Cynical Nation

She IS cute..

Can't argue.

does she have e-mail?

KIDDING.....just kidding

"The 14-year-old freshman was taken out of class Wednesday and questioned for about 15 minutes by two Secret Service agents."

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Ftech%2Fnews%2F2006-10-16-bush-myspace_x.htm%3FPOE%3DTECISVA

Fifteen minutes is NOT an interrogation, it's a cursory evaluation.

The Secret Service has vigorously followed up on such threats during every administration.

Yes, even tongue in cheek "physical threats" made in a public place, against any elected official ARE considered "terroristic threats" and can result in felony charges. And yes, even entertainers CAN be charged, if the statement is egregious enough.

It's odd that so many Liberals find the Secret Service defending the current occupant in the same manner to be "excessive."

It's almost as if there are some folks in this country who wouldn't mind seeing this guy killed, but for what?

For turning around an inherited recession and instituting "across the board" tax cuts that greatly improved the economy???

For finally involving us in this war against global Sharia-based Islam and its rogue state supporters? A war that had been ignored for almost a decade before he came into office???

For cleaning up all those business scandals that ran rampant during the previous administration (Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom, Tyco, Global Crossing, etc) by signing onto the draconian Sarbannes-Oxley Act???

I don't get it!

Where's all this hate coming from? What's its rationalization?

My guess is there is none.

Thank you, Bush mouthpiece.

My problem with this isn't that she was questioned. I understand why the S.S. had to do their job. That makes perfect sense to me. I do think, however, that if they had allowed a parent to be present during questioning, this would be a non-story. It's not the questioning. It's the manner in which it was conducted that I find objectionable.

"I do think, however, that if they had allowed a parent to be present during questioning, this would be a non-story. It's not the questioning. It's the manner in which it was conducted that I find objectionable." (K)
(K)


I very fair point, K.

They did have to look into this, they should've had her parents present.

I'm sorry Fred, I missed what you disagreed with in what I wrote.

I'm sensing the answer is "Nothing, I just didn't like the tone and tenor of it."

Am I correct?

just laughing at how a post about a cute girl and her secret service run-in turned into yet another bold-faced, all caps rant about tax cuts and islamofascism, taht's all.

> I do think, however, that if they had allowed a parent to be present during questioning, this would be a non-story.

Isn't it really a non-story anyway?

Isn't what really a non-story? This girl's mother keeps hanging up on me whenever I've phoned her this morning.

Try IM.

..claims she has social studies extra help after school today. Crummy excuse...

Hey! At least she's luckier than Aleksey Vayner

http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2006/10/how_not_to_apply_for_a_job_in_ibanking_1.html

Good video though...and nice production values.

Wish I had seen this earlier. There's no news here, actually. The Secret Service has been doing this sort of thing for decades. I was working in the dining service in college when I heard a story about one of my co-workers, a mildly mentally challenged individual named Vince. Vince fancied himself a very political sort, but mostly he ranted as if he were a right-wing radio host. Now I am not being sarcastic about Vince when I mention he was challenged. He suffered a serious head injury years before I met him, had a steel plate in his head, and had some genuine issues. When I hear Limbaugh, I think of Vince. Anyway, one day Vince said something about Jimmy Carter. Just the usual Vince rant. Nobody thought anything about it. Vince was pretty harmless and I don't remember anyone ever being frightened of him. Well, someone objected to the remark and sent a letter to the Secret Service. Next thing you know, they came in and questioned ol' Vince. Poor guy. Scared the pants off of him. He didn't rant about politics much after that. But the SS has to do what they do and that's all there is to it. They investigated, determined he wasn't a threat, and left. I suppose the same applies to this girl, though to be honest, after reading just a little into the story I saw the direction it was taking and let it go.

Most of those who rant about "hating a President" and "wishing him dead" are pretty naive and short-sighted.

Anyone who think that a Cheney Presidency would be any more "Liberal" than the current Bush one, is nuts.

