The money quote:

"The Seattle P-I has refused to run the photos, claiming that neither man is a suspect or has been charged with anything. None of the 19 men who hijacked four planes on September 11 were suspects or charged with anything on September 10, either."

Besides setting a scary and paranoid precedent, several of the hijackers were indeed terror suspects and did indeed have charges against them.

With writing like this, you'll fit right in at Wizbang.

Make sure to take no note of their mildly arabic features, nor thier apparent age.

And of course, being aware and alert of what's going on around you is considered "racial profiling" by leftists, those bastions of fairness and tolerance they are.

Perhaps that's why they may be looking to attack there. Very few will say anything because the last thing they would want if for somone to feel uncomfortable.
Well, that and all the papier mache Bush effigies tend to obstruct one's view.

Easy targets.

Rode ferries for years in Seattle.

Not surprised and I would assume most who ride ferries today are not surprised either. On the super jumbo's running between Seattle and Bainbridge of a commute run you are talking easily 3000.

I would say this is just another example of how poorly our Decider dissident has prioritized our dollars. Let's say we'll fight them over there instead of over here.

Oops, egads, they're over here. Let's keep invading and occupying over there That ought to calm them down.

GEEZ.........

CB:
Logic Pretzels are best tossed as they don't go well with beer or ale. Unless you're just an old Steely Dan Fan trolling Wizbang Comments.

civil behavior,

Seattle?! NO! You?

I would say this is just another example of how poorly our Decider dissident has prioritized our dollars.

Of course you would, hence my comment. Don't blame terrorists for wanting to kill you, blame someone completely different (it's less scary that way isn't it!)

What the heck is a "decider dissident"?

Well Heralder there are 2 givens in your discussion.

(1) We should hold the terrorists responsible
the terrorists and make them responsible for their conduct.
(2) We should hold the leader of our country responsible for properly allocating our assets to protect us. Is that so unreasonable?

ooops...that #1 was illiterate.
We should hold the terrorists responsible for their conduct.

Let's keep invading and occupying over there That ought to calm them down.
-------------------------------------
To follow the logic here. It is better not to fight them over there at all so that they can devote all their energy to killing us over here?
(not sure this is a joke, an intentional spin, or a simple-minded repetition of a kos kool-aid).

Does the name Ahmed Ressem ring a bell with anyone? It better. He rode the ferry from Canada to Port Angeles, WA with a trunk load of explosives destined for LAX in 2000.

I'm more suspicious of neatly dressed, close-cropped young Arab men who don't want to call attention to themselves via breads, keffiyeh and other forms of traditional Arab dress. Traveling in twos is more than disconcerting as well.

The Seattle P-I has refused to run the photos, claiming that neither man is a suspect or has been charged with anything.

The unabashedly liberal PI not wanting to help authorities possibly find possible terror suspects? Gee, BIG surprise there.

Tell you what: When young, neatly dressed Arab men stop detonating or attempt to detonate themselves in public areas, I'll stop being suspicious of them. In the meantime, call me a racial profiler.

BTW: I can tell that's the ferry from Fauntleroy to Vashon Island/Southworth. I know, I live here.

If they've nothing to hide, then chat with authorities.

CB:
Logic Pretzels are best tossed as they don't go well with beer or ale. Unless you're just an old Steely Dan Fan trolling Wizbang Comments.

I resemble that remark :-P

We should hold the terrorists responsible for their conduct.
----------------------------------
THis is how UPI and other liberal media outlets hold the terrorists responsible for their conduct

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018250.php
Kassam rockets fired on the Israeli town of Sderot have caused the deaths of several innocent civilians. In May, for example, Shirel Friedman and Oshri Oz were killed by Kassams in the space of a week. I wrote about my visit to Sderot in in "A view from the fence." Two days after my vist to Sderot, two Israelis were wounded in another Kassam rocket attack. These rocket attacks have no object other than the murder of innocent civilians. Hamas continues to rain the rockets down on Sderot. UPI headlines its most recent story on the continuing warfare "Hamas harrasses [sic] Israel with rockets."

Welcome Cassy!

I see you're also being quickly introduced to several of our leftist trolls. Don't take their nonsense personally - just consider it a manifestation of the failures of public education.

So if we follow the lead of the P-I, and do nothing, will it be Bush's fault if they bring down a ferry?

If I were a terrorist, I'd attack a looney left area first. Sadly, it might take that for them to finally wake up that this isnt a game.

Ask the Berg family if jihadists care if the kill liberals or not.

Leftist trolls 4 of whom happened to descend in the first 12 minutes and 3 of those in the first 6 minutes.

They may have different owners, but I get the feeling sometimes these socks sit in the same drawer.

--------

Anyway, is anyone surprise they'd be attracked to the State like Washington these days? States with the highest political correctness and denial would make the easiest game.

On the upside jpm, that means 4 morons sit around all useless day long, with nothing else to do, and no one else in the world to pay them any mind.

Must suck to have such an empty life. Keep posting trolls, or, maybe, you can start riding fairies all day long. Oops, thats for those in SanFran.

JFO:

(2) We should hold the leader of our country responsible for properly allocating our assets to protect us. Is that so unreasonable?

Not at all. When was the last time we were attacked?

U.S. Attorney John McKay, officials in the U.S. Coast Guard and other members of Seattle's Joint Terrorism Task Force all share in that conclusion.
From linked Seattle Times article

Why should I listen to this USA? He was fired by the Bush administration for being incompetent, so clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about.

/sarc off/

When was the last time we were attacked?
---------------------------------
Should the leader of the country deserve some praise and support as well for all the hard work ?

In only 4 years the US has ousted one of the world's most brutal dictators ever and helped replace his regime with a democratically elected government- Doing this without the backing of one political party, without liberal Hollywood, with numerous security leaks, with interfering politicians, and with a hostile antiwar press that continually misfires with bogus news stories.
Not bad!

Pretzel-Logic: lol!

I'm glad this crap is going on in Seattle. How will the time feel when several of their employees perish on a ferry capsized due to a couple of arabic looking muslim terrorists? "Ooooh, we did not want to publish their pictures as that would be racial profiling".

/spit

Tell that to the families of your dead employees Seattle Times.

Welcome these muslim assholes to your backyard Seattle. With your heads in the sand, your backsides make inviting targets.

These guys are probably Seattle P-I reporters getting ready for their front page story detailing the best places and times for the terrorists to plant their bombs to cause maximum damage and casualties.

Welcome these muslim assholes to your backyard Seattle.

Oh, we already do!

Then we like to say that they (Islamofacsicts) are just "mentally disturbed", claim their acts of violence as a "hate crime" and then sweep it under the rug like it never happened.

Woo-hoo!

I'm sure these two fellas are just out for a little harmless (recon) mission.

As someone who was once questioned for "suspicious phototaking" (by the police, FBI was sent our info; no follow-up), I think that it's only responsible for the paper to want more info before plastering people's faces across the front page with a "suspected terrorist" label. I certainly wouldn't have liked that, but then I'm probably not dark-skinned enough to be real suspicious.

The onus is on the FBI to provide the justification for such an action. Newspapers are not government entities.

matis:

As someone who was once questioned for "suspicious phototaking" (by the police, FBI was sent our info; no follow-up), I think that it's only responsible for the paper to want more info before plastering people's faces across the front page with a "suspected terrorist"

Not a surprising attitude coming from you.

Would it make a difference to you if the description was "wanted for "suspicious activity?"

Any fool knows that the ferries are a prime target because they are easy points of attack with LOTS of people on a run. (Peter f.) Wouldn't matter if the picture was taken on a Southworth boat most of those boats on a commute run are packed. (The Bainbridge run more so). And every ferry rider is smart enough to know exactly WHY a boat my be targeted. These are the people who invented this computer you tap on daily. Most don't ride daily twice a day in fear because they know they could be next target but the caliber of intelligence on those boats also know WHY they are a target.

Each of your right handed ridge runners want so badly to believe that the occupation of Iraq and the pending tough guy military intervention being pondered and likely planned for Iran is somehow innocuous. How could the Islamofascists dare to respond to an orchestrated plan by the superpower of the US to implant freedom and democracy in the MIddle East. It's for their own good, right? Couldn't possibly be or matter that they are smart enough to know we are there for the oil. It amazes me that each of you refuses to acknowledge the fact that they are much smarter than you are willing to accept. You really think they are stupid don't you?

Immigrant.....GW made Iraq the front on terror. Before that is was in Afghanistan. Remember OBL?

Heralder.......Terrorists want to kill us. No one thinks that's a game. But I refuse to be scared about it. I'm more afraid of the decisions of the oilygarchs in my own govt. The reason we have terror in the first place is because we occupy their territory and want to steal their oil. That is what you would like to avoid admitting. You'll never admit that. Thats what makes your argument so banal.

So keep poking the stick in the eye ok? Keep poking.

I'm more suspicious of neatly dressed, close-cropped young Arab men who don't want to call attention to themselves via breads, keffiyeh and other forms of traditional Arab dress. Traveling in twos is more than disconcerting as well.

Indeed. I run screaming anytime I see two Arabs (first I ask if they are in fact Arabs, of course. Could be harmless Pakistanis!).

Btw, most of those Muslims you see who are "neatly dressed, close-cropped" and "don't want to call attention to themselves" are not terrorists, but rather are assimilating themselves to western culture (assuming they are immigrants in the first place). I thought that was a good thing...

