FBIFail: No evidence of bomb-making by terror suspect

[Modelworks]

If he does turn out to be innocent they need to ask him where all the blondes are , all those cases of peroxide he must be one hell of a stylist

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: woodie1
According to the op all trials should now be held by the media. Judges and juries are no longer needed.

According to you, the Federal Bureau of Imagination no longer needs to present evidence in court.

No actually, he said nothing of the sort. Meanwhile you'd rather take the word of a terrorist's lawyer over the FBI. That's pretty sad, even for a hack like you.

To be fair, you don't know the guilt or innocence. He is only a suspect but your statement about his attorney implies you've convicted him. It might suggest you'd not look at any subsequent development with an open mind and see only that which points toward guilt and eliminate that which points to innocence. That is what OP has projected, it seems.

He could very well be innocent. It's just that lawyers will always try to defend their clients in public, no matter their guilt or innocence. Meanwhile we know for a fact they have actual evidence of purchases of these chemicals and materials. It's not a stretch at all to arrest the guy.

Yes, they do and they should arrest no matter what at this point. It is up to the AUSA to prosecute and they'd ( US Attorney's Office) be pretty hard pressed at this point to not do so.
All Attorneys MUST present as if they were in the shoes of their client. It is our system and why the other side always see the lawyer as scum but they provide the essence of our system. I love it when I see an attorney defending the indefensible. It is like watching Hollywood in action. How they can do it with out puking up is beyond me.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

 

[FaaR]

Originally posted by: First
Meanwhile you'd rather take the word of a terrorist's lawyer over the FBI. That's pretty sad, even for a hack like you.

Who's to say the man's a terrorist? He hasn't committed any acts of terror, not that we know of anyway.

And appealing to authority is an ancient fallacy, which won't help you even today because logic is timeless and you fail at it.

This man may well be guilty, but in civilized societies that's decided by a court of law based on evidence, and not hearsay on a web discussion forum.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: alchemize
Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

Obama. I hear he personally interviewed and hired everyone at the agency after his inauguration.

So you don't think Obama is responsible for the successes or failures of the FBI, roughly around September 11, 2009?

(edit: which, by the way, I see this as a success)

I for one am willing to agree that Obama is responsible for the successes or failures of the FBI on roughly around September 11, 2009 as long as everyone eles is willing to agree that George W. Bush is responsible for the successes or failures of the FBI on roughly around September 11, 2001.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me...

 

[extra]

I love how every thread here turns into a pro vs. anti obama retard fest. It's like listening to a bunch of 2 year crying over who gets to play with the doll....

In this case you realize that you are quoting the guy's defense attorney right???

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The FBI said this guy was buying large quantities of bomb-making materials and cooking up explosives in his apartment. I don't know about you guys, but I find it odd that the FBI can't find a single piece of direct evidence (no materials, no explosives, no residue) to link the suspect to the allegations.

I'm going to read between the lines a little bit and assume this thread is about increasing funding for the FBI. I know that counteracting terrorism has got to be high on your list of priorities. What would you like us to do to support your efforts to increase funding for the intelligence community? How can we help?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: extra
I love how every thread here turns into a pro vs. anti obama retard fest. It's like listening to a bunch of 2 year crying over who gets to play with the doll....

In this case you realize that you are quoting the guy's defense attorney right???

You were alive for the past 8 years right? This is nothing new.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I hope the FBI is watching you closely

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

 

[LunarRay]

We have in the international community quite a lot of Legal minds that consider G. Bush a war criminal. The invasion of Iraq without UN Sanction to do so starts the inquiry. What Harvey has posted since I can remember are facts that cannot be denied. That Bush had some sort of approval from Congress has not to do with International Law regarding International affairs. The UN Charter, that we signed and that the US Senate blessed, IS US law and must be followed or it is a violation of US and International law.

Any reasonable mind will accept the fact that even IF no one prosecutes in this issue, which sort of gives tacit approval to the acts, our Congress had reason to convene an impeachment hearing in the House... To not do this was the second violation of duty.

So, Mr. Fear no Evil, until Mr. Obama engages in similar behavior he stands above the criminal element he has replaced and his actions vis a vis the FBI are best seen to be as they ought to be. The FBI is under the Attorney General's Justice and that entire lot are quasi separate from the Executive in their actions. Muller has a 10 yr appointment for that very reason.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

 

[daniel49]

J peyton terrorist cheerleader....sisq boom rah.
order your pom poms yet?

