100% completely OT - Trailing stops

It was WRONG when we did it to Japanese Americans in WW2, it is WRONG today.
I was not referring to the WW2 citizen detainees, but instead to the 400,000 German, Italian, and Japanese prisoners of war, who were captured in battle and held in prison camps in many different places in the US. These prisoners were not ever given any hearings, access to lawyers, or awarded any "rights" other than those mandated by the Geneva Convention rules for prisoner treatment.

Because you brought it up, if you talk to any person who was alive during the WWII years, you will find that most do NOT regard the detainment of the Japanese and German citizens as a mistake, but instead they will say that it was sad and tragic, but necessary for our safety. Most of the detainees were harmless, but most also had families back in the old country, and thus were subject to be blackmailed and coerced to help the enemies. This is a well-known fact and cannot be changed, regardless all the hand-wringing and whining.

It is only the re-writing of history by pointy head liberals that brand this action as a mistake. Many assume that it must have been a mistake, because some of these people have been compensated for their detainment. Not true, that only shows our concern and benevolence. I hope that we would have the guts to do the same thing in the same circumstances. What am I saying, our President HAS done the same thing in a similar situation. Now we only need to support him.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks that the United States of America is somehow immune to the possibility of reverting to a fascist dictatorship need only read the second paragraph of Lancie1's latest post. Lancie1, if your point of view ever becomes the majority sentiment in this country, then I fear for our future.

You seem to be asserting that it is OK to strip American citizens of their rights simply because of their ancestry. Take your sentiment to its logical next step. Why stop at ancestry? Should we throw all of the Muslims in this country into internment camps? Are the people who believe in the separation of church and state the real enemies? Should we make every homosexual wear a yellow "Q" sewn onto their clothing?

With everything that's going on these days, if you're not concerned about the erosion of the rights of individual citizens, you're not paying close enough attention.
 
Some thoughts on comments made since my last post...


One telco did refuse to allow the government to actively connect to their network and gather statistical data without a warrant. This act does not mean that the data itself is protected, but that in the eyes of this telco's lawyers they were not required to allow an outside group access to their network to gather this data. Keep in mind that old law is now being applied to new technology; the line on warrant or no warrant is still being drawn and some people saying no is part of that process. Give it a couple of years of court cases and then we'll at least have a basis for case law on the subject.


In regards to plans to invade Iraq being on the table before 911; our government has plans to invade virtually every country and region on this planet and those plans are considered and reviewed based on all sorts of factors; one of those factors is how likely our leaders think the situation is to arise. They work up these plans so that if there is a need for an invasion we don't have to sit around for 6 months or a year while the plan is created. Invading another country is serious business and is not something to go into without a well thought out plan of how to accomplish the goals. With that said you also need to realize that these plans are drawn up in response to hypothetical situations and the hypothetical situations we plan for never happen as we plan which means we have to adapt our plan to the situation when its time to implement it.


As for the "detainees" maybe GW should have called them POWs, but maybe not. Just like the telco bit we are in uncharted territory. Let me ask you this; of the scenarios below, which should be POWs, which should we hang on to for a little while, and which should be let go? Please keep in mind that for all of these I am thinking of situations outside of the US in a war zone where international treaties may apply, but US law does not.

Someone who shoots a gun at someone in a US military uniform.

Someone pointing an AK-47 at someone in a US military uniform.

Someone who throws rocks at someone in a US military uniform.

Someone who threatens to shoot someone in a US military uniform while holding a weapon.

Someone who threatens to shoot someone in a US military uniform while not holding a weapon.

Someone blowing up US property outside of the US.

Someone blowing up US property outside of the US with no US military personnel in the vicinity.

Someone blowing up US property outside of the US with US military personnel in the vicinity or inside the property.

Someone known to be planning an attack on the US military.

Someone thought to be planning an attack on the US military.
 
Last edited:
Why does the administration insist on calling them "enemy combatants" and insist that we do not have to treat them according to the terms of the Geneva Conventions?

It is very simple. "Prisoners of war" is a term that refers to soldiers in uniform, of an enemy that has a government that controls some territory. In Afghanistan, the prisoners do not have a government, or even a military leader, with which to negotiate the terms of surrender and also the release and repatriation of the prisoners. Thus they technically and legally cannot be called prisoners of war, and do not fall under the Geneva Convention. However, we still are treating them better than they deserve, considering what they were trying to do to us.
 
