They Caught The Times Square Bomber

parky/Thunder's trolling attempts are getting more pathetic.
 
"NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports that a senior U.S. official familiar with events surrounding the capture of Shahzad says if the security system had worked properly, "He should have never been able to get on that airplane."

According to the official, Shahzad's name was put onto the U.S. "no-fly list" about 11 a.m. Monday, some 12 hours before he was taken into custody aboard that United Arab Emirates flight that pulled away from the gate at JFK, bound for Dubai. As required, once the plane was locked up and started to pull away from the gate, the airline submitted the final manifest to customs. According to one official, "We're extremely fortunate that alert agents caught the name, and ordered the plane to return to the gate."

From past episodes of airline security breaches, SHS Napolitano said "The system worked." Now she merely declines comment. She is finally taking somebody's good advice.
 
WildCat said:
I also see nothing in there about this happening before being proved guilty either.
Click to expand...


Good point. Luckily, Joe elaborated for us on Fox News:
My own feeling about this is that any time we arrest somebody we suspect to be a terrorist the first thing that ought to happen is they ought to be interviewed without Miranda Rights being given to them.
Click to expand...
and
It’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...


WildCat said:
I will quote from the article you linked to show where you went horribly wrong:
Lieberman said that the revocation of citizenship would not be automatic and there would be a right to go to court and to appeal the decision.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. It's good to know that if I'm merely accused of terrorism, even though I will most likely have my rights of citizenship revoked, as least I'll have the opportunity to appeal. That gives me great comfort.

But now that we've established that Joe intends for U.S. citizens to be stripped of their citizenship before they've actually been convicted of any crime, my original question stands:

By what method do we determine a U.S. citizen not yet convicted of any crime is guilty of "join[ing] an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans" so that we may then strip them of their citizenship?
 
johnny karate said:
By what method do we determine a U.S. citizen not yet convicted of any crime is guilty of "join[ing] an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans" so that we may then strip them of their citizenship?
Click to expand...

They are easy to spot silly. They'll be the ones we didn't Mirandize.
 
Unsurprisingly, this man was not motivated by "desperation" or "poverty" or "hopelessness", but solely by the Jihadi hatred of the infidels.

As were most terrorists before him, from the 9/11 hijackers to the Christmas-day bomber.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
I usually consider nuance a good thing. Why are you holding that against Darth?
Click to expand...

Why is he being so irrational fixated that I said he didn't think terrorist deserve rights. But he incorrectly left out that a great many Americans, many of whom he supports directly disagree with that idea.

He made a statement that left out the nuance that there is a large debate over what rights terrorists should have by simply assuming that they should have rights.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why is he being so irrational fixated that I said he didn't think terrorist deserve rights.
Click to expand...
I left nothing out, you attempted to add to what I said. That's what got you the evil eye from me, but let's stop with the bickering on this one. We are (me included) not adding to thread value by continuing this.

DR
 
Skeptic said:
Unsurprisingly, this man was not motivated by "desperation" or "poverty" or "hopelessness", but solely by the Jihadi hatred of the infidels.

As were most terrorists before him, from the 9/11 hijackers to the Christmas-day bomber.
Click to expand...
Wasn't his home in foreclosure?
 
With each new revelatation, this guy comes across as even more inept. After making a dry run to figure out where the best location to put his bomb would be, he cleverly parked a getaway vehicle a short distance away.
Then he left the keys to this vehicle in the bomb car....
 
ponderingturtle said:
Why is he being so irrational fixated that I said he didn't think terrorist deserve rights. But he incorrectly left out that a great many Americans, many of whom he supports directly disagree with that idea.

He made a statement that left out the nuance that there is a large debate over what rights terrorists should have by simply assuming that they should have rights.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my comment on nuance?

You said he voted for a man that asked for the curtailing of Miranda in this particular case. Simply voting for a man does not mean you have to endorse everything he says until the end of time. Perhaps Darth supported him on completely different issues. Perhaps he would have changed his vote had McCain made the comment before the election.
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
No, I voted for John McCain. That is what I stated, and yet here you go again, dishonestly, attempting to say something else and attribute it to me.
Click to expand...
No, I stated two facts, you support republicans and that they have a strong aversion to giving rights to terrorist suspects. That you don't realize this shows how little you pay attention.

I have not said that you believe that they shouldn't have rights

You really need to try and learn that people don't all see the world in partisan black and white.
Click to expand...

And some people actually pay attention to political and constitutional fights like if people like this guy should get constitutional protections.

ETA: To be fair, PT's point on McCain and talking points is most likely right. Even with the game playing, PT can still deliver good points.

DR
Click to expand...

And if you didn't decide to be a jerk about how to take a statement about how a great many people in america do not agree with the idea that suspected terrorists deserve rights, this whole thing wouldn't be an issue.
 
dudalb said:
As someone who once voted for McCain in the GOP primary in 2000, I have to agree. It's showboating.
Click to expand...

The question is, does he have more or less integrity for the showboating? Would he have more integrity if he honnestly had changed his views, or if he is just engaging in polarizing discourse in america?
 
KingMerv00 said:
What does that have to do with my comment on nuance?

You said he voted for a man that asked for the curtailing of Miranda in this particular case. Simply voting for a man does not mean you have to endorse everything he says until the end of time. Perhaps Darth supported him on completely different issues. Perhaps he would have changed his vote had McCain made the comment before the election.
Click to expand...

He voted for the party that made lots of comments about how people in this situation don't deserve rights. And they lost a lot of court cases about it too. But clearly he never noticed any of that.
 
ponderingturtle said:
He voted for the party--
Click to expand...
You reman wrong.

I don't vote by party.

I vote by candidate.

At some point, you need to understand that your continued attempts to attribute to me things I don't say, and don't do, will be answered for the falsehoods that they are. Dishonesty isn't a good policy. Stop making it yours.

DR
 
I just wanted to jump in and say that I do think my original prediction was correct. Lieberman, Graham, and McCain have all leaped into the fray to accuse the President of coddling the suspect, therefore trying to spin an obviously successful law enforcement capture as somehow "weak on terror".

Graham and Lieberman are even proposing a law that will strip accused American terrorists of their citizenship (but only if they are league with foreign terrorist organizations, of course, not people like Tim McVeigh). But Graham was quick to say that while he supported revoking their citizenship, he did not support blocking people on the no-fly list from buying guns.

Lindsay Graham: [speaking of restricting people on the terrorist watch list from buying automatic weapons] this is not going in the right direction because we're dealing with a constitutional right. And I am very concerned about the gaps in our defenses. But maybe I'm not making a good argument to you but it makes perfect sense to me that losing the ability to own a gun which is a constitutional right using this list the way it's constructed is unnerving at best.
Click to expand...
 
This notion is abhorrent.
You can kill an American citizen for treason, once he is properly convicted of a crime after his day in court.
But you cannot deprive him of his citizenship, of his day in court, period.
Any legislator who attempts to enact such a law should be executed for treason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom