Wesley Clark and the "No Fly" List

[Rose Siding]

Axciom, the Constitution and the General

Last June, retired Gen. Wesley Clark told NBC's "Meet the Press" that he was concerned about the effect of the war on terrorism on civil liberties. He said, "I think one of the risks you have in is that you're giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you've got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists." As a politician, Wesley Clark has tried to portray himself as a liberal ready to reign in the excesses of Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon and John Ashcroft's Justice Department.

But as a businessman, Clark has been involved in helping companies sell the Pentagon and the Transportation Security Administration technologies that may threaten the civil liberties and privacy rights of Americans. In a recent profile, the Wall Street Journal reported that "Since retiring from a 34-year Army career in 2000, Gen. Clark has become: chairman of a suburban Washington technology-corridor start-up, managing director at an investment firm, a director at four other firms around the country and an advisory-board member for two others. For most, he was hired to help boost the companies' military business. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications."

Clark's most controversial role has been as a member of the Board of Directors of Axciom, a Little Rock-based database company that owns some of the most extensive consumer databases in the world.........

...........Granted, Clark was most likely not directly involved in the decision to transfer the records. But the General does need to explain how he can reconcile his support for civil liberties with his role in helping a company profit from a government program which the ACLU has criticized for violating peoples' rights to privacy and due process. Leaving aside the potential legal violations involved in Axciom's dealings with Torch, Inc., Clark had to be aware of the basic nature of the CAPPS-II program as a lobbyist working on airline security issues. Voters deserve an explanation of Clark's work at Axciom.

http://www.counterpunch.org/donahue10012003.html


More on Capps II:

No-Privacy Zone

Almost nine months ago, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) disclosed plans to upgrade the nation's airport security system with data-mining technology designed to catch potential terrorists before they board commercial flights. The second-generation Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) would scan government and private-sector databases for criminal, financial and other information and ferret out high-risk passengers using a color-coded "risk score." As details emerged, however, the program became embroiled in controversy. Senator Ron Wyden, instrumental in exposing the privacy threat posed by John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness (TIA) project, led a backlash in Congress that challenged the TSA's authority to create such a system. The Senate Appropriations Committee denied funding for the CAPPS II program pending a privacy-impact study from the General Accounting Office.

Meanwhile, thanks to a series of suits by the ACLU and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), documents emerged showing that dozens of innocent passengers--including American Muslims, South Asians and senior citizens--were being harassed, detained and even strip-searched by National Guard, airport security and local law-enforcement officials because of a secret no-fly list, the existence of which the TSA had previously denied. TSA administrator James Loy repeatedly promised that CAPPS II would not move forward until all privacy concerns were addressed, and the Department of Homeland Security hired a chief privacy officer to make sure all programs measured up to existing privacy laws. At the end of July, the TSA made several concessions to critics, calling for a Passenger Advocate Office to assist passengers mistakenly flagged as high risk under the program.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20031013&s=jones

This represents part of my main concern about Clark. Dems sending a corporate lobbyist to the WH is sort of like nails on a chalkboard to me. I know each candidate has their own pros and cons but I haven't been able to find an acceptable way to look at this. Any suggestions (not too contorted) would be appreciated.

[cprise]

1. Establishment all the way, baby!

.

[lcordero]

2. Something I really don't like

"I think you've got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists."

How about trying a new approach. How about NOT TOUCHING ANY OF OUR RIGHTS AT ALL. There is no being "careful" when taking rights away.

[roughsatori]

3. "abridge" I think that means a "condensed" version of the Constitution

and Bill of Rights. A very delicate way of NOT objecting to it is how I translate that sentence of Clark's.

[Lurking Dem]

37. In the sense of rights it means

to deprive or cut off.

[bryant69]

6. I don't know

Is privacy a right? If you believed you could stop a murder, would it be worth it to breach the suspects privacy? He might turn out to be honest, but you don't know that going into it.

Do foreign nationals have rights? Is it ok to spy on them?

I don't want to side with Ashcroft on this issue, as I think he's going a bit too far; but if some steps are necessary to ensure the safety of the American people, I'm not sure I see that as a bad thing.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cprise]

8. The problem is when people "know" all these things

A lot gets misconstrued, esp. damaging when hysteria over minority and poor suspects has its effect.

