Conquer Club

state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Do you support Washington HB1581?

 
Total votes : 0

state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:26 pm

A coalition of 12 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the Washington legislature introduced a bill today that would make it a felony for police officers in that state to assist federal troops in executing Obama's recently-enacted NDAA authority to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without trial if he suspects them of disloyalty/terrorism.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary ... #documents

The full text ...

15 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 42.20 RCW
16 to read as follows:
17 (1) No state or local official or employee, or agent of the state
18 of Washington, or employee of a corporation providing services to the
19 state of Washington, or member of the National Guard or Washington defense
20 forces acting in his or her capacity as a state or local official or
21 employee, or agent of the state of Washington, or employee of a
22 corporation providing services to the state of Washington, or member of
23 the National Guard or Washington defense forces, shall knowingly cooperate
24 with an investigation or detainment of a United States citizen or
25 lawful resident alien located within the United States of America by
26 the armed forces of the United States of America, except for (a) an
27 investigation or detainment by the United States Coast Guard when it is
28 not operating as a service in the navy, (b) an investigation or
29 detainment by National Guard units or Washington defense forces while under
30 the authority of the Governor of the state of Washington, or (c) an
31 internal investigation or detainment by the armed forces of the United
32 States of America of active duty members of the armed forces of the
33 United States of America.
34 (2) A violation of this section is a class C felony.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby DoomYoshi on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:35 pm

Good. Now the police can do their job and arrest Obama.
ā–‘ā–’ā–’ā–“ā–“ā–“ā–’ā–’ā–‘
User avatar
Captain DoomYoshi
 
Posts: 10715
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:30 pm
Location: Niu York, Ukraine

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby / on Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:44 pm

Officer 1: Treason! You're coming with me!
Officer 2: That's a felony, you're under arrest!
Officer 3: Treason! You're coming with me!
Officer 4: That's a felony, you're under arrest!
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby stahrgazer on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:09 pm

Hmmm...

I live in Florida, which is where the dudes supposedly trained for the 9/11 acts. If I understand it right, most of those were not citizens, but were legally here, legally taking their pilot training. So, what if someone had got wind of what they'd planned. Well, by then they'd probably learned enough to do what they planned... so deporting them as undesirable (revoking their visa) probably wouldn't have prevented what occurred. Maybe delayed it, maybe not.

Detaining them on suspicion would probably be the only thing that could prevent what occurred.

That makes me lean toward Obama.

Our rights, however, are to a speedy trial. I personally don't believe those rights of citizens of the United States should apply to non-citizens; so again, as far as those legally within the U.S. suspected of these sorts of things, I lean toward Obama.

Citizens, however, are covered under those rights, one of those, "the right to a fair trial" - as well as "speedy" although legal speed and my speed don't usually agree. That makes me lean toward "civil rights" so my tally at this point is 2 for Obama, 1 against.

Thing is, it's awfully hard to "prove" something that didn't happen yet. Who would they call as witnesses for the prosecution? I'm sure Bin Laden, when alive, would've willingly come over to testify that, "yup, he's one of mine," and so forth. So, what, we have to wait for these acts to occur before we act on them? Because if you don't detain the terrorists, the plans will be carried out, and unfortunately some of them succeed. So, that makes me lean Obama again.

Tally is now 3 against 1, for Obama.

Except, it's not really "for Obama." See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama. Bush's regime started Gitmo, Bush's regime started the detaining without trial, Bush's regime started the telephone tapping without warrant.

Obama wasn't "for" all that. If you recall, Obama had wanted to close Gitmo and bring the folks that committed the acts to trial but no one seemed to wish to cooperate with that, for fear of further reprisal from terrorists and whatever other reasons they may have had.

So, Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists, was nullified by the majority, not just Federal (Congress, etc.,) but also states like New York and others which refused to be the site where the trials could be held.

One other thing I dislike about the law these Washingtonians just passed: It's a felony not just to cooperate with the detaining, but ALSO a felony to cooperate with an INVESTIGATION? Jeesus, that's whacked!
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby notyou2 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:17 pm

The carts ahead of the horse. Stop it!!!!
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:21 pm

stahrgazer wrote:See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama.


The NDAA was introduced January 5, 2011 and signed into law by Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 540enr.pdf

stahrgazer wrote:Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists


    "The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judgeā€™s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge." http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite ... rrest-070/

The rest of your post doesn't seem to require a response.
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby stahrgazer on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:37 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama.


The NDAA was introduced January 5, 2011 and signed into law by Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 540enr.pdf

stahrgazer wrote:Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists


    "The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judgeā€™s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge." http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite ... rrest-070/

The rest of your post doesn't seem to require a response.


Read backward and see where it all began, dear. Remember, US "law" is based on precedents, and Obama didn't establish the precedents, Bush did.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:42 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama.


