Yet more proof...

exactly that since wwII.

in both europe and the pacific war.

dropping nukes on cities full of civilians, innocent women and children.

flattening an entire town because a german soldier shot an american soldier.

and this activity has been pandemic to military throughout history.

wartime is not an excuse.
crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity.
shall every country in the world that the us forces wronged file crimes against humanity charges against the usa?

you might find 5 countries that don't have a case to file.

If you're talking about the Brazilian guy I think that the London police did exactly the right thing. That Brazilian man ran from police and ran into a subway station. In other words he acted exactly like a terrorist would act. If he was a terrorist with a bomb he could have killed a lot of people. The fact that he ran from police gave the police probable cause to believe that the Brazilian was a threat to the people in the subway station. I applaud the actions of the London police in this case. We can never know why the Brazilian man ran from police. Too bad for him. The London police took the correct action.

A character comes out of a building that has harboured known terrorists just weeks after four suicide explosions on your mass transit system kill over fifty people. He is wearing an overcoat and the temperature is eighty degrees. You tail him and, when you try to stop him, he leaps a barrier into that same mass transit system.

Describe, in words of how ever many syllables you wish, what the LAPD would have done.

And, yes, he [b]did[/b] speak English. He was an illegal immigrant so I suppose his running could be explained but, hey, I'm still interested in what the NYPD or LAPD would have done.

Describe what you believe the Met Police should have done?

And where do the Irish come into this - at least in the last fifty years? Correct me if I'm wrong but I though that US funds paid for explosives set off by the IRA. We might have shot a couple at Gibraltar but - hey - they blew up enough people in return including the poor bugger (a muslim, by the way) who used to sell me my morning paper.

I think you are just in the wrong mood today. Take your meds and relax.

I know I have my cranky days too. I'm not trying to be preachy or holier than anyone.

You can, or soon will be able to, bring a bow and arrow that would bring down an elk onto an airplane in a US airport.

Whoever is running that security program isn't qualified to manage a trip to the bathroom.

"okay 10 to 1 ratio?"

A 10 to 1 ratio of what? Civilians to soldiers? I have to say this smacks of rhetoric. I have yet to see ANYTHING that says there was a 10:1....

"that is a crime against humanity."

Perhaps, but as the saying goes "war is hell." The long and the short of it is that people (soldiers and civilians) die in war. I personally believe war typically does nothing for your cause and will actually length political/idealogical conflict.

"sorry, war is not an excuse for killing civilians."

It happens. Civilians die in war. Always have, always will.

"purposely killing civilians is a crime against humanity."

I tend to think that many times civilians aren't the target. While there is such a thing a demoralizing bombing, civilians usually aren't specifically targeted. Especially by the US. While we do stupid things, one thing we don't do is target SPECIFICALLY target civilians.

"use any excuse you want, it does not change the fact that nuking japan was a criminal act."

I disagree. The firebombing of Tokyo was far more destructive than Fat Man or Little Boy. We also didn't fully realize the distructive power of a nuclear weapon.

Further, we either invaded Japan and lost millions of lives on both sides or we dropped two nuclear bombs and saved millions of lives on both sides.

You have to realize Japan was willing to fight a war of attrition. They would have fought to the last man, woman, or child. I don't think you know how bad taking some of the islands was. Hell, there were Japanese soldiers holed up in caves LONG after the war ended (IIRC one was still living in the mid 70's and finally came out).

"flattening dutch towns because german soldiers shot at americans, killing hundreds of civilians in the process, might not be a crime against humanity, but it is definately wrong."

Huh?

"and the us armed forces were the only ones in wwii that were flattening towns, every other military force went room by room to secure the towns."

Huh? This is false. The reason American casuality rates were so high in various towns is because we went room to room rather than just driving tanks in.

"by your reasoning, any terrorist that nukes any american city is justified.
after all thousands of innocent women and children have been killed by american troops in the war on terrorism."

What? This is a total straw man. You are somehow equating terrorism to ground combat with clear combatants.

"like I said, the usa, by sticking it's nose into other countries has committed far more crimes under international laws than any other country."

*sigh* Ok, I'll bite...go ahead, let's hear what you have to say here.

"you'll never find proof, unless you leave the usa and do the research in another country. the censorship in the us is almost as bad as in china."

Oh please. It isn't like there is this thing called the internet. Or are you suggesting that we can't read or watch news other than what is in the US.

You really jumped off the deep end here Jaqui and you are usually pretty reasonable, what's the deal?

They very well could be.

You know, John Phillip Walker Lindh was born...a white...anglo-saxon...catholic. If he'd not been caught in Afghanistan and allowed back into the USA, he was the perfect white, Catholic-born terrorist recruit.

No one makes you give your religion when you travel...and you never know who's converted within the USA.

Plus, who knows if "Hassan the Terrorist" has put an incendiary device underneath the bottom of a baby carrier or pushed it into a diaper bag while the mother was busy.

Like I said...terrorists don't play by the rules...and they definitely don't just recruit young, Arab males exclusively anymore.

And besides that...Tim McVeigh...was a white...anglo-saxon...who travelled point-to-point in the USA...and blew a bomb up in the USA.

QED

A quick check of Google sites indicates that shaving cream can induce vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea. It is considered to be relatively nontoxic and not all types of shaving creams cause the results.

It would have been ironic if the actions of the people involved resulted in you going to the hospital, or having to lock yourself in the restroom for the duration of the flight.

the white stuff smeared around your mouth. Gives them a feeling of power. :-0

They missed asking you to open the hidden compartment in your shaving cream bottle to be sure the viable dino embryos were not poisoned!

But asking you to eat a non-food item? that's really bizarre. I sure as **** wouldn't eat it.

was abcessed as well, my right cheek is flooding with toxins from broken abcess.
( I can see the 1/32 inch space between glasses and cheek, which is normally 3/8 inch space )

7 days antibiotics.
then they'll look at it again.

here, you can find a dentist that can see you for something like this on same day... but not overnight.

Only the U.S. and absolutely no other countries? You seem absolutely certain of this. Since I am not an expert on the travel and security policies of every other country on this planet, I guess I'll have to take your word on this as the gospel of truth that the U.S. is the ONLY country on this planet that will refuse a child as a passenger. But you can you provide me with security policies of every other country on this planet?

Having just returned from a European business trip, I can claim the whole bloody continent are a bunch of whackos when it comes to security. I went through fairly intense interogation in both Sweden and Germany, where I literally had to drop my pants because their metal detectors were set off by various bits of metal in my body. Hoisting up my pants legs to display my scars was inadequate proof for these idiots. I was almost arrested in Germany because I took offense when some looney tried to grope inside my underwear. You'd think they would at least have had the decency to wear rubber gloves. London Heathrow was another strange experience. I was carrying a thumb drive in my pocket when once again the metal detectors went off. This time it was truly bizarre. I had already demonstrated the harmlessness of my laptop but had to go throuh the routine a second time to demonstrate the harmlessness of a thumb drive, even though the metal in my body was what had set the alarms off in the first place. Nobody bothered to check my scars or anything else. The frosting on this piece of cake came when I arrived home and was changing my clothes. Lodged in my jacket pocket were an Exacto knife and an Olfa utility knife which I had completely forgotten about. Next to these, a box cutter pales in comparison but somehow these bozos missed them. To top it all off there was a small Swiss Army knife with a 1 3/4" blade which I had overlooked in my pants pocket which nobody ever said boo about; this included leaving Canada and all the other flights I took in Europe. It was on my keychain. At every check in, when I had to pass through the detectors, I deposited all the contents of my pockets in a plastic tub which was always handed back to me without any objections or comment. In retrospect, I would have expected to have had the Swiss Army knife to be confiscated, at least somewhere along the way but it never happened. The Exacto and Olfa knives are a completely different thing altogether. Next to my Swiss Army knife, these items are huge in comparison. The Olfa knife has a 3 1/2" blade, granted snap-off but the Exacto is about 6" long, most of which is handle but with a blade sharper than a scalpel. I wouldn't have minded them being confiscated; I'm shocked that they weren't. It says something about the security systems but what exactly, I'm not very sure. Here I was romping around with exposed blades and nobody said anything but at every departure I had to display my scars and suffer other indignities. You would have thought somewhere along the way someone would have noticed the knives but apparently nobody cared about them too much.

BTW Jaqui, if you really want to go on about war crimes the records show that the Germans slaughtered the population of a whole village in retribution for the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich and then leveled the village, literally wiping it off the map. while you are considering that remember Coventry, which was the first use of carpet bombing against a civilian population. The US has never done anyting such as this with deliberate intent but may have done so unintentionally. The nuclear bombs fall into this category since no one could predict what the effects would be. War is hell!!! People get killed both military and civilian. This was true historically; it's true presently; it will be true in the future. Get over it and try not to get caught at ground zero.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

Unfortunately the definition of terrorist and freedom fighter can be rather vague, especially when the government and existing power structures are oppressive.

And then there are those instances where getting rid of one oppressive government just results in another oppressive government being put into place. There are too many recent instances where the freedom fighters start oppressing those who fought against them, taking revenge for past slights.

Revenge, unfortunately, creates more revenge unless you work hard to reconcile the differences that caused the problems.

And is also your solution!

Actually, Oz, alike myself and Neil is a Limey/ Pommie (for Col and Gret) thank you very much! :D

The irony is that a sale was the cause of such destruction, and that our fabulous media dramatized it with a crushed baby stroller. I'm sure Oz would not have found it funny if it was a crushed baby, but it was not, it was just an inanimate stroller.

You really found the meaning and intent behind that one, how very astute of you.

I'll Google it, and report any documentation I find of ACLU opposition to profiling in airports. I'm sure they're on the bandwagon against profiling in law enforcement generally, but the only criticism I have heard about profiling in the war on terrorism is that the agencies are using random sampling. I don't remember hearing any interest groups demanding it.

October 26, 2004

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16894&c=206

Privacy is addressed before safety, implying that it is a higher priority. In defense of the ACLU, it is their stated mission to prevent loss of liberty [b]to the US government[/b], not to foreign invasion, which is solely the government's right & responsibility, so to the ACLU homeland security is rightly mentioned as an aside. They would dishonest to claim that defense is their primary concern or responsibility.

"Secure Flight will erode our privacy and is probably not the best use of our limited resources," said LaShawn Warren, an ACLU Legislative Counsel.

The following excert from a second ACLU.org article suggests to me that an important objection expressed by the ACLU is exactly the flaw that led to the problem described above.

[Steinhardt said that the published notices provided too little detail for the public to determine whether Secure Flight represents a genuine improvement over the predecessor CAPPS II program - and that he feared that many of the problems with the original proposal remain. For example, it appeared that security decisions will be made based on frequently inaccurate information contained in secret "black boxes " maintained at the Terrorism Screening Center that are completely inaccessible to the public and effectively shielded from scrutiny or correction. According to news reports, the Terrorism Screening Center will maintain watch lists that will be used under Secure Flight for identifying passengers to be screened as "selectees" or placed on a "no-fly" list, leaving innocent travelers who are caught up in the system with no fair way to have their names removed.

Further, Steinhardt said, the TSA has not really demonstrated that the new system will actually be effective in stopping terrorists.

"CAPPS II would have rendered secret, unreviewable judgments of individuals based on some secret TSA process. It?s not much better if secret, unreviewable judgments will now be based on a secret terrorist screening process," he said. "The government has sought to downplay the significance of what it intends to do in the airline passenger screening area, in part by focusing its program descriptions on a ?testing phase,?" Steinhardt added. "But it appears far too likely that our nation will end up saddled with an ultimate end product resembling CAPPS II." ]

If individuals' own records were available to review, the passengers' could conceivably have corrected the error that kept these infants grounded. I conclude that the ACLU anticipated just this kind of problem, and argued [b]against[/b] the secrecy that caused it.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16515&c=282

The president of the CBA is working to get parliment to open thier eyes and be smart about security gone bad.

He is currently working on several privacy cases where people have had thier rights to privacy abused by ew security laws, that he claims are inadequate and improperly focused. He agrees that there needs to be enhanced security but the line between security and personal prrivacy has become quite faded.

So PERHAPS in Canada we wil actually see some worthwhile security measures taking place, instead of the 'chicken with it's head cut off paranoia' we often see now.