|
Home > Archive > Emergency services > November 2004 > Time for a auto kill switch!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]Pages: Pages: [1] 2
| Author |
Time for a auto kill switch!
|
|
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
along interstate highways and through congested cities,
placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
The technology is there .... why not do it?
In this particular chase that began near my home, the
police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
The suspect, as usual, got away.
----------------------------------------------------
Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
DC.
http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
<http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
----------------------------------------------------
(KM)
| |
|
|
<poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com...
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
<snip>
Maybe the cops ought to put them in their cars first before people like
you mandate them for us.....
http://tinyurl.com/5jtal
BTW, where does governmental abuse of this system stop? I can just see
some shit for brains politician deciding to use such technology to
restrict the law abiding's ability to get around.
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| Paul wrote:
>
> <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> Maybe the cops ought to put them in their cars first before people like
> you mandate them for us.....
> http://tinyurl.com/5jtal
Maybe they should .... before anymore people get hurt!
(KM)
| |
| Scott en Aztlán 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
>would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
>a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
>along interstate highways and through congested cities,
>placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
>The technology is there .... why not do it?
I agree - I'd *love* to have a remote kill switch to get those goddamn
LLBs out of my way!
Now before you give me your naive protestations about how only the
police will be authorized to use it, recall how controllers forthe
system that turns traffic signals green for emergency vehicles were
recently being sold to the public on the Internet.
>In this particular chase that began near my home, the
>police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
>and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
And that is somehow the chasee's fault? Seems to me the crash was the
fault of the incompetent XXXX behind the wheel of the police car; if
he can't handle a car at high speed, he shouldn't be chasing suspects
through congested city streets. In fact, this is *precisely* why many
police departments have policies against chasing suspects.
--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| "Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> I agree - I'd *love* to have a remote kill switch to get those goddamn
> LLBs out of my way!
>
> Now before you give me your naive protestations about how only the
> police will be authorized to use it, recall how controllers forthe
> system that turns traffic signals green for emergency vehicles were
> recently being sold to the public on the Internet.
So what?
>
> And that is somehow the chasee's fault? Seems to me the crash was the
> fault of the incompetent XXXX behind the wheel of the police car; if
> he can't handle a car at high speed, he shouldn't be chasing suspects
> through congested city streets. In fact, this is *precisely* why many
> police departments have policies against chasing suspects.
If a "kill switch" had been properly used we wouldn't be having this
conversation .... would we? For God's sake, grow up!
(KM)
| |
| maradcliff@UNLISTED.com 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| Do you really think a criminal would keep the kill switch in working
order? I know that I could easily bypass such a device, of course I
am trained in electronics, but criminals have friends who can work on
cars too.
And what about the guy that decides to build a "stop box" and drives
around killing everyones cars for fun. Yes, the technology is there,
but so are the "hackers". Look at all the viruses on the internet and
you'll understand the problem.
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:44:27 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
>would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
>a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
>along interstate highways and through congested cities,
>placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
>The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
>In this particular chase that began near my home, the
>police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
>and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
>
>The suspect, as usual, got away.
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
>that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
>DC.
>
>http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
><http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>(KM)
| |
| Laura Bush murdered her boy friend 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote in message news:<416869CB.F8612AC4@ix.netcom.com>...
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
> along interstate highways and through congested cities,
> placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
> The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
Yeah - but what would the car do then with power steering and power
brakes no longer working? Sounds like you're asking for a crash.
| |
| dptyrob 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| Not an entirely bad idea, but you're talking about all sorts of legal
battles and outraged protest. I have my reservations about having an
extra vulnerability where some crackpot could pull up behind my wife and
kids with some sort of home made scrambler and disable their car on a
deserted road after dark, myself.
As to the technical feasibility of the idea I believe there are some
tools presently in the works that could be used to "zap" a car and kill
the engine gradually so that you don't have a total and sudden loss of
brakes & steering. Even if that technology becomes reliable and
affordable, there's still going to be a chance that its use may
contribute to the driver of the fleeing vehicle fleeing, though that
driver would probably be much more likely to wreck by continuing to
drive in the manner in which he has been. Since there is that chance,
laws and policies will probably be shaped to authorize the use of such
an instrument in instances where deadly force is authorized, like
similar situations where firing into a vehicle or performing a PIT
maneuver is authorized.
As to the many other negative remarks about law enforcement offered up
by some of the others that have responded to this topic, I wager there's
nothing that law enforcement could do to satisfy you short of being
perfect. More and more agencies are adopting no chase policies or
policies where they only chase people suspected of serious, violent
crimes. But that doesn't ensure that no-one will be hurt or killed
during chases. If we could cross train every officer to be a
lawyer/judge/social worker/marriage counselor/doctor/ninja warrior/race
car driver and the best in all of those fields (which we could do if we
trained them 7 days a week from birth through about age 50), there still
remains the facts that officers are humans that make mistakes and that
there are many variables out there that impact an officer's work above
and beyond his own training, skill, and intelligence.
poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
> along interstate highways and through congested cities,
> placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
> The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
> In this particular chase that began near my home, the
> police officer ended up hitting a Toyota in Washington, DC
> and the two, innocent occupants ended up in critical condition.
>
> The suspect, as usual, got away.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Police from two jurisdictions are still investigating a police chase
> that started in Montgomery County and ended in a crash in Northwest
> DC.
>
> http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890
> <http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_ar...x?storyid=33890>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> (KM)
| |
| Scott en Aztlán 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:23:34 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>So what?
Stunning comeback.
Ever consider becoming a professional debater?
--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
| |
| Scott en Aztlán 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:20:48 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>I fully understand there will be all sorts of abusers in
>society. They abuse guns, drugs, people, and the list goes
>on and on.
>
>But what is worse ... regarding the engine kill switch, a
>few people inconveienced ..... or a few dead people from
>a chase?
<YAWN> That one didn't even register on the Troll-O-Meter.
>(KM)
Does KM stand for "Killfile Me?"
--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
| |
|
| On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:26:03 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Ry-On wrote:
>
>Uh? Did you read and understand any of this problem? A
>common, drunken criminal led police on a high speed chase.
>
>
>
>Are you assuming an "educated" officer wouldn't chase
>the suspect?
>
>Just what is your point?
An educated officer would, definitely never put innocent
citizens lifes in danger to catch a speeder. Just like an
educated cop would never shoot at a bank robber on a
busy side walk. It's a subject that actually requires no thought
at all. It should be simple logic. But logic only applies to
educatedd people.
>
>(KM)
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
|
<maradcliff@UNLISTED.com> wrote in message
news:o5jhm0hbt95jrfdt7ous79s3rkqice9sf9@4ax.com...
> Do you really think a criminal would keep the kill switch in working
> order? I know that I could easily bypass such a device, of course I
> am trained in electronics, but criminals have friends who can work on
> cars too.
>
> And what about the guy that decides to build a "stop box" and drives
> around killing everyones cars for fun. Yes, the technology is there,
> but so are the "hackers". Look at all the viruses on the internet and
> you'll understand the problem.
One of the most common reasons for chases is that the car is stolen. Of
course you also have the drunks and the teeneaged joyriders, none of whom
are likely to be auto kill-switch hackers.
Steve
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| CR wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 00:26:03 -0400, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> An educated officer would, definitely never put innocent
> citizens lifes in danger to catch a speeder. Just like an
> educated cop would never shoot at a bank robber on a
> busy side walk.
Educated or experienced?
It's a subject that actually requires no thought
> at all. It should be simple logic. But logic only applies to
> educatedd people.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It sure does!
