If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN) NewsFlash Obama administration prevents terror attack at Federal Reserve Bank. Romney to blame Obama for not calling it a terror attack soon enough. RON PAUL to blame Obama for interfering   (news.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 476
    More: NewsFlash, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Susan Candiotti, United States  
•       •       •

23152 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Oct 2012 at 5:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

476 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-17 09:19:15 PM

DaCaptain19: Obama nor his administration did sh*t...I know, because his tenure has been one of "do nothing".

That's why our debt was downgraded - for the first time since we (the U.S.) set the whole system up in the first place.

And remember why? Yep, the whole world looked at us and said, "You haven't gotten anything done and we frankly don't think you will."


I call bullshiat.

Dubya conducted-flailingly the last decade plus, and if you doubt my analysis, you are uneducated and discern unwell. That is all.
 
2012-10-17 09:23:03 PM

PanicMan: Gyrfalcon: PanicMan: Gyrfalcon: rufus-t-firefly: hatelabs: The GOP will say it was a liberal staged attack to that this adminstration could thwart it.... Because making Obama a 1 term president is all that's important.

Maybe the Republicans staged it so that it looked like the liberals staged it.

Maybe anarchists staged it to look like Republicans staged it to look like liberals staged it to look like terrorists did it.

It all makes perfect sense. Almost TOO much sense. But that's only what you want us to think. Or is it??????

I want you to think whatever you think they think you don't want them to think you think.

Oh no. I'm not falling for that. I'm not going to think what they think they want me to think and er..l mean I'm not going to let them know I think what they... nevermind I'm gonna go get a beer.


JUST AS PLANNED!
 
2012-10-17 09:28:30 PM
Why dosent obamada just run on his record ..........o yea about that
 
2012-10-17 09:34:01 PM

sweet jeez: Why dosent obamada just run on his record ..........o yea about that


Because you made the playing field, jackhat.

My biggest peeve this election: Republican disavowal of corroboration: it disgusts me.

Way to play to lowest common denominator, you assjacks.

Frick off with yer dumb.

*Mind phoenix*
 
2012-10-17 09:35:37 PM
False flag.
 
2012-10-17 09:35:38 PM

ciberido: All2morrowsparTs: Treygreen13: Counter_Intelligent: Treygreen13: The FBI is now the Obama Administration?

Isn't the FBI part of the executive branch, at least?

I guess now that the Navy Seals are part of the Executive Branch, why not the FBI as well?

Um, The FBI is part of the Justice department which is part of the executive Branch.

The Navy Seals report up to the Department of the Navy which reports to the Secretary of the Navy which reports to the Defence secretary which is part of the executive branch.

There are 3 branches of Government not 5.

[www.thepensivecitadel.com image 694x530]
There are four branches of Government!


Yeah, there's the legislative, the judicial, the executive, and the Obama branch. The Obama Branch is where all bad things come from.
 
2012-10-17 09:36:19 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: JusticeandIndependence: Rich Cream: JusticeandIndependence: Rich Cream: That was some terrible English and that makes me think it wasn't written by anyone at CNN.

/inert explosives?

You've never heard of an inert gas?

in·ert [in-urt, ih-nurt]
adjective
1.
having no inherent power of action, motion, or resistance ( opposed to active): inert matter.
2.
Chemistry . having little or no ability to react, as nitrogen that occurs uncombined in the atmosphere.
3.
Pharmacology . having no pharmacological action, as the excipient of a pill.
4.
inactive or sluggish by habit or nature.


Point, please? If they're inert, they're not explosive.

Ahh, got it. Sorry carry on.

How about ammonium nitrate that's absorbed enough water that it can't explode? It's inert, and yet it's an explosive.


Heat it to drive out the water, doofus.
 
2012-10-17 09:36:36 PM
Subby and his friends in this thread appear to have a very child-like understanding of the problems surrounding the Libya attack.

Let me help you guys a little. Please follow these facts very carefully:

1. There was a gross lack of security for our ambassador
2. There was Intelligence suggesting an attack was imminent
3. Libyan officials and our own intelligence services knew very quickly it was a terror attack
4. The Obama administration, not wanting to assume responsibility for the blame they rightly deserved, tried to characterize this as a
random event provoked by an anti-Islamic film - despite what they knew to be the truth

I know I used some big words in there, but if you guys read carefully - you might be able to understand.
 
