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.

 

Girl Questioned About Anti-Bush Website

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
We all know children can not get their hands on a weapon or do anything violent.








JONESBORO, Arkansas (CNN) -- Two young cousins arrested after a deadly ambush outside a middle school are due in court Wednesday as authorities try to piece together how the boys -- ages 11 and 13 -- got their weapons and why they attacked. The 13-year-old suspect reportedly warned friends on Monday "he had a lot of killing to do" after he was jilted by a girl.

CNN



A 15-year-old charged with fatally shooting his principal in Cazenovia is scheduled to make a court appearance Friday.

wsaw.com



The teenager accused of murdering the wife of a prominent bay area attorney has been sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Scott Dyleski was 16 years old when he bludgeoned neighbor Pamela Vitale to death.

kfmb.com



Lawyers for a teenager convicted last year of killing his grandparents in Chester County when he was 12 filed an emergency motion Monday seeking to delay his transfer to adult prison.

charleston.net

Do I need to go on? A threat is a threat is a threat.


[edit on 15-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
it's simple, it kind of works like this......freedom of speech? yes. consequences for what you say? yes.

Thats why they paid her a visit. No one said she couldn't say it. What they probably meant to say is -- yes, by all means have your say -- and face consequences when you do, or dont expect anything less.

I have the freedom of speech to say I'm gonna kill Tony Blair -- but there will be consequences. Still, I can say it!



[edit on 15-10-2006 by SteveG]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
The little brat got off easy for what she did. Fortunately for her she had taken it down otherwise she might have been sitting on the inside of detention home for several years.

It is against the lwas to make threats against any federal offical and that includes the pres VP, etc.



115. Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member

What I find more disturbing is the fact the media released/published the name of a minor.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The little brat got off easy for what she did. Fortunately for her she had taken it down otherwise she might have been sitting on the inside of detention home for several years.


you're GD right she got off easy... according to our new laws, she should now be considered an unlawful enemy combatant and hauled off to some camp somewhere for the rest of her life...

an interesting thread to say the least... a lot of good arguements both for and against the actions of the SS... i would have to agree their actions were justified, but i think too that her parents should have been there during the whole ordeal...

we may have freedom of speech, but you cannot make threats against the POTUS, regardless of whether or not those threats may or may not have any validity to them... i hope this lil girl learned something from the whole experience, because now she's most likely on their watch-list from here on out...



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I have similar story from Denmark and though I've posted it before in another context on another thread, I'll take the liberty of posting it again. It's only difference from this story is that the kid was not a legal minor.

The legal age is 15 in Denmark, and this kid, a boy, was 16 years old. To show his guts to the other chaps in the net-cafe, he mailed a message to the State Department adressed to the PM, which read: "you'll be dead within 9 days".

Don't know if it can be called a threat, it's merely a prediction, which un... didn't come true. Anyway according to the newly implemented anti-terror laws this kid was rounded up in hours and within a week express prosecuted and sentenced to a jail sentence.

To my it seems like a sure way to make a comming criminal out of a stupid unthinking kid, who in less paranoid times just would have been send home for a good round of spanking.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by m3rlz
i would have to agree their actions were justified, but i think too that her parents should have been there during the whole ordeal...



According to the New Hampshire Bar association there is no federal law (or NH law) that states a parents permission must be obtained. I am only using this as a possible example, I did not search for other states there may be exceptions.

Questioning a Minor

The way I interpret what is said it is more or less left up to school officials to determine the policy for questioning.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Dont u guys get it?

The SS could have gone to the girl's parents and discussed the situation. They could have gone to the girl's house and discussed with her. But no. They pulled her out of class in front of kids and teachers.

They puposely did this to spread a message across america and the world. They wanted to show that now if you even think or speak against Bush, u are a terrorist and u wud be questioned regardless of age, sex, etc.

It more than obvious that the way the SS handled the situation, they were trying to 'prove' something. Otherwise they could have easily avoided the media attention and the crticism and taken care of the situation in a more professional manner at the girl's house.

This is just the beginning. They are trying to instill fear in the minds of people to show that you cannot speak against your government. They want you to live in fear and go along with the government whether u agree with their decisions or not.

This is just one of the steps towards the slow stripping of the rights of the people.

Im suprised lot of people actually agree that the 14 yr old girl was a threat to the president and could have actually stabbed him in the hand with a knife. Ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
Im suprised lot of people actually agree that the 14 yr old girl was a threat to the president and could have actually stabbed him in the hand with a knife. Ridiculous.


Just what pray tell is so ridiculous about it? Are you saying minors do not or have never killed adults?



Chigago 'Suntimes Article

John Christian, 13, Austin, Texas, May 19, 1978. Son of George Christian, former press secretary to LBJ, honor student, shot and killed teacher.


Robin Robinson, 13, Lanett, Ala., Oct. 15, 1978. After a disagreement with a student, he was paddled by the principal. He returned to school with a gun; when told he would be paddled again, he shot and wounded the principal.


James Alan Kearbey, 14, Goddard, Kan., Jan. 21, 1985. Killed the principal and three others in his junior high school. Said he was bullied and beaten by students for years.


Kristofer Hans, 14, Lewiston, Mont., Dec. 4, 1986. Failing French, tried to kill the teacher but shot and killed her substitute. Injured a vice principal and two students. Had threatened to kill the French teacher.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Visit the link and you will find even more.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Well, Not sure if it was brought up or not... but maybe they thought she was a little too hostile sounding for her age..

Maybe they thought her parents might be the ones who put that hostility into their child...

Maybe they weren't questioning her about her beliefe, but questioned her about her parents.

Maybe thats why they didn't do it at her home with her parents there.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I mean no disrespect in this, but does anyone else find it strange that for a coutnry that has so much firepower they seemed to be frightened of their own shadow?

Something that I think needs to be put to rest is this notion that a 14 year girl could be a threat. For ever one example shown of a child making good on their threats, how many don't? Any guess what that percentage is? Next to nothing, statistically zero. This has nothing to do with her, she is just the patsy what won't fight back(As per the M.O of this Admin).

Bullies, each and every one of them with the usual suspect cheering them on. They are watching their political power go, so before the next "stolen" election they have to make sure that everyone remembers why they need their government... LOL!!

It would be funny if it wasn't going to lead to so many deaths.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Question is, are we thought censoring? What about symbolic statements? I for one used to have a t-shirt back in the 1980s with a picture of Ronald Reagan with a bullet hole in his forehead.

It was a pretty popular t-shirt if I remember, and could be bought at any trendy young shop in town, particularly if they catered to the new wave or punk rock kids.

The t-shirt was a symbol of 'rage against the machine', of poignant rebellion against the system, a clear political statement that had absolutely nothing to do with the reality of actually wanting to kill another human being. It was a symbol.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Maybe if she had made a cartoon it would be better accepted.


Seriously, this is just another case of a personal right going against other people's rights, in this case the right to live, regardless of the fact that the target of the "threat" was the president of US.

If anyone says in a public place "Kill person X" that is just a threat and should be treated like a threat.

I think that the secret service may have treated this in a different way because of two things:

1 - They had nothing to show that she was a threat that couldn't wait one or two hours more, so they had not the need to go to the school to take her out of the class to question her.
2 - They should have done whatever they should do before, she made that page last year and took it out in this summer, but the secret service only acted now.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
Question is, are we thought censoring? What about symbolic statements? I for one used to have a t-shirt back in the 1980s with a picture of Ronald Reagan with a bullet hole in his forehead.

It was a pretty popular t-shirt if I remember, and could be bought at any trendy young shop in town, particularly if they catered to the new wave or punk rock kids.

The t-shirt was a symbol of 'rage against the machine', of poignant rebellion against the system, a clear political statement that had absolutely nothing to do with the reality of actually wanting to kill another human being. It was a symbol.


If you read the article the picture of a knife through a hand was below the words KILL. That could easily be construed as a threat. The Secret Service has the responsbility to investigate threats against the president.

Yes it was done by a harmless 14 year old girl. How would they know that unless they did an investigation, and talked to all the parties involved. It could've been the partents posting under the 14 year olds or someone else posting it under her name.

What's wrong with them talking to her at school? If I made a threat against someone, however much it may be unfounded, I should be prepared to answer questions about it; be it at my home, work or even a friends house ... wherever they can track me down.