 

[LunarRay]

When the Fireman arrives at the site of a fire that was started by an arsonist we don't expect the fireman to say... opps, not my job I didn't start it. We expect him to put the dang fire out. That is his job!
Obama has not yet violated his oath of office. IMO. He may increase the toll over there or decrease it but he's hopefully putting out the fire.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.

I hear Judge Judy has an opening in a couple weeks. Perhaps you could bring your proof to her? I still don't understand how copying and pasting a bunch of internet links constitutes ANY sort of proof.. but it may get you a conviction on The Peoples Court.

Jerry Springer might also allow you on. No, actually, that might even cross the line for him.

 

[LunarRay]

No finder of fact has concluded that G. Bush is any of the terms like traitor or what ever. But there is prima facie evidence that if any court of or with jurisdiction sought to indict they could with little effort. I'm not sure how far down the line it would go but I'd assume at least the top few.

Prima Facie meaning that unless rebutted the evidence would prove the facts alleged!

Now then, The US invaded a sovereign nation using the UN Charter provision of Self Defense requiring a first strike against Iraq. They had no other authority to invade. Keep in mind UN Charter is US law by treaty.

Ok, so what is the basis for that defensive first strike invasion of Iraq. We, the USA, allege that Iraq had WMD, Delivery Systems and had plans to attack in 45 days from the time point of discovery of that time limit. It becomes incumbent upon the aggressor to show the UN and world community the evidence. We cannot show any of what we alleged to be true. So what can we show? Intel... OK.. where are the pictures of the WMD or the Delivery systems? Remember you can't change the story to fit what is subsequently found which is nothing anyhow. We can't say oh.. to save the Iraqi from Saddam or the Kurds... that is internal and would require UN approval...

So... ATM, we have Prima Facie evidence of a crime. OF numerous crimes...

IOW, we can assume guilt from the prima facie evidence un-rebutted.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
No finder of fact has concluded that G. Bush is any of the terms like traitor or what ever. But there is prima facie evidence that if any court of or with jurisdiction sought to indict they could with little effort. I'm not sure how far down the line it would go but I'd assume at least the top few.

Prima Facie meaning that unless rebutted the evidence would prove the facts alleged!

Now then, The US invaded a sovereign nation using the UN Charter provision of Self Defense requiring a first strike against Iraq. They had no other authority to invade. Keep in mind UN Charter is US law by treaty.

Ok, so what is the basis for that defensive first strike invasion of Iraq. We, the USA, allege that Iraq had WMD, Delivery Systems and had plans to attack in 45 days from the time point of discovery of that time limit. It becomes incumbent upon the aggressor to show the UN and world community the evidence. We cannot show any of what we alleged to be true. So what can we show? Intel... OK.. where are the pictures of the WMD or the Delivery systems? Remember you can't change the story to fit what is subsequently found which is nothing anyhow. We can't say oh.. to save the Iraqi from Saddam or the Kurds... that is internal and would require UN approval...

So... ATM, we have Prima Facie evidence of a crime. OF numerous crimes...

IOW, we can assume guilt from the prima facie evidence un-rebutted.

You forget that little known fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991, was bitchslapped by the United States, and signed a cease-fire agreement. They continually violated that agreement and the U.S. decided to finish the job that should have been done in 1991. Once Iraq invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait, they gave up their rights not to be attacked.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: LunarRay
No finder of fact has concluded that G. Bush is any of the terms like traitor or what ever. But there is prima facie evidence that if any court of or with jurisdiction sought to indict they could with little effort. I'm not sure how far down the line it would go but I'd assume at least the top few.

Prima Facie meaning that unless rebutted the evidence would prove the facts alleged!

Now then, The US invaded a sovereign nation using the UN Charter provision of Self Defense requiring a first strike against Iraq. They had no other authority to invade. Keep in mind UN Charter is US law by treaty.

Ok, so what is the basis for that defensive first strike invasion of Iraq. We, the USA, allege that Iraq had WMD, Delivery Systems and had plans to attack in 45 days from the time point of discovery of that time limit. It becomes incumbent upon the aggressor to show the UN and world community the evidence. We cannot show any of what we alleged to be true. So what can we show? Intel... OK.. where are the pictures of the WMD or the Delivery systems? Remember you can't change the story to fit what is subsequently found which is nothing anyhow. We can't say oh.. to save the Iraqi from Saddam or the Kurds... that is internal and would require UN approval...