Ditto with Jimmy Carter, did any reasonable person think Walter Mondale would be any better?

Carter really only ruined the Democratic Party, which is bad enough!

After Carter the WH wound up in Republican hands for 20 of the next 28 years...and even more amazing, is that the one Democrat to have held the Presidency (Clinton) post-Carter, did so by running to "the Right" of both his GOP opponents (Bush Sr & Dole).

I wouldn't say Clinton ran to the right of Bush and Dole; instead, he ran as an "I'm not yet another dreamy-eyed typical liberal Democrat like Mondale and Dukakis and Ferraro."

George Bush Sr & Bob Dole were BOTH "Moderate" (read socially Liberal) Republicans, Fred.

I had no affinity for either of them and thankfully neither did most Conservatives.

Bush Sr. broke his "Read my lips" pledge when he "worked with" Ted Kennedy in fashioning a new budget...that included higher taxes.

Clinton ran and governered as a pro-business, tough on crime (wouldn't commute the sentence of the Arkansas killer defense attorney's had labeled "retarded") and anti-welfare "New Democrat."

He didn't work well with the Democratic Congress he had during his first two years, but he worked "well enough" with the Gingrich Congress after January of 1995.

I honestly think that Rudy G is the "most Liberal" candidate this country is going to embrace.

I'd rather a more Conservative candidate, but I can wait...the demographics are in "our favor."

If JMK got his way, the SS would be allowed to rape her to get at "the truth". If she were innocent, it would just be some enjoyable sex. What's the problem?

Unless you are guilty, being fucked by investigators shouldn't really bother you.

Barely, you're you're reading comprehension's awful.

I support changing no laws.

The Constitution (OK, the courts interpretation of that Constitution) specifically gives the Secret Service the responsibility for investigating any and all threats against public officials.

The Patriot Act gives no law enforcement body in the U.S. any new powers at all, regarding any crime.

Of course, "terrorists" and even "terrorist sympathizers" aren't technically "criminals."

Since we're engaged in a military war with "radicalized Islam," such folks can be and are considered "illegal combatants and as of today, they're to be tried by Military Tribunals, not U.S courts.

Illegal combatants are not "criminals," but this story has nothing to do with that.

The Secret Service did in this case what it's done in every such case - interviewed the suspect and assessed their threat level.

This young girl was as harmless as you are.

They made a young girl cry. That is neither nice norupholding American values.

"They made a young girl cry. That is neither nice norupholding American values." (John Ryan)
(John Ryan)


Hmmmmm, well, I have a very sensitive, very Conservative fifteen year old neice, who cries whenever she hears someone extoll Liberal ideology (Bless her heart), so by that logic, merely espousing Liberalism wouldn't be "upholding American valu-"...uhhh, OK, bad example, since espousing Liberalism is pretty much attacking American values....

....Ok, OK, I've got a good example - How about a cop who stops a car for speeding (going sixty in a thirty mile an hour zone) and finds the driver to be an eighty year old woman, who is petrified at being stopped by police.

She cries.

Is the cop in that instance wrong for "making that elderly woman cry?"

It is a somewhat interesting line of reasoning.

Barry said: Isn't it really a non-story anyway?

Well, that's my point. Would it even have been the blip it was if they had just made sure there was a parent present?

I wish we were a Muslim country, I would put in a nice bid on her to be one of my wives.

JMK, if the Patriot Act granted no new powers, why was it passed at all? Sort of like if Chimp already had a rubber stamp court he could use to get wiretaps, why did he need to circumvent it?

"JMK, if the Patriot Act granted no new powers, why was it passed at all?"

The Patriot Act DIDN'T grant any "new powers."

It eradicated the "Garelick Wall," between the CIA & FBI, an artificial and unnecessary "wall" that barred communication Information sharing) between those two agencies created by then Deputy Atty General Jamie S. Gorelick back in 1995.

The "Gorelick Wall" shares a huge portion of the blame for 9/11/01.

Aside from eradicating that terribly cumbersome wall between various federal agenices, the Patriot Act allowed roving wiretaps already used to track drug dealers and pedophiles to be used on terrorists.

Since roving wiretaps were already used in LESSER "crimes" (terrorism is no longer considered a "crime," it's considered "an act of unconventional warfare") that provision also technically "granted NO NEW powers."

As I said, if you can find any new powers, by all means point them out.

The above two provisons are ones I believe the vast majority of Americans (yourself, most likely among them) wholeheartedly support.

http://personalinfomediary.com/USAPATRIOTACT_Text.htm

You're kidding, right?

OK everbody, go see if you can find ANY new powers in this huge legal document.

Note how many passages are NOT specific to "terrorists" and that nothing rules out an American citizen being labeled a "terrorist" at Chimp's whim.

Uhhh, Barely, there ARE American citizens who ARE indeed terrorists!

Adam Gadhan, charged with treason in absentia, John "Taliban Johnny" Walker-Lindt and Lynne Stewart, to name but a few.

So....what's your point about outarge over "American citizens being labeled terrorists?"

When the shoe fits, those so charged....must wear it.

Dumbass, nobody is against terrorists being charged, but true patriotic Americans are against Americans being relieved of that irritating habeas corpus stuff granted in the Magna Carta.

Chimp has set this country back to the Dark Ages, but that will soon be remedied.

Funny how when Chimp & Co. finally have to allow someone out of the dungeon and into an actual courtroom, the original charges magically disappear!

---

On November 22, 2005, CNN's front page broke the news that Padilla had finally been indicted on charges he "conspired to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas." [2] Many news sources correlated the indictment's timing as avoidance of an impending Supreme Court hearing on the Padilla case: "the administration is seeking to avoid a Supreme Court showdown over the issue". [3] [4] [5] None of the original allegations put forward by the U.S. government three years ago, the claims that held Padilla in the majority in solitary confinement throughout that period, were part of the indictment: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced Padilla is being removed from military custody and charged with a series of crimes" and "There is no mention in the indictment of Padilla's alleged plot to use a dirty bomb in the United States. There is also no mention that Padilla ever planned to stage any attacks inside the country. And there is no direct mention of Al-Qaeda. Instead the indictment lays out a case involving five men who helped raise money and recruit volunteers in the 1990s to go overseas to countries including Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo. Padilla, in fact, appears to play a minor role in the conspiracy. He is accused of going to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan but the indictment offers no evidence he ever engaged in terrorist activity." [6] [7] Considering Padilla was held for years in military custody with no formal charges brought, many were shocked by this move by the George W. Bush presidential administration [8] [9] [10] [11], and some reasoned [12] that a repeat of such a process would allow the U.S. government to detain citizens indefinitely without presenting the cause that would eventually be tried. A transfer to civilian court was denied the U.S. Administration by a federal appeals court in December 2005. The court recognized "shifting tactics in the case threatens [the government's] credibility with the courts". [13] This was countered by Solicitor General Paul Clement: the federal appeals court decision "defies both law and logic," he stated in a request to the Supreme Court for immediate transfer on December 30, 2005, [14] one day after Padilla's lawyers filed a petition of their own charging the U.S. President of overstepping his authority. [15]

On January 3, 2006, the United States Supreme Court granted a Bush administration request to transfer Padilla from military to civilian custody.[16] Padilla was transferred to federal prison in Miami from the Navy brig in Charleston while the Supreme Court decided whether to accept his appeal of the government's authority to keep citizens it designates "enemy combatants" in open-ended military confinement without benefit of trial. [17] He plead not guilty to the charges issued in Miami.

Two weeks.

The Magna Carta?!

That's an olde English document (1212 or so), very loosely borrowed from and greatly expanded upon and perfected by America's Founders.

The American Constitution is a far superior document, from a more advanced age, almost five centuries hence.

At any rate, you cite the Padilla case and act as if it's indicative of some sort of "wrongful prosecution," while it's nothing of the sort.

All you need concern yourself with, regarding Jose Padilla, is this; "He is accused of going to a jihad training camp in Afghanistan but the indictment offers no evidence he ever engaged in terrorist activity."

Attending a "jihad training camp in Afghanistan" (a charge NOT denied) IS itself a terroristic act, as it shows intent.

And YES, it is a crime.

That's exactly what the "Lackawanna Six" (those six ill-fated "Arab-American males" from Lackawanna, NY) were prosecuted, convicted and jailed on.

In short, I'm as distressed that Jose Padilla will not have to face a U.S. military tribunal as I was that the traitorous Lynne Stewart was summarily executed upon her conviction for consorting with Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Both are highly unfortunate incidents.

As usual, you try to Rove the issue. Jose Padilla was denied habeas corpus, which was first established by the Magna Carta.

The Chimpsquad reasoning was that whomever they decree is an "enemy combatant" loses this 500+ year old right ... because they say so.

THEN, when forced to charge Padilla, the "Dirty Bomber", there is no mention of any dirty bomb at all. They held him under false pretenses.

Please point to the law that states that attending a terrorist training camp is illegal. He wasn't charged with attending a camp, either.

Just like the Iraq War and WMDs, Chimpsquad has to change their reasons once their lies are exposed.

Although the government obviously never had any real "dirty bomb" case, they still held an American citizen for three years, without a day in court.

When the day in court came, their proported reasons vanished.

A perfect example of why American citizens shouldn't give away their right to habeas corpus.

Jose Padilla was rightfully and originally taken into custody on suspicion of supporting terrorism and being involved in a planned Dirty Bomb attack.

Anyone deemed complicit in such a plot CAN BE taken into military custody and held outside the realm of American jurisprudence (that means he does not get his day in front of an American court).

Padilla was charged as an "enemy combatant," ANYONE who supports the jihaidst terrorists can be so charged, as that goes beyond even "aiding and abettting an enemy during wartime."

Moreover, Padilla's own cooperation kept in the Military Brig.

“Padilla has been cooperating and cooperating quite extensively for almost the last two years.

“That was not really known prior to today. There was a broad outline that was publicly known about the accusations against him, the idea that he had contact with senior al-Qaida officials that he had come back to the United States with the idea of plotting a terrorist attack -- but much of the new details apparently coming from Padilla himself, in terms of who exactly he met with the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in his plans to get back to the United States for how he might go about carrying out a plot.

“Apparently according to the declassified papers today, the al-Qaida leadership had actually scuttled the idea of a dirty bomb. They had told Padilla they did not think it would work.

“And they then went back to a more conventional plot that involved Padilla and another associate renting apartments in two separate apartment buildings, turning up the natural gas heat and then setting off conventional detonated devices to get them to go off simultaneously. That's information apparently from Padilla himself as to what they were plotting.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/padilla_06-01.html
“ Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Mr. Padilla's capture from Moscow on June 10, 2002, saying that an "unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb" had been disrupted, an attack with the potential to cause "mass death and injury."

Later, other officials emphasized that the "unfolding terrorist plot" had not progressed beyond "loose talk," as Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, put it.

“The government has asked the public and the courts to accept that Mr. Padilla would not be locked up incommunicado if he were not a danger to national security and a highly valuable intelligence source. One of Mr. Padilla's lawyers, Donna R. Newman, calls it the "because-we-say-so doctrine."

“The central allegations against Mr. Padilla are contained in one unsealed memorandum, a declaration by Michael H. Mobbs, a Pentagon official. Mr. Padilla, the memo says, is an associate of Al Qaeda who, in travels to Afghanistan and Pakistan, met with senior Qaeda officials, trained in wiring explosives, "researched" dirty bombs, concocted plans for attacks on the United States and, "it is believed," returned to the United States to "conduct reconnaissance and/or attacks" on behalf of Al Qaeda.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/25/national/25PADI.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5007&en=190a0316c2ef0ee3&ex=1398225600&partner=USERLAND
"Yes they can!"

