After outcry, FBI releases full transcript of Orlando nightclub shooting call

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I think it's not unreasonable to believe that if they used all the tools at their disposal on of the 3 times they were investigating him, i.e. Warrantless wiretapping Internet spying...

Then they probably would have accumulated enough evidence to take some action.

They can do pretty much whatever they want under the Patriot act as it is.

They've charged people with terrorism for less.

I certainly could wish for a different outcome in this particular case ... as I would love to see 49 Americans alive and well and 49 others not wounded in the hospital.

But you're arguing from hindsight, and you have no idea about the depth of the investigation of Mateen.

What evidence? Mateen apparently had no real contact (or connection besides in his own mind) with ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc. What do you think the FBI would have found that they didn't?

a reply to: ~Lucidity

His rights were absolutely maintained, and we are going to have to find where the break down occurred and I don't think any of us walk away happy at the implications when the results come out, and that's just pure speculation on my part.

As soon as they can get a decent audio specialist in to replace "Allah" with God" in the audio like they did in the transcripts they might release the recordings as well.

If not, the audio will be kept away from the public as it is far too disturbing.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Gryphon66

Our security failed, period end of story, and knowing how will help us in the future and save lives.

Do you somehow think an investigation into that security failure isn't going to take place?

It's a security failure in hindsight, surely. But you're actually arguing for greater government involvement in the lives of American citizens, some kind of enhanced interrogation techniques perhaps?

In your own mind, how did they fail? What were they supposed to find that they didn't?

Mateen received his "due process" ... he was able to buy his guns and able to hold his ideas about terrorist organizations.

Again, are you going on record here endorsing the idea that Americans should be held on thought-crimes?

a reply to: Gryphon66

So yes he is definitely "Radicalize", but was he a radical atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian? Nope he was a "Radical Islamist" ... probably a confused one but that still does not change what it is. Regardless whether he was Sunni or Shiite both sects have a cancer of radicalized factions. We should call the problem what it is and not put blame on what it is not. That is what I blame this Administration for.

Have there been any other notable occasions where they would omit the audio but provide a voice transcript of a 911 call or other verbal communication from LE to perp?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm going on record saying a full investigation into that security failure needs to take place, at which point I'll weigh in, otherwise this is all speculation about our potential solutions, and political talking points, and you know it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you are a private security firm and you make your name on the security you provide, would you hire someone that has been investigated by the FBI for potential terror ties?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: ~Lucidity

I have no idea what to say if it doesn't come across this time.

1.Man was Investigated for Islamic extremism ties

2.Man was deemed a non threat

3.Man had FBI called at gun shop

4.Man went on to commit an attack in which he claims allegiance to an extremist group.

Number 4. validates number 1. Which means the investigation failed in someway because their Intial thoughts were correct. So this could of been prevented then, or possibly at juncture number 3. And I'm leaving stuff out here, but yes our security failed and we need to investigate the reasons it did.

This list seems like pretty bright red flags that guns should not have been sold the guy. If the mentally ill aren't allowed to buy guns then neither should the person with so many red flags be allowed to buy guns... that's my opinion and something fishy is the air about this tragedy that very well could of been avoided.
I wonder if their weren't more signs from mateens character that aren't being talked about...
A mentally ill American can not buy guns and I'm fine with that...I asked a cop about if a mentally ill person could buy a gun and he said no they get put on a list or something if they have a history of violence.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Gryphon66

So yes he is definitely "Radicalize", but was he a radical atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian? Nope he was a "Radical Islamist" ... probably a confused one but that still does not change what it is. Regardless whether he was Sunni or Shiite both sects have a cancer of radicalized factions. We should call the problem what it is and not put blame on what it is not. That is what I blame this Administration for.

Right. So the First Amendment only applies to those religions you approve of ...

Read Comey's statement if you want to know what the FBI actually said rather than what you've read on right-wing blogs.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: DupontDeux

Goes to his pledging "allegiance" to Hezzbollah and al Qaeda too. Then ISIS/ISIL. What we have here is a self-taught radical.

As a side note, the person who originally reported his suspicious behavior was a Muslim too.

I do not see your point tough?

I just say that is highly improbable that he did not know if he was sunni or shi'it. Either the FBI just did not know, or they downplay his faithfulness - any muslim would know. That is like not knowing whether you are Canadian or a US American.

(no, not really, but you get the point).

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you are a private security firm and you make your name on the security you provide, would you hire someone that has been investigated by the FBI for potential terror ties?

Were they found guilty of having "terror ties"? Are you saying that anyone the Government is suspicious of shouldn't be able to get a job?

Are you also in favor of thought-crime? Are you now saying that the US Government is infallible?

Are they also infallible when they investigate right-wing extremist groups? Or just Muslims?

a reply to: peppycat

Here's the thing, either the list should be bright red flags -or- the lists are so all-inclusive that they are basically meaningless and most everyone who deals with them at this point knows it.

It's one way or the other.

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm going on record saying a full investigation into that security failure needs to take place, at which point I'll weigh in, otherwise this is all speculation about our potential solutions, and political talking points, and you know it.

I'm sure the announcement of your position will be very important in the resolution of this matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The government did not prevent him from saying anything or believing in anything. However, when he committed the massacre (which is illegal correct?), he pledge to ISIS. So should we not equate that act to him being a "Radical Islamist"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I am saying that an employer is under no obligation to hire you if they find something suspicious. We are now discussing private business, not the government.

If it turned up in his background check that he was on watch lists and had been investigated by the FBI, then would you hire him as the HR of a private security firm? Remember, you business is security, not something else like shipping or logistics or something where a suspicious background might be a bad sign.

If you are the HR of a security firm where he is further going to be receiving licensing for firearms above and beyond standard civilian ... would you hire him?

If so, what does that say about your firm or what does that imply about the integrity and seriousness of the lists in question?

originally posted by: JinMI
Have there been any other notable occasions where they would omit the audio but provide a voice transcript of a 911 call or other verbal communication from LE to perp?

This happens all the time. Eventually we hear the audio.

But the delay usually sets off, shall we say, a certain faction of those with suspicious minds, leading them to leap to conclusions, that while possible or plausible, may not necessarily be based in fact.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you are a private security firm and you make your name on the security you provide, would you hire someone that has been investigated by the FBI for potential terror ties?

Were they found guilty of having "terror ties"? Are you saying that anyone the Government is suspicious of shouldn't be able to get a job?

Are you also in favor of thought-crime? Are you now saying that the US Government is infallible?

Are they also infallible when they investigate right-wing extremist groups? Or just Muslims?

investigated people over ties to terrorism and being found innocent should be able to get a job... just not a security job... most employers do do background checks and will not hire for whatever reason. A person with a charge or charges of assault will not get hired for a caregiving position...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Knowing exactly where the breakdown occurred is paramount in giving an informed opinion, playing the jester doesn't make your point any more valid or mine any less.( As a general position) the Islamic terrorist should have been treated like an Islamic terrorist, and thus perhaps still monitored from a distance.

It would be nice to hear in reference to the Youtube documentary clip.