(KM)
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Right, because most hackers are 50-year-old women. *eyeroll*
Hey Daniel, before you get dizzy rolling them eyes perhaps you might
want to consider that most teeenaged joyriders don't even bother
changing the registration plates or looking for the lojack transceivers.
They simply ride until they get bored or their luck runs out.
Steve
P.S. When's the last time you heard of some teenager hacking a LoJack
transceiver? Last I knew they still claim to recover 9 out of 10 of
their clients stolen vehicles.
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| In article <d4KdndOx5sJxG_fcRVn-tw@comcast.com>, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> My guess is that any such device would be considered a safety feature or
> anti-theft device similar to driver airbags, emmissions equipment,
> passive anti-theft devices, On-Star or LoJack.
The government doesn't require me to have passive anti-theft devices,
On-Star or LoJack installed on my car.
As for it being a safety device like airbags-- well, you're gonna have
to do a lot of spinning to make the argument that I should have to
install a kill switch on my own car so that government can turn it off
and convince me that it's for my own safety.
Airbags? Yes.
Kill switch? Not so much.
And even if you do make that argument, my response is no thanks. I'm a
grown adult. I don't need a nanny government running around protecting
me from the evils of the world at every turn.
Oh, and the airbag regs only apply to manufacturers. The government
requires that the auto makers install airbags in cars. However, there's
no law against the owner of the car disabling or removing them after
they buy the car.
I would bet this kill switch would come with stiff penalties for anyone
who takes it out.
> I suppose I should be rather surprised that an alleged (federal)
> LEO would throw out the "on a
> whim" complaint as if they had no understanding of the whole concept of
> probable cause, public safety, the use of force, or criminal/civil
> liability, but I'm not.
It has nothing to do with any of that. It's all about control.
Government at every level is becoming more and more intrusive into our
lives and property and it's all done in the name of "safety".
> I've seen that elitist attitude before among
> some of your federal brethren when they simply cannot help but look down
> upon local law enforcement as something inferior without the slightest
> consideration for the differences in responsibilities we hold.
That's a huge chip on your shoulder you've got there, especially
considering this isn't a local vs. federal issue no matter how much you
want to make it one. If these chips are installed in vehicles, the FBI,
DEA and Secret Service will be using them just like the local cops will.
| |
| Scott Aleckson 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> It's about time auto makers installed a "kill switch" that
> would allow police officers to disrupt the ignition of
> a suspect's vehicle .... instead of chasing the suspect
> along interstate highways and through congested cities,
> placing everyone at risk for serious injury or death.
>
> The technology is there .... why not do it?
>
Won't happen. There is no financial incentive for automakers to do it
on their own. There is no way regulation requiring such a device will
make it through the legislature in the current climate. And it would be
ineffective because there would still be over 200 million operating
automobiles out there on the roads that do not have such a device
installed, so the bad guys will just use one of those vehicles instead
of the new ones with it (and the ones with it would be well publicized
in the press), much like thieves are learning to avoid vehicles equipped
with the OnStar system as it can track the vehicle, making evasion unlikely.
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| In article <ubidnR6ADJmCBvfcRVn-iw@comcast.com>, "John Harlow"
<sirsausage@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps if the teenage passenger knew cops had this ability there might
> be incentive within the car itself to terminate the pursuit.
>
> We can either allow people to continue to drive WFO down public roads,
> endangering you and everyone else, or we can take measures to stop it.
>
> So what is your suggestion to put an end to this once and for all?
Your problem is that you think in terms of "putting an end to this once
and for all". There's is no way to maintain a free society and at the
same time have zero crime.
Sure, we could become a totalitarian police state and that would end a
helluva lot of crime but it's not a goal I aspire to.
If "putting an end to this once and for all" is your only acceptable
outcome, a police state is your only alternative.
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| In article <Z%xad.6713$137.1068@news01.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar
<akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> I believe that you have to fill out an exception form of some sort to
> get your airbag disabled. Most mechanics will not disable them due to
> liabliity purposes.
But if you're a mechanic yourself and you take the things out, you're
not breaking any law.
| |
| Daniel J. Stern 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, John Harlow wrote:
> We can either allow people to continue to drive WFO down public roads,
> endangering you and everyone else, or we can take measures to stop it.
> So what is your suggestion to put an end to this once and for all?
My suggestion is to quit making a mountain out of a molehill. Police
pursuits involving "people driving WFO down public roads" don't happen all
that often, and policies against prolonged or high-speed pursuits in
built-up areas are spreading throughout North American police agencies.
Street racing is a much larger concern, and might suggest the same "Kill
switch!" idea, but the fact of the matter is that it's impossible to stop
any given kind of behavior "once and for all" -- not in a nominally-free
country.
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Z wrote:
>
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> Couldn't that crazed mototist just as easily ram you to disable your
> vehicle?
Of course they can. The people who are responding here
are showing a lot of paranoia .... just whenever you
mention the cops can stop their cars. Make me wonder!
(KM)
| |
| Dave S 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| At the present, you do not have the RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle in
the US... you have the PRIVELEDGE.. and this priveledge is regulated by
licensing and registration caveats.
You DO have the right to travel freely across the borders of the states,
but that being said, you dont explicitly have the right to use a motor
vehicle to do it.
So, how is it giving up liberty to have such a device on a motor
vehicle? How is it infringing on your constitutionally guaranteed rights?
Dave
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to
> purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither", and he was right.
> Franklin died in 1790 -- people like you will never learn.
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <msadnaUswpHsKfDcRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
> Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No, it really doesn't. That's just the way *you* have clearly defined it.
>
>
>
>
> Putting "on a regular basis" in quotes like that is disingenuous since
> it's your criteria, not mine.
There's nothing disingenuous about it. It's been put in quotes by both
you and I since I first used it (on 10/12 at 4:35 local). The entire
thread is out there for all to see so there's not much chance that I was
trying to make it seem like it was *your* criteria. The fact is rather
that you are ignoring where the likely regular use of such a device
would occur or are discounting the significance of that fact.
> Besides, something can occur "on a regular basis" and still not happen
> very often. Halley's comet passes through the inner solar system on a
> regular basis-- every 75 years like clockwork.
We were talking about high speed pursuits and an efficient and safe way
to stop them. We can talk about comets instead if you wish...
>
> Weird. I can't speak for the Bureau but I've personally never left the
> locals "cleaning up" anything afterwards in any investigation I've run.
In my state high speed pursuits that end badly (i.e. in a crash of some
sorts) would by statute have to be investigated by State Police, the
County Sheriff's office or local municipal police. If there was a death
involved you can add the Attorney General's office to that mix. You
wouldn't be able to clean up the mess if you wanted to.
> Perhaps you're just being elitist...
No, I just know my role.
>
>
> I'd expect it as much from one law enforcement officer as another.
>
> People are people, no matter where their paycheck comes from.
>
> You keep trying to foist this prejudice on me based on nothing more than
> your suspicions and speculations, then using those suspicions and
> speculations to prove my prejudice.
Granted it's hard in this medium to ascertain those little nuances
present in verbal conversation that reveal what's between the lines, but
I've formed any prejudice I hold by reading your posts and comparing
what you say to experiences I've had in the past. You don't seen real
sensitive to the issues that impact local law enforcemen - things like
traffic enforcement, accident investigation, and considering both the
pros as well as the cons of some proposed means to stop one of the most
dangerous regularly occuring incidents that impact local law enforcement
and the population we try to protect.
>
>
> Ever since I worked on a Justice Department project documenting abuses
> of civil forfeiture "tools" (on both the local and federal level, just
> so we're clear), I've had a healthy suspicion for anticipating how the
> government might turn new tools against the citizens.
