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.

 

91% of terrorism charges dropped since 911

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a private study ( link
) by syracuse university has found that 91% of terrorism cases brought before the justice department since sep 11th have been dropped due to little/insufficient evidence or legal problems. federal prosecuters have rejected 2 out of every 3 cases of international terrorism reported to them by the fbi.

a sharp increase of cases being dropped was noted after 2002 and more than ever in the last 8 months.

a report of the study can be found
here

i wonder how this study compares to the percentages dropped of say white coller crimes or burglaries or rapes etc. a comparison would chart would interesting reading




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I'd like to see how many of those cases could be legally investigated before the patriot act.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Dropped because there were no charges to speak of to begin with...

Just a bunch of chaos to make it look like we have real terrorists amidst us.

There's a fongus amongus.




posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Wow a whopping 9% success rate...

Stand up Mr bush and take a bow...


This is even worse of a track record than the war on drugs.... Do we have to put up with 70 years of this too?

how in the world can a 9% success rate be explained?



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Look upon it as a 91% failure.

That's what it is.

It cannot be justified.


*Yet the world is so much safer now...*

[edit on 4-9-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Well apparently The White house didnt see these figures because yesterday at a Labor Day speech at the Paul Hall Center for Maritime, he claims we are making "signifigant progress" on the WOT. Looks like the cabal is caught in yet another bold faced lie....yet again.
story.news.ask.com


Politics


White House: U.S. Safer but Not Yet Safe

Sep 5, 9:16 AM (ET)
By MERRILL HARTSON

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration proclaimed significant progress in the war on terror Tuesday but said the enemy has adjusted to U.S. defenses and that "America is safer but we are not yet safe."

Releasing an updated counterterrorism strategy in advance of a speech that President Bush was set to give later in the day, the White House said: "The United States and our partners continue to pursue a significantly degraded but still dangerous al-Qaida network."

"Yet the enemy we face today in the war on terror is not the same enemy we faced on Sept. 11," said the 23-page terrorism strategy update. "Our effective counterterrorist efforts in part have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business."

Source:ask.com


Better get our waders; on the BS river is runnin high. So according to the White house; 9% success rate is "signifigant progress". Maybe I am setting the bar to high here. Maybe its something to do with fuzzy math... or maybe, just maybe, Bush and Company are lying yet again... definately starting a trend.

lastly, this was a line that kinda jumped out at me from the bottom of the article:


"The United States was attacked on September 11 and many years earlier, well before we toppled the Saddam Hussein regime," it said. "Moreover, countries that did not participate in coalition efforts in Iraq have not been spared from terror attacks."


Something really really not right about that. First of all the UK has been in the coalition yet they have not been spared. I dont think I am even going to get into the deeper CT angle on this but I have my hunches.



So what is the white houses answer to the report mentioned above? From the looks of it....."Signifigant progress"....


thank you for your time,
TONE23



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Um...the only countries that have been attacked ARE coalition countries. UK, Spain, Bali bombings ( most victims were Australian) ect.

Man someone needs to do some fact checking before feeding this idiot his speeches.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Thanks Skadi,

It only lends to the fact that this administration is addicted to lying straight faced to the American people. It has become a deceptive web indeed for this administration. How can 9% be signifigant progress? This is absolute lunacy... black is white; up is down; lies are truth. And the Govt. of no accountability keeps on truckin'.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
and all of this despite the fact that terrorist attacks themselves have increased vastly over the last few years and 4 times as much last year - link

but it doesnt matter - they can always fiddle the figures anyway (until they get caught out for doing so that is - link )



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by TONE23
Thanks Skadi,

It only lends to the fact that this administration is addicted to lying straight faced to the American people. It has become a deceptive web indeed for this administration. How can 9% be signifigant progress? This is absolute lunacy... black is white; up is down; lies are truth. And the Govt. of no accountability keeps on truckin'.


Its like 1984. Peace is War. Love is Hate. truth are lies. And we are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with east Asia and allies with Eurasia.

Anyone who disagrees is the enemy.

Or are we at war with Eurasia? oh hell, it gets confusing trying to track all the propoganda and BS. Its becoming harder and harder to even be told what to think. I give up. Ill just watch numb my brain and watch Worlds Wildest Police Chases tonite. Yeah. That will help. Thinking sucks.




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
coincidently skadi...i just found this by accident - www.online-literature.com...
its an online version of george orwells 1984 (which i read for my english 'o' level)

for anyone that hasnt read it, but wonders why it is usually referenced a lot.. skip the first two chapters and start at chapter 3. it should scare the pants off you!