2012-10-17 09:38:26 PM

garron: Subby and his friends in this thread appear to have a very child-like understanding of the problems surrounding the Libya attack.

Let me help you guys a little. Please follow these facts very carefully:

1. There was a gross lack of security for our ambassador
2. There was Intelligence suggesting an attack was imminent
3. Libyan officials and our own intelligence services knew very quickly it was a terror attack
4. The Obama administration, not wanting to assume responsibility for the blame they rightly deserved, tried to characterize this as a
random event provoked by an anti-Islamic film - despite what they knew to be the truth

I know I used some big words in there, but if you guys read carefully - you might be able to understand.


It's really hard to believe this when it's been the only story on Fox News for the past 3 weeks.
 
2012-10-17 09:38:32 PM

sweet jeez: Why dosent obamada just run on his record ..........o yea about that


Good idea. 

/obamada? I don't get the joke. Is he supposed to be black, islamic, or communist today? teleprompter joke? help me out here..
//I think we know why Mitt isn't running on his. Wouldn't be prudent. Fool me once, etc.
 
2012-10-17 09:38:50 PM

LineNoise: hairywoogit: This is essentially why terrorists don't really scare me. The vast majority of them are uneducated idiots. The really smart ones direct the idiots, and end up with Bond-Villain-esque results half the time.

My theory is this. You are Al Quadea. You have a smart guy who you have been bringing up through the ranks in Kerplakistan. The type of guy who when you get on the ground, in a few weeks can put together an actual workable operation. He is bright, resourceful, and has a good, logical head on his shoulders where he isn't going to fall for the first guy off the boat who says he can sell him a truck full of plastic explosives or whatever, and also is level headed enough to keep his cool and carry through with an operation.

So you go, "hey, this guy is our next big hope. If anyone can pull it off, its him". You give him a wad of cash to get his operation going, and get him into the country.

So not wanting to screw things up, and actually execute on the plan right, the guy establishes a cover, tries to blend in.......and then being an intelligent guy with a good head on his shoulders, quickly realizes that blowing up a bus load of nuns will in the grand scheme of things, accomplish nothing aside from maybe his old village getting a couple of tomahawks lobbed its way.

So he takes his money, settles down, opens a falafel stand, finds himself a nice girl, and that is that.

So basically you are just left with the morons to do your dirty work, and they aren't going to get very far.


You underestimate religious extremism and xenophobia.
 
2012-10-17 09:41:49 PM
Is it really a terrorist plot if the only ones the subject is plotting with are agents of the government? Wouldn't that make it a government plot? And would destroying the "Federal Reserve" be such a bad thing for our nation?
 
2012-10-17 09:43:12 PM

Alonjar: Its a good thing all these terrorists are too stupid to google how to make explosives themselves.


That shiat takes forever.
 
2012-10-17 09:43:33 PM

Tor_Eckman: If you told an undercover cop that you would like to hire him to kill your wife but you didn't have enough money, would that be ok?


What crime did I commit?
 
2012-10-17 09:44:31 PM

garron: Subby and his friends in this thread appear to have a very child-like understanding of the problems surrounding the Libya attack.

Let me help you guys a little. Please follow these facts very carefully:

1. There was a gross lack of security for our ambassador
2. There was Intelligence suggesting an attack was imminent
3. Libyan officials and our own intelligence services knew very quickly it was a terror attack
4. The Obama administration, not wanting to assume responsibility for the blame they rightly deserved, tried to characterize this as a
random event provoked by an anti-Islamic film - despite what they knew to be the truth

I know I used some big words in there, but if you guys read carefully - you might be able to understand.


That's nice. You made some hay out of American deaths to try to make the president look bad.

Bottom line:

Americans killed by terrorists during the previous president's first term-3,000+

Americans killed by terrorists during the current president's first term-4

The guy responsible for the 3,000 got a second term.

Bonus-17 of the previous president's foreign policy advisers now work for the guy trying to supplant the current president.
 
2012-10-17 09:44:32 PM

garron: Subby and his friends in this thread appear to have a very child-like understanding of the problems surrounding the Libya attack.

Let me help you guys a little. Please follow these facts very carefully:

1. There was a gross lack of security for our ambassador
2. There was Intelligence suggesting an attack was imminent
3. Libyan officials and our own intelligence services knew very quickly it was a terror attack
4. The Obama administration, not wanting to assume responsibility for the blame they rightly deserved, tried to characterize this as a
random event provoked by an anti-Islamic film - despite what they knew to be the truth

I know I used some big words in there, but if you guys read carefully - you might be able to understand.


Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".
 
2012-10-17 09:44:40 PM

splat the whale: False flag.


You don't know shiat about bees.
 
2012-10-17 09:46:45 PM

bhcompy: Tor_Eckman: If you told an undercover cop that you would like to hire him to kill your wife but you didn't have enough money, would that be ok?

What crime did I commit?


I am a few credits short of my GED in law, but I believe that conspiracy to commit murder is a no-no.
 
2012-10-17 09:48:32 PM
Right target, wrong method.
 
2012-10-17 09:50:28 PM

nmemkha: Right target, wrong method.


Hate is a method.

So is birth.

You do the math.

*)
 
2012-10-17 09:51:09 PM

Gyrfalcon: Somacandra: This thread proves there is no crime in existence that some Farker won't call either 1) entrapment or 2) thoughtcrime. It should get its own name, like Godwin's Law or Poe's Law or Cole's Law.

Fark's law.


What's wrong with "Somacandra's Law"?
 
2012-10-17 09:53:02 PM
Cool!
This one thwarted plot is one more than the previous administration was able to thwart.

Thwart
 
2012-10-17 09:53:07 PM

MisterTweak: Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S.


Mustn't forget President Bush's reply: "OK, you've covered your ass."
 
2012-10-17 09:54:20 PM

sweet jeez: Why dosent obamada just run on his record ..........o yea about that


yes-and my retirement fund is doing much better as a result.

and when your done you can blame the liberal media, gays, immigrants, global warming, a hairy ass, and 180 degree index finger that can't point the right way.
 
2012-10-17 09:55:43 PM

Tor_Eckman: bhcompy: Tor_Eckman: If you told an undercover cop that you would like to hire him to kill your wife but you didn't have enough money, would that be ok?

What crime did I commit?

I am a few credits short of my GED in law, but I believe that conspiracy to commit murder is a no-no.


Okay, here's the law in California for conspiracy:

563. Conspiracy to Commit Murder

(The defendant[s]/Defendant[s] ) (is/ are) charged [in Count ______] with conspiracy to commit murder.

To prove that (the/a) defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant intended to agree and did agree with [one or more of] (the other defendant[s]/ [or] ) to commit murder;

2. At the time of the agreement, the defendant and [one or more of] the other alleged member[s] of the conspiracy intended that one or more of them would commit murder;

3. (The/One of the) defendant[s][,] [or ][,] [or (both/ all) of them] committed [at least one of] the overt act[s] alleged to accomplish the murder;

AND

4. At least one of these overt acts was committed in California.

To decide whether the defendant and [one or more of] the other alleged member[s] of the conspiracy intended to commit murder, please refer to Instructions , which define that crime.

The People must prove that the members of the alleged conspiracy had an agreement and intent to commit murder. The People do not have to prove that any of the members of the alleged conspiracy actually met or came to a detailed or formal agreement to commit that crime. An agreement may be inferred from conduct if you conclude that members of the alleged conspiracy acted with a common purpose to commit the crime.

An overt act is an act by one or more of the members of the conspiracy that is done to help accomplish the agreed upon crime. The overt act must happen after the defendant has agreed to commit the crime. The overt act must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit the crime, but it does not have to be a criminal act itself.
 
2012-10-17 09:57:03 PM
You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!
 
2012-10-17 10:01:19 PM
You know, if you assholes keep saying october surprise I'm going to assume it's a salad dressing.
 
2012-10-17 10:01:22 PM

bhcompy: legalese


Ok then, how about this: You tell an undercover cop that you would shoot your wife, but you don't have enough money to buy a gun. He fronts you a gun, but it it has no firing pin. You go point it at your wife and pull the trigger. She calls the cops and they arrest you.

How about that? Because that is closer to what this guy actually did.
 
2012-10-17 10:06:10 PM

MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".


I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.
 
2012-10-17 10:07:25 PM

garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.


Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.
 
2012-10-17 10:12:23 PM

Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.


Ah - that's a fun game. You go first. Please explain the differences between Obama and Jimmy Carter.
 
2012-10-17 10:13:10 PM

garron: Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.

Ah - that's a fun game. You go first. Please explain the differences between Obama and Jimmy Carter.


You.
 
2012-10-17 10:14:16 PM

Tor_Eckman: bhcompy: legalese

Ok then, how about this: You tell an undercover cop that you would shoot your wife, but you don't have enough money to buy a gun. He fronts you a gun, but it it has no firing pin. You go point it at your wife and pull the trigger. She calls the cops and they arrest you.

How about that? Because that is closer to what this guy actually did.


For the sake of consistency, here is the California law on entrapment(via Justia):

3408. Entrapment

Entrapment is a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was entrapped.

A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer [or (his/her) agent] engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.

Another example of entrapment would be conduct that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. Such conduct might include a guarantee that the act is not illegal or that the offense would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit, or other similar conduct.

If an officer [or (his/her) agent] simply gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the defendant's confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that conduct is not entrapment.

In evaluating this defense, you should focus primarily on the conduct of the officer. However, in deciding whether the officer's conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, also consider other relevant circumstances, including events that happened before the crime, the defendant's responses to the officer's urging, the seriousness of the crime, and how difficult it would have been for law enforcement officers to discover that the crime had been committed.

When deciding whether the defendant was entrapped, consider what a normally law-abiding person would have done in this situation. Do not consider the defendant's particular intentions or character, or whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime.


Basically, it depends on if it is interpreted as an opportunity or an unusually attractive offer. I would say a free gun is an unusually attractive offer. People just don't give guns away for free to strangers, and, in fact, it is illegal to do so in California without various pieces of paperwork being filed, which again goes towards unusual attractiveness as you're getting a gun with no record of acquiring one. A gun for sale at a reasonable price with or perhaps without proper documentation, is an opportunity. These are the same questions I have for the case in TFA, which I mentioned earlier.
 
2012-10-17 10:15:02 PM
Entrapment? No.

This is giving him enough rope to hang himself with.
 
2012-10-17 10:21:30 PM
Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis is an odd name for a teabagger.
 
2012-10-17 10:21:58 PM
I don't think being handed a free gun is what they would consider "unusually attractive" in terms of shooting your wife. Likewise, being given or sold the components to make a bomb isn't enough to make a normally law-abiding person just go "fark yeah, let's blow up some buildings, yo!"

There's a serious criminal element to a person who would decide that blowing up a building full of innocent people is OK in any way, shape, or form. A normal, law abiding person would tell Mr. Undercover FBI Agent to go fark himself if the subject was broached. Most normal, law abiding people would likely call the authorities on a person that was persuading them to commit an act of terrorism against a federal building.

"However, in deciding whether the officer's conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, also consider other relevant circumstances, including events that happened before the crime, the defendant's responses to the officer's urging, the seriousness of the crime, and how difficult it would have been for law enforcement officers to discover that the crime had been committed.

When deciding whether the defendant was entrapped, consider what a normally law-abiding person would have done in this situation. Do not consider the defendant's particular intentions or character, or whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime."

The bolded parts are where the entrapment idea really falls apart. His response to the theoretical coaxing was "hell yeah, gimme dat bomb" and the seriousness of the crime was an act of terrorism against a federal building that no normal law abiding person would ever consider.
 
2012-10-17 10:24:05 PM

bhcompy: Tor_Eckman: bhcompy: legalese

Ok then, how about this: You tell an undercover cop that you would shoot your wife, but you don't have enough money to buy a gun. He fronts you a gun, but it it has no firing pin. You go point it at your wife and pull the trigger. She calls the cops and they arrest you.

How about that? Because that is closer to what this guy actually did.

For the sake of consistency, here is the California law on entrapment(via Justia):

3408. Entrapment

Entrapment is a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different standard from proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet this burden, the defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was entrapped.

