It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump proven right once again, FBI Chief, Can't investigate Muslims

page: 4
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: TechniXcality



Krazysh0t! An enemy combatant has no such rights!

Of course they do. Every human has the same basic rights.


if you are a terrorist and are in combat no you forfeit your legal rights to not being shot dead.




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

I'm actually curious. Which eleven rights do you think gun control violates and why?


Obvious the second.

The 4th, and 10th as the background check. Guilty until proven innocent.

The others. Due process and crimes be proven in courts of LAW.

Our entire legal system is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in courts of LAW.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense telling Steve they have to submit to what Joe Bob did.

And the 5th clearly states, NO PERSON shall be held answerable to a capital or otherwise infamous crime.

And lastly the 14th.

That goes a lot like.

No STATE shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges of immunities of the US, No shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty, and property.

But hell I am no constitutional lawyer. There wasn't any interpretation there.

Just WHAT they said in that piece of paper.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You mean like the due process the left wants to rob from gun owners with no fly no buy?


Strangely, that's the exact position of Donald Trump.

The Right Scoop - Trump DOUBLES DOWN on joining Democrats for no-fly no-buy gun list!


Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is reaffirming his stance on potentially restricting individuals on the terror watch list from being able to purchase firearms, a week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. “We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns,” Trump told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview to air Sunday on “This Week.” Asked by Karl if his position is that those on the no-fly or terror watch list should not be able to purchase a gun, Trump responded, “I’d like to see that, and I’d like to say it. And it’s simpler. It’s just simpler.”



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I counted seven amendments (I think, there may be 5 since those are the only numbers you explicitly stated). Where is the other 4 (6)?


But hell I am no constitutional lawyer

Clearly not a math major either.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm not suggesting that you do wish to trample rights it's just the next logical question when suggesting the government (which is made up of people like you and me) is going to trample rights if given the opportunity to.if that is so its logical and reasonable to ask you who's rights you are after, and I agree with what you said otherwise, but there was no spin in my questioning.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TechniXcality

Yea still not understanding why you're asking who's right I'm after.

And it's not a suggestion. Did you already forget about all the data collection and NSA surveillance activities? I think there's a thread or two on ats about it.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VivreLibre
Why should they not be allowed to investigate someone just because they are Muslim? Are they being stopped from investigating Christians, blacks, Russians? If there is an Australian terrorist, it's OK to investigate but not if they are Muslim?

Muslim isn't a nationality it is a religion. And how the government treats religions is VERY thoroughly covered in the First Amendment. How about going back and rereading it?


So just belonging to a religion exempts one from being investigated by law enforcement?

Cool opinion


(post by BIGPoJo removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VivreLibre
Why should they not be allowed to investigate someone just because they are Muslim? Are they being stopped from investigating Christians, blacks, Russians? If there is an Australian terrorist, it's OK to investigate but not if they are Muslim?

Muslim isn't a nationality it is a religion. And how the government treats religions is VERY thoroughly covered in the First Amendment. How about going back and rereading it?


So just belonging to a religion exempts one from being investigated by law enforcement?

Cool opinion

No. Where did you get that? Being in a religion exempts you for being investigated BECAUSE you are in that religion. Nice try with the strawman though. But here try this. If we can investigate muslims for terrorism, just because, then we can investigate Christians for terrorism, just because too.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They aren't investigating every mosque because theyre Muslim they are following the cookie crumbs back to specific mosques and being told they can't investigate because they are Muslim.

Get with it and stop trying to push you crap ideology.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
I'm a liar now? What is my motive? I have to prove my point but shredderofsouls gets a pass? I think we all know why...

I didn't see that person's posts and didn't respond to them. I saw your post, which you still refuse to back up with sources (someone else has since proven you wrong with links though). So yes you are a liar. That's what I call all the people who make claims calling them facts without posting evidence. I don't give a # how lazy you are with sourcing, if you refuse to back it up, I don't believe it and call you a liar. Tough # for you huh?



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well since someone wants to nit pick.



Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Violated.



Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Violated.



Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Violated.



Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


violated.



Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Violated.



Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Violated.



Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


www.archives.gov...



Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Violated.

www.law.cornell.edu...

And you want to sit thee and argue the number ?

NONE of those should be getting ignored.

And those have been since 1934 and the push for GC.

The 5th,6th,7th, and 14th ALL deal with DUE PROCESS.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Interesting, except FOX isn't news. They're entertainment. As for the second statement, perhaps we'll see a memo? Until then...



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I'd also point out that Kallstrom retired from the FBI in 1997 to become a TV personality. You do realize that he hasn't been with the FBI for nearly 20 years right?


We need strong leadership who enforces the law not stops it from being enforced. Obama is a moron. Some of you just don't accept the truth, even if it came up to you and smacked you right in the jaw knocking your teeth out.


Blah blah blah and you're obviously not a fan of civil liberties and the type of person who needs a strongman leader to feel secure.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: shredderofsouls
What I don't understand is that the majority of mass shootings have been perpetrated by right wing white males but you never ask for them to be profiled and nor should they.

Why is one wrong and the other right?


Here we go with this crap again....playing with the numbers to suit an agenda. This is the same rationale used to say whites commit the most murders, rapes, etc. . Guess what? whites make up the majority of our country. When you go by percentages, Blacks, Asians,and Native Americans are statistically more likely to commit a mass shooting than the evil right wing white boogeyman. Even the left wing agrees....
www.motherjones.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: BIGPoJo
I'm a liar now? What is my motive? I have to prove my point but shredderofsouls gets a pass? I think we all know why...

I didn't see that person's posts and didn't respond to them. I saw your post, which you still refuse to back up with sources (someone else has since proven you wrong with links though). So yes you are a liar. That's what I call all the people who make claims calling them facts without posting evidence. I don't give a # how lazy you are with sourcing, if you refuse to back it up, I don't believe it and call you a liar. Tough # for you huh?


Refute those claims now that you have seen the post, or do you agree with it?

"I didn't see that post"

OK, liar.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
Blacks, Asians,and Native Americans are statistically more likely to commit a mass shooting


Yet they don't.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VivreLibre
Why should they not be allowed to investigate someone just because they are Muslim? Are they being stopped from investigating Christians, blacks, Russians? If there is an Australian terrorist, it's OK to investigate but not if they are Muslim?

Muslim isn't a nationality it is a religion. And how the government treats religions is VERY thoroughly covered in the First Amendment. How about going back and rereading it?


So just belonging to a religion exempts one from being investigated by law enforcement?

Cool opinion

No. Where did you get that? Being in a religion exempts you for being investigated BECAUSE you are in that religion. Nice try with the strawman though. But here try this. If we can investigate muslims for terrorism, just because, then we can investigate Christians for terrorism, just because too.


It simply states they are being blocked from investigating suspects because of their religion. It's actually very, very easy to understand.

FBI opens investigation on bad guy because he has given reason to be investigated
Investigation blocked because suspect is a Muslim
Bad guy shoots up club

Sorry you're having much trouble with it. Perhaps you're doing it on purpose. If so, you're trying way too hard.
edit on 24-6-2016 by VivreLibre because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo


Refute those claims now that you have seen the post, or do you agree with it?

"I didn't see that post"

OK, liar.


I provided some sources with facts...where are yours?..



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They aren't investigating every mosque because theyre Muslim they are following the cookie crumbs back to specific mosques and being told they can't investigate because they are Muslim.

Get with it and stop trying to push you crap ideology.

Eh? I didn't know the 1st Amendment was a "crap ideology"... Wow... Learn something new every day.







 
65
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join