Candidate Declaration: Maverickhunter, Democratic

There's already a police force, they're already trained, including in Washington, D.C. What exactly is different about your plan?

I would train the police force in Washington D.C to combat specific threats that they aren't aware of yet. Like for instance, no one really knows what al-quaeda's true attack plans on our country is yet. So what I meant by saying that we would release classified documents about them, is if it is permitted, we would release these documents and help train our police force to fight against the threat of terrorism when it arises.

Just because it hasn't happened in the last few years doesn't mean that only the FBI and the SWAT team should fight terrorism. Other people should become a role in fighting terrorism and they should be taking part in it, the police, for one, should be allowed to fight Terrorism that has been sponsored by a group to create radical chaos.

I want to get rid of the homeland security and create the domestic and foreign security anti-terrorism task-force, to create a list of regulations that these agencies must follow when dealing with terrorism, and to remain safe, they MUST combat them effectively.

There should be an entire branch dedicated to telling our agencies what national landmarks and monuments or national targets that must be protected and we must act upon it. Letting people have a warning is not enough, and we learned that from 9-11, we need to establish a separate bill that would tell soldiers and the police how to deal with Terrorists in a civilian area and how they would reduce casualties in that area to reduce friendly fire and damage.

We should combine the agencies in the homeland security department, move them to this agency, and then FORCE them to work together, and they should be checked by the people, and the federal government.

As it is said in the book of law, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

We already train people in counterterrorism. You're not saying how you'd train anyone differently, only that you would train them.

Why would you want one bloated agency that does everything?

What exactly are you suggesting?

I say we come up with a better plan that accommodates all teachers and students. One that will work with both of them to come up with a better goal.

I assume that this relates to your promise of total disclosure regarding secret societies. Will you also allow total disclosure of government agencies? Would you abolish or restructure FEMA?

I am for the restructure of it. I don't want any agency infringing the rights of the federal government or of the people. As, no one is above the law.

What you're talking about sounds like an expansion of Federal power and bureaucracy. Are you prepared to negotiate with Congress over the legislation you'd need to make this work? How would ypu pay for it?

I am expanding the cooperation of the people and the government. I want us to work together to build a safer America. It will only work if we add a fourth branch to the government, which is the people. Then we will have a semblance of Democracy still existing.

Sir, you are quoted as saying "no terrorist attacks will happen on our hole soil for a long time until we need to to go war war with Iran because I believe all of these attacks are controlled attacks by a military industrial compound-- called FEMA." Are you suggesting that war with Iran is inevitable due to Russian interests?

Yes, and the hostage situation was a set up. I believe it's all NWO fantasy.

What kind of legislation would you support to make these goals a reality? Would you support the creation of a Federal agency to manage the standards and practices of journalism in America? If so, would you insist on greater penalties for hoaxes and forgeries?

My Aunt is a writer and she writes columns for newspapers and she even ahs a book on it. I saw how they wrote columns, they are given facts, and they have to fabricate a story. I want these journalists to be given a timeline of events instead, so that they won't have to worry about getting the dates of events wrong, or misprinting words, or categorizing things incorrectly.

Your proposals make it clear that you've got a lot of new legislation in mind that will certainly keep the House and the Senate quite busy.

That's my intention!

Originally posted by Johnmike
We already train people in counterterrorism. You're not saying how you'd train anyone differently, only that you would train them.

Why would you want one bloated agency that does everything?

I'd train them in counter terrorism, and look at the warning level (the one that is different colors), see what color it is and at different times, I would have the police patrol different areas of national interest and would protect people from possible terrorist attacks.

In times of that we receive threats from foreign entities (threats I mean, from FEMA, and this fabricated Al-queada group), I would have the police escort citizens to where they want to go so that they won't have to worry about getting killed by a controlled terrorist attack. So that they can travel without the fear of terrorism.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I'd train them in counter terrorism, and look at the warning level (the one that is different colors), see what color it is and at different times, I would have the police patrol different areas of national interest and would protect people from possible terrorist attacks.

