Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[tannji]

Wow. The Trade Towers fell in 2001, and we are nearing the end of 2004. In the 3 years of crumbling civil rights and erroding constitutional protection since that day, surely there are some everyday, Joe-on-the-corner type of horror stories to relate. I am kinda looking for first hand stuff, not 3rd party, grabbed it off of yahoo-stories dreck. Not erroneous warrants, not racial profiling, corrupt or biased country sheriffs, but honest to goodness We caught you looking at porn while we were looking for Osama type stories. There have been THOUSANDS of individuals investigated since then, millions of passports and visas scrutinized.... lets not get into the rest of the drab, everyday events that go on in our households on a regular basis that could be openings for constitutional rapine and pillage. Where is the the issue in our every day lives that is being missed by all of us (presumably) Right-wing conspiracy types? I spend some of my time looking at headlines and reading or watching the news, and I havent seen it. I am assuming that it would be "Fit for Print"?!! I am assuming that if the non-story of the two candidates Viet Nam records can get this much mileage, surely the pitiful state of our diminishing privileges is worthy of at least Page 3? The truth is; It warrants the same attention the major news outlets initially gave to the obvious forgery that CBS was selling as news. It took the major news outlets 11 days to get on that story, and only reluctantly at that. Dont expect higher standards on this issue. It sells better to "chicken little" it.... "The sky is falling" always plays better.

[pparaska]

We are not a nation of cowards. This situation simply does not warrant living in a police state. Once again an overstatement' date=' but to listen to you people I can see how we can get there.[/quote']

 

Count me as one of them. Hundreds of thousands of people come across the US borders illegally every year. Not all of them are Mexicans looking for a better way of life:

 

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10750146%255E1702,00.html

 

http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/2000ExecSumm.pdf

 

If you were a terrorist, would you not research the places it's easiest to slip in? Think it doesn't happen all the time? I do. All the more reason to move away from the "free for all" that we have towards more of a police state, if that's what you want to call what the Patriot Act does.

 

If this is war (I think it is), then the terrorist enemy is seeping through our borders to wage it against us.

[JMortensen]

I'd rather have those businesses pay those handicapped people to keep their business more in the black than to have to pay some sort of wage for that person out of my taxes - which is what happens if the handicapped person can't get a job.

 

Still OT but I was really referring to the ones inside the front door when you walk in. I think these people (usually old or handicapped) can still do jobs that ACTUALLY PROVIDE VALUE to the businesses. It just ticks me off that they sit there usually half blocking the aisle to tell you hello when you walk in. You don't think you're paying for them when you go to the store that hires them? I think the cost of their employment is paid for by my expensive drill bits. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

When that expertise is once again sorely needed, many times it can't be found, because the government was the only user of that expertise. I've seen this happen in the US Navy R&D / Design community.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean we need to have millions of govt employees on "standby". The govt can subcontract outside businesses too. I know, I worked on a contract that put fiber optic cable into a naval building. Of course about six months after we got the job done they shut the building and the project down.

 

Count me as one of them. Hundreds of thousands of people come across the US borders illegally every year. Not all of them are Mexicans looking for a better way of life:

 

This is a very valid point and certainly is a situation that needs to be addressed, but a very poor way to justify the Patriot Act. You want to stop illegal immigration, fine. Expand the border patrol, put the national guard on the border, whatever. Take care of the problem, don't try to make it better by surveilling everyone in the country.

[Kevin Shasteen]

.., Then somewhere in that process I am sure you take an oath or answer question affirming your commitment to uphold the constitution.., Trust us. Cut a few corners in time of war. I have nothing to hide, so why should I fear the government? It's alright if we squish a few little people as long as we apologize for it afterwards.., We are not a nation of cowards. This situation simply does not warrant living in a police state...

 

I have to agree w/Pop.

 

Many say they are for the Patriot Act out of respect to those Americans that are dieing every day in Iraq so that their deaths are not in vain. What about all those that died leading up to and during the American Revolutionary War...are their deaths going to be in vain simply because so many are willing to give up what they fought & died for through fear of a boogie man terrorist behind every corner?

 

I always find it rather comical (scaringly sad) that the people in public offices who do take oaths "To Uphold the laws of the Constitution" are always the ones who are so adamantly willing to violate that oath under the guise of "I was just following orders", hmm, where have we heard that cliche before?

 

In order to be an American everyone should be taught in school (unfortunately the fool system er-uh the school system isnt teaching much these days) to understand that America IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, IT IS A REPUBLIC! How many of you even reading this thread understand the distinction between a Democracy -vs- that of a Republic?

 

In a Republic each little chicken in the hen house has the right (authority) to tell the group of wolves outside, regardless of the wolves size or numbers, to GO TO HELL! That was the fundamental initial ideology that America was founded on. Govt IS NOT the boss, they are the Servant. Yet that relationship has been turned upside down and now everyone looks at govt as the Leader and the people as the Servant. America is broke and this "terrorism" through our fears will be the last nail in our spiritual coffin of freedom.

 

In a real republic, if you wish to allow anyone to violate your privacy THAT IS YOUR RIGHT! It is not your right to expect everyone else to do the same! You do not have the right to give up someone else's right to make their own decision.

 

The question at hand shouldnt be, "I have nothing to hide - so go ahead and violate my privacy" rather, in an honest Republic the issue at hand is, "Do you, enter public official XYZ's name here, even have the Authority to proport that I have something to hide?" If said XYZ official doesnt have sworn-written testimony backed by affidavits indicating 1st hand knowledge attached w/an order signed by A JUDGE, AND NOT A MAJISTRATE, that "I do have something to hide" then said XYZ official has no authority to make such claims...if he/she does not have said doc's in hand and still proceed against me- then they are acting outside of their sworn duties and responsibilities as well as their oath they took when they swore to uphold the laws of the constitution (bill of rights so attached).

 

I, as an American would not say I have nothing to hide, rather I as a legitimate American would say that, "I DONT HAVE SQUAT TO SAY TO ANYONE UNLESS I CHOOSE TO SAY SQUAT" to anyone w/out said doc's and to be able to say it w/o repercusions providing I lived in a real America that still values its freedom and liberties. That is what it means to live in a Republic.

 

This Hate and Prejudice founded in fear will be our nations undoing.

 

Unfortunately evil is real and it is here in our nation regardless of who is behind it: as a result we are on a slippery slope. So define evil(?). Is evil some tubine-towel head in the middle east...or is it a political rep who sells his soul to big corp lobbyist who doesnt give a whoot about the common man and will sell the common man out in order to make a profit (outsoursing of America), or the Banker that criminally produces paper money at interest (unjust weights) using fractional reserve banking making all its citizens gaurantors to pay back that interest...so how is evil defined?

 

Regarding the war in Iraq (and no - I dont have the answer), I just find it interesting that we, America, were manipulated into WWI w/the sinking of the Lucitania whose events leading up to that event are highly suspect. And the fact that the History Channel reports how Roosevelt, who did nothing, had prior knowledge of Japans fleet before the Pearl Harbour attack to which many of the Fleet Admirals adamantly objected to parking the USA fleet in a coke bottle harbour...to which the attack on Pearl Harbour was the initial reason for America getting involved in WWII. Now we have the 911 event where the Zogby poll indicates that 66% of the people in New York believe that the current administration had prior knowledge and allowed the event to take place...which resulted in "The War on Terror" and the Patriot Act 1,2 and how ever many more acts are needed to make us "SAFE".

 

I dont have any answers. I just hate the sneaky inkling I have that we are being politically manipulated. I do know that if/when a dirty bomb or something else further alters the American way of life - then I would still prefer the Republic over the Police State...I may not get to keep my Republic...but I will still resist the Brittish Invasion, er-uh Nazi Germany, er-uh the Police State as much as I can up until it is becomes a harsh reality.

 

Then, once it becomes a harsh reality all I can say is you better know if you can trust your neighbor! I am not a coward and I dont want some black booted thug telling me how I can or cant protect my family. NO ONE will tell me how I can or cant protect my family! I guess I have too much respect for the Republic (not Democracy) to agree w/a Police State.

 

As far as the money issue and the debt is concerned you may want to read http://.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul124.html

 

It is a speech by US House of Reps Ron Paul gave Sept.5,2003.

 

It appears we are danged if we do-or danged if we dont do anything. Because of our ignorance/apathy in the past we are on a slippery slope - enjoy the ride

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[johnc]

And the fact that the History Channel reports how Roosevelt, who did nothing, had prior knowledge of Japans fleet before the Pearl Harbour attack to which many of the Fleet Admirals adamantly objected to parking the USA fleet in a coke bottle harbour...to which the attack on Pearl Harbour was the initial reason for America getting involved in WWII.

 

That's not a fact.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/pearl_harbour_03.shtml

 

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/14/fdr/

 

And from: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=40#OPIUM

 

OPIUM FOR THE PEOPLE

Ron Helgemo

 

Betrayal at Pearl Harbor

A Television Documentary aired on the History Channel (USA), December 7th

 

On the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the History Channel, whose programs vary between solid history and opium for the people, ran a BBC-produced documentary claiming that Franklin Roosevelt knew all about the surprise attack and allowed it to happen to get the United States into the war. The program, as Arthur Balfour might have said, contained much that is trite and much that it true, but what was true was trite, and what was not trite was not true.

 

That "Betrayal at Pearl Harbor" should not be taken seriously is manifestly evident. Examples of why it shouldn't begin with its interview of Robert Ogg, which approaches dishonesty. The producers fail to inform the audience that Mr. Ogg is the infamous "Seaman Z" immortalized by John Toland, an early conspiracy theorist who wrote that Pearl Harbor was plotted by FDR.

 

"Seaman Z," whose story has had a nasty habit of changing over the years, claimed he heard "queer signals" which could have been the missing Japanese aircraft carriers. But he could only have been hearing the carriers if the carriers were broadcasting. The Japanese themselves claim their fleet (Kido Butai) never sent a single message. They say they dismantled the telegraph sending devices so a message could not be sent. After the war, the Strategic Bombing Survey found the Japanese military's own after-action report, which credits the success of the attack to the fact that secrecy was maintained. Among the reasons why secrecy was maintained, radio silence comes first. How could it be, for example, that Seaman Z in San Francisco picked up signals from the Japanese fleet but Hawaii, much closer and lying between California and the fleet, never heard it?

 

"Betrayal" also interviewed Eric Nave, a British cryptologist who worked on the Japanese JN 25 naval code. Nave, with the late James Rusbridger, wrote Betrayal at Pearl Harbor, a book claiming Churchill hid what he knew about the attack from Roosevelt. The producers might have mentioned that Nave left Singapore in February 1940, had no further involvement with JN-25, and could not have known of the Japanese change to the JN-25B code in December 1940 and the resulting lack of anyone's ability to read the code after that date. There are a couple of scenes with Pacific Fleet cryptologist Joe Rochefort, the hero of Midway, who is said to have read JN-25B intercepts. But they fail to mention Rochefort's claims that he was reading only five to twenty percent of any message in JN-25B prior to Midway and could not have been reading more before then.

 

The "Winds Code" which is supposed to have been an attack signal disguised in a Japanese weather report, surfaces again in the History Channel presentation. I have yet to hear an explanation of how the "Winds Code" told anybody anything about Pearl Harbor. Once again Ralph Briggs is dragged out as evidence the Americans intercepted this message. How Briggs, in Cheltenham, Maryland, heard the coded weather report and no one else did has never been explained; it was supposed to be, after all, a regular mid-day, Japanese time, CB radio broadcast. Nor does the History Channel explain either why the Japanese sent it, since the failure in communications that would have necessitated the "Winds Code" did not occur.

 

Tucked into the "Betrayal" piece is Mr. Joe Lieb's claim that Secretary of State Hull told him of the coming attack and named Pearl Harbor as the target. The trouble here is that Mr. Lieb and Mr. Hull were the only ones present at their alleged conversation, and Mr. Lieb did not see fit to tell anyone of this conversation until after Mr. Hull died. Thus there is no way independently to verify his claim.

An even more preposterous notion presented by the film is that General Marshall (he of course was also in on the plot) went horseback riding on a Sunday morning in order to be "unavailable" for questioners concerned about Japan's next move, thus assuring the success of the Japanese air raid. Really! "Betrayal at Pearl Harbor's" case against General Marshall hinges on this, and the fact that he sent an alert warning to Pearl Harbor without sufficient priority. Surely it is easier to consider the latter act one of bureaucratic incompetence rather than a purposeful plot to delay an attack warning? If Pearl was being set up, why send a warning at all? To cover himself? But the warning was kept secret for fifty years!

 

Geostrategy and codebreaking take up a great deal of the film, which uses them to document accusations of prior knowledge of the coming attack by American authorities. The producers begin by alleging that the United States knew the Japanese attack force was in the Kurile Islands. If it did, then the U. S. had to expect an attack either in Alaska, Hawaii, the west coast or Panama. Of these possible targets, the film says, the only one that made any sense was Hawaii.

 

But the documentary oversimplifies: having its fleet in the Kuriles did not reduce Japan's choices of where to attack. Admiral Yamamoto needed to bring the fleet together for an attack in the most secure place possible, regardless of direction. The "southern strategy," which eventually won out, required the Japanese Navy to neutralize the Philippines (then a U. S. territory), which crossed its sea lanes. This required Yamamoto to go after the U. S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. That the Japanese had trouble making up their minds (Japanese Army-Navy politics was at work here too) served them, in the sense that it helped disguise their eventual choice. The "northern strategy" (attacking Alaska) was also seen as a distinct possibility to Westerners. As late as 15 October 1941 Roosevelt wrote Churchill, "I think they [the Japanese] are headed north." (See Kimball's Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence).

 

Clearly the Japanese had a variety of strategic choices in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. The key to their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere was China, and that was their major concern throughout. Indeed, while the West may have focused primarily on the Japanese during the Pacific war, the Japanese continued to focus more on China. Even at the war's end the Japanese had 1.9 million men and nearly 10,000 aircraft there. It made little sense to Japan to defeat the U. S. if that meant giving up China.

 

"Betrayal at Pearl Harbor" is very wise after the fact. The imminence of war, it tells us, should have been clear to American planners. Japan's JN-25B code had been broken. The orders to sail the Japanese Fleet from the Kuriles to a rendezvous point in mid-Pacific were transmitted. The Dutch claimed to have intercepted them, so presumably the British and the Americans should have been able to do the same.

 

Certainly the imminence of war in the Pacific was obvious to any reasonably intelligent person at the time, but the Pacific did not get the attention it deserved. To understand why, we must put ourselves in the shoes of leaders at that time not laboratory analysts of the present. And at that time, the British were up to their eyeballs with Germans and the Americans were fighting an undeclared war with the German Navy in the North Atlantic. Hindsight, of course, is always 20-20. But whatever the British and Americans "should have been able to do," let me quote a direct source. Duane Whitlock, unlike Mr. Nave, was there, on Corregidor, working on the Japanese codes. "I can attest from first-hand experience that as of 1 December 1941 the recovery of JN-25B had not progressed to the point that it was productive of any appreciable intelligence," stated Whitlock "not even enough to be pieced together by traffic analysis....It simply was not within the realm of our combined cryptologic capability to produce a usable decrypt at that particular juncture."

 

In the early 1990s the U. S. Navy transferred all its cryptologic archives from Crane, Indiana to the National Archives in Washington. This includes 26,581 JN-25 intercepts from 1 September to 7 December. All of these are available for public review. Frederick Parker, who studied 2,413 of these intercepts, argues in the film that had they been read at the time, they would have provided clear evidence of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Rusbridger and Nave, in their book, claim they were read, but offer no evidence.

 

Well, here is the evidence: The 2,413 pre-Pearl Harbor intercepts had been decrypted by Navy cryptologists after the war while they were waiting to be mustered out of the service. While Parker makes a strong circumstantial case that the attack would have been discovered had these messages been read, cryptologists at that time would not have been looking just at the 2,413 intercepts; they would have been looking at all 26,581. Would they have been able to discern the relevant information from all that noise?

 

I could go on: the "bomb plot," the Popov questionnaire, Hull's "ultimatum" to Japan, etc., all old news, misleadingly presented. Readers may recall that Nave and Rusbridger tried to turn all this around a few years back (just in time to cash in on the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, actually) by claiming it wasn't Roosevelt after all, it was Winston Churchill who hid the knowledge of the attack in order to draw the United States into the war. As Professor Kimball wrote: "It seems to me that to brand WSC and/or FDR as conspirators requires that they be seen as evil geniuses. But for them to allow the U.S. Fleet to be clobbered means they were stupid. That doesn't compute."

 

Allow me to vent for a moment. The reason why this kind of garbage passes for history is that standards for evidence have virtually disappeared. Not all evidence is equal and there is an obligation to weigh evidence against some reasonable standard. The standard is not exactly rocket science; remnant evidence is better than tradition-creating evidence; corroborated testimony is better than uncorroborated testimony; forensic evidence is better than hearsay. Our inability to be skeptical, to think critically, to ask questions, to compare and contrast, leads to the perpetuation of one urban legend after another be it Churchill and Coventry, Churchill and the Lusitania, Churchill (or Roosevelt) and Pearl Harbor, etc., etc., etc. Hard thinking, critical analysis, and skepticism are the only ways to challenge this rubbish. I sometimes despair. Vent off.

 

Please, please, please do your own research.

[JMortensen]

The program, as Arthur Balfour might have said, contained much that is trite and much that it true, but what was true was trite, and what was not trite was not true.

 

I guarantee you lost Kevin right here...

[Kevin Shasteen]

JohnC,

 

good article - I always like both sides of the story and I have not seen that side yet...thanks for the heads up. What it does indicate is that there was a conspirator...be it FDR or Churchill or anyone else. I still dont like FDR do to his affiliations.

 

Does that make the writer of this article a nut simply because he believes that Churchill was the conspirator (oh no he used the c word)? No, it doesnt make him a conspiracy nut, rather it makes him a good investigator.

 

One thing I do like about one of the many FDR quotes, and that is, "Nothing in Politics happens by accident"...the word Nothing includes the modern day politics which voted for WTO, NAFTA, UN, Homeland Security, the Patriot Act(s), EEC, EU, and on and on and on the Global Theme goes.

 

I still hold to the belief that we are being manipulated. Especially after having read Pawns in the Game by William Guy Car, R.D., Commander R.C.N. (ret'd). This book was written in the 1954. In that book he explained, "WWIII is to be fomented by using the differences the agentur of the Illumnati stir up between the Political Zionists and the leaders of the Moslem world. The war is to be directed in such a manner that Islam (the Arab World including Mohammedanism) and Political Zionism (including the State of Israel) will destroy themselves while at the same time the remaiing nations, once more divided against each other on this issue, will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion physically, mentally, spiritually, and economically.

 

How could he make such a claim back in the 1950's unless he had access to prior knowledge...especially since the main and only threat at that time was supposedly Communism: ooh-those mean ole commies. Yeah, that our enemy-lets go get those mean ole commies. Now all of a sudden those mean ole commies are not our enemies, the middle eastern radical Islamist are our enemies(?). How did Commander Carr know this way back then? Does he have a crystal ball that no one else has? I dont think so.

 

What he had was an upbringing and indoctrination into the Bolshevik ideology which is specific in its goals. Fortunately for us Commander Carr rejected that teaching.

 

Interesting how he predicted how this "War on Terror" would begin way back in the 1950's...dont you think?

 

Just remember that America is a Republic...not a Democracy. Dont let your hate, prejudice, or fears get the best of you.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Mikelly]

So riddle me this? How far off topic can we go to make a point of the original post???

 

It's all a conspiracy And that is NOT an anal probe... It was a radar dish! ZAPPP!!! OWWWWW (in his best Cartman impression!)

 

Hahahaha

 

Mike

[wheelman]

Kevin,

Not to nit-pick but your definition of Republic is wrong. The technical definitions of Republic and Democracy are (in my own words):

 

Republic: The populace elects representatives that form a government that enacts laws and administers the enforcement of such.

 

Democracy: All entitled voters directly vote on enactment of all laws and take part in the enforcement of such.

 

These may not be 100% accurate but the basic distinction between a democracy and a republic is that in a democracy you have mob rule because each person has a direct vote on every item brought up for a vote.

 

As forms of government these definitions have little to no impact on the discussion in this thread as no matter it's form a government has the ability to turn into a tyranny. The tyranny of one, a few or the mob.

 

This is really the question at hand, is our government turning into a tyranny? I don't know! I don't think so. I look at the developments over the last several years in the light of world history and it concerns me, but as a country we have curtailed and restored our rights several times as a result of entering a state of war (declared or not). In fact if you look at the overall history of this country we have granted more rights to more groups than we have lost.

 

Do I totally trust our government? No. But we do have the ability to change it to prevent it from becoming a tyranny. We must remember that in light of the last few years. When we lose that ability we have truelly lost it all. Until then I believe the current administration is doing the right things and support it, in fact I thank God Bush was in office rather than AlGore. Like it or not, declared by congress or not we are at war and it wasn't one of our own making. If we don't do what it takes to win it then all the rights we've come to take for granted will disappear and we'll live under 7th century islamic law. Won't that be fun!!

 

Wheelman

[johnc]

So riddle me this? How far off topic can we go to make a point of the original post???

 

 

Batman says, "All the way to Buckingham Palace! Notice my funny bulge on my right leg."

[tannji]

I will make this point one more time.... as it seems that in spite of the excellent points many are making, they are overlooking a very salient detail.

What constitutional rights did we have prior to the Revolutionary war, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, or the Viet Nam conflict that we do not have today? As pointed out, there have been Serious, undeniable breaches of rights, or serious misleading of the public trust in every one of those conflicts. What was the lasting effect? Here is an example. In the case of Roosevelt and WWII... hugely significant, either way you look at it. The U.S. had some pretty strong isolationist leanings at the time, and public sentiment, considering that "Ze Germans" had apparently started yet another world war, was for the most part against any involvement in the conflict. If Hitler had won the war, we most likely wouldnt be having this conversation. Who knows what the status quo would be, but it would be significantly different than what we take for granted, and not in a good way. On the other hand, if we stayed out, and the Allies managed somehow to win, that would have left Russia in a position to dictate the terms to everyone after the war. That includes taking possession of not just Germany's Technology, but all of her scientists as well. Werner Von Braun ring a bell with anyone? He is only the father of our space program (sad thing that it is) and "Uncle" to much daughter tech, like ICBMs and other missile technology. He would have been greatly appreciated by the Soviets. (right up until they executed him) Roosevelt apparently decided that the United States had an interest in the outcome of that war, and that the only way to protect our interests from the depredations of a foreign Dictator (sound familiar??) was to to get in that war at any cost. (he, like Bush, had to have a political justification) While we lost the bulk of our ability to project force in Pearl Harbor, was it coincidental that our Carriers were away on excercises at that precise moment, without their task groups by which one would normally expect them to be accompanied? Those carriers were absolutely essential to our efforts against Japan in the Pacific, and they were protected, while other lives were sacrificed. Part of war I am afraid, deal with it. Do I believe that 9-11 was also a conscious decision to allow events to proceed out of a strategic strategy to position our national outrage where Dubya needed it?? Please. In this day and age, a lot can be kept out of the public eye, mostly because Joe Public doesnt usually give a damn. That kind of conspiracy would come out, out out. We have too many means for information to disseminate, and not enough for keeping it secret. Most of our other dirty laundry has gone public, usually fairly expeditiously.

 

I dont pretend to speak for anyone besides myself, nor to have all the answers, or even to be more informed than the average Joe. (tho it is hard not to be, these days. Different topic) I do feel that ugly deeds will be done by people you elected in times of war or crisis. You cant do a single solitary thing about it, other than cry. The goals or intentions of those in power should always be under scrutiny. You should however avoid the assumption that all things that need to be done, can be done in a way that reasonable men find palatable, unless of course, your adversary is a reasonable man also.

[tannji]

Please, please, please do your own research.

 

Actually, there has been significant research into the attack at Pearl Harbor, and not just into decryption technology and what messages were actually decrypted. I seem to remember discussion about the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet, and TRIANGULATION of radio intercepts, among other things, that were passed on up the chain of command, and subsequently hushed. Regardless of opinions of what they should have known at the time, it was no secret that Japan needed fuel resources, and our embargo at the time was one of the deciding issues in their attack on us, and we anticipated that, beyond any shadow of of a doubt. Our doctrine at the time was one guaranteed to force us into war with Japan, and caused noteable division within Roosevelt's inner circle. Also, the activity after the fact within the Pearl Harbor command to control the information, and control the mouths of those involved, also suggests that something was considered unworthy of public scrutiny.

I am about as leary as one should be about conspiracy theories... but I lean on this one, and always have. My Grandfather's brother was an officer who survived the attack, and while both of them are staunchly conservative, and "anti-conspiracists" in general, both are firmly of the opinion that Pearl Harbor was at the very least left as a tempting target, if nothing more.

[wheelman]

Tannji,

Seems to me that whether the fleet was in Pearl or out at sea is irrelevant. The fact that Japan attacked us was what brought us into the war not that the fleet was destroyed, or is it your contention that Japan wouldn't have attacked if the fleet was at sea?

 

Not to get to far off topic but these conspiracy theories crack me up. Stop and think a second about what you're saying and you'll realize the implications. Either our leaders are evil men with terrible designs on power or things happen that with hind-sight appear to be planned but really aren't. Patterns within Patterns (Dune Messiah, Children of Dune).

 

Cry Havok! And let slip the Dogs of War.

 

Wheelman

[Kevin Shasteen]

Kevin' date='

Not to nit-pick but your definition of Republic is wrong. The technical definitions of Republic and Democracy are [b'](in my own words):[/b]

 

Republic: The populace elects representatives that form a government that enacts laws and administers the enforcement of such.

 

Democracy: All entitled voters directly vote on enactment of all laws and take part in the enforcement of such.

 

These may not be 100% accurate but the basic distinction between a democracy and a republic is that in a democracy you have mob rule because each person has a direct vote on every item brought up for a vote.

 

This is really the question at hand, is our government turning into a tyranny? I don't know! I don't think so. I look at the developments over the last several years in the light of world history and it concerns me, but as a country we have curtailed and restored our rights several times as a result of entering a state of war (declared or not). In fact if you look at the overall history of this country we have granted more rights to more groups than we have lost.

 

Do I totally trust our government? No. But we do have the ability to change it to prevent it from becoming a tyranny. We must remember that in light of the last few years.

When we lose that ability we have truelly lost it all

.

 

Wheelman

 

Wheelman,

 

Feel free to pick away for that is the only way we can have real intelligent conversations regardless of my opinion or your opinion we should all be able to put forth our opinion freely.

 

I hate to bust your bubble but the govt doesnt go by your defintion. "Your words" as you put it dont address Sovereignty. In the quest for understanding Sovereignty you have to understand the Public Sector subject to the explicit regulations, duties, responsibilities, and then there is the Private Sector not subject to the govt or anyone else unless under contract: unless you harm or injure another (social contract).

 

This distinction was honored in the first 100 or 150 years of America's existance and still exits to this day but isnt being hononred in our current generation. The principle in law is still there, it is not a conspiracy, it is simply misunderstood because we are being dumbed down at every avenue of education. Upon the end of the civil war no slaves were freed, instead all people were presumed to be the newly claimed 14th Amendment US citizen: AKA...read the constitution and understand it.

 

When you are asked if you are a US Citizen...what does that mean to you, better yet what does that mean legally? Pick up any USC (United States Code which is a fractional set of code books taken from the complete set of books CFR or, Code of Federal Regulations) where US is defined..if you wish to use your own words (huge mistake) then ignore what the real definition is. The USC and the CFR books dont apply to Sovereigns, they only apply to depts, and territories subject to the Federal Zone.

 

The money issue - loss of hard currency whereby paper-debt instruments were implemented in its place is the root of our problems. If you dont do your own research into these issues then there is no reason to continue the dialogue much less complain about it - either it is important to you or it isnt. Perhaps again we should read the constitution and understand its vernacular...not our words but their words w/their defintions.

 

Everyone wants to complain about the problem or they admit a problem exists but no one wants to know why the problem exists. You are not a US citizen by legal defintions: you are not Federal as you were not born in the Federal Zone. But if you sign a document that agrees you are a US citizen (federal)...well, then you just gave evidence that you are a US citizen and federal: by doing so you are subject to all the many 1000's of rules & reg's that are suppose to be checks-n-balances w/in the federal zone. Their rules are for them, it is Internal, not external to be applied to the Sovereign inhabitants of the states in the union. Yet if you read and understood the 14th Amendment you would see that the Federal Zone has the authority to tax their subjects that might be residing in one of the many sovereign territories. The fed's authorization to tax is their right to make decisions on their subjects. The constitution lays two rules down for taxing its citizen, State or Federal; they are Direct & Indirect. Can you or anyone else explain to me what the difference is between Direct & Indirect Taxation? If not then how can you have an opinion on the money issue?

 

If you were born in one of the many states in the union then you are a State Citizen. If that is so why then was LBJ quoted as saying, "There are no more State Citizens?" LBJ saying this implies that at one time there were State Citizens. So what is the difference between a State Citizen -vs- a US Citizen? I'm sure it is nothing - here are my pepers please dont hurt me Mr. Homeland Security. LBJ said there are no more State Citizens simply because eveything has been Federalized. It is not a conspiracy it is factual, it is publicly there for anyone to see, if they wanted to. I hate to admit it but the Sovereignty of America was lost when we lost our ability to remain a State Citizen: this is the slippery slope that has led us to where we are today.

 

Everyone wants to claim this constitutional right and that constitutional right yet no one wants to understand said constitution much less read it. The money issue and the 14th Amendment person are tied together. If you are a real sovereign, which none of us are due to the contracts we have signed implicating ourselves as a US Citizen, then you are not answerable to govt, rather they are answerable to you. But none of us are Sovereign anymore due to our ignorance in agreeing to be a US Citizen at all aspects.

 

This is the slippery slope. The world of politics doesnt occur in a bubble by accident. America, as great as it once was, has fallen to the very ilk we attempted to break from the Brits...a global empire; it is the same ole story w/the War on Terror. Create some enemy and impliment some system that erodes the rights a little at a time. Each war against the created enemy leads to a little more eroded rights...one by one.

 

Now after saying all that, if I had to be some National Citizen - as opposed to being a Texas Citizen - which is where I was born, I would rather be a US citizen over any other country in this world. I hace accepted the fact that we are no longer State Citizens - and I dont want to become some Global UN citizen...this alone is why I too am grateful that Bush is in the office as he, for now atleast, has thwarted the UN: which I dont beleive Kerry would have.

 

I know IMHO that the Globalist, David Rockefeller & his puppets, dont like the Bush admin simply because David Rockefeller & his puppets were the first to begin hammering Bush. This tells me there is infighting between the globalists and their insiders. If I had to pick a dictator such as a globalist or a national money tycoon, such as the Bush family I would much rather have a national money tycoon than a total bought and paid for Globalist such as Kerry.

 

I still have my doubts as to where we will end up, after all it was the Bush admin that created the Patriot Act which is an end run around the Bill of Rights - whether or not they will use that as an end run around the Bill of Rights is yet to be seen. But it is not a good sign when some legislation exists that actually can be used to usurp said Bill of Rights.

 

Regarding your comment about changing the govt. According to the Patriot Act if you dont agree w/the govt then you are labeled a terrorist. So much for changing the govt! Does that mean we have lost it all...to use your words.

 

As far as govt granting rights...this is the whole problem. No one understands that govt cant grant rights. If you are sovereign then you are born by rights granted to you by your creator. If govt has to grant you anything it implies you are a subject. The only thing govt can give you is benefits..not rights!

 

I constantly told myself I was not going to get involved in this thread and here I am smack in the middle of it...agian.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[tannji]

Tannji' date='

Seems to me that whether the fleet was in Pearl or out at sea is irrelevant. The fact that Japan attacked us was what brought us into the war not that the fleet was destroyed, or is it your contention that Japan wouldn't have attacked if the fleet was at sea?