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Of course, that whopping 9% contains a lot of crimes that coutd easily have been prosecuted under existing legislation, but were brought under the anti-terror laws to make the statistics look better. Yeah, "better".

I did see a link for this, but, I'm sorry, I'm just going to be lazy for once. You know it's more than just plausible, though.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Um...the only countries that have been attacked ARE coalition countries. UK, Spain, Bali bombings ( most victims were Australian) ect.

Man someone needs to do some fact checking before feeding this idiot his speeches.


How about India? It sure wasn't part of the coalition in Iraq. How about Jordan, or Morocco?
Or perhaps attacks on Saudi Arabia or Egypt? You must have lost it in your memory. Nothing personal people tend to forget those countries cause they are not really important.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Astounding success!
Considering that the feds have gotten so much more power and funding since 911, I would say that a greater than 90% failure rate is due to our lack of support for illegal wiretaps and incarcerations.
I think that if we could only provide ten times the funding (and shut up all you silly liberals) then we could see better prosocution rates.
After all, it takes rescources to win this thing, and lack of resources means lack of results.... and lack of results translates to failure.
We just need more cases like this.. www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
11Bravo,

If you take a look at the war on drugs you will clearly see how the increase in funding and unconstitutional practices will not raise the success rate... That war has been going on with tremendous fundiong for over 70 years and still they are losing.

As far as silly liberals goes..... I am NO LIBERAL!!!
I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist and I take great offense at your broad sweeping generalization In an attempt to have the liberal comment solidify your arguement it actually achieves quite the opposite. Because unlike you I do not place this into a another partisan bickering issue.... This is about the overall govts. failure and lying to cover it up... not just Republicans.. I highlited Bush because a day after this report the guy gets up and flat out lies about the success of the program.... so please try to keep partisanism out of this..please.

thank you for your time,
tone23

[edit on 9/5/2006 by TONE23]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I guess I should have included the /sarcasm header.
Did you look at my link?
For the record I dont buy into the left/right paradigm myself, brother.
Love ya!



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
I guess I should have included the /sarcasm header.
Did you look at my link?
For the record I dont buy into the left/right paradigm myself, brother.
Love ya!



darn you....lol

yes use the sarcasm tag...lmao... I tend to lose that when discussing this stuff...sorry.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
How about India? It sure wasn't part of the coalition in Iraq. How about Jordan, or Morocco?
Or perhaps attacks on Saudi Arabia or Egypt? You must have lost it in your memory. Nothing personal people tend to forget those countries cause they are not really important.


India has been having terrorist attacks against it since 1947. You know, the Kashmir thing. It was happening before, and will continue to happen.

Saudi Arabia has been involved in the War on Terror. Just because they dont have troops in Iraq does not mean they aint helping Bush and Co out.

Egypt? Well, there have been terrorist attacks in that country before, like India. Interestingly, all the attacks in Egypt were aimed at foreigners and tourist spots.

Hmmm.....Morrocco? You could referesh my memory there. When was the last terror attack there?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Is that Azcentral (original link, from 2006) even related to the study by Syracuse (2nd link by OP)? I saw the Az link mentioned Syracuse, but the study from Syracuse that you linked to only mentions data taken from the five years preceding the end of FY2001 (and the last edit of it was in in June of 02) on September 30. That, of course, is before the Patriot Act was even enacted and just under three weeks after 9/11. Rush to concern over a 5 year old study which studies the 5 years preceeding that?



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Good eye Alpha... It was rather early when I read that and I mustve missed the dates.

for something a more accurate assessment I think we need more up to date stats.

Firstly, there is a PDF that is from the GAO(Govt. Accountability Office)
that explains that because of concerns that the way in which stats were collected changed.
GAO.PDF


Beginning in fiscal year 2001, DOJ switched from using the FBI’s terrorismrelated
conviction statistics to using those of the Executive Office of U.S.
Attorneys (EOUSA) for its annual performance report. This change was in
response to concerns raised by a newspaper article’s allegation that DOJ had
inflated terrorism statistics in its Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report. It
was also part of an effort to report conviction statistics that would be less
likely to be misinterpreted, according to DOJ officials. The FBI historically
classified more convictions than EOUSA as terrorism-related because it used
a different classification system and included convictions obtained in
international, federal, and state courts. EOUSA only included federal
convictions. Our review of a sample of cases investigated and classified by
the FBI as terrorism-related, including U.S. Attorney Office (USAO) cases
covered by the article, found documentation to support the terrorism-related
classifications for these cases.

source: GAO.PDF


So Where do the figures sit at now?

After spending some time I have yet to be able to find any newer figures than what the author of this thread has posted. Hopefully someone else will have more luck.. as I am running out of time for today.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join