Two suspicious guys wanted by FBI

Originally posted by agent violet
As I've basically been saying since page 1, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

You've been saying that for no reason. Who said they were guilty of anything? The Feds...I don't think so.

They are wanted for questioning, simple as that. If it turns out that the two men in question are innocent then they're innocent. But if they are up to something sinister and planning an attack then we can give a "job well done" to the fellow citizens who initially reported their suspiscious behanvior.

I don't understand where you are coming from, how old are you? Since when in the hell did the FBI wanting to question two men for obvious suspiscious behavior equate to them branding someone as guilty?

And when the next major attack happens and word gets out that the Feds could have possibly prevented it...you'll be the one pushing blame on them for not doing their job. Their job that you complain about whenever they do try to act on a tip.

I mean damn, let's get rid of that crime-stoppers hotline. I suppose a citizen reporting any crime or suspiscious acts by your standards is wrong, eh?

Another thing is who's to say that they are 'middle eastern looking'? The FBI is proven to be bias, with that expression alone.

What else should we say? Brown, yellow...yellowish brown? Is that a better descritpion? Should we use colors? what color are the two men? I think "Mocha" fits pretty well, what do you think? How about Tan, no maybe not, that could easily confuse someone for a shade of Caramel.

How would desribe someone who looks Native American?

How would you describe these two men?

Thanks,
Sporty

EDIT: I don't support the patriot act and I'm not a fan of the Feds having to much power to pry into our everyday lives, especially if it's not warrented. However, these two men, as reported by regular citizens, have been acting a bit dodgey and suspiscious and doing things that people just normally don't do.



[edit on 4/9/2007 by SportyMB]

Sporty, actually I wouldnt lower myself to your standard by calling people a color, as you apparently just have.

Also I believe you said "you'll be the one pushing blame on them for not doing their job" and in response I simply say-> Ha yeah right, you wish. while it would be a sad thing for another 'terrorist' attack to happen, you act like I would care enough to go above and beyond and start blaming people, I said it before and I'll say it again, Ha yeah right.

Next, your right I did say 'what happened to innocent until proven guilty' So uhm yea please steer me to where I mentioned the FBI in that sentence as you basically accused me of doing,imo. Hm. let me review, 'what' (no FBI yet) happened (no FBI yet) to(still no FBI) innocent (I still didn't see it) until (?) proven (still no mention) guilty(wow I still didnt see it). So as you can see I in fact did not mention the FBI. As I said please correct me if you see it in that sentence somewhere.

But in the mean time I find it quite a shame, that you label people as, AND I QUOTE: "mocha" "caramel" "tan" "brown" "yellow" "yellowish brown"

And then you asked me this: "I suppose a citizen reporting any crime or suspiscious acts by your standards is wrong, eh?"
And my reply is this: Citizens can report whatever they want, eh?

[edit on 9/4/2007 by agent violet]

reply to post by SportyMB

I completely agree with you sir. Every civilian must report any suspicious activity to the proper authorities immediately. In a case such as this the proper authority would be the local FBI segment. Keep in mind that we also have native terrorists such as Timothy McGhvey and such. So please report ANY suspicious activity regardlss of a person's origin of race, immediately. Let us do the second guess work.

reply to post by agent violet


For the last time Violet. Not one person here said that anyone was guilty. Just because the Feds want to talk to them dont make the Feds evil or anyone guilty of anything. Now what is the problem with that? I am not a supporter of Bush, I just support common sense something that you fail to understand.

Originally posted by agent violet
Another thing is who's to say that they are 'middle eastern looking'? The FBI is proven to be bias

Yeah, so? I'm a white male, one of my roommates is a black man, the other lady who lives down the hall is an Hispanic looking women. I'm not quit sure exactly where she's from or even of her nationality for that matter, but judging by here looks I think it's safe to say she's hispanic.

If you had to write a brief report and give a physical description of these two men, how would you do it? You've already cancelled out using color and probable ethnicities (Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Italian, etc...).

Originally posted by agent violet
Sporty, actually I wouldnt lower myself to your standard by calling people a color, as you apparently just have.

That post flew right over your head

I still fail to see how describing someone as "[insert here] looking" is bias, or how it would mean that someone using the phrase has low standards.

[edit on 5/9/2007 by SportyMB]

Nice one, took a couple minutes LOL

I think civil and cordial conversations are always good, it is when authorities expect to much and things go sideways that it isn't right. In the long run everything always works out.

I do agree that ATS has very entertaining topics and am surprised I missed this thread.


[edit on 25-9-2007 by Redge777]

Originally posted by Valhall


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.

I agree that nobody has said that they are guilty and I also agree under normal circumstances that if they have nothing to hide then they will be fine. The problem comes and I tone down any accusation of police states etc is how do you think the FBI are going to respond when the old lady from next door drops a dime on them and they go around to question them. I get the feeling that they are not going to get the "two agents turn up at the door dressed in two piece suits, show them their badges and then proceede to politely ask the questions" approach. Look at what happened when they shot the wrong guy in London because they were watching a property (turns out they weren't terrorists either) and a SPANISH guy came out from the next door building. The officer charged with watching the door went for a leak at that precise time so when they saw this guy they assumed he had to be the 'bad guy'. They followed him into a London Underground Station and then shot him 7 times in the head and then tried to cover it up.

BBC Report of the investigation findings

I am not saying that this sort of thing is even deliberate but I personally would not like to be on the receiving end of that kind of attention just because I had a dark complexion and I was taking pictures on a ferry. The chance of error goes up dramatically.

OK, lets be slightly less dramatic, how about those Federal agents turning up at your employment as say, a Doctor or a Teacher? What about them being escorted to meet you at your desk? What about the term "mud sticks"? Would you like that, even if your response to them is "well actually I am just really interested in boats"? So the back ground checks start, they start to look at your family and friends etc. OK, you check out - nothing remotely strange there, we are sorry... do they go around and tell everyone else this? Your customers who don't come back? The PTA that want you out because of complaints? etc etc.

Don't be under the assumption that even if you have nothing to hide that there is no cost involved in this sort of thing.

[edit on 25-9-2007 by EJHoover]

reply to post by EJHoover


Your reply seems to match what a person would think might happen when authority looks into something. But don't you think that that kind of damage to the reputation of an innocent person should be compensated?

Is authorities that propagate a lie to gain information liable for damage the lie causes, when they find their initial investigation was unwarranted. And what about long term physiological damage to one put under the pressure squeeze of a slander campaign.

Although I understand why government does this, assuming the motive is protection of society and not protection of people with pull in that society, the fact that they do not rectify this takes away their justification of doing good.

So is it good that is the justification? or is the true value of 2 individuals that is being underscored is to low to consider important? If we know the state gives those individuals no value, then should we not speak out since either one of our coworker, neighbors, or someone we simply know might be the next person wrongly maligned? Should we not speak out when anyone is wronged?

Wouldn't you agree that a revelation of unfairness in society can create a need to speak out against the core cause of those injustices?

Originally posted by Redge777
reply to post by EJHoover

 

Your reply seems to match what a person would think might happen when authority looks into something. But don't you think that that kind of damage to the reputation of an innocent person should be compensated?

Yes I do but in my view all of life's ills are better resolved by dealing with the cause not dealing with the effects afterwards. In the same way people here are arguing, effectively, for pre-emptive arrest, I think the law and order community should put more effort into being right before they act.

Is authorities that propagate a lie to gain information liable for damage the lie causes, when they find their initial investigation was unwarranted. And what about long term physiological damage to one put under the pressure squeeze of a slander campaign.

I don't think the FBI are lieing here, I only think that their policies are flawed. I agree entirely that it is the less obvious costs that are not being considered here. I hate the idea of a culture where they routinely go around wrongfully accusing people and then have to spend a fortune on compensation as they are sued by the individuals for their loss.

Although I understand why government does this, assuming the motive is protection of society and not protection of people with pull in that society, the fact that they do not rectify this takes away their justification of doing good.

Agree

So is it good that is the justification? or is the true value of 2 individuals that is being underscored is to low to consider important? If we know the state gives those individuals no value, then should we not speak out since either one of our coworker, neighbors, or someone we simply know might be the next person wrongly maligned? Should we not speak out when anyone is wronged?

Remember that some people thought (and still do) that internment of foreigners was a good idea in the name of protecting society. All that policies like this do is incite yet more hatred but from sections of the population that did not previously have a beef.

Wouldn't you agree that a revelation of unfairness in society can create a need to speak out against the core cause of those injustices?

I do agree, I am frightened about not only the erosion of civil liberties that has occured due to this 'war on terrorism' but also the mass acceptance by a population who are routinely frightened by their leaders into submission without a shred of evidence to support their claims of 'global terrorists'.

I agree that there are armed crazy people in the world of all colours and religions but I refute that there is is a global terror conspiracy, certainly not significant enough to warrent the removal of anyones rights beyond the normal means for law enforcement.

With all of the talk of 'rendition' and government backed policies that involve routine torture of suspects and the classification of people as having no rights - civil or military. Can anyone amongst us, even those of us who are beyond reproach honestly say that they would like to get caught up in all of that. Do you think that saying you are innocent would satisfy those wielding the cattle prod in a secret torture chamber? You would probably find yourself admitting to anything as victims of torture usually do. You may get away with it if you are a card carrying WASP but what if the finger of doubt pointed at you and you were a law abiding muslim? The people doing the torturing may be inflicted with the same sorts of hatred and prejuidice I see on this forum every day. What does a torturer do when their victim says they don't know anything?

I wish this was some kind of Orwellian fiction I am describing but unfortunately it is the reality that we live in.