 

Not to get to far off topic but these conspiracy theories crack me up. Stop and think a second about what you're saying and you'll realize the implications. Either our leaders are evil men with terrible designs on power or things happen that with hind-sight appear to be planned but really aren't. Patterns within Patterns (Dune Messiah, Children of Dune).

 

Cry Havok! And let slip the Dogs of War.

 

Wheelman[/quote']

 

OK, here goes. Japan attacked both because we were threatening their conquest of the Pacific ocean islands and territories, and because we had enacted an oil and trade embargo. Japan was an "Empire", and was in expansionist mode. We were the only country who really stood in Japans way, at that point in time, and make no mistake, we knowingly, "with malice and forethought" stood in Japan's path. That it was in our interest to do so is a minor fact here.

Next, as to the where and when of Japan attacking us, it was anything but "irrelevant". Japan hoped to catch us with the bulk of the Pacific Fleet (our means of projecting power and doctrine in the Pacific) in a defenseless posture. They held off declaring war officially (by ambassador) until the attack started, to insure that the attack caught as many ships as possible in the harbor. It was essential to them to catch the carriers as well, as the carriers (as history attests) were the key to controlling the Pacific. Yes, the attack brought us into the war regardless, but Japans chief target was those carriers. Coincidently, the carriers happened to be out at sea on some unconventional maneuvers.

Last.... I think people would find that much of history would crack them up... if they were more familiar with it. (not really a crack on anyone here, it is a human condition, we tend to forget history almost as fast as it happens around us.)

[tannji]

This thread is turning me into a bona-fide post whore.....

 

The program, as Arthur Balfour might have said, contained much that is trite and much that it true, but what was true was trite, and what was not trite was not true.

 

The original quote has always been one of my favorites, and I refrain from using it only because it has been used so much.

[johnc]

I seem to remember discussion about the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet, and TRIANGULATION of radio intercepts, among other things, that were passed on up the chain of command, and subsequently hushed.

 

Not true. The Japanese fleet maintained radio silence the entire way across the Pacific.

 

The Japanese themselves claim their fleet (Kido Butai) never sent a single message. They say they dismantled the telegraph sending devices so a message could not be sent. After the war, the Strategic Bombing Survey found the Japanese military's own after-action report, which credits the success of the attack to the fact that secrecy was maintained. Among the reasons why secrecy was maintained, radio silence comes first.

[JMortensen]

Regardless of the Pearl Harbor attack it's pretty hard to deny that we were moving towards war with Japan before Dec 7. As tannji points out we had an embargo on oil trade with them. Oil that they NEEDED for their war machine.

 

Similarly it is widely accepted that the Versailles Treaty was harsh enough that it virtually guaranteed WWII. No one seems to dispute that one, I don't understand why we're all getting our panties in a bunch over the reasons for war with Japan. It's not like we were just minding our own business and they suddenly attacked us.

[wheelman]

Jon,

We're not getting our panties in a wad as you say, I responded to Tannji's contention that there was a conspiracy involving FDR to get us into the war by letting Japan attack us at Pearl with our fleet in harbor. What I'm saying is, "That makes no sense!" unless you're precient and could see that the only way to get the Navy to let go of their vaunted Battleships was to let them be destroyed.

We were forcing them into a position where war was inevitable and the Versailles treaty did virtually guarantee WWII but that doesn't mean that FDR knew the Japanese were going to hit us at Pearl and therefore left the fleet in harbor to force us into a war with Japan, that's just illogical reasoning to justify a conspiracy theory.

 

Patterns with Patterns!!

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled news broadcast.

 

Kevin,

Wow man way to read between the lines.

When I said we take our rights for granted I meant that we don't appreciate them, not that the government grants them to us. I believe as you do on that one, God grants us our rights not the government.

As for soverienty, sounds to me like you believe that you answer to no higher authority except your creator. Nice idea that has no practical application in reality except anarchy and/or pressumption that all men are men of integrity which is totally unrealistic!

The statement about the 7th century islamic law also referred to the fact that our government protects our rights and if overturned the government that might replace it wouldn't necessarily, and we could end up under a system of law and enforcement there of based on the 7th century interpretation of the Koran. Not exactly what I want.

 

Cry Havok! And let slip the Dogs of War!

 

Wheelman

[Pop N Wood]

I thank God Bush was in office rather than AlGore.

 

Two cheers on that one!

 

 

This is really the question at hand' date=' is our government turning into a tyranny? I don't know! I don't think so. [/quote']

 

I honestly don't think so either. But it is through dialogs such as this that we ensure it doesn't.

 

Do I totally trust our government? No. But we do have the ability to change it to prevent it from becoming a tyranny.

 

Funny thing, I do. But I also strongly believe in limiting their effectivness to keep them that way.