The NDAA was introduced January 5, 2011 and signed into law by Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 540enr.pdf

stahrgazer wrote:Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists


    "The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judgeā€™s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge." http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite ... rrest-070/

The rest of your post doesn't seem to require a response.


Read backward and see where it all began, dear. Remember, US "law" is based on precedents, and Obama didn't establish the precedents, Bush did.


I'm sorry, but I'm not 100% sure you know what the word "precedent" means. I think you may have jumped into the 12-foot end of the pool on this thread. Here's a life preserver.

Best of luck with all your endeavors in life,
Saxi
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby _sabotage_ on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:44 pm

stahrgazer wrote:Hmmm...

I live in Florida, which is where the dudes supposedly trained for the 9/11 acts. If I understand it right, most of those were not citizens, but were legally here, legally taking their pilot training. So, what if someone had got wind of what they'd planned. Well, by then they'd probably learned enough to do what they planned... so deporting them as undesirable (revoking their visa) probably wouldn't have prevented what occurred. Maybe delayed it, maybe not.

Detaining them on suspicion would probably be the only thing that could prevent what occurred.

That makes me lean toward Obama.

Our rights, however, are to a speedy trial. I personally don't believe those rights of citizens of the United States should apply to non-citizens; so again, as far as those legally within the U.S. suspected of these sorts of things, I lean toward Obama.

Citizens, however, are covered under those rights, one of those, "the right to a fair trial" - as well as "speedy" although legal speed and my speed don't usually agree. That makes me lean toward "civil rights" so my tally at this point is 2 for Obama, 1 against.

Thing is, it's awfully hard to "prove" something that didn't happen yet. Who would they call as witnesses for the prosecution? I'm sure Bin Laden, when alive, would've willingly come over to testify that, "yup, he's one of mine," and so forth. So, what, we have to wait for these acts to occur before we act on them? Because if you don't detain the terrorists, the plans will be carried out, and unfortunately some of them succeed. So, that makes me lean Obama again.

Tally is now 3 against 1, for Obama.

Except, it's not really "for Obama." See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama. Bush's regime started Gitmo, Bush's regime started the detaining without trial, Bush's regime started the telephone tapping without warrant.

Obama wasn't "for" all that. If you recall, Obama had wanted to close Gitmo and bring the folks that committed the acts to trial but no one seemed to wish to cooperate with that, for fear of further reprisal from terrorists and whatever other reasons they may have had.

So, Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists, was nullified by the majority, not just Federal (Congress, etc.,) but also states like New York and others which refused to be the site where the trials could be held.

One other thing I dislike about the law these Washingtonians just passed: It's a felony not just to cooperate with the detaining, but ALSO a felony to cooperate with an INVESTIGATION? Jeesus, that's whacked!


9/11 was an inside job. 7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive. They went on BBC and major networks and said, wtf, I have been here the whole time, I was never on the plane. We have 3 buildings that fell in New York at free fall speed, from only 2 planes, the one that didn't get hit fell for no damn reason. The part of the pentagon that got hit had the records on their $2.3 trillion dollar unaccounted for spending. No plane has been seen at all in any videos filming the pentagon. Nearly 2,000 professional engineers and scientist have joined together to say the official story is scientifically impossible. Osama Bin Laden was never even charged and when asked why, we are told that there was no evidence. We can attack any target in the world in minutes, and you're telling me we couldn't shoot down the second plane in the WTC?

We then spent trillions, where do you think that money goes? Do you think it vanishes? And now your willing to give up more and more freedom for a your potential security? The TSA is going to be on the roads soon, teaching your kids that everywhere they go for the rest of their lives they should expect to be searched and groped and silent.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:48 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:9/11 was an inside job.


we're gonna run outta life preservers
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:51 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:
9/11 was an inside job. 7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive. They went on BBC and major networks and said, wtf, I have been here the whole time, I was never on the plane. We have 3 buildings that fell in New York at free fall speed, from only 2 planes, the one that didn't get hit fell for no damn reason. The part of the pentagon that got hit had the records on their $2.3 trillion dollar unaccounted for spending. No plane has been seen at all in any videos filming the pentagon. Nearly 2,000 professional engineers and scientist have joined together to say the official story is scientifically impossible. Osama Bin Laden was never even charged and when asked why, we are told that there was no evidence. We can attack any target in the world in minutes, and you're telling me we couldn't shoot down the second plane in the WTC?

We then spent trillions, where do you think that money goes? Do you think it vanishes? And now your willing to give up more and more freedom for a your potential security? The TSA is going to be on the roads soon, teaching your kids that everywhere they go for the rest of their lives they should expect to be searched and groped and silent.


