TexasCHLforum.com

Iflyabeech,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I fully realize I may be wrong on some of the information, and I don't feel this is the place to argue this.

So, let's chalk it up to free citizens who have different points of view and I am dropping it here.

iflyabeech wrote:

srothstein wrote:
Yes, they are looking for you and your guns. After all, there is no defintion of what is a terrorist and there have been some pretty weak claims made for it so far.

no, they aren't looking for us.

Then why can you not carry your weapon on a plane? And why must you jump through special hoops to even carry it in checked baggage where it cannot be accessed and cannot possibly harm anyone? And why can you not even agree to go through a search and be checked and then walk with your guest down to the actual gate to wait with them until takeoff?

Answer: They are looking to control you and prepare you for more actions. It clearly is not anti-terrorism or anyone could go through the safety search and go down to the gate.

Or to put it another way: they are not looking for you and your guns YET.

So far, the problem I have seen reported in not stopping the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks was that the various intelligence and investigative agencies did not talk to each other or even listen when their own employees raised suspicions. We could have had the information on them and stopped them IF we had wanted to, all while obeying the laws. Or, to give you another thought to think about, consider how quickly after the attacks we had identified which passengers it was that were the criminals, including releasing that information to the public. And we did it without having any evidence available from the scenes, which means we had to have known about it in advance or at least had the suspects identified in advance.

Just as with the 1993 bombings, I firmly believe that the government knew about it and decided we wanted a better case than just a conspiracy charge, and it backfired on them. This is not a criticism since it is a tactical and strategic question to be answered at the time and I wasn't there. I am just observing that the criminal justice system and intelligence system in place was working and could have stopped it IF they had made different decisions. And conspiracy charges would have worked to stop many of the cases that were posted as hypothetical what do we do cases.

As for the part about criminals or soldiers, they can be both. They do not meet the legal definition of soldiers under the Geneva and Hague conventions. This might make them the so called "unlawful enemy combatants" that the President likes to call them, but another word for unlawful is criminal. They are violating our criminal laws, and they are violating the agreed upon laws of war. In either case, they ARE criminals.

iflyabeech wrote:Boy....so how exactly do you fellas propose that we fight terrorism? Just let them drive into our airports with car bombs? Or let them plan terrorist acts on the phone with no way to listen in? come on now. . . This is not time for the hypothetical "big brother is watching!" They are not looking for you or me or our guns. . .

Yes, they are looking for you and your guns. After all, there is no defintion of what is a terrorist and there have been some pretty weak claims made for it so far.

How do we fight terrorism? I suggest we do it the same way we have been fighting crime for 100 years, by good police work and intelligence. Terrorists are criminals and we can use the same old standard tools for fighting it without violating people's rights. We do not need the "new" powers of the patriot act, nor do we need to give up the right against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant.

TSA has some good people in it, as do the FBI, the ATF, and the DEA. But they also have some people who are not in favor of our freedoms and will do what they can to violate them.

There is a rule, by TSA, that when they decide to up the security threat level, they can stop and search all cars in a certain area in the airport. Is this a proper law that meets the Constitutional requirements? I do not think so, as it has not been proven to be the best way to do its intended function. Does it help calm the masses and make them think the government is fighting terrorism? Yes, because they really do not understand how the real world works.

There is an old saying in law enforcement that you cannot stop a dedicated criminal who is not afraid to die for his mission. Most of the Mideastern/Muslim terrorists meet this definition. I would rather have the populace educated and understanding the real world than feel good measures to keep them calm.