No difference there.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
In times of that we receive threats from foreign entities (threats I mean, from FEMA, and this fabricated Al-queada group), I would have the police escort citizens to where they want to go so that they won't have to worry about getting killed by a controlled terrorist attack. So that they can travel without the fear of terrorism.

Wha? How many police is it going to take to escort hundreds of millions of people?

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
I'd train them in counter terrorism, and look at the warning level (the one that is different colors), see what color it is and at different times, I would have the police patrol different areas of national interest and would protect people from possible terrorist attacks.

No difference there.

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
In times of that we receive threats from foreign entities (threats I mean, from FEMA, and this fabricated Al-queada group), I would have the police escort citizens to where they want to go so that they won't have to worry about getting killed by a controlled terrorist attack. So that they can travel without the fear of terrorism.

Wha? How many police is it going to take to escort hundreds of millions of people?

Well we would obviously have to increase the size of our police force. Additionally the police would have to protect targets, and no, I don't mean that they would only protect them after someone called 9-11.

So I'd have police with me in my home protecting me?


In addition, where do you plan to get the money to pay for more police?

I have to say, it would be much more efficient and cost effective to just
train police be able to handle probable things, rather than use exhorbent
amounts of money training them for every possibility.

Also, what exactly are your thoughts (without an essay) on Al Queda,
because I seem to be reading some contradictory statements about what
you think of said organization.

I may be understanding your plans wrong Mav, it's late, so it's possible,
but, yeah.

[edit on 4/8/2007 by iori_komei]

Yes, you may indeed have police in your home protecting you.

Iori, my stance on Al-quaeda is that since they were created by the CIA, they follow the CIA's agenda. That means, that they are a professional non-governmental governmental agency that carries out the government's will. What I am going to do is that if unseen powers in the government keep on harboring terrorism it will be my job to protect citizens from the USA from it, and maybe, even start a new government.

Also, we should have plenty of money to fight this fictitious organization. If we relocate funding from fighting ourselves and promoting psi-ops against our own allies than we should have plenty of money to fight al-quaeada, from how I see it.

Plus, if there ever is going to be another attack on our country (I am referring to Japanese attacking us in WWII) it will set off WWIII and I will defend against all countries that attack us.

I will make sure that we are safe.

A cop in my HOUSE? Sorry, if any cop tries to come into my house without a warrant, I'll be sure to go down fighting.
Do you want everyone to sleep with a cop next to their bed? Do you know how much money this will cost? Do you know how much power this gives the government? Do you know anything in terms of practicality at all?

Originally posted by Johnmike
A cop in my HOUSE? Sorry, if any cop tries to come into my house without a warrant, I'll be sure to go down fighting.
Do you want everyone to sleep with a cop next to their bed? Do you know how much money this will cost? Do you know how much power this gives the government? Do you know anything in terms of practicality at all?

In times of natural disaster, we will need protection. I am not going to place a cop in your house, but if the terrorists are told to target neighborhoods you may see a cop protecting your neighborhood or around other neighborhoods.

I already see cops patrolling. It sounds sort of like you're not actually advocating any change.

Originally posted by Johnmike
I already see cops patrolling. It sounds sort of like you're not actually advocating any change.

Yeah I know that you see them patrolling but you'd see more of them because in order to protect our nation from terrorist attacks we need more than two or three cops protecting a certain area. We need about ten or twenty in one allotted area of 15 feet in the area of a national landmark.

Hahaha, are you kidding me? Fifteen cops? What a waste, they could be used to respond to a problem or patrol an area. Waste of resources, waste of lives. There's no reason to have so many people in one place like that unless you want them to be an easy target.

Edit: Woah, woah! Per fifteen feet! How many is that for a landmark? Hundreds? Thousands?!

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
Hahaha, are you kidding me? Fifteen cops? What a waste, they could be used to respond to a problem or patrol an area. Waste of resources, waste of lives. There's no reason to have so many people in one place like that unless you want them to be an easy target.

Edit: Woah, woah! Per fifteen feet! How many is that for a landmark? Hundreds? Thousands?!

