With Al Qaeda shattered, U.S. counter-terrorism's future unclear [Archive] - Debate Policy

revelarts

04-17-2013, 01:53 PM

Opinions differ over how much threat Al Qaeda's factions pose and how U.S. policy and spending should change.

By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times April 14, 2013, 9:09 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Skilled in tracking foreign terrorists, Jarret Brachman once was a sought-after expert on Al Qaeda (http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/terrorism/al-qaeda-ORCIG000003751.topic), advising several federal agencies and speaking regularly around the country.
Now the former research director of the Combating Terrorism Center, a think tank at the U.S. Military (http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/u.s.-military-ORGOV000021106.topic) Academy at West Point (http://www.latimes.com/topic/us/virginia/king-william-county/west-point-PLGEO100101166020000.topic), has turned his focus away from Islamic militants. He spends most of his time consulting with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies about threats from domestic extremists and antigovernment militias.
"I have totally re-branded my career," Brachman said. "I still do the Al Qaeda stuff, but there's no interest, no demand.... We've broken Al Qaeda's back, strategically."

Thanks to drone missile strikes and other counter-terrorism operations, the network founded by Osama bin Laden (http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/terrorism/osama-bin-laden-PECLB20372037.topic) has been so eviscerated that U.S. intelligence agencies no longer fully understand the organizational structure below its nominal leader, Ayman Zawahiri, according to defense officials. The CIA (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/espionage-intelligence/central-intelligence-agency-ORGOV000009.topic) has killed Zawahiri's top lieutenants almost as quickly as they are identified.
Obama administration officials say the global network is in transition. They say it has decentralized from a top-down group based in Pakistan (http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/pakistan-PLGEO00000020.topic) into smaller, far-flung and largely autonomous factions.
Affiliates in Yemen (http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/yemen-PLGEO00000072.topic), Iraq, Syria, Mali and Somalia remain dangerous, the officials say, so U.S. forces can't relax their focus.
"The threat from Al Qaeda and the potential for a massive coordinated attack on the United States may be diminished, but the jihadist movement is more diffuse," James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/espionage-intelligence/u.s.-house-permanent-select-committee-on-intelligence-ORGOV000349.topic) on Thursday. "Lone wolves, domestic extremists and jihad-inspired affiliated groups are still determined to attack Western interests."
U.S. intelligence officials note that the most active Al Qaeda franchise still publicly aspires to attack the U.S. homeland. In 2009, the Yemen (http://www.latimes.com/topic/intl/arabian-peninsula-PLGEOREG000002.topic)-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula failed in an effort to bomb a passenger jet over Detroit, and in 2010, it sought to send bomb-laden packages to two Jewish institutions in Chicago.
Since then, however, a new Yemeni government and scores of U.S. drone strikes have gutted the group. Last year, Western intelligence agencies penetrated the Yemeni franchise with a double agent who helped thwart another plot to blow up an aircraft.

A growing group of analysts and former government officials say the threat from Al Qaeda affiliates is overblown. Most terrorist groups are focused on local concerns, not on America, and have little or no ability to organize a broader plot.

"To the best of our information, there is nobody out there with both the desire and the capabilities to cause any serious damage to the U.S. in any way at this moment," said Rosa Brooks, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense.

As Al Qaeda recedes as a direct threat, the CIA and special military forces appear to have throttled back on targeted killings. They have launched 16 drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen this year, according to the Long War Journal, which tracks reports of the attacks. That pace is much slower than in 2012, which saw 88 strikes over the course of the year.

The Obama administration also has begun bringing accused terrorists into civilian courts, rather than before military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/prisons/guantanamo-bay-detention-camp-ORGOV00000127.topic). In March, it brought three terrorism suspects into New York courtrooms after they were captured overseas.
"There's clear recognition, from the White House on down, that as we wind down these wars we need to address the hard question of what does a sustainable counter-terrorism policy look like for the next phase," said Shawn Brimley, who left the White House last year as director for strategic planning on the National Security Council.
The new CIA director, John Brennan (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/john-o.-brennan-PEPLT0008965.topic), has indicated he is eager to move his agency away from targeted killings and back to its core responsibilities, spying and espionage. One option under discussion at the White House is to transfer much of the CIA's drone fleet to the Pentagon.
But drones aside, Brimley warned that America's immense counter-terrorism agencies and their supporters will resist ratcheting back, even at a time of shrinking budgets.
"You give a bureaucracy 10 years of unfettered growth and no real hard questions, and you're going to have an entire industry looking at Al Qaeda nodes as an existential threat," Brimley said.

There are also political hurdles. When a local Al Qaeda faction was linked to an attack that killed four Americans in September in Benghazi, Libya, it sparked turmoil in the U.S. presidential campaign and angry congressional hearings.
"It's very hard to work this problem from a coldly analytic perspective because that's not how the people who pay our bills, Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) and the public, think about it," said Philip Mudd, a former top CIA and FBI (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/crimes/fbi-ORGOV000008.topic) official who is author of a new book, "Takedown: Inside the Hunt for Al Qaeda."
Mudd contends that the intelligence machinery that "finds, fixes and finishes" terrorist leaders is needed for the foreseeable future, even if only in rare cases.
"Nobody can do what we do in terms of that kind of targeting work," he said.

ken.dilanian@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-al-qaeda-20130415,0,748515.story

jimnyc

04-17-2013, 02:13 PM

A growing group of analysts and former government officials say the threat from Al Qaeda affiliates is overblown. Most terrorist groups are focused on local concerns, not on America, and have little or no ability to organize a broader plot.

"To the best of our information, there is nobody out there with both the desire and the capabilities to cause any serious damage to the U.S. in any way at this moment," said Rosa Brooks, a former deputy assistant secretary of Defense.

The bombings that just occurred in Boston could very easily have been done by one person. Pressure cooker, circuit board, nails and ball bearings and a way to detonate. Imagine if you had 5-10 guys involved in perfecting such an attack, where the most damage would be, the best way to make this bomb. All Al Qaeda needs in order to succeed is patience and determination to kill. Until there are no more killings perpetrated by their various groups, people should still remain as vigilant as possible. This is a real enemy and one that will wait many years before putting a plan in action.

revelarts

04-17-2013, 02:18 PM

The bombings that just occurred in Boston could very easily have been done by one person. Pressure cooker, circuit board, nails and ball bearings and a way to detonate. Imagine if you had 5-10 guys involved in perfecting such an attack, where the most damage would be, the best way to make this bomb. All Al Qaeda needs in order to succeed is patience and determination to kill. Until there are no more killings perpetrated by their various groups, people should still remain as vigilant as possible. This is a real enemy and one that will wait many years before putting a plan in action.

OK fine
But we don't need a billion dollars intel and billions in mil action every year to watch less than 500 guys.

jimnyc

04-17-2013, 02:22 PM

OK fine
But we don't need a billion dollars intel and billions in mil action every year to watch less than 500 guys.

I think they can always re-evaluate how much should be invested internationally and how much domestically. I too think it would make sense that funding can go down some as they are more and more weakened. I just wouldn't take them for granted and move on. Spend more here and less where people don't want our help anyway. Sometimes though, it is in our best interest to take someone out abroad, or to get involved before things can reach our shores. But I think I could agree with you on some middle ground there. :)

aboutime

04-17-2013, 03:39 PM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-17-2013, 06:04 PM

I think they can always re-evaluate how much should be invested internationally and how much domestically. I too think it would make sense that funding can go down some as they are more and more weakened. I just wouldn't take them for granted and move on. Spend more here and less where people don't want our help anyway. Sometimes though, it is in our best interest to take someone out abroad, or to get involved before things can reach our shores. But I think I could agree with you on some middle ground there. :)

obama cut domestic bomb threat prevention spending by almost half..
Think it will be openly and widely discussed by our media???-Tyr

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310110/Obama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html

Obama administration has SLASHED budget for domestic bombing prevention by 45 per cent, says former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary

$20 million budget under Bush became $11 million under Obama
Both administrations neglected domestic bombing prevention, devoting a tiny fraction of the $1 billion earmarked for IED prevention overseas
Obama issued a lengthy 'National Policy for Countering Improvised Explosive Devices' in February but a spokesman won't say if it failedBy DAVID MARTOSKO (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=David+Martosko)PUBLISHED: 17:02 EST, 16 April 2013 | UPDATED: 18:02 EST, 16 April 2013

Comments (171) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310110/Obama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html#comments)
Share (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310110/Obama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html#socialLinks)

<iframe frameborder="0" hspace="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" tabindex="0" vspace="0" width="100%" id="I0_1366239813276" name="I0_1366239813276" src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?bsv&size=medium&recommendations=false&hl=en-GB&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farti cle-2310110%2FObama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.2zsMQaNwvpY.O% 2Fm%3D__features__%2Fam%3DUQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs %3DAItRSTPwhzecmLEEHCIXAo4GMXOnFhDcEg#_methods=onP lusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_re nderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1366239813276&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk&rpctoken=37646319" allowtransparency="true" data-gapiattached="true" title="+1" style="position: static; top: 0px; width: 90px; margin: 0px; border-style: none; left: 0px; visibility: visible; height: 20px;"></iframe>
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1366232305.html#_=1366239817648&count=horizontal&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2 Farticle-2310110%2FObama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk% 2Fnews%2Farticle-2310110%2FObama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html&size=m&text=Obama%20administration%20has%20SLASHED%20budg et%20for%20domestic%20bombing%20prevention%20by%20 45%20per%20cent%2C%20says%20former%20...&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F11eKDCT&via=MailOnline" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-horizontal" title="Twitter Tweet Button" data-twttr-rendered="true" style="width: 110px; height: 20px;"></iframe>
<fb:like send="false" layout="button_count" width="90" show_faces="false" fb-xfbml-state="rendered" class="fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" style="position: relative; display: inline-block;"><iframe id="f127a54df8" name="f32d9281e8" scrolling="no" title="Like this content on Facebook." class="fb_ltr" src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=146202712090395&locale=en_GB&sdk=joey&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2F connect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D22%23cb%3Df2c d9a493%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.dailymail .co.uk%252Ff18e1751f4%26domain%3Dwww.dailymail.co. uk%26relation%3Dparent.parent&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fart icle-2310110%2FObama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html&node_type=link&width=90&layout=button_count&colorscheme=light&show_faces=false&send=false&extended_social_context=false" style="position: absolute; border-style: none; overflow: hidden; height: 0px; width: 0px;"></iframe></fb:like>

Barack Obama's administration has cut the budget nearly in half for preventing domestic bombings, MailOnline can reveal.
Under President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security had $20 million allocated for preventing the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by terrorists working inside the United States. The current White House has cut that funding down to $11 million.

That assessment comes from Robert Liscouski, a former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15 that killed three Americans and injured at least 173 others.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310110/Obama-administration-SLASHED-budget-domestic-bombing-prevention-45-cent-says-Homeland-Security-Assistant-Secretary.html#ixzz2QlTuP15N
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=MailOnline) | DailyMail on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail)

Drummond

04-18-2013, 07:38 AM

OK fine
But we don't need a billion dollars intel and billions in mil action every year to watch less than 500 guys.