As far as the parents not being there, this concern comes up a lot with parents who are upset that they are not called when any police agency is investigating their minor children. Most states do not require the parents to be present during or before an investigation or interview involving their children, some require notification after the event, or notification if their are charges filed. I don't neccessarily agree with these laws, parents should be involved since their minors may not know when it is better to be quiet and get a lawyer, but that doesn't mean the Secret Service operated outside the scope of the law. If we have a problem with this portion of the situation then we need to lobby our elected officials to enact some new laws.

The other alternative is to tell our children that should they ever be questioned by an official they need to demand a parent be present before answeing any questions. A 14 year old may feel intimidated to demand such things but if they know it is their right it should empower them a little.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Think of it in a good way. Now the girls got street cred, she can brag about how the secret service pulled my outa class. i treatened to kill the president.
no one will mess with her now.


but on a serious side my point of view is that this was overkill to come to her school they could have talked to her at home. she didnt have to answer there questions.



really take a look at tha picture, the girl looks a little b!tchy but do you honestly think shes in charge of a terrorist cell the kill the president



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

It is against the lwas to make threats against any federal offical and that includes the pres VP, etc.

115. Influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member


Organised crime does it all the time, so do Corporations when the Politico won't accept the payoff.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
In light of all the kids getting guns, we should take away all the guns from everyone. Search every home, search every building, If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about.

In light of posting threats on the internet, only responsible adults should be allowed acces to the internet, children should stick to gameboy. Only those Adults who have proper approval for Internet Acces by a Federal Agency should be allowed to surf, post and use the internet. If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about.

In light of the voiced threats against anyone, people should wear muzzles 24 hours a day. Untill after you have been approved for public speaking by the proper Federal Authority. If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about.

In light of phone threats including IM's and messaging, take away the cell phones, and lock down the home phones unless people are properly trained to use them by a Federal Agency. If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
A Matter Of Jurisdiction


Originally posted by Galiega
Im 14 and in England, they will have get jursticiton here, also they may just send MI5 for them, i personally just wanna look at how they work if it does work.

The most important jurisdiction in this case is defined by the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use which, among other things, say this:


Originally posted by SimonGray
2e.) Illegal Activity: Discussion of any illegal activities such as drug use, drug paraphernalia, hacking, etc. are strictly forbidden.

This includes offering or threatening to kill anyone.

Because of the very real and serious potential risk to our community as a whole, the use of any ATS resource for illegal activities, including these sorts of posts, may result in an immediate and permanent account ban.

So please: don't do it. :shk:



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by half_minded
Im suprised lot of people actually agree that the 14 yr old girl was a threat to the president and could have actually stabbed him in the hand with a knife. Ridiculous.


Just what pray tell is so ridiculous about it? Are you saying minors do not or have never killed adults?


Killing average people is different but give me example of when a 14 yr old has killed someone like the President or any high government official for that matter.

Big time hot shot killers also have to come up with a highly sophisticated plan to kill the President and you are talking about a 14 yr old whose brain has not developed completely to be able to kill the president with a knife.

Anyway, point is, SS deliberately did this in front of the class to get this into the NEWS so they could pass a message to the people. The message was, 'If you oppose your government, then you could be sentenced to jail'.

People always cry of right of speech. When someone speaks against a muslim or the prophet or makes websites clearly spreading hatred against muslims and threats to them, then if the muslims protest, everyone cries out 'right of speech'.

Its funny how everyone uses Right of Speech to fit their own personal needs. Its Okay sometimes and NOT OKAY other times.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
A few things just to clearify..

1 - The girl had a website on a personal networking site. On this page it had a generic threat. Think Kill Bill.
2 - Upon hearing of the legality of this, the girl took the page down.(Can anyone confirm this? I heard it on the news here, but that is the only place.)
3 - AFTER she had already taken it down, the Secret Service visit her school and pull her out of class.

Can everyone agree with this alone? Because there seems to be a big problem here which is why was it done publicly??? This was done to get a message under the radar.So people know, but no one comes out and says it. So lets say it - this was done for effect.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
Killing average people is different but give me example of when a 14 yr old has killed someone like the President or any high government official for that matter.


I already have proven children that age are capable of killing, that is all that is required. As for a sophisticated plan, you might want to check out the two attempts on Regan and Ford those two just were nut jobs that slipped threw that cracks and that is all it would take.

Assination attempts



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join