A person is entrapped if a law enforcement officer [or (his/her) agent] engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

Some examples of entrapment might include conduct like badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests, or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.

Another example of entrapment would be conduct that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. Such conduct might include a guarantee that the act is not illegal or that the offense would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit, or other similar conduct.

If an officer [or (his/her) agent] simply gave the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the defendant's confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that conduct is not entrapment.

In evaluating this defense, you should focus primarily on the conduct of the officer. However, in deciding whether the officer's conduct was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit this crime, also consider other relevant circumstances, including events that happened before the crime, the defendant's responses to the officer's urging, the seri ...


OK, entrapment in your scenario would be this:

You're in a bar, and muttering about your wife. The cop sidles up to you and says "You should kill your wife. No, you should REALLY kill your wife. In fact, here's a gun you can kill her with, and I'll drive you back home to do it." He then takes you by the arm and hustles you outside, pushes you into his car, and drives you home. Then he pushes the free gun into your hand and says "Go on, go kill your wife, I'll wait."

Then you go inside and pull the trigger; but the firing pin has been disabled, and so of course your wife doesn't die. Then you're arrested for attempted murder, and you claim entrapment. Your defense is that you were put into a position where you committed a crime you normally wouldn't have attempted. The idea didn't originate with you; you didn't go looking for the gun; you didn't take it home with you; and you didn't voluntarily conceive the idea of going inside the house with the altered gun. Since NONE of those ideas were yours, you were entrapped into committing the crime.

Now, attempted murder is harder to claim entrapment with, because at the final moment you could have not pulled the trigger; just as in the instant case here, all douchebag had to do was not attempt to blow up the building. That's why entrapment as a defense usually fails--because the perpetrator usually had the option to not commit the crime and failed to do so. Entrapment is generally only successful with conspiracy crimes, where the defendant didn't have to be present at the final act to still be culpable.
 
2012-10-17 10:24:19 PM

Vectron: Are you saying this 21 year old Arab kid could get his hands on explosives?


Are you saying Indians are Arab?
 
2012-10-17 10:32:15 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: randomizetimer: Liberal Fascism smells like Conservative fascism.

[demonocracy.info image 850x1460]


122.1 Trillion Dollars

$122,100,000,000,000. - US unfunded liabilities by Dec 31, 2012.
Abovet you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the
WTC & Empire State Building - both at one point world's tallest buildings.
If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty.

The 122.1 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper wall is the amount of money the U.S. Government
knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program,
Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money USA knows it will not
have to pay all its bills.
If you live in USA this is also your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along with
everyone else to pay this back. The citizens of USA created the U.S. Government to serve
them, this is what the U.S. Government has done while serving The People.

The unfunded liability is calculated on current tax and funding inputs, and future demographic
shifts in US Population.

Note: On the above 122.1T image the size of the bases of the money stacks are $10 billion, and 400 stories @ $4 trillion

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Thomas Jefferson

Everyone needs to see this.

Source: Federal Reserve & www.USdebtclock.org - visit it to see the debt in real time and get a better grasp of this amazing number.

Above graphic and info found at http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/us_debt/us_debt.html

Wait, you're telling me that the government doesn't get enough in taxes in one year to pay for social security and medicare for 100 years? I'm voting for Romney now.


Try that is only the next 30 years. Not the next 100.
 
2012-10-17 10:39:31 PM

Sticky Hands: You asked for miracles, Theo, I give you the FBI.


Just like Saigon! Eh, Slick?
 
2012-10-17 10:41:42 PM
Has anyone chimed in on thank goodness another lunatic is off the streets? I don't honestly care what his motives are, dude was willing to kill a lot of people. We caught a mental case BEFORE he hurt people. That't a win for everyone!
 
2012-10-17 10:43:17 PM

Gyrfalcon: Entrapment is generally only successful with conspiracy crimes, where the defendant didn't have to be present at the final act to still be culpable.


Yet it's a valid defense even when you do commit the action(Bradley v Duncan). The fact is that it is arguable. Whether or not the jury accepts it is something else, but by the letter of the law, varying by jurisdiction probably, you can definitely make a case out of it. Realistically, you're probably better waiving a jury trial and going to a bench trial in that instance, since regular people have a hard time disassociating the law from what they wish the law was in this case. There aren't 12 angry men in every jury box that are willing to actually discuss matters reasonably and detached from emotion while rejecting any preconceived notions they may have.

I don't like these situations because they introduce the ambiguity of potential entrapment in to the process of the crime. It's dirty crime fighting. The fact that people will ask the question is enough to question the act itself. It's not what our law and justice systems are built upon.
 
2012-10-17 10:44:32 PM

All2morrowsparTs: Treygreen13: Counter_Intelligent: Treygreen13: The FBI is now the Obama Administration?

Isn't the FBI part of the executive branch, at least?

I guess now that the Navy Seals are part of the Executive Branch, why not the FBI as well?

Um, The FBI is part of the Justice department which is part of the executive Branch.

The Navy Seals report up to the Department of the Navy which reports to the Secretary of the Navy which reports to the Defence secretary which is part of the executive branch.

There are 3 branches of Government not 5.


What about the goddamn Batman?
 
xcv
2012-10-17 10:44:34 PM

Happy Hours: Vectron: Are you saying this 21 year old Arab kid could get his hands on explosives?

Are you saying Indians Native Americans are Arab?


Fixed
 
2012-10-17 10:45:10 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: And for all the "omg..its entrapment" retards.



The FBI goes around asking people if they want to carry out attacks, posing as terrorists themselves. So they bring people in to start with.
 
2012-10-17 10:45:54 PM

Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.


Pretty much this. Republicans march in lockstep, whereas getting Democrats together is like herding cats. If you've see one "R", you've seen 'em all.
 
2012-10-17 11:00:02 PM

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Tor_Eckman: garron: MisterTweak:

Maybe. I do recall George W. Bush madly fellating Ken Lay while his advisers were trying to get him to read some alarmist nonsense to distract him. They mostly used small words, though: OSAMA BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE U.S. Maybe if only those elitist intelligence types had used something smaller than "determined". Maybe "Schiavo", or "stem cell", or "gay".

I'm sorry - I missed the part where George Bush is running for President again. I swore I thought it was Romney. Silly me.

Please explain the major differences between Bush and Romney. Or any differences, for that matter.

Pretty much this. Republicans march in lockstep, whereas getting Democrats together is like herding cats. If you've see one "R", you've seen 'em all.


Yep, Arnold and Santorum, totally the same person. I mean, one is okay with gay marriage and the other isn't. One is a puritan and one farked a whole bunch of biatches and did drugs. One pushed for tax hikes and the other didn't. Totally the same.
 
2012-10-17 11:00:05 PM
♪♫ "I see you driving round town with a van full of bombs, and I say fark yooooouuu'!" ♪♫
 
2012-10-17 11:10:52 PM

TheBigJerk: LoneVVolf: Funny how all these terrorist attacks that get thwarted end up being some schlub the FBI conned into buying fake explosives and pressing a button. Seems to happen every time citizens get uppity about sacrificing more and more individual freedoms in the name of security. The real disturbing question here, is when people stop buying into the soft scare tactics, are they going to let one of these go further to keep us ducking for cover?

I don't have a problem with stings. This was a sting.

And when it comes to giving up freedoms we don't NEED terrorists, scary (insert other race here) and "the drug dealers" work just fine.


The nice thing about this method of thwarting plots: It doesn't require or even suggest giving up ANY civil liberties.

Unless there are significant details I'm missing, warrantless wiretapping, the TSA, torture, etc. all did jack shiat in this case.

Some undercover FBI agents put the word out amongst some criminal networks "hey, if anyone wants to make bombs, I can hook them up" and waited for rocket surgeons like this to show up. You don't even need a Patriot Act to do that.
 
2012-10-17 11:10:55 PM

bhcompy: Yep, Arnold and Santorum, totally the same person. I mean, one is okay with gay marriage and the other isn't. One is a puritan and one farked a whole bunch of biatches and did drugs. One pushed for tax hikes and the other didn't. Totally the same.


Oh come on. You know that the only reason Arnold married Maria Schriver is because they were trying to make a bulletproof Kennedy.
 
Displayed 50 of 476 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report