Perhaps I missed it. But I really can't see where this 'less than 500 guys' estimate came from.

How it was 'learned' of, in the first place. What it cost to even reach that estimate, much less what it would truly take to keep tabs on them all.

I ask: how long did it take for you to find just ONE of those 'guys' ... by the name of Osama bin Laden ... much less act to make sure he was neutralised ? The cost was .... $$ ??

Are ALL their terrorist cells accounted for ? How can you be sure, EVEN if you think they ARE ?

AND ... do you know for sure that Al Qaeda is incapable of recruiting further members ? Or, of exerting decisive influence over other groups ?

Revelarts, I think your complacency is appalling, regardless of who or what has taught you it may be well founded. What you and other Lefties perpetually run away from (and require others to ignore, too ..) is this one simple truth - - to defeat an enemy, YOU MUST DEFEAT IT. Wishful thinking is just not enough !

Drummond

04-18-2013, 08:08 AM

If all of us are foolish enough to listen, and believe everything Obama, and Democrats keep saying.

Al Qaeda supposedly is no longer a threat to the U.S.A.

Why would we need counter-terrorism IF...as Obama insists....There is NO SUCH THING. The words Terror, Terrorist, and War on Terror are NO LONGER permitted to be used?????

That is...of course. IF WE ARE FOOLISH ENOUGH to believe the LIAR-IN-CHIEF!

He's probably been watching too much BBC.

Several years ago, the BBC broadcast a mini-series - in 3 parts, each lasting an hour - called 'The Power of Nightmares'. In it - putting this a little over-simply - they sought to 'prove' that Al Qaeda was far from a world-reaching terrorist organisation, in fact, their recurring theme was that the so-called 'real' Al Qaeda was so miniscule as to be nearly fictional. Their premise was that the threat from them had been massively hyped up by 'neocons' purely to create a fantasist political climate that best served their interests.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

Should we be worried about the threat from organised terrorism or is it simply a phantom menace being used to stop society from falling apart?

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.

The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3951615.stm

The Power of Nightmares continues its assessment of whether the threat from a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. Part two, the Phantom Victory looks at how two groups, radical Islamists and neo-conservatives with seemingly opposing ideologies came together to defeat a common enemy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3970901.stm

The Power of Nightmares assesses whether the threat from a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. In the concluding part of the series, the programme explains how the illusion was created and who benefits from it.

In the wake of the shock and panic created by the devastating attack on the World Trade Center on 11 September, 2001, the neo-conservatives reconstructed the radical Islamists in the image of their last evil enemy, the Soviet Union ...

This mini-series was broadcast back in 2004 to a British audience. They waited a few months, then broadcast it AGAIN. The BBC made efforts to sell it for worldwide media dissemination, did in fact have limited success in selling it (though less than they expected) ... and needless to say, the Cannes Film Festival (which liked Michael Moore's Trot rubbish a lot, when presented with it) just lapped it up.

So you see, there are no lengths the Left will not go to in order to put peoples' sensibilities to sleep. My suggestion to all .. DON'T TRUST ANY LEFT-WING SOURCE, OR ANY OVERLY-COMPLACENT STANCES. EVER.

See also -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-18-2013, 08:16 AM

revelarts

04-18-2013, 09:20 AM

Perhaps I missed it. But I really can't see where this 'less than 500 guys' estimate came from.
How it was 'learned' of, in the first place. What it cost to even reach that estimate, much less what it would truly take to keep tabs on them all.
I ask: how long did it take for you to find just ONE of those 'guys' ... by the name of Osama bin Laden ... much less act to make sure he was neutralised ? The cost was .... $$ ??
Are ALL their terrorist cells accounted for ? How can you be sure, EVEN if you think they ARE ?
AND ... do you know for sure that Al Qaeda is incapable of recruiting further members ? Or, of exerting decisive influence over other groups ?
Revelarts, I think your complacency is appalling, regardless of who or what has taught you it may be well founded. What you and other Lefties perpetually run away from (and require others to ignore, too ..) is this one simple truth - - to defeat an enemy, YOU MUST DEFEAT IT. Wishful thinking is just not enough !

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...124523206.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576560593124523206.html)

Wall street Journal
Quote:

<tbody>
Ten years after al Qaeda carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., the terrorist network's ranks have been under persistent assault. Yet it remains a credible threat, security analysts say, as demonstrated by intelligence suggesting al Qaeda militants were planning attacks around this weekend's anniversary.

The U.S. government has pursued and killed key members, notably leader Osama bin Laden. But terrorism experts can't even agree on how to measure the group, let alone whether it has been growing.

Some even say the group's size is irrelevant.

"Terrorism is not a numbers game," says Bruce Hoffman, director of Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. "That is the point of terrorism: A small number of dedicated, well-trained, and highly motivated individuals can have a disproportionate impact on any society's sense of security and profoundly affect government policies." He and other scholars cited the Madrid train bombers in 2004 and the perpetrator of the Norwegian massacre in July as examples of small groups, or lone operatives, who proved deadly.

But terrorism analyst J.M. Berger, editor of Intelwire.com, argues that size does matter, especially when it comes to members who have attended al Qaeda training camps. Some participants agree to turn over a big chunk of their life savings to the group when they do. "So the more of them there are, the more risk of a serious or spectacular attack," Mr. Berger says. "More members equals more money."

A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000. The next shell, of affiliated fighters or funders, is made up of thousands or tens of thousands. (?) And there could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of adherents, based on polls and online-forum traffic, experts say.

"Even [current al Qaeda leader] Ayman al-Zawahiri probably doesn't know an exact number given the current state of things," Mr. Berger says. "In the past, record-keeping was a lot tighter," he adds. "The numbers today are wildly fluctuating."

Just how the numbers are fluctuating is unclear. Most experts agreed the core membership has shrunk in the last decade as members have been killed or apprehended. Just before 9/11, membership peaked thanks to a recruitment drive for the training camps, said Anne Stenersen, a research fellow at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. Then the numbers fell when the group fled Afghanistan. New recruit numbers might have risen during the decade as the Iraq war and drone attacks in Pakistan drove new membership, but then fell again in the last few months as some militants were rounded up in the wake of bin Laden's killing.

Part of what makes counting so tough is that membership is an "elastic" concept, "even on an individual basis," says Brian Jenkins, who initiated RAND Corp.'s research program on terrorism in 1972. "It's not like you become a member and get a card. It's a matter of constantly calibrating and recalibrating one's convictions."

Add to that the various affiliated groups and the deliberately loose-knit structure of al Qaeda, and "bottom line, no one knows," says Larry Johnson, a security consultant and former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

The uncertainty is best reflected in the staying power of an estimate, which dates back at least a decade, that al Qaeda is present in 70 countries. U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks mentioned it in a briefing in January 2001, and it has resurfaced many times since, including in a congressional research report earlier this year.

Leah Farrall, research associate at the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney, says: "I have no idea where the 70 countries came from; it is a myth."
Numbers Guy Blog

Tallying a Terror Network
James Jay Carafano, a counterrorism expert at the Heritage Foundation think tank, says the figure is like other terrorism numbers in that it "takes on a life of its own."

Lt. Col. Jim Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman, said he didn't know how many countries had an al Qaeda presence. He said the current government estimate for al Qaeda is 3,000 to 4,000 members. "The numbers don't tell the whole story," he added. "It doesn't take a large amount of people to carry out a terrorist attack."

Terrorism analyst Clinton Watts says those who fight terrorists need numbers to track progress. "If you don't know how many people are in al Qaeda, how will you know if you won?" he asks.

But Dr. Carafano rejects that approach. If an anti-al Qaeda mission kills dangerous terrorists but inspires a greater number of potential terrorists who have no training nor capacity, the total number of terrorists would rise while risk, arguably, would have fallen. "Is that a bad tradeoff?" Dr. Carafano asks. "I'd probably say no."

</tbody>

to the last comment by Carafano i say, if you don't have a count (at least 1) how do you know you're after a dangerous al-qaeda or not? so your still looking for a number. right.
.............................
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/top...intellige.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/2010/07/a_question_from_dana_intellige.html)
A question from Dana: intelligence agencies and al-Qaeda
As Top Secret America wraps up its first week, I wanted to join in here with an observation and a question.
Over the past two years, one of the most thought-provoking observations I have heard from both military and intelligence folks is this: There are probably 500 al-Qaeda members left in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. At most, the organization may have a couple thousand people worldwide.

Why do we need such a large intelligence effort---the 1,300 agencies we identified that are a part of this effort--- to defeat a couple thousand people? And why haven't our efforts been even more focused on the al-Qaeda network in the last nine years?

"Mission creep" seems to have triumphed in all but the most disciplined of organizations. These are taboo subjects for officials to discuss in public because it can so easily be interpreted as minimizing the threat (although notice that CIA director Leon Panetta said as much on a recent Sunday talk show.)

Can anyone help me out here? Is this a valid way to look at things? And why not focus almost exclusively on al-Qaeda?

I am told that the other side of the coin is getting Americans, Congress and the media (yup, that's me) to have a more realistic reaction to near-misses and even attacks as well. What do you think?"

..........................

Leon Pennata starting Around 4:30
Said that there are around 50 to 100 serious fighters, and most of them are in Pakistan..
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JbSDR65zWiA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

is that enough proof of the small size for you?
probably not..

revelarts

04-18-2013, 09:22 AM

Binnyboy killed , the obama spin , magic and propaganda machine went into overdrive praising obama and declaring Al Qaeda defeated. Reality is you can not declare a wolf pack destroyed until you kill every single member of that wolf pack. The lying media helped obama by presenting that he the great and magnificent obama did it all and look how wonderful he is! Which was pure and utter rubbish! That lying, punkazz chump couldn't fix a flat tire...(the typical dem hero).
All of it is pure political propaganda coming from the dem party machine and their alliance with mainstream media.
EXACT SAME METHOD AS WAS USED BY THE NAZI'S. -Tyr

Exactly How Big Is This So-Called Al Qaeda? | Veterans Today (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/06/exactly-how-big-is-this-so-called-al-qaeda/)

Veteran Today
by Sibel Edmonds
former FBI
Quote:

<tbody>
Massive Perpetual Wars against Fantastical Dwarfed Terrorists

People keep talking about which country we should be getting out of, or, how many more countries we should get into to fight against terrorist Al Qaeda. No one is asking what Al Qaeda is or who really these supposed Al Qaeda terrorists are.

For almost 10 years we have been engaged in a massive and many-fronted war advertised as a war on terror-war on Al Qaeda. Recent reports put the total cost to America of this war on terror at around $3 trillion. This is not counting un-countable covert operations with secret budgets, and it does not include the war in Libya or covert wars elsewhere.

For the last 10 years of the Cold War, the period of our heightened expenditures against a war marketed as a war against communism, we reportedly spent slightly under $3 trillion.