You seem to be asserting that it is OK to strip American citizens of their rights simply because of their ancestry.

No, not because of anyone's ancestry, but because of a threat so severe that it took priority over all other rights. You do not have any understanding of just how things were from 1941 to 1945. Ordinary citizens had to give up all normal rights in exchange for survival. We came within a knat's hair of being conquered, and there were no rights, except the right to die for the cause. For all practical purposes, we were under a military ruler named Ike.
 
TimothyMoulder said:
I maintain the rest, including that Powell was chosen as the Secretary of State with the intention of ruining his political aspirations. Since the Iraq war was on the table before 9/11, the plan to destroy Powell was in place as well.

TM

You are assuming that Powell had political aspirations to begin with. From what I have been able to gather, he did/does not.



Personally, I wish he did. Both He and his wife are honorable citizens. Something I have not seen a lot of in recent candidates.



The closest conflict in US history to what we are facing now is the Barbary Pirates and our fight to control sea lanes. Studying that period in history may prove to be useful. Particularly when the debate turns to prisoners of a war fought against terrorists. http://hnn.us/articles/287.html Oddly enough, the French, muted this mess for some period of time, only to back the same mess now.



As for the intent of the Founding Fathers, they were having the same differences of opinion while putting together this Great Country. That the debate continues is a testament to the greatness of the United States. Without this debate, we would certainly sink into the debts of some less likeable solution.



I am amused at the constant de-rating of FOX News by the political left. At last there is a strong source in the news media that is not so far slanted to the left, that the debate can continue. Between CBS, ABC, NBC and NPR, right leaning Americans were having a hard time not puking every time the news came on. If anything FOX attempts to remain center, rather than left leaning. FOX points out wrongs done on both sides.





If you think GWB wants to be a dictator, just wait till you get a taste of comrade Hilary. Just be forewarned, I will not give up my firearms.



As a former sailor, I understand that the military will carry out the orders given to it. As an armed American, I understand what a domestic enemy is, and am not going to allow the 2nd to be taken away by some baby killing, ego driven, freedom hating malcontent who thinks he/she know how to spend my money better than I.

 
If you can keep your head while those about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...
Rudyard Kipling

We are getting into an area of discussing where lines need to be drawn. That's a good place to be because reasonable people can have reasonable differences of opinion as to their placement.

What should be the reasonable response of a society to an external threat? How can society properly assess the severity of the threat? The key is the trust that society has in its leadership.

Anyone who has studied any history knows that one of the favorite tactics of demagogues and dictators is to whip people into a patriotic frenzy about a perceived threat, whether that threat is external or internal. You can see it today in the way Ahmadinejad is consolidating his power in Iran by positioning himself as the one man standing up for his country against the United States. Hugo Chavez is using very similar tactics in Venezuela.

To his enduring discredit, George W. Bush is not averse to using the same tactics!

We, as citizens need to constantly evaluate what we're being told to believe. We need to take the attitude that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We need to constantly ask whether or not the policies we're being asked to support are in our long-term best interests and not hysterical overreactions to the demands of the moment.

Case in point: Lancie1 asks why we should allow the detainees to practice their religion. The answer is that by so doing we take away something that the Ahmadinejads of the world might manipulate against us. There is enough misrepresentation floating around on Al-Jazeera without giving them a plum like denial of religious freedom. It's not a bleeding-heart, pointy-headed liberal thing. It doesn't cost us anything strategically or tactically. It's simply good policy.

If this war is so different from all previous wars that we need to change our policies regarding the treatment and disposition of people captured in the course of the war, why aren't we calling for a new Geneva conference to formulate a new set of rules?
 
I am not sure I see anything fascist about Lancie's post, he stated what does happen in wartime and the reasoning behind it.

We did fight against the Taliban in Afgnanastan therefore they are considered prisoners of war and treated according to the Geneva convention. Al-Qaeda members and others captured in war zones have been accorded rights to the courts, personally I am not sure I agree with this but it was decided in a courtroom. My main reason for disagreement would be based on the fact that aggressive and violent acts by a group or groups of people with a possible membership that exceeds that of many countries is pretty much an act of war.