Tell you what: When young, neatly dressed Arab men stop detonating or attempt to detonate themselves in public areas, I'll stop being suspicious of them. In the meantime, call me a racial profiler.

Yeah, I wish we could go back to those halcyon days before all these politically correct types went and ruined everything.

Would it make a difference to you if the description was "wanted for "suspicious activity?"

Yes, because if someone is "wanted" by the FBI then they are suspects, but the FBI specifically told the PI the men are not suspects. Tell me this, why should a newspaper print photos of people and label them suspected terrorists (in whatever way you want to phrase that), when the feds themselves don't consider them suspects and will provide no further information?

(2) We should hold the leader of our country responsible for properly allocating our assets to protect us. Is that so unreasonable?

Excellent point:

1) The poorly equipped and poorly armored force left on Mogadishu
2) The African Embassy bombings
3) The Khobar Towers
4) The USS Cole

Cassie is right: CAIR will be in high dudgeon about this.

Righto mantis, let's just wait to sift through the body parts. If they're guilty, we're bound to yield some good prints or DNA samples, from what's left of a ferry attack. (I say this with the full confidence that you would've supported questioning Mo Atta and co. since they were about to vaporize themselves so we couldn't rely on prints and DNA to ID them. Course, you and I know it wasn't really them anyway, right my man ?)

CB

And every ferry rider is smart enough to know exactly WHY a boat my be targeted. These are the people who invented this computer you tap on daily. Most don't ride daily twice a day in fear because they know they could be next target but the caliber of intelligence on those boats also know WHY they are a target.

Check the link below, CB. These people were smart enough to know of the threat....hell, the bad guys tried to blow up the same place before in 1993. What makes your ferry boat occupants any more alert?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413

Why do I get the feeling that C'B' is a pimple face nerd?

Civil, Microsoft did not invent computers. You knowledge of history is a faulty as your knowledge of current events, politics and anything important. Idiots out there can blame Bush all they want, but the terrorist know that would have a difficult time attacking the President so they will try to kill you. I know that is Bush's fault. After they attack Seattle, I can only hope they find their way to San Francisco and on down to LA.

Pudge,

So much stupidity in your post, I probably shouldn't even respond, but what the hell. First, I never said these men shouldn't be questioned; I certainly hope that the feds are following up on any reports of suspicious activity. I questioned whether newspapers are obligated to assist by printing photos of people who aren't even suspected of anything, let alone charged.

Second, you seem to be implying that I'm some sort of 911 "truther". You must be new around here, as I have argued with and ridiculed those whackos many times.

Other than bullshit, you said nothing.

...and want to steal their oil.

(un)civil, where are we stealing oil?

.Terrorists want to kill us. No one thinks that's a game. But I refuse to be scared about it. I'm more afraid of the decisions of the oilygarchs in my own govt.

What scares me is people like you. Especially the one's in Congress and State Department.

I questioned whether newspapers are obligated to assist by printing photos of people who aren't even suspected of anything, let alone charged.
------------------------------------
Cheap distraction: the FBI
put out the photos and is asking for help. SI is not LEGALLY obligated to print these photos. Why not help the FBI by printing their own photos? That 's the point. These news sources are not shy to print doc'ed photos in any case. Also let 's save the cheap racial profiling arg also. These news sources are not shy in using the first amendment right to print the anti-semistic and anti-christian bigotry.

CB,
Still it doesn't change the fact that you would rather not have the terrorists busy fighting us in Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorists would then be able to devote more energy into killing us over here.

"I questioned whether newspapers are obligated to assist by printing photos of people who aren't even suspected of anything, let alone charged."

- mantis

Ok. I'm finding myself leaning in agreement with ya', here.

Having said that, it's not like the media has ever held off on popping up images of non-muslim-looking types who are accused of ... whatever.

Kinda' pity the paper, on this one: on one hand, they'll be severely attacked by the 4 guys still holding membership in CAIR for being prejudicial/profiling. On the other, they'll be vilified should these characters do something naughty.

Rock. Hard place.

Btw, most of those Muslims you see who are "neatly dressed, close-cropped" and "don't want to call attention to themselves" but rather are assimilating themselves to western culture....

Yup, can't imagine why I'd ever think that.

Or this.

Just trying to assimilate.

Gee, why on EARTH would they want to blend into our culture. Couldn't be that they don't want to draw attention to themselves, now could it.

BTW: I never said "most". I said I am "more" suspicious of them than I am those in traditional Arab dress. Unfortunately for MOST Arabs/Muslims, some of their brethren decided to use a "normal" disguise to cloak their nefarious and murderous undertakings. Forgive me if I'm a little suspicious for, oh, the last 7 years or so because of it. But I (we) didn't choose to change the rules of military dress, they did. Either play the game and possibly catch them or suffer the consequences. Again.

