Muslim passengers from flying on any plane. Which I think was what you were accusing me of.

But I did say those exact words, and so I was wrong for claiming that I didn't. There you have it.

Wow, just wow, jim is spinn... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Wow, just wow, jim is spinning like a frigging top over here. jim, your intent in everything you have said has been to paint anyone and everyone that supports John Doe, and whistle blowers on the airplane, as racists. You FUNDAMENTALLY accuse everyone of seeing only that the imams are "flying while muslim" and totally disregard the ACTIONS of the imams. Everyone here knows what you are doing, you aren't fooling anyone but yourself. It's typical moonbat think. "You're scared of the imam in the corner yelling "allah akkbar" and generally acting very suspicious? Well then, you're a racist who is accusing them of "flying while muslim"!" We all know what you're getting at jim, so quit with the bullshit. As far as your answer to Oyster, HAH! I've never seen such evasion!! You BLATANTLY LIED, ADMIT IT, your comments are there for all to see:

jim said: "I never said they could never fly again. That's something you brought to the table."

but before that jim said: "But then deny them the right to fly on planes ever again..."

You are fucking pathetic jim, a true waste of time. I should have listened to the others, I am done with you now as well.

One-to-one match. Right.</... (Below threshold)

One-to-one match. Right.

You include your suppositions in your recounting of what I said, simplify it in a manner that creates a more benign picture because that's what your intention is here; to downplay and characterize this as a totally innocuous situation to further your claims that there are people here whose opinions are founded solely on the basis of their nationality.

Then you continue with your misrepresentation that I said they changed seats and then refused to move back. Get this straight: I never said that. I said (and here it is again just exactly as you copied it, but refused to read it correctly) - "They switched from their assigned seats to be in a pattern associated with the seating of the 9/11 terrorists covering all exits. At least two of them moved to the first class section even after they were told their seats could not be upgraded."

So you know what? That IS a "misrepresentation".

I also gave you the source of my information. The actual police report. You, on the other hand, prefer to get your "facts" from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, USAToday, etc.

I'm thinking YOU don't have the right information.

And I'm not done yet, jimmy.

I said: "They were overheard making anti-American statements and talking about bin Laden and al Qaeda. They spoke in Arabic and English and some of what they said was clearly understood."

You replied with: "The Muslims say they didn't. So there you have it."

Just like they said they were handcuffed and intimidated by dogs, but it turns out it never happened?

"Personally, I think it highly likely that freaked-out passnegers were hearing things more manifested by fear than reality. When people are hearing a language they don't know, it becomes quite easy to misinterpret."

First they're racist, now they're just hapless and fearful. Puh-lease.

"But also - so what if the Muslims did? That combined with the other things is grounds for taking them off the plane - not to deny them redress once they're found to be innocent."

jim, jim, jim, They were not denied redress. Their case against the airline was found to be without merit, so now they want to go after the other passengers. Since it is your contention that their behavior warranted being removed, isn't it a little hypocritical to say they should be able to now go after the passengers? Those you call "their accusers"?

And what are they innocent of? They were certainly not innocent of their actions which were far too precise in recreating the same scenario that the 9/11 hijackers used. So what were they innocent of? They weren't charged with anything.

I'm not mad at you, jim. I just think you're being obtuse. And I don't mind adding that you're doing it ridiculously.

On second thought, don't bother replying with any more of your crap. It's not worth the hassel to argue with you as your argument has morphed more often that I can count at this point. I'm going to let you off the hook here because I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

D-Hogg, is there some funda... (Below threshold)
jim:

D-Hogg, is there some fundamental communication problem that you have?

Are you unable to recognize the difference between "everyone" and "someone"?

Let me spell it out for you:

"Everyone" means all people. "Someone" means some people.

Please let me know that you understand the difference between "everyone" and "someone", before we continue.

JimD-Hogg, H... (Below threshold)

Jim

D-Hogg, Hugh S, Oyster, LAI -
Any one of you guys want to publicly state the obvious,

I checked that off my to do list over a week ago....


JFO...
Kim, your ignorance is only exceeded by Hugh's. But, unlike Hugh you remain good for a laugh.

158. Posted by JFO | July 25, 2007 11:27 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Yes JFO, Kim is good for a laugh, but ignorant she is not ...and she 's good with the sword. That's why she is an asset to this blog. I could care less what you thought of me.


You include your supposi... (Below threshold)
jim:

You include your suppositions in your recounting of what I said, simplify it in a manner that creates a more benign picture because that's what your intention is here;

Oyster: my purpose is to offer my opinion.

Sorry if the fact that my interpretation of the same set of facts differs from yours, is viewed as "downplaying".

Guess what? You're not God, and neither am I. We're both making guesses from the facts. From what I've seen, I think the passengers over-reacted.

So, have your opinion. Because this is America, I'd like to think we could disagree without either of us thinking the other is evil. But hey, I can only give my opinion, based on the facts I see before me.

Now on to the rest of your post:

Then you continue with y... (Below threshold)
jim:

Then you continue with your misrepresentation that I said they changed seats and then refused to move back. Get this straight: I never said that. I said (and here it is again just exactly as you copied it, but refused to read it correctly) - "They switched from their assigned seats to be in a pattern

You said they switched their seats. Right? We both agree you said that.

You're right: you didn't say they refused to move back. So, I misquoted you. My apologies.

However, you DID say they switched their seats.

Switching seats means changing their seats from where they were, and moving to new ones. We're agreed on what that means, right?

I don't see anything that says they did that.

I just read the Police Report you linked to. I did not see any mention in there, anywhere, of the men switching their seats.

So in addition to CNN, CBS, MSNBC , USAToday et al - your own police report that you linked to does not show this.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I read it too quickly. Please, read it again yourself, and find where it said they ***actually switched seats***.

Otherwise - care to correct this misinterpretation? As I have been happy to do, when I've misquoted myself or you?

Should I accuse of you of being openly deceitful? Or shall I just express my pity for you?

Jim, here are the actual re... (Below threshold)

Jim, here are the actual reports filed during the Flying Imams incident:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/the_faking_imams_pajamas_media.php

These are the words of the people you want to strip of protection. Do those read like the words of bigots and trouble-makers?

It all boils down to "good faith." I think they acted in good faith, and therefore deserve to be immunized. You don't.

To me they, come across as average Americans. To you, that means that they're ripe for suing.

J.

Jay Tea, glad to get back t... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jay Tea, glad to get back to the actual substance of the discussion.

Those are the words of those passengers. The Muslim passengers say different. If the Muslim passengers were lying, that would come up in a lawsuit as well.

The important thing to me, is that the Muslim passengers were fully investigated, and found innocent.

And I'm not comfortable with the rights of people who were found innocent, being infringed upon. This includes the right to sue others for perceived unfair treatment.

If there was no such treatment, or it wasn't unfair, no problem! Lawsuit fails, and the lawsuit filers are open to countersuit.

And that's good faith as well. Treating those who have been found innocent, as having the same rights of others who've been found innocent - and to have their day in court.

That's my take on it.

Jim, you're contending that... (Below threshold)

Jim, you're contending that they should be able to sue. Suing someone implies that there will indeed be a day in court. There is no merit whatsover for a lawsuit here. None. They were not charged with anything so there is no innocense or guilt implied. I don't know aht else to tell you in this regard.

"Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I read it too quickly. Please, read it again yourself, and find where it said they ***actually switched seats***."

No, jim. It is incumbent on you to read slower. I gave you the source, I shouldn't have to do ALL the work for you.

But since your Evelyn Wood speed reading course appears to have taught you to read fast, it seems you forgot that it is to teach comprehension as well. So I'll do the hard part for you. Comprehension.

I will even give you the relevant page numbers. It has taken time for me, but hey, someone has to take this seriously enough to actually prove your rash judgements and assertions wrong and it appears you aren't willing to do more than make stuff up, then deny it or ignore it, or later attach the caveat that it was just your opinion or that you "may have been mistaken" when you were "absolutely wrong".

Page 12 (from Officer Wingate): "It should be noted that two of the individuals were seated in the rear, two were seated in the middle and two were seated in the front of the aircraft; all of which stated they were traveling together."

Page 20 (from the gate agent): "After that one of the guys approach[ed] me and asked if he can have two first class seats, of which I told him that we had no more seats in first class."

so jim, ***they actually switched seats*** regardless of the fact that they were told they could not upgrade. Two of them moved "to the front of the aircraft", not the front of the coach area - the front of the aircraft, which is what? Why, it's first class". Whether or not the others were sitting in assigned seats is not clear, except for the one who switched with another passenger. Nevermind that the one who switched seats worked in colusion with another in pretending he was blind, according to another employee. If he were indeed blind, I'm sure someone would have noticed that he was being assisted. That doesn't prove anything, but it is just another part of their cumulative odd behavior.

To further disprove your initial assumptions and further adamant statements and implications that the reporting of their behavior was based primarily on their nationality, we have these two written statements from employees in the report on pages 22 & 23-24, respectively:

"I noticed 3-4 people praying. I did not think this was to(sic) unusual. They looked like true Muslims praying." She then goes on to recount the faking-to-be-blind episode, the seat-belt extensions, and more. She wasn't concerned until their cumulative behaviors warranted it.

"The behavior of the group in the gate area was atypical for my experience with Muslims." But he then goes on to recount his conversation with one of them in which the man expressed, what was in the writer's opinion, "extreme fundamentalist Muslim views". This indicates that he had no cause for alarm by their praying at the gate (You know, being all "Muslim-y") but was concerned about the man's views. However, he made no other judgements about their behavior.

Even in the face of so much evidence and the accounts of so many people you still base what you now say is your "opinion" on nothing substantial at all. That's why most people here are criticizing you. Had you come to some conclusion or formed an opinion in corroboration with, or based on, facts, you'd likely get a little more respect. If you did that and didn't make stuff up along that way, that is.

I'm really done this time. I think I've proved my point and my assertions well enough.

Osyter, all you have proven... (Below threshold)
jim:

Osyter, all you have proven is, you don't have any information showing they actaully switched seats. Just your own assumptions and conclsuions.

Here's my statement:

Please, read it again yourself, and find where it said they ***actually switched seats***."

And here's your statement:

so jim, ***they actually switched seats*** regardless of the fact that they were told they could not upgrade. Two of them moved "to the front of the aircraft", not the front of the coach area - the front of the aircraft, which is what? Why, it's first class".

Since we've all been on airplanes, we know that there are seats in coach which are still towards the head of the plane. They just aren't all the way in first class.

Alternately, how do we know the gate agent isn't referring to another 2 muslims, who were trying to get their seats switched to First Class to sit with the first two?

But most importantly, you are saying they actually SUCCEEDED in switching seats to the first class. But that's not what either person you quoted is saying.

The bottom line is, you have not produced a statement saying they switched seats. So, show
me the statement that said they actually switched seats - not your assumption that "they must have switched seats".

This is all a side issue from whether or not they should have been suspected. As I've said before, multiple times, I'm fine with people erring on the side of caution, and having them investigated.

I'm just pointing out to you, that the level of detail at which you would accuse me of "misinterpretation", can open you up to a similar charge.

Because you are saying they *definitely* switched seats - not "probably" or even "almost certainly" - but DEFINITELY.

And the news articles don't say that, which I think they would have included. And the original police report, which you yourself posted, only says they were in the front. It doesn't include them actually succeeding in "switching seats".

And I think that, if they had actually succeeded in this, the police would have so listed it.

Now, I don't think you're deliberately misinterpreting things. I think you haven't looked at this level of detail yet.

But the facts don'y support what you're saying.

And Oyster, as a side note,... (Below threshold)
jim:

And Oyster, as a side note, what do you mean by this?

Their case against the airline was found to be without merit, so now they want to go after the other passengers.

Are you saying that their lawsuit against US Airways was dismissed? Because I haven't been able to find any evidence of that.

And if you ARE saying their lawsuit was dismissed, either present evidence of this - or acknowledge that you've made another (gasp!) evil misinterpretation.

jim, a year before the IAEA... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, a year before the IAEA saw the forgeries, Val Plame was talking to her husband about 'funny reports' out of Africa. Five months before Val Plame's unit sent the forgeries on to the IAEA, the CIA person checking them in noted 'funky seals' on them. Then for five months they sat around Val Plame's office. Two weeks before the war they were sent off to the IAEA which debunked them in hours.

Now who lied us into war? Or was so friggin' incompetent they had to make a kerfuffle afterwards to cover their fecklessness? It was Val Plame's unit that either failed to note they were forgeries, or knew and hid it. I'd like to know which.
============================

Well, Kim, I think there's ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, Kim, I think there's enough evidence that the Bush administration knew the Niger docs were forgeries, but didn't care.

So I think Plame's unit probably did their job and sent the information on to the Bush White House. As apparently other impartial experts did, on seeing the docs. And the White House simply ignored the likelihood that the Niger docs were forgeries - because what they really wanted to do was invade Iraq.

I don't have insight into Plame's groups's inner workings; but here are the results from some other people, at the same time, and working on the same stuff.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-g.htm

"Immediately after receiving the documents, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst e-mailed IC colleagues offering to provide the documents at a previously planned meeting of the Nuclear Interdiction Action Group (NIAG) the following day. The analyst, apparently already suspicious of the validity of the documents noted in his e-mail, "you'll note that it bears a funky Emb. of Niger stamp (to make it look official, I guess)."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-h.htm

"On January 13, 2003, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst sent an e-mail to several IC analysts outlining his reasoning why, "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." He indicated that one of the documents that purported to be an agreement for a joint military campaign, including both Iraq and Iran, was so ridiculous that it was "clearly a forgery." Because this document had the same alleged stamps for the Nigerien Embassy in Rome as the uranium documents, the analyst concluded "that the uranium purchase agreement probably is a forgery." When the CIA analyst received the e-mail, he realized that WINPAC did not have copies of the documents and requested copies from INR. CIA received copies of the foreign language documents on January 16, 2003."

and also

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9912352/

"ROME - Italian secret services warned the United States months before it invaded Iraq that a dossier about a purported Saddam Hussein effort to buy uranium in Africa was fake, a lawmaker said Thursday after a briefing by the nation's intelligence chief.

"At about the same time as the State of the Union address, they (Italy's SISMI secret services) said that the dossier doesn't correspond to the truth," Sen. Massimo Brutti [of Italy] told journalists after the parliamentary commission was briefed. "

jim wrote:<blockquote... (Below threshold)

jim wrote:

And the White House simply ignored the likelihood that the Niger docs were forgeries - because what they really wanted to do was invade Iraq.
I don't have insight into Plame's groups's inner workings

But he does have insight into the minds of the Bush administration...

J.

Jay Tea, perhaps this sente... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jay Tea, perhaps this sentence of mine should have had "I think" at the beginning. So it would read:

And I thinkthe White House simply ignored the likelihood that the Niger docs were forgeries - because what they really wanted to do was invade Iraq.

But as per my not having insight into Plame's group, but having it into the Bush White House: we don't have any documentation of Plame's group's efforts with the intelligence they received.

On the other hand, we do have documentation and reports on the Bush administration, and their habits regarding intelligence that they didn't like. Including the Niger docs.

So, yes; it's my opinion that the Bush admin didn't really care what the intel was. And it's my opinion that they had already decided they wanted to invade, and would spin the intel any way they could to have support for the invasion.

But I do think it's a rather fact-backed opinion.

And as it boils down to good faith: I didn't have good faith in the Bush administration from the beginning. Whereas a lot of Americans, and not just conservatives, put good faith in the Bush administration. Wanted to believe what they were saying. Didn't want to think that the President was just drumming up a reason for war.

And I think this good faith on the part of the American people was greatly abused by this administration. And it's one thing among many that makes me particularly angry at Bush.

If you look at history, misleading the country into war is something that presidents do. Not just Republicans. It was LBJ who basically invented a military incident that didn't actually happen as described - the two "attacks" that made up The Tonkin Gulf incident.

It's an unfortunate hallmark of those in power, in a Democratic society.

It does become a shame when we can't trust our leaders. I'm no fan of Reagan, but he did say something I agree with: "Trust, but verify." Which is not the same as good faith - it's more like "good trust", if you will. It's earned and maintained...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy