Legal Stuff

[Sailormantx]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

+1

Not specific to the USA, but would take a brave (and politically suicidal!) Politician to say that the odd bout of dead people and blown up stuff is the price of being free........and that overall for a society it really does not matter........so suck it up.

Spot on!! No politician would be caught doing "nothing" every time a criminal event happens. Always after the fact, of course.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

+1

Not specific to the USA, but would take a brave (and politically suicidal!) Politician to say that the odd bout of dead people and blown up stuff is the price of being free........and that overall for a society it really does not matter........so suck it up.

If my hazed high school history serves me correctly that policy of appeasement was used about 75 years ago. The philosophy of "it really does not matter" is what allowed a paper hanger to consolidate power and annex several European countries and develop a war machine that took a now disliked country to save the day. On both sides of the pond, the decision was made to do nothing, A fair number of the citizens of a several countries paid dearly for that judgement error. Repeating that error is just not prudent.

The reality is that personal freedom is never complete. In the 21st century there is always someone watching. Want true freedom? Find an island an designate yourself king, then when someone comes to your island they will object to you repressive rules....

Oh wait, we do that now as the master of a vessel.

Okay, politics over I'll go back to the fun zone of the forum.

[hellosailor]

"would take a brave (and politically suicidal!) Politician to say that the odd bout of dead people and blown up stuff is the price of being free"

David, actually that was last our late Mr. B. Franklin, of Philadelphia PA. Several of his contemporaries expressed similar thoughts, but his was the most direct, i.e. that anyone who would trade a little freedom for their security, would soon have none of either.

Of course our Congress seems blissfully ignorant that they were one material cause of the 9/11 disaster. In the 1980's, they were lobbied by the US airline industry to shut down the domestic air marshal program "because it costs too much". I think that last I heard the direct dollar cost of 9/11 was over $50 billion. I wonder how that math looks now?

Or, as another gentlemen commented, the people will get the government they deserve. One could say that current events and policies have proven "the great american experiment" has failed. Or, as the economists say, perhaps it is simply undergoing a correction.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Of course our Congress seems blissfully ignorant that they were one material cause of the 9/11 disaster. In the 1980's, they were lobbied by the US airline industry to shut down the domestic air marshal program "because it costs too much". I think that last I heard the direct dollar cost of 9/11 was over $50 billion. I wonder how that math looks now?

IIRC "It cost too much" was the reason why cockpit doors were not made hijack proof until post 911 (and even then took a while). TBH that alone would put off most folks seeking to do a 911, at least if coupled with the standing instructions that it does not matter how many passengers they are executing the pilot does not open the door......as the instructions currently are (I simplify!).

Don't remove the threat of folks blowing selves and planes up, but hey ho - that the cost of being free . Actually dead people ("ours" and "theirs") is also the cost of gas being a few cents cheaper - always has been, just not always on the news.

IIRC most folks (apart from some Americans?!) did not avoid London whilst the Paddies were blowing stuff up for a couple of decades.....and whilst personally I did favour carpet bombing Dublin (and Boston!) coupled with shovelling the whole of NI into the sea, wiser heads than mine prevailed . Me is not fundamentally on the appeasement end of the spectrum, more on the Carthage model for dispute resolution - rather than the modern (civilised?!) approach of endless fannying around. Do the job once and do it properly = problem solved, and into the pages of history.

Upon reflection, perhaps advocating genocide might not fit in terribly well with the "Play nice" rule .

[sailorboy1]

Dave it is time to put you aluminum foil hat back on. I think you have been receiving messages again.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Don L

Dave it is time to put you aluminum foil hat back on. I think you have been receiving messages again.

Naah... he's okay... just like me finds the hypocrisy from the WH regarding the arming of terrorists and the War against Terror a bit nauseating... and we were supposed to be Allies...
but hell... why change the habits of over a century..

[hellosailor]

David-
"at least if coupled with the standing instructions that it does not matter how many passengers they are executing the pilot does not open the door......as the instructions currently are (I simplify!). "
Actually, those instructions were GLOBAL policy, aside from the US, even before 9/11. OBL himself said after the event that it could have only been successful in the US, because everywhere else in the world, there were armed sky marshals and locked cockpit doors. And several (3?) hijackings were in fact stopped by armed sky marshals on international flights earlier in 2001 alone.
With or without armoring the cockpit doors, simply locking them buys enough time to land a plane. And when you consider that occupying one seat with one sky marshall (1 in 150, or 1 in 300) would bump up everyone else's fare price by less than one percent? I don't buy the "it costs too much" line. Bump it up to two percent, and shine my damned shoes while I'm having them inspected, and I might even be a happier passenger.
I fully expect that when Al-Q finally wins the war, they'll follow traditional mideastern rules of hospitality, and wash my feet while darning my socks while shining my shoes during the inspection and welcoming on board process. Don't you?

Internal politics in the UK...What can you say, karma is a [CENSORED], and the blessings of "Empire" have come home to roost on Merry Olde England, haven't they?

They promised us flying cars, videocalling, and cheap electricity. This is definitely NOT the same 21st Century I has been told to plan for.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by ElGatoGordo

Oh brother. In your Marina? At night? Can you prove this? Sounds like mindless hyperbole to me.

<seriously rolling eyes>

I've never heard of that. I have heard many times of boats being boarded on the water, but not in a marina (without a warrant, that is).

Terrorism is not the only thing our government is watching out for. Cigarette boats were notoriously bought up in the 80's (I think) to bring drugs in from boats outside the US border to the coast, often in Florida. Since then many other kinds of boat have been used.

I know someone who moved a boat. Someone on the crew discovered a false bottom in a storage compartment. They searched the boat and found thousands and thousands of dollars hidden on the boat they were moving. it was a coastal move, and they were within US waters the great majority of the time.

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by Khagan1227

First a few facts:
1. The last 5 terrorist acts with a large loss of life involving bombs or weapons of mass destruction made against the U.S., have been by pressure cooker, commercial airliner(s) (9/11),truck (OK City), truck (WTC), bomb on airliner (Pan AM 103). None involved a boat, with the exception of the first, and only because one of the bombers hid out in a boat.

you cant count the OKC as a true terrorist bombing.
It was revenge for the terrorist attack the the US government made in waco. i mean they slaughtered those people, even killing the children.
i would define a terrorist attack as one that is unprovoked, such as 9/11.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sorry , its not a slippery slope argument , I would argue that events in the US have generated a reaction that is out of proportion to the effects , and such reaction has justified the introduction of increasing draconian laws. In my experience from living in the US in the 80s , it is now , paradoxically safer then ever before , yet more fearful then ever before. That's a sad situation and suggests that "danger" rhetoric is being used to sweep away freedoms that were once taken for granted.

If one studies history , there are many examples where nations used " foreigner fear" to begin a slow , somewhat hidden slide towards despotism , the UK nearly succumbed to it in the interwar years.

I am not being pejorative in my use of the term despotism , I don't mean the obvious extreme cases , but a trend towards increasing central rule, a targeting of particular minorities , reduced civil freedoms , increasing security presence , overt policing measures etc.

a bit of anarchy , every now and then is healthy for society , ask the French , a civil society that doesn't allow itself to be wrapped in jingoism and uncritical patriotism is also healthy.

But the greatest example of a free, open society , is that it excepts a degree of pain , suffering and death , by those that seek to exploit such openness , yet remains open and free and treads very very carefully in introducing yet another " security" measure

I don't address these points specifically to the US , as it shares such trends , as much as it sets such trends with other countries.

Dave

What you say is true in the US, but not because of a 'slippery slope.' It's because of catastrophic events here (Oklahoma City, 9/11, etc.). Apparently a number of further such events have been stopped in their tracks because of their increased diligence.

We traveled to Great Britain in late 1999 and were there for the "Millenium." It was a little frustrating because every time we turned around, it seemed, the Queen announced a "bank holiday." The tubes ran a skeleton of routes. The cost of taxis and rented cars doubled (we never did get to Stonehenge, which was frustrating since my family name is Setley and there are several sites with that name near there -- Setley Forest, Setley Ridge, viillage of Setley -- would have been fun to see). Harrod's post-Christmas sale wasn't held on its appointed day because it was a last-minute "bank holiday." Found out afterwards that it was done because of terrorist threats considered credible by the government.

The problem with airports isn't that we need increased security. Israel has proven that increased security at airports works well. The problem is that it's a job that doesn't appeal to our best and brightest, so we have people who may not have great decision-making skills for a variety of reasons deciding who to pat down.

We *have* hadterrorist attacks involving small boats and ships. That's why we have increased rules. That said, I watched a sailboat sail along the side of a cruise liner "for the fun of it" not long ago. I knew the people on the sailboat but didn't know it was illegal for another boat to get that close to an ocean liner. Presumably the captain determined that these people were just having a lark and weren't aware of the law. I wasn't at the time.

People don't always realize the full implications of the word "democracy," and even more, "republic." By definition, you won't agree with all of the decisions.

And, since humans are imperfect, rules and regulations will not always be interpreted perfectly.

While it seems silly to search a stroller, police agencies have, more than once, found weapons hidden under a baby's mattress.

[hellosailor]

"i would define a terrorist attack as one that is unprovoked, such as 9/11."
Funny how the terrorists who commit these acts say they have in fact been provoked beyond all reason or alternative. The excuse for 9/11 is that the Great Western Satan refuses to stop meddling with the rest of the world, that's provocation.

And the attack on the USS Cole should convince skeptics that any small craft makes an excellent weapons delivery system. Of course, anyone who read or watched "Three Days of the Condor" would be aware that there are plenty of opportunities to weaponize just about anything. Heck, bareass naked you could still be spreading diseases to thousands before anyone caught on to it. On that basis we could justify mandatory quarantines and blood tests for all pedestrians (especially the unarmed ones) walking down the street.

[scoobert]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"i would define a terrorist attack as one that is unprovoked, such as 9/11."
Funny how the terrorists who commit these acts say they have in fact been provoked beyond all reason or alternative. The excuse for 9/11 is that the Great Western Satan refuses to stop meddling with the rest of the world, that's provocation.

And the attack on the USS Cole should convince skeptics that any small craft makes an excellent weapons delivery system. Of course, anyone who read or watched "Three Days of the Condor" would be aware that there are plenty of opportunities to weaponize just about anything. Heck, bareass naked you could still be spreading diseases to thousands before anyone caught on to it. On that basis we could justify mandatory quarantines and blood tests for all pedestrians (especially the unarmed ones) walking down the street.

Typhoid Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and foreign terrorists have no reasonable provocation

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by scoobert

Typhoid Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and foreign terrorists have no reasonable provocation

I suspect this thread is coming towards a close - so in for a penny etc ......

If "you" considered their provocation reasonable "we" would not be calling them Terrorists.

But whether you (or me) agree with them or not will usually find their actions are based on something that has a basic point, no matter how f#cked up their thinking and motivation may be.

With the Muslims it is fair to say that the West has been intentionally sh#tting all over them for the last couple of hundred years, it's just that the Countries involved have differed but the motivation the same - money. Me fundamentally (lol) has no objections to that if it knocks a few pennies off the price of filling up my car ......but if the boot was on the other foot I (and probably you) would likely also be pissed and there ain't no fair or unfair in war - there be what works and what don't.......and it's between everybody.

[hellosailor]

Ah, so now we are imposing White Man's Burden and defining what reasonable provocation might or might not be? You'll just provoke them further that way, by proclaiming that your standards for provocation override theirs.

As to Typhoid Mary, she is part and parcel of a long history of public health problems in the US and elsewhere. Most under-50's today are unaware that the US had massive polio epidemics and other problems, in the past century, and that public health authorities routinely rolled up and quarantined people from their homes, with their families trying for days to find out where they had been taken.

Nothing new there. Except, of course, it would be so much simpler today to infect a couple of "martyrs" and then turn them loose in the big cities. With or without their knowledge.

Which is why, as long as we keep pursuing the effects rather than the causes, we will only be hit again and again, harder each time. The dog and pony shows that pretend to be "security" only dig the hole deeper by deluding the public.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by scoobert

you cant count the OKC as a true terrorist bombing.
It was revenge for the terrorist attack the the US government made in waco. i mean they slaughtered those people, even killing the children.
i would define a terrorist attack as one that is unprovoked, such as 9/11.

But the people who executed the attacks on 9/11 believe they were provoked. They thought they were acting appropriately and righteously. They were delusional; 99.999% of followers of Islam did not agree with them; but that was their motivation.

I do not believe the OKC was motivated by revenge. That was an excuse. It was designed to create terror, and it did. To me, OKC was a terrorist attack.

This is something that will be a matter of opinion rather than fact (unless one believes that his/her opinion is always fact).