Todays' Headlines: The AL-Quaida is HERE & going to HIT US HARD THIS SUMMER !

  1. Well, get out the anti-anxiety tablets now ! Our government is manipulating us again !!!

    More of the same old politics....
    I'm more scared of my freedoms being taken away that I am of Al-Quaida at the malls.
    (I'm not allowed to view Michael Moore's Movie.)

    But, I am allowed to be pick-pocketed by the government.
    $$$$ going to fight the Al-Quaida....my tax dollars...

    and, according to homeland secuity, Al Quaida is here anyway.....

    The government is touting """ it's better to fight them OVER THERE than
    OVER HERE ."" Give us your $$$, don't complain !!, we are doing what's best for you ! """

    Peter Jennings announces a different version of this every night...even he is getting embarrassed preaching the political propaganda to us.

    The Al-Quaid isn't going to "get us" between now and the elections....
    this is political propaganda....

    Put the prozac back on the shelf and enjoy the summer....

    but you still can't watch that movie.
    •  
  2. 36 Comments

  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in619569.shtml
    CBS/AP) When Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the latest terror warning, the rest of the government -- including the Department of Homeland Security -- heard the details on television.

    So, too, did America's mayors.

    "The announcement itself wasn't something that we were given a heads up to,'' says Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley.

    Sources tell CBS News Correspondent Bob Orr the Justice Department did nothing to put other agencies in the loop before broadcasting "be-on-the-lookout" pictures of seven suspected terrorists.

    The information was not shared with state and local police forces, or even with the FBI's field offices. It wasn't supposed to be this way after 9/11, said one administration official, who noted "the whole warning process was usurped by the Attorney General."

    Beyond that, senior counterterrorism officials question the legitimacy of the bulletin, saying there is no new, specific, credible evidence pointing to an imminent attack in the U.S.

    Homeland Secretary Tom Ridge, who did not appear with Ashcroft at Wednesday's press conference, seemed to downplay the warning in a series of interviews.

    "There's not a consensus within the administration that we need to raise the threat level," said Ridge.

    This mixed message caused frustration in the heartland.

    "We cannot live in a 24-hour alert, 7 days a week,'' said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

    It also prompted a question at the White House. An administration official told CBS News that at one point, President Bush asked Ashcroft and Ridge: 'Are you guys synched on this plan?'

    There is a suspicion inside some agencies, reports Orr that the Attorney General may be "hyping" the threat in a turf battle over controlling domestic security. At a minimum, sources say the administration infighting has done nothing to better inform or reassure the American public.

    White House press secretary Scott McClellan, however, denied that there is a political aspect to the threat report.

    "The president believes it's very important to share information appropriately," McClellan said. "We do that in a number of ways when it comes to looking at the threats we face here in the homeland."

    Those on the list of people the FBI wants to talk to include a man who grew up on a goat ranch in California before converting to Islam; a Tunisian who obtained Canadian citizenship; a Tanzanian who goes by the names "Foopie," "Fupi" and "Ahmed the Tanzanian;" a Pakistani woman who received a biology degree in Boston; and a native of the Comoros Republic in the Indian Ocean who is believed to be al Qaeda's point-man in eastern Africa.

    Even Panama, a country known more for its canal than terrorism, has been included in the search. Officials said Wednesday they are trying to track down a man identified as Adnan Gulshair El Shukrijumah, of Saudi Arabia.

    Panamanian Security Council Chief Ramiro Jarvis said El Shukrijumah arrived in Panama legally from the United States in April 2001-five months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks-and stayed in Panama for 10 days. He also visited Trinidad and Tobago for six days the next month.

    "We don't know exactly what he did during his stay and it is important to find out," Jarvis said.

    Migration records show El Shukrijumah returned to the United States, Interior Department spokesman David Salayandia said. The last place he was seen, however, was in Panama.

    Two of the suspects were from Canada, according to Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan. One of the men, Abderraouf Jdey, a Tunisian who obtained Canadian citizenship in 1995, was among five people who left suicide messages on videotapes recovered in Afghanistan at the home of Mohammed Atef. Atef, reportedly Osama bin Laden's military chief, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2001.