[Rose Siding]

13. These aren't foreign nationals

snip (from first piece)>
Critics point out that terrorists tend to use false identification and avoid activities that would draw suspicion. Existing "No Fly" lists have notoriously misidentified many innocent people, delaying or preventing them from flying. More seriously, on several occasions, the lists appear to have been used to harass nonviolent activists. In October of 2002 the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration in San Francisco detained the editors of the War Times, a peace movement newspaper, because their names allegedly appeared on a "No Fly List." In April of 2002, sheriff's deputies in Milwaukee detained twenty peace activists including a sixteen-year old high school student and a nun because their names allegedly appeared on the same list. Expanding the information on airline passengers available to the Pentagon and the Transportation Security Administration will expand those agencies' ability to harass dissidents.
end snip>

[Mairead]

49. Not only that, but Dennis Kucinich gets The Treatment every time he flies

Here's a guy, a Congressman and presidential candidate, and they do a special anti-terrorism check on him every time he flies?

[HFishbine]

14. My Lord

What are they teaching in school nowadays? Any civics courses?

Our law is founded on the principle of a presumption of innocence. Yes, privacy is a right. The opportunity to invade that right in order to prosecute crimes is clearly articulated in the Bill of Rights and it is restricted for good reason.

When people pose questions like these, I get the impression that they do not comprehend the magnitude of what they suggest.

[bryant69]

51. Yeah, but we aren't talking about imaginary dangers

Are we? We are talking about actual dangers. There are people in the world who want to kill as many of your fellow citizens as possible. Do you just want to ignore that danger?

[stickdog]

60. Who?

Who is the last US citizen to successfully hijack a commericial domestic flight?

Who does CAPPS II protect us from?

Certainly not terrorists. CAPPS II helps terrorists by allowing them to discern what actions allow which of them to avoid security procedures simply by booking a few preliminary flights.

[lcordero]

25. No it would NOT BE WORTH IT

Government has a long history of taking away rights for fabricated reasons and for asking for an inch on the way to taking the whole mile.

Do foreign nationals have rights? Is it ok to spy on them?

It is not ok to spy on them when I'm footing the bill for it.

[dfong63]

32. the government wants to treat everyone as a suspect

If you believed you could stop a murder, would it be worth it to breach the suspects privacy? He might turn out to be honest, but you don't know that going into it.

the problem is, we're all suspects. should the govt be allowed to trample on everyone's rights in order to catch criminals? for my money, the answer is clearly "no". for God's sake, look at the history of our constitution. sacrificing rights for "safety" is a very slippery slope. you can see it already in how the patriot act which was supposed to be used against terrorists, is being used against common criminals now.

[stickdog]

45. CAPPS II is indefensible. It makes flights LESS secure

while invading our privacy to "protect" us against a nonexistent threat.

[Cocoa]

7. and it seems Acxiom was not so careful with JetBlue

Clark should say in what way he ensured that Acxiom was careful with our civil liberties before he made his decision to lobby for them.

[janekat]

11. bwah-ha-ha!!!

"After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gen. Clark counseled clients on how to pitch commercial technologies to the government for homeland-security applications."

Oh my GAWD lock this guy up now and throw away the key!!!

Please don't waste our time. You guys are easier to de-bunk than the freepers....

[Cocoa]

15. he's running for president

no one's talking about locking anyone up. This all is in terms of the primary election.

[HFishbine]

16. Huh?

I didn't know people could be debunked.

[Cocoa]

23. maybe it's a military term?

means getting people out of bed? :-)

[HFishbine]

26. Ha!

Good one. And when I leave for some R&R, have I been debased? When I take an exam, do I get degraded?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. And absolutely zero "debunking" appeared in your post.

Oh my GAWD lock this guy up now and throw away the key!!!


Powerful, powerful debunking! Logic major?

[Eloriel]

30. Who says you've de-bunked anyone (or anything, for that matter)

Oh, that's right. In your own mind, you have. I see. Well then that MUST make it true.

