Ashcroft tries to bury news about terrorists with WMD's in US

[repairman]

Acording to this artical (reg. required) (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/opinion/22KRUG.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman) in April of 2003 a Terrorist in Texas was found to have "remote-controlled explosive devices disguised as briefcases, 60 pipe bombs and a chemical weapon — a cyanide bomb — big enough to kill everyone in a 30,000-square-foot building".

Yet there was nothing in the news about this. Why not? Could it be the fact that this terrorist was not a muslem?

[Bottle or the Gun]

I know Repairman Jack could fix this! Pull out the army and send him in!

[Tmy]

Did the FBI discover this?? If so the WMD's it probably turned out to be a broken microwave, a box of Lincoln Logs, and a 2 liter of Jolt cola.

[repairman]

The WMD was a Cyanide cylinder straped with explosives

[repairman]

Oh and the reason that this was uncovered was that when the terrorist sent UN and Defense Intelligence Agency credentials to an associate in New Jersey, it was delivered to the wrong address. Luckily, the recipient opened the package and contacted the F.B.I.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Non-registration link: CS Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1229/p02s01-usju.html)

Also, just so you won't ever have to be left out of the loop again: Terrorist Warning (http://www.terroristwarning.com/)

[Tony]

Originally posted by repairman

Yet there was nothing in the news about this. Why not? Could it be the fact that this terrorist was not a muslem?


Yes there was, I heard about this when it first happened.

[repairman]

Your are corect what I meant is that John Ashcroft did not issue any press releases and that this story did not make the national news.

Strangely, though, the attorney general didn't call a press conference to announce the discovery of the weapons cache, or the arrest of William Krar, its owner. He didn't even issue a press release. This was, to say the least, out of character. Jose Padilla, the accused "dirty bomber," didn't have any bomb-making material or even a plausible way to acquire such material, yet Mr. Ashcroft put him on front pages around the world. Mr. Krar was caught with an actual chemical bomb, yet Mr. Ashcroft acted as if nothing had happened

[Tony]

Originally posted by repairman
Your are corect what I meant is that John Ashcroft did not issue any press releases and that this story did not make the national news.

True. Not too different from the Clinton administration really. They preferred to go after militias (a constitutionally protected entity) more than they preferred to go after Islamic terrorists.

[Bottle or the Gun]

I'm not going to get into constitutionality issues, but a 'well armed militia' doesn't mean a bunch of drunk, psycho Michigan rednecks. I've understood it as meaning thar our militia, in a document designed to evolve, is our current military.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
I've understood it as meaning thar our militia, in a document designed to evolve, is our current military.

Do you have a source for that? The military, by defintion, is not a militia.

I'm not going to get into constitutionality issues, but a 'well armed militia' doesn't mean a bunch of drunk, psycho Michigan rednecks.

Says who?

[Cain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_guard

Under Article I

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

[Bottle or the Gun]

The source? Read the document. See, as our country evolved, so did the definitions. The idea of little townlets that had 12 farmers with pitchforks doesn't work when you apply it to a huge metropolitan city. The notion that deer-hunters with a grudge against the IRS are a ligitimate militia and important to our country's defense is ridiculous. On the other hand, I'll be happy to pry a gun from your cold, dead hand to support our right to bear arms.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
The notion that deer-hunters with a grudge against the IRS are a ligitimate militia and iportant to our country is ridiculous.

Why? The 2nd amendment wasn't set-up to just repel a foreign invasion, but to also act as a defense against tyranny (like the IRS).

These militias are no different than the anti-war protestors (or any protestors) or the people who engaged in civil disobedience.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Tyranny is not the IRS, not Abe Lincoln either. It's guys like Prince Charles deciding he wants the colonies back, or as the idea has evolved, then guys like Bush deciding he's El Presidente for Life and has an army to back him up.

[LTC8K6]

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so I would be wary of using it as a source.

You can edit it yourself if you don't like what it says.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Tony


These militias are no different than the anti-war protestors (or any protestors) or the people who engaged in civil disobedience.

Are the Crips and Bloods any different too? Street gangs can make the same claims as militias. After all they are always being hassled by the man.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Tony

These militias are no different than the anti-war protestors (or any protestors) or the people who engaged in civil disobedience.

Civil Disobediance with guns in their hands? What the...?

The only people who had guns at Kent State were the National Guard. I don't think the protesters were armed, unless they were going to inflict BO on someone.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_guard

Under Article I

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


That might be relevant if we were discussing the powers reserved to the Congress.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Tyranny is not the IRS

Yes it is. I'd say an unelected beaurocracy with the power to seize your house and your assets without a trial is tyranny. I'd say that an organization having the power to throw you in jail because you refused to let them steal your money is tyranny. (Can you believe the audacity these uppity little citizens have to fight for their rights, how dare they).

then guys like Bush deciding he's El Presidente for Life and has an army to back him up.

I agree.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

Are the Crips and Bloods any different too?

Very different. When militias start dealing crack, and doing drive by shootings because someone looked at them wrong, you'll have a point.

[Phrost]

Apparently the founding fathers supported the idea:

"A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. A Republic is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." - Benjamin Franklin

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Cain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_guard

Under Article I

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Sure sounds like the decsription for our armed forces. Don't see a drunk redneck clause anywhere in there. Take the rebel flag off your truck, clean up the beer cans from off your tv and take a bath!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by repairman
Yet there was nothing in the news about this. Why not? Could it be the fact that this terrorist was not a muslem?

Simple. The government is under no requirement to release this information either to the press or to the public.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun

Sure sounds like the decsription for our armed forces.

Except for the fact that our armed forces ARE NOT a militia.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
I've understood it as meaning thar our militia, in a document designed to evolve, is our current military.

You've understood wrong. There have been two pertinent court rulings. The first (see {1} below...) discounts the justification clause completely, while the other (see {2} below...)says that the militia comprises all males physically able to fight.



{1} "We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331


{2} "The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller

[AtheistArchon]

Except for the fact that our armed forces ARE NOT a militia.

- Try to understand what people are telling you: the definition of the word has changed over time.

- It's useless to keep parroting "it's not a militia, it's not a militia", that's not the point. Try explaining why you think the founders would have set aside special protections for drunk Michigan rednecks wielding pitchforks and NOT for the US Armed Forces, which actually do provide defense.

[DavidJames]

For a wonderful debate over Emerson and Miller and maybe save everyone some time check out this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33258&perpage=40&highlight=emerson%20court%20appeals&pagenumber=1) thread

After the beating, I'm impressed with Kodiak's "walnuts" to trot this out again :)

[repairman]

from KODIAK
Simple. The government is under no requirement to release this information either to the press or to the public.

I realize that the government in not obligated to release information to the the press and public however I do find it interesting the contrast between the response of Ashcroft to the Padilla case and this case.

[Tony]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon


- Try to understand what people are telling you: the definition of the word has changed over time.



I understand perfectly, but them merely telling me doesn't make it true. I'll have to see evidence that the definition of militia has changed.