Feds Arrest 2 NJ Men Headed To Terror Camps

[chanel]

Federal authorities arrested two New Jersey men late Saturday night as they tried to leave the country for terrorist training camps in war-torn Somalia, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The men, identified as 20-year-old Mohamed Hamoud Alessa and 26-year-old Carlos Eduardo Almonte, were taken into custody by FBI agents and others at J.F.K. International Airport outside New York City. They were set to take separate flights to Egypt and then make their way to Somalia, where an Al Qaeda-linked group known as al-Shabaab has been warring with the nation’s fledgling transitional government.

One source called Somalia "the Afghanistan of now," suggesting that the near-anarchist state in Somalia has allowed the country to become a fertile training ground for terrorist recruits from around the world.

Alessa, a U.S. citizen, and Almonte, a Jordanian citizen believed to also have dual U.S. citizenship, "grew up" in the United States, becoming the latest in a "disconcerting pattern" of "people living among us" who are radicalized with extremist ideology, one source said.

The men did not pose an "imminent threat," but "getting on planes to receive" terrorist training means they posed a broader threat, the source said.

Federal authorities have been watching Alessa and Almonte since 2006, when the men's unspecified "internet activity" led the New York Police Department to launch an investigation, ultimately dubbed "Operation Arabian Knight."

Feds Arrest 2 NJ Men Headed To Terror Camps Liveshots

U.S. citizens just taking a vacation. Is that a crime?

 

[sangha]

Federal authorities arrested two New Jersey men late Saturday night as they tried to leave the country for terrorist training camps in war-torn Somalia, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The men, identified as 20-year-old Mohamed Hamoud Alessa and 26-year-old Carlos Eduardo Almonte, were taken into custody by FBI agents and others at J.F.K. International Airport outside New York City. They were set to take separate flights to Egypt and then make their way to Somalia, where an Al Qaeda-linked group known as al-Shabaab has been warring with the nation’s fledgling transitional government.

One source called Somalia "the Afghanistan of now," suggesting that the near-anarchist state in Somalia has allowed the country to become a fertile training ground for terrorist recruits from around the world.

Alessa, a U.S. citizen, and Almonte, a Jordanian citizen believed to also have dual U.S. citizenship, "grew up" in the United States, becoming the latest in a "disconcerting pattern" of "people living among us" who are radicalized with extremist ideology, one source said.

The men did not pose an "imminent threat," but "getting on planes to receive" terrorist training means they posed a broader threat, the source said.

Federal authorities have been watching Alessa and Almonte since 2006, when the men's unspecified "internet activity" led the New York Police Department to launch an investigation, ultimately dubbed "Operation Arabian Knight."

Feds Arrest 2 NJ Men Headed To Terror Camps Liveshots

U.S. citizens just taking a vacation. Is that a crime?

Thank god we now have a president who is keeping on top of the threats this nation faces, and has the intelligence to "connect the dots"

 

[HUGGY]

Federal authorities arrested two New Jersey men late Saturday night as they tried to leave the country for terrorist training camps in war-torn Somalia, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The men, identified as 20-year-old Mohamed Hamoud Alessa and 26-year-old Carlos Eduardo Almonte, were taken into custody by FBI agents and others at J.F.K. International Airport outside New York City. They were set to take separate flights to Egypt and then make their way to Somalia, where an Al Qaeda-linked group known as al-Shabaab has been warring with the nation’s fledgling transitional government.

One source called Somalia "the Afghanistan of now," suggesting that the near-anarchist state in Somalia has allowed the country to become a fertile training ground for terrorist recruits from around the world.

Alessa, a U.S. citizen, and Almonte, a Jordanian citizen believed to also have dual U.S. citizenship, "grew up" in the United States, becoming the latest in a "disconcerting pattern" of "people living among us" who are radicalized with extremist ideology, one source said.

The men did not pose an "imminent threat," but "getting on planes to receive" terrorist training means they posed a broader threat, the source said.