And the best you can come up with here is that the technology might be
misused by some psycho car-jacker to disable your family car and attack
you or your family? You don't really see cops kill switching people for
shits and giggles do you?
> That hardly makes me anti-law and order. It puts me squarely among such
> luminaries as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
And you called me an elitist! ;-)
> I don't see any more need for every citizen to have a
> government-mandated kill switch in their car on the off-chance the
> police need to stop them from fleeing, than I see the need for every
> citizen to be forced to have a shock-chip embedded beneath their skin on
> the off-chance the cops need to stop them from resisting arrest.
That's a silly analogy and I suspect that we both know why.
Steve
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That's a silly analogy and I suspect that we both know why.
>
It only seems silly to you because you want the kill switch.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
> Because we have proven ourselves to be no better than their previous
> government, our protests to the contrary.
I completely disagree with that assertion. The mere fact that we are
holding those responsible for the mistreatment accountable makes us
better than their previous government. And considering the fact that the
mistreatment inflicted by our soldiers was kindergarten level compared
to what Saddam's government used to inflict I'd say you're call for
"MORE" than an apology is little more than whiney XXX liberal feelgood BS.
>
>
>
> I worry about its abuse, not its use. Criminals would have a field day
> with it. So would less than ethical cops.
What possible advantage would something like that give the average
criminal? If we're talking about car thieves (or jackers) then it
wouldn't be the ideal tool since it renders the car undriveable (I'd
presume any reset would be sufficiently difficult so as not to defeat
the intended purpose of casuing the car to remain stopped for a period
of time). If we're talking about murderers, rapist, stalkers, etc., what
do they care if they have to ram your car off the road or simply follow
you to a destination where you become more vulnerable? You generally
know when the cops are trying to stop you, but a person intent on
commiting some sort of assault would likely find it much easier to
simply wait until you decide to stop on your own.
Steve
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
> I see the former situation as FAR more likely than the latter. I have
> yet to see a high speed chase in person, but I've seen quite a few
> criminals "scoping" an area for easy to steal cars. Would make
> carjacking quite a cakewalk, I'd think.
You do understand that most people who "jack" cars intend to drive them
away from the scene of the crime, right? That would be just a tad more
difficult if the engine won't run because they've employed a kill-
device. As far as those criminals you see "scoping" an area to steal
cars - what do you suppose is going to happen once they find one and the
cops signal them to pull over?
Steve
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> I completely disagree with that assertion. The mere fact that we are
> holding those responsible for the mistreatment accountable makes us
> better than their previous government. And considering the fact that the
> mistreatment inflicted by our soldiers was kindergarten level compared
> to what Saddam's government used to inflict I'd say you're call for
> "MORE" than an apology is little more than whiney XXX liberal feelgood BS.
>
Heh. no real reply, so he calls me a liberal. First of all, when did
"liberal" become an insult? It's a political philosophy, just like
"conservative." Second, if you knew me, you'd realize how laughable
that assertion is.
>
>
>
> What possible advantage would something like that give the average
> criminal? If we're talking about car thieves (or jackers) then it
> wouldn't be the ideal tool since it renders the car undriveable (I'd
> presume any reset would be sufficiently difficult so as not to defeat
> the intended purpose of casuing the car to remain stopped for a period
> of time). If we're talking about murderers, rapist, stalkers, etc., what
> do they care if they have to ram your car off the road or simply follow
> you to a destination where you become more vulnerable? You generally
> know when the cops are trying to stop you, but a person intent on
> commiting some sort of assault would likely find it much easier to
> simply wait until you decide to stop on your own.
>
> Steve
It gives criminals more opportunities, and more options.
If nothing else, I quite simply resent a) the government mandating MORE
bullshit on my car that makes it more likely to break, and less likely
to be repairable at home and b) the horrific 1984 implications of yet
another device that allows the government more absolute control of
civilians. Whatever happened to the concept that the gov't was supposed
to be a tool of the people and not the other way around?
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> You do understand that most people who "jack" cars intend to drive them
> away from the scene of the crime, right?
You mean criminals can't get tow trucks? Heck, I see a whole scam
developing right now. Some dude with a tow truck spots an out of state
plate, "kills" the car then just happens to be right there and offers to
help. Tows car to his buddy's garage for $50 where his buddy jacks into
the computer, claims the driver needs a new framistat valve for $400,
meanwhile clears the kill code and walks the driver out to the front for
a cup of coffee while he "waits for the parts to arrive" (i.e.
alternately rips other people off and/or surfs the net for porn.) Two
hours later, the mark leaves the shop $450 lighter and none the wiser.
If I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, can come up with a scam like
that on the fly, imagine what a real professional criminal could do.
> That would be just a tad more
> difficult if the engine won't run because they've employed a kill-
> device. As far as those criminals you see "scoping" an area to steal
> cars - what do you suppose is going to happen once they find one and the
> cops signal them to pull over?
>
> Steve
If a car owner is concerned about such, he can opt to get LoJack or
similar. No need for the government to get involved. LoJack is better
anyway as it also allows for tracking - *should the owner desire it*
(which is the real point.)
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| James C. Reeves wrote:
> Except a form of monitoring already exists as part of the air bag systems.
> Monitors speed, brake/throttle position, etc. The data is being subpoenaed in
> court cases as we speak.
It's not realtime (unless you consider the downside of OnStar) so it's
really not the same thing. Most of the information that can be garnered
from those data collection systems are simply more accurate and detailed
versions of what accident reconstructionists used to get. So yeah, if
you drive like a crazy person and collide with someone there probably
will be a day when proving exactly what you were doing pre-crash will be
quite simply a matter of getting the proper subpoena.
Steve
P.S. You realize that they can track your movements pretty well using
your cell phones and/or GPS phones too, right?
| |
| 223rem 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> Yet you worry about a similar tool because it's technilogically advanced
> and safer to deploy?
You still dont get it. I find it utterly repugnant to be forced to put a kill
switch in my car. By the way, driving may be a right, but it is not up to
the government officials such as you to grant or take away this right
from the citizens.
Citizens should not be treated as potential criminals. You seem to start
from the premise that everyone is a potential criminal (except your brother
cops that is) hence the need for universal control devices.
You find it a good, necessary thing, we find it repulsive. Goes to show how
big is gulf separating cops from citizens.
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| 223rem wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yes. And the internet too. I dont see anything wrong with these
> sources of information.
Neither do I. But I realize that they are limited in scope and often
reflect the POV (especially negative POVs) of the person who actually
made the observations you read about too.
And as for your common police debate tactic - I never suggested that
you were a criminal. That was your own straw argument. I simply said
that I didn't know what events helped form your view. Apparently the
events were reading the paper, watching TV and cruising the internet? I
don't see how you think that you can form a valid opinion about what
interests are first and foremost to police without actually having any
personal interactions with one. You might well be aware that some make
headlines by stepping in it solid or by pissing off the wrong person,
but you cannot fairly decide that all or most don't do their best to
look out for citizens by limiting yourself to just those sources.
Steve
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Let's start at the top ..... at the White House. The
> President feels it's OK for anyone to purchase an AK-47
> at any gun show without a background check. (A terrorists'
> dream!)
Hey Ken,
You were doin OK until you started spouting a John Kerry Ad. You've
never heard George Bush say that it's OK for anyone to purchase an AK-47
at a gun show without a background check because he didn't say it. His
*offense* was that he allow the assault weapons ban to expire and I
don't have a problem with that. The ban was a feel-good/do-nothing
legislation that most likely never has or never will adversely impact a
terrorist or a criminal. There were some police exemptions so I got to
have my 30 round magazines for my AR-15, but I still couldn't get more
than a ten round magazine for my little Ruger 10-22 for a little
plinking at the range. And what do you think happens to our post-ban
duty guns after they've been obsoleted here in the US?