    Pakistani security officials are also looking for information on Aafia Siddiqui, 32, a Pakistani woman who received a biology degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and wrote a doctoral thesis on neurological sciences at Brandeis University, outside Boston, in 2001.

    Authorities say she returned to Pakistan shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks with her husband and three children. Her whereabouts have been a mystery since March 2003, when the FBI issued a global alert for her arrest for possible links to al Qaeda. The FBI also wants to talk to her husband.

    Another suspect is Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, under indictment in the United States for the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Tanzanian also goes by the names "Foopie," "Fupi" and "Ahmed the Tanzanian." He is under

    A 25-year-old U.S. citizen, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, is also a suspect. He goes by the names Adam Pearlman and Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki. FBI Director Robert Mueller says he attended al Qaeda training camps and has served as an al Qaeda translator.

    Gadahn says on an Islamic Internet site that he grew up on a goat ranch in Riverside County, Calif., and converted to Islam in his later teenage years after moving to Garden Grove, Calif.
  4. by   bukko
    I view the latest terror warning as "immunization." Bush & Co. got bashed for ignoring the Aug. 6, 2001 memo titled "Al Quaeda determined to strike in U.S." So they're going to periodically holler "Look out! They're going to attack us again!" That way, if/when an attack does come, the administration is politically immune from charges that they were asleep at the switch and didn't warn us.
  5. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from bukko
    I view the latest terror warning as "immunization." Bush & Co. got bashed for ignoring the Aug. 6, 2001 memo titled "Al Quaeda determined to strike in U.S." So they're going to periodically holler "Look out! They're going to attack us again!" That way, if/when an attack does come, the administration is politically immune from charges that they were asleep at the switch and didn't warn us.
    I can not agree with an "immunization" theory. There has been several occurances since 911 in which our government has been made aware of heightened possibilities. However, without enough information, how can one prepare.
    As in the case of 911, AFTER the fact it was easy to see the warnings. However, given hindsight is always 20/20 and foresight is rarely able to make out the E, it is very easy for those individuals in this country with short memories to only give weight to hindsight.
    No, our President is not looking for immuniization, he is simple letting us know they have found info but it is not detailed enough to follow through.
    Last edit by Dixiedi on May 28, '04
  6. by   Mkue
    Personally, I take Al qaeda threats more seriously since 9/11. There isn't much I can do except be on the alert for suspicious activity in my area and i would certainly report anything I felt was out of the ordinary to protect my fellow Americans.
  7. by   maureeno
    Homeland Security caught off guardby Ashcroft's announcement ?
    no shock
    the fright-making press conference drowned out other news of that day
    Ashcroft being slapped down by the courts:

    >>A federal appeals court handed the Justice Department a stinging rebuke this week, ruling that it had exceeded its authority when it tried to block Oregon's assisted-suicide law. The decision is an important victory for the terminally ill, and a blow to the administration's habit of letting an ideological agenda interfere with fair enforcement of the law.<<
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/op...partner=GOOGLE

    note well my nurse fellows
    we live in a propaganda world
    an age of distraction


    a May 19 "Budget Procedures Memorandum" from the White House shows what to expect with BushII if elected this November:
    a 2006 budget with
    cuts to domestic programs including Education and Homeland Security
    [Homeland Security like port protection!!!]
    cuts to Veterans and EPA
    and big increases in defense
    {gotta pay for those missiles}
    and JUSTICE
    [gotta keep Ashcroft with funds to invade bedrooms, bodies and bongs]

    all that plus a near $trillion tax cut!!!

    we are on the road to self destruction.....
    Last edit by maureeno on May 28, '04
  8. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from maureeno
    Homeland Security caught off guardby Ashcroft's announcement ?
    no shock
    the fright-making press conference drowned out other news of that day
    Ashcroft being slapped down by the courts:

    >>A federal appeals court handed the Justice Department a stinging rebuke this week, ruling that it had exceeded its authority when it tried to block Oregon's assisted-suicide law. The decision is an important victory for the terminally ill, and a blow to the administration's habit of letting an ideological agenda interfere with fair enforcement of the law.<<
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/op...partner=GOOGLE

    note well my nurse fellows
    we live in a propaganda world
    an age of distraction


    a May 19 "Budget Procedures Memorandum" from the White House shows what to expect with BushII if elected this November:
    a 2006 budget with
    cuts to domestic programs including Education and Homeland Security
    [Homeland Security like port protection!!!]
    cuts to Veterans and EPA
    and big increases in defense
    {gotta pay for those missiles}
    and JUSTICE
    [gotta keep Ashcroft with funds to invade bedrooms, bodies and bongs]

    all that plus a near $trillion tax cut!!!

    we are on the road to self destruction.....
    Yes, I agree the media does distract us from many impootant issues with less important waves of sensationalism. However, if you stop and think for a second by 2006 the biggest threat to homeland security will be under control and budget cuts are well within reason. However, we must maintain the ability to quickly protect ourselves from anyone else attempting to invade, that is unless you want a repeat of 911.
    When did Ashcroft invade your bedroom? Now that I'd like to hear about!
    Cuts to education should be something you want. We will see more nurses graduating who actually wanted to be nurses in the first place instead of forced to go because if they didn't they would loose their welfare. Those few women I have met who got off of welfare by going to nursing school, even though they didn't reallly want to, did finish school (all but 1 of the 4 I know who started) did pass the NCLEX-RN, did get jobs. They also found themselves in a much nicer socio-economic group and have all 3 married and left nursing to be stay at home moms again. It turned out well for the 3 of them, but left nursing short yet 3 more nurses.
    BTY, the 4th young lady dropped out at hte end of the 1st semester, moved to another state, started collecting welfare and when it came time for her to "do it" in that state she again flunked out at the end of the 1st semester and moved again. Some people just insist on playing the system!
  9. by   maureeno
    Dixiedi, we will not have less terror threat by 2006
    indeed we have increased our enemies:

    >> Al Qaeda "has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks." <<
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0528/dailyUpdate.html

    I do not want a repeat of 9/11/01
    which is why I want sensible homeland security
    like protection of our sea ports
    and a strong public health infra-structure
    and well educated citizens

    Ashcroft
    is about making America safe for social conservatives
    as he wars against drugs, sex, assisted suicide and states rights

    meanwhile he detains an innocent Portland lawyer on trumphed up evidence
    if we do not stop looking through blinders we are doomed

    in debt, isolated, endangered

    by the way dixiedi
    Bush ran as an education president
    he has not funded mandates put on the states
    and plans further cuts to fund tax reduction.
    you are lost in time worrying about welfare cheats
    taking up nursing school slots....
    ahh the good ole' days
  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/...04/0602-14.htm

    Published on Wednesday, June 2, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

    Beware of "Credible Intelligence"
    by Ray McGovern

    Last Wednesday it was Attorney General John Ashcroft--joined Friday by me-too Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge--claiming that "credible intelligence from multiple sources indicates that al-Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States" between now and the November election.

    If "credible intelligence" sounds to you like protesting too much, there is ample reason to be skeptical. Overshadowing Ashcroft's dramatic warning that al-Qaeda planned to "hit the United States hard" was the headline-grabbing, specific claim that "an al-Qaeda spokesman announced that 90 per cent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete."

    Had Ashcroft thought to check this out with the CIA--or even NBC--he would have learned that the "al-Qaeda spokesman" was actually "Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades"--a fact later conceded with some embarrassment by the FBI. According to a senior US intelligence official, this "group" may consist of no more than one person with a fax machine. The "Brigades" have nonetheless claimed responsibility for the power blackout in the Northeast last year, a power outage in London, and the March 11 train bombings in Madrid. NBC news analyst Roger Cressey, a former deputy to counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, notes, "The only thing they haven't claimed credit for recently is the cicada invasion of Washington."
    What's going on?

    "Intelligence" is being conjured up once again to serve the political purposes of the Bush administration. Merely recall the litany of spurious claims against Iraq, all said to have been based on "solid sources," that Secretary of State Colin Powell dwelled on in his UN speech of February 5, 2003.

    But what purposes are served in the current political context? Fanning further fear of terror is the only remaining ploy to boost the president's sinking poll numbers. The struggle against terrorism is the issue on which George W. Bush still gets relatively good marks. Small wonder that he used "terror/terrorist/terrorism" no less than nineteen times in his speech at the Army War College on May 24. But is that all that is afoot here?

    I believe there may be considerably more. With only five months before the election, the president's men are getting desperate. Iraq is going from bad to worse and the prospect of substantial improvement before November is virtually nil. Worse still, revelations of the past few weeks strongly suggest that the president, Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, et al. have deeply personal incentive to make four more years for Bush a sure thing.

    The Nettle of the Geneva Conventions

    Put yourself in their position. Addressing whether or not Washington should honor the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War, the president's chief legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, warned him in a memorandum of January 25, 2002 that US law--the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 2441)--prohibits "war crimes" defined to include any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War.

    Gonzales made it clear that this prohibition applies to US officials and noted that punishments for violations of Section 2441 include the death penalty.

    Gonzales advised the president that, in the opinion of Ashcroft's Justice Department, the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al-Qaeda and that the president had the authority to determine that they also do not apply to the Taliban. (This would not be the first time that forces branded "terrorists" were declared exempt from the Geneva Conventions. In World War II when armed, uniformed Allied troops landed behind German lines, Hitler ordered them to be executed for "terrorist activities," as Professor Frederick Sweet noted in a recent article in Intervention magazine.)

    Gonzales described Ashcroft's opinion as "definitive," but added that the State Department had expressed "a different view." Buried in the legalese is thinly disguised nervousness that others, too, might have a different view. Under the "positives," Gonzales notes:

    "It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441. Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that Section 2441 does not apply, which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution."

    The president's lawyer concluded that a determination by President Bush that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the Taliban "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)."
    "A reasonable basis in law?" "Substantially reduces" the threat of prosecution? If I were President Bush I would not find these phrases altogether reassuring. And neither, one would assume, does Attorney General Ashcroft.
    And if this were not worrisome enough, Gonzales adds an eerily prophetic statement in listing the "negatives:"

    "A determination that the Geneva Convention does not apply to al-Qaeda and the Taliban could undermine US military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries."

    Then there was Abu Graib.
    There is nothing in the Geneva Conventions that gives anyone the right to make a unilateral decision to exempt opposing forces.
    And the Conventions hold the "Detaining Power"--not individual soldiers--responsible for maltreatment of detainees.
    From the catbird seat of the "sole remaining superpower," however, the Bush administration has shown considerable disdain for international law.
    On occasion it has stretched it well beyond the breaking point--as in claiming that the invasion of Iraq was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Section 2441 of the War Crimes Act of 1996 is different.

    This is US law, in which the strictures of the Geneva Conventions are embedded.

    Nightmares

    For the Bush administration, the nightmare is losing the November election--a prospect believed to be unlikely until just recently. For many of us citizens, the nightmare is the president and his associates resorting to extra-legal measures to ensure that there is no "regime change" in Washington for four more years. Logic and human nature would suggest that possible liability to prosecution under the War Crimes Act are among the more weighty factors they take into account.

    Bush administration leaders may even look on the prospect of a terrorist event in the US in the coming months as a possible opportunity as well as a risk. I do not suggest they would perverse enough to allow one to happen, or--still less--to orchestrate one. But there is ample reason to believe that they would take full political advantage of a terrorist attack--or even just the threat of one. Ashcroft's remarks last week might be regarded as the opening salvo in a campaign to condition the country for this.
    No less a figure than Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the war on Iraq, went so far as to predict publicly last November that if terrorists attacked the US with "weapons of mass destruction," the Constitution would probably be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

    But, you say, that would mean a constitutional crisis without parallel in the history of our country. Perhaps. But was there not a good warm-up in the fall of 2002? Did we not then experience a constitutional crisis when Congress was duped into ceding to the president its constitutional power to declare war? And it was all accomplished by spreading the myth that Saddam Hussein was close to exploding a "mushroom cloud" over us--a myth based on a known forgery alleging that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Africa.

    In a recent op-ed in a newspaper in Maine, Charles Cutter poses the key question for the next five months. Cutter asks:

    "How far would they go? With blood on their hands and God on their side, what actions would Bush & Co. consider too extreme--when the goal is to extend their control over the financial and military power of the American presidency?"
    An elevated threat level justifying martial law and postponement of the election? No doubt such suggestions will seem too alarmist to those trusting that there is a moral line, somewhere, that the president and his senior advisers would not cross. I regret very much to say that their behavior over the past three years leaves me doubtful that there is such a line. If my doubts are justified, the sooner we all come to grips with this parlous situation the better.

    Meanwhile, don't be taken in by "credible intelligence."

    Ray McGovern (rmcgovern@slschool.org) was a CIA analyst for 27 years from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
  11. by   Dr. Gonzo
    Where going to have a Summer of Terror what a coincidence near election time.
  12. by   bukko
    Quote from Dr. Gonzo
    Where going to have a Summer of Terror what a coincidence near election time.
    All the better pretense to cancel the election...
  13. by   Dixiedi
    Quote from maureeno
    dixiedi, we will not have less terror threat by 2006
    indeed we have increased our enemies:

    >> al qaeda "has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in iraq is swelling its ranks." <<
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0528/dailyupdate.html

    and what do the liberals say about that... you can't harrass folks just because you think they are al qaeda. what's that about? i'm so sick of hearing the whole bunch complain that homeland security is not strong enough and that budget cuts should not be made. then turn around a complain when it looks like it may interupt somebody's day. give me a break, ya either want security or ya don't.

    i do not want a repeat of 9/11/01
    which is why i want sensible homeland security
    like protection of our sea ports
    and a strong public health infra-structure
    and well educated citizens

    sensible protection alone will not protect us nor will a strong public health infrastructure. (hell, if the public health had any hopes of doing anything worth-while, there would be no aids epidemic.) educated citizens? is that what you are?

    ashcroft
    is about making america safe for social conservatives
    as he wars against drugs, sex, assisted suicide and states rights

    what's your problem with that? should these things remain a problem in our streets?

    meanwhile he detains an innocent portland lawyer on trumphed up evidence
    if we do not stop looking through blinders we are doomed

    and when did you realize he was innocent, the day you heard he is a liberal being detained by a conservative?

    in debt, isolated, endangered

    we have many more backers now than we did. we are not isolated nor are we endangered except by our own citizens who think we can stop the attack after it arrives on the front porch. don't you think it would be better to stop it elsewhere? yes, the al-qaeda is here, in large numbers. they are waiting for instructions from over there. we need to prevent those intructions from being sent.

    by the way dixiedi
    bush ran as an education president been kind of busy trying to save your butt
    he has not funded mandates put on the states why do you think the feds should fund everything.
    and plans further cuts to fund tax reduction. then you will have money to spend the way you want instead of the way the feds want. work and you have, don't work and you aint got.
    you are lost in time worrying about welfare cheats
    taking up nursing school slots....
    ahh the good ole' days these days are not gone as long as there is one person on aid to dependant children, there will be educational efforts made to get her/him off. they will continue to place these people in programs that provide a good chance of employment. nursing fits that to a t.
    it's not all about 1 or the other issue, it's aobut all of them at the same time.
  14. by   Dixiedi
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo
    Where going to have a Summer of Terror what a coincidence near election time.



    Quote from bukko
    All the better pretense to cancel the election...
    I simply can not see the reason for statements such as these.

close