Eloriel

[noiretextatique]

34. a common tactic, i've noticed

rather than respond, just claim it's been debunked.

[stickdog]

46. That's your idea of debunking?

Clark helped Axciom to sell an indefensible product to US taxpayers that robs us of our privacy while making flights less secure.

What's his excuse for performing this disservice?

[Tinoire]

61. Another brilliant de-bunking

And then you'll say you de-bunked this many times but don't have the link. :eyes:

I blush for Clark that this is the kind of support he has... Great cheerleaders but lamentably lousy defenders.


Easier to de-bunk than the Freepers...? Lol... please live up to the challenge and go de-bunk http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/993879/posts|the posts over there>, like this one:

Wes Clark is in bed with a company that was in bed with John Poindexter.

I don't know how leftist/liberal/Democrats can look themselves in the mirror after backing this guy. He looks to be as much a part of the military industrial complex as Cheney is part of the oil business.

[HFishbine]

4. Wheighing In

before the flaming starts.

Yes, yes, yes. This has been posted before. Has "everybody" seen it? Probably not. Does it raise some legitimate questions? Indeed. Am I sounding a little too much like Rumsfeld? You betcha.

There will be two kinds of pro-Clark responses to this post:

TYPE I - Dismissive/Unresponsive/Irrelevent
-------

- Don't ask, you're just out to bash Clark.
- It's okay because Clark wasn't paid for lobbying (even though he was)
- Clark wants a re-examination of the Patriot Act.
- The government could do this without Axciom.
- Companies already know a lot about you. It's all public information anyway.

TYPE 2 - Responsive
-------

- Those that argue such government dosiers on its citizens are necessary to firght the war on terror.
- Those that recognize the legitimate concern and offer reasoned speculation about how Clark may address the issue.
- Those that acknowledge the contradiction with the right to privacy and equal protection and also want an explaination.

[Rose Siding]

5. One of the articles is just from yesterday

although I know the issue has been brought up before. I'm hoping that
"- Those that acknowledge the contradiction with the right to privacy and equal protection and also want an explaination" may have contacted the Clark campaign and gotten some kind of response or something.

I don't think that the notion that "government dosiers on citizens being necessary" is something I could tuck away or accept.

[OKNancy]

10. This woman does a good job

and we Clark supporters get so tired of the same old thing. If anyone really cares the following is useful

http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/28.html

[Rose Siding]

22. Thanks- that's worth reading

I see some of the same things there that Clinton spoke of in a College sppech earlier this year, I think.

Granted, there is much publicly available information on each of us. It seems a different thing for the govt to compile it in search of potential criminals.

[HFishbine]

24. Nancy

Okay, there we go. Now that is an honest reply, and it's one that people should know about Clark if it reflects his position.

If Clark wants to explain to the American people that privacy is really a myth. If he wants to explain that it is no cause for concern that, for the first time in the history of this country, the government is going to assemble every record available on every citizen into a central database so that it can pre-emptively detain people without probable cause, then so be it. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would take up that discussion, and I'm sure there are plenty of people left and right who would reject Clark out of hand if that is his position.

[OKNancy]

36. Fish

As I understand it ( no I have no link because I read so much and don't keep files) part of Clark's job a Axiom was to make sure what they did protect people. Also, I believe Clark when he says to take a hard look at the Patriot Act. Others are more cynical, but I feel that since Clark has had a platform to speak up, he is speaking what he truly believes.

[janekat]

42. Clark: Full sunshine review of PATRIOT Act, etc.

Full sunshine review of PATRIOT Act
The Patriot Act ought to be pulled out and given a full sunshine review. You're not going to win the war on terrorism if you destroy who we are as Americans and take away our rights and liberties.
Source: WBUR Public Radio interview Jun 19, 2003

Disturbed that we suspended habeus corpus for War on Terror
One of the things about the war on terror that I am disturbed about is that we've essentially suspended habeas corpus. Which is something that's only been done once in American history and then only for a very brief period. When I go back and think about the atmosphere in which the PATRIOT Act was passed, it begs for a reconsideration and review.
Source: Salon.com interview by Jake Tapper Mar 23, 2003