Steve
| |
| 223rem 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> don't see how you think that you can form a valid opinion about what
> interests are first and foremost to police without actually having any
> personal interactions with one.
Cops, just like anyone else, want to get noticed by their boss and get
promoted. That means writing as many tickets as possible. Or lying in
court to help get a conviction. Or planting 'evidence'. And so on.
'Protecting and serving' is just a nice motto.
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <416E0F96.EED23685@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> An AK-47 purchased legally at a gun show is no different than a hunting
> rifle or a any other semi-auto rifle that isn't emblazoned with the
> utterly meaningless and hysterical moniker "assault weapon".
>
> The fully-auto AK-47's are still just as illegal now as they have ever
> been.
How 'bout that, we seem to be on the same side of an issue? Perhaps I'd
better rethink my position? ;-)
Steve
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Bernard Farquart wrote:
>
> <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:416EB9C6.446DB4F1@ix.netcom.com...
>
> I checked
> A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Are you a member of a well-regulated Militia?
> I can't find the "hunting" restriction. Can you please point it out?
Probably not. I just can't see why people think they need an AK-47
assault rifle to kill Bambi ..... remember, you have a right
to FREE SPEECH too, but that doesn't include screaming "FIRE"
in a movie theater.
KM
| |
|
|
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
> It only seems silly to you because you want the kill switch.
No Nate, it's silly because a person has privacy rights and a vehicle
does not. A person can claim property rights and a vehicle is property.
The government mandates certain safety equipment be installed on
vehicles. It can't mandate the same for a person.
Steve
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> No Nate, it's silly because a person has privacy rights and a vehicle
> does not. A person can claim property rights and a vehicle is property.
> The government mandates certain safety equipment be installed on
> vehicles. It can't mandate the same for a person.
>
> Steve
By your logic, then, you ought to have a key to my house, too.
I don't think so.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
> Heh. no real reply, so he calls me a liberal.
The "real reply" was that a major difference between Saddam's government
and ours is that we hold people who violate prisoners responsible.
> First of all, when did
> "liberal" become an insult?
It was around 1975 for me, but YMMV...
> It's a political philosophy, just like
> "conservative." Second, if you knew me, you'd realize how laughable
> that assertion is.
Which assertion are you talking about? Even a conservative can spout
whiney XXX liberal BS if they happen to fall on the wrong side of a
particular issue. ;-)
> It gives criminals more opportunities, and more options.
>
> If nothing else, I quite simply resent a) the government mandating MORE
> bullshit on my car that makes it more likely to break, and less likely
> to be repairable at home and b) the horrific 1984 implications of yet
> another device that allows the government more absolute control of
> civilians. Whatever happened to the concept that the gov't was supposed
> to be a tool of the people and not the other way around?
Hey I resent Tax day in April, but it still rolls around each year...
Steve
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Nate Nagel wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
> You mean criminals can't get tow trucks?
In general, Carjacker don't.
> Heck, I see a whole scam
> developing right now. Some dude with a tow truck spots an out of state
> plate, "kills" the car then just happens to be right there and offers to
> help. Tows car to his buddy's garage for $50 where his buddy jacks into
> the computer, claims the driver needs a new framistat valve for $400,
> meanwhile clears the kill code and walks the driver out to the front for
> a cup of coffee while he "waits for the parts to arrive" (i.e.
> alternately rips other people off and/or surfs the net for porn.) Two
> hours later, the mark leaves the shop $450 lighter and none the wiser.
That's a scam, a fraud crime. Perhaps an opportunity might be created
for the unscrupulous auto mechanic shop, but it's unlikely that any
modern car equipped with a switch like the one we're talking about
wouldn't at least have an idiot light advising the driver why the car is
losing power.
> If I, an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, can come up with a scam like
> that on the fly, imagine what a real professional criminal could do.
Criminals are clever and they do usually manage to find ways to exploit
otherwise benign tools, but by stopping high speed pursuits you're
talking about saving lives as well as property. I suspect you'd see a
net gain.
> If a car owner is concerned about such, he can opt to get LoJack or
> similar. No need for the government to get involved. LoJack is better
> anyway as it also allows for tracking - *should the owner desire it*
> (which is the real point.)
Here we are back at the start. If stolen cars were the only issue -
you'd be right on. But the suggestion originally proposed by Ken was a
means to stop high speed police chases (presumeably without simply
adopting no chase policies). LoJack doesn't provide much help in that
regard and the owners desire is often moot since it'll be the owner
who's fleeing the cops.
Steve
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| 223rem wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
> You still dont get it. I find it utterly repugnant to be forced to put a
> kill switch in my car.
You don't get it. I am not suggesting that you put anything in your
current car. I'm suggesting that manufactering designs incorporate
something like this in future auto and trucks. If that come to pass you
can then choose not to buy new if you want.
> By the way, driving may be a right, but it is not up to
> the government officials such as you to grant or take away this right
> from the citizens.
It is when the driver of a vehicle leads police on a high speed pursuit.
Make no mistake, odds are you'd be stopped either way. The switch would
just make it safer for everyone involved.
> Citizens should not be treated as potential criminals. You seem to start
> from the premise that everyone is a potential criminal (except your brother
> cops that is) hence the need for universal control devices.
Actually, I tend to see more potential victims than criminals, but I get
your drift.
> You find it a good, necessary thing, we find it repulsive. Goes to show how
> big is gulf separating cops from citizens.
It's not that big at all. Currently there are no such devices
manufaturerd in vehicles and whenever some citizen is killed or maimed
as a result of some criminal fleeing the cops there is a ripple of
outcries of why couldn't something be done to stop these chases...
You can't have it both ways.
Steve
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>
> In general, Carjacker don't.
>
>
>
>
> That's a scam, a fraud crime. Perhaps an opportunity might be created
> for the unscrupulous auto mechanic shop, but it's unlikely that any
> modern car equipped with a switch like the one we're talking about
> wouldn't at least have an idiot light advising the driver why the car is
> losing power.
Would it make any difference? The car is still dead. There's lots of
variations on this theme... car could just be flat out taken and
chopped up, owner could be rolled for his cash, the possibilities are
endless. And I see we're already adding complexity and cost to this system.
>
>
>
> Criminals are clever and they do usually manage to find ways to exploit
> otherwise benign tools, but by stopping high speed pursuits you're
> talking about saving lives as well as property. I suspect you'd see a
> net gain.
Would there be a net gain? I doubt it. More stuff to malfunction,
creating more opportunities for dangerous situations. Another tool for
criminals to misuse.
>
>
>
> Here we are back at the start. If stolen cars were the only issue -
> you'd be right on. But the suggestion originally proposed by Ken was a
> means to stop high speed police chases (presumeably without simply
> adopting no chase policies). LoJack doesn't provide much help in that
> regard and the owners desire is often moot since it'll be the owner
> who's fleeing the cops.
And I say, if you want to stop my car, you're going to have to work at
it. It's my car, not yours - and that is the only argument that should
be necessary.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> 223rem wrote:
>
>
>
> You don't get it. I am not suggesting that you put anything in your
> current car. I'm suggesting that manufactering designs incorporate
> something like this in future auto and trucks. If that come to pass you
> can then choose not to buy new if you want.
>
>
>
>
> It is when the driver of a vehicle leads police on a high speed pursuit.
> Make no mistake, odds are you'd be stopped either way. The switch would
> just make it safer for everyone involved.
