Terrorism

Faisal Shahzad Roundup

|

Chatter and commentary around the Interwebs on the Times Square bombing case:

NEXT: Reason.tv: T. Markus Funk on The International Criminal Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Chatter and commentary around the Interwebs

    I thought it said “clutter” and commentary.
    Carry on.

  2. The suspect is a middle age white male, has a history of strong political views, and considers himself a Sarah Palin Tea Party express activist. An arrest is expected within days. In a strange twist, the suspect worked in the past as an informant with law enforcement agencies.

    The voices in my head are never that specific or reassuring.

    1. I think that Jason Levin’s “anonymous sources” may be fucking with him.

      Or, as cent implies, he hears strange voices like the guy who “speaks” with the evil wall street libertarian.

    2. Or this one from KOS.

      The reality is that in this country there seem to be essentially two scenarios that can unfold at this point when we hear about terrorism, two kinds of people/groups that typically end up being involved. And that says quite a lot in and of itself. If I were the Tea Partiers, I wouldn’t be too quick to dwell on the question of why Americans might think they’re involved in terrorism. I don’t think that’s a discussion that’s going to go well for them.”

      Basically he is saying they should shut up and not defend themselves because it “won’t end well for them”. Thank God that fuck head has never and will never be in any position of authority. He really is one of the most morally loathsome human beings on earth.

      1. And ugly as a buttsore.

      2. Seriously, how many acts of terrorism have been committed by tea partiers? As far as I know, none. It is about as sound a conclusion as claiming that everyone to the left of Reagan is a supporter of Pol Pot.

        1. **sigh** Pol was just dreamy!

      3. But look how misidentifying a suspect worked in Spain, where the government named the Basques as the bombers, and it turned out to be al Queada.

        Then again, I suspect part of the agenda here is to keep pounding in the message that most of the Right is violent.

        Did you hear anything about the tantrum the “Anarchists” threw in Southen California? More violent than anything I’ve heard happened at any Tea Party.

        1. Liberal anarchists = doing God’s/Gaia’s Work.

          Didn’t you get the memo?

      4. No, in actuality it’s Kos and all the leftists that things won’t go well for if one if their deranged Islamic terrorist buddies manages to succeed in another attack.

        We’ve already had Ft. Hood, and we’ve gotten lucky twice with failed attacks in the last year or so due to sheer luck and the stupidity of the perps. One more major success that kills a lot of Americans though, and I think the country will be almost as fed up with the left-wing scum enablers as with the Muslims themselves.

    3. I see the stopped clock brigade is out in full force.

      Too bad for them that they haven’t even hit the first marker yet.

  3. Lieberman is right. You can strip a naturalized citizen of their citizenship for committing treason or making war against the US. 8 U.S.C. 1487(a)(7)
    (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality?
    “(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

    Balko throws that out there like Lieberman is some kind of loon. But, if this guy is guilty of plotting to bomb the US, then he should lose his citizenship.

    1. Balko throws that out there like Lieberman is some kind of loon

      It was the exclamation point, wasn’t it?

    2. Hand over your allegedly libertarian paraphernalia, John, as you are clearly not qualified to dance to Radley’s music.

    3. Lieberman is right. You can strip a naturalized citizen
      of their citizenship for committing treason or making war against the US. 8 U.S.C. 1487(a)(7)
      (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization , shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality?

      John, any reason you singled out naturalized citizen when what you quoted didn’t make a distinction?

      1. Because I misread the statute. I thought it only applied to naturalized citizens. But now that you mention it, it applies to natural born citizens as well. My mistake.

      2. Or it could be because the person we are talking about is a naturalized citizen, so that is what matters in this context?

    4. That comes AFTER CONVICTION. Lieberman and his ilk seem to think we should strip citizenship now, and then worry about silly things like proving his guilt later.

      Heck, from the way Lieberman phrased it (“could be challenged in court…”) it seems he’d want the accused to prove his innocence.

      1. If he is naturalized, we cannot do that. The only way we could, would be if it came to light he got citizenship via fraud. As far as bombing goes, he has to be convicted. And then we can strip him of his nationality.

        1. I think the “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality?” part still needs to be demonstrated.

        2. He would have to be found guilty of treason, not something people think equates to treason.

          1. You couldn’t have misread that statute more if you tried, John. You cherry pick the phrases you like and ignore those you don’t. Lieberman is a loon here.

