quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

They need one ? They can 'round-up' suspects and take them to GITMO where inalienable rights die a quick death.

I am scared and it's everybody's patriotic duty...to be scared. So scared these round-ups will be the new American way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I'd like to know what law they're using to round people up.

quote:

In almost all of the FBI's recent terrorism arrests, the suspects are charged with providing material support for a terrorist group, a catch-all charge that can mean providing travel documents and cash to would-be terrorists or trying to recruit new adherents.

Burr vigorously defended the approach, telling us, "There is a sufficient case there to be made with every one of them."

Some watchdogs see the "material support" charge as prone to overuse. Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, told us that the statute has been interpreted expansively by the Justice Department since 9/11, and applied especially to Muslims. She said that now the charge of providing material support to a terrorist group "seems increasingly targeted at people's online expression or association, without sufficient connection to actual wrongdoing."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I'd like to know what law they're using to round people up.

From the same article cited above:

quote:

In almost all of the FBI's recent terrorism arrests, the suspects are charged with providing material support for a terrorist group, a catch-all charge that can mean providing travel documents and cash to would-be terrorists or trying to recruit new adherents.

Burr vigorously defended the approach, telling us, "There is a sufficient case there to be made with every one of them."

Some watchdogs see the "material support" charge as prone to overuse. Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, told us that the statute has been interpreted expansively by the Justice Department since 9/11, and applied especially to Muslims. She said that now the charge of providing material support to a terrorist group "seems increasingly targeted at people's online expression or association, without sufficient connection to actual wrongdoing."

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I'd like to know what law they're using to round people up.

From the same article cited above:

quote:

In almost all of the FBI's recent terrorism arrests, the suspects are charged with providing material support for a terrorist group, a catch-all charge that can mean providing travel documents and cash to would-be terrorists or trying to recruit new adherents.

Burr vigorously defended the approach, telling us, "There is a sufficient case there to be made with every one of them."

Some watchdogs see the "material support" charge as prone to overuse. Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, told us that the statute has been interpreted expansively by the Justice Department since 9/11, and applied especially to Muslims. She said that now the charge of providing material support to a terrorist group "seems increasingly targeted at people's online expression or association, without sufficient connection to actual wrongdoing."

Hey, 12-year old boys in their mother's basements get on and talk smack or try to pick up girls. It's the Internet. He's what bothers me. The FBI was watching them. Okay, I can see that. Then Texas happened and there was a lot of publicity. Was it the attention that drove the change or was it good police work? Did the FBI just not want to be seen as doing nothing if another strike by ISIS occurred or were the plans actually coming to fruition?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I'd like to know what law they're using to round people up.

From the same article cited above:

quote:

In almost all of the FBI's recent terrorism arrests, the suspects are charged with providing material support for a terrorist group, a catch-all charge that can mean providing travel documents and cash to would-be terrorists or trying to recruit new adherents.

Burr vigorously defended the approach, telling us, "There is a sufficient case there to be made with every one of them."

Some watchdogs see the "material support" charge as prone to overuse. Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, told us that the statute has been interpreted expansively by the Justice Department since 9/11, and applied especially to Muslims. She said that now the charge of providing material support to a terrorist group "seems increasingly targeted at people's online expression or association, without sufficient connection to actual wrongdoing."

Hey, 12-year old boys in their mother's basements get on and talk smack or try to pick up girls. It's the Internet. He's what bothers me. The FBI was watching them. Okay, I can see that. Then Texas happened and there was a lot of publicity. Was it the attention that drove the change or was it good police work? Did the FBI just not want to be seen as doing nothing if another strike by ISIS occurred or were the plans actually coming to fruition?

Good questions, the highlighted mindset (by ATF) is what gave us Waco.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

I'd like to know what law they're using to round people up.

From the same article cited above:

quote:

In almost all of the FBI's recent terrorism arrests, the suspects are charged with providing material support for a terrorist group, a catch-all charge that can mean providing travel documents and cash to would-be terrorists or trying to recruit new adherents.

Burr vigorously defended the approach, telling us, "There is a sufficient case there to be made with every one of them."

Some watchdogs see the "material support" charge as prone to overuse. Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, told us that the statute has been interpreted expansively by the Justice Department since 9/11, and applied especially to Muslims. She said that now the charge of providing material support to a terrorist group "seems increasingly targeted at people's online expression or association, without sufficient connection to actual wrongdoing."

Hey, 12-year old boys in their mother's basements get on and talk smack or try to pick up girls. It's the Internet. He's what bothers me. The FBI was watching them. Okay, I can see that. Then Texas happened and there was a lot of publicity. Was it the attention that drove the change or was it good police work? Did the FBI just not want to be seen as doing nothing if another strike by ISIS occurred or were the plans actually coming to fruition?

Good questions, the highlighted mindset (by ATF) is what gave us Waco.

Ya, well that and the alcoholic Janet Reno needed to show she was awake at work once in a while.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
That, according to left-of-center ABC News. George Stephanopoulos is reporting that "Hundreds of investigations are underway in all 50 states" by the FBI, and that "Many involve suspected ISIS supporters..."

Exclusive: FBI in Midst of Broad Campaign to Disrupt ISIS, Sources Say

ISIS knows that they are our enemy. But does Obama? Does Hillary?

ISIS is not the....ONLY....threat. Its just the current threat. The more popular of threats in the media. That government agencies local on up to the federal level (dare I say international....), work tirelessly on a daily effort to combat and keep the actual threats to a minimal. The current administration, just like the ones before it, have had to face many problems by unorganized attackers and organized crime. You want to blame President Obama for stuff that hasn't happen? Go for it! Just as long as you deliver the same sort of 'fury and anger' towards conservatives in office. You were very silent during the Bush years in office on this same sort of stuff....

An Hilary, whom is married to a former US President, a former Secretary of State, and a presidential candidate for 2016, is....VERY MUCH....aware of ISIS. She could no doubt school....ALL....the GOP contenders together about ISIS.

Her husband who deliberately let Osama go three times.

An George W. Bush allowed the same guy to get away from him for eight years. Five of those while we were 'at war' in Osama's backyard. On top of that, he was using US troops in the Middle East, which former President Clinton really did not have in such vast numbers.

Funny how you don't bitch about George W. Bush here, isn't it?

Don't know if you are aware of this but there is a major difference between the military not finding someone ( Bush wasn't personally hunting Osama any more than Obama personally found and killed him) and refusing to take custody when he his handed to you.

Yeah, Bush wasn't hunting the mastermind of 9/11? You believe all that conservative media swill, don't you? Who was it that said:

"I hear you, and when we find out who did this, they will hear from us!" While standing on top of a pile of rumble in New York City days after the 9/11 attack?

This was also the same guy that said he would not conduct NATION BUILDING in foreign countries. That and many other instances of him lying (like promoting torture which is a violation of the 8th amendment).

The difference between Bush and Obama, is the current President understood that getting our troops out of that fuck-show required Osama captured or killed. In fact, I seem to recall the President giving the AUTHORIZATION to allow a band of kick-ass elite guys to stealth into neighboring Pakistan, and raid Osama's house just a thousand feet down the road from a Pakistan military base. In and out without anyone none the wiser. What is really funny are two things:

A ) The Comanche Program does not seem to have been concluded after all...
B ) The manner that conservatives bash Obama while giving praise to the troops (even though both were required for the successful operation).

Keep up with the bullshit, its seriously amusing. If your going to attack the President, please make sure its a solid argument. Because I got a whole chest of stuff former President George W. Bush failed to get right. Particularly in situations were there were no 'do overs'.

One last thing here: I may dislike former President George W. Bush for his actions and ideas while in office. But I still show the proper respect for the guy. How many on the conservative and libertarian side on this forum can do the same towards any of the Democrats?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Did I miss the part where I said that Jeb Bush having both a father and a brother who were president qualified him to be president. Oh that's right I didn't.

What does Jeb Bush have to do with any of this?

