You might be a terrorist if.....

[bailadora]

You might be a terrorist if you were a 9/11 responder. No really.... that's what the idiots in Washington think. Before you can claim benefits under the 9/11 Health Care Bill, your provider has to check to make sure the FBI doesn't have your name on the watch list. Riiiiiight......because we all know the likelihood of a terrorist staying behind to help clean up the mess they made is astronomically high.

What. The. Fuck.

Article found here.

 

[Cicca_Jai]

Have to agree....

Sorry to say but I agree with the burocrats on this one.
12 yrs ago noone would have thought that we would be attacked like that.
10 yrs ago noone imagined that terrioists had seated themselves so deeply in our society. One can't be too safe.
Imagine the outrage of the public should it in 12 yrs time be found that the next attack was hatched by someone claiming benefits as a "First Responder"
It stinks yes, but at least they are trying... won't do a bit of good but at least for apperiances sake they can say they did what they were able at the time.

Now what I find silly is the number of people on the watch list who are like 5 yrs old!

Personaly If we fired ALL of Washington and started over that to me would be a decent start.

 

[Jagged]

You expect logic from the government? Despite Muslim terrorists like al qaeda expressing interest and actually attacking the United States the administration is more worried about returning American veterans or people who don't like the healthcare bill.

Talk about screwed up priorities....Take care of those who stood tall in hell. Either give their unions the money to take care of their sick members or start helping now!

While your at it, fuck the ribbons find a cure for AIDS.

There are many serious issues that need to be dealt with, but nobody seems to be rallying people and resources to deal with them.

 

[culloden]

Wow. It's hard to see the good in this. First, the article isn't clear. It says their names have to be run through a database or they aren't eligible. It doesn't say what happens if it turns out they are on the terrorist watchlist. Are they eligible then because they complied with the law and allowed their names to be checked?

And even if they are on a list, it raises another question. I thought that US citizens had to be convicted of a crime before they could be denied any rights? One's presence on an FBI list is not a conviction.

 

[NippleMuncher]

And even if they are on a list, it raises another question. I thought that US citizens had to be convicted of a crime before they could be denied any rights? One's presence on an FBI list is not a conviction.

In this day and age it is.

 

[culloden]

That's funny - I don't remember the Constitution changing.

 

[NippleMuncher]

That's funny - I don't remember the Constitution changing.

What constitution? That was burned soon after 911.

 

[bailadora]

It doesn't say what happens if it turns out they are on the terrorist watchlist. Are they eligible then because they complied with the law and allowed their names to be checked?

It's my understanding that the whole purpose of this stupid amendment is to keep terrorists from getting 9/11 health care benefits. So my guess would be, no - you get nada if the FBI is watching you.

I thought that US citizens had to be convicted of a crime before they could be denied any rights?

That's the theory. In practice....not so much.

 

[remy_lebeau8]

i was told once

That I have a file in the fbi because I associate with a guy that buys 50+ pounds of black powder a year. Mind you we are a non profit organization and are civil war reenactors who do cannon demos at historical museums and parks. Mind you one blank on a cannon is roughly a pound and people go in on the order to get a pound or 2 to last the year with their muskets. Does that make us terrorists or teachers? Then again they coulda been messing with me.

Remy

 

[newlegz]

Originally Posted by culloden
One's presence on an FBI list is not a conviction.

In this day and age it is.

McCarthyism anyone?



We get waaaaay too panic-y in times of crisis and it allows the lots of different entities to take advantage of us. (Gov't taking away of civil rights after 9/11, private business after earthquakes, terror attacks, etc. )

 

[culloden]

Originally Posted by culloden
One's presence on an FBI list is not a conviction.


McCarthyism anyone?



We get waaaaay too panic-y in times of crisis and it allows the lots of different entities to take advantage of us. (Gov't taking away of civil rights after 9/11, private business after earthquakes, terror attacks, etc. )

Quoted for truth.

 

[bailadora]

McCarthyism anyone?

We get waaaaay too panic-y in times of crisis and it allows the lots of different entities to take advantage of us. (Gov't taking away of civil rights after 9/11, private business after earthquakes, terror attacks, etc. )

How's that old saying go? "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.". So yeah - McCarthyism, part deaux. Fuck.

There's an excellent scene towards the end of The Majestic that sums up how I feel about this (emphasis mine):

Peter Appleton: The 5th Amendment is out of the question. But there is another Amendment I'd like to invoke. I wonder if anyone here is familiar with it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Congressman Doyle: You're out of order!
Peter Appleton: "Shall make no law... respecting - "
Congressman Doyle: My chamber will come to order!
Peter Appleton: "An establishment of religion... or prohibiting free exercise thereof... or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press... or of the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Congressman Doyle: Do not presume to lecture this Committee!
Peter Appleton: The First Amendment. It's what we're about, if we'd live up to it. It's part of the contract every citizen has here. Even though the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... are just pieces of paper with signatures on them... they're the only contracts that we have that are definitely not subject... to renegotiation. Not by you, Mr.Chairman.
Congressman Doyle: Mr.Appleton!
Peter Appleton: Not by you, Mr. Clyde.
Congressman Doyle: Stand down!
Peter Appleton: Not by anyone, ever. Too many people have paid in blood.
Congressman Doyle: Enough, sir! You are out of order!
Peter Appleton: [holds up Luke's Congressional Medal of Honor] People like Luke Trimble... and all the sons of Lawson, California. And they deserve better than this.

 

[Braschi]

Not to defend the bureaucrats, but I doubt anyone specifically intended to deny or hassle First Responders. This is more the consequence of legislation that covers a very large subject, and the "exceptions" end up on the short end of the stick. The law of unintended consequences being the only legislation Congress never fails to pass.

This is merely the result of trying to solve problems with a piece of legislation. The law has to be obeyed to the letter, and typically laws are actually written by harried aides or even unpaid interns. They make mistakes, and then it's the job of civil servants to do what the law says. To protect their job, government employees have to do exactly what the law says, even if it's asinine.

 

[bailadora]

Not to defend the bureaucrats, but I doubt anyone specifically intended to deny or hassle First Responders. This is more the consequence of legislation that covers a very large subject, and the "exceptions" end up on the short end of the stick. The law of unintended consequences being the only legislation Congress never fails to pass.

This is merely the result of trying to solve problems with a piece of legislation. The law has to be obeyed to the letter, and typically laws are actually written by harried aides or even unpaid interns. They make mistakes, and then it's the job of civil servants to do what the law says. To protect their job, government employees have to do exactly what the law says, even if it's asinine.

Oh, I'm not annoyed with them. I'm annoyed with the Congressman who introduced the amendment. Based upon the article and this CNN interview, he was opposed to the 9/11 Health Care bill based on the premise that this is another entitlement program America is ill-funded and ill-equipped to undertake. He's entitled to his opinion and I respect that. That said - I think he should attack the bill, not the people it was designed to assist.

The concern that terrorists should get their hands on funds they're not entitled to was nowhere mentioned, so IMO, this amendment makes him appear like a petulant child - lashing out because he didn't get his way.