Confirmed: Foreign Gov’t Asked FBI to Look at Boston Suspect for ‘Extremist Ties’ in 2011

But sadly people in the UK currently we have a case where a known radical muslim terrorist has been allowed to stay in this country. They tried to deport him but couldnt.

You have to realise that the Al Qaedas are quite powerful ... and have connections that help them to stay in.

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by sonnny1

 

So you want the government to overstep some bounds and not others.

No.

I want the Laws, and the FBI to actually work, instead of letting potential terrorists into this Country.

Obviously they failed.

He wasn't even a Citizen of this Country in 2011. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, was not a citizen but had applied for legal permanent resident status.......

So, what boundaries are they overstepping with a non citizen?

reply to post by Kryties


Think they proved themselves guilty when they stole the car and murdered a cop...

reply to post by sonnny1


Here's another thing: hundreds of people die in Iraq each week from explosions - yet you barely hear a peep about them - yet a bomb goes off in America and suddenly that is all we hear about for weeks on end.

Methinks there is a massive imbalance there. But by all means, continue cheering for the capture of this bomber - by the time you have cheered 3 times maybe 50 Iraqi's will have been blown to bits. But who cares about them right?

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Here's another thing: hundreds of people die in Iraq each week from explosions - yet you barely hear a peep about them - yet a bomb goes off in America and suddenly that is all we hear about for weeks on end.

Methinks there is a massive imbalance there. But by all means, continue cheering for the capture of this bomber - by the time you have cheered 3 times maybe 50 Iraqi's will have been blown to bits. But who cares about them right?

Hmmm..

Who is saying NO ONE cares?




This thread isn't about Iraq though. Its about the ineptness of the FBI.

Lets stay on topic.

The country was Russia. Putin wanted him (the older brother) investigated due to his being in Russia for six months, during the time of the Moscow airport bombing. The FBI followed him for two years and didn't find anything to implicate him, so they closed the investigation (their part) and handed it back to Russia.

Wonder if this is the reason for Obama's conversation with Putin? Perhaps he was thinking Putin for returning the guy's file? Hmmm, interesting for sure.

I'm curious. If what I heard was right (MSM) he was granted citizenship after the warning.

And also wondering what exact elements were included in that "caution".

reply to post by sonnny1


How can you detain a citizen of another country has hasn't done anything wrong?

Originally posted by SourGrapes
The country was Russia. Putin wanted him (the older brother) investigated due to his being in Russia for six months, during the time of the Moscow airport bombing. The FBI followed him for two years and didn't find anything to implicate him, so they closed the investigation (their part) and handed it back to Russia.

Wonder if this is the reason for Obama's conversation with Putin? Perhaps he was thinking Putin for returning the guy's file? Hmmm, interesting for sure.

Thanks SourGrapes, for the info.

You have any sources on this by chance?

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by sonnny1

 

How can you detain a citizen of another country has hasn't done anything wrong?

You can "question" him a lot better then was obviously done by the FBI.

He should have been deported. Having a Foreign Gov’t Ask the FBI about supposed Terrorist ties would have been a red flag in ANY Country.

reply to post by sonnny1


Agreed. You don't necessarily have to arrest the person, but you can say no to having him gain citizenship.

Hell, we turn away Haitian refugees on pieces of lumber they used as a boat to get to America, yet we grant citizenship to an individual with known terrorist ties?

Something doesn't add up.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Agreed. You don't necessarily have to arrest the person, but you can say no to having him gain citizenship.

Hell, we turn away Haitian refugees on pieces of lumber they used as a boat to get to America, yet we grant citizenship to an individual with known terrorist ties?

Something doesn't add up.

Ironic, isnt it........



The FBI dropped the ball. Period.

reply to post by sonnny1


says you and not the entire US government

Well I already explained a muslims cleric in the UK who was accused of terrorism and has these kinda ties was allowed to stay in the UK. His lawyer said it was a prejudice to remove him on the grounds that hes muslim............. however he is known as being an extremist cleric.

So it isnt just a USA issue, this is because the UN refuses to allow anyone to be deported to places where they could be tortured and so on. So often they are coming here to have a lighter sentence as it were. or an easier time...

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Agreed. You don't necessarily have to arrest the person, but you can say no to having him gain citizenship.

Hell, we turn away Haitian refugees on pieces of lumber they used as a boat to get to America, yet we grant citizenship to an individual with known terrorist ties?

Something doesn't add up.

Ironic, isnt it........

The FBI dropped the ball. Period.

Who's in charge of the FBI? Shouldn't that person be answering questions?

Hmmm. . . . . .

reply to post by sonnny1


In other words someone who " hates western society" and promotes this hate and has connections or dodgy business at times with terrorism is actually allowed to stay in the country. makes everyone feel safer I am sure..

Anyway so this radical muslims cleric is allowed to stay in the UK which is costing the British tax £5 million. To have him under survaillence that is.All due to the fact they cannot deport him...
So who do you think is winning here?

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by sonnny1

 

In other words someone who " hates western society" and promotes this hate and has connections or dodgy business at times with terrorism is actually allowed to stay in the country.

makes everyone feel safer I am sure..

edit on 20-4-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)

Unfortunately, that sounds about right.......

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Here's another thing: hundreds of people die in Iraq each week from explosions - yet you barely hear a peep about them - yet a bomb goes off in America and suddenly that is all we hear about for weeks on end.

Methinks there is a massive imbalance there. But by all means, continue cheering for the capture of this bomber - by the time you have cheered 3 times maybe 50 Iraqi's will have been blown to bits. But who cares about them right?

I don't want our soldiers in Iraq. I think each country should take care of their own terrorist problems.

And their own fights. Israel needs to just take it on their own. The middle east needs to go it alone. I say pull all Americans out and let them have the all that hate ridden war zone.

Is that fair? Now. Once we are gone - and your left to your own devices. Will these terrorists still want to come over to my country telling me their countries problems are still all America's fault?

Cirque

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
reply to post by sonnny1

 

How can you detain a citizen of another country has hasn't done anything wrong?

For the safety of the public if a police officer has probable cause to arrest a subject, if an affidavit is presented by an officer of the law showing probable cause or if a complaint is officially filed under oath against the subject and the presiding judge determines that there is probable cause to investigate the case they an issue a warrant for the arrest of the subject.

The subject will then be apprehended and placed in custody at least until they have the opportunity to face the judge and plead their case. Depending on the gravity of the crime, the risk to the public, the risk of flight, and the facts used to determine probable cause, the judge may grant the subject release on their own recognizance, until a future date when the case goes to trial, the judge may grant the subject release on a bond that is befitting the offense the subject is accused of until a future date when the case goes to trial, or the judge might refuse to allow the subject to be released on bail, if the offense the subject is accused of is sufficiently violent that the public safety would be at risk were the subject to be released. For example, in the case of Drew Peterson after the exhumation of his former wife's body, autopsy results indicated that the cause of death was homicide, the court refused to release him on bail as the offense was homicide and he was a former officer of the law, who's current wife was missing with indication that she could have been eliminated also.