We are on the verge of a new century with new things happening. What happend on 9/11 was different from anything in the past and it will take time to figure out how to deal with it and the reasons behind it.

We the people want out rights but we want "protection" at the same time. The government will always have problems of there being a fine line it should not, but does, cross at times.

Do any of you realize that the police can now enter your home without a warrant by declaring it to be a scene of domestic violence? That does not mean the arguement has to be in the house either, you can just make a comment from your yard to a neighbor, argue with your wife or have a couple of kids get into a fight, which happens if you have more than one child. There does not have to actually be any violence just the appearance there could be.

For the most part I agree with Steve but in my case I do not remove any President or political party from the equation. When it comes to "texas tea" as it was called then ALL parties and presidents will attempt to obtain and keep possession of any they can. WHY, because as was mentioned in another thread Americans want their big cars etc so must have the oil. As I mentioned earlier they all have financial investments and as Peter said, invest in oil or energy, its the hotcake these days.

I think what is happening in the US and the world in general is on a larger scale then many of us realize. There is a push, that is not really talked about, that is leading to not just a Global economy but a Global government. I have yet to determine how this would work or what the outcome would be like.

What I do see, in the US, is a strong move to discredit any President that is making an effort, the sad part is that many are making mistakes or what appear as mistakes that allows this to progress. An even stronger move is being made to remove or discredit religion altogether, the funny part about that is I am not religious but the thought that people may not have a right to choose to believe scares me. If you look closely you will see that new laws or acts are being created that take from the citizens and gives more to those from other countries.

As for the telco thing that is just more political maneuvering, think about it. If you buy a car you have a driver's license, tag, and title, your personal infomation is registered with the government. If you vote and/or register with the draft your personal information is registered with the government. If you have a Social Security card, your personal information is registered with the government. IF you own, or are purchasing a home, your information will be registered with the government. Go on the internet and you can find published numbers and addresses for anyone in the US, for 19.95 or so you can get unpublished numbers, cell phone numbers, and much more.
 
And now the rest of the story -

The government is using the database they've assembled, not to track terrorists (although perhaps that as well), but to track reporters. They are using phone records to try and locate who leaked the CIA stories about the easter europe prisons and a misguided bombing in Pakistan.

They are doubtless monitoring traffic to other inconvenient groups, such as Human Rights Watch, and sundry others.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/16/145201

Papers, please!

TM
 
TimothyMoulder said:
And now the rest of the story -

The government is using the database they've assembled, not to track terrorists (although perhaps that as well), but to track reporters. They are using phone records to try and locate who leaked the CIA stories about the easter europe prisons and a misguided bombing in Pakistan.

They are doubtless monitoring traffic to other inconvenient groups, such as Human Rights Watch, and sundry others.

Papers, please!

TM
And I suppose that the same tactics are fine if they are used against big business (Microsoft, not Mac), tax evaders (anyone making over 50K/year), or -oh the horror- dead beat dads.



Timothy,



This is nothing new, and certainly not limited to the Republican Party. Face it, the government had been tracking law abiding, and law breaking citizens for decades. Computers just make it a lot easier. They also make it a lot easier to spot the tracking.



The privacy we would all like to believe we have is a figment of our imaginations. Third rate credit card companies have more information about us all than we are allowed to access on our own. Your personal information is bought and sold by the lowest of scumbag organizations every single day. Do you really think the NSA/FBI/CIA/ATF have not had that information for years? Hell, those traffic/security cameras are a complete invasion of privacy. Biometrics and these cameras can trace most every urban step you make. Not to mention devices that can tell what radio station you listen to in your car. All of this information is up for sale. At least the govt has to maintain some sense of dignity about how it uses this information.



I hate the invasion of privacy as much as anyone. I kinda like being able to pee in my back yard when I want to. Just don't think for a minute that this is limited to conservatives. If anything, by definition, conservatives are more sensitive to this type of tracking than liberals. True conservatives stand up for the rights granted by the Constitution, all of it, not just certain parts of the First Amendment.



Data mining is exactly what happens when the powers-that-be start warping the Constitution to meet certain needs. You can call it liberal, progressive, or whatever the current politically correct phrase for socialism is. The results are the same. Just because you don't like the newest targets does not mean that it has not been going on for a long time.



If you want to see a true invasion of privacy, try to purchase a perfectly legal hand gun. What is food for the goose, my friend, is good for the gander.



 
PLC,

This may come as a suprise, but I agree with 90% of what you say.

I do consider myself a dyed in the wool, grind the rich into free meatloaf for the poor liberal, but I am astounded that the conservative base - the God, Guns and Guts crowd - are not screaming bloody murder over this? Where are the TRUE conservatives, who should be threatening to impeach Bush by now? Are they that scared of Osama?

Businesses collect this data when you give it up voluntarily by applying for things like credit, utility services and what-not. I never considered it an abuse, although it still irritated me. What I give away, I no longer have a right to.

My concern is that we are watching a frighteningly rapid transformation in a principle government agency, from NSA to KGB. Why the hell aren't the guys who back Regan having a fit?!

Come on, conservatives! Are you really going to let the liberals fight this battle FOR you?!

TM

PS - Make no mistake, whether you think the media is liberal or not, the death of democracy begins when the government takes control of the media, either by force or subtlety. When they tell you what you are allowed to hear, it's already over.
 
Last edited:
We've all, conservatives and liberals, been wobbling around this topic sense Gore, invented the internet. Law enforcement has been pushing a little harder every day. This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. It is an issue that we all better start to take seriously.



The underlying issue in the story you linked, is that someone is leaking sensitive information. That someone needs to be strung up. I suspect both liberals and conservatives are involved. It really does not matter which side of the fence they are on. Leaking information is bad.



Technology has surpassed the ability to have a private moment anywhere. If we allow the enforcement agencies to use this technology to track down any criminal, no matter how desperate the crime, then we must be prepared to have that technology used on us. All we have to be is suspect.



I am quite sure that a precedent has been followed, and approved by some part of all three branches of government to allow this infringement of our rights. I have been writing congressmen for years about these issues. Maybe we all should. Just understand that any use of these technologies is dangerous. Choosing targets is not advised. As you can plainly see now, it works both ways.



Without an armed citizenship, we have no way to prevent the loss of the rest of our rights.

Witout a free press, we have little way of knowing what rights are being lost/abused.

So, is the Privacy of Information Act, getting the job done?
 
As you said, this isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, but it is wholly a dangerous one.

Whistleblowers are nothing new. A whistleblower reported Watergate and Iran-Contra. Another reported Clinton-Lewinsky. Another blew the roof of big tobacco. Now others are reporting these latest abuses.

Here's the catch - nobody likes having their side caught with their pants down, but everybody agrees there are times when a person of conscience must act in the name of the public good.

We also must keep in mind that it doesn't HAVE to be a classified story - just something sensitive the feds would rather not have mentioned. By tapping reporters, they can get something far better than coercing the reporters - they can coerce the sources to keep their mouths shut.

This is incredibly dangerous! A government that can move in complete secrecy is as bad as a government with no accountability at all. You said it yourself - "Witout a free press, we have little way of knowing what rights are being lost/abused."
 
Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. To say that he did claim to "invent" the Internet is just another purposely-faulty interpretation of "intelligence" (That is, another purposely-faulty interpretation of the TRUTH!).

The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act.

The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits (and perhaps some PLC user/programmers) about inventing the Internet?"

This has been plagiarized from other sources. Just Google "Gore" and then "Search within Results" for "Internet".
 
Anyone that supports the current direction of the country, without reservation, has no comprehension, at all, of the history of this country!

I just can't believe it! Did NOTHING EXIST before the 70's????
 

Similar Topics

OK. You guys helped me out a bunch with my first Siemens question. I found a bunch of issues with integrity checking the PLC programs I was...
Replies
3
Views
112
I am currently backing a Micro Logix 1100 and no-one seems to have the file for me to upload from. Is there a way for me to upload the project off...
Replies
15
Views
367
I'm retrofitting equipment, but I didn't want to change the electrical characteristics of the panel. In this equipment I have a dedicated...
Replies
0
Views
61
I am trying to set up a read message in a MicroLogix1100 to read the value of a DINT in a ControlLogix5561. I have successfully set up a message...
Replies
2
Views
164
Error description: "A connection could not be established in the open process of the TCP connection." Action: •Check the operation of the...
Replies
3
Views
100
Back
Top Bottom