BTW, the party of tolerance is not shy to exploit bigotry in their quest for power.

However, the Democrats have proven themselves intellectually dishonest in this attack on Jindal. Their website lies about what Jindal has written, hiding behing NOR's subscription-only skirts to throw mud at Jindal. The party which sells itself on its supposed tolerance wants to pillory Jindal for his Catholicism and scare up anti-Catholic bigotry through lies and deceit.

Someday a system will need to be implemented. One, that after a terror suspect is 100% identified and located. WE would show them how to REALLY disappear.

Extreme huh?

Let's see in a couple of years from now, if parts of the country look like the Katrina aftermath due to terrorist attacks.
That "system" will be front and center.

Easy, the FBI asked for the public's help and the Seattle paper refused. Why?
===============================

mantis:

Yes, because if someone is "wanted" by the FBI then they are suspects, but the FBI specifically told the PI the men are not suspects.

Ah...no that's just the way you chose to describe them in support of your argument. They could just as easily be "wanted" as a material witness or because they are associates of one.

Tell me this, why should a newspaper print photos of people and label them suspected terrorists (in whatever way you want to phrase that), when the feds themselves don't consider them suspects and will provide no further information?

Maybe as a public service? You know the entire reason the media exists in the first place. Maybe out of duty to their readers?

more mantis:

First, I never said these men shouldn't be questioned; I certainly hope that the feds are following up on any reports of suspicious activity. I questioned whether newspapers are obligated to assist by printing photos of people who aren't even suspected of anything, let alone charged.

But they ARE suspected of something... casing the Seattle ferry system for a potential terror attack. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.

However, as a public service to both Seattle at large, and coincidently the two individuals in question, to have a description/images widely publicized is in everyones best interest.

Maybe you would prefer the media as a whole not publish a description/images of the two. That way it makes it much harder for everyone, including the two in question.

Sorry about that mantis, I only meant to hit a nerve. Well, did somethin' right anyway. (Funny, if everyone around here but me is timeworn enough to know all of your patented bromides, why did you explain yourself ? Actually, I just think it's funny when you pinkos start dropping F-bombs. Also, for what it's worth, NOBODY has identified the two muslim killers as "terrorists". That sentence was technically true - until I finished it anyway.)

Okay, your turn terrorist-symp commie boy.
p.s. Are you really mikale isikoff ?

Is there a pattern here. Let us see. Newpapers, including the Seattle paper are quick to publish information that will hurt the policy of our governments fight against terrorism, but when our government agencies ask for help in thier fight against terrorism, newspapers refuse to help. One must wonder if Bin Laudin has invested in the American newspaper business.

Zelsdorf
I do agree that our print media would and will give aid and comfort to UBL. Ironically, I hope he has invested his own money in their common stock: he would have lost his ass because folks like you and me no longer buy the paper!

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?C6=2007&D3=0&CE=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&Symbol=NYT&C8=2007&C5=8&C7=8&ComparisonsForm=1&D5=0&D4=1&ViewType=0&C9=2&DisplayForm=1&CP=0&PT=9

Righto mantis, let's just wait to sift through the body parts. If they're guilty, we're bound to yield some good prints or DNA samples, from what's left of a ferry attack.

With these comments, you show a basic lack of understanding about the purpose of the Constitution and our laws. They were designed to protect the innocent, not to make the bad guys easier to catch. The premise of America is that you accept some risk in exhange for limited government power over individuals.

"It is better that 100 guilty men go free..."

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety..."

Somebody stop me, I'm quoting from a wiki!

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of two suspicious characters seen riding around on the Washington ferry system."

While we're at it: The papers/local TV never seem to have NO problem identifying suspects in murders and robberies, showing footage from bank heists, listing partials of license plates and so. Granted, these two aren't wanted in connection to any of these types of activities, but clearly the FBI had enough cause to issue a release and is interested in talking to them for SOME reason.

Tell you what, if my face mistakenly appeared on an FBI list and I knew I was innocent, the FIRST thing I would do is go and talk to the Feds.

Brian... would you still say "better that 100 guilty men go free..." if one of those men blew up a ferry with your family on it?

civil behavior qoute:

Terrorists want to kill us. No one thinks that's a game. But I refuse to be scared about it. I'm more afraid of the decisions of the oilygarchs in my own govt. The reason we have terror in the first place is because we occupy their territory and want to steal their oil. That is what you would like to avoid admitting. You'll never admit that. Thats what makes your argument so banal.

That's the reason terror exists?? Stealing their oil??

Prove it..

Better yet, tell it to the Israelis.. You've finally found the true reason for muslim rage..

If we are stealing their oil, we don't seem to be doing a very good job of it, considering the price of gas..

And contrary to your fantasies, terrorism exsisted quite a bit before George W. Bush entered the picture.. Or don't you think that the first WTC bombing, Kohbar Towers, the USS Cole, and the emmbasy bombings count as terrorism?

Were they all due to our "occupying their territory" so we could "steal their oil"??

Go back to your little cocoon of fantasies, put on your best tin foil hat, drink your warm kool-aid, and listen to some more of your "Ward Churchill's Greatest Hits" albums..

Fool..

Stealing whose oil?

At damn near $4/gal, doesn't feel like we're stealing anything.

Peter F:

Tell you what, if my face mistakenly appeared on an FBI list and I knew I was innocent, the FIRST thing I would do is go and talk to the Feds.

Excellent point and one I meant to note in my response to mantis.

How about this scenario:

Your neighbor who lives across the street from you in the "Appeasement Manor Subdivision," they have been asked to watch the house while you have been on vacation. (somewhere in the Middle East?)

Good neighbors they are they spot suspicious characters peering into your homes windows. Dressed in black, of apparent "martian heritage" and just after dark prompts your friends to call the police.

They give a full description as outlined above to police. Later in an effort to follow up what action police have taken the same neighbors use a scanner and over hear the APB the police put on the air. It contains the following:

"All points bulletin, be on the lookout for two individuals seen around a house in the "Appeasement Manor Subdivision."

What's wrong with this picture? How is it different than what the Seattle paper has done?

Civil [mis]behaviour:

The reason we have terror in the first place is because we occupy their territory and want to steal their oil.

How much oil were the French stealing from Iraq or other Mid-East countries.

How do you explain that terror attack asshat?

...would you still say "better that 100 guilty men go free..." if one of those men blew up a ferry with your family on it?

Of course not. He would blame BushTM for taking his eye off the ball and not fighting terrorism the smart democratics way.

You know, like how Clinton did it.

The premise of America is that you accept some risk in exhange for limited government power over individuals.
-------------------------------------
In other words, the risk Brian is willing to tolerate is even a nuke terrorist attack with millions of deaths so that the terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.

Send in the clowns....

Brian... would you still say "better that 100 guilty men go free..." if one of those men blew up a ferry with your family on it?

Absolutely not. I would say to round 'em all up and torture them to death. Fortunately, our forefathers were wise enough to provide a Constitution and laws that protect our society from such irrational and emotional knee-jerkism. They knew that the long-term survival of their vision depended on it.

Now here's a question for you. The US has a standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists. For the sake of time, I'll assume that you wouldn't proclaim "we don't negotiate with terrorists" if one of those terrorists was holding your family. So does that mean that you think the standing US policy is wrong when applied to others?

Fortunately, our forefathers were wise enough to provide a Constitution and laws that protect our society from such irrational and emotional knee-jerkism.
-------------------------------------
According to Brian, the fear of a terrorist nuke attack is an irrational and emotional knee-jerkism. So millions of death is a tolerable risk so that the terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.

Tell you what, if my face mistakenly appeared on an FBI list and I knew I was innocent, the FIRST thing I would do is go and talk to the Feds.

That's the old "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to be worried about" argument. It shows an ignorance of why America was founded in the first place.

Did you ever wonder why the 4th Amendment even exists? Why doesn't it instead say, "The people who have done no wrong have nothing to fear, and therefore all searches and seizures for any reason shall be accommodated"?

How about this? How about tomorrow you proactively go to your local police station and sign a standing waiver for any search warrants that may be sought for your property now or in the future. And sign a statement that if you're ever arrested in a case where you know you're innocent, then you permanently waive your right to an attorney.

After all, if you knew you were innocent, you'd have nothing to worry about, right?

In other words, the risk Brian is willing to tolerate is even a nuke terrorist attack with millions of deaths so that the terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.

No, terrorists should be dealt with harshly. But suspected terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.

I'm sorry you hate the Constitution so much.

The premise of America is that you accept some risk in exhange for limited government power over individuals.

The government power I'm concerned about is not them protecting us from terrorists and attacks from foreign nations.

The government power I'm concerned about is the ability to force me into a health care system that I don't need or want; into a social security system I don't need or want; a system of taxation that erodes economic freedom and is used primarily for social engineering experiments that have done little in the past forty years to ameliorate the problems they are designed to correct.

OTOH, I expect the government to do the former because it's not something I can do alone. It's not something that I and my neighbors or friends can accomplish. It's a national security issue and that is a legitimate function of government.

I haven't seen or experienced one single bit of distress or worry due to the government's attempt to protect us from terrorist attacks.