>
>
>
> Actually, I tend to see more potential victims than criminals, but I get
> your drift.
>
>
>
> It's not that big at all. Currently there are no such devices
> manufaturerd in vehicles and whenever some citizen is killed or maimed
> as a result of some criminal fleeing the cops there is a ripple of
> outcries of why couldn't something be done to stop these chases...
>
> You can't have it both ways.
>
> Steve
And you accuse *me* of spouting "whiny-XXX liberal BS."
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-14, 10:09 pm |
| 223rem wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>
>
> Cops, just like anyone else, want to get noticed by their boss and get
> promoted. That means writing as many tickets as possible. Or lying in
> court to help get a conviction. Or planting 'evidence'. And so on.
>
> 'Protecting and serving' is just a nice motto.
This from a kid who gets his or her insight by proxy...
I've worn the badge for more than 25 years. I supervise. I've seen cops
who like attention and I've seen as many who like to stay invisible.
There is no bonus in my agency for writing tickets. Work product is
measured by contacts and calls for service answered. The only attention
a cop gets in my agency for lying in court or planting evidence would be
termination and criminal charges.
Steve
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-15, 2:08 am |
| In article <zoGdndSos7XOsvLcRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> How 'bout that, we seem to be on the same side of an issue? Perhaps I'd
> better rethink my position? ;-)
We're actually on the same side of most issues. We just seem to have
been hitting the few differences lately.
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-15, 2:08 am |
| In article <KKmdnRxy2_QOvvLcRVn-2Q@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> That's a silly analogy and I suspect that we both know why.
Actually, it's not silly at all. There's no difference in the principle
involved. Just the method employed.
A microscopic chip inserted at birth would go virtually unnoticed
throughout a person's lifetime if it was never activated. It would
actually be less of an intrusion in your life than the auto-switch since
you wouldn't even have to pay the front-end costs that you would at the
auto dealer's shop. It's certainly less physically invasive than being
jabbed with the needles used in the vaccinations that the government
requires we have administered to our children.
Only people who resist arrest and/or are dangerous to the cops or other
citizens would ever experience its effects.
I mean, we are talking about the pros and cons of a proposed means to
stop one of the most dangerous regularly occuring incidents that impact
local law enforcement and the population you try to protect. Yes?
I've often been told that domestic disputes are the most dangerous calls
a cop responds to. A human kill-switch would go a long way to protecting
both the officer and the citizens involved. Not only would the cop's
safety be ensured but it would reduce the need to respond with deadly
force in a great number of cases where it would otherwise be required.
And as I said before, accepting all your pro-car kill switch arguments
as true, then it would only be used when legally necessary, abuses will
be rare and penalties for abuse severe. Therefore, law-abiding citizens
shouldn't have any problem with the concept.
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-15, 2:08 am |
| In article <1MSdna_HuP7XqfLcRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No Nate, it's silly because a person has privacy rights and a vehicle
> does not.
Since privacy rights aren't even in the Constitution and were created by
the courts to begin with, they are open to interpretation and revision
by those same courts even more so than the rights that are actually
enumerated and spelled out in the Constitution.
Bottom line, the court can easily find the right to privacy is
outweighed by the benefit to society of having a microscopic piece of
harmless plastic implanted beneath the skin which allows police to
render the bad guys harmless to the law-abiding.
> The government mandates certain safety equipment be installed on
> vehicles. It can't mandate the same for a person.
Sure it can. Ever heard of mandatory vaccinations?
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-15, 2:08 am |
| In article <416F2A5A.7C9F9433@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> Bernard Farquart wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Are you a member of a well-regulated Militia?
>
>
> Probably not. I just can't see why people think they need an AK-47
> assault rifle to kill Bambi ..... remember, you have a right
> to FREE SPEECH too, but that doesn't include screaming "FIRE"
> in a movie theater.
Actually, if there's really a fire, you not only have a right to scream
it, you might have a duty, depending on the jurisdiction.
| |
| Karl W. 2004-10-15, 2:08 am |
|
Karl Rove's White House " Murder, Inc."
By Wayne Madsen .
Online Journal Contributing Writer .
OCT, 2004- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11 attacks,
CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret
"Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a
threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The Tenet
plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the
executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly
prohibited political assassinations.
According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor,
Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular Lebanese
Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of
Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra
and Shatilla in 1982. In addition, Sharon provided the Lebanese forces who
carried out the grisly task. At the time of the massacres, Elie Hobeika was
intelligence chief of Lebanese Christian forces in Lebanon who were battling
Palestinians and other Muslim groups in a bloody civil war. He was also the
chief liaison to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel in Lebanon. An
official Israeli inquiry into the massacre at the camps, the Kahan
Commission, merely found Sharon "indirectly" responsible for the slaughter
and fingered Hobeika as the chief instigator.
The Kahan Commission never called on Hobeika to offer testimony in his
defense. However, in response to charges brought against Sharon before a
special war crimes court in Belgium, Hobeika was urged to testify against
Sharon, according to well-informed Lebanese sources. Hobeika was prepared to
offer a different version of events than what was contained in the Kahan
report. A 1993 Belgian law permitting human rights prosecutions was unusual
in that non-Belgians could be tried for violations against other
non-Belgians in a Belgian court. Under pressure from the Bush
administration, the law was severely amended and the extra territoriality
provisions were curtailed.
Hobeika headed the Lebanese forces intelligence agency since the mid- 1970s
and he soon developed close ties to the CIA. He was a frequent visitor to
the CIA's headquarters at Langley, Virginia. After the Syrian invasion of
Lebanon in 1990, Hobeika held a number of cabinet positions in the Lebanese
government, a proxy for the Syrian occupation authorities. He also served in
the parliament. In July 2001, Hobeika called a press conference and
announced he was prepared to testify against Sharon in Belgium and revealed
that he had evidence of what actually occurred in Sabra and Shatilla.
Hobeika also indicated that Israel had flown members of the South Lebanon
Army (SLA) into Beirut International Airport in an Israeli Air Force C130
transport plane. In full view of dozens of witnesses, including members of
the Lebanese army and others, SLA troops under the command of Major Saad
Haddad were slipped into the camps to commit the massacres. The SLA troops
were under the direct command of Ariel Sharon and an Israeli Mossad agent
provocateur named Rafi Eitan. Hobeika offered evidence that a former U.S.
ambassador to Lebanon was aware of the Israeli plot. In addition, the IDF
had placed a camera in a strategic position to film the Sabra and Shatilla
massacres. Hobeika was going to ask that the footage be released as part of
the investigation of Sharon.
After announcing he was willing to testify against Sharon, Hobeika became
fearful for his safety and began moves to leave Lebanon. Hobeika was not
aware that his threats to testify against Sharon had triggered a series of
fateful events that reached well into the White House and Sharon's office.
On January 24, 2002, Hobeika's car was blown up by a remote controlled bomb
placed in a parked Mercedes along a street in the Hazmieh section of Beirut.
The bomb exploded when Hobeika and his three associates, Fares Souweidan,
Mitri Ajram, and Waleed Zein, were driving their Range Rover past the
TNT-laden Mercedes at 9:40 am Beirut time. The Range Rover's four passengers
were killed in the explosion. In case Hobeika's car had taken another route
through the neighborhood, two additional parked cars, located at two other
choke points, were also rigged with TNT. The powerful bomb wounded a number
of other people on the street. Other parked cars were destroyed and
buildings and homes were damaged. The Lebanese president, prime minister,
and interior minister all claimed that Israeli agents were behind the
attack.