So... ATM, we have Prima Facie evidence of a crime. OF numerous crimes...

IOW, we can assume guilt from the prima facie evidence un-rebutted.

You forget that little known fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991, was bitchslapped by the United States, and signed a cease-fire agreement. They continually violated that agreement and the U.S. decided to finish the job that should have been done in 1991. Once Iraq invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait, they gave up their rights not to be attacked.

Not forgot a thing! We floated a draft resolution about the Security Council and could not muster the numbers to invade Iraq so we used the last resort... the Defensive aspect of the charter... Facts is Facts and '91 is not relevant to our subsequent action.
You may give up Iraqi rights but they didn't. I suggest you read the commentary of the UN on the issue. Or if interested the commentary of various international legal minds.
We did not have any authority to invade Iraq aside from our claim of defensive action as I outlined above.. You cannot use what Iraq did because the UN has the only right to proclaim an invasion to enforce its resolutions... no authority was given.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: woodie1
Gotta save this....

Save this one, too, while you're at it.

However, subsequent, intensive searches of at least 10 addresses linked to the suspected al-Qaida plot in northern Britain have so far failed to turn up any clear evidence of a terrorist conspiracy, despite the huge resources devoted.

Forty-eight hours after the arrests, sources close to the inquiry say no evidence has been found of bombs, bomb-making parts, precursor chemicals to make explosives, a bomb factory, weapons or ammunition.

But don't feel bad. We've started wars over less evidence.

Haha, good one...

Well, now that Obama told the feds to leave the dope smokers alone. What else are they gonna do? I think they are bored. Maybe they should have wire tapped the dudes phone, and tapped into the dudes laptop. I mean... C'mon, if the feds have all this power after 9/11 how come they couldn't get a lot more evidence before jumping the gun?

I think someone in the FBI should take accountability for this sloppy detective work.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Don't forget that Torture and waterboarding are illegal, both by federal law, the Geneva Convention, and the UN convention against torture.

That's certainly a second area where there could be a lot of indictments if someone ever had the guts to prosecute this.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Don't forget that Torture and waterboarding are illegal, both by federal law, the Geneva Convention, and the UN convention against torture.

That's certainly a second area where there could be a lot of indictments if someone ever had the guts to prosecute this.

So are you admitting torture and waterboarding are separate things? lol

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Don't forget that Torture and waterboarding are illegal, both by federal law, the Geneva Convention, and the UN convention against torture.

That's certainly a second area where there could be a lot of indictments if someone ever had the guts to prosecute this.

So are you admitting torture and waterboarding are separate things? lol

No, but some people *cough* *cough* seem to think they are. It's easier to write it that way, then to have some people *cough* *cough* try to start BS about waterboarding isn't torture.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Don't forget that Torture and waterboarding are illegal, both by federal law, the Geneva Convention, and the UN convention against torture.

That's certainly a second area where there could be a lot of indictments if someone ever had the guts to prosecute this.

So are you admitting torture and waterboarding are separate things? lol

No, but some people *cough* *cough* seem to think they are. It's easier to write it that way, then to have some people *cough* *cough* try to start BS about waterboarding isn't torture.

I hope you aren't referring to me.. because I've made it clear I think waterboarding _IS_ torture. I also think we should use waterboarding on certain terror suspects. And just to be consistent, I agree to be waterboarded if I am caught engaging in acts of terror against another country.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Don't forget that Torture and waterboarding are illegal, both by federal law, the Geneva Convention, and the UN convention against torture.

That's certainly a second area where there could be a lot of indictments if someone ever had the guts to prosecute this.

So are you admitting torture and waterboarding are separate things? lol

No, but some people *cough* *cough* seem to think they are. It's easier to write it that way, then to have some people *cough* *cough* try to start BS about waterboarding isn't torture.

I hope you aren't referring to me.. because I've made it clear I think waterboarding _IS_ torture. I also think we should use waterboarding on certain terror suspects. And just to be consistent, I agree to be waterboarded if I am caught engaging in acts of terror against another country.

No, it isn't you.