Re: John Kerry

In article <XcGdnRH-1f3BT3DdRVn2iw@netnitco.net>, dazed and confuzed
<dedmann@netnitco.net> wrote:


> >>>>
> >>>> The Cole is U.S. territory.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Sorry, Doug, but no it isn't. While nations like to think their
> >>>warships are "soverign territory" the reality is that they're little
> >>>soverign islands in hostile territory. If the attack on the Cole was an
> >>>attack on US soverignty, then every single attack on every foreign
> >>>flagged vessle is an attack on a soverign nation. It just ain't so.
> >>
> >> Flagged vessels are not the same as Warships.
> >>
> >> Just like an embassy, a warship is U.S. territory.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > So you consider every attack on a military vessel to be *exactly* the
> > same as an attack on New York city?
> yes

Then you're living in a fantasy world.

What you, Scott and Popeye are saying is that any attack on a US
warship is *criminal* act. Criminal acts are attacks against ones own
society. Acts of war are attacks against another society. When we put
one of our warships or embassies into a foreign and often hostile area,
they are subject to attack by parties that don't like us, just as we
tend to attack societies we don't like. Embassy staff and military
personnel understand that is part of the risk of doing their work.
Civilians, on the other hand, have an expectation that they *won't* be
attacked while going about their daily lives. Equating the unprovoked
bombing of a US city with an attack on a warship in hostile waters
isn't the same, as I'm sure the commander of the Cole found out.

Alan Street wrote:
> In article <20040708084440.11526.00000973@mb-m23.aol.com>, Popeye NCAT3
> <buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> wrote:
>
>
>>>From: Alan Street agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com
>>>Date: 7/8/2004 1:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <080720041312476335%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com>
>>>
>>>In article <20040707222410.04282.00000894@mb-m26.aol.com>, Popeye NCAT3
>>><buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>From: John R. Macdonald scubajohn@remove.claranet.fr
>>>>
>>>>>Wrong, the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen
>>>>
>>>> Right.
>>>>
>>>> The Cole is U.S. territory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, Doug, but no it isn't. While nations like to think their
>>>warships are "soverign territory" the reality is that they're little
>>>soverign islands in hostile territory. If the attack on the Cole was an
>>>attack on US soverignty, then every single attack on every foreign
>>>flagged vessle is an attack on a soverign nation. It just ain't so.
>>
>> Flagged vessels are not the same as Warships.
>>
>> Just like an embassy, a warship is U.S. territory.
>>
>>
>
>
> So you consider every attack on a military vessel to be *exactly* the
> same as an attack on New York city?
yes

--

If you don't go there, you will never know what is there.

I ain't looking for trouble,.....but you can find it here.

Galen: "Stick an Sidewinder right up the Governer's butt":

By JOHN SOLOMON, AP

WASHINGTON (July 8) - A top official at the Federal Aviation Administration
testified Thursday that protections are now in place to prevent the kind of
harrowing incident that forced the evacuation of the Capitol last month after a
plane carrying Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher entered unrestricted airspace.

Asked by lawmakers whether there could be a repeat of the scare, FAA vice
president Linda Schuessler said, "We don't believe it can happen again."

She told a House hearing that steps taken since the June 9 incident include
ensuring officials monitoring incoming flights to Washington have access to the
same radar system and therefore the same information.

The National Capital Region Coordination Center, which coordinates air security
in the nation's capital, previously used a different radar system from the FAA
and that led to the confusion.

Fletcher's plane did not have a functioning transponder, which identifies the
aircraft, yet it had received permission from the FAA to proceed to Washington.
Schuessler said planes with malfunctioning transponders could not enter the
restricted zone, 30 miles around Washington, in the future.

There also will no longer be exceptions granted to other rules that are
required of planes entering the restricted zone, according to the FAA.

Still, some lawmakers say the lack of coordination and communication that led
to the Capitol's evacuation worries them.

Military aircraft patrolling over Washington scrambled but were unable to get
into position where they could have shot down the suspicious plane carrying
Fletcher, officials said.

However Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said he worries a mistake will happen again that
will lead to an unidentified plane getting shot down. "I think we're only very
lucky that there hasn't been a catastrophic mistake made," he said.

The incident proved what security experts have been saying since Sept. 11,
2001, officials said, that preventing an aerial attack depends on measures
taken well before a plane enters the restricted air space over Washington.

NORAD - North American Aerospace Defense Command - said that it scrambled two
jets during the incident, but declined to be more specific because of the
classified nature of its engagement rules. The fact that "the plane landed
without incident June 9 indicates that the procedures developed since Sept. 11
work," it said.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Katy Mynster said, "We believe appropriate
security measures were put in place based on the information we had at the
time. ... Of course, we continue to look for ways to improve communications."

Members of Congress whose staffs have looked into the episode said the incident
exposed flaws two years after the Sept. 11 attacks led to a major upgrade of
America's security net.

"The incident raises the question: Does the existing no-fly zone around our
nation's capital give sufficient time to intercept a terrorist-controlled
flight?" said Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas, the top Democrat on the House Homeland
Security Committee. "Further it appears that the FAA miscommunicated with other
agencies responsible for the protection of Washington."

Government, military and congressional officials said two F-15 fighter planes
were already patrolling on June 9 in anticipation of the Reagan funeral and
were diverted when security monitors saw the governor's plane as an
unidentified and potentially hostile aircraft.

However, under the Pentagon's rules of engagement, the jets could not get close
enough to be in position to shoot the plane down if it was indeed heading
toward the Capitol, according to officials outside NORAD.

