Re: [gardeners] ????
Martha Brown (gardeners@globalgarden.com)
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:26:29 -0500
Perhaps the American people need to re-assess what they are willing to risk
versus how much they are willing to pay for security. Was the money saved
and the restrictions placed on them over the past few years of military and
intelligence downsizing worth the thousands of lives that might have been
saved on Tuesday if the intelligence resources of the cold war had still
been in place?
Facts are people:
Even for people on "Watched" lists you have to have the monetary and human
resources to do the necessary watching.
There has been talk recently that there would be additional military base
closings (which I'm sure won't happen in the short term now ). Have the
people who are complaining about the lack of prior knowledge about this act
of terrorism been as vocal about not doing further downsizing of our
military? If so I haven't heard them.
As one official who was being interviewed said something to the effect that
maybe now the American people will realize the most important responsibility
of the American government is our physical protection from those who wish us
harm not education, healthcare or the solvency of the social security
program.
Martha
----- Original Message -----
From: "Janni" <linncrk@access2k1.net>
To: <gardeners@globalgarden.com>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [gardeners] ????
No. Too many involved, too many insiders involved (MHO). Since a call to
one of the suspected cells to another cell congratulating themselves on the
'deed' makes me think they were already tapped. Don't forget, most of these
animals were on the FBI's "Watch List". Fat good that did.
Janni
At 10:18 AM 9/14/01 -0400, you wrote:
>I toss in another question.
>
>Do you think that the "Old School"
>wire taps of suspect persons might
>have prevented this??
>
>Byron
>
>
>
>AOL and Earthlink. Apparently the terrorists were sending messages through
>those ISP's. What do
>y'all think, invasion of privacy or necessary evil?
>
>George