Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Feeling secure?

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two teams of government investigators using fake documents were able to enter the United States with enough radioactive sources to make two dirty bombs, according to a federal report made available Monday.

The investigators purchased a "small quantity" of radioactive materials from a commercial source while posing as employees of a fictitious company and brought the materials into the United States through checkpoints on the northern and southern borders, according to a Government Accountability Office report prepared for Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Chairman Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican.

"It's just an indictment of the system that it's easier to get radiological material than it is to get cold medicine," said a senior subcommittee staffer about the findings.

The report, along with two others by the GAO on the subject of smuggling and detection of nuclear materials, were provided to reporters by congressional sources in advance of the first of two hearings by the subcommittee scheduled to begin Tuesday.

The focus will be on what the federal government has done to protect the country against nuclear terrorism. This week's hearings come after almost three years of bipartisan and bicameral investigations into the subject.

A second GAO report notes that while the departments of State, Energy and Defense have provided radiation-detection equipment to 36 countries since 1994 to combat nuclear smuggling, operating the equipment has proven challenging.

Those challenges include technical limitations of some of the equipment, a lack of supporting infrastructure at some border sites and corruption of some foreign border security officials.

The report also notes that the State Department, the lead interagency coordinator in this effort, has not maintained a master list of U.S.-funded radiation-detection equipment in foreign countries.

Without such a list, program managers at the agencies involved "cannot accurately assess if equipment is operational and being used as intended; determine the equipment needs of countries where they plan to provide assistance; or detect if an agency has unknowingly supplied duplicative equipment," the report says.

It further criticizes the State Department, saying that "without taking steps to ensure that all previously provided radiation-detection equipment, specifically hand-held equipment, is adequately maintained and remains operational, State cannot ensure the continued effectiveness or long-term sustainability of this equipment."

A third GAO report observes that, while the Department of Homeland Security has made progress in deploying radiation-detection equipment at U.S. ports -- which include 670 portal monitors and more than 19,000 pieces of hand-held radiation detection equipment as of last December -- the agency's program goals are "unrealistic" and its cost estimate is "uncertain."

GAO's analysis concluded that the program may exceed its budget by $342 million.

David McIntyre, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNN that the agency disagreed with the GAO over the risk significance of the materials taken across the border, but then said he didn't know what materials were involved.

The NRC ranks radioactive materials by order of their security significance, such as radioactivity, dispersability and how attractive they might be to terrorists.

On the issue of the fake NRC documents downloaded from the Internet and doctored by the GAO investigators to get their shipment past border officials, McIntyre said, "We are concerned about their ability to counterfeit an NRC document, and we are taking steps to address that."

The steps include finding ways to make NRC documents more difficult to counterfeit and working with customs officials if they need information about NRC licenses or licensees.

Posted by: fossten

Look who's worried about our security all of a sudden. Consider the recent articles posted by the liberals on this site and CONTRAST them with the past articles DECRYING the so-called NSA spying program.

Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Look who's worried about our security all of a sudden. Consider the recent articles posted by the liberals on this site and CONTRAST them with the past articles DECRYING the so-called NSA spying program.

Can't have it both ways.

Find ONE post from a "liberal" here where they advocate shutting down the NSA wiretapping program. You can't because it hasn't happened.

Quote:

David McIntyre, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told CNN that the agency disagreed with the GAO over the risk significance of the materials taken across the border, but then said he didn't know what materials were involved.

LOL, talking out his a-s-s.

Posted by: barry2952

Actually, I just posted to show what a terrific job Chertoff is doing. Great job, Cherty!

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Actually, I just posted to show what a terrific job Chertoff is doing. Great job, Cherty!

Yeah, he's doing "a heck of a job". LOL.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Find ONE post from a "liberal" here where they advocate shutting down the NSA wiretapping program. You can't because it hasn't happened.

LOL, talking out his a-s-s.

Bend over and sniff deeply, my friend.

You can find article after article and lib opinion after lib opinion on this forum accusing the President of breaking the law and characterizing the surveillance program as illegal. You just succeeded in pointing out your OWN critical flaw - if it's so illegal, why don't you all want it shut down?

You can't have it both ways - STRIKE TWO.

And don't give me that crap about searches and seizures or I'll invoke the names of Elian Gonzalez, David Koresh, and 900 (oops) FBI files.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Bend over and sniff deeply, my friend.

Johnny is just afraid that the CIA might be listening in on him and his pal having phone sex.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Johnny is just afraid that the CIA might be listening in on him and his pal having phone sex.

WOW, I'm am like SO flattered to know that little 'ol ME preocupies so much time of your two's daily lives. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

You can find article after article and lib opinion after lib opinion on this forum accusing the President of breaking the law and characterizing the surveillance program as illegal. You just succeeded in pointing out your OWN critical flaw - if it's so illegal, why don't you all want it shut down?

You can't have it both ways - STRIKE TWO.

And you succeeded in once again revealing your own flimsy grasp of reality.