Federal authorities have been watching Alessa and Almonte since 2006, when the men's unspecified "internet activity" led the New York Police Department to launch an investigation, ultimately dubbed "Operation Arabian Knight."

Feds Arrest 2 NJ Men Headed To Terror Camps Liveshots

U.S. citizens just taking a vacation. Is that a crime?

Thank god we now have a president who is keeping on top of the threats this nation faces, and has the intelligence to "connect the dots"

I thought you were stupid. "Everybody" says you are stupid.

 

[WillowTree]

he is stupid,, fort hood, arkansas, detroit,, yess feeling like the dots are all connected.

 

[chanel]

I don't know how this involves the president one way or another, but I think we can all assume that the Patriot Act may have helped catch these guys. I'm just curious what they will be charged with. They didn't get to the camp yet.

 

[Toome]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Just to clarify things: I am certainly for aggressive measures to stop the terrorists before they can act. However, I have to wonder how solid this case will be in court. One of the most difficult things to prove is an intent to commit a crime. Even when it comes to murder, the purchase of a firearm and stalking behavior of an intended victim does not necessarily prove intent to murder that victim. However, it usually is enough to prove murder after it has occurred because the murder victim is the final evidence that ties it all together.

All I'm saying here is how truly difficult it is to prove in a courtroom that these guys intended to become terrorists. Looking at the circumstantial evidence that the article claims, there must be a missing piece that the media doesn't know about but that the FBI can present in court. Otherwise, I truly don't see this as a solid case.

 

[ConHog]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Just to clarify things: I am certainly for aggressive measures to stop the terrorists before they can act. However, I have to wonder how solid this case will be in court. One of the most difficult things to prove is an intent to commit a crime. Even when it comes to murder, the purchase of a firearm and stalking behavior of an intended victim does not necessarily prove intent to murder that victim. However, it usually is enough to prove murder after it has occurred because the murder victim is the final evidence that ties it all together.

All I'm saying here is how truly difficult it is to prove in a courtroom that these guys intended to become terrorists. Looking at the circumstantial evidence that the article claims, there must be a missing piece that the media doesn't know about but that the FBI can present in court. Otherwise, I truly don't see this as a solid case.

You're assuming they will see a trial anytime soon. They will be charged as enemy combatants and locked away in that mystical place that "we will shut down in my first year if office" but turns out is actually a good thing to have.

 

[Toome]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Just to clarify things: I am certainly for aggressive measures to stop the terrorists before they can act. However, I have to wonder how solid this case will be in court. One of the most difficult things to prove is an intent to commit a crime. Even when it comes to murder, the purchase of a firearm and stalking behavior of an intended victim does not necessarily prove intent to murder that victim. However, it usually is enough to prove murder after it has occurred because the murder victim is the final evidence that ties it all together.

All I'm saying here is how truly difficult it is to prove in a courtroom that these guys intended to become terrorists. Looking at the circumstantial evidence that the article claims, there must be a missing piece that the media doesn't know about but that the FBI can present in court. Otherwise, I truly don't see this as a solid case.

You're assuming they will see a trial anytime soon. They will be charged as enemy combatants and locked away in that mystical place that "we will shut down in my first year if office" but turns out is actually a good thing to have.

I don't have a problem with it taking a year to have a trial IF that's how long the process takes. I do have a problem if the US government suspends the process under so-called extenuating circumstances.

As for the "illegal combatants" argument, this should not apply to US citizens. Or to put it another way, US citizens are always entitled to full constitutional protection. I'm not so sure about non-US citizens, but that doesn't mean I endorse ignoring certain basic human rights.

 

[ConHog]

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Just to clarify things: I am certainly for aggressive measures to stop the terrorists before they can act. However, I have to wonder how solid this case will be in court. One of the most difficult things to prove is an intent to commit a crime. Even when it comes to murder, the purchase of a firearm and stalking behavior of an intended victim does not necessarily prove intent to murder that victim. However, it usually is enough to prove murder after it has occurred because the murder victim is the final evidence that ties it all together.

