Freedom to Travel Event, Part 3

[jgmaynard]

Nice cartoon, very poignant.

But why wouldn't the terrorist have guns too?

OK. Imagine you are the terrorist. Even imagine you manage (somehow) to be able to smuggle a gun on board. You have your choice of two airplanes: one where you KNOW no one is armed, and another where you know anyone can be armed. Which one are you going to try to hijack?

The terrorists wouldn't be on an airplane with armed passengers in the first place.

When was the last time you heard about an NRA convention being held up?

JM

[Russell Kanning]

Maybe the next step will be trying to get on a plane with no ID and a gun.

[Michael Fisher]

What do you want to happen Mike?? I can't put your posts back.? I thought you overreacted completely.? Instead of talking to me about it, which WOULD have gotten a response, you go straight to a hunger strike?? Am I so hardnosed that I wouldn't have listened to you when you had a problem with something that happened here?? ?Is that really what you think of me?? ?

Perhaps you are right.  I may have overreacted, but I only act on principle and with a loving, forgiving heart.

I did not contact you because I believe the problem should be solved openly by Lloyd.  I did not want to get him in trouble by going over his head with the problem.  I think only the best of you and everyone else here.  This fast was not directed at you or Lloyd, only at the system.  (The system of allowing posts to be deleted for unnecessary reasons.)

I am afraid for the future of the NH Underground forums which are an extremely valuable resource to all of us.  I want Lloyd to realize his mistake because I believe it was a moral lapse of character and Lloyd always holds strong to his principles.  He is a good man.

In reflection, perhaps I should have told only Lloyd about my fast and boycott.  In the future, this is something I will try.

[Russell Kanning]

Maybe next time the FBI agents will be running a sting operation.
article

Orchestrating Terrorism

The US has a vast and very expensive Homeland Security bureaucracy with nothing to do. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in America since 2001. There have been a vast quantity of terror alerts, the purpose of which was to scare Americans into supporting an unnecessary and illegal aggressive attack on Iraq.

As very few, if any, real terrorists have turned up, the FBI has resorted to creating terrorists by soliciting Muslim-Americans and appealing to them with schemes to aid "jihadists." Recently, two American citizens were caught in a FBI sting. One, an Ivy-League educated physician, is charged with agreeing to provide medical care to wounded holy warriors in Saudi Arabia. The other, a famous jazz musician, is charged with agreeing to train jihadists in martial arts.

According to the Washington Times (June 1) the FBI began its sting in 2003, so it took two years of work and cajoling to manufacture the case against these two Americans.

What the FBI has done to Dr. R.A. Sabir and to Tarik Shah was once known as entrapment. Judges would throw out entrapment cases, because crime was believed to require intent to commit a crime. If the intent was given to the accused by the police through enticement or threats, it was not regarded as criminal intent on the accused person's part.

Unfortunately, "law and order" conservatives used fear of crime to "give our police more effective measures to clear criminals off our streets" and managed to eliminate the entrapment defense.

Some years ago the FBI, posing as Arab oil sheiks, entrapped US Representatives in a sting operation. The FBI handed out large bundles of cash to Congressmen who accepted the offer to represent the fake sheiks' interests. Film footage of the Congressmen stuffing their pockets with money was all the FBI needed to convict the members. The fact that campaign contributions come from interest groups that expect to be represented did not count in the stung US Representatives' favor.

Note that the two latest victims, Sabir and Tarik, could not have offered their services to jihadists, because no jihadists were present. Note also that Sabir and Tarik are not accused of actually performing an act of service. Sabir and Tarik had no contact with real jihadists, and they committed no act of service to jihadists. Yet, both face $250,000 fines and 15 years in prison.

All that happened was that two productive American citizens were deceived by government agents for no other purpose than those agents having to show "results" in the "war on terror."

How does it make us safer to put a medical doctor and a jazz musician in prison? Why did the FBI spend two years entrapping these two American citizens?

Both men have wives and children. Suppose both men agreed to provide some service to jihadists. (We don't know that they did. We only have the FBI's word for it, a word that is not worth much.) The reason could easily be fear of reprisals.

Suppose you are a Muslim-American and FBI agents misrepresenting themselves as dangerous jihadists demanded services of you? Neither of the accused agreed to participate in a terrorist act: no bombs, no shootings, no hijackings. A doctor agreed to keep his Hippocratic oath if presented with wounded people in Saudi Arabia. A jazz musician agreed to teach martial arts. When was the last time a terrorist attacked with judo or karate?

Many years ago there was a movie about a British medical doctor who treated a man wounded in an act of rebellion against England. The English judge, portrayed in the movie as unjust in the extreme, ruled that being humane was tantamount to being a rebel and the doctor was sold into slavery to the Spanish. Unless memory fails, the movie was Captain Blood with Errol Flynn.

In the movie, the doctor did actually treat the wounded man. The charge against Dr. Sabir is that he agreed to treat a wounded man if presented with one in Saudi Arabia in the future. There is no way of knowing if he would have done so. But if the US is prepared to deny medical treatment to its opponents, why does anyone doubt the torture stories?

The FBI is so desperate to capture a terrorist that it spent two years setting up a doctor on this specious charge.

Like the police who find it easier to frame people than to convict them on the evidence, the FBI will find it easier to manufacture "terrorists" with entrapment than to catch real terrorists.

June 7, 2005

Dr. Roberts] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Copyright ? 2005 Creators Syndicate

[Russell Kanning]

Good reason not to pay federal taxes.

[Michael Fisher]

ZAF,

Speaking honestly, very few aggressive thoughts have crossed my mind in a long time.

At one point in time I had a few thoughts regarding the self-defense of liberty if no other option remained, but other options have always remained, even if I have exaggerated and said otherwise.

Because of research of nonviolent noncooperation, I now realize that there are countless ways to work for liberty and I honestly do not believe that defense will become necessary in this country during my lifetime, although it is possible.

Nonviolent noncooperation is a vast principle with many applications. ?This is where my heart is now, and where I believe it will remain.

I believe that aggression is a vast concept and violence can be done even to the spirit of another. ?That is why nonviolence is a very large and difficult goal. ?It is difficult to reject aggression in all its forms, but I am working as hard as I can.

[Michael Fisher]

At one point in time I had a few thoughts regarding the self-defense of liberty if no other option remained, but other options have always remained, even if I have exaggerated and said otherwise.

Recently I've been trying to speak more slowly so I do not exaggerate.  True honesty is difficult, but it is one of my goals.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Nice cartoon, very poignant.

But why wouldn't the terrorist have guns too?

Clearly, the government shouldn't let terrorists to carry their guns on planes,  duh!

[Lloyd Danforth]

What do you want to happen Mike?? I can't put your posts back.? I thought you overreacted completely.? Instead of talking to me about it, which WOULD have gotten a response, you go straight to a hunger strike?? Am I so hardnosed that I wouldn't have listened to you when you had a problem with something that happened here?? ?Is that really what you think of me?? ?

Perhaps you are right.? I may have overreacted, but I only act on principle and with a loving, forgiving heart.

I did not contact you because I believe the problem should be solved openly by Lloyd.? I did not want to get him in trouble by going over his head with the problem.? I think only the best of you and everyone else here.? This fast was not directed at you or Lloyd, only at the system.? (The system of allowing posts to be deleted for unnecessary reasons.)

I am afraid for the future of the NH Underground forums which are an extremely valuable resource to all of us.? I want Lloyd to realize his mistake because I believe it was a moral lapse of character and Lloyd always holds strong to his principles.? He is a good man.

In reflection, perhaps I should have told only Lloyd about my fast and boycott.? In the future, this is something I will try.

I was going to reply to your last post, a couple of pages ago, When you implied I didn't get Kat's OK about this.  She OK'd it before I did it.
As far as this post is concerned:

'Get Lloyd In Trouble'?  What the Hell planet are you on?

[Michael Fisher]

I was going to reply to your last post, a couple of pages ago, When you implied I didn't get Kat's OK about this.? She OK'd it before I did it.

It was a miscommunication from what I understand.  She did not authorize you do delete my posts, only her posts, if I understand the situation correctly.

'Get Lloyd In Trouble'?? What the Hell planet are you on?

Lloyd, I don't know if you are being abusive to me on purpose, but that's what I'm gathering from your replies.    I have never been abusive to you.

I must have made a serious miscalculation with my fast to create this reaction.  I sincerely apologize for my fast.  This was not my intended reaction.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

As I said in my email to you, neither your rediculus fasts, nor, your boycotting the forum upset me at all.  I find them silly and a bore.
What bothers me is you're going on about this, adnauseum!

and, frankly, that doesn't bother me much.  I can and will just ignore you.

Headline: "World to End Toomorrow!, Mike Effected  Most!"

Did it ever occur to you that you're acting a little sensitive?

No, no, please don't get back to me on that!

[Pat K]

I think Lloyd needs a hug . He is so cranky in his old age.

[Russell Kanning]

Lloyd you are going to force me to have PatK go on a one day fast.......sorry Mike I just couldn't resist.

I know that sometimes PatK feels left out of our events so I figure we can have him fast instead of Mike or I can tell the feds that I am flying to meet with my covert operative on Long Island.

[Lloyd Danforth]

well Pat, given sexual preferences and the laws of physics concerning two oblects occupying the same space, it ain't going to be me and you comforting each other.

Oh, and I'm not cranky, Dammit!

[John]

I was going to reply to your last post, a couple of pages ago, When you implied I didn't get Kat's OK about this.? She OK'd it before I did it.

It was a miscommunication from what I understand.? She did not authorize you do delete my posts, only her posts, if I understand the situation correctly.

'Get Lloyd In Trouble'?? What the Hell planet are you on?

Lloyd, I don't know if you are being abusive to me on purpose, but that's what I'm gathering from your replies.? ? I have never been abusive to you.

I must have made a serious miscalculation with my fast to create this reaction.? I sincerely apologize for my fast.? This was not my intended reaction.? ?

Mike, this is just a though here and I'm not sure if I'll say this right (I sure don't know all of this Ganghi stuff) but maybe the miscalculation is that if your "fast" is too public it moves from being a fast to being a hunger strike.
BTW, I am not oposed to hunger strikes, and they can even be done without resentment.
I'm not saying that you did this out of resentment but that it is something to be on gaurd against. ?Resentment usualy causes great unrest in ones own "soul."
Peace!