I am worried about the erosions of my personal freedoms to be responsible for the things I should be responsible for. They are here and there are more coming. They are real.

Government should only do those things that only government can do.

Or something like that.

*sigh* LAI, are you even capable of accurately understanding what you read? Or is your complete misrepresentation of everyone you respond to on here purely intentional?

According to Brian, the fear of a terrorist nuke attack is an irrational and emotional knee-jerkism.

Where did I say anything about fear of a terrorist attack? I was responding to CCG's scenario, which dealt with the reaction after a tragedy. Do you understand what those words mean?

So millions of death is a tolerable risk so that the terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.

No, it's a tolerable risk so you can have the maximum protection of the law.

No, terrorists should be dealt with harshly. But suspected terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.
------------------------------------
Thanks for confirming that you would rather wait until millions of people killed before you deal harshly with the terrorists for their "harrasment" using UPI terminology.

I'm sorry you hate the Constitution so much.
Are you speaking of yourself here? Why do you hate the constitution so much that you are willing to twist it and trash it to such an extent!

CB says:

The reason we have terror in the first place is because we occupy their territory and want to steal their oil. That is what you would like to avoid admitting. You'll never admit that. Thats what makes your argument so banal.

So keep poking the stick in the eye ok? Keep poking.

27. Posted by civil behavior | August 21, 2007 5:48 PM |
_______________________________________________

A commenter on the Hugh Hewitt blog makes the same reference to the oil:

_______________________________________________

Briggsy writes: Tuesday, August, 21, 2007 9:38 PM
Dustoff, are there any
working flow meters on the Iraq oil wells yet?

Who is getting all that free oil?

They are not passing the savings on to you.

Paid for with the blood of American and Iraqi military service personnel and Iraqi civilians.
______________________________________________

Briggsy and CB are close, are they not. Or just walking in lock step with DU talking points?

This is but a preview of what shall see in the coming weeks.

*sigh* LAI, are you even capable of accurately understanding what you read? Or is your complete misrepresentation of everyone you respond to on here purely intentional?
-------------------------------------
Is that what you are trying to do wrt to Pudge post? I didn't see he said anything about the constitution. Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent his post? I am just trying to apply your own standard here. So don't like your own standard?

Are you speaking of yourself here?

No. My statement was correct as written.

I'm sorry you hate the Constitution so much.

What a straw man. It's not a hate of the Constitution. It's a difference of the limit or expansiveness of the Fourth Amendment.

That's why it's probably one of the most litigated Amendment's. Liberals try to argue there is no reasonable search and seizure unless someone is caught in the act in broad daylight. Conservatives argue that search in the effort to avert harm on our citizens can be reasonable at times.

To end, a straw man for a straw man. I'm sorry you hate Americans so much. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

No, that isn't the old 'If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about' argument. It's the 'Hey, somebody screwed up and I better fix it' exclamation. And for what do you contrast the agenda of an individual with that of a group? What is the matter with you?

I'm sorry you hate rhetoric so much.
====================================

So millions of death is a tolerable risk so that the terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.
-------------------------------------
No, it's a tolerable risk so you can have the maximum protection of the law.

Thanks again for confirming that you are willing to tolerate millions of deaths so that the terrorists can have the maximum protection of the law.

No. My statement was correct as written.
--------------------------------
Sorry that I thought you might have been speaking of yourself. Let 's use your own question: why do you have the constitution so much that you are willing to twist it to such a trashy extent?

Correction: why do you HATE the constitution so much that you are willing to twist it to such a trashy extent?

1) Apologies to P-Z the poster. You go well with ale or beer.
2) CB attempts at logic so twisted it is an insult to pretzels everywhere to have made a metaphoric comparison, so I apologize to pretzels everywhere.
3) Maybe I should have used these for my metaphor:

http://www.hersheys.com/products/details/twizzlers.asp

They definitely don't go with beer or ale...

Brian - I find your passioned defense of the Constitution comical. At best.

But how does it relate to these two people seen on the Seattle ferry system?

The image wasn't taken by a member of the Gov., it was snapped by a member of the general public as they rode the ferry.

Furthermore they are in a public place riding a public form of transportation.

I would feel very safe in saying the Seattle PI on 3 of every 7 days chose to highlite a printed story with just such an image, taken in public of everyday citizens. And they do so without fear of charges of invasion of privacy of violation of anyone's civil rights.

Why? Because they are in PUBLIC, how do you think paparazzi operate so freely?

So tell me "Mr. Constitution" Brian, what rights would be violated by the paper publishing the photos?

The editors excuse is fallacious, PC bullshit!