All I'm saying here is how truly difficult it is to prove in a courtroom that these guys intended to become terrorists. Looking at the circumstantial evidence that the article claims, there must be a missing piece that the media doesn't know about but that the FBI can present in court. Otherwise, I truly don't see this as a solid case.

You're assuming they will see a trial anytime soon. They will be charged as enemy combatants and locked away in that mystical place that "we will shut down in my first year if office" but turns out is actually a good thing to have.

I don't have a problem with it taking a year to have a trial IF that's how long the process takes. I do have a problem if the US government suspends the process under so-called extenuating circumstances.

As for the "illegal combatants" argument, this should not apply to US citizens. Or to put it another way, US citizens are always entitled to full constitutional protection. I'm not so sure about non-US citizens, but that doesn't mean I endorse ignoring certain basic human rights.

WHAT????

Do you realize that there are in fact US citizens living abroad who are actively involved in the fight against our nation, including in Afghanistan? Are you suggesting that if the Army comes across an American in that situation that he should be turned over to the justice department and given his rights? LOL

oh and also , the rights given to us by our CON are not basic human rights.

 

[Toome]

You're assuming they will see a trial anytime soon. They will be charged as enemy combatants and locked away in that mystical place that "we will shut down in my first year if office" but turns out is actually a good thing to have.

I don't have a problem with it taking a year to have a trial IF that's how long the process takes. I do have a problem if the US government suspends the process under so-called extenuating circumstances.

As for the "illegal combatants" argument, this should not apply to US citizens. Or to put it another way, US citizens are always entitled to full constitutional protection. I'm not so sure about non-US citizens, but that doesn't mean I endorse ignoring certain basic human rights.

WHAT????

Do you realize that there are in fact US citizens living abroad who are actively involved in the fight against our nation, including in Afghanistan? Are you suggesting that if the Army comes across an American in that situation that he should be turned over to the justice department and given his rights? LOL

oh and also , the rights given to us by our CON are not basic human rights.

Nice try to twist my words. If you look at the basic post, it's about federal agents arresting civilians based on their intent to attend training at a known terrorist camp. That's all I was responding to. That's all the topic is about. I didn't read anything about how the military should treat combatants captured on the battlefield. You should try to stick to topic.

If you want to talk combat, that's a different topic. In combat, it's all about people being treated as combatants because they are pointing weapons at you or because they're wearing the enemy uniform. It's not about arresting anyone or reading them their rights. That's all sorted out after the person is secured, if they survive the initial situation. If you're a combat veteran, I would think you knew this. If not, then I'm not impressed with your baiting.

I don't have a problem with the Geneva Convention. I think that's a good rule of thumb for non-US situations where the Constitution may not apply, and this is what I meant with my comment about basic human rights.

If you're a college graduate, you need to get your money back. You clearly were cheated out of a good education. The Constitution does not grant anyone any rights. It restricts Government with respect to basic rights that people already have. My own personal question is about the rights that are uniquely American as opposed to the rights that are universal. I don't believe that non-US citizens have the same rights as US citizens because they are not subject to US law. However, this doesn't mean that they are without any rights at all. That's not the principle this nation was founded on.

 

[ConHog]

I don't have a problem with it taking a year to have a trial IF that's how long the process takes. I do have a problem if the US government suspends the process under so-called extenuating circumstances.

As for the "illegal combatants" argument, this should not apply to US citizens. Or to put it another way, US citizens are always entitled to full constitutional protection. I'm not so sure about non-US citizens, but that doesn't mean I endorse ignoring certain basic human rights.

WHAT????