It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist
incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on
Hobeika and his party. The White House wanted to ensure the attack was
censored from the report. The reason was simple: the attack ultimately had
Washington's fingerprints on it.
High level European intelligence sources now report that Karl Rove
personally coordinated Hobeika's assassination. The hit on Hobeika employed
Syrian intelligence agents. Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to
curry favor with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11 and was
more than willing to help the White House. In addition, Assad's father,
Hafez Assad, had been an ally of Bush's father during Desert Storm, a period
that saw Washington give a "wink and a nod" to Syria's occupation of
Lebanon. Rove wanted to help Sharon avoid any political embarrassment from
an in absentia trial in Brussels where Hobeika would be a star witness. Rove
and Sharon agreed on the plan to use Syrian Military Intelligence agents to
assassinate Hobeika. Rove saw Sharon as an indispensable ally of Bush in
ensuring the loyalty of the Christian evangelical and Jewish voting blocs in
the United States. Sharon saw the plan to have the United States coordinate
the hit as a way to mask all connections to Jerusalem.
The Syrian hit team was ordered by Assef Shawkat, the number two man in
Syrian military intelligence and a good friend and brother in law of Syrian
President Bashar Assad. Assad's intelligence services had already cooperated
with U.S. intelligence in resorting to unconventional methods to extract
information from al Qaeda detainees deported to Syria from the United States
and other countries in the wake of 9-11. The order to take out Hobeika was
transmitted by Shawkat to Roustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military
intelligence in Beirut. Ghazali arranged for the three remote controlled
cars to be parked along Hobeika's route in Hazmieh; only few hundred yards
from the Barracks of Syrian Special Forces which are stationed in the area
near the Presidential palace , the ministry of Defense and various
Government and officers quarters . This particular area is covered 24/7 by a
very sophisticated USA multi-agency surveillance system to monitor Syrian
and Lebanese security activities and is a " Choice " area to live in for its
perceived high security .... [Courtesy of the Special Collections Services.]
.... SCS... ; CIA & NSA & DIA....
The plan to kill Hobeika had all the necessary caveats and built-in denial
mechanisms. If the Syrians were discovered beforehand or afterwards, Karl
Rove and his associates in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans would be
ensured plausible deniability.
Hobeika's CIA intermediary in Beirut, a man only referred to as "Jason" by
Hobeika, was a frequent companion of the Lebanese politician during official
and off-duty hours. During Hobeika's election campaigns for his
parliamentary seat, Jason was often in Hobeika's office offering support and
advice. After Hobeika's assassination, Jason became despondent over the
death of his colleague. Eventually, Jason disappeared abruptly from Lebanon
and reportedly later emerged in Pakistan.
Karl Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika may not have been
the last "hit" he ordered to help out Sharon. In March 2002, a few months
after Hobeika's assassination, another Lebanese Christian with knowledge of
Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres was gunned down
along with his wife in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A bullet fired at Michael Nassar's
car flattened one of his tires. Nassar pulled into a gasoline station for
repairs. A professional assassin, firing a gun with a silencer, shot Nassar
and his wife in the head, killing them both instantly. The assailant fled
and was never captured. Nassar was also involved with the Phalange militia
at Sabra and Shatilla. Nassar was also reportedly willing to testify against
Sharon in Belgium and, as a nephew of SLA Commander General Antoine Lahd,
may have had important evidence to bolster Hobeika's charge that Sharon
ordered SLA forces into the camps to wipe out the Palestinians.
Based on what European intelligence claims is concrete intelligence on
Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika, the Bush administration
can now add political assassination to its laundry list of other misdeeds,
from lying about the reasons to go to war to the torture tactics in
violation of the Geneva Conventions that have been employed by the Pentagon
and "third country" nationals at prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and
columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan
administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the
co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of
George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil,
Black Ops, and Brass Plates." Madsen can be reached at:
WMadsen777@aol.com
This is some of the evidence for you and for the World ....
*********************************************
~~~encrypted/logs/access ~~~
Not to mention hundreds of private companies and governments. Anyway...
*********************************************************
Lines 10-36
of my logfiles show a lot of interest in this article:
# grep sid=1052 /encrypted/logs/access_log|awk '{print $1,$7}'|sed -n
'10,36p'
spb-213-33-248-190.sovintel.ru /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ext1.shape.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
server1.namsa.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
ns1.saclantc.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bxlproxyb.europarl.eu.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun18.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
wdcsun21.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay1.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.cia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
relay2.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
n021.dhs.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
legion.dera.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway-fincen.uscg.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler2.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler1.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gateway101.gsi.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate11-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
gate13-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-a.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
crawler13.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
fw1-b.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
bouncer.nics.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
beluha.ssu.gov.ua /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
zukprxpro02.zreo.compaq.com
/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052....
To be continued ....For Decades.!!!!!
HOLLYWOOD FL.... ATTA & Aris2F...Dis...ney...
DENVER CO...
ART STUDENTS...
MOVERS- INC.@ORG.IL
Lakam & LAPAM ...Mr.X. MEGA....Feith, woolfowitz...Perle, Maaloof, etc.
OSP, SCS, DIA, M.I. etc....
Etc. Etc.
| |
| BTR1701 2004-10-15, 2:08 am |
| In article <416F4952.EF64FC2@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
> Steve Furbish wrote:
>
> I know .... I know. I am not anti guns, in fact I am a gun owner.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out why citizens can own high powered
> rifles and cops can't posses a "kill switch" to stop dangerous,
> armed and speeding felons? It's amazing.
You do realize that a 30.06 hunting rifle is just as "powerful" as that
semi-auto AK-47 you're so worried about?
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-15, 2:08 am |
| BTR1701 wrote:
>
> In article <416F4952.EF64FC2@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
> wrote:
>
>
> You do realize that a 30.06 hunting rifle is just as "powerful" as that
> semi-auto AK-47 you're so worried about?
Well. I am not that worried. In fact, in a "right to carry"
state, most people never get car jacked, robbed, and the
crime stats seem much lower.
KM
| |
| Big Bill 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
| On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:40:32 -0400, BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>In article <416F4952.EF64FC2@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com
>wrote:
>
>
>You do realize that a 30.06 hunting rifle is just as "powerful" as that
>semi-auto AK-47 you're so worried about?
Actually, the 30.06 is a much more powerful round; the 7.62x39 "AK"
round is specifically designed to be less powerful so it can be fired
in an automatic rifle and still be controlled under less than ideal
conditions.
The 30.06 has a larger bullett and higher muzzle velocity, for a much
higher energy.
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
| |
| Alex Rodriguez 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
| In article <416F4952.EF64FC2@ix.netcom.com>, poboxdc@ix.netcom.com says...
>I know .... I know. I am not anti guns, in fact I am a gun owner.
>
>I'm just trying to figure out why citizens can own high powered
>rifles and cops can't posses a "kill switch" to stop dangerous,
>armed and speeding felons? It's amazing.
The two are unrelated.
------------
Alex
| |
|
| On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:58:00 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>CR wrote:
>
>
>I only knew of one other numbskull who did something like that and
>considered it a "victory". That was Larry Butts. Ever here of him? ;-)
>
>Steve
No, never heard of him, but more power to him if he defies the
socialist gov. we live under these days. You say, "consider it a
victory." It is a victory my friend.
CR
| |
|
|
Well good for you. Do you have a thing for this
guy or what? I mean, you keep bringing him up.
CR
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:08:51 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>CR wrote:
>
>
>I'll accept that I suppose. The only person I ever really considered
>myself superior to was that guy Larry Butts that I mentioned earlier.