Didn't you know marc, everyone whose pic. is in the paper has a legit right to sue for "violation of privacy" now. The people in the stands/the background, at sporting events, those in the pics. of the parade in the "metro" section etc. If they didn't give explicite permission to the papers' publisher himself, they will soon be getting on the phone to john edwards so he can make his next $50 million on behalf of "the little guy"(whom he'll, no doubt, soon be evicting from his home).

The image wasn't taken by a member of the Gov., it was snapped by a member of the general public as they rode the ferry.

Do you see no difference in running a picture with the caption "two guys enjoying the view" versus "wanted for questioning by the FBI"?

Why? Because they are in PUBLIC

So I can follow you around in PUBLIC and take pictures of you in PUBLIC and publish my own little marc fanzine and all that's perfectly legal? Hmmm...

how do you think paparazzi operate so freely?

Easy. Because there are "public figure" exceptions to many laws.

The people in the stands/the background, at sporting events

No, those venues typically make agreeing to have your picture taken part of the ticket contract.

So tell me "Mr. Constitution" Brian, what rights would be violated by the paper publishing the photos?

See, marc, what we don't understand is that it's the paper's job, even duty, to protect us little peeps from the tyranny of the government.

All the P-I is doing is protecting these two guys from the government's suspicions. The rest of the peeps be damned.

Also, what is of a higher moral point of view: 1)The ones who, in affect, say that it is better that a hundred child molesters go free to molest unhindered by justice and all of its,disapproved by the a.c.l.u., well, justicey kinds of consequences, than for ONE innocent man to even be detained "unnecessarily", or, 2) The ones who understand that a little faith in the system is required in order to protect the innocent, so if you have to lay face down on the blacktop in the 100 degree noonday sun because you fit the description of the guy who just did the driveby at the highschool down the street, you are able to dust yourself off, thank the guy in uniform for his vigilance, and get on with your life w/o fear of some made-up, for the most part(by the left),boogie man.

I've seen women roughed up by cops for the "offense" of being black. The answer to that is to shithammer the cop into professional oblivion, it is NOT to handcuff them with rediculous anti "racial profiling" rules and other PC garbage.

Bottom line: If these leftists were true to their credo of, "Do what's best for the many", they would have more of a "when in doubt, check 'em out" kind of approach. Instead, they subject the many,ie: the law abiding, to the horrors of the few, for the sake of the exception to the rule, the honest man who gets railroaded. So just be honest about it libs, either way, someone will get screwed in this imperfect system, you choose for it to continue to be the millions of victims of all of those millions who are released on technicallities, and I would rather live with the fact that a few "innocent" people get fried for having a bad lawyer, or a bad life, or just plain bad luck.

You see, that's the diff. between God fearing folks and most libs, we know there's an ULTIMATE justice and would rather lean to the side of protecting the innocent. They, on the other hand, are a bunch of hedonistic slobs who would hump mud for a moment of pleasure. I know that was incongruent, but I'm just sick of all these appeasers and perverts hiding behind their twisted interpretation of the Constitution. It's not a fricking suicide pact you stupid a-holes!

brian:

Do you see no difference in running a picture with the caption "two guys enjoying the view" versus "wanted for questioning by the FBI"?

Nope, because there is no difference. The caption chosen by an editor has nothing to do with the subjects privacy or civil rights except if he/she discloses something private like an address. Or something plainly false, but in that case it's related to potential defamation of character not privacy.

So I can follow you around in PUBLIC and take pictures of you in PUBLIC and publish my own little marc fanzine and all that's perfectly legal? Hmmm...

Exactly. Glad you see it my way. (See paparazzi reference above) However, if you run accompanying text that is false or inflammatory you're subject to a lawsuit but not for running a "fanzine about me." (I'm flattered BTW, when does the first issue hit the streets?)

Easy. Because there are "public figure" exceptions to many laws.

Yeap, sure are and none cover what you seem to believe they do, cite one that specifically covers my scenario.

No, those venues typically make agreeing to have your picture taken part of the ticket contract.

Horse crap is about all that is worth.

Not one of these stupid democrat trolls would be saying a single word or pretending they give a damn about the Constitution if one of their jerkoff masters were President.

civil behavior:

But I refuse to be scared about it. I'm more afraid of the decisions of the oilygarchs in my own govt. The reason we have terror in the first place is because we occupy their territory and want to steal their oil. That is what you would like to avoid admitting. You'll never admit that. Thats what makes your argument so banal.

We've been over this so many times in the past, makes me realize you must not read responses.

Good, don't be scared about it. But you seem to confuse lack of fear with blissful ignorance. I'm not scared either, but I'm certainly aware of my surroundings and who inhabits them.

I don't even need to touch on the oil issue, as its the common non-argument put forth when you 'blame America first' types have their fantasy universe deflated...and it's been addressed by other commenters.

I'm not surprised you're more afraid of the government than you are of people who have, and continue to actively seek your destruction.
There is a way to fix this however: Go live in Greenland. We're not forcing you to stay in the country that you're so afraid of.

"That's the old "if you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to be worried about" argument."

No. That's not what Marc said at all. Marc described what he would do as an individual had his picture appeared in a publication with the caption that he was wanted for questioning. I wonder myself - what would you do? I would immediately want to clear myself of suspicion.

Let's not even get into the fact that they were seen acting in an "unusual" manner on several occasions and that they displayed an "unusual" interest in the operations of the ferry. While that behavior is not fully described, their behavior was "unusual" enough to be reported several times by several people.

You're ignoring two things here, Brian, in order to put forward your generic argument about privacy and supposed innocense. 1) Their repeated behavior and 2) nothing in that brief report said they were terrorism suspects. As a matter of fact, they clearly stated that their "behavior may have been innocuous".

No, the P-I is not obligated to run their photos. But I think it's kind of silly to say, "Despite the photos, the FBI was unable Monday to provide the men's height, weight or estimated age."

Say what? They claim the FBI won't give them that information? Lame. The P-I couldn't glean that information from the photos themselves? Especially with a fixed attribute, the railing, right next to them to determine their heights, their faces are quite clear to determine age and an almost full-body image to determine weight. What a bunch of putzes.

PI didn't want to help prevent a possible attack, but use it as a story for their silly political correctness

Did the P-I feel like helping out? No -- they felt like making a rather silly point about "privacy". The extent of their assistance is to post a number on their site for readers to call the FBI if they have any more information about the men the P-I refuse to show. Oh, and let's not forget, a haiku contest:

As the story develops today, what concerns you most: The possible threat to security? The way the alert was released? Something completely different? Put it in a three-line, 5-7-5 syllable bit of pop haiku for today's contest.
My favorite so far, by Dani B:

Don't be proactive
More readers if ferry sinks
Post pictures after

Smoke or no smoke: just heard an "Alert" on Fox about a suspicious package found in the passenger area of a ferry.

Probably gonna' turn out to be nothing; but, interesting none the less.

John in CA's #62 post was an excellent, "right on the money" response to the ass-backwards way that leftists like Brian view liberty.

I also thought this was a great response by Marc: "I find your passioned defense of the Constitution comical. At best."

At best it's comical.

I heard a term on the radio this morning that I liked a lot. It is very appropriate for Brian , Cb, and most leftists: intellectual invalids.

P. Bunyan:

Is that invalids?

Or is it invalids?

From this morning's Seattle Times:

"The FBI wants to identify two men who reportedly rode as many as six different ferry routes in recent weeks -- snapping photos of doorways and going to areas of the boats where passengers don't normally go -- and is asking the public to help.

"They were taking photographs of doors, not seabirds," said U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Richard Hartley in Seattle.

I take pictures of seagulls.

Gomez said employees and passengers reported the incidents over several weeks this summer. In at least one instance, they asked questions about ferry operations....

Sort of like taking flying lessons. And not learning to land.

"We are able to resolve the great majority of reports of suspicious activities on the ferries," Gomez said. "We have not been able to do that here."

Why didn't they print the information on the suspicious riders earlier?

The Seattle Times reported on Aug. 4 that security had been increased due to suspicious riders on ferries. When the photos were released late Monday afternoon, The Times refrained from publishing them in print or online. "We had little more information than we'd reported earlier in the month, and we wanted to better understand the circumstances surrounding the investigation and the photographs," said Suki Dardarian, managing editor of news coverage and enterprise

Further reporting helped us more effectively weigh the potential value -- and harm -- of publishing the photos. After some deliberation, we decided to publish the photographs, along with as much context as we could bring to the story."

Now THAT is legit. Unlike the PI's lame ass excuse.

Read it all at seattletimes.com

(WTF is up with the slowness of Wizbang?)

I meant "in-va-lid" ("one who is sickly or disabled"), but I suppose "in-val-id" ("a: being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law; or b: logically inconsequent") would not be inaccurate either.

Meanwhile, while you wizbangers piss your pants about terra' in this country, 14 soldiers that could have been looking for these guys died in a blackhawk helicopter 10,000 miles away in Iraq. Heck of a job guys.

How are they supposed to look for them when the newspaper won't show the pictures, boy genius Meyers?
========================================

Even worse,boy genius Meyers (good one, kim), if guys in helicopters (say Blackhawks) went flying around the Puget Sound looking for them, you'd squawk about the military idustrial complex or our present fascist state or some other sych gobbledy-goo.

Clown.

Meyers, you are an incompetent moron. The PI is failing to cooperate with a search for these guys, and you are whining about casualties in iraq. Not a brilliant comment.