Image
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby saxitoxin on Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:55 pm

Here's the thread:

Image

Here's Saxi:

Image
ImageImage
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 12041
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:19 pm

Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:17 am

saxitoxin wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama.


The NDAA was introduced January 5, 2011 and signed into law by Barack Obama on December 31, 2011.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 540enr.pdf

stahrgazer wrote:Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists


    "The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judgeā€™s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge." http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite ... rrest-070/

The rest of your post doesn't seem to require a response.


Read backward and see where it all began, dear. Remember, US "law" is based on precedents, and Obama didn't establish the precedents, Bush did.


I'm sorry, but I'm not 100% sure you know what the word "precedent" means. I think you may have jumped into the 12-foot end of the pool on this thread. Here's a life preserver.

Best of luck with all your endeavors in life,
Saxi


Also, I'm pretty sure it's precedent, not precedents.

Also also, I didn't know "the other guy did it first" was a viable defense to civil rights violations.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby Army of GOD on Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:05 am

oh god, this fucking thread. My sides.
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby jonesthecurl on Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:00 am

Army of GOD wrote:oh god, this fucking thread. My sides.


Hey. You can only be on one side. Not two.
instagram.com/garethjohnjoneswrites
User avatar
Lieutenant jonesthecurl
 
Posts: 4442
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:42 am
Location: disused action figure warehouse

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:47 am

_sabotage_ wrote:
stahrgazer wrote:Hmmm...

I live in Florida, which is where the dudes supposedly trained for the 9/11 acts. If I understand it right, most of those were not citizens, but were legally here, legally taking their pilot training. So, what if someone had got wind of what they'd planned. Well, by then they'd probably learned enough to do what they planned... so deporting them as undesirable (revoking their visa) probably wouldn't have prevented what occurred. Maybe delayed it, maybe not.

Detaining them on suspicion would probably be the only thing that could prevent what occurred.

That makes me lean toward Obama.

Our rights, however, are to a speedy trial. I personally don't believe those rights of citizens of the United States should apply to non-citizens; so again, as far as those legally within the U.S. suspected of these sorts of things, I lean toward Obama.

Citizens, however, are covered under those rights, one of those, "the right to a fair trial" - as well as "speedy" although legal speed and my speed don't usually agree. That makes me lean toward "civil rights" so my tally at this point is 2 for Obama, 1 against.

Thing is, it's awfully hard to "prove" something that didn't happen yet. Who would they call as witnesses for the prosecution? I'm sure Bin Laden, when alive, would've willingly come over to testify that, "yup, he's one of mine," and so forth. So, what, we have to wait for these acts to occur before we act on them? Because if you don't detain the terrorists, the plans will be carried out, and unfortunately some of them succeed. So, that makes me lean Obama again.

Tally is now 3 against 1, for Obama.

Except, it's not really "for Obama." See, the legislature "Obama" is operating under to detain etc. etc. stems from Bush, not Obama. Bush's regime started Gitmo, Bush's regime started the detaining without trial, Bush's regime started the telephone tapping without warrant.

Obama wasn't "for" all that. If you recall, Obama had wanted to close Gitmo and bring the folks that committed the acts to trial but no one seemed to wish to cooperate with that, for fear of further reprisal from terrorists and whatever other reasons they may have had.

So, Obama's wish to follow the Constitution, including giving rights to probable or possible terrorists, was nullified by the majority, not just Federal (Congress, etc.,) but also states like New York and others which refused to be the site where the trials could be held.

One other thing I dislike about the law these Washingtonians just passed: It's a felony not just to cooperate with the detaining, but ALSO a felony to cooperate with an INVESTIGATION? Jeesus, that's whacked!


9/11 was an inside job. 7 of the 19 hijackers are still alive. They went on BBC and major networks and said, wtf, I have been here the whole time, I was never on the plane. We have 3 buildings that fell in New York at free fall speed, from only 2 planes, the one that didn't get hit fell for no damn reason. The part of the pentagon that got hit had the records on their $2.3 trillion dollar unaccounted for spending. No plane has been seen at all in any videos filming the pentagon. Nearly 2,000 professional engineers and scientist have joined together to say the official story is scientifically impossible. Osama Bin Laden was never even charged and when asked why, we are told that there was no evidence. We can attack any target in the world in minutes, and you're telling me we couldn't shoot down the second plane in the WTC?

We then spent trillions, where do you think that money goes? Do you think it vanishes? And now your willing to give up more and more freedom for a your potential security? The TSA is going to be on the roads soon, teaching your kids that everywhere they go for the rest of their lives they should expect to be searched and groped and silent.



2 posts on page one that make me want a "like" button so badly.


I'm inclined to throw my weight against Obamer on this one. Indefinite detention by the military is always extreme, and I sincerely question not only the legality of it, but also the justification.
What's wrong with surveillance, evidence, and due process?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby KoolBak on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:31 am

On the plus side, everyone's so stoned in Washington, what with the legal weed and all, that no one's amped up enough for terrorism / treason. POW....problem solved!