>
>Steve
| |
|
|
Well you have part of it right. I spend a lot of time
with my 14 year old son. So that would be singular
instead of plural, as you suggested.
CR
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:52:52 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>CR wrote:
>
>
>I'll bet that you spend too much time with young boys. ;-)
>
>Steve
| |
| Geoff Miller 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
|
223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> writes:
> By the way, driving may be a right, but it is not up to the
> government officials such as you to grant or take away this
> right from the citizens.
Driving isn't a right; it's a privilege. And who else would it
be up to to revoke that privilege, if not the government?
Geoff
--
"Are you a little sick of being told that you ought to be
ashamed, as an American, because the French don't respect
us? Why doesn't anyone ever ask whether we respect them?"
-- Jay Nordlinger
| |
| Matthew Russotto 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
| In article <416F2A5A.7C9F9433@ix.netcom.com>, <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Probably not. I just can't see why people think they need an AK-47
>assault rifle to kill Bambi ..... remember, you have a right
>to FREE SPEECH too, but that doesn't include screaming "FIRE"
>in a movie theater.
Or to distribute pamphlets claiming that the draft violates the 13th
Amendment? You do know what the "FIRE" in a movie theater case
concerned, right?
| |
| Matthew Russotto 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
| In article <1MSdna_HuP7XqfLcRVn-3Q@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>No Nate, it's silly because a person has privacy rights and a vehicle
>does not. A person can claim property rights and a vehicle is property.
>The government mandates certain safety equipment be installed on
>vehicles. It can't mandate the same for a person.
A remote-kill switch on a car is not safety equipment. It is control
equipment. In as much as it takes control away from the owner, it is
an infringement of property rights.
I still think it's a lot easier to support such a switch when you're
the one who would be pushing the button, not the one driving the car.
| |
| Matthew Russotto 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
| In article <Nfmdndh2fPPKpPLcRVn-hQ@comcast.com>,
Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>It's not that big at all. Currently there are no such devices
>manufaturerd in vehicles and whenever some citizen is killed or maimed
>as a result of some criminal fleeing the cops there is a ripple of
>outcries of why couldn't something be done to stop these chases...
I've got a another modest proposal: We'll install the kill switches
in cop cars only, and give the controls to every citizen. If anyone
thinks the chase is getting out of hand -- ZAP, the cop car stops.
| |
| Matthew Russotto 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
| In article <416F4952.EF64FC2@ix.netcom.com>, <poboxdc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I'm just trying to figure out why citizens can own high powered
>rifles and cops can't posses a "kill switch" to stop dangerous,
>armed and speeding felons? It's amazing.
One has nothing to do with the other. If the cops really need to stop
dangerous, armed, and speeding felons, they can use high-powered
rifles to do so. Or stop sticks, or solid barriers thrown up in the
vehicles path, or PIT maneuvers or any of the other techniques they
use. They do not need, and have no business demanding, that all
vehicles be designed to be able to be shut down at their command.
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-15, 7:24 pm |
| Paul wrote:
> I said connected to the vehicle's odometer, not speedometer, limiting
> how far you can drive in a given time frame. I wouldn't put it past the
> royalty in this nation to use any technology to keep us serfs down.
Understood. Just look at what they've already done to our internet.
> As for speed control, I always thought that the crappy design of most
> vehicles these days did a good job of that already. ;-)
I've always thought it better to watch the legislators than to get
overly concerned with the technologies.
Steve
| |
|
| On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:23:32 GMT, 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
>Steve Furbish wrote:
>
>But it is not really unlawful until the victim proves it to a judge. Good luck going
>against police officers in court.
Especially when you can read in the papers almost every
day where another cop was caught lying on the stand.
God, I would hate to know how many lie and don't get caught.
| |
|
| 223rem wrote:
> You are making a big assumption here: that the police will act lawfully.
> I do not trust them to act lawfully all the time, so them having such a
> powerful tool concerns me a lot.
With a kill switch, a cop acting unlawfully to stop you shuts down
your car's engine.
Without a kill switch, a cop acting unlawfully to stop you uses stop
sticks or PITs your car.
Which would you prefer?
| |
|
| 223rem wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You are being disingenuous.
Not so. You worry about a "powerful tool" like a kill switch when, in
fact, the police have far more powerful tools already, to stop you and
your car.
> It is a much bigger hassle for a cop to stop you doing a PIT. Much more
> difficult and dangerous than flipping a switch.
Yes, it is. But that's not the point I was making. A kill switch is
a much less powerful tool than a PIT. I see no reason to get worked
up about giving the police a far less powerful tool than road spikes
or PIT.
| |
|
| James C. Reeves wrote:
> I'm inclined to take the risk of being mowed down by a cop on a chase than
> beaten to a pulp by some nefarious individual that *thinks* I just cut him off
> so he "kills" my car so he can get to me.
Couldn't that crazed mototist just as easily ram you to disable your
vehicle?
| |
|
| On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:26:46 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>I would be inclined to disagree.
I would just bet that you are one of those low life cops. Which I
consider worse than a common criminal with a badge.
>
>
>Governed by a principle of public safety. Employed in accordance with
>established rules and policies (i.e. not on a whim)
>
>
>I'm assuming nothing of the kind. Balancing risks is a task that each of
>us tackles every day that we get out of bed. I've been at the game long
>enough to fully realize that if something can be misused and abused -
>someone will make sure that it happens. But even considering the
>potential abuses it seems much more likely that any such device would,
>in it's legitimate use, save many more lives than it adversely impacts.
>
>Steve
| |
|
| On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:29:48 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>223rem wrote:
>
>You're right about the push button remote stop switch being more
>powerful - for what it's worth.
>
>
>Seems to me that here you're doing little more than projecting your own
>fear and laziness? The attention that counts is the attention that a
>good civil attorney will afford the "victim" of a bad police seizure.
>Rodney King might have a few guys looking around for camcorders before
>they administer an extra whack, but other than that the media attention
>really doesn't mean much in the heat of the moment during a chase. By
>the mere nature of what you're trying to accomplish I cannot see the use
>of a "kill switch" as being considered less than lethal force and
>subject to the same kinds of paperwork, personal risks, and attention as
> the other means that you mention.
>
This guy has ever right to discuss what inferior cops do.
Experience has nothing to do with it. Besides I do believe
you are a cop by the way you post. The only experience
you have is being a thug and writing a simple ticket. A sophomore
in school can do that. Hell, even a woman can do that job. Proof,
more and more women are in law enforcement. Proves it doesn't
require much brains, just intestinal gas. Hell even the immigrants
are becomming cops. Now that really speaks high for what's required
in the brain dept. to be a cop.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>My best guess - under thirty and not very experienced in any of the
>topics you've chosen to discuss here.
>
>Steve
| |
|
| On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:40:04 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>223rem wrote:
>
>
>Interesting that you object so strongly to that "powerful tool" while
>referring to yourself as a firearms caliber. One would assume by looking
>at the nym that you might be somewhat familiar with at least one of the
>alternatives that currently exist to letting high speed chases of
>violent felons enter something like (for instance) a school zone or a
>crowded public square?
>
>
>Obviously I have no idea what events helped form your "view"
Columbine for one
, but I can
>picture someone making your argument today and blasting the police
>tomorrow for their inability to prevent the bad guy from running down
>some innocent bystander.
>
>Steve
| |
|
| On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:43 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
><maradcliff@UNLISTED.com> wrote in message
>news:o5jhm0hbt95jrfdt7ous79s3rkqice9sf9@4ax.com...
>
>One of the most common reasons for chases is that the car is stolen. Of
>course you also have the drunks and the teeneaged joyriders, none of whom
>are likely to be auto kill-switch hackers.