Do you realize that there are in fact US citizens living abroad who are actively involved in the fight against our nation, including in Afghanistan? Are you suggesting that if the Army comes across an American in that situation that he should be turned over to the justice department and given his rights? LOL

oh and also , the rights given to us by our CON are not basic human rights.

Nice try to twist my words. If you look at the basic post, it's about federal agents arresting civilians based on their intent to attend training at a known terrorist camp. That's all I was responding to. That's all the topic is about. I didn't read anything about how the military should treat combatants captured on the battlefield. You should try to stick to topic.

If you want to talk combat, that's a different topic. In combat, it's all about people being treated as combatants because they are pointing weapons at you or because they're wearing the enemy uniform. It's not about arresting anyone or reading them their rights. That's all sorted out after the person is secured, if they survive the initial situation. If you're a combat veteran, I would think you knew this. If not, then I'm not impressed with your baiting.

I don't have a problem with the Geneva Convention. I think that's a good rule of thumb for non-US situations where the Constitution may not apply, and this is what I meant with my comment about basic human rights.

If you're a college graduate, you need to get your money back. You clearly were cheated out of a good education. The Constitution does not grant anyone any rights. It restricts Government with respect to basic rights that people already have. My own personal question is about the rights that are uniquely American as opposed to the rights that are universal. I don't believe that non-US citizens have the same rights as US citizens because they are not subject to US law. However, this doesn't mean that they are without any rights at all. That's not the principle this nation was founded on.

LOL - you've already lost this argument when you introduced the insulting to the thread.

FACT- you said that the enemy combatants, actually you said illegal but I'm not sure what that is, should not apply to US Citizens, you did no specifically say it shouldn't apply to US citizens inside our own borders meaning that you don't think it should apply to ANY US citizens, if you meant differently you should have written differently not get mad at me when I can only interpret what you wrote.

Secondly, the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense, but it does guarantee them. Does a person in Iran have the same rights as us? Of course not, well why not? Oh that's right because our CON does in effect give us those rights.

Thirdly, I do have a college education, a damned fine one in fact, I have a Masters in US history. Not that has any bearing on someone's right to post on a message board, which you seem to imply it does.

Lastly, I am in the military and have served two tours in Iraq, but don't see how that has ANY bearing on this subject.

 

[xsited1]

...

Feds Arrest 2 NJ Men Headed To Terror Camps Liveshots

U.S. citizens just taking a vacation. Is that a crime?

They live in New Jersey. They were probably going there to get training to fight the gangs.

 

[Paulie]

If it turns out that their first official target was going to be whatever location the MTV Jersey Shore cast was at, I'm going to be livid about this arrest.

 

[Toome]

WHAT????

Do you realize that there are in fact US citizens living abroad who are actively involved in the fight against our nation, including in Afghanistan? Are you suggesting that if the Army comes across an American in that situation that he should be turned over to the justice department and given his rights? LOL

oh and also , the rights given to us by our CON are not basic human rights.

Nice try to twist my words. If you look at the basic post, it's about federal agents arresting civilians based on their intent to attend training at a known terrorist camp. That's all I was responding to. That's all the topic is about. I didn't read anything about how the military should treat combatants captured on the battlefield. You should try to stick to topic.

If you want to talk combat, that's a different topic. In combat, it's all about people being treated as combatants because they are pointing weapons at you or because they're wearing the enemy uniform. It's not about arresting anyone or reading them their rights. That's all sorted out after the person is secured, if they survive the initial situation. If you're a combat veteran, I would think you knew this. If not, then I'm not impressed with your baiting.

I don't have a problem with the Geneva Convention. I think that's a good rule of thumb for non-US situations where the Constitution may not apply, and this is what I meant with my comment about basic human rights.

If you're a college graduate, you need to get your money back. You clearly were cheated out of a good education. The Constitution does not grant anyone any rights. It restricts Government with respect to basic rights that people already have. My own personal question is about the rights that are uniquely American as opposed to the rights that are universal. I don't believe that non-US citizens have the same rights as US citizens because they are not subject to US law. However, this doesn't mean that they are without any rights at all. That's not the principle this nation was founded on.