The officials declined to further describe the rules of engagement, except to
say they are different for fighter jets in wide open areas than in urban areas
and that they require several conditions to be met before a shootdown is
considered possible.

The entire scrambling of the jets was unnecessary, caused by miscommunications
between the FAA, which directs air traffic, NORAD, which protect America's air
space from impending threats, and the National Capital Region Coordination
Center, which coordinates air security in the nation's capital.

Officials said that:

The FAA originally misdiagnosed the Kentucky plane as having a transponder that
was functioning properly except for a failure to transmit its altitude. In
fact, the plane did not have a functioning transponder, and such planes are
supposed to be barred from Washington airspace.

When the FAA recognized the plane did not have a transponder, it disregarded
its rules and allowed the plane to proceed, putting the identification into its
radar system manually.

Because the Washington coordination center used a different radar system than
the FAA, it was unaware of the special exemption and believed the plane was an
unidentified and potentially hostile aircraft, causing NORAD to scramble its
jets.


07/08/04 15:40 EDT

However Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said he worries a mistake will happen again
that will lead to an unidentified plane getting shot down. "I think we're only
very lucky that there hasn't been a catastrophic mistake made," he said.

The incident proved what security experts have been saying since Sept. 11,
2001, officials said, that preventing an aerial attack depends on measures
taken well before a plane enters the restricted air space over Washington.


However Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said he worries a mistake will happen again that
will lead to an unidentified plane getting shot down. "I think we're only very
lucky that there hasn't been a catastrophic mistake made," he said.

The incident proved what security experts have been saying since Sept. 11,
2001, officials said, that preventing an aerial attack depends on measures
taken well before a plane enters the restricted air space over Washington.


However Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., said he worries a mistake will happen again that
will lead to an unidentified plane getting shot down. "I think we're only very
lucky that there hasn't been a catastrophic mistake made," he said.

The incident proved what security experts have been saying since Sept. 11,
2001, officials said, that preventing an aerial attack depends on measures
taken well before a plane enters the restricted air space over Washington.




Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

Alan Street wrote:

> In article <XcGdnRH-1f3BT3DdRVn2iw@netnitco.net>, dazed and confuzed
> <dedmann@netnitco.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>> The Cole is U.S. territory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry, Doug, but no it isn't. While nations like to think their
>>>>>warships are "soverign territory" the reality is that they're little
>>>>>soverign islands in hostile territory. If the attack on the Cole was an
>>>>>attack on US soverignty, then every single attack on every foreign
>>>>>flagged vessle is an attack on a soverign nation. It just ain't so.
>>>>
>>>> Flagged vessels are not the same as Warships.
>>>>
>>>> Just like an embassy, a warship is U.S. territory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So you consider every attack on a military vessel to be *exactly* the
>>>same as an attack on New York city?
>>
>>yes
>
>
> Then you're living in a fantasy world.
>
> What you, Scott and Popeye are saying is that any attack on a US
> warship is *criminal* act.

No, rather an act of war. I see no difference between the two.
Criminal acts are attacks against ones own
> society. Acts of war are attacks against another society.
and attacking our territory, wherever it may be, is an act of war. A
warship is just as much U.S territory as NYC.
When we put
> one of our warships or embassies into a foreign and often hostile area,
> they are subject to attack by parties that don't like us, just as we
> tend to attack societies we don't like.
But these warships and/or embassies, ARE sovereign territory of the U.S.
Just as Yemen's embassy and their naval vessels (both of them) are their
sovereign territory.

Embassy staff and military
> personnel understand that is part of the risk of doing their work.
> Civilians, on the other hand, have an expectation that they *won't* be
> attacked while going about their daily lives. Equating the unprovoked
> bombing of a US city with an attack on a warship in hostile waters
> isn't the same, as I'm sure the commander of the Cole found out.

The waters weren't hostile. The Cole was there with permission. They
liked the money for fuel.


--

If you don't go there, you will never know what is there.

I ain't looking for trouble,.....but you can find it here.

>From: Alan Street agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com

>
>What you, Scott and Popeye are saying is that any attack on a US
>warship is *criminal* act.

Besides being extremely nit-picky, I'd say you're also completely incorrect.

Terrorist previously caught were always tried in a court of law.

Besides, I wasn't talking about the legal description of the act, but the
moral indignation resulting from it.

>Criminal acts are attacks against ones own
>society. Acts of war are attacks against another society. When we put
>one of our warships or embassies into a foreign and often hostile area,
>they are subject to attack by parties that don't like us, just as we
>tend to attack societies we don't like.

Which, in your mind, justifies what, exactly?

Murdered is murdered.

You can invent all the rules,regulations, conventions and terrorist etiquette
you want.


Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:090720040824353432%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com ...

> Then you're living in a fantasy world.

One with no where near the level of sophistication yours employs.

> What you, Scott and Popeye are saying is that any attack on a US
> warship is *criminal* act. Criminal acts are attacks against ones own
> society. Acts of war are attacks against another society. When we put
> one of our warships or embassies into a foreign and often hostile area,
> they are subject to attack by parties that don't like us, just as we
> tend to attack societies we don't like. Embassy staff and military
> personnel understand that is part of the risk of doing their work.
> Civilians, on the other hand, have an expectation that they *won't* be
> attacked while going about their daily lives. Equating the unprovoked
> bombing of a US city with an attack on a warship in hostile waters
> isn't the same, as I'm sure the commander of the Cole found out.

Allen.

When was the last war that wasn't the result or cause of criminal acts?

Acts against dignity and peace.

Acts against common decency.

Is there a legal war?