>
>Steve
Keep in touch people. I will gladly tell anyone how to
disable any kill switch.
>
| |
|
| On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:43 -0400, "Steve Furbish"
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
><maradcliff@UNLISTED.com> wrote in message
>news:o5jhm0hbt95jrfdt7ous79s3rkqice9sf9@4ax.com...
>
>One of the most common reasons for chases is that the car is stolen. Of
>course you also have the drunks and the teeneaged joyriders, none of whom
>are likely to be auto kill-switch hackers.
>
>Steve
You really aren't to smart are you Steve? In the hacking world most of
them are indeed teenagers. Get a life old boy. Better yet, get
educated and get a real job.
>
| |
|
| On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:47:20 -0400, Steve Furbish
<sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>223rem wrote:
>
>Having experienced total sudden engine failure at highway speeds in a
>marked police cruiser I can assure you that I am familiar with what
>happens when the power brakes and steering no longer work. It is more
>difficult to stop and steer, but it's certainly do-able and less
>frightening than a rear tire blowout (which I've also had the pleasure
>of expeiencing) IMO.
Wow! you are a real hero. Very impressive.
>
>Steve
| |
| James C. Reeves 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
|
"Z" <z@no.spam> wrote in message news:10mm63l89m6lm6e@corp.supernews.com...
| James C. Reeves wrote:
| > I'm inclined to take the risk of being mowed down by a cop on a chase than
| > beaten to a pulp by some nefarious individual that *thinks* I just cut him
off
| > so he "kills" my car so he can get to me.
|
| Couldn't that crazed mototist just as easily ram you to disable your
| vehicle?
Sure, but not as likely since that would damage their own vehicle...unlike the
kill device.
| |
| Steve Furbish 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| Andrew Szafran wrote:
> In rec.autos.driving Steve Furbish <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> To use an extreme example, perhaps you can prevent the guy from killing
> his wife by placing cameras and microphones in every home that get
> monitored by a central computer system which automatically summons the
> police if a fight is happening (voice strain analysis and detecting rapid
> motion - false alarms would be handled by a human "dispatcher" taking a
> peek). Oh, and let's ban rifles, hammers, steak knives, sporks, and fire
> axes while we're at it.
>
> The point that I'm trying to make is; the fact that a system can prevent
> crimes doesn't automatically make it desirable.
There's an enormous difference between the concepts of a "kill switch"
in a car and cameras or microphones to monitor in the home. That banning
argument is one that always seems to come out when people overreact to a
suggestion that seems to provide police with a better way of doing things.
Just to clarify things - I strongly agree that something like a monitor
installed in your car (without a warrant) to track it or listen in on
conversations would be such a gross violation of your Constitutional
rights that I'd be first in line to join your protest and fight that
type of government intrusion. But a dormant switch that would only
"legally" be used to stop a high speed pursuit is a horse of a different
color. Presently my department uses spike strips that rapidly deflate
tires of a criminal who drives over it. It's dangerous to deploy and It
doesn't guarantee that the bad guy will stop without crashing (probably
less likely to avoid crashing than one who's simply lost their power
steering and brakes). If the car is stolen and you're the victim it's
quite likely that you'll have a couple of tires and possibly some rims
to replace under the best of circumstances. I don't see this as a debate
about privacy rights as some do. I see it as a matter of safety. Better
ways to end high speed pursuits are needed. It seems all too easy for
some people to picture themselves as victims of improper use of a kill
switch - yet those same people never seem to worry about a fleeing bad
guy (or the pursuing cruiser) crossing their path?
Steve
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> Andrew Szafran wrote:
>
>
>
> There's an enormous difference between the concepts of a "kill switch"
> in a car and cameras or microphones to monitor in the home. That banning
> argument is one that always seems to come out when people overreact to a
> suggestion that seems to provide police with a better way of doing things.
>
> Just to clarify things - I strongly agree that something like a monitor
> installed in your car (without a warrant) to track it or listen in on
> conversations would be such a gross violation of your Constitutional
> rights that I'd be first in line to join your protest and fight that
> type of government intrusion. But a dormant switch that would only
> "legally" be used to stop a high speed pursuit is a horse of a different
> color. Presently my department uses spike strips that rapidly deflate
> tires of a criminal who drives over it. It's dangerous to deploy and It
> doesn't guarantee that the bad guy will stop without crashing (probably
> less likely to avoid crashing than one who's simply lost their power
> steering and brakes). If the car is stolen and you're the victim it's
> quite likely that you'll have a couple of tires and possibly some rims
> to replace under the best of circumstances. I don't see this as a debate
> about privacy rights as some do. I see it as a matter of safety. Better
> ways to end high speed pursuits are needed. It seems all too easy for
> some people to picture themselves as victims of improper use of a kill
> switch - yet those same people never seem to worry about a fleeing bad
> guy (or the pursuing cruiser) crossing their path?
>
> Steve
I see the former situation as FAR more likely than the latter. I have
yet to see a high speed chase in person, but I've seen quite a few
criminals "scoping" an area for easy to steal cars. Would make
carjacking quite a cakewalk, I'd think.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| Steve Furbish wrote:
> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
>
> That kind of reminds me of the kids who seem to always ask what it's
> like to speed legally. The other guys position always looks better when
> you think they have a clear upper hand, but it's rarely as simple as it
> seems. Abuses usually catch up to you
sure they do.
> and when they do it really doesn't
> matter that you never thought you'd get the lash.
>
> Steve
Obviously you either aren't living in reality, or your area has a far
more responsble breed of cops than most.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| CR wrote:
>
>
> Especially when you can read in the papers almost every
> day where another cop was caught lying on the stand.
> God, I would hate to know how many lie and don't get caught.
"Every day?" I haven't read about one in years? care to fill
us in with more information?
(KM)
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| CR wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:22:54 GMT, 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
>
>
> A survey was recently taken and police were not very close to being
> the most trusted in both young and old sectors of the population.
> They say it is due to all the true stories of cops being molesters,
> beaters, corrupt, lying in court, amongst other reasons. These are
> only things that make the newspapers. Think of what they get
> away with that never gets to the newspapers?
>
> CR
Perhaps you could publish this survey?
(KM)
| |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| "James C. Reeves" wrote:
>
>
> Not likely. This would be a car jacker and rapist dream device...not to
> mention someone that is prone to road rage...just disable the suckers car that
> is perceived to be in your way. Sure...public interest...right!? If it was
> employed, I'd bet my bottom dollar people like that would find a way to get it.
> Safety, my A**. This is about power over people, plain and simple. I'm
> convinced of that now.
You damned right it's about power! It's about all the power
you can get -- to stop those thugs who are stealing a car
(that doesn't belong to them) and driving at high rates of
speed through intersections (and red lights) just so they
can steal a car. Yes, it's about power all right!
(KM)
| |
| Nate Nagel 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| poboxdc@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Z wrote:
>
>
>
> Of course they can. The people who are responding here
> are showing a lot of paranoia .... just whenever you
> mention the cops can stop their cars. Make me wonder!
>
> (KM)
Just 'cause you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
We've got some serious problems in this country, first snd foremost
erosion of the Constitution combined with inadequate policing of the
police (and military for that matter, just look at Abu Ghraib.)
Mandating a remote kill switch feature for vehicles is only going to
make the problem worse, not better.
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
| |
| Arif Khokar 2004-10-16, 2:08 am |
| Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Actually, Steve, you're not correct. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
> Standard 208, airbags are *required* to "save" an UNbelted
> 50th-percentile-male dummy.
Nice double-entendre there, Daniel ;)
| |
|
| |