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Johnmike]

We'd obviously have to increase the size of our police force. However, unfortunately most of our police force is trained for enforcing laws, not for preventing accidents or terrorist strikes.

I would create an anti-terrorist police strike force so that they would attack the terrorists on the spot and keep them from attacking them.

That's why we would need more of them, right? The FBI does squat, so I think we should have the police do it instead. The FBI has thwarted some attacks, but others have barely been caught.

The FBI does squat? Your ignorance is highly insulting. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about at all, like how you thought the military was under the Department of Homeland Security.

You can't train an everyday police officer in advanced counter-terrorism. One, it's excessive and unnecessary. There's no reason to have them around, the cost is massive. What do you want, to raise taxes to 75%?

Terrorism in this country couldn't be stopped by any number of police. What we need is intelligence, counterintelligence, and quick response capabilities. There's no way of stopping a bomb once it explodes. There's no way to check every vehicle without turning into a ludicrous, wasteful police state that will cause more harm than good.

In the event of a natural disaster, the systems in place should be used, but better organized. Martial Law should be declared if lawlessness becomes uncontrollable, allowing for the use of the Air National Guard, Army National Guard, and any other state defense forces. Instead of bloating an already bloated bureocracy, we need to make what we have as efficient as possible. Otherwise, you're practically aiding the terrorists by making it impossible to respond quickly and effectively.


[edit on 8-4-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
The FBI does squat? Your ignorance is highly insulting. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about at all, like how you thought the military was under the Department of Homeland Security.

You can't train an everyday police officer in advanced counter-terrorism. One, it's excessive and unnecessary. There's no reason to have them around, the cost is massive. What do you want, to raise taxes to 75%?

Terrorism in this country couldn't be stopped by any number of police. What we need is intelligence, counterintelligence, and quick response capabilities. There's no way of stopping a bomb once it explodes. There's no way to check every vehicle without turning into a ludicrous, wasteful police state that will cause more harm than good.

In the event of a natural disaster, the systems in place should be used, but better organized. Martial Law should be declared if lawlessness becomes uncontrollable, allowing for the use of the Air National Guard, Army National Guard, and any other state defense forces. Instead of bloating an already bloated bureocracy, we need to make what we have as efficient as possible. Otherwise, you're practically aiding the terrorists by making it impossible to respond quickly and effectively.


[edit on 8-4-2007 by Johnmike]

You assume too much, I didn't say the military was under the jurisdiction of homeland security, but I said FEMA was, and FEMA is not the miltiary, but it is an industrial complex.

You're also ignorant to the fact that i said I would not cut taxes but I would cut unnecessary funding, again, you only hear what you want to hear, nothing more, nothing less.

There are ways to stop terrorism besides using police force, the police would be there after the attack was thwarted by the obstacles the car has to go around to get to its target. Then the police would stop the terrorist dead in its track before making another move to launch another attack.

Why would I make it impossible to respond quickly and effectively? I am looking to prevent crime on the spot, not to start it. They declared war on us, there are laws preventing police officers from firing at anyone but terrorists are not american citizens so the same law does not apply to them since they have no American rights. They did the same to us, the Iraqi government captured an American citizen (see the paper yesterday), held him ransom, and made sure he got the quickest way to die, as in the death sentence in all sense of the word.

What I am trying to do is to prevent martial law from coming into control, I won't suspend our constitution, nor will i say screw you to the rest of the world either.

Oh, and the FBI would probably do nothing in case of another terrorist attack, they would serve an unseen order most likely that would prevent them from warning us of one and let it happen so that we would go to war with someone else. I wouldn't blame nor would i skapegoat anyone.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

Originally posted by Maverickhunter

Oh, and the FBI would probably do nothing in case of another terrorist attack, they would serve an unseen order most likely that would prevent them from warning us of one and let it happen so that we would go to war with someone else. I wouldn't blame nor would i skapegoat anyone.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Maverickhunter]

What in God's name are you talking about. The FBI is a federal crime fighting force. They, uh...fight crime.