seems like the democratic party now has a russian delegation

feeds.bignewsnetwork.com...
Russia's chief prosecutor has proposed a law to detain terrorists' relatives when they seize hostages, the Moscow Times said this weekend.

Considering the past of the demo party and how they used allowing the relatives to leave post 9-11. I�m wondering if they are now consulting some of the folks in Russia?

Originally posted by keholmes

Considering the past of the demo party and how they used allowing the relatives to leave post 9-11. I�m wondering if they are now consulting some of the folks in Russia?

Say what?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by keholmes

Considering the past of the demo party and how they used allowing the relatives to leave post 9-11. I�m wondering if they are now consulting some of the folks in Russia?

Say what?

what part don't you understand?

Why not detain and question relatives of terrorists? That's just considered good police work. You try to find out as much as you can about the terrorists.

So, this opposed to killing terrorists relatives and countrymen while invading a country.

This compared to taking away the fundamental rights of the innocent.

Sorry, I just don't see anything wrong with it.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Why not detain and question relatives of terrorists? That's just considered good police work. You try to find out as much as you can about the terrorists.

Based on what? The family had publicly disowned OBL several years earlier�OBL is one of 54 sons�.his mother was the only Saudi and he has no full brothers�..all are half. A tiny minority (1 or 2) agree with his politics but they were nowhere near America�..also any that were so inclined I�m sure gave what info they could which would have been little to nothing. You should try to see more news and less M. Moore. what should we have done delayed their flight against our own laws and make a big splash about asking people about someone they hadn't seen in several years....and probably had no contact with during that time? Wow, that's really good police work...small wonder it took so long to find E. Rudolph.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
This compared to taking away the fundamental rights of the innocent.

so in your mind relatives are instantaneously guilty? WTF?


[edit on 30-10-2004 by keholmes]

The relatives need to be questioned. Yea, I did take a little part of that from Moore's film, but he made a good point in this respect. There is actually an article that I posted up about the OBL family sharing a bank account with Osama up until recently.

But, the point is, why does it hurt to ask someone? No, I don't think the relatives are guilty, I think you know what I meant. They should be questioned, that's all. Not sent on a plane automatically, nor the Saudi Royal Family.

Why don't you think they should have been questioned? What would it have hurt?

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The relatives need to be questioned. Yea, I did take a little part of that from Moore's film, but he made a good point in this respect. There is actually an article that I posted up about the OBL family sharing a bank account with Osama up until recently.

But, the point is, why does it hurt to ask someone? No, I don't think the relatives are guilty, I think you know what I meant. They should be questioned, that's all. Not sent on a plane automatically, nor the Saudi Royal Family.

Why don't you think they should have been questioned? What would it have hurt?

If you think that they didn't have the chance to share or get questioned then you are kidding yourself. as for detaining them with absolutely no probable cause that they knew anything....in fact plenty of reason and logic to indicate that they probably didn't have a clue....how long would be good for you and M. Moore should we have fired up the internment camps out west and kept them till they swore allegiance or the conflict ended? What would have satisfied you and Moore? Maybe decimation, chop a leg off every 10th relative?

Wow dude, is this how you always act? Calm down....

Detain them for a reasonable amount of time until all the questions are answered to the satisfaction of the person in charge. I'm not a cop, nor an investigator, so I don't know what the standard amount of time is. I'd assume it's fairly relative and up to when the individual/group deems that all questions are answered.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Wow dude, is this how you always act? Calm down....

I�m actually quite calm. I was just trying to point out to you how insidious and silly your claim is that they should have some sort of time table for how long they detain relatives for PR reasons. as for bad relatives my brother is a dirt-bag, the police can not look into his record and not realize that if I have anything.....I�ll be the one screaming at them to quit eating donuts and do their damn jobs, as has been the case far too many times in the past. So every time my dirt-bag brother does something the police should have the right to snag me up and hold me for some PR dictated amount of time��although knowing that it will garner absolutely nothing in the way of leads. That is what you are insinuating and besides being contrary to US law would be a rather dim policy.

If a crime is committed and your brother is missing, you can be sure that the police will eventually question you if the charge is great enough. If you read my last post, I said a relative amount of time depending upon when the questions are answered to the officer's satisfaction. You don't have to exaggerate and say that it's all about PR or that a timetable is involved. 9/11 happened and if Osama did it, we need to find him, plain and simple. You believe it will garnish nothing in the way of leads, but I don't think you are really in a position to say such a statement.

If this is just you trying to argue with people that aren't satisfied with the events of 9/11 or its investigation, I suggest you find other places to look. Your arguments are severely lacking.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
If a crime is committed and your brother is missing,

Wrong again my friend, he has had warrants in excess of 75k�.I�ve been personally questioned twice�..once when he stole my identity and committed a crime, and once when he escaped from prison. Neither of those being the really hi warrant amount. And all I�m saying is that to illegally detain and question people who have lived in this country for in some cases 5 or more years to see if the criminal mastermind called the person he hasn�t seen in � a decade to give a forwarding address, is more than a little silly.


i reread the previous and it just smacked me.....how long do you think it takes to say "do you know where he is" what are you suggesting. that simply being related to someone entitles you to detention and interrogation until the police are satisfied.....you are scary.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by keholmes]

So you were questioned. As well, the 1 1/2 decade statement is false, they've had more recent relations, even shared a bank account up through the '90s. Yet, you don't think that the Bin Laden family should be questioned? Doesn't make sense.

Link:www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
So you were questioned. As well, the 1 1/2 decade statement is false, they've had more recent relations, even shared a bank account up through the '90s. Yet, you don't think that the Bin Laden family should be questioned? Doesn't make sense.

Link:www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

first, I said � not 1 & ��..you took 5 years as 15�.and you found one out of 54 wow�.what proof. And it was in the 90�s you know the decade that the family split with him �..late 90�s. and then further good proof for torturing his relatives here for information. His relatives over there knew something 10 years ago�.jeez I hope you never get a job as a cop. You do know speaking of brothers nieces and nephews your talking a group of over 300.

Again if you think they weren�t asked then you�re only fooling yourself. Again I ask how long would you and Moore want them held, do you have an hour count?

Look, what is your problem. Nowhere have I said anything about torturing them. If you want to have a civilized discussion fine, but if you just want to crack jokes and spin what I say, then have fun by yourself. My article stated a family bank account and I've seen no indication that they were questioned before leaving the states.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Look, what is your problem. Nowhere have I said anything about torturing them. If you want to have a civilized discussion fine, but if you just want to crack jokes and spin what I say, then have fun by yourself. My article stated a family bank account and I've seen no indication that they were questioned before leaving the states.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

i guess i'll ask it again....how long do you think it takes to ask "do you know any information regarding OBL. do you know where he currently is" do you really think that they put them on no talking flights. and didn't come to see them off. when they got back to saudi.....do you really believe the towers went down and the NSA said OMG we need to get the OBL family out and not ask them any question.

if you believe that they did ask.....and it's kind of silly to assume they didn't. the logical extension of your and Moores position is that you don't believe they answered correctly. so how exactly do you propose to get them to give it up.

�������.Much has already been written about these flights, especially the film�s implication that figures with possible knowledge of the terrorist attacks were allowed to leave the country without adequate FBI screening�a notion that has been essentially rejected by the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them �detailed questions." �Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,� the commission stated.
��������.
It is true that there are still some in the FBI who had questions about the flights-and wish more care had been taken to examine the passengers. But the film�s basic point�that the flights represented perhaps the supreme example of the Saudi government�s influence in the Bush White House-is almost impossible to defend. Why? Because while the film claims�correctly�that the �White House� approved the flights, it fails to note who exactly in the White House did so. It wasn�t the president, or the vice president or anybody else supposedly corrupted by Saudi oil money. It was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration and who has since turned into a fierce Bush critic. Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight�conditioned on FBI clearance������..msnbc.msn.com...

From your article:

It is true that there are still some in the FBI who had questions about the flights-and wish more care had been taken to examine the passengers.

This is what I'm talking about, by detaining Foreign Nationals we could have had a closer examination of 9/11. I guess I'll state again, I am not a police officer, nor an investigator, I am not qualified to give an approximate time on how long such an investigation would take. Look, you can link me and Moore all you want, but it only goes to show your ignorance and vehemence about Moore. Class everyone who gets in the way of your agenda a liberal or Moore-lover. I have a question for you, have you seen the movie?

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight�conditioned on FBI clearance.

i'm sure that you could find several that would have thought anything less than tuning'em up wouldn't be sufficient......as for you question i'll answer it with another....have you ever tasted dog sh!^?

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Clarke has publicly testified that he gave the greenlight�conditioned on FBI clearance.

i'm sure that you could find several that would have thought anything less than tuning'em up wouldn't be sufficient......as for you question i'll answer it with another....have you ever tasted dog sh!^?

I don't understand what you are saying with the quote or the first statement of yours. But, how can you have a worthwhile opinion about F9/11 if you've never seen it? Not to be mean, but that is the epitome of ignorance.

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by keholmes
i'm sure that you could find several that would have thought anything less than tuning'em up wouldn't be sufficient......as for you question i'll answer it with another....have you ever tasted dog sh!^?

I don't understand what you are saying with the quote or the first statement of yours. But, how can you have a worthwhile opinion about F9/11 if you've never seen it? Not to be mean, but that is the epitome of ignorance.

as for the saying.....i'll try a different one for you....i'm sure you can find some that would have not been happy without them being worked over to ensure that we got all we could.

as for the second, so i take that to mean you have no opinion on the taste of dog sh!^, so if i fry some up will you eat it.