Okay ... the guy's an illegal. He's obviously tried the marriage game to get and stay here, and done it in a pretty clumsy way. Seems to me they got lots of things to get him on, and (Kennedy forgive me for this) since I've heard of no shortage of potential gas station or 7-11 clerks, I got no problem with them sending him home.

But the mere fact that he visits particular websites as a reason for detention/deportation? I don't know about that one ...

His name is "Muhammed", of course he's a threat to national security........


duh....




:yowsa:

It just gets better.

That's bloody hilarious... just goes to show you that people will twist anything to suit their own agendas.

Uhmmm.... doesn't the article clearly say that he was jailed because of immigration fraud?

Ok. Who just envisioned 200 terrorists calling up the FBI and telling them they're writing a book?

Or that a third to two-thirds of all terrorists caught and identified (how many is that btw?) have claimed upon capture to be either an author or a Jehovah Witness??

:blink:

thats called "pulling a Pete Townsend"

Yes, it does - and if you read my post, you'll see that I said I don't have a problem with that at all.

But gimme a break - how does surfing to a website and scanning a BBS make one a terrorist?

It's one thing when a moron on a BBS argues that actually reading some material makes one a believer in whatever philosophy that material espouses. Hell, I've been accused of being a Marxist right here on Oprano because I have read some Marx (the German fella - not the one in my avatar).

It's quite another thing when morons like that start working for the FBI, and presenting lame-ass arguements like that to judges.

Maybe there's more to it - after all, nowdays Uncle Joe would approve of some of our court procedures, so we may not have the whole story - but taken by itself, that's the sort of arguement one expects to hear made in the courts of Cuba, Iran, and China, and strikes me as a good first step down the proverbial "slippery slope."

Yes, it does - and if you read my post, you'll see that I said I don't have a problem with that at all.

But gimme a break - how does surfing to a website and scanning a BBS make one a terrorist?
[/b][/quote]
give you a break? what are the charges related to terrorism? who is saying anything about terrorism other than his attorney?

pretty vague and one sided article right? was he charged with a crime related to terrorism? all there are is referrences to the immigration case and statements from his attorney. thats not exactly a balanced and objective look at the issue.

give you a break? what are the charges related to terrorism? who is saying anything about terrorism other than his attorney?

pretty vague and one sided article right? was he charged with a crime related to terrorism? all there are is referrences to the immigration case and statements from his attorney. thats not exactly a balanced and objective look at the issue. [/b][/quote]
Don't know what the charges related to terrorism are - they are secret. The only thing the government has stated publicly is that visiting web sites and chat boards makes him a terrorist.

Hmmm ... I've been wondering what happened to Torone. Maybe he's gone to work for the F.B.I.?

So far, I have seen a lot of posts on a lot of boards that bring up examples of how the Patriot Act or <insert other Bushism> has deprived someone of their rights or represents a precursor to a “slippery slope”….

…..everything from this article to Gitmo, to the homeless folks in the train station.

Does anyone have anything real to offer yet? Is this anymore a slippery slope than the rest of the ideas the two-bit politicians present?

Regardless of all the pitfalls of deciding to go on the offensive and taking the fight to the enemy, I cannot see for the life of me how appeasing the islamofascists would yield better long-term results.

Don't know what the charges related to terrorism are - they are secret. The only thing the government has stated publicly is that visiting web sites and chat boards makes him a terrorist.

Hmmm ... I've been wondering what happened to Torone. Maybe he's gone to work for the F.B.I.? [/b][/quote]
WHAT?

you said:
"The only thing the government has stated publicly is that visiting web sites and chat boards makes him a terrorist."

where exactly did you find this statement? going to his immigration fraud hearing and stating that he is a risk to homeland security is not the same as saying "he went to a message board... he is a terrorist". what about due process? the legal system. how does "grand jury" = "secret charges"

maybe they are "secret charges" because in actuality it is just a bullshit remark made by an attorney??

you are quoting a the defendants attorney who is responding to allegations made at a immigration hearing for immigration fraud. funny no one can quote the statements of the FBI being that they attorney would certainly have records of this - if the FBI did in fact make baseless accusations. why paraphrase?

come on PD, you are better than this. did Bush get you that wound up yesterday?

:lol:

This doesn't have a thing to do with Bush's screech the other day.

Read the article.

The Knight-Ridder news service is the one who stated "The government has presented secret evidence at his deportation hearings to show that he is a threat to national security."

Given that they attribute many other statements to his attorney, I can only assume that a) they have sources which have told them that, or B) as representatives of the biased liberal media, they are misrepresenting the truth to make the government look bad.

Read the article.

Aside from the immigration issues and the claim that terrorists often represent themselves as religious converts making the career change to author, the only public disclosures revealed in the article is the FBI claim that surfing "terrorist Web sites and visited terrorist chat rooms" = "threat to national security," and, of course, the "secret evidence ... that he is a threat to national security."

Read the article, and read what I posted.

I made no reference to secret charges - I did quote Knight-Ridder's assertion that secret evidence was presented. There is no reference to a grand jury anywhere in the article or any of my posts. The article by Knight-Ridder states that "immigration judge Robert Newberry declared 'When taken altogether, the evidence establishes respondent presents a substantial risk to the national security of the United States...' " I added emphasis to "immigration" because there are very different rules for those procedings, and what is normally understood to as "due process" doesn't really apply.

This isn't some defense of the poor oppressed immigrant. I would be just as uncomfortable with this kind of court proceeding if they were prosecuting a born-again gun-running Nazi skinhead.

Now, if they wanted to disarm and deport all the born-again gun-running Nazi skinheads to a Gitmo-like facility in Compton ...

Sigh.

Before I get too enthusiastic with the "read the article" crap .... I oughtta read the article.

The article does reference a federal grand jury investigation.

Of course, only a totally inept prosecutor would be unable to get a grand jury to return an indictment against a ham sandwich.