LOL - you've already lost this argument when you introduced the insulting to the thread.

FACT- you said that the enemy combatants, actually you said illegal but I'm not sure what that is, should not apply to US Citizens, you did no specifically say it shouldn't apply to US citizens inside our own borders meaning that you don't think it should apply to ANY US citizens, if you meant differently you should have written differently not get mad at me when I can only interpret what you wrote.

Secondly, the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense, but it does guarantee them. Does a person in Iran have the same rights as us? Of course not, well why not? Oh that's right because our CON does in effect give us those rights.

Thirdly, I do have a college education, a damned fine one in fact, I have a Masters in US history. Not that has any bearing on someone's right to post on a message board, which you seem to imply it does.

Lastly, I am in the military and have served two tours in Iraq, but don't see how that has ANY bearing on this subject.

"Illegal combatants" is the term the Bush administration used to justify Guantanamo. I don't buy into that argument. I think US citizens are always entitled to constitutional protection. I am disappointed in the way the Bush administration initially handled the case of Jose Padilla.

I think you and I may be saying the same thing about the Constitution in terms of not granting any rights but, as you point out, guaranteeing the rights that already exist. I think that all persons have the same basic rights. You apparently do not, and this is where we differ. If you're claiming your education got you there, then you were robbed of a good education. Live with it. Otherwise, I never said that non-US citizens were guaranteed the same rights protected by the Constitution. I said that this doesn't mean they are without rights; I'm just saying that the Constitution, while based on certain rights common to all people, is tailored to how those rights apply to US citizens.

You brought up the topic about combat situations. I didn't.

Thank you for your service.

rltw

 

[ConHog]

Nice try to twist my words. If you look at the basic post, it's about federal agents arresting civilians based on their intent to attend training at a known terrorist camp. That's all I was responding to. That's all the topic is about. I didn't read anything about how the military should treat combatants captured on the battlefield. You should try to stick to topic.

If you want to talk combat, that's a different topic. In combat, it's all about people being treated as combatants because they are pointing weapons at you or because they're wearing the enemy uniform. It's not about arresting anyone or reading them their rights. That's all sorted out after the person is secured, if they survive the initial situation. If you're a combat veteran, I would think you knew this. If not, then I'm not impressed with your baiting.

I don't have a problem with the Geneva Convention. I think that's a good rule of thumb for non-US situations where the Constitution may not apply, and this is what I meant with my comment about basic human rights.

If you're a college graduate, you need to get your money back. You clearly were cheated out of a good education. The Constitution does not grant anyone any rights. It restricts Government with respect to basic rights that people already have. My own personal question is about the rights that are uniquely American as opposed to the rights that are universal. I don't believe that non-US citizens have the same rights as US citizens because they are not subject to US law. However, this doesn't mean that they are without any rights at all. That's not the principle this nation was founded on.

LOL - you've already lost this argument when you introduced the insulting to the thread.

FACT- you said that the enemy combatants, actually you said illegal but I'm not sure what that is, should not apply to US Citizens, you did no specifically say it shouldn't apply to US citizens inside our own borders meaning that you don't think it should apply to ANY US citizens, if you meant differently you should have written differently not get mad at me when I can only interpret what you wrote.

Secondly, the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense, but it does guarantee them. Does a person in Iran have the same rights as us? Of course not, well why not? Oh that's right because our CON does in effect give us those rights.

Thirdly, I do have a college education, a damned fine one in fact, I have a Masters in US history. Not that has any bearing on someone's right to post on a message board, which you seem to imply it does.

Lastly, I am in the military and have served two tours in Iraq, but don't see how that has ANY bearing on this subject.

"Illegal combatants" is the term the Bush administration used to justify Guantanamo. I don't buy into that argument. I think US citizens are always entitled to constitutional protection. I am disappointed in the way the Bush administration initially handled the case of Jose Padilla.