When it came right down to it, he wasn't charged with ANY of the bullshit you just posted.

There would be nothing wrong with presenting an American citizen like Padilla to a court and WITH OVERSIGHT and EVIDENCE charging him as an enemy combatant, THEN turning him over to the military.

Stop Roving the issue. The issue is habeas corpus. The issue is that Chimpboy has no authority to decide which American citizen is denied habeas corpus.

The fact that you support this only confirms that at heart you are a Nazi.

Where to begin?

You're once again wrong on virtually every aspect of this case.

(1) Padilla was never "charged" with anything related to any "dirty bomb" plot.

That much is very clear.

(2) He was rightfully held by the Military as an "enemy combatant" because he "cooperated" with military authorities and relayed what terrorist training camps he attended, whom he met with etc.

Don't challenge those facts again.

The articles above make those facts all too clear that they are indeed undeniable facts.

Congress passed into law the statute that allows such people to be held by the military and tried by military tribunals without access to any evidence against them that is deemed "classified."

No sane American wants to have ANY such classified information made public due to court procedures for accused terrorists, because they know that such information could only weaken our position and greatly aid the forces of the global jihad, which is what the likes of Lynne Stewart and other such terror supporters want.

America's problem vis-a-vis the war on terror (WoT) is, simply put, that we just haven't been killing enough of our enemies up to this point.

Those "enemies" include terrorists, Sharia-adhering Muslims and those who support either terrorists OR Sharia-based Islam.

In the U.S. the American Nazi Party supports the jihadists because the Baathist Party in the Mideast is an offshoot of the Nazi Party.

The Nazis in Europe do likewise because the Arab-Muslim world was allied with the Third Reich throughout the Second World War.

Ergo, dare I say, ANY American who expresses sympathy, or even feels "we've gone to far" in this WoT is very possibly either a Sharia-sympathizer or an out and out Nazi.

Your innate hatred for the Jews, coupled with your inanely emotional opposition to the WoT makes me suspicious of your leanings, Barely.

Nazi...or jihadist symp?

I can't put my finger on it, but I'm more and more certain that you're one or the other.

Michigan has a large Arab-Muslim population...Terry Nichols, of the Oklahoma City Bombing, had a Muslim wife from the Phillipines whose family had documented al Qaeda sympathies...perhaps similar sympathies to your own???

"The issue is that Chimpboy has no authority to decide which American citizen is denied habeas corpus." (BH)
(BH)


Well, wrong again.

The recent Bill passed by Congress OK'ing military tribunals allows the Executive Branch to do pretty much just that, for those brought in on terror-related charges.

It also allows for interrogations "under duress."

Of course, as I've noted many times, EVERY Police Dept in the country is allowed to employ a certain amount of "duress" when interrogating suspects.

That is why Congress is being thrown out on its collective ass.

Roberts and Alito will not allow the Executive Branch to voilate the most basic constructs of the Constitution even if the wingnut Congress gladly rubber stamps such treasonous legislation.

You have made my point perfectly, thanks.

Actually, Roberts and Alito (a/k/a "Scalito") can be counted on, along with Scalia, Thomas and probably Kennedy, to approve the very reasonable legislation recently approved by Congress.

As I said, Police Departments around the country routinely use "duress" (cell lights stay on for seventy-two to ninety-six hours straight, with lots of loud noise, threatening subject with being put into cells with others they're told might rape and sodomize them, lying and deliberately misleading suspects (telling them their cohorts are "in their giving you up right now," things like that)...the same "duress" dopes like you want to believe is "Unconstitutional" - it's not.

It's not "torture" ("the inflicting of intentional permanent injury or disability upon a subject") either.

I WANT child molestors put under "all kinds of duress" and I want the same for murderers, rapists and other violent felons.

I believe the vast majority of Americans do. Hell, I even support "duress" for pedophiles who pre-emptively confess right up front, just on "GP" (general principle).

Despite such views I'm an ardent Constitutional "strict constructionist," same way Robert Bork was.