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.

 

Two suspicious guys wanted by FBI

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
www.homelandsecurityus.com...

Keep a look out!!! Thats about all I have to say about that.




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   

21 August 2007: The FBI is asking the public for their help in identifying the two men depicted below, both "passengers" aboard Washington State ferries on several recent occasions, and both showing a high level of interest in security vulnerabilities of the boats.



Well, I'm on the other side of the country, but maybe people close to this area can keep an eye out.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Well, last I checked it was not illegal or warranted homeland security to come after you for going on a ferry more than once in a single week, taking pictures of the surrounding areas, wondering what the security was on a boat that they were riding, taking pictures of the boat itself, or acting suspicious. If I'm not mistaken none of those things are illegal, or a crime. However, I'm going to suppose that since the foremontion things shouldnt deem HS to want them, I'm going to guess that its because they did all those things and (Oh, I know!) look like middle easterners. Just a guess. twocents.

[edit on 8/22/2007 by agent violet]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Well they look Spanish to me, I guess if I am to board a boat you bet your life I will be asking for the safety standards of the boat.

I guess they are foreign looking so they are terrorist.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   


I guess I didn't post it correctly...


showing a high level of interest in security vulnerabilities of the boats



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Violet, Should they just sit back and wait for something to happen or find them and question them? I say find them and make sure they are not up to anything bad and while they are at it make sure they are here legally.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Agreed, Sky. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't see anything wrong with the FBI want to talk to these guys and clear things up. The write up states they were even freaking out the other passengers. If they weren't doing anything wrong that will quickly come to light and they'll get to go on about their habitual photo-shooting, frequent-ferry rides.

As for people who have a problem with this - I really don't get you.

[edit on 8-22-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone


I guess I didn't post it correctly...


showing a high level of interest in security vulnerabilities of the boats


That's very vague. I'd like to know specifically what they were asking.
Maybe they're curious about stuff, but hey, nowadays people should know by now they just cant talk.

As a matter of fact, dont sneeze either or you may have typhoid.

I can just see some dummy asking the captain if they can keep them company



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

As a matter of fact, dont sneeze either or you may have typhoid.



Or perhaps tuberculosis. Actually I am now very concern about my husband behavior, he does like to ask a lot of questions about everything and lord and behold he does like to say what he feels and what he doesn't like very loud and very clear.

I better look into the FBI database he may wanted for questioning for stressing up people around.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Again, last I checked I didnt think there was anything against people "showing a high level of interest in security vulnerabilities of the boats" I mean afterall the driver has their lives in his? hands. I mean who wouldnt worry and "show a high level of interest about the security" especially with the terrorist situation. And besides maybe they can't swim.

I think that while it is sad that they may have been up to something, it is possible that they weren't, so them possibly being into something doesn't call the attention of homeland security in my book.
After all, what exactly did they do that was criminal/terrorist etc..

Who knows what the people on the boat were freaking out about anyway. for all we know its because they themselves were also worried about the security vulnerabilities.



[edit on 8/22/2007 by agent violet]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
Again, last I checked I didnt think there was anything against people "showing a high level of interest in security vulnerabilities of the boats"

I agree; although, I must admit that I haven't checked.


I mean afterall the driver has their lives in his? hands.

Actually, the driver has very little control over his/her passengers. I’d understand the need for a driver to report a passenger who made him/her feel ‘uncomfortable’.

I mean who wouldnt worry and "show a high level of interest about the security" especially with the terrorist situation.

If this scenario shows to be the case, then I’m sure these two guys will feel an increased level of trust for our homeland security efforts and feel safer, riding ferries in the future. The personal attention they receive will either: secure their curiosity, send them ‘back to the drawing board’, or sue for a premeditated and predetermined cause (only they know the ‘cause’). Either which way, they end up winners. So, who’s complaining?


I think that while it is sad that they may have been up to something, it is possible that they weren't, so them possibly being into something doesn't call the attention of homeland security in my book.

Which I’m sure they’ll agree with, given they have nothing to hide.


After all, what exactly did they do that was criminal/terrorist etc..
Nothing, yet. They are being sought for questioning, not criminal charges.



Who knows what the people on the boat were freaking out about anyway. For all we know its because they themselves were also worried about the security vulnerabilities.

