Article

2005-08-16 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-08-16 00:26|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Bombs don't kill .... baby bombers kill!

Posted by The Angry Fliegerabwehrkanonen 2005-08-16 07:57|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2005-08-16 07:57|| Front Page Top

#2 Some babies' diaper loads are deadly.

Posted by ed 2005-08-16 08:05|| 2005-08-16 08:05|| Front Page Top

#3 Critics including the American Civil Liberties Union say the government doesn't provide enough information about the people on the lists

OK, who else believes the ACLU would also be screaming if the list had more information on it?

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-08-16 08:18|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-08-16 08:18|| Front Page Top

#4 Baby joining al-Qaeda? I have always wondered what happened to "Baby Herman" since "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"! The Homeland Security Department has a right to be concerned about infants joining al-Qaeda

"Osama bin Laden? Nevva heard of da guy!"

Posted by BigEd 2005-08-16 08:19|| 2005-08-16 08:19|| Front Page Top

#5 Have you ever sat next to a baby on a coast-to-coast flight? You want to talk terror...

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-08-16 08:50|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-08-16 08:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Now how many here think that AQ would not sink low enough to form a baby carrier out of explosives if they thought they could get away with it?

Posted by Jirt Omager7355 2005-08-16 08:52|| 2005-08-16 08:52|| Front Page Top

#7 Heck I can see Al-Q creating a baby-sized boomer vest - to blow open the side of the airplane at 30,000ft.....

Posted by CrazyFool 2005-08-16 08:59|| 2005-08-16 08:59|| Front Page Top

#8 Jackal you have a point here...
And somehow you ALWAYS sit close to a baby in airplanes.

But yes, bureaucrats will be bureaucrats. Like those who keep insisting that foreigners have to check boxes in the immigration forms whether they enter the US to commit terrorist acts, drug smuggling or moral turpitude.

Answer YES or NO

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-16 09:36|| 2005-08-16 09:36|| Front Page Top

#9 Now how many here think that AQ would not sink low enough to form a baby carrier out of explosives if they thought they could get away with it?

IIRC strollers filled with explosives have been used against Israelis.

TGA, the point of that box is to give prosecutors additional ways to leverage jail time or more if someone is later caught.

Posted by leader of the pack 2005-08-16 09:40|| 2005-08-16 09:40|| Front Page Top

#10 The idea of usings names as 'unique'identifiers is just silly when we are dealing with non-English speaking countries whose language may not transliterate nicely into English. The multiple variants of Mo Khadaffy is a prime example. Hell, some of these people don't even have vowels in their written language.

Posted by SteveS 2005-08-16 14:25|| 2005-08-16 14:25|| Front Page Top

#11 I sure wouldn't want "T Kennedy" sitting next to me.

Posted by Darrell 2005-08-16 14:33|| 2005-08-16 14:33|| Front Page Top

#12 I always thought of Ricky as the dangerous one. David always seemed a little like a big wimpy mamma's boy.

TGA,

It also takes away the "I didn't know that was illegal here" defence.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-16 14:53|| 2005-08-16 14:53|| Front Page Top

#13 Mrs Davis

This is exactly the reply I got when I asked. I believe it's still bureaucratic nonsense.

First of all "I didn't know it was illegal" is never an excuse.

Ah, and "moral turpitude":

Moral turpitude is one of the most amorphous concepts in immigration law. There is no definition of moral turpitude, although many courts have attempted to construe one, using phrases such as an act of baseness, depravity or vileness. While there is no set definition, it is clear that the moral turpitude involved must be part of the essence of the offense. A crime involving moral turpitude need not have resulted in a conviction for it to render a person inadmissible, and admitting to an act that has the elements of a crime involving moral turpitude is sufficient to bar entry. Where an actual conviction occurred, the only issue is whether the offense was a crime involving moral turpitude. Where there is only an admission, a number of other steps are required. First, it must be clear that the act admitted to could have been criminally prosecuted in the place where it occurred. Second, the immigrant must fully understand the elements of the crime to which they have admitted. Third, while the immigrant needs to say that he/she is guilty of an offense, he/she does need to admit to all of the essential elements of the offense. Fourth, the admission must be totally voluntary."

Hokay

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-16 15:01|| 2005-08-16 15:01|| Front Page Top

#14 I believe it's still bureaucratic nonsense.

Like the Able Danger treatment.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-16 15:07|| 2005-08-16 15:07|| Front Page Top

#15 "moral turpitude"

We'll know it when we see it, now get back in line, buddy... ;-)

Posted by .com 2005-08-16 15:10|| 2005-08-16 15:10|| Front Page Top

#16 LOL

Watching your links qualifies I guess :-)

Posted by True German Ally 2005-08-16 15:13|| 2005-08-16 15:13|| Front Page Top

23:54 JosephMendiola
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:24 Alaska Paul
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:07 Red Dog
23:06 JosephMendiola
23:05 Alaska Paul
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:52 RWV
22:50 Frank G
22:49 Frank G
22:46 Phil Fraering
22:45 Red Dog
22:43 Frank G
22:33 tzsenator
22:17 mac
22:17 phil_b
22:12 FeralCat
22:02 mac
21:56 Silentbrick
21:50 Frank G
21:38 Barbara Skolaut