In May 2007, Monteilh said he recorded a conversation about jihad during a car ride with [Ahmadullah Sais] Niazi and another man. Monteilh said he suggested an operation to blow up buildings and Niazi agreed. An FBI agent later cited that and other taped conversations between the two in court as evidence that Niazi was a threat.
A few days later, [Hussam] Ayloush [of the L.A. Council on American-Islamic Relations] got an anguished phone call from Niazi and the other man in the car.
"They said Farouk had told them he had access to weapons and that they should blow up a mall," Ayloush recalled. "They were convinced this man was a terrorist."
Ayloush reported the FBI's own informant to the FBI. He said agents interviewed Niazi, who gave them the same account, but the agency took no action against Monteilh.
So then the FBI thanked Niazi for being a conscientious citizen and for reporting the threat and went on their merry way, right? BZZZZZT. They tried to prosecute him!
Trust me, BP is not thinking "HAHAHAHA! Our plan worked flawlessly! Our investors will be pleased!"
Shit happens, and oil rigs will never be completely safe. As long as companies are held accountable for any damages they cause (BP wasn't, by the by. The law caps their total liability in related damage to $75 million. How's that for "regulation"?) they will learn from their mistakes right quick.
You do realize that the other oil companies scrambled, in the wake of the BP spill, to shore up all of their rigs too, right?
Depends on whether they did it because they were afraid they would lose customers (popular backlash) or because they were afraid of the government (legal backlash).
The first is a business decision, the second is the chilling effect of our government on free speech.
If Amazon decide not to host Wikileaks, that's their business, it is not censorship and not a violation of the First Admendment.
True enough, but I can imagine how noncompliance with a government "request" might be seen as an admission by Amazon that they were hosting "infringing content".
"Nice domain you got there . . . be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
By doing this, Wikileaks is, in a sense, a terrorist organization.
If he was a citizen of the US, it wouldn't be terrorism? Terrorism depends on your country of origin and not the action? Timmy McVeigh can rest easy in his grave, I guess.
Also, what? Terrorism? Listen kid, terrorism doesn't mean "something the US government really hates", despite what the word has been twisted into by the past couple presidencies.
Since when does exposing stolen government and military documents for general public consumption including to the originating countries enemies constitute free speech?
When did it not?
Since when was Julian Assange a US citizen guaranteed such a right?
First, there's the philosophical argument that free speech is a right that all humankind shares (a thought shared by our very Declaration of Independence, mind you). Besides, would you suddenly be okay with this if it was a US citizen leaking the same info? I suspect not, which makes the question of Assange's citizenship nothing more than a distraction on your part.
Second, Amazon is a US company being pressured by the US government.
How MSNBC has become the Fox News of the left. I mean, they had always leaned that way in the past, but now they aren't even trying to hide it. Mathews, Maddow . . . the whole lot of them are Glenn Becks for the people who hate Glenn Beck.
On the post: So WikiLeaks Is Evil For Releasing Documents... But DynCorp Gets A Pass For Pimping Young Boys To Afghan Cops?
Re:
"Not only was I not speeding, but there's a man over there raping a young boy that you should probably do something about."
On the post: Visa & MasterCard: KKK Is A-OK, But Wikileaks Is Wicked
Re: again, its their choice, within the law.
And we have every right to criticize them publicly for being hypocritical government stooges!
Glad you're on board.
On the post: Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard
Re: technically...
On the post: The More Some Try To Kill Wikileaks, The More It Spreads
Re: Secrets for Assange?
On the post: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI
Re:
If a government agent has to talk someone into breaking the law, it's probably not a valid arrest.
On the post: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Terrible troll, or just a terrible poster? I can't decide.
On the post: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI
Re: It's Worse Than That
On the post: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI
It's Worse Than That
In May 2007, Monteilh said he recorded a conversation about jihad during a car ride with [Ahmadullah Sais] Niazi and another man. Monteilh said he suggested an operation to blow up buildings and Niazi agreed. An FBI agent later cited that and other taped conversations between the two in court as evidence that Niazi was a threat.
A few days later, [Hussam] Ayloush [of the L.A. Council on American-Islamic Relations] got an anguished phone call from Niazi and the other man in the car.
"They said Farouk had told them he had access to weapons and that they should blow up a mall," Ayloush recalled. "They were convinced this man was a terrorist."
Ayloush reported the FBI's own informant to the FBI. He said agents interviewed Niazi, who gave them the same account, but the agency took no action against Monteilh.
So then the FBI thanked Niazi for being a conscientious citizen and for reporting the threat and went on their merry way, right? BZZZZZT. They tried to prosecute him!
On the post: Swiss Bank Finds Technicality To Freeze Wikileaks Bank Account
That Was My First Thought Too
On the post: PayPal Latest To Cut Off Wikileaks
Re: Perhaps unrelated...
Alright, so who do you want to replace him with?
On the post: Viacom Plays The Insane Hyperbole Card In Claiming YouTube Ruling Would 'Completely Destroy' Content Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is what YouTube does, and thus is in compliance.
What else ya got?
On the post: BP Ignored Safety Software In Setting Up Oil Well
Re: Re: Re:
Shit happens, and oil rigs will never be completely safe. As long as companies are held accountable for any damages they cause (BP wasn't, by the by. The law caps their total liability in related damage to $75 million. How's that for "regulation"?) they will learn from their mistakes right quick.
You do realize that the other oil companies scrambled, in the wake of the BP spill, to shore up all of their rigs too, right?
On the post: BP Ignored Safety Software In Setting Up Oil Well
Re:
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who decides what Consitutes good or bad?
As soon as he said that, I thought "Apparently he hasn't heard the Diablo Swing Orchestra!"
Good call, sir.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: A platform
The first is a business decision, the second is the chilling effect of our government on free speech.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Hate to play Devil's Advocate
True enough, but I can imagine how noncompliance with a government "request" might be seen as an admission by Amazon that they were hosting "infringing content".
"Nice domain you got there . . . be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re:
If he was a citizen of the US, it wouldn't be terrorism? Terrorism depends on your country of origin and not the action? Timmy McVeigh can rest easy in his grave, I guess.
Also, what? Terrorism? Listen kid, terrorism doesn't mean "something the US government really hates", despite what the word has been twisted into by the past couple presidencies.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re:
When did it not?
Since when was Julian Assange a US citizen guaranteed such a right?
First, there's the philosophical argument that free speech is a right that all humankind shares (a thought shared by our very Declaration of Independence, mind you). Besides, would you suddenly be okay with this if it was a US citizen leaking the same info? I suspect not, which makes the question of Assange's citizenship nothing more than a distraction on your part.
Second, Amazon is a US company being pressured by the US government.
On the post: Chris Matthews Says That Pointing Out Chertoff's Conflict Of Interest Over Rapiscan TSA Scanners Is Slander?
It's Disgusting
On the post: Newspapers Say: Shut Up And Get Scanned And Groped
Re: Re: Re: Re: You really want to see heads explode?
Are you sure? The individual mandate, for example, makes it an offense to not do business with them. What business doesn't want that?
Next >>