Terror Alerts / Approval Ratings

CptSternn · 08-16-2006, 04:07 PM

MSNBC had a great piece on the other night you can watch here...

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...d/3036677/&fg=

Bascially, every major 'terror alert' has parallelled bad news for the bush administration. Every time the media picked up on a storey that made bush look bad, a new 'terror alert' is issued. If you google 'terror alert approval rating' you will find many sites, articles, and charts detailing this trend.

Most recently, liberman lost the primary in his state, and the same day bush warns of the british plane threat - even though they had knowledge of this threat many days before and asked the british government NOT to arrest the suspects and to keep it SECRET until after the liberman primary.

And we can't forget to note that the 3 suspects arrested just a few days ago and accused of being terrorists for buying mobile phones have had their charges dropped, and 'a few' of the men arrested in britian have now have been released. This all of course is after the media has gone past looking at the liberman loss.

Anyone else have thoughts on this? Anyone else think that every time the approval rating drops or bad news comes out that bush brings out the 'bogeyman' in an effort to change the topic on the telly?

CptSternn · 08-22-2006, 02:21 AM

In the latest on this trend...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/21/pa...ies&eref=yahoo

Judge drops Padilla terror charge

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- A federal judge in Miami on Monday dismissed a terror count against Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen once identified as a "dirty bomb" suspect and detained as an "enemy combatant."

*snip*

This follows the other 'warnings' they used to raise the 'alert' system, which so far has been raised over a few children with similar names to 'people of interest' and now the second case, which charges were dropped, that the current admin used to raise the terror level in conjunction with bad news.

Budweiser69 · 08-22-2006, 12:52 PM

ummm... his approval rating is up to 42 percent. the operative word being "up"

http://english.people.com.cn/200608/...22_295586.html

CptSternn · 08-23-2006, 03:11 AM

True, but I was merely pointing out that the charges were once again dropped against a 'terror suspect', third time in as many months.

And once again, the charges dropped were against a person who they used as an example in 'the war on terror' AND had the terror alert level raised to defend against.

As per the video clip - when they arrested Padilla they plastered DIRTY BOMB on the news, stopped flights, etc. - all about the time the bush admin had a major slap in the face on the news. Now we see, all those warnings and news coverage was of nothing - and they again claim that it has nothing to do with trying to subvert the media storeys against them.

Delkaetre · 08-23-2006, 07:06 AM

It goes in cycles of roughly one every six weeks.
This latest one we're suffering in Britain is damn annoying-
http://uk.news.**********/23082006/3...ll-ordeal.html
They spoke their native language (Urdu) and looked foreign. So everyone got racist about it and decided they were clearly terrorists. They were taken off the flight at gunpoint, arrested, and questioned for several hours.

CptSternn · 09-04-2006, 04:00 AM

Today, this article casts more light on the subject...

http://news.**********/s/ap/20060904...m_prosecutions

Study finds fewer terror prosecutions

WASHINGTON - Despite a sharp increase in the prosecution of terrorism cases just after Sept. 11, 2001, only 14 of the defendants have been sentenced to 20 years or more in prison, according to a study based on Justice Department data.

Of the 1,329 convicted defendants, only 625 received any prison sentence, said the study, released Sunday by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data research group at Syracuse University. More than half of those convicted got no prison time or no more than they had already served awaiting their verdict.

The analysis of data from Justice's Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys also found that in the eight months ending last May, Justice attorneys declined to prosecute more than nine out of every 10 terrorism cases sent to them by the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies. Nearly 4 in 10 of the rejected cases were scrapped because prosecutors found weak or insufficient evidence, no evidence of criminal intent or no evident federal crime.[/i]

*snip*

Read the article. It basic states that OVER 80% of all 'terror convictions' are actually immigration violations - and that since the hype has now passed, that prosecuting attorneys are no longer prosecuting minor crimes under those new big federal laws anymore because they look like idiots trying to swat a fly with a bazooka.