    5. The article linked talks about Lieberman wanting to strip “suspected terrorists” of their citizenship so the government won’t read them their Miranda warnings and allow them other constitutional protections. Without getting into the argument that non-citizens also have rights, 8 USC 1487(a)(7) says that nationality can be lost only “if and when he is convicted [of an act of treason, etc.] by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.” He hasn’t been convicted.

      1. Yeah I know. My fault for giving Lieberman too much credit. I assumed he wasn’t that stupid.

    6. If I’m not mistaken John, your quoted text applies to people who have actually been convicted of those crimes. Lieberman is proposing we get around the constitutional criminal protections afforded to American citizens accused of terrorism by stripping them of their citizenship the moment they become a suspect. Under this rationale, taken with Lieberman’s other views on national security, Steven Hatfill and Richard Jewell could have been locked up indefinitely without ever getting a day in court. In case you’ve forgotten, both those men were innocent.

      So yes. I’d call Lieberman’s proposition loony.

      1. But not capital L looney.

      2. I’d call his proposition repugnant. But this is a guy who called for an investigation into the prices of breakfast cereals, so loony applies as well.

        1. I thought it was *uck Schumer who wanted to investigate breakfast cereal prices.

      3. I never figured he would actually say that. No the guy is a citizen. We can’t take his citizenship away until after he is convicted. Lieberman is just shooting his mouth off without thinking.

        1. There’s also the sticky point that terrorism such as this isn’t an attempt to overthrow or take arms against the government.

          As has been said many times before, Lieberman is a bigger threat to your well-being than a terrorist.

          1. I think if you join an international organization whose sole purpose is terrorizing and killing Americans, you have committed “treason within the meaning of the statute”. After this guy is convicted, take his citizenship. Fuck him.

    7. John and other serious folks like myself think that if someone is suspected by the government of terrorism then we need to DO WHATEVER it takes to get rid of those folks; Pronto.

      Trials are for pussies.

      If we don’t start fighting this war on terror seriously then all you pinko-commie libtards need to get your wives fitted for burkas…because Sharia law is coming!

      1. Riiight. That scenario obviates any possibility of unintended consequences. I say let’s just go for it.

    8. Allegedly attempting to detonate a car is not an act of treason.

      1. It could be. But that could only be determined after the trial. So, what Radley said.

        1. Key word is allegedly.

          1. He apparently confessed. Time will tell, but chances are very high he is guilty.

            1. Will be guilty.

              1. I don’t get it, man. I said “…determined after the trial.” What’s with the “allegedly”?

      2. And Tony cements himself in the parking lot of MediaMatters commenters who said the Christmas Day Bomber story wasn’t a big deal because the bomb failed to detonate.

    9. I think that the “intention of relinquishing US nationality” bit is still missing. Just the acts by themselves are not enough. And nationalized citizens are not a special case. The rule applies to all citizens the same (just like it says in the back of your passport).

  4. Flipping the channels last night. Documentary on the assasination of Dr. King. Documentary on the KKK, and another called American Nazis. The voices in my head say it’s no coincidence, numerous shows about violent right wingers.

    1. Everything is falling into place.

      1. The Klan…skinheads….tea party…it’s all blurring together

      2. But… but… this guy isn’t a tea-bagger! *sob* He was SUPPOSED to be a tea-bagger! Because there are no other terrorists these days!

        Well, fuck it… I’m gonna report it as such anyway. My viewer knows the real truth.

    2. I saw that, there was nothing else on. Those dudes sure like to hang out in the woods together with their shirts off. No girls allowed!

      1. I knew teh gay were behind this!

    3. To be fair, the show on James Earl Ray you reference really just painted him as a petty criminal / loser who wanted to finally be recognized for something.

      1. Well, he was a loser, until he revived things with that great portrayal of Rorschach.

  5. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)

    Not to be confused with Sen. Paul Patterson (I-Pillagge.), or Sen. Henry Blunt (I-Robb.).

    1. Or Vernon Maxi (I-Pad)

    2. STEVE SMITH (I-RAPEE)

      1. STEVE SMITH NOT INDEPENDENT, YOU PARTISAN HACK! STEVE VOTE REFORM PARTY! STEVE LOVE ROSS PEROT! FLAT TAX ONLY FAIR WAY TO DIVIDE UP HIKERS!