Kind of slow today aren't you?
I said he wasn't personally hunting for Osama, the information gathered under him is contributed to catching up with him.
Clinton, on the other hand, personally decided not to take custody of Osama three times when others offered to hand him to us on a silver platter.
Jeb Bush being related to two presidents makes him as qualified to be president as Hillary being married to one. I was putting your praising Hillary for having married a man who became president in perspective.

PS the rest of your post was merely proving how little you understood what I was saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Bush also used "us" instead of "I."

Bush wasn't as arrogant as Obama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
That, according to left-of-center ABC News. George Stephanopoulos is reporting that "Hundreds of investigations are underway in all 50 states" by the FBI, and that "Many involve suspected ISIS supporters..."

Exclusive: FBI in Midst of Broad Campaign to Disrupt ISIS, Sources Say

ISIS knows that they are our enemy. But does Obama? Does Hillary?

ISIS is not the....ONLY....threat. Its just the current threat. The more popular of threats in the media. That government agencies local on up to the federal level (dare I say international....), work tirelessly on a daily effort to combat and keep the actual threats to a minimal. The current administration, just like the ones before it, have had to face many problems by unorganized attackers and organized crime. You want to blame President Obama for stuff that hasn't happen? Go for it! Just as long as you deliver the same sort of 'fury and anger' towards conservatives in office. You were very silent during the Bush years in office on this same sort of stuff....

An Hilary, whom is married to a former US President, a former Secretary of State, and a presidential candidate for 2016, is....VERY MUCH....aware of ISIS. She could no doubt school....ALL....the GOP contenders together about ISIS.

Her husband who deliberately let Osama go three times.

An George W. Bush allowed the same guy to get away from him for eight years. Five of those while we were 'at war' in Osama's backyard. On top of that, he was using US troops in the Middle East, which former President Clinton really did not have in such vast numbers.

Funny how you don't bitch about George W. Bush here, isn't it?

Don't know if you are aware of this but there is a major difference between the military not finding someone ( Bush wasn't personally hunting Osama any more than Obama personally found and killed him) and refusing to take custody when he his handed to you.

Yeah, Bush wasn't hunting the mastermind of 9/11? You believe all that conservative media swill, don't you? Who was it that said:

"I hear you, and when we find out who did this, they will hear from us!" While standing on top of a pile of rumble in New York City days after the 9/11 attack?

This was also the same guy that said he would not conduct NATION BUILDING in foreign countries. That and many other instances of him lying (like promoting torture which is a violation of the 8th amendment).

The difference between Bush and Obama, is the current President understood that getting our troops out of that fuck-show required Osama captured or killed. In fact, I seem to recall the President giving the AUTHORIZATION to allow a band of kick-ass elite guys to stealth into neighboring Pakistan, and raid Osama's house just a thousand feet down the road from a Pakistan military base. In and out without anyone none the wiser. What is really funny are two things:

A ) The Comanche Program does not seem to have been concluded after all...
B ) The manner that conservatives bash Obama while giving praise to the troops (even though both were required for the successful operation).

Keep up with the bullshit, its seriously amusing. If your going to attack the President, please make sure its a solid argument. Because I got a whole chest of stuff former President George W. Bush failed to get right. Particularly in situations were there were no 'do overs'.

One last thing here: I may dislike former President George W. Bush for his actions and ideas while in office. But I still show the proper respect for the guy. How many on the conservative and libertarian side on this forum can do the same towards any of the Democrats?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Did I miss the part where I said that Jeb Bush having both a father and a brother who were president qualified him to be president. Oh that's right I didn't.

What does Jeb Bush have to do with any of this?

Kind of slow today aren't you?
I said he wasn't personally hunting for Osama, the information gathered under him is contributed to catching up with him.
Clinton, on the other hand, personally decided not to take custody of Osama three times when others offered to hand him to us on a silver platter.
Jeb Bush being related to two presidents makes him as qualified to be president as Hillary being married to one. I was putting your praising Hillary for having married a man who became president in perspective.

PS the rest of your post was merely proving how little you understood what I was saying.

Bush also used "us" instead of "I."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Bush also used "us" instead of "I."

Bush wasn't as arrogant as Obama.

I actually think that it is an important distinction. It was very much a "we are in this together." I liked that.