Your very own suspected terrorist

Good points. Where would you have run-off to? You can bet that if you did do
that, it would have stepped up the investigation. This accomplishes the same
thing as the questioning itself. Would they have to chase you? Yes. But they
know what you look like, know the car you drive, know your credit card
numbers, etc. As George posted, they would have accomplished part of their
mission to foil your plan and you can be sure they would have started the
process to get your name out in their network.

You're assuming that the agent intended to arrest you on the spot if you
were a terrorist. Believe me, if that was the case, you would have had a
much more exciting tale to tell. Listen, I understand that I may be wrong
and I won't bet my life that I'm right but from conversations with good
friends in that field and others who work for the Dept of Homeland Security,
I personally would not underestimate their procedures. Especially after they
went through a major overhaul of these procedures post 9/11.

Bottom line is that this is a weeding-out process that worked. You had a
minimal "hassle" and they redirected their efforts. I say "minimal" because
I compare your discussion with other countries' versions of "discussions."

Marco

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote
Yeah, and he was having my apartment watched. And my truck was being
tailed when he called me that morning. Sure. You keep telling
yourself that.

As for me, I call bull****.

You can call it anything you want. What you describe would have happened
AFTER you screwed up one of your answers.

You are completely missing the point. Had I been an actual terrorist,
the meeting at which I answered his questions would never have taken
place. When I saw the card on the door I would have bolted. Unless
my apartment was being watched, I would have made my getaway.

Even if I were a particularly bold terrorist who was dumb enough to
think the card was there for other reasons, once the FBI agent told me
I was under suspicion for terrorism I would have bolted. I would have
made my apppintment for lunchtime, just as I did then, and kept on
driving. When he showed up three hours later, I would have been long
gone.

And therein lies the point. If I were a real terrorist, I would be
long gone unless I was a total moron. What the FBI agent did could
not possibly be of any use in catching a real terrorist who is not a
total moron - all it's good for is hassling regular law-abiding
citizens. Which is all the anti-terrorist measures implemented after
9/11 ever succeed in doing.

Michael



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote
Good points. Where would you have run-off to?

Anywhere. After all, I was under an assumed name, right?

You can bet that if you did do
that, it would have stepped up the investigation.

I'm sure it would have. But I would be gone (maybe back to my home
country) while the others left behind carried on the plot.

This accomplishes the same
thing as the questioning itself.

Nope. Unless they catch me, it loses their only lead. I KNOW it's
their only lead, because there is no network, no cell that I am a
member of. But THEY don't know that. As far as they know, I'm their
only lead to a local cell.

Would they have to chase you? Yes. But they
know what you look like

Yeah - a bald dark skinned man with a beard and glasses. How long
does it take to shave and put on a toupee, and buy contacts?

know the car you drive

Which would be traded in a heartbeat.

know your credit card numbers, etc.

Again - if I'm a terrorist, I've stolen an identity. If I'm who I
claim to be, then it's obvious I'm not a terrorist.

Listen, I understand that I may be wrong
and I won't bet my life that I'm right

You are betting your life that you're right. These are the people who
are supposedly defending you from terror.

but from conversations with good
friends in that field and others who work for the Dept of Homeland Security,
I personally would not underestimate their procedures.

I think that would be difficult to do.

Especially after they
went through a major overhaul of these procedures post 9/11.

The changes after 9/11 are all window dressing. Nothing substantive
happened. That's the point. We're no safer now than we were then,
but we're a lot less free.

Bottom line is that this is a weeding-out process that worked.

No, the bottom line is that this is a process that could ONLY work if
I were not a terrorist. If I were, the process was guaranteed to
fail. It's not a process designed to actually improve security, but
to give the illusion of it.

You had a
minimal "hassle" and they redirected their efforts. I say "minimal" because
I compare your discussion with other countries' versions of "discussions."

Do you actually know anything about those other countries? Have you
ever lived in one? Do you remember when everyone was looking for
communists rather than terrorists? I lived in the Soviet Union then.
It really wasn't a lot different from what the US has become. It's
not that the KGB was all-powerful and massive. It wasn't really all
that different from our own FBI and CIA. But what the KGB did have
was an army of unpaid volunteer snitches - something free countries
don't have. We have them now.

Michael

Well, then we have fundamentally different views. Obviously from different
points of reference too. Yes, I have lived in one of "those" countries and I
can assure you that the questioning you went through was a minor hassle.
This topic has gone a little too far off-topic for my taste.

Over.

Marco

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote
Good points. Where would you have run-off to?

Anywhere. After all, I was under an assumed name, right?

You can bet that if you did do
that, it would have stepped up the investigation.

I'm sure it would have. But I would be gone (maybe back to my home
country) while the others left behind carried on the plot.

This accomplishes the same
thing as the questioning itself.

Nope. Unless they catch me, it loses their only lead. I KNOW it's
their only lead, because there is no network, no cell that I am a
member of. But THEY don't know that. As far as they know, I'm their
only lead to a local cell.

Would they have to chase you? Yes. But they
know what you look like

Yeah - a bald dark skinned man with a beard and glasses. How long
does it take to shave and put on a toupee, and buy contacts?

know the car you drive

Which would be traded in a heartbeat.

know your credit card numbers, etc.

Again - if I'm a terrorist, I've stolen an identity. If I'm who I
claim to be, then it's obvious I'm not a terrorist.

Listen, I understand that I may be wrong
and I won't bet my life that I'm right

You are betting your life that you're right. These are the people who
are supposedly defending you from terror.

but from conversations with good
friends in that field and others who work for the Dept of Homeland
Security,
I personally would not underestimate their procedures.

I think that would be difficult to do.

Especially after they
went through a major overhaul of these procedures post 9/11.

The changes after 9/11 are all window dressing. Nothing substantive
happened. That's the point. We're no safer now than we were then,
but we're a lot less free.

Bottom line is that this is a weeding-out process that worked.

No, the bottom line is that this is a process that could ONLY work if
I were not a terrorist. If I were, the process was guaranteed to
fail. It's not a process designed to actually improve security, but
to give the illusion of it.

You had a
minimal "hassle" and they redirected their efforts. I say "minimal"
because
I compare your discussion with other countries' versions of
"discussions."

Do you actually know anything about those other countries? Have you
ever lived in one? Do you remember when everyone was looking for
communists rather than terrorists? I lived in the Soviet Union then.
It really wasn't a lot different from what the US has become. It's
not that the KGB was all-powerful and massive. It wasn't really all
that different from our own FBI and CIA. But what the KGB did have
was an army of unpaid volunteer snitches - something free countries
don't have. We have them now.

Michael



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Jay Honeck" writes:

I'm dumb-founded. Even though it will probably bring more guests to my
hotel, I think it's the dumbest idea I've EVER heard.

I like Reason's take on it.
http://www.reason.com/hod/rr020304.shtml

The indoor rain forest gets a whopping $50 million. This faux
paradise for parrots will be built in Coralville, Iowa, a town
with a population of 17,246 according to the latest Census
Bureau survey, or about 5,000 households. The $50 million, in
other words, averages out to $10,000 per household, not bad for
a place that doesn't even have an airport.

The implication, of course, is that towns should invest in airports before
crazy stuff like this. (IOW is under 4nm away though, so I'm not sure why
it's significant.)

--kyler