For a moment let’s forget about the exaggerated and sometimes dubious Soviet threats that were being sold to our nation during the Cold-War, and assume all of them legitimate and warranted. Okay?

We had the Soviet military with over 5 million men. We were dealing with Long-Range Ballistic Missile capabilities. We had an empire with a declared arsenal of 39,967 tons of chemical weapons. We were faced with massive nuclear arsenals and warheads, sophisticated fighter aircraft, tanks… All that, and of course the added fear propaganda and jazzed up other threats to go with it. My point here is not how scary an adversary the USSR was to the United States. Here is what I want you to do:

Take into perspective and compare the size, budget, militaristic and technological capabilities, and the vast power of our former adversary, the USSR, to the current alleged terrorist adversary, Al Qaeda, whom we have supposedly been fighting for ten years.

Let’s first begin by engaging in a rational process of elimination, and take out the wars and targets that are not related to the 9/11 terrorists, the supposed Al-Qaeda. That will take out Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and also Libya and Gaddafi.

Next, we should take out Afghanistan as a terrorist nation state. Afghanistan has been under our occupation for almost ten years, and we have our puppet government installed there, and when it comes down to it, the Taliban does not equate to Al-Qaeda, it never did. The Taliban did not exercise terrorism in the United States or its Global territories.

We must also remove Pakistan as a terrorist country, thus a nation state target. If you remember, neither the quasi 9/11 Congressional Inquiry nor the quasi 9/11 Commission Report ever declared the Pakistani government/nation as terrorists or an Al-Qaeda member. Let us go with their official judgment. After all, haven’t we been giving Pakistan billions of dollars in US aid since 9/11 and continuing to date? Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to on one hand categorize our drone war there as war against Pakistan as a member of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, and on the other hand support and finance them? Exactly; that eliminates Pakistan as an Al-Qaeda nation-government. Are you with me so far? What does this leave us with?

Our war on Al-Qaeda terror does not include a single nation state or organized state military. No military infrastructure or headquarters. No trained army-navy-air force. No tanks, warplanes, nuclear warheads, drones. No intelligence institutions or landmarks. No communication satellites. No technology. No borders. No GDP…

The supposed Al Qaeda’s top leadership was declared by our government to be Osama Bin Laden, aka Al Qaeda Commander in Chief; a sickly old man who was hooked to a dialysis machine; who supposedly lived and hid in caves, and later, in a mud house located in a remote third world village with chickens and goats. A man who sustained himself and his family by periodically selling his wives jewelry or bartering milk from his goats for occasional lamb chops. All this according to our own government; coming out in bits and pieces, and of course, sometimes in a totally contradictory fashion.

The supposed Al-Qaeda network’s communication and intelligence sharing infrastructure, according to our government, was kept very simple to evade our trillion-dollar intelligence institutions. The Al-Qaeda commander-in-Chief wrote down notes and instructions. He then waited for the courier to come and pick it up. The old man courier would hop on a donkey and travel from a bigger town to the Commander-in-Chief’s mud house in a third world village. This sometimes took several days. He’d take the note, then hop on his donkey, and go back to the town where he’d meet another intermediary courier. The intermediary courier would take the note to a nondescript little house, climb up to the roof where he kept trained courier pigeons and hawks, and based on the importance of the communication given to him, he’d either choose a hawk or pigeon to send the intelligence to the next courier. The next one used couriers who traveled to the remote deserts by camels, and so on and so forth.

How about the sophistication of weapons-methods used by our target terrorists, the ominous Al Qaeda? We are talking about a dozen or so pocket knives priced at approximately $4 a piece (probably made in China), and of course if bought in bulk, for a total under $40. That for the supposed execution of the massive terror plot over here, in the world’s super power nation. As for other worldwide terror incidents that have been placed under the ‘Al Qaeda Track Record,’ we are talking about rudimentary bomb-making ability paired up with ultra simple bombs created by ingredients such as fertilizer; we are talking a few loads of cow dung here; literally, that is.

What about the size of the manpower these terrorists, Al-Qaeda, possess? Interestingly no one in our government has ever touched upon any scientific or even commonsensical estimate as to the number of active-combative Al-Qaeda terrorists. Instead, our government, through their stenographers in the media and their marketing arm in the Hollywood filmmaking industry, has succeeded in forming this public perception of a massive number of boogieman-Al Qaeda-terrorists out there who are actively and constantly planning and executing terror plots against the West. Thus, to get a certain level of rational perception we must look at some factual indicators:

We have had this $3 trillion ‘War on Al Qaeda Terror’ for the last 10 years with nearly a quarter million military members, thousands and thousands of intelligence operatives and analysts, highly sophisticated and gigantic intelligence gathering tools (Think NSA, satellite technologies, wiretaps, spooks and snitches), mega rewards for turning in Al-Qaeda members …You’d think in ten years of these constant war and intelligence gathering operations we’d have tens of thousands of captured Al-Qaeda terrorists in our jails here and abroad. No?

Interestingly ‘No.’ Let’s take a look at the mother of all our captive top Al Qaeda terrorists detention center; Guantanamo Bay:

Since October 7, 2001, when began the war in Afghanistan, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Of these, most have been released without charge or transferred to facilities in their home countries. The Department of Defense often referred to these prisoners as the “worst of the worst”, but a 2003 memo by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says, “We need to stop populating Guantanamo Bay (GTMO) with low-level enemy combatants … GTMO needs to serve as an [redacted] not a prison for Afghanistan.”

Currently we have less than 200 detainees at Guantanamo most of whom have not been proven guilty of being ‘Al Qaeda terrorists.’ Let’s be even more generous and count in those detained in other US military prisons like Bagram. Again, we are looking at 500 or so prisoners none of whom having ever been charged; none of whom legally found to be an Al Qaeda terrorist.

Now please put all these facts in perspective: Ten long years of continuous wars, trillions of dollars, 250,000 military personnel, trillions of dollars worth of intelligence gathering institutions and capabilities, millions of dollars set in rewards for Al Qaeda terrorists, and a supposed network with supposed Al Qaeda active terrorist members in very large numbers. Yet we have less than 1000 detained who have been accused of being Al Qaeda terrorists, and none ever proven to be an active Al Qaeda terrorist member.

Does this make sense to you? Does it make sense as far as the trillions of dollars you have been made to pay for this? What are we talking about here? A massive never-ending war against a fantastical network of technologically and militaristically dwarfed terrorists whose proven guilty members we haven’t been able to catch or kill.

Everyone is busy arguing whether we should cut or add a few billion dollars to the several trillion dollars war on Al Qaeda. People keep talking about which country we should be getting out of, or, how many more countries we should get into to fight against terrorist Al Qaeda. No one is asking what Al Qaeda is or who really these supposed Al Qaeda terrorists are. The question that never seems to come up is exactly how big is this Al Qaeda we are spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting against. I mean no one.

</tbody>

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-18-2013, 10:35 AM

Rev, Al Qaeda types are a core part of Islam, as Jihadists they are celebrated and as long as Islam remains unchanged in it's primary goal those types will exist and grow. Does not matter how our government chooses to use/misuse the menace presented by Islam's quest to destroy all of us. That treat exists, that reality can be denied, misused and abused but not avoided.-Tyr

jimnyc

04-18-2013, 11:24 AM

Over the past two years, one of the most thought-provoking observations I have heard from both military and intelligence folks is this: There are probably 500 al-Qaeda members left in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. At most, the organization may have a couple thousand people worldwide.

Why do we need such a large intelligence effort---the 1,300 agencies we identified that are a part of this effort--- to defeat a couple thousand people? And why haven't our efforts been even more focused on the al-Qaeda network in the last nine years?

How many hijackers involved in 9/11? 19? And even add in 40 more on the outside helping plan the attack. You now have 50-60 people planning an attack or attacks on America. With an enemy like that, do you not think preventing them from attacking again, and perhaps another 9/11, is worthy of preventing? It's not like it's 100 years later. It's been just over 10 years, and while the enemy appears to be lower than what it once was, it's clear that they still exist.

HOW MANY people claimed AND STILL CLAIM to this day that our government should have done more to prevent 9/11? And now 10 short years later we are already ready to ask government to lessen their interest, spend less on protecting us and taking this enemy for granted?

revelarts

04-18-2013, 12:15 PM

How many hijackers involved in 9/11? 19? And even add in 40 more on the outside helping plan the attack. You now have 50-60 people planning an attack or attacks on America. With an enemy like that, do you not think preventing them from attacking again, and perhaps another 9/11, is worthy of preventing? It's not like it's 100 years later. It's been just over 10 years, and while the enemy appears to be lower than what it once was, it's clear that they still exist.

HOW MANY people claimed AND STILL CLAIM to this day that our government should have done more to prevent 9/11? And now 10 short years later we are already ready to ask government to lessen their interest, spend less on protecting us and taking this enemy for granted?

in congressional testimony many people in the FBI and CIA stated that they HAD all the info they needed to stop the 9-11 hijackers, before it ever happened. there were spies across the street from some of the hijackers, most were on a watch list. Some where known and trained by us. many inside the gov't admit that it could have been stopped using the tools and man power they had BEFORE all the extra intel bodies, fatherland security, the Constitution pissing laws, or overseas adventures.

that's even if you don't take into account all of the evidence.
But bottom line they are not a threat on the level of the USSR, China, or even Korea or Chile.
50 - 1000 guys with AKs and big ideas, are Not a major threat to 300million+ people unless we allow them psych us out. Or politicians use them as a boogie man.

from the LA times Article

"It's very hard to work this problem from a coldly analytic perspective because that's not how the people who pay our bills, Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) and the public, think about it," said Philip Mudd, a former top CIA and FBI (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/crimes/fbi-ORGOV000008.topic) official who is author of a new book, "Takedown: Inside the Hunt for Al Qaeda."

jimnyc

04-18-2013, 12:45 PM

in congressional testimony many people in the FBI and CIA stated that they HAD all the info they needed to stop the 9-11 hijackers, before it ever happened. there were spies across the street from some of the hijackers, most were on a watch list. Some where known and trained by us. many inside the gov't admit that it could have been stopped using the tools and man power they had BEFORE all the extra intel bodies, fatherland security, the Constitution pissing laws, or overseas adventures.

that's even if you don't take into account all of the evidence.
But bottom line they are not a threat on the level of the USSR, China, or even Korea or Chile.
50 - 1000 guys with AKs and big ideas, are Not a major threat to 300million+ people unless we allow them psych us out. Or politicians use them as a boogie man.

from the LA times Article

But they didn't stop it - therefore they "could have" makes little difference. What matters is preventing something similar from happening again. Suppose they reel back 75% of the money, 75% of the efforts and such - and Al Qaeda is successful in a massive effort in a stadium, school or similar, and takes out a massive amount. How many people do you think will come forth and claim more should have been done? That it happened on someone elses watch?

When was the last time Russia, China NK or the others have struck us on our soil? While Al Qaeda's size may pale in comparison, their balls are 50x the size of those countries. There is very little doubt to me that our home front is still in more danger from fanatical terror groups than we are from another "country" at this point.