*wonders where I spent my trillions I thot I had......stumbles off for more beer / weed / treason*
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca

AND:
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class KoolBak
 
Posts: 6998
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby stahrgazer on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:57 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:What's wrong with surveillance, evidence, and due process?


Those first two fall under "investigation" and cooperating with an investigation is now a Felony in Washington, so you're still "for" that law they passed?

24 with an investigation or detainment of a United States citizen or
25 lawful resident alien located within the United States of America by


"Due process" includes "arrest" which is a detainment, so you're still "for" that law they passed?

The part I can disagree with is the continuing detainment of a citizen without trial, but the ACLU would be up in arms about anyone detained without the rest of the process.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby _sabotage_ on Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:35 am

How would the ACLU know if you were detained? You're still assuming habeas corpus even in its distinct absence.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:55 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:How would the ACLU know if you were detained? You're still assuming habeas corpus even in its distinct absence.


Arrests are usually publicized, that's why we know how many are held in Gitmo, etc.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby Funkyterrance on Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:03 pm

Ok, now granted politics are not my forte but wouldn't the reason for detaining these people be so that they wouldn't "terrorize" anyone between the time they were detained and the time they were either released or charged? I'm not taking sides, honestly just trying to figger out what's the dilly.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby _sabotage_ on Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:51 pm

I thought we didn't know how many prisoners we were holding. And if we publicize them, isn't that kind of against the whole point of doing away with due process?
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:59 am

_sabotage_ wrote:I thought we didn't know how many prisoners we were holding. And if we publicize them, isn't that kind of against the whole point of doing away with due process?


No. The reason that "due process" is now side-stepped is because, in order to convict someone in our court system, the prosecutor needs a lot of evidence. Less evidence is needed to suspect and arrest. "Who" is arrested/detained at Gitmo, taken away from the war zone to be held, for example, is known, it's just not widely publicized. But "who" is investigated in this or that town for suspected acts of treason/terror quite often makes the news.

Funkyterrance had it partly right. If a suspected terrorist - one with enough evidence to arrest, but insufficient to prosecute - is detained, then that suspect cannot further terrorize.

The other part is, since most of those plans are going on outside of our country, we have a tough time getting physical evidence to prosecute, so we have to fall back on witness testimony if we were to prosecute.

Bush "waterboarded" in order to get witness testimony, but it's rather like asking the custodian at Enron what the CEO was doing. Too many layers between, with each flunky being assigned only his part in it.

Here's the rub, I've mentioned before: if folks training those with visas enough to get into our flight school overheard something that made it sound like those would-be pilots were planning an assault on national buildings using planes as weapons, well, without written evidence of those plans we couldn't have stopped them without sidestepping "due process" to detain them for longer than is normal in our court systems.

If you could turn back time, and had enough evidence to suspect what would happen, and had some evidence pointing to those pilots, if it was in your power, would you detain them?

Should we not have gone after Bin Laden because we didn't have sufficient physical evidence to convict him in our court of law? Because we didn't. We had a lot of reason to suspect, we even had his claims - but law enforcement officials know that they get false claims all the time, for whatever twisted reasons people want their names in the news or whatnot, and claim to be responsible for acts they didn't commit.

In other words, if we had arrested him and put him on trial, he would've gotten off despite we KNEW he was behind alot of it, he'd made it his reason for living to take down the US.

Terrorists don't fall under our military systems, and they fall a bit outside our legal systems, so "something different" is needed to prevent us from sitting helplessly, unable to do anything "legally." Once it's in law, it IS legal.

We know that there are folks getting legal visas to perpetrate acts of terror, and we know that sometimes US citizens are also "in" on terrorist acts, but until the act takes place, it's really tough to get enough evidence of what was planned to stop it without detaining those suspected of doing/planning partly to stop them, and partly to try to get their testimony of what was planned so we can go after others.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: state to make it a felony to cooperate with Obama

Postby _sabotage_ on Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:23 pm

Wow that's some Koolaid you're drinking.

So we should ignore the thousands of experts who base the fact that the official 9/11 story is impossible on evidence and use very suspect evidence instead and just say it was Bin Laden no matter what. And we should continue this process on our own people?

Some searches you can do to get some news from the BBC, CBS, NYTimes and other news outlets.

Former Gitmo prisoner weapons Libya Nato
Advanced 9/11 warnings ignored
US secret prisons black site
Pentagon crash impossible
Former Intelligence chief questions official story
Bin Laden visited by CIA in July
CIA Bin Laden confession tapes fake
Building 7 BBC early report
2,000 engineers say controlled demolition WTC
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Next

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron