SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (27594)7/22/2007 6:15:20 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 


Hat tip to Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna



Hat tip to Justin Higgins



Hat tip to William T.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin

michellemalkin.com



To: Sully- who wrote (27594)7/22/2007 6:23:37 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Zero Visibility

Cox & Forkum

coxandforkum.com



To: Sully- who wrote (27594)7/23/2007 3:15:16 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
SAY SOMETHING - GET SUED

NEW YORK POST
Editorial

July 23, 2007 -- The posters on every subway train couldn't be more clear: "If you see something, say something."

No conditions, no fine print - and nothing about legal liability.

For good reason: No matter how useful the billions of dollars spent at all levels of government to prevent another terrorist attack, the nation's final line of defense is always the everyday vigilance of ordinary Americans.

But if Democratic leaders in Washington get their way, that defense will grow a lot weaker. They're trying their hardest - quietly, of course - to kill a measure that would protect vigilant citizens acting in good faith from being sued by people they report for acting suspiciously.

The story starts last November, when police removed six Muslim imams from a flight in Minnesota after passengers reported them acting suspiciously. Released after questioning, the men responded by suing the airline, the owner of the airport and the passengers who alerted the authorities.

Litigious absurdities are all too common in America, but none are this dangerous. Vigilant citizens have already stopped terror attacks on U.S. soil - most notably the recent Fort Dix plot. How much less likely will people be to report possible terrorist activity if being wrong could bring a crippling lawsuit?

Such is the rationale behind the "John Doe" amendment, which is fighting for its life today in a joint House-Senate committee charged with drafting the final version of a bill to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Opponents say the measure would encourage racial profiling - or, at least, that's what they would say if they were opposing it openly instead of trying to strangle it behind closed doors.

Let's be clear: John Doe legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support in both houses. When Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.) first co-sponsored the amendment in April, it passed the House by 304 to 121. A similar amendment proposed in the Senate last week fell just short of the 60-vote supermajority it needed.

New York Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton were among the eight Democrats who backed the measure. And good for them: Representatives of America's No. 1 terrorist target can't afford to pander on something like this.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes it, along with Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Conyers (the Senate and House Judiciary Committee chairmen). They're trying to kill it with a series of procedural roadblocks. If it doesn't get included in the final 9/11 bill, it may never see the light of day again.

That would be beyond shameful - it would be absurd. And dangerous.

No American who reports suspicious activity to police - truthfully and in good faith - should ever have to fear a lawsuit. It's the most basic of civic duties, and it's desperately necessary.

Here's hoping Americans don't have to realize that the hard way.

nypost.com
get_sued_editorials_.htm



To: Sully- who wrote (27594)7/23/2007 7:10:44 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
How desperate do you have to be to make up a scandal?

By podcasts@redstate.com (Redstate Network) on War
Redstate - Conservative News and Community




Whoops. A media outlet has once again been caught in a Jesse MacBeth-esque attempt to falsely smear US soldiers
-- this time alleging that troops stationed at FOB Falcon (oh, yes -- my own personal former place of residence when with the 1-4 CAV in Baghdad) ridiculed and shunned a female contractor for her badly burned visage, caused by an IED blast (as well as other "atrocities," like steering out of their way to run over dogs in Baghdad streets).

The outlet, The New Republic, used the account of an admittedly pseuonymous "soldier" (going by the name "Scott Thomas") purportedly stationed at FOB Falcon to raise these questions. (of course, by the second sentence of the article - "She wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor" - the first red flag had been raised to prominence. The assertion made in that sentence alone is dripping with BS)

Since the story was run two weeks ago, bloggers have torn it down piece by piece - using, in part, emails from soldiers who really live on FOB Falcon - exposing the clearly fraudulent nature of so many of the author's claims. In the blogs..... )see linl below) has a great overview of the story.

Michael Goldfarb at the Worldwide Standard (the Weekly Standard's blog) posts an email from an active duty soldier:

<<< In the 11 months I've been here [at FOB Falcon] I've never once seen a female contractor with a burned face. In a compact place like this with only one mess hall I or one of my guys would certainly have noticed someone like that. There are a few female contractors, I think maybe a dozen, but none fit the horrific description given in that article. Further, I've personally seen guys threatened with severe physical harm for making jokes of any kind about IED victims given the number of casualties all the units on this FOB have sustained. It is not a subject we take lightly. Gallows humor jokes do get told, but extremely seldom and never about anyone they actually know or are in the presence of. >>>

There is, of course, more. The latest blow comes from MAJ Kirk Luedeke, the Public Affairs Officer for the 1st ID's 4th IBCT, based at FOB Falcon - an honest man, a good soldier, and a friend of mine. He writes:

<<< 1. There was no mass grave found during the construction of any of our coalition outposts in the Rashid District at any time. Such a discovery would have prompted an investigation and close attention paid at levels higher than ours to making sure that the victims were properly interred and attempts would have been made to determine their identities. It is difficult to fathom that a unit's leadership would condone Soldiers disrespecting the remains of anyone in the fashion described.

2. Due to the threat of IEDs, our combat vehicles are driven professionally and in control at all times. To be driving erratically so as to hit dogs or other things would be to put the entire vehicle's crew at risk and would be gross dereliction of duty by the noncommissioned officer or officer in charge of the vehicle. Drivers aren't allowed to simply free-wheel their vehicles however they see fit, and they are *not* allowed to be moved anywhere with out a vehicle commander present to supervise the movement. Therefore- claims of vehicles leaving the roadways to hit animals are highly dubious, given the very real threat of IEDs and normal standards of conduct.

3. As for the alleged woman with severe burn scars, we have nobody matching that description here at FOB Falcon. As Soldiers, we practice the value of Respect: "Treat people as you want to be treated." If the blogger and his friends can't live the Army value of respect, I have little doubt that someone around them who does would have made an on-the-spot correction. The Falcon dining facility is not a spacious one. Anyone being rude, loud or raucous calls immediate attention to himself. It is hard to fathom that anyone would be able to get away with such callous behavior without somebody intervening and stopping it from happening. >>>

(h/t Matt Sanchez)

Whoops.

Look, American soldiers are human. They make mistakes, they do things wrong, and, as is true with the rest of the population, there will always be some very bad apples within the group. However, if there's a population who more deserves (a) the benefit of the doubt, and (b) freedom from allegation and made-up atrocities in the absence of absolute proof and necessity, then I can't think of it.

Further, FOB Falcon, where this is alleged to have taken place, is constantly populated with journalists; the 4th IBCT is as great a destination for reporters as MNF-I offers. Embeds like myself and my good friends Michael Yon, JD Johannes, and David Beriain, among many, many others, have passed through there, and none of us have ever seen the soldiers there act even remotely in such a way - and you can rest assured that we would be the first to report it if we did.

Note: Regarding the running-over-dogs story, I have only this to add: There are so many wild dogs running around the streets of Baghdad that some are bound to get hit by vehicles. They bark at the trucks doing covert patrols, they move freely through the streets and ruins virtually unmolested, and they run across the road - as dogs are wont to do - at the most inopportune times.

That being said, to chase one down and hit it, purposely, in a giant truck?

Riiiiiiiiiight.

redstate.com

en.wikipedia.org

jeffemanuel.blogspot.com

redstate.com

weeklystandard.com

matt-sanchez.com

jeffemanuel.blogspot.com