So, of about 80% of the 'terror cases' the FBI spends years and hundreds of millions investigating, only a small amount (so far under 15) ever get a real prison sentence. And this year, under 20 have even been prosecuted.

The question is then, will BILLIONS now allocated to 'fight' the problem, and hundreds of agents activey working on this problem which now admittedly doesn't exists - where is all that money going?

Binkie · 09-04-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

*snip*

Mmm'no. Let's not snip it there, especially since you provided essentially a dead link that doesn't take anyone to the rest of the article. Let's continue with what you left out:

********************

""There are many flaws in the report," said Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra. "It is irresponsible to attempt to measure success in the war on terror without the necessary details about the government's strategy and tactics."

For instance, Sierra said, prison sentences are "not the proper measure of the success of the department's overall counterterrorism efforts. The primary goal ... is to detect, disrupt and deter terrorist activities."

Because prosecutors try to charge potential terrorists before they act, they often allege fraud, false statements or immigration violations that carry lesser penalties than the offenses that could be charged after an attack, Sierra said. This "allows us to engage the enemy earlier than if we waited for them to act first."

...

The sharp decline in prosecutions may show that prosecutors have moved away from "all kinds of secondary infractions" they pursued early on, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project. Those early cases drew criticism that Arab-Americans were rounded up based on mere racial profiling.

The small number of long prison sentences shouldn't be a surprise because "terrorism is actually very rare — far more people are killed in ordinary street crime," said James Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Nevertheless terrorism poses a risk of catastrophic loss of life, "so agencies must pursue a lot of leads that do not pan out," Dempsey added. "We can't blame the FBI for pursuing those leads, but we can blame them and the Justice Department for arresting people and making a big media splash when things don't pan out."

****************

For reference: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...osecutions.php

So, less racial profiling and you're angry, Sternn? Oh wait, I forgot, you're core arguement in the Dubai port deal was that it was a security risk because, "they're Arabs." I believe the rest of the article speaks for itself. Anyone wishing for a counter arguement can simply read it.

CptSternn · 09-05-2006, 08:56 AM

Those statements further my point even more.

First quote you posted...

Because prosecutors try to charge potential terrorists before they act, they often allege fraud, false statements or immigration violations that carry lesser penalties than the offenses that could be charged after an attack, Sierra said. This "allows us to engage the enemy earlier than if we waited for them to act first."

Heh - thats a nice way of saying they have nothing to really charge them with.

Look at the Padilla - they had a dozen terror warnings - the president listed the man by name, and they raised the terror alert for this guy. Not only that, they later held him for 3 years in a naval brig. You think they were just going to 'deport' him? No. Any suspect they really want to charge will be on telly so they can flaunt it for political purposes. Saying they charged men with immigration violations in efforts to stop terrorist attacks is silly. Sending them back to the middle is is a sure-fire way to 'prevent attacks? You believe that?

Second statement:

Those early cases drew criticism that Arab-Americans were rounded up based on mere racial profiling.

Precisely. A majority of the current caseload, and previous case-load was modern day racism. No more blacks to pick on, so the new administration has turned america on those of middle eastern descent. Now that the threat has been found to be a political tool and people don't care anymore, they see it for what it is - a racist tool. The fact that in hind sight they admit they are racist bastards doesn't absolvement from the fact they acted in a racist manner and today do so not through court cases but rhetoric and policy.

Finally :

The small number of long prison sentences shouldn't be a surprise because "terrorism is actually very rare — far more people are killed in ordinary street crime," said James Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Right on the money. BILLIONS being spent to stop terrorism, while New Orleans has roving bands of gunmen walking the streets. Lets not foget about Harlem, Compton, and downtown Detroit. But hey, fighting crime in america doesn't help the political agenda - so spending money and resources on that doesn't happen.

And as billions are wasted fighting a fictiocious enemy, the public is beaten, robbed, and ***** by real criminals who are neglected because fighting real crime is not the objective of the current administration.

Binkie · 09-05-2006, 09:46 AM

Nice way to "snip" what comments you address. Let's put everything back into context again: Putting people behind bars isn't the mission of these arrests and investigations. I know you've never REALLY been to prison, but here in the States that institution is a breeding ground for Islamic extremism. Conspiracy only gets you so many years, then you're back out onto the street. Meanwhile deporting their asses to another country prohibits them from ever just walking right back out onto the street. Not to mention many of these countries take these suspects into their own custody and do all sorts of nasty things to them. Depending on what countries, some of these folks will either never see the light of day again, or will be heavily restricted in movement and will most likely be under surveylance alot of the time.

As for your second "bone picking" set of remarks, I refuse to argue with someone who changes their entire position when the true nature of their remarks is found to be hypocritical. Your big issue originally was that money didn't go into these investigations enough and that was a problem. Now all of the sudden you have a problem with the investigations. This is exactly like the Dubai ports deal issue. You say it's bad and that it's going to leave the US open for a terrorist attack because "they're Arabs," then you turn around after being called a racist and say, "Oh I've been to Dubai, I love Arabs and I'm friends with every single one of them."

See, no matter what the US does, you have a problem with it, even if it contradicts your own flawed belief system which you seem to make up as you go along. That's how you make your naked bias and hatred for the US government (and citizens in other cases/threads) so evident. Sorry, but there really is no arguement here if the person you're arguing with just hops onto the other side of the argument when it's convenient for their "public image." You need to figure out what the fuck you believe in BEFORE you start a debate, Sternn.

Also, nice oversimplification of the situation right after Katrina. You need to go back and re-evaluate the factors involved in why people were walking around with guns for all of two or three days before the National Guard was finally able to arrive (due to roads being rendered completely useless by the devistation of the storm). And yeah, you can prevent **** in a person's private home by haveing three more policemen on duty in a given city. That makes a whole lot of sense.

I'll try to explain this again so that you understand here, Sternn. It's rare that you're able to go out and arrest someone before a crime is commited. In most cases people don't plan out how they're going to shoot their girlfriend when they stumble upon her having an affair with someone, or how they're going to **** a girl when they're drunk or high. In cases of terrorism that claim many lives, people have to draw up huge plans, build bombs, etc. But whatever, oversimplify it in your own mind if it justifies itself in some whacky way which only makes sense to you.

CptSternn · 09-09-2006, 06:34 AM

Nice post, with actually no content on the topic.

Binkie · 09-09-2006, 09:20 AM

Yes, Katrina was the topic alright, also the budget was, along with other topics that you stumbled upon when your core arguement ran out with the posting of the rest of the article which you pointedly "snipped." Obviously you have nothing to back up in what you said. I guess we're finished here.

CptSternn · 09-12-2006, 02:41 AM

Katrinia was another thread ye twat.

Stick to the topic.

Like this article here. Looks like I'm not the only one to see this trend and call it for what it is...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/...ies&eref=yahoo

Poll: More Americans blame Bush for 9/11

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks. (Read the complete poll results -- PDF)

That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.

Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

The poll was carried out August 30 through September 2 by Opinion Research Corp. with 1,004 American adults questioned by telephone. The sampling error for the questions was 3 percentage points.

Over HALF of americans now think bush is using terrorism to his advantage and is RESPONSIBLE for 9/11.

Binkie · 09-12-2006, 10:16 AM

Hehe... oh, that's cute. Your rants are so aimlessly desperate that you don't remember what they're about in retrospect. Let me refresh your memory here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Right on the money. BILLIONS being spent to stop terrorism, while New Orleans has roving bands of gunmen walking the streets.

Ooops... that's THIS thread you were talking about that. Oh wait, maybe you were referring to the Mississippi Riflemen? LOL. Heed your own advise and stick to the topic, retard. Or at the very least, remember what the fuck you're whining and crying about.

CptSternn · 09-13-2006, 12:43 AM

Over HALF of americans now think bush is using terrorism to his advantage and is RESPONSIBLE for 9/11.

And ye try to switch the topic to Katrina? What? Ye think bush handled Katrina so well that we should discuss that here? Ye actually support bushs Katrina response?

Binkie · 09-13-2006, 06:21 AM

I responded to your ignorant and uneducated remarks, Sternn. You brought up Katrina first in a retarded and desperate tie-in. So when you ask, "What does Katrina have to do with this?" Well... that's a good fucking question to ask yourself.

I already made clear what my problem was with your statement. If you didn't understand it, please tell me that you're too stupid to comprehend and I'll draw you a picture so you don't have to read all those big words.

CptSternn · 09-18-2006, 02:30 AM

What that post has to do with the tpoic si beyond me.

Bottom line - bush only declares a terror warning if his approval rate is slumping.

Goes to show how much of the americans best interests he has in mind.

Binkie · 09-18-2006, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptSternn

What that post has to do with the tpoic si beyond me.

I'll just assume you're refering to your own post earlier in this thread in which you brought up Katrina.

And in response to your other dumbass remarks; no, the terror alert level is in conjunction with pending or prevented terrorist attacks. When a major plot has been foiled, the alert goes up in case not everyone was nabbed. Obviously you don't work for the Federal Government and have zero idea of how the alert system works. Or maybe you're just an idiot who thought Bush's approval rating was only down at that time, in which case I'd like to remind your dumb ass that his approval rating was on the rise before this incident.

CptSternn · 09-19-2006, 07:32 AM

...did you not view the video clip?

Binkie · 09-19-2006, 08:25 AM

Yep. adfadfa

CptSternn · 09-21-2006, 02:00 AM

Obermann rules. And once again your proven quite wrong. Especially since that clip is ranked as one of the biggest things on YouTube right now.

Well, that and Allen with his rasist comments.

Either way, the media is reflecting what the people are saying.

Tis about time.

Binkie · 09-21-2006, 08:06 AM

LOL.

Ok... if you perfer to get your news from YouTube.com based on what 12 year olds are watching the most, be my guest. Oh, by the way, what's the hottest news article on MySpace.com and TeenMeetUp.com these days?

CptSternn · 09-24-2006, 07:49 AM

Actually Obermanns on MSNBC. YOu obviously don't know much about YouTube, seeings how its being blamed for the fall of Allen, as well as other right wingers as more and more footage of them actings the maggot ends up in view of the world.

The best part of this is, when MSNBC starts reporting that the terror alerts are bogus, its a real sign of change.

Before, anyone who suggested that was considered crazy. Now, more and more reporters on CNN, MSNBC, and other networks are reporting this.

Guess that throws a wrench in the works for the bush admin, eh?

Binkie · 09-24-2006, 06:26 PM

Who's Allen? I'm sorry, you're going to have to elaborate on some of these issues... I don't take part in political discussions on sites made popular by 13 year olds showing their breasts and singing Blink 182 songs in front of a webcam. I guess I'm missing something extremely important on the international level because of this.

CptSternn · 09-27-2006, 07:21 AM

Senator George Allen of 'maccaca' fame. You not see that on the 'adult' news you claim to watch?

Binkie · 09-27-2006, 03:38 PM

I don't watch news, I read it. Primarily from al-Jazeera's english site and occassionally from Yahoo! when al-Jazeera lacks in details or other perspective quotes. The news I pick up from Yahoo! though is 90% foreign under the "Full Coverage" section by country name. There's alot more important things going on in the world than a Senator scandal in the US. That's just my opinion though because I care more about the situation in Sri Lanka than I do in a US re-election campaign state that's not my own. You apparently have the reverse philosophy, which is... well, who cares.