Don't compromise freedom for problems like terrorism
We will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.
Source: Campaign website, AmericansForClark.com, "100 Year Vision" Sep 18, 2003

Separation of church and state is fundamental
I grew up believing that one of the basic principles in our country is that we would keep church and state separate. Freedom of religion is why people came to America in the first place. And we learned that in order to have freedom of religion, you've got to protect the state from the church. That it is a wonderful thing for people to have-values and their religious faith, and I certainly have mine. But I think that it is better for our democracy and better for our religion if we keep the two separate
Source: WCGU-FM interview on "Sound Off With Sasha" Jun 27, 2003

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_Civil_Rights.htm

[Tinoire]

63. It makes a candidate look really weak when the only thing he has

to convince people is the propaganda of his own staff.

Clark needs a record.

I have it on good authority there will be no blind-faith voting this year.


Source: Mo Paul {DU hero ;)}

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

[stickdog]

52. Clark helped Axciom sell US taxpayers a snooping piece of shit

that makes terrorist hijackings easier.

So is Clark

1) evil,

2) just trying to make a living, or

3) too stupid to live?

[stickdog]

50. No. She has her head up her ass.

WAKE UP!

CAPPS II is indefensible.

It's just Poindexter's Total Information Awareness in disguise.

It "protects" us against a threat that DOESN'T EXIST.

And it makes the job of hijacking a plane EASIER for any coordinated terrorist cell.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

62. Debunking the debunker... This is too easy.

From the blog:

CAPPS II was to be a database of information such as housing stats, telephone numbers, and car ownership. The government can already access most of this information through DMV records (see the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994), state property tax records and phone bills for toll free government numbers, which document the number of every caller, listed or unlisted.

Many people are surprised when they learn about the wealth of publicly available information: extensive property records; birth, marriage, and death certificates; court records. Ever hear of The Smoking Gun? They post legally obtained court records concerning the famous and infamous on-line.

Thanks to the Social Security Administration, the federal government possesses the social security number of every citizen who has one, along with his or her name, birthdate, and latest known address. Based on annual tax filings, the government knows where people work, how much money they make, how many dependents they claim and the social security numbers of those dependents. They know even more about those who itemize, such as where their children attend daycare or whether the person likes to gamble.

In truth, privacy is a myth when it comes to personal information.

The problem isn't the information, available for anyone to find;

Here is where she gets it wrong: If it was SO EASY for the Government to search all these disparate sources of information in order to find out anything they wanted about anybody, THEN WHY DO THEY NEED CAPPS II?

See, that was too easy!

In fact it was SO EASY, that I feel I have to flesh this out some more, so that I feel I have presented an argument rather than just shot it down in flames. So here goes.

All of those sources of information she refers to are seperate databases kept by seperate departments and previously only accessible for certain reasons. For instance, you couldn't just go look at tax records, you needed a warrant to look at such records, and you needed to present probable cause to get that warrant.

On top of that, you then had to access a different database at a different department to get Social Security information, or telephone records. Once again, only with a warrant obtained with probable cause.

The Patriot Act did away with the need for a warrant, by assuming the desire to fly was probable cause to suspect a criminal act. However, the Patriot Act did not do away with the logistical problems of merging all this data into a dossier on a person. That is what CAPPS II is for.

The Patriot Act made it LEGAL to do build a dossier, the CAPPS II program made it POSSIBLE to build a dossier.

Thus, campaigning for one half of this duo is, essentially, campaigning for the other as well. You can't merge this info without the legal basis provided by the Patriot Act, and the Patriot Act would be meaningless if there was no physical way to carry out what was mandated.

Thus by lobbying for such a program, Clark was lobbying for the Act itself.

[Cat M.]

68. Your response is too simple.

No doubt Acxiom saved the government a lot of trouble by coordinating the information so the government doesn't have to gather it (the information provided by Acxiom by the way does not include income tax information or social security information).

You can get house ownership/purchase records without a warrant. The government can get DMV records without a warrant (and probably would since Acxiom's versions of those records are likely to be outdated now that states have been forced to restrict access). Most phone records are in the phone book and for those that aren't, they need only look at phone bills for any government 1-800 numbers, for example. That's how Acxiom gets them.