        1. Steve Smith is against free trade??? Now you’ve gone too far.

          1. STEVE WANT PROTECT PACIFICA JOBS! STEVE NOT WANT FOREIGNERS TAKING HIKING JOBS FROM NORTHWEST PACIFICANS! STEVE SAYS THEY CALLED ‘ILLEGAL’ FOR REASON!

            1. Maybe that giant sucking sound wasn’t what I thought it was.

            2. Epi, aren’t you supposed to use the Steve Smith handle when spoofing him? Unless it isn’t a spoof and you simply forgot to change…. [backs away slowly]

  6. That dude is no terrorist, just another citizen fed up with the nonsense. Certainly not the brightest bulb in the pack. But no terrorist.

    Lou
    http://www.whos-logging.se.tc

    1. Wow, just wow.

    2. Er, did AnonBot just jump the shark?

      1. Jen-Lou has gender confusion issues at the very least.

        1. Constantly turning tranny toilet tricks for tar will do that to ya.

          1. Wasn’t that what anon-bot said when that dude flew that plane into the IRS building?

  7. Slate (via Twitter): It’s a bad day to be named Faisal Shahzad.

    Oh shit, there are a lot of ‘process improvement engineers’ who are going to be taking the train for the rest of their lives…

    1. There’s something about a train!

  8. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday said the Obama administration has been more successful in combating terrorism than its predecessor.

    “We’re tough on terrorists. That’s our policy. That’s our performance. And, in fact, we’ve been more successful,” Hoyer said at his weekly press availability.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/ho…..s-than-gop

    This gives me a really bad feeling something is going to blow up this week. Hoyer is about as dumb as a fence post. And this is just tempting the Gods.

    1. This is another case of Feds get lucky. They’ve got nothing to brag about.

    2. Making it longer than 9 months without 3,000 people being killed in a terrorist attack pretty much confirms this, dontcha think?

      1. Confirm what that you are retarded and have the reasoning skills of a slow five year old? Yes. But you confirm that every day.

        1. You’re one of those who think the underpants bomber was the worst attack in American history, right?

          1. No. That is one of the other voices in your head.

          2. Not the worst, Tony, but having the mindset that it wasn’t that big a deal because the bomb didn’t go off, isn’t exactly a good defensive argument.

            1. Did I say it wasn’t a big deal?

              1. You make it sound like it wasn’t a big deal, Tony, so I can see why TLG posted as such.

                1. I just implied that it wasn’t the worst terrorist attack in American history, which is actually what some wingnutters have said, their memories extending only to sept. 12, 2001.

                  But even if history conveniently didn’t begin until safely after Bush could be held accountable for the actual worst terrorist attack, the IRS plane guy still killed more people than either the underpants guy or the times square guy. So antigovernment white guy still has the swarthy muslims beat.

                  1. Worldwide stats, or just on our soil, Tony?

                    But, there you go again – the Panty Bomber and the NYC bomber failed, so it’s not as big a deal because a) the bombs failed to detonate and b) the perps aren’t “antigovernment white guy[s]”.

                  2. “swarthy Muslims”

                    What about white guys who convert to Islam, Tony?

                    Who knew liberals could be racists? Shocked! Shocked, I am!

            2. Did you know that today is Ignore-A-Troll Tuesday?

              1. But it’s so much fun tweakin’ ’em!

                1. Ignoring them is the first step to wellness.

                  1. It IS fun, though.

    3. “We’re tough on terrorists. That’s our policy. That’s our performance. And, in fact, we’ve been more successful,”

      Lets see, four attacks since he took office (if I’m counting right). That averages out to around one every four months.

      I don’t think we had terror attacks (or attempts) at that rate during the Bush years.

      It depends on how you count the 9/11 attack, of course.

      1. Failed attempts don’t count. And does the DC sniper count as one total attack or one for each snipe? Same with the anthrax attacks, are they one or one for each anthrax letter?

        1. Bless you, Mo.

          The frequency of attacks when they are so few proves nothing.

  9. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..19_pf.html

    This is the most disgusting article I have ever read. The head of the WHO recently visited North Korea and remarked on how wonderfully healthy the population is because among other reasons “there were no signs of obesity”. No shit.

    1. “no signs of obesity.”
      Comedy gold (unless, of course, you’re North Korean).

      1. I wonder if Tony is