I think you and I may be saying the same thing about the Constitution in terms of not granting any rights but, as you point out, guaranteeing the rights that already exist. I think that all persons have the same basic rights. You apparently do not, and this is where we differ. If you're claiming your education got you there, then you were robbed of a good education. Live with it. Otherwise, I never said that non-US citizens were guaranteed the same rights protected by the Constitution. I said that this doesn't mean they are without rights; I'm just saying that the Constitution, while based on certain rights common to all people, is tailored to how those rights apply to US citizens.

You brought up the topic about combat situations. I didn't.

Thank you for your service.

rltw

I disagree with you. I don't think people are born with the rights guaranteed in the CON.Simply because no matter where you're born you are subject to a nation's laws. So if you were born in Communist China of course you have no expectation, or even knowledge of the existence of, such rights as freedom of speech, etc etc. So in that sense , yes the CON does indeed give you your rights. It also guarantees that no one can ever take those given rights from you. Meaning we won't ever turn into China, no matter how hard Obama tries.

And there is what I find most amusing about Obama supporters, he's taking more of your rights and invading your freedom more than Bush ever did. Take a look at the new financial reform Act for an example of that.

 

[sangha]

LOL - you've already lost this argument when you introduced the insulting to the thread.

FACT- you said that the enemy combatants, actually you said illegal but I'm not sure what that is, should not apply to US Citizens, you did no specifically say it shouldn't apply to US citizens inside our own borders meaning that you don't think it should apply to ANY US citizens, if you meant differently you should have written differently not get mad at me when I can only interpret what you wrote.

Secondly, the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense, but it does guarantee them. Does a person in Iran have the same rights as us? Of course not, well why not? Oh that's right because our CON does in effect give us those rights.

Thirdly, I do have a college education, a damned fine one in fact, I have a Masters in US history. Not that has any bearing on someone's right to post on a message board, which you seem to imply it does.

Lastly, I am in the military and have served two tours in Iraq, but don't see how that has ANY bearing on this subject.

"Illegal combatants" is the term the Bush administration used to justify Guantanamo. I don't buy into that argument. I think US citizens are always entitled to constitutional protection. I am disappointed in the way the Bush administration initially handled the case of Jose Padilla.

I think you and I may be saying the same thing about the Constitution in terms of not granting any rights but, as you point out, guaranteeing the rights that already exist. I think that all persons have the same basic rights. You apparently do not, and this is where we differ. If you're claiming your education got you there, then you were robbed of a good education. Live with it. Otherwise, I never said that non-US citizens were guaranteed the same rights protected by the Constitution. I said that this doesn't mean they are without rights; I'm just saying that the Constitution, while based on certain rights common to all people, is tailored to how those rights apply to US citizens.

You brought up the topic about combat situations. I didn't.

Thank you for your service.

rltw

I disagree with you. I don't think people are born with the rights guaranteed in the CON.Simply because no matter where you're born you are subject to a nation's laws. So if you were born in Communist China of course you have no expectation, or even knowledge of the existence of, such rights as freedom of speech, etc etc. So in that sense , yes the CON does indeed give you your rights. It also guarantees that no one can ever take those given rights from you. Meaning we won't ever turn into China, no matter how hard Obama tries.

And there is what I find most amusing about Obama supporters, he's taking more of your rights and invading your freedom more than Bush ever did. Take a look at the new financial reform Act for an example of that.

You are getting incoherent. In one post you say the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense and also that our CON does in effect give us those rights

Secondly, the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense, but it does guarantee them. Does a person in Iran have the same rights as us? Of course not, well why not? Oh that's right because our CON does in effect give us those rights.

 

[ConHog]

"Illegal combatants" is the term the Bush administration used to justify Guantanamo. I don't buy into that argument. I think US citizens are always entitled to constitutional protection. I am disappointed in the way the Bush administration initially handled the case of Jose Padilla.