Acxiom isn't providing all the information to be used in CAPPS II. Acxiom is only providing the information that *it* possesses--which does not include those items for which you claim a subpoena is required. It only includes legally obtainable data.

If the government wants to include social security numbers (I have not heard that assertion and I know the financial information was dropped), the government will have to coordinate that.

My point was NOT that CAPPS II is going to utilize all these things or even that Acxiom would provide them. My point was only that every bit of information Acxiom possesses is something the government already possesses, and in fact the government possesses even MORE than Acxiom possesses about you. So there's no point in whining about some mythical invasion of privacy. Nobody's privacy is being invaded.

I think you get an F in debunking the debunker.

[stickdog]

70. You get an F for missing the point. CAPPS II gives the government

a full profile on every innocent citizen without making us ONE IOTA SAFER.

Successful US citizen hijackings of US domestic flights HAVEN'T HAPPENED FOR 30 YEARS. So why are we trying to protect against something THAT ISN'T A THREAT?

Meanwhile, CAPPS helps organized terrorist groups by letting them know in advance what risk level the US government puts on their members.

[HFishbine]

19. Party

"I don't think that the notion that "government dosiers on citizens being necessary" is something I could tuck away or accept."

I agree. I was just acknowledging that such an argument is at least directly addresses the issue. In my opinion, it's a frightening proposition, but at least it's not dismissive.

[Rose Siding]

28. I understand

Clinton spoke of this in a speech I heard and it didn't go down easy then. Mining info on citizens doesn't *necessarily* get them where they say they want to go. It wouldn't have helped on Sept 11- other failings were responsible for not preventing that and any really bad actor learns way before the rest of us how to game the system. I just don't see the value of such collections of data.

[janekat]

9. Did you actually READ this propaganda - from COUNERPUNCH

bwaha..ha..ha

Just by reading the first sentence of the "allegation" a MORON could see this article is a bunch of histrionic tripe.

"He MAY have been involved in HELPING companies sell technologies that MAY threaten the civil liberties."

Did you actually READ this stuff? Where'd you get if from - the freeper site. Oh - I see it's from Counterpunch...

Can't you guys do better than this? It's just too easy....

Please don't waste our time.

[Cocoa]

21. this is histrionic?

Granted, Clark was most likely not directly involved in the decision to transfer the records. But the General does need to explain how he can reconcile his support for civil liberties with his role in helping a company profit from a government program which the ACLU has criticized for violating peoples' rights to privacy and due process. Leaving aside the potential legal violations involved in Axciom's dealings with Torch, Inc., Clark had to be aware of the basic nature of the CAPPS-II program as a lobbyist working on airline security issues. Voters deserve an explanation of Clark's work at Axciom.

It's propaganda to consider how a presidential candidate's actions compare to his words?

It's histrionic to ask a presidential candidate to explain himself?

Stop laughing for a second and think about it. You don't have to find this important, but I do, and please don't laugh at me for thinking this way.

[rucky]

29. As Much As I Hate Counterpunch

the article raised a reasonable question. This is probably my only reservation about Clark that could lose him the benefit of my doubt. He has addressed my other previous reservations (re: party affiliation, praise of administration) and I have forgiven him because it was just conflicting rhetoric, which all politicians have been guilty of.

But talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Put your money where your mouth is, etc etc. We can only judge Clark by his actions, because as a commentator, a general, and a businessperson, it has not been his place to express his personal opinions until now.

In this case, we potentially have an action in the recent past that conflicts with his current rhetoric. It may be enough to put me over the fence about him, but I'd like to hear his explanation first.

[stickdog]

54. It's too easy?

Or are you too easy to fool?

[Starpass]

12. okay....now

can I see Dean's secret papers, huh, can I??? Funny how no one ever wants to touch that, do they?? Gee, you think he's hiding info on how really wacko liberal he is (when he's trying to get the really wacko liberals to vote for him in the primaries??). Wonder what the good guv was up to all those years. Don't you???? Maybe we should force him to devulge before we become b.s'd into voting for him. I'll bet the 'other half' of those papers (the corporations, etc. he was in bed with)will reveal to Team Bush what went on since they are good repukes. So eventually I guess we will all know like if Dean is the nominee and Bush begins to drag out the dirty laundry.

[Cocoa]

27. What's the story on Dean's secret papers?

If this is important to you, by all means bring it up. I'll read it.

But probably better to do it in a separate thread since this isn't about Dean. I'm not supporting Dean in the primaries, I'm leaning toward Gephardt or Kucinich. So my conern about Clark and Acxiom has nothing to do with Dean.

[bobthedrummer]

17. Jet Blue link

http://cryptome.org/jetblue-spy.htm

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. REBUTTALS

DUer Cat M's response: http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/

DUer Pepperbelly's response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=429156&mesg_id=433768&page=

My own response:

I have known for some time that Clark has lobbied the military and the government on programs that he believes in (including ALTERNATIVE ENERGY BICYCLES, for Pete's sake), and I do not begrudge for one moment the fact that he is paid for his introduction services. He has a valuable commodity and is compensated for it. It is no surprise to anyone that his most valuable commodities are in the military, where he spent his entire career. If he'd wanted to, he could have become a complete whore and lobbied for weapons systems, he could have immersed himself on K Street. But he didn't do that.

As for CAPPS II, the person in charge of the program is LOYAL DEMOCRAT Norm Mineta, the head of the Department of Transportation. As a Japanese American, he was INTERNED in an American concentration camp during WWII, and so I think this is one man who has just a wee bit of knowledge of and concern for the issue of imposing on civil liberties.

Clark obviously believed in this program enough to work FOR FREE on it (something which can be verified easily, I imagine, as Acxiom is a public company), and he obviously took a balanced view of it:

"Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts."

If we have to have lobbyists at all, I think that describes exactly the sort of lobbyist we want. I also think that CAPPS II is a potentially important and useful program. With Norm Mineta overseeing the decision, I feel confident that it will be fine.

I also note that people who are in favor of gun registration and background checks also should not have much of a problem with this program in concept, IMO.

Finally, Clark is also a critic of the USA PATRIOT Act, and he has actually read all 1200 pages, apparently three times (unlike all of our legislators, who apparently passed it without even having TIME to read it all, practically). I'm comfortable with his positions here, and I'm not at all fazed by the news that he (gasp) actually used his military connections.

DTH

[Rose Siding]

33. Bicycles=good

Data collection on citizens=bad

It doesn't matter to me if it's a dem named Mineta or a repub named Poindexter. Are you saying to just trust the govt because there is a "D" after the name? I'll bet Mineta himself wouldn't think that's a good idea.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

35. I'm Saying Trust Mineta Because He's Mineta

Do you know anything about Norm Mineta? If you did, you'd understand that if there were anything truly infringing on civil liberties associated with this program, he would scream bloody murder.

Clark favors a balanced view on this issue. I happen to agree with him. It's just like background checks for guns, IMO. Are you in favor of those, or opposed?

DTH

[stickdog]

43. The program robs of our privacy by scaring us with a

nonexistent bogeyman, and it actually makes any terrorist hijacker cell's job much easier.

So fuck Mineta because his head is up his ass if he supports CAPPS II.

[Pontus]

44. Wesley Clark plans time travel mission...

To clear this whole thing up. Don't you worry none -- he has a plan. You did read the time travel comment he made, didn't you?

Clark to Picard, two to beam up, one born-again Democrat, the other, a Reagan Republican.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. I Read It, Apparently Unlike You

Clark's comment was well-grounded, reasonable and optimistic. I'm sorry you fall so easily for RW propaganda, hook, line and sinker.

DTH, Whose Ignore List Is Up to 25 Now

[Pastiche423]

53. "DTH, Whose Ignore List Is Up to 25 Now"

What a great debate method!

[janekat]

55. Thanks - good post, Dove

n/t

[robbedvoter]

38. Oh, yeah, airport security is a bad idea, Hart Rudman said it too!

Much as I care about civil rights, if Rudman Hart had been implemented, 9.11 hd been averted.
As for Counterpunch, their man-boobs story is much more fun and just as relevant! (really, Clark seems to be guilty for Haitian man boobs - Counterpunch sez it so it must be true!)

[stickdog]

48. CAPPS II invades our privacy while making flights LESS secure.

It HELPS hijackers.

And it collects a massive amount of data on all US citizens, none of whom have successfully hijacked a plane nearly 30 years.

Do you actually support CAPPS II?

[stickdog]

39. Here's the problem with CAPPS II.

1) It's Total Information Awareness in disguise.

2) When was the last time a US citizen hijacked a domestic flight? So what are we protecting ourselves against such that we should relinquish our privacy so completely?

3) A terrorist cell would simply keep trying test flights until they determined which terrorists were let through with minimum security. Because such a "security" system can be easily gamed in this manner, CAPPS II will actually make flights LESS secure.

[stickdog]

40. Come on. Someone defend CAPPS II. (NT)

[stickdog]

41. Nobody is going to defend CAPPS II?

[stickdog]

56. OK. So we all agree that CAPPS II is indefensible and Clark's

employment in support of it is, at a mininum, enigmatic?

[Zorra]

57. I'll try. Here's the defense:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

58. Oh, Are People Still Making the Tired Claim That No One's Rebutted These?

I wouldn't know, because there are a whole RAFTLOAD of posters named Ignore popping up on this thread.

You might want my REBUTTALS post above, however, for several positions.

Nice empty post, btw.

DTH

[stickdog]

59. Just keep your head in the sand.

It will help you complete your mission. It will allow you to defend the indefensible.

BTW, are there any Iraqi WMD's down there?

[kiahzero]

64. Here goes

Disclaimer: I am a Clark supporter.

Having a father that works in the Pentagon as a defense contractor, and numerous connections to the military (my longtime girlfriend being one of them), I have a perspective on this that I haven't seen posted here before, so here goes. You can agree or disagree with what I say, but at least understand that it's based on the observations of people who have worked as government contractors for a long period of time.

First, what generally happens is that the government asks for bids on a contract (unless it's something they can give to Haliburton, at least recently). Once you've accepted that contract, you're legally bound to provide what the government asks for.

Second, let us not forget that there are lots of government liasons for contractors (my primary source comes from DoD contractors), and most of them make a career out of having their heads up their asses. Basically, anyone smart gets the hell out of the public sector and goes private, where they work for the morons they left behind.

Combine the two: If the government asks for you to create a database of Evil, you're contract bound to create it. Sure, you can go into breach of contract, but that would basically destroy your company. So what do you do? Develop it, do your best to sell it, and hope that the public outrage takes it down.

As far as I'm concerned, it's generally not a contractors fault when the government decides to go 1984.

So no, I will not defend CAPPS II. It goes too far. I will, however, defend a system to defend against terrorism aboard airplanes.

[stickdog]

65. Dup (see below, n/t)

[stickdog]

66. But a computer system can't defend against terrorism aboard airplanes.

If it could, don't you think Israel would have one?

IT CAN ONLY HELP TERRORISTS TO BE ABLE TO GUAGE THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF BEING WAVED THROUGH VS. FRISKED & QUESTIONED IN ADVANCE OF THEIR ACTUAL MISSION.

What is so difficult about this concept that a Rhodes Scholar can't figure it out?

[kiahzero]

67. Israel?

Israel is hardly a good example: sure, they have a great record for security, but that's only because they have decided to go extremely far down the "security" side of the axis between Liberty and Security.

If you have a problem with CAPPS II, what do you see as the positives and negatives of Israel's security model?

[stickdog]

69. Why is Israel a bad example? My point is that EVEN Israel

doesn't have an invasion computer mining plane "security" program like CAPPS II.

And it's not because they are against invading people's privacy. Why then?

BECAUSE CAPPS II HELPS TERRORISTS!

If you are a funded terrorist group, all you have to do is have several of your members take a few test flights using the same purchasing habits and ticket types to determine the level of security they will face the next time they fly in the same manner. Then use the members who face the "wave through" level of "security" to bring aboard the weapons.

[hedda_foil]

71. Bravo!

"That's the way it's done" is no defense of the indefensible.

[stickdog]

72. Kick for the late night crowd. (NT)