A) You proved your lame attempt at pointing out some "irony" of Barry expressing concern over the security of the US while being critical of the NSA program was founded on the misconception that being "critical of the legality" of the NSA program somehow equates to being against it. That's quite a reach, only possible by someone completely out of touch w/ reality. STRIKE ONE.

B) You proved you cannot provide my requested links to any statement made by any "liberal" here advocating shutting down the NSA program. This is because no such statements have EVER been made. STRIKE TWO.

C) You proved that the concept of wanting security for the US while at the same time wanting the President of the US to be a law abiding citizen just like the rest of us, just like that office requires of him, is just too much for you to comprehend. While this concept is apparently much too large for your little mind to get it's arms around, so much so that you consider it a "flaw", most reasonable people find this a positive attribute. STRIKE THREE.

D) You also proved that you would rather YOUR president be a law-breaker, than a law-abider. That's quite sad. STRIKE FOUR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And don't give me that crap about searches and seizures or I'll invoke the names of Elian Gonzalez, David Koresh, and 900 (oops) FBI files.

And this has exactly WHAT to do w/ the topic of this thread? HELLO!! Fossten!! Please come back to the ranch!!

Posted by: fossten

Here we go again. Johnny can't avoid getting personal while barely engaging in a one-sided debate. I shall henceforth place all such assaults in bold for all to see clearly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

And you succeeded in once again revealing your own flimsy grasp of reality.

A) You proved your lame attempt at pointing out some "irony" of Barry expressing concern over the security of the US while being critical of the NSA program was founded on the misconception that being "critical of the legality" of the NSA program somehow equates to being against it. That's quite a reach, only possible by someone completely out of touch w/ reality. STRIKE ONE.

Clumsy job of equivocation (see dictionary). I pointed out barry's HYPOCRISY, not his IRONY. And you overstepped all by yourself when you called the President a lawbreaker. How you stretch from "critical of the legality" to "lawbreaker" is representative of the hard left fringe of this country. You somehow equate an accusation from a group that has little credibility with most of America with an assumption of conviction of broken laws. That's absolutely absurd and there's no need to debate it any further. And then you sprinkle liberally (pun) with personal attacks. What more could we expect? I don't really believe it's possible for you to address me in a civil manner. So much for the liberal progressyves being the kind, caring, tolerant ones. Ha. Don't make me laugh. Nice of you to show your true colors. Interesting that I only have to make one post for you to flare up like the 4th of July.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

B) You proved you cannot provide my requested links to any statement made by any "liberal" here advocating shutting down the NSA program. This is because no such statements have EVER been made. STRIKE TWO.

I NEVER claimed that any liberal advocated shutting the program down. YOU are the one that set up that straw man just so you could knock it down yourself. I don't have to prove that, since your very assertion proves MY point, which is that you liberals are trying to take both sides of an issue. It won't fly at the polls anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

C) You proved that the concept of wanting security for the US while at the same time wanting the President of the US to be a law abiding citizen just like the rest of us, just like that office requires of him, is just too much for you to comprehend. While this concept is apparently much too large for your little mind to get it's arms around, so much so that you consider it a "flaw", most reasonable people find this a positive attribute. STRIKE THREE.

That ad hominem, personal attack is about as graceful as a cross-eyed elephant on a lopsided skateboard and, as such, deserves no response. Typical Johnny. Your argument in and of itself is presumptive, vague, and devoid of evidence or logical reasoning. And, by the way, most Americans want the NSA program in place and DON'T differentiate between your side's weak argument about "making it legal."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

D) You also proved that you would rather YOUR president be a law-breaker, than a law-abider. That's quite sad. STRIKE FOUR.

That is an ad hominem attack, and quite unworthy of even being labeled an argument, especially since you have NO PROOF that a law is being broken. This is a Constitutional issue, and any law passed that disagrees with the Constitution is, by default, unconstitutional. End of story. This has already been debated and your side has been found wanting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

And this has exactly WHAT to do w/ the topic of this thread? HELLO!! Fossten!! Please come back to the ranch!!

Need I remind you (since you are either too lazy or unwilling to read back to the top) that I exposed barry's hypocrisy and you (predictably) attacked me.

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Find ONE post from a "liberal" here where they advocate shutting down the NSA wiretapping program. You can't because it hasn't happened.
LOL, talking out his a-s-s.

All you liberals, everyone of you, advocated "rights" for those criminals that want to KILL you.

Giving them "rights" makes the program completely ineffective.

If you are not willing to give some of your rights to support the effort, maybe you should live somewhere else.

Figure it out.

Posted by: fossten

Just because I KNOW we won't be seeing this on the evening news...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

...You also proved that you would rather YOUR president be a law-breaker, than a law-abider.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Thursday, March 30, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

FISA Judge: Bush Wiretapping Broke No Law

In a significant vindication for President Bush, a judge who co-authored the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act said Tuesday that the president was duly authorized under the Constitution to order the wiretapping of suspected terrorists - without getting a warrant from the FISA Court.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FISA Court Judge Allan Kornblum said that president's Constitutional powers supersede the FISA law, which critics claim the Bush program violated.

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Kornblum, in quotes picked up by the Washington Times.

Kornblum, who supervised Justice Department wiretap applications to the FISA court for years, is now a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Testifying along with four other former FISA Court judges, Judge Kornblum suggested that it would have been irresponsible for Bush to have deferred to the FISA Court.

"I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute," the FISA author said.

While the Washington Times said Kornblum's testimony indicated that the Bush surveillance program did not violate the law, other media outlets interpreted the judges' comments differently.

On the same concept of inherent constitutional authority, the Associated Press quoted Kornblum as saying: "I am very wary of inherent authority . . . It sounds very much like King George."

The AP didn't mention the FISA author's other remarks about Bush having the power to "act unilaterally."

The New York Times also failed to find vindication for Bush in Kornblum's words, reporting instead that the FISA judges "voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order."

Instead of Kornblum, the Times focused on the opinion of former FISA Judge Harold A. Baker, who said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else."

If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, "'the president ignores it at the president's peril," Baker insisted.

The other FISA judges who testified before the committee were Stanley Brotman of Camden, NJ; John Keenan of the southern district of New York City; and William Stafford of Pensacola, Fla.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

OK, so you've got the opinion of 1 FISA judge there. What about the other four judges that testified? The article mentions that at least one other was skeptical, and nothing about the other three's testimony. Apparently a final ruling has yet to be made on the "legality" of the NSA wiretapping program. When these hearings are completed and a final ruling is handed down, I'm willing to accept that regardless of the outcome. But until then, the question is still in the air.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I pointed out barry's HYPOCRISY, not his IRONY.

"Irony" may not be the right word, but "hypocrisy" is definately NOT what Barry had comitted. There is nothing hypocritical about wanting security for the US while at the same time having the expectation that the president abide by the laws of this land. As I've stated above, the question of the legality of the NSA program is still up in the air.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Need I remind you (since you are either too lazy or unwilling to read back to the top) that I exposed barry's hypocrisy and you (predictably) attacked me.

I did NOT "attack" you. I was challenging your assertion that "liberals" here are "DECRYING the so-called NSA spying program." Since you did not say "questioning the legality of the NSA program", I had to assume you were referring to the wiretapping itself. You can try to backpedal from this based on your own vague wording, but it's not going to fly here. "Strawman" or not, I called you on it and proved you were wrong. If anthing in this thread could be considered an "attack", the first one would be this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Bend over and sniff deeply, my friend.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitas

All you liberals, everyone of you, advocated "rights" for those criminals that want to KILL you.

Giving them "rights" makes the program completely ineffective.

What exactly are you referring to? What "rights" are you accusing "liberals" of advocating for suspected terrorists? Please be specific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitas

If you are not willing to give some of your rights to support the effort, maybe you should live somewhere else.

You've got that backwards. Any one who IS willing to give up their own rights as a citizen of this great country has no buisness living here.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

When these hearings are completed and a final ruling is handed down, I'm willing to accept that regardless of the outcome. But until then, the question is still in the air.

If it's still in the air, then you are premature at best, a liar at worst, in calling Bush a lawbreaker. Ready to take that back? I doubt it. You just contradicted yourself. Congratulations, you are standing on both sides of your own argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Wrong and wrong. First of all, you DID attack me in speaking to me in a pejorative manner.

Secondly, you can't prove me wrong on something that I never disagreed with. You just

yourself. Obviously you don't know what a "straw man" is, or you wouldn't have made that ignorant statement. But that's okay, everybody else in the world does.

I will now re-iterate: I never said liberals wanted the NSA program shut down. Therefore, your attempt to prove me wrong failed in its inception. Your claim is invalid and your logic is flawed, while your rhetoric remains spiteful and immature.

Once again, you have managed to decompose the debate into a spitting contest with your facetious remarks and your focus on petty details, rather than on actual substance. I fully expect you to respond to this with more defensiveness and lashing out.

Here: I'll even give you some space for it:

There. Fill in the above blank with your hateful diatribes.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I called Bush a lawbreaker? Where? Still living in a fantasy world, eh? As expected, you make stuff up so you can *think* you've won some argument. Whatever, sounds like a personal problem to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Wrong and wrong. First of all, blah blah blah blah blah......with your hateful diatribes.

You RWWs need some new talking points for your rhetorical ramblings, describing your dribble as a "broken record" is being much too kind.

Here's some more rope, carry on.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

I called Bush a lawbreaker? Where? Still living in a fantasy world, eh? As expected, you make stuff up so you can *think* you've won some argument. Whatever, sounds like a personal problem to me.

(Vitriolic, sarcastic tone) Excuse me. My mistake. You did not, in fact, call him a lawbreaker. You called him a law-breaker.

My bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

D) You also proved that you would rather YOUR president be a law-breaker, than a law-abider. That's quite sad. STRIKE FOUR.

I predict I will watch you futilely attempt to wriggle out of this one with some satisfaction.