I think you and I may be saying the same thing about the Constitution in terms of not granting any rights but, as you point out, guaranteeing the rights that already exist. I think that all persons have the same basic rights. You apparently do not, and this is where we differ. If you're claiming your education got you there, then you were robbed of a good education. Live with it. Otherwise, I never said that non-US citizens were guaranteed the same rights protected by the Constitution. I said that this doesn't mean they are without rights; I'm just saying that the Constitution, while based on certain rights common to all people, is tailored to how those rights apply to US citizens.

You brought up the topic about combat situations. I didn't.

Thank you for your service.

rltw

I disagree with you. I don't think people are born with the rights guaranteed in the CON.Simply because no matter where you're born you are subject to a nation's laws. So if you were born in Communist China of course you have no expectation, or even knowledge of the existence of, such rights as freedom of speech, etc etc. So in that sense , yes the CON does indeed give you your rights. It also guarantees that no one can ever take those given rights from you. Meaning we won't ever turn into China, no matter how hard Obama tries.

And there is what I find most amusing about Obama supporters, he's taking more of your rights and invading your freedom more than Bush ever did. Take a look at the new financial reform Act for an example of that.

You are getting incoherent. In one post you say the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense and also that our CON does in effect give us those rights

Secondly, the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense, but it does guarantee them. Does a person in Iran have the same rights as us? Of course not, well why not? Oh that's right because our CON does in effect give us those rights.

Please refrain from dooshing up yet another adult conversation with your childish inane drivel.

 

[sangha]

I disagree with you. I don't think people are born with the rights guaranteed in the CON.Simply because no matter where you're born you are subject to a nation's laws. So if you were born in Communist China of course you have no expectation, or even knowledge of the existence of, such rights as freedom of speech, etc etc. So in that sense , yes the CON does indeed give you your rights. It also guarantees that no one can ever take those given rights from you. Meaning we won't ever turn into China, no matter how hard Obama tries.

And there is what I find most amusing about Obama supporters, he's taking more of your rights and invading your freedom more than Bush ever did. Take a look at the new financial reform Act for an example of that.

You are getting incoherent. In one post you say the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense and also that our CON does in effect give us those rights

Secondly, the CON does not give rights in the strictest sense, but it does guarantee them. Does a person in Iran have the same rights as us? Of course not, well why not? Oh that's right because our CON does in effect give us those rights.

Please refrain from dooshing up yet another adult conversation with your childish inane drivel.

And again, the conjib shows he's to much of a coward to defend his own words, or to admit making a mistake

Hey conjob!! Wanna explain how bush was a liberal again?

 

[Meister]

I don't know how this involves the president one way or another, but I think we can all assume that the Patriot Act may have helped catch these guys. I'm just curious what they will be charged with. They didn't get to the camp yet.

I agree with you on this, Chanel. These are the moments when we can come together on having a Patriot Act, and giving barry kudos for not writing it off, but also extending it.

 

[Douger]

I don't have a problem with it taking a year to have a trial IF that's how long the process takes. I do have a problem if the US government suspends the process under so-called extenuating circumstances.

As for the "illegal combatants" argument, this should not apply to US citizens. Or to put it another way, US citizens are always entitled to full constitutional protection. I'm not so sure about non-US citizens, but that doesn't mean I endorse ignoring certain basic human rights.

If you look at the basic post, it's about federal agents arresting civilians based on their intent to attend training at a known terrorist camp. That's all I was responding to. That's all the topic is about. I didn't read anything about how the military should treat combatants captured on the battlefield. You should try to stick to topic.

I.

Do you realize how fucking stupid that sounds ?
A " known terrorist camp" Then why the fuck is it still there ?
I'll tell you why. To feed the fire of perpetual war. The same reason opium production is setting records in Afghaniland. To numb your already dead brains.