Perhaps; however, it’s the sleeping cat that misses the mouse. Our current system of reporting suspicious behavior is lenient, and unbiased. One person’s definition of ‘suspicious behavior’, versus another person’s, is open for interpretation. That’s up to the responding agency to determine (whether homeland, police, or family services) whether a crime has been or is being committed.
I’m not sure which ‘side’ you’re arguing. Is it for our right to speak up and question EVERYTHING, or for the right to hide anything? Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   
as far as I know they aren't hiding anything, do any of you know that they are hiding anything?
also, being as that there wasnt a crime nor a threat nor a terrorist situation, I dont see the justification of the necessary questioning.
It couldnt have been that bad of a situation or else the capt of the ferry would have surely called the water police, so to speak; which he apparently didn't.
And actually the driver has total 'control' of the craft, he has the radio in which to call the police's marine dept, he has the steering wheel hence he 'controls' the craft in question and presumably steers away from obstacles in the water, he controls the speed, and numerous other important things.
Also, as described by the article, I don't see any of their actions being suspicious.

Imo, this is based on them being "middle eastern looking" as the article stated. So now they are also stereo-typing middle easterners. I mean who's to say that all the people from the middle east look the same.
Thats like saying they looked african looking, or like saying they looked american looking. As you can see all the people dont look the same in africa nor america nor the vastness of the middle east.
I mean their information is obviously biased.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Bah! All our rights are being taken away from us. I remember back in my school days, when me and a buddy would discuss possible ways to gas the whole school using the ventilation system. I guess that makes us terrorists now, planning a possible scenario that will in no way ever be acted out in reality.
Perhaps the two men were simply concerned that the security on the boat sucked, and were going over possible things that could happen...ofcourse that would freak out a bunch of old ladies nearby.....possibly a good enough reason to speak about such things in the first place....to freak out some old women that probobly went to church right after hearing such things and prayed to the lord Jesus for forgiveness....not before calling the FBI ofcourse.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Sorta like dejavu
I saw that last night, and though..
ya know.. it wouldnt be hard to get a bomb on a fully packed ferry ( IE stanton island )

and thats a lot of people...

worthy, definately of the publics attention.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
what is most disappointing is that a large group of people participating on this thread have thus far applied a 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality imo..
This shows me that we are indeed moving towards a police state unfortunately.




[edit on 8/23/2007 by agent violet]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
The day the FBI breaks down my door and busts me for the crap I type on this website is the day I will agree that a police state is a reality. Who cares if it is a police state anyhow? If they bust people for speaking, I would have a problem with that......if they bust people for having a gun....I am all for that, as guns are for pussies. Take away the right to bare arms! All that amendment does is make a bunch of nerds shoot the bully who harrassed them with "words".



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
err, hold up.
The article says suspicous people probing the security on ferries.
that 'could' be a risky area for someone if they wanted to cause some deaths, in terms of a terrorist attack.

no ones guilty here, thats why they want to talk to them.
after all as someone said they could just be concerned for their own safety, pointing out flaws which could potentially lead to 'their' demise.

but they also COULD be looking at ways to thwart security.

policestate?
shows me some peopel are tkaing the threat seriously and .. whats the slogan say?

'' be vigilant? ''



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
ok off topic if you want to be on the side to have guns banned, please provide a case for yourself. also, clarify what you mean. So what do you mean by taking guns away? from civilians, police, military forces, jet crafts, etc...
please specify your claim but not in this forum.

as for my comment regarding a police state in my previous post, my exact words were if i am not mistaken "...moving towards..." now that does not say that we are in a current police state.

[edit on 8/23/2007 by agent violet]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Sorry to go off topic, but what I meant is that if a police state were to happen, the only people that would care are the gun toting nerds that are everywhere. If I were in charge of such an operation as forming a police state, my first objective would be to take the guns away from civilians, as those with guns are my only threat to my objectives.
If the police state considers the civilians with "big mouths" like myself as a threat, well then I might just give a damn about a police state coming to be. Otherwise, I would hardly notice such a thing as I wouldn't care.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by agent violet
what is most disappointing is that a large group of people participating on this thread have thus far applied a 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality imo..
This shows me that we are indeed moving towards a police state unfortunately.


Bullcrap! You so pulled that accusation out of your backside. There's not a single person on this thread that has stated a guilty until proven innocent opinion. Typical behavior for some one who can't tolerate a differing opinion....they go straight to twisting people's statements and exaggerating the other side.

The FBI wanting to talk to these guys - and me wanting them to get the chance - doesn't insinuate any one (either FBI or myself) has assumed guilt.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join