Do you think that knocking over 2 of the worlds largest buildings and 3,000 people would be listed as a threat to our country? You may think that 50-1000 guys with AK's and big ideas and threats aren't that much of a big deal - but 19 of them with razor blades is what we saw on 9/11.

I'm not ready to let the guard down yet. Al Qaeda is still very active around the world and still would love to "bring us to our knees" as they have said several times.

fj1200

04-18-2013, 12:50 PM

But they didn't stop it - therefore they "could have" makes little difference.
...
Do you think that knocking over 2 of the worlds largest buildings and 3,000 people would be listed as a threat to our country? You may think that 50-1000 guys with AK's and big ideas and threats aren't that much of a big deal - but 19 of them with razor blades is what we saw on 9/11.

Not sure how much/if we should reel in some things especially with new events but their greatest advantage on 9/11 was our ignorance.

jimnyc

04-18-2013, 12:56 PM

Not sure how much/if we should reel in some things especially with new events but their greatest advantage on 9/11 was our ignorance.

And IMO, ignorance was underestimating a group of fanatics with AK's and camels. They have the desire to kill us and will die to be successful. Crazies like that deserve more attention than any other group, as I don't even think foreign leaders are willing to die in order to attack the USA.

fj1200

04-18-2013, 01:01 PM

And IMO, ignorance was underestimating a group of fanatics with AK's and camels. They have the desire to kill us and will die to be successful. Crazies like that deserve more attention than any other group, as I don't even think foreign leaders are willing to die in order to attack the USA.

Definitely. I don't think anyone is advocating ignoring them.

jimnyc

04-18-2013, 01:10 PM

Definitely. I don't think anyone is advocating ignoring them.

Ignoring, no. But I think at this stage, to reel in TOO much money or effort, might be a huge miscalculation. For example - the terrorist hit the WTC in 1993. They had no issue waiting 8 more years before trying again. It's part of their MO to sit back and wait for people to let down their guard, hit them where most vulnerable.

If it comes down to cost vs. potentially saved lives - the lives should win out every time. It would also be nice if every other country around the world put in as much effort at stopping them, but sadly that isn't the case.

fj1200

04-18-2013, 01:18 PM

Ignoring, no. But I think at this stage, to reel in TOO much money or effort, might be a huge miscalculation.

Like I said I don't know the answer but hopefully we're doing some sort of analysis to figure out the best practices moving forward. Then again...

jimnyc

04-18-2013, 01:22 PM

Like I said I don't know the answer but hopefully we're doing some sort of analysis to figure out the best practices moving forward. Then again...

Some are going to complain about civil liberties, funding, resources... Some are going to complain not enough is being done to protect us. :dunno:

revelarts

04-18-2013, 01:23 PM

But they didn't stop it - therefore they "could have" makes little difference. What matters is preventing something similar from happening again. Suppose they reel back 75% of the money, 75% of the efforts and such - and Al Qaeda is successful in a massive effort in a stadium, school or similar, and takes out a massive amount. How many people do you think will come forth and claim more should have been done? That it happened on someone elses watch?

When was the last time Russia, China NK or the others have struck us on our soil? While Al Qaeda's size may pale in comparison, their balls are 50x the size of those countries. There is very little doubt to me that our home front is still in more danger from fanatical terror groups than we are from another "country" at this point.

Do you think that knocking over 2 of the worlds largest buildings and 3,000 people would be listed as a threat to our country? You may think that 50-1000 guys with AK's and big ideas and threats aren't that much of a big deal - but 19 of them with razor blades is what we saw on 9/11.

I'm not ready to let the guard down yet. Al Qaeda is still very active around the world and still would love to "bring us to our knees" as they have said several times.

what if we spend 10 times more everyone lives surveilled and watch overed by 3 cops to each patron at any event. And a terrorist attack still happens at a stadium or plane or whatever.

the joke comes to mind,
2 good ol boys stand on the side of the road trying to sell a pick-up truck full of melons.
they stand all day and don't sell any.
As they are driving home one guy says to the other.
"I know what our problem is, we need a bigger truck."

the problem wasn't and isnt the amount of stuff it's having people do their jobs.

If 2 cops are standing there while a man gets robbed. but do nothing. They could have stopped it.
Having 10 cops stand there while a man gets robbed. but they still do nothing. It isn't going to help.

the people just doing their jobs is what's needed, just a bit action than pre 9-11 is all we need imo.

fj1200

04-18-2013, 01:27 PM

Some are going to complain about civil liberties, funding, resources... Some are going to complain not enough is being done to protect us. :dunno:

True, I think this line from rev's link nailed it.

from the LA times Article

"It's very hard to work this problem from a coldly analytic perspective because that's not how the people who pay our bills, Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) and the public, think about it," said Philip Mudd, a former top CIA and FBI (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/crimes/fbi-ORGOV000008.topic) official who is author of a new book, "Takedown: Inside the Hunt for Al Qaeda."

jimnyc

04-18-2013, 01:31 PM

what if we spend 10 times more everyone lives surveilled and watch overed by 3 cops to each patron at any event. And a terrorist attack still happens at a stadium or plane or whatever.

Then you did all you could and went down fighting like a True American. :)

the joke comes to mind,
2 good ol boys stand on the side of the road trying to sell a pick-up truck full of melons.
they stand all day and don't sell any.
As they are driving home one guy says to the other.
"I know what our problem is, we need a bigger truck."

the problem wasn't and isnt the amount of stuff it's having people do their jobs.

If 2 cops are standing there while a man gets robbed. but do nothing. They could have stopped it.
Having 10 cops stand there while a man gets robbed. but they still do nothing. It isn't going to help.

the people just doing their jobs is what's needed, just a bit action than pre 9-11 is all we need imo.

They simply need better intel, which could be very costly, and leaving some complaining about what efforts they take in the name of our safety. Some of the best and proven methods have been through the digital world and intercepting messages and such. I think they still need the $$$ and other resources, they just need to learn how to channel the efforts a tad better for an enemy that we aren't used to fighting, and really has no nation to call their own.

jimnyc

04-18-2013, 01:34 PM

True, I think this line from rev's link nailed it.0

"It's very hard to work this problem from a coldly analytic perspective because that's not how the people who pay our bills, Congress (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131.topic) and the public, think about it," said Philip Mudd, a former top CIA and FBI (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/crimes/fbi-ORGOV000008.topic) official who is author of a new book, "Takedown: Inside the Hunt for Al Qaeda."

I think we're still learning daily on new ways to combat terrorists and 'invisible' enemies. Look how long it took to catch up with just one man - OBL. Now picture a few hundred of these greasy bastards looking to drop a bomb. I honestly don't know the answers, but I know letting up on the enemy or letting our guard down is certainly not the right direction. And if we spend less, use less people involved, concentrate on the home front more - will the terrorists be regrouping and recruiting?

Drummond

04-18-2013, 08:15 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...124523206.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576560593124523206.html)

Wall street Journal
Quote:

<tbody>
Ten years after al Qaeda carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., the terrorist network's ranks have been under persistent assault. Yet it remains a credible threat, security analysts say, as demonstrated by intelligence suggesting al Qaeda militants were planning attacks around this weekend's anniversary.

The U.S. government has pursued and killed key members, notably leader Osama bin Laden. But terrorism experts can't even agree on how to measure the group, let alone whether it has been growing.

Some even say the group's size is irrelevant.

"Terrorism is not a numbers game," says Bruce Hoffman, director of Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. "That is the point of terrorism: A small number of dedicated, well-trained, and highly motivated individuals can have a disproportionate impact on any society's sense of security and profoundly affect government policies." He and other scholars cited the Madrid train bombers in 2004 and the perpetrator of the Norwegian massacre in July as examples of small groups, or lone operatives, who proved deadly.

But terrorism analyst J.M. Berger, editor of Intelwire.com, argues that size does matter, especially when it comes to members who have attended al Qaeda training camps. Some participants agree to turn over a big chunk of their life savings to the group when they do. "So the more of them there are, the more risk of a serious or spectacular attack," Mr. Berger says. "More members equals more money."

A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000. The next shell, of affiliated fighters or funders, is made up of thousands or tens of thousands. (?) And there could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of adherents, based on polls and online-forum traffic, experts say.

"Even [current al Qaeda leader] Ayman al-Zawahiri probably doesn't know an exact number given the current state of things," Mr. Berger says. "In the past, record-keeping was a lot tighter," he adds. "The numbers today are wildly fluctuating."

Just how the numbers are fluctuating is unclear. Most experts agreed the core membership has shrunk in the last decade as members have been killed or apprehended. Just before 9/11, membership peaked thanks to a recruitment drive for the training camps, said Anne Stenersen, a research fellow at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. Then the numbers fell when the group fled Afghanistan. New recruit numbers might have risen during the decade as the Iraq war and drone attacks in Pakistan drove new membership, but then fell again in the last few months as some militants were rounded up in the wake of bin Laden's killing.

Part of what makes counting so tough is that membership is an "elastic" concept, "even on an individual basis," says Brian Jenkins, who initiated RAND Corp.'s research program on terrorism in 1972. "It's not like you become a member and get a card. It's a matter of constantly calibrating and recalibrating one's convictions."

Add to that the various affiliated groups and the deliberately loose-knit structure of al Qaeda, and "bottom line, no one knows," says Larry Johnson, a security consultant and former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

The uncertainty is best reflected in the staying power of an estimate, which dates back at least a decade, that al Qaeda is present in 70 countries. U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks mentioned it in a briefing in January 2001, and it has resurfaced many times since, including in a congressional research report earlier this year.

Leah Farrall, research associate at the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney, says: "I have no idea where the 70 countries came from; it is a myth."
Numbers Guy Blog

Tallying a Terror Network
James Jay Carafano, a counterrorism expert at the Heritage Foundation think tank, says the figure is like other terrorism numbers in that it "takes on a life of its own."

Lt. Col. Jim Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman, said he didn't know how many countries had an al Qaeda presence. He said the current government estimate for al Qaeda is 3,000 to 4,000 members. "The numbers don't tell the whole story," he added. "It doesn't take a large amount of people to carry out a terrorist attack."

Terrorism analyst Clinton Watts says those who fight terrorists need numbers to track progress. "If you don't know how many people are in al Qaeda, how will you know if you won?" he asks.

But Dr. Carafano rejects that approach. If an anti-al Qaeda mission kills dangerous terrorists but inspires a greater number of potential terrorists who have no training nor capacity, the total number of terrorists would rise while risk, arguably, would have fallen. "Is that a bad tradeoff?" Dr. Carafano asks. "I'd probably say no."

</tbody>

to the last comment by Carafano i say, if you don't have a count (at least 1) how do you know you're after a dangerous al-qaeda or not? so your still looking for a number. right.
.............................
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/top...intellige.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/2010/07/a_question_from_dana_intellige.html)
A question from Dana: intelligence agencies and al-Qaeda
As Top Secret America wraps up its first week, I wanted to join in here with an observation and a question.
Over the past two years, one of the most thought-provoking observations I have heard from both military and intelligence folks is this: There are probably 500 al-Qaeda members left in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. At most, the organization may have a couple thousand people worldwide.

Why do we need such a large intelligence effort---the 1,300 agencies we identified that are a part of this effort--- to defeat a couple thousand people? And why haven't our efforts been even more focused on the al-Qaeda network in the last nine years?

"Mission creep" seems to have triumphed in all but the most disciplined of organizations. These are taboo subjects for officials to discuss in public because it can so easily be interpreted as minimizing the threat (although notice that CIA director Leon Panetta said as much on a recent Sunday talk show.)

Can anyone help me out here? Is this a valid way to look at things? And why not focus almost exclusively on al-Qaeda?

I am told that the other side of the coin is getting Americans, Congress and the media (yup, that's me) to have a more realistic reaction to near-misses and even attacks as well. What do you think?"

..........................

Leon Pennata starting Around 4:30
Said that there are around 50 to 100 serious fighters, and most of them are in Pakistan..
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JbSDR65zWiA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

is that enough proof of the small size for you?
probably not..

This is tiresome. FROM YOUR OWN MATERIAL, AND AS HIGHLIGHTED, I QUOTE:

The U.S. government has pursued and killed key members, notably leader Osama bin Laden. But terrorism experts can't even agree on how to measure the group, let alone whether it has been growing.
Your own material shows disparities in estimates. 2,000 is four times the figure of 500, for example. Or, 4,000 is EIGHT times as many. Besides .. why are you treating this like a situation that Al Qaeda cannot recover from ? Or, why do you seemingly assume they cannot work in tandem with other groupings ? AND GIVEN THAT POSSIBILITY, THIS WOULD GREATLY INCREASE THE TIME, EFFORT, EXPENDITURES CALLED UPON TO COPE !

Additionally ... tell me, with this so-called estimate of '500' supposedly 'worth accepting' ... how many of those could deploy WMD's against cities ? Revelarts, lose track (.. supposing you WERE tracking the individual in the first place !!) of ONE terrorist .. and that ONE terrorist couldn't plant a dirty bomb somewhere ?

You're being unduly complacent, and well you know it.

Drummond

04-18-2013, 08:30 PM

what if we spend 10 times more everyone lives surveilled and watch overed by 3 cops to each patron at any event. And a terrorist attack still happens at a stadium or plane or whatever.

Yes, maybe it would. But then, no imaginable security effort, or force, can ever guarantee to be a hundred percent successful.

BUT, what if they were 95 percent successful ? That would mean, Revelarts, a GREAT many saved lives. Now, are you going to say that pennypinching justifies making inroads into such a success rate ? And for what, to satisfy Left-wing arbitrary complacency, indulged in, ultimately, just to satisfy a convenient preference ?

Taking your eye off the ball is the same as handing an enemy an advantage over you which they cannot possibly have deserved. WHY would you, or anyone, ever choose to do this ?

revelarts

04-19-2013, 06:33 AM

This is tiresome. FROM YOUR OWN MATERIAL, AND AS HIGHLIGHTED, I QUOTE:

Your own material shows disparities in estimates. 2,000 is four times the figure of 500, for example. Or, 4,000 is EIGHT times as many. Besides .. why are you treating this like a situation that Al Qaeda cannot recover from ? Or, why do you seemingly assume they cannot work in tandem with other groupings ? AND GIVEN THAT POSSIBILITY, THIS WOULD GREATLY INCREASE THE TIME, EFFORT, EXPENDITURES CALLED UPON TO COPE !

Additionally ... tell me, with this so-called estimate of '500' supposedly 'worth accepting' ... how many of those could deploy WMD's against cities ? Revelarts, lose track (.. supposing you WERE tracking the individual in the first place !!) of ONE terrorist .. and that ONE terrorist couldn't plant a dirty bomb somewhere ?

You're being unduly complacent, and well you know it.

Drummond your response is more reasonable than i expected. I think we might be a able to talk a bit more.
Ok. Lets take the 5000 and I'll Split the difference. 2500. 2500 serious Alquida.

Here's a suggestion. what if the U.S. assigned 100 intel/mil people to each potential or real alqaeda. 100 people for each of the 2500.

that would be 25000 people from the intel/mil community.
100 per each Al Qaeda, you could have 10 FBI, 20 NSA, 20 CIA, 10 DIA and mixed military unit of 40. with nothing to do everyday but to track 1 guy 24/7/365.

would that be enough you think?

seems to me After 2-3 years we would know more about alqada than alqada.
And there would be practically no way for an attack to take place without the U.S. having some idea.

All of this assumes Alqaeda is such a terrible treat.
After a few years we would have a real, not a speculative fear filled, answer to that question as well.

But instead of focusing like a laser with 25,000 serious people, we've got 47,000 TSA "agents" with their fingers in old ladies underwear looking for bombs. it's stupid. And not designed to take care of the problem you and other are so very concerned about.

the 25,000 number is FAR less than the Fatherland Security Department. and would cost our over strapped Treasury far less than what we are spending.
Throwing dollars at the problem isn't the answer and throwing more federal bodies into a wide net is no good as well IMO.

taft2012

04-19-2013, 06:56 AM

what if we spend 10 times more everyone lives surveilled and watch overed by 3 cops to each patron at any event. And a terrorist attack still happens at a stadium or plane or whatever.

the problem wasn't and isnt the amount of stuff it's having people do their jobs.

If 2 cops are standing there while a man gets robbed. but do nothing. They could have stopped it.
Having 10 cops stand there while a man gets robbed. but they still do nothing. It isn't going to help.

the people just doing their jobs is what's needed, just a bit action than pre 9-11 is all we need imo.

It's mind-blowing. A day before the attack the pothead conservatives were blubbering that the security was doing too much. "Cameras! Drones! ZOMG!"

A day after the bombing, they're blubbering the security forces weren't doing enough.

Only someone who's a liberal down to the marrow, or a "journalist" for the old Soviet "Pravda", could do such a complete 180 overnight.

revelarts

04-19-2013, 08:00 AM

It's mind-blowing. A day before the attack the pothead conservatives were blubbering that the security was doing too much. "Cameras! Drones! ZOMG!"

A day after the bombing, they're blubbering the security forces weren't doing enough.

Only someone who's a liberal down to the marrow, or a "journalist" for the old Soviet "Pravda", could do such a complete 180 overnight.

I think you've misunderstood what i'm writing.
because it doesn't match your comments about blubbering, liberals and Pravda and ....wait for it... POT!!!

Drummond

04-19-2013, 09:59 AM

Drummond your response is more reasonable than i expected. I think we might be a able to talk a bit more.
Ok. Lets take the 5000 and I'll Split the difference. 2500. 2500 serious Alquida.

Here's a suggestion. what if the U.S. assigned 100 intel/mil people to each potential or real alqaeda. 100 people for each of the 2500.

that would be 25000 people from the intel/mil community.
100 per each Al Qaeda, you could have 10 FBI, 20 NSA, 20 CIA, 10 DIA and mixed military unit of 40. with nothing to do everyday but to track 1 guy 24/7/365.

would that be enough you think?

seems to me After 2-3 years we would know more about alqada than alqada.
And there would be practically no way for an attack to take place without the U.S. having some idea.

All of this assumes Alqaeda is such a terrible treat.
After a few years we would have a real, not a speculative fear filled, answer to that question as well.

But instead of focusing like a laser with 25,000 serious people, we've got 47,000 TSA "agents" with their fingers in old ladies underwear looking for bombs. it's stupid. And not designed to take care of the problem you and other are so very concerned about.

the 25,000 number is FAR less than the Fatherland Security Department. and would cost our over strapped Treasury far less than what we are spending.
Throwing dollars at the problem isn't the answer and throwing more federal bodies into a wide net is no good as well IMO.

Staggering. It really is. With the Boston attack fresh in our minds, you want a reduction in resources applied to this sort of situation ? Whether we're specifically talking about Al Qaeda or any body of terrorists even loosely connected to them, you DO what it TAKES TO NEUTRALISE THEM.

But since you're so keen to talk numbers and to suggest, even NOW, that efforts expended need to be reined in ... OK. Consider what, realistically, is really involved, and is needed, to commit resources to this issue :

1. Monitoring of known Al Qaeda 'operatives' needs to continue, be as foolproof as possible, as complete as possible.

2. Ditto any known and future means of recruitment, e.g Jihadist websites.

3. Tracing links between Al Q and 'friendly' groups, e.g other terrorist groups, what those links are, their precise relationship with each other ..

4. What might be called 'peripheral' allies .. Imams, say, in foreign countries, e.g Canada, the UK, Australia and the like.

5. Education establishments harbouring tutors friendly to the Al Q / terrorist cause. After all, they could be the beginning-points of radicalisation.

6. Most importantly ... getting, maintaining, liaising, with foreign Governments and their intelligence services to harness the maximum possible ongoing cooperation.

7. Having the means to intervene at that level, through electronic contact or actual, physical presence, with any/all such foreign authorities.

Now, Revelarts ... HOW keen are you, with all of this needing to be in play, to continue to want to see CUTBACKS ???

Here's what I suggest .. a change in attitude and approach, with an understanding that you are on a war footing against Al Qaeda and anybody who may ally themselves to them. You need to RAMP UP such efforts. Particularly on the 'foreign' front .. since it may be difficult to project what area of the world where greater attention suddenly needs to be applied, and what local difficulties may apply.

But, where do you, and Lefties like you, stand on this ? You even question that Al Qaeda IS a threat !!!

Revelarts, just how many more attacks like Boston, and of course 9/11, will it take before you people wake up and get properly committed TO FIGHTING YOUR ENEMIES, FIGHTING TO WIN ??

How many more deaths will it take ?

Or, is there NO upper limit to that number ?

revelarts

04-19-2013, 10:27 AM

Staggering. It really is. With the Boston attack fresh in our minds, you want a reduction in resources applied to this sort of situation ? Whether we're specifically talking about Al Qaeda or any body of terrorists even loosely connected to them, you DO what it TAKES TO NEUTRALISE THEM.
But since you're so keen to talk numbers and to suggest, even NOW, that efforts expended need to be reined in ... OK. Consider what, realistically, is really involved, and is needed, to commit resources to this issue :
1. Monitoring of known Al Qaeda 'operatives' needs to continue, be as foolproof as possible, as complete as possible.
2. Ditto any known and future means of recruitment, e.g Jihadist websites.
3. Tracing links between Al Q and 'friendly' groups, e.g other terrorist groups, what those links are, their precise relationship with each other ..
4. What might be called 'peripheral' allies .. Imams, say, in foreign countries, e.g Canada, the UK, Australia and the like.
5. Education establishments harbouring tutors friendly to the Al Q / terrorist cause. After all, they could be the beginning-points of radicalisation.
6. Most importantly ... getting, maintaining, liaising, with foreign Governments and their intelligence services to harness the maximum possible ongoing cooperation.
7. Having the means to intervene at that level, through electronic contact or actual, physical presence, with any/all such foreign authorities.
Now, Revelarts ... HOW keen are you, with all of this needing to be in play, to continue to want to see CUTBACKS ???
Here's what I suggest .. a change in attitude and approach, with an understanding that you are on a war footing against Al Qaeda and anybody who may ally themselves to them. You need to RAMP UP such efforts. Particularly on the 'foreign' front .. since it may be difficult to project what area of the world where greater attention suddenly needs to be applied, and what local difficulties may apply.
But, where do you, and Lefties like you, stand on this ? You even question that Al Qaeda IS a threat !!!
Revelarts, just how many more attacks like Boston, and of course 9/11, will it take before you people wake up and get properly committed TO FIGHTING YOUR ENEMIES, FIGHTING TO WIN ??
How many more deaths will it take ?
Or, is there NO upper limit to that number ?

And the bit rational talk i heard on the issue is almost gone. Take the blinders off D.
You talk about winning but make the target so broad and gasous that there's no way to determine what a victory would look like.

you say lets talk numbers and then count down items of a to do list. but don't address the AQ head count i mentioned anymore.
You've expanded it to anyone who hears a harsh message about the U.S. from anywhere, and ramping up watch them all.

also you bring in the Boston bombing which of coure is tragic and horrific but apparently not --at this point-- associated with any known groups.
RAMPing up wouldn't have stopped what ,at this point, appears to be a random bombing.

So it doesn't even apply to the AQ.

If you rationally look at what i've proposed I'm talking about dealing with the group of hard cores that your so concerned about. 27/7/365 knowledge of them and their actions and influences. Their radio, tv, choices of imans, news papers, internet use, friends, family, phone calls, letters, schools, travel, will give you a good idea of what potential dangers in the one day maybe future might be from them and others it seems to me.

but your vague cries of _danger danger everywhere ,we must ramp it up_ talk is just gaseous huffing and arm flapping about a problem has that a limited number bodies at play.

The greater problem of general Muslim animosity toward the U.S. for both political and religious reasons , should be address on those levels.

jimnyc

04-19-2013, 11:35 AM

So it doesn't even apply to the AQ.

I don't think these guys were full blown members of AQ - but you need to look at the Youtube page and other social pages of them, and all of the other info leaking out already. If true, at least one of them was looking to become a card carrying member and was idolizing AQ. They will gladly accept sympathizers willing to kill for their cause. And now they have it appears.

Thunderknuckles

04-19-2013, 11:41 AM

I don't think these guys were full blown members of AQ - but you need to look at the Youtube page and other social pages of them, and all of the other info leaking out already. If true, at least one of them was looking to become a card carrying member and was idolizing AQ. They will gladly accept sympathizers willing to kill for their cause. And now they have it appears.
It's not really about AQ. Rev notes at the end:

"The greater problem of general Muslim animosity toward the U.S. for both political and religious reasons , should be address on those levels."

That's the main issue imo. Muslims appear to be easily radicalized against the West.

jimnyc

04-19-2013, 11:44 AM

It's not really about AQ. Rev notes at the end:

"The greater problem of general Muslim animosity toward the U.S. for both political and religious reasons , should be address on those levels."

That's the main issue imo. Muslims appear to be easily radicalized against the West.

There is general animosity for a variety of reasons - but who is mostly responsible for the recruiting, inciting violence and seeking sympathizers willing to become martyrs? If we can removed the level that is doing this, maybe some will become less radicalized, or less of a chance for some?

Thunderknuckles

04-19-2013, 11:49 AM

There is general animosity for a variety of reasons - but who is mostly responsible for the recruiting, inciting violence and seeking sympathizers willing to become martyrs? If we can removed the level that is doing this, maybe some will become less radicalized, or less of a chance for some?
I'm not so optimistic. I don't thinks it's any particular group. Sure, AQ played a big part recently but you can find radicalized Imams all over the Muslim world that inspire guys like these Boston terrorists.

jimnyc

04-19-2013, 12:00 PM

I'm not so optimistic. I don't thinks it's any particular group. Sure, AQ played a big part recently but you can find radicalized Imams all over the Muslim world that inspire guys like these Boston terrorists.

No doubt, that's why I've always said that these guys that incite the violence and all need to be stopped and jailed or whatever. Many Islamic countries yell at the USA for our freedom of speech, and "death to democracy" and "death to freedom of speech" - and yet they let certain people ramble on and incite violence and such for years without intervening.

fj1200

04-19-2013, 12:25 PM

I'm not so optimistic. I don't thinks it's any particular group. Sure, AQ played a big part recently but you can find radicalized Imams all over the Muslim world that inspire guys like these Boston terrorists.

+1

There is general animosity for a variety of reasons - but who is mostly responsible for the recruiting, inciting violence and seeking sympathizers willing to become martyrs? If we can removed the level that is doing this, maybe some will become less radicalized, or less of a chance for some?

I think that's the point of the OP; if we have an AQ Solution then when AQ is gone, or effectively gone, then we don't have a solution left to deal with what the general animosity inspires.

Drummond

04-19-2013, 12:51 PM

And the bit rational talk i heard on the issue is almost gone. Take the blinders off D.
You talk about winning but make the target so broad and gasous that there's no way to determine what a victory would look like.

you say lets talk numbers and then count down items of a to do list. but don't address the AQ head count i mentioned anymore.
You've expanded it to anyone who hears a harsh message about the U.S. from anywhere, and ramping up watch them all.

also you bring in the Boston bombing which of coure is tragic and horrific but apparently not --at this point-- associated with any known groups.
RAMPing up wouldn't have stopped what ,at this point, appears to be a random bombing.

So it doesn't even apply to the AQ.

If you rationally look at what i've proposed I'm talking about dealing with the group of hard cores that your so concerned about. 27/7/365 knowledge of them and their actions and influences. Their radio, tv, choices of imans, news papers, internet use, friends, family, phone calls, letters, schools, travel, will give you a good idea of what potential dangers in the one day maybe future might be from them and others it seems to me.

but your vague cries of _danger danger everywhere ,we must ramp it up_ talk is just gaseous huffing and arm flapping about a problem has that a limited number bodies at play.

The greater problem of general Muslim animosity toward the U.S. for both political and religious reasons , should be address on those levels.

A quick - if overly simple - summary of your position is: Cut all corners possible in looking for threats, blind yourself to all but the most directly discernible dangers .. and THEN, cut back manpower to tackle THAT.

Yes, I know a Left-wing mindset when I see it.

Granted, the scope of what I've suggested needs to be looked at, and to be countered, is broad. But really .. do you seriously believe that terrorist organisations never talk to each other ? Never share expertise ? Or, that there's no Imam, anywhere, or any mosque anywhere, or no radical tutors anywhere, trying to recruit for terrorist activities ?? No training camps anywhere ? No websites, no emails swapped, which further their so-called 'cause' .. ?

Or are you saying that, yes, all this happens .. but because the scope of what's going on IS so broad, none of it should be intercepted, or otherwise tackled ?

I shall ask you a second time if there really is NO upper limit to the number of deaths you consider should be tolerated, courtesy of terrorist savagery.

This, from you, is assumptive ..

.. you bring in the Boston bombing which of coure is tragic and horrific but apparently not --at this point-- associated with any known groups.
RAMPing up wouldn't have stopped what ,at this point, appears to be a random bombing.

Points:-

1. Do we really know enough to be sure you're correct ? What if more intensive intelligence gathering WOULD have prevented those deaths and injuries ? And ... even IF you are correct ...

2. Do you know that further such attacks CANNOT come from Al Qaeda, or, that those perpetrating them won't have had assistance of some kind from them ?

You say that Muslim hostility towards the US has political and religious causes, and so it needs to be tackled at that level. OK ... so .. what, then, are you suggesting ? That a terrorist attack or 2 is committed, and those behind it, rather than being caught or killed, should instead be BARGAINED with ??!??

Do you REALLY think that rewarding terrorism is the right response to it ? Those committing these disgusting acts are perfectly capable of comprehending the criminality of their acts, they - presumably - DO know right from wrong - and they have the choice NOT to victimise the innocent. But they choose, instead, TO MAIM AND KILL.

Your response to the choice they make, and what it results in, is .. to be ineffective in meeting the situation your enemies make for you. To cut corners. To find excuses to excuse away what THEY say motivates them.

But mine, by contrast, is to say that you should SAVE LIVES, by DEFEATING YOUR ENEMIES, and to NOT cut corners in that effort.

So, yes .. I am not a Leftie appeaser. And, no .. I won't apologise for thinking that innocent victims deserve all that can POSSIBLY be done to safeguard them.

aboutime

04-19-2013, 01:01 PM

I DID NOT POST THIS....., but everyone knows it's the only way. 4878
Funny thing is. The loudest protests for Profiling come from the Left, Democrats, and Liberals.
Yet...they use profiling against anyone who disagree's with them or Obama.
Republicans, Conservatives, Independents...and anyone who TELLS THE TRUTH.

taft2012

04-20-2013, 06:46 AM

You talk about winning but make the target so broad and gasous that there's no way to determine what a victory would look like.

Sounds like the same argument the liberals and pothead conservatives make against the war on drugs.

"We can't win, so let's give up. Smoke it if you got it, boys!"

Legitimate libertarians agree that defending the security of the country, from both internal and external threats, is the most legitimate function of government. It is the most legitimate expenditure of resources. It is not the area of our bloated and overblown government to whine about costs.

The illegitimate libertarians however, the Trojan Horse liberals, they take the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi position.

revelarts

04-20-2013, 08:59 AM

Sounds like the same argument the liberals and pothead conservatives make against the war on drugs.

"We can't win, so let's give up. Smoke it if you got it, boys!"

Legitimate libertarians agree that defending the security of the country, from both internal and external threats, is the most legitimate function of government. It is the most legitimate expenditure of resources. It is not the area of our bloated and overblown government to whine about costs.

The illegitimate libertarians however, the Trojan Horse liberals, they take the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi position.

http://media.giphy.com/media/bB5ghmGwLbK4U/original.gif

taft2012

04-20-2013, 09:14 AM

http://media.giphy.com/media/bB5ghmGwLbK4U/original.gif

I assume from the non-substantive response that you agree with liberals that defending the nation from internal and external security threats is not the most legitimate function of government.

taft2012

04-20-2013, 09:30 AM

A quick - if overly simple - summary of your position is: Cut all corners possible in looking for threats, blind yourself to all but the most directly discernible dangers .. and THEN, cut back manpower to tackle THAT.

Yes, I know a Left-wing mindset when I see it.

Congratulations, sir.

Too many conservatives are seduced by a few right-sounding buzzwords from this crowd, ultimately saying idiotic things like "If I see a drone fly over my house I'll shoot it down."

It's depressing.

If I saw a drone flying over my house I'd say; "Hey! Something worthwhile being done with my tax dollars. That's a pleasant change."

revelarts

04-20-2013, 10:03 AM

I assume from the non-substantive response that you agree with liberals that defending the nation from internal and external security threats is not the most legitimate function of government.

pot

taft2012

04-20-2013, 10:05 AM

pot

I understand that's the only world you wish to take away from my substantive response, however there was more to than that.

But keep trying. Maybe the easily duped conservatives among us will buy into your crap.

revelarts

04-20-2013, 10:29 AM

Congratulations, sir.
Too many conservatives are seduced by a few right-sounding buzzwords from this crowd, ultimately saying idiotic things like "If I see a drone fly over my house I'll shoot it down."
It's depressing.
If I saw a drone flying over my house I'd say; "Hey! Something worthwhile being done with my tax dollars. That's a pleasant change."

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wsoE7tUX1Yo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

that pot head republican Krauthammer.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CfiFnt3bEg4?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"I'm going to go hard left on you here, I'm going ACLU," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said in opposition to the use of drones on the U.S. homeland. "I don't want regulations, I don't want restrictions, I want a ban on this. Drones are instruments of war. The Founders had a great aversion to any instruments of war, the use of the military inside even the United States. It didn't like standing armies, it has all kinds of statutes of using the army in the country."

"A drone is a high-tech version of an old army and a musket. It ought to be used in Somalia to hunt bad guys but not in America. I don't want to see it hovering over anybody's home. Yes, you can say we have satellites, we've got Google Street View and London has a camera on every street corner but that's not an excuse to cave in on everything else and accept a society where you're always under -- being watched by the government. This is not what we want," Krauthammer said on the panel portion of FOX News' "Special Report."

"I would say that you ban it under all circumstances and I would predict, I'm not encouraging, but I an predicting that the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that's been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country," Krauthammer said tonight.

"I would say the price of liberty. You can hear a helicopter, you can't hear a drone. You know, if you hear a helicopter you hide under a bush. Well, you can't with this which is why it's effective in Pakistan and elsewhere. It's deft and it's silent. I don't think we want a society where if there are the objects, hovering over streaming, real-time information about you, your family, your car, your location," Krauthammer said later in the segment.

"It's not worth it," he said.

"The Founders we're deeply opposed to the militarization of civil society. There is all kinds of aversions to it and this is importing it because, as you say, it's cheap, it's easy, it's silent. It's something that you can easily deploy. It's going to be, I think the bane of our existence. Stop it here, stop it now," Krauthammer said at the end of the panel segment. "Strong letter to follow."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/05/14/krauthammer_on_drones_flying_in_us_stop_it_here_st op_it_now.html

jimnyc

04-20-2013, 10:33 AM

It would have been nice if deployed drones were somehow used immediately after the Boston attacks and maybe saved the lives of a police officer and prevented another from sitting in critical condition. With the city under lockdown, and terrorists on the loose, I would chip in a few dollars to help pay for the drones myself.

Drummond

04-20-2013, 11:16 AM

Drummond

04-20-2013, 11:18 AM

Drummond

04-20-2013, 11:22 AM

revelarts

04-20-2013, 12:14 PM

Is a drone an instrument of war ?
On reflection, I certainly agree. IT IS.
So tell me, Revelarts. AREN'T you at war with terrorists ? If not .. WHY NOT ??
In case you haven't yet realised .. THEY are at war with YOU. You can either fight back, with WHATEVER effective means you have at your disposal, or, you can take time out to work out how best to benefit your enemies.
Which do you prefer, Revelarts ?
Did you read my suggestions about 100 itel/military for each of the 2500 AQ?
YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!
Drummond , i don't like to be mean but,
Why would you even think that someone who suggest the above, believes that we don't have a problem with terrorism.
Is your imagination so thin that it can only imagine 2 answers to the problem.
All or nothing.

Since i don't agree that we should spend ourselves into the poverty or that terrorist are under every bed therefore I'm a liberal who wants to do Nothing?
That's foolish Drummond. And it's a dishonest lie.

Is AQ as strong militarily as the Axis powers were? Let me help you. H3LL No
Multiple countries with devastating war armaments and millions of men.
that took an all out effort on many countries part.

Is AQ as strong militarily as the the Soviet Union and Affiliate powers were? Let me help you. H3LL No
Multiple countries with even more devastating war armaments and millions of men at arms and an ideology machine that created often blind allegiance world wide.
that took an all out effort on many countries part.

AQ has maybe from 50 to 5000 serious players. No regular access to any armaments of war. unless we give them to them
what kind of threat is that in terms of the type we've faced in the past Drummond?
You ask if i want to use WHATEVER effective means i have available.
I want to use whatever effective means inline with the size and nature of the threat and our stated principals.

AQ is not a real threat to the sovereignty and freedoms of this country.
And can be dealt with without bankrupting ourselves or sacrificing every hard won freedom we used to enjoy.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-20-2013, 12:35 PM

I can see and agree with points made by Drummond and some made by the Rev..

I have to go with this simply because the Founders understood and thought it so damn important.

"The Founders we're deeply opposed to the militarization of civil society. There is all kinds of aversions to it and this is importing it because, as you say, it's cheap, it's easy, it's silent. It's something that you can easily deploy. It's going to be, I think the bane of our existence. Stop it here, stop it now," Krauthammer said at the end of the panel segment. "Strong letter to follow."

If we allow the militarization to start here it will only grow larger and larger and eventually lead to a dictatorship, that was the supreme danger of which the Founders sought to avoid! Then there is the little matter of the certainty that it will be greatly misused by our dem/leftists to punish/murder political opposition.
Catching the one terrorist on the run easier with the help of overhead drones is not a bargain I can go with. For it gives far too much power to an already far, far too powerful dictatorial leaning , leftist leaning big government.

Vigilance against tyranny may force us to take a harder road but the price paid is far less that what will be paid if we go farther into embracing bigger government and even further in the suppression of our rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

I simply in good conscience can not go with the use of military drones to spy on or harm American citizens within the borders of this nation.. The price, the terrible price is too high to pay....

:flyflag:-Tyr

Drummond

04-20-2013, 12:35 PM

Did you read my suggestions about 100 itel/military for each of the 2500 AQ?

Drummond , i don't like to be mean. BUT YOUR NOT LISTENING!!!
Why would you even think that someone who suggest that, believes that we don't have a problem with terrorism.
Is your imagination so thin that it can only imagine 2 answers to the problem.
All or nothing.

Since i don't agree that we should spend ourselves into the poverty or that terrorist are under every bed therefore I'm a liberal who wants to do Nothing?
That's foolish Drummond. And it's a dishonest lie.

Is AQ as strong militarily as the Axis powers were? Let me help you. H3LL No
Multiple countries with devastating war armaments and millions of men
that took an all out effort on many countries part.

Is AQ as strong militarily as the the Soviet Union and Affiliate powers were? Let me help you. H3LL No
Multiple countries with even more devastating war armaments and millions of men at arms and an ideology machine that created often blind allegiance world wide.

AQ has maybe from 50 to 5000 serious players. No regular access to any armaments of war.
what kind of threat is that in terms of the type we've faced in the past Drummond?
You ask if i want to use WHATEVER effective means i have available.
I want to use whatever effective means inline with the size and nature of the threat and our stated principals.

AQ is not a real threat to the sovereignty and freedoms of this country.
And can be dealt with without bankrupting ourselves or sacrificing every hard won freedom we used to enjoy.

I really wish you could face this issue realistically.

For starters, this '2500' estimate is basically a useless one to come up with. You know no better that this is accurate than I know precisely how many grains of sand are to be found in the Sahara desert. It could be far greater than that. There could be entire training camps out there yet to be discovered. Sleeper cells as yet unknown. New recruits being added daily, or weekly. You JUST DON'T KNOW.

You are dismissive, alarmingly so, about the threat they pose. For example, the Soviet Union that was, for all of their stocks of nukes, didn't use one against you. Deterrence - yes, an act of STRENGTH against an enemy - made sure that they never once acted against America. Not ONE attack was launched.

But for all of Al Qaeda's supposed relative weakness, and for all of the knowledge they had of how militarily powerful America is, Al Qaeda was NOT deterred from its 9/11 attack. THEY have launched more attacks, ALREADY, than your far more powerful Soviet enemy did.

You say that Al Qaeda 'is not a real threat to the sovereignty and freedoms of this country'. Sovereignty .. no. Freedoms ... are you joking ? On 11th September 2001, 3,000 people were robbed of their freedom to live their lives !!! WHAT ON EARTH MAKES YOU THINK IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN ?

Putting it another way ... how many more 'Bostons' will it take for you to wake up and smell the coffee, for you to understand that, for as long as less than the maximum possible efforts are put into the fight against terrorism, THESE ATTACKS WILL ALWAYS BE ON THE CARDS ???

You talk of spending yourselves into poverty. Well, what if, one day, just ONE Al Qaeda terrorist planted ONE nuclear bomb in ONE city ... that city being vital to your country's financial wellbeing ? Or to your security's wellbeing ? Perhaps, Revelarts, if you want to reduce the fight to one of 'affordability', a terrorist will one day destroy, in seconds, what it's taken America DECADES of effort to create in financial terms. Maybe your pennypinching attitude will be proven to be a false economy.

And that's before you even start to dwell on the lives lost !!

You really need to think again.

taft2012

04-20-2013, 12:37 PM

"I'm going to go hard left on you here, I'm going ACLU," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said in opposition to the use of drones on the U.S. homeland.

Why is it that Krauthammer can admit he's "going left" and "going ACLU" and you can't?

In doing so he's honestly admitting that he may be wrong, because the left is always wrong.

Why the continued masquerade of conservatism?

Just say it, and say it loud, "I'm a liberal dammit, and I'm proud."

revelarts

04-20-2013, 01:14 PM

Why is it that Krauthammer can admit he's "going left" and "going ACLU" and you can't?
In doing so he's honestly admitting that he may be wrong, because the left is always wrong.
Why the continued masquerade of conservatism?
Just say it, and say it loud, "I'm a liberal dammit, and I'm proud."
[/I][/COLOR]

If the Bill of rights and the constitution are leftist documents taft them i'm a proud leftist, sure.
If being pro life means i'm a leftist , ok
If being pro Gun rights is Leftist, I'm left.
If Only wanting to fight wars if we are attacked is leftist, I'm left.
If thinking that Capitalism is great but not the perfect end all be all is left too. then I'm Left.
If Believing the Bible and Christian values are foundational to our country is leftist, then God bless america I'm a proud leftist.

What the heck are you Taft?

revelarts

04-20-2013, 01:17 PM

Oh wait I forgot to say something about Pot,

If thinking making Pot legal Or at least not enforcing the laws on it is Something that makes sense to do, then i'm left.
:laugh:

taft2012

04-20-2013, 02:23 PM

If the Bill of rights and the constitution are leftist documents taft them i'm a proud leftist, sure.

If you think the Founders sat down and drafted the Bill of Rights to protect agents of alien enemies who kill innocent American civilians, yeah, what else are you other than a leftist.

If being pro life means i'm a leftist , ok

An anomaly. David Bonoir was pro-life as well.

If being pro Gun rights is Leftist, I'm left.

Another anomaly. Harry Reid also voted "no" on the last gun control bill.

If Only wanting to fight wars if we are attacked is leftist, I'm left.

Yeah, you are. If you want innocent Americans to be killed before allowing us to use our military to protect ourselves.

If thinking that Capitalism is great but not the perfect end all be all is left too. then I'm Left.

Ahhh, "The Third Way".... I smell a fascist.

What the heck are you Taft?

Someone who is up-front about what I believe and doesn't hide behind buzzwords.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-20-2013, 03:12 PM

Consider this revelation....--Tyr

http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-interviewed-tamerlan-tsarnaev-2011-tip-164451916--politics.html

FBI interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev after 2011 tip<cite class="byline vcard" style="font-style: normal; color: rgb(125, 125, 125); font-size: 12px; font-family: Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; vertical-align: middle; line-height: 2.2em; display: inline-block !important;">By PETE YOST | Associated Press – <abbr class="updated" title="2013-04-20T18:05:29Z" style="border: 0px;">1 hr 54 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Russian FSB intelligence security service told the FBI in early 2011 about information that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, was a follower of radical Islam, two law enforcement officials said Saturday.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shootout, and his younger brother was captured alive. They were identified by authorities and relatives as ethnic Chechens from southern Russia who had been in the U.S. for about a decade.
According to an FBI news release issued Friday night, a foreign government said that based on its information, Tsarnaev was a strong believer and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the U.S. for travel to the Russian region to join unspecified underground groups.
The FBI did not name the foreign government, but the two law enforcement officials identified the FSB as the provider of the information to one of the FBI's field offices and also to FBI headquarters in Washington. The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record about the matter.
The FBI said that in response, it interviewed Tsarnaev and relatives, and did not find any domestic or foreign terrorism activity. The FBI said it provided the results in the summer of 2011. The FBI also said that it requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A foreign government gives warning and it goes nowhere. Not even any investigation or communication tabs kept on the damn guy!!
Somebody ffed up and its being covered up IMHO..-TYR
</abbr></cite>

revelarts

04-20-2013, 03:13 PM

If you think the Founders sat down and drafted the Bill of Rights to protect agents of alien enemies who kill innocent American civilians, yeah, what else are you other than a leftist.
An anomaly. David Bonoir was pro-life as well.
Another anomaly. Harry Reid also voted "no" on the last gun control bill.
Yeah, you are. If you want innocent Americans to be killed before allowing us to use our military to protect ourselves.
Ahhh, "The Third Way".... I smell a fascist.
Someone who is up-front about what I believe and doesn't hide behind buzzwords.

wow

taft2012

04-21-2013, 06:56 AM

wow

I think "Wow" is precisely what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would say if told that some Americans would come to believe the right against self-incrimination they authored meant that security personnel could not speak to guys like this, in situations like this, until their Miranda Rights were read to them.

Then I think they'd say "WTF are Miranda Rights", and when that's explained they'd say "Wow" again.

red states rule

04-21-2013, 06:59 AM

Opinions differ over how much threat Al Qaeda's factions pose and how U.S. policy and spending should change.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-al-qaeda-20130415,0,748515.story

Besides Obama who else thinks Al Qaeda is "shattered"?

I know Obama ran on his "victory" over Al Qaeda but from what I have seen it is alive and well

I also know the only place Obama and Dems wnat to make REAL spending cuts in in DOD and use that money to expand the welfare state

taft2012

04-21-2013, 07:11 AM

I also know the only place Obama and Dems wnat to make REAL spending cuts in in DOD and use that money to expand the welfare state

Because liberals/pothead conservatives "ROFL" when someone suggests that the welfare state is not the most legitimate function of government.

red states rule

04-21-2013, 07:15 AM

Because liberals/pothead conservatives "ROFL" when someone suggests that the welfare state is not the most legitimate function of government.

Well the welfare state is taking over the nation with more then 1/3 the population on food stamps and other taxpayer provided handouts

So yea, libs see defense as a source of "revenue"

Hell if you get your limbs blown off in a terror attack at least you will have Obamacare and food stamps to get your through your ordeal

red states rule

04-21-2013, 07:20 AM

and the liberal version of terrorist first responders under the Obama budget

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xZrogjuKtjY/SHFz8QGQbII/AAAAAAAACLs/xwZGCmDIUX4/s400/segway-anti-terror_684090n.jpg

jimnyc

04-21-2013, 10:40 AM

And now we find out that there is a sleeper cell of at least 12 in boston that has been helping the other 2 bombers. Yeah, I think we should back off funding the searches and close shop up.

taft2012

04-21-2013, 11:07 AM

And now we find out that there is a sleeper cell of at least 12 in boston that has been helping the other 2 bombers. Yeah, I think we should back off funding the searches and close shop up.

What!?!?!?

And live with the remote possibility that these investigations may stumble across an organized marijuana distribution ring? Simply unthinkable. :laugh2:

revelarts

04-21-2013, 12:35 PM

I think "Wow" is precisely what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would say if told that some Americans would come to believe the right against self-incrimination they authored meant that security personnel could not speak to guys like this, in situations like this, until their Miranda Rights were read to them.

Then I think they'd say "WTF are Miranda Rights", and when that's explained they'd say "Wow" again.

Wow is what T Jefferson Madison would say after reading most of your rights negating post about law enforcement. and would tell you ride by George Washignton's house and talk to him about his pot growing.

I could probably post about 100 quotes from Jefferson and Madison that you would not agree with Taft.

Do you Honestly think Jefferson Madison or Washington would put up with a "Stop and Frisk" rules?
crazy

taft2012

04-21-2013, 12:49 PM

Wow is what T Jefferson Madison would say after reading most of your rights negating post about law enforcement.

This would be the same Jefferson and Madison that didn't even apply the Bill of Rights to state and local governments? Those are the guys you're talking about?

Do you Honestly think Jefferson Madison or Washington would put up with a "Stop and Frisk" rules?
crazy

Uhhh, yeah.

Your notions about law enforcement seem to mirror your notions about war. Entire armies and navies could be marching and steaming towards our country, but according to your beliefs we should do nothing until we're attacked.

Likewise, if a police officer reasonably believes a crime is about to take place... he should do nothing until after the crime takes place.

Jefferson and Madison would think you're nuts.

revelarts

04-21-2013, 02:43 PM

This would be the same Jefferson and Madison that didn't even apply the Bill of Rights to state and local governments? Those are the guys you're talking about?
i guess Washington gets a pass for his pot growing.
you have an incredible way of bending the light to fit you view.
Jefferson and the rest of the Continental congress pulled from the Virginia declaration of rights to Draft the National bill of rights. so what the heck are you talking about taft? they believed that people had those rights that you i suppose don't think people deserve.

And Jefferson Said
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government,
and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

Nearly every state gov't had their own version of the Bill of rights which included the right not to have your PERSON or property searched with out warrant.
All the states except maybe NEW YORK.

Uhhh, yeah.
Your notions about law enforcement seem to mirror your notions about war. Entire armies and navies could be marching and steaming towards our country, but according to your beliefs we should do nothing until we're attacked.
Likewise, if a police officer reasonably believes a crime is about to take place... he should do nothing until after the crime takes place.
Jefferson and Madison would think you're nuts.
sheesh, They would read your interpretation of what I've said as nuts and dishonest or worse.

aboutime

04-21-2013, 02:55 PM

i guess Washington gets a pass for his pot growing.
you have an incredible way of bending the light to fit you view.
Jefferson and the rest of the Continental congress pulled from the Virginia declaration of rights to Draft the National bill of rights. so what the heck are you talking about taft? they believed that people had those rights that you i suppose don't think people deserve.

And Jefferson Said
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government,
and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

Nearly every state gov't had their own version of the Bill of rights which included the right not to have your PERSON or property searched with out warrant.
All the states except maybe NEW YORK.

sheesh, They would read your interpretation of what I've said as nuts and dishonest or worse.

Rev. Show the rest of us where, and who authorized you to be the final decision maker as to what our Founding Fathers may have done, or said...that pleases, or displeases you?

Who appointed you as the final decider here?

Drummond

04-21-2013, 03:45 PM

And now we find out that there is a sleeper cell of at least 12 in boston that has been helping the other 2 bombers. Yeah, I think we should back off funding the searches and close shop up.

Interesting ... our own news has yet to report this (.. serves me right for watching the BBC).

I'd like to run that by Revelarts for comment ... since Revelarts thinks that you do not need MORE people (and resources) expended on monitoring / capturing / terrorist neutralisation efforts.

Either, in Revelart's terms (.. presumably ? ..) :

1. To only belatedly discover that sleeper cell is an acceptable timelag, or ..

2. If current resources need no expansion or investment, then to not know about them is a tolerable status quo, in security terms.

Spelling this out for Revelarts: I say that you DO WHAT IT TAKES to maximise anti-terrorist measures. Complacency is NOT called for !!

revelarts

04-21-2013, 05:06 PM

Rev. Show the rest of us where, and who authorized you to be the final decision maker as to what our Founding Fathers may have done, or said...that pleases, or displeases you?

Who appointed you as the final decider here?

I posted what they did and said.
that's the final arbiter there.

as far as what they may have done while reading tafts post.
the founders where clear thinking men.
no Clear thinking honest person would come to the same conclusion Taft came to about my post.
What i said and what Taft says it implies are far different. And those men Would, i believe, see that without any trouble.

So I stand by my statement.
the founders would have...
so says revelarts

taft2012

04-22-2013, 05:12 AM

you have an incredible way of bending the light to fit you view.
Jefferson and the rest of the Continental congress pulled from the Virginia declaration of rights to Draft the National bill of rights. so what the heck are you talking about taft? they believed that people had those rights that you i suppose don't think people deserve.

And Jefferson Said
"The Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government,
and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

You might want to Google "Incorporation of the Bill of Rights".

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporation+%28Bill+of+Rights%29

A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bill+of+Rights) are made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fourteenth+Amendment).

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are held to the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/First+Amendment) freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fourth+Amendment) freedoms from unwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and the Sixth Amendment (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sixth+Amendment) right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement of indictment by a Grand Jury (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Grand+Jury) (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have not been applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833 case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limited application of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. For example, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slavery (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Slavery) alleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech) and Freedom of the Press (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+the+Press).

revelarts

04-22-2013, 05:53 AM

You might want to Google "Incorporation of the Bill of Rights".

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Incorporation+%28Bill+of+Rights%29

you might want to read what i posted before.

Jefferson said EVERY government should have a bill of rights. And the States did. the states and locals are governments and we're considered near sovereign in there own right even after the the union and into the civil war and but the feds became more powerful so by 2oth century fed laws including the rights in the consttion began to be recognized as applicaple to the states as the states own laws were superseded. often to the detriment of the states. -sometimes not-. but the 9th and 10th amendments should have applied but that's another story

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/clear_pixel.gif http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/images/btn_printer_friendly_version.gif (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=virginia_declaration_of_r ights_content.html&title=NARA%20%7C%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Indepe ndence%3A%20A%20Transcription) The Virginia Declaration of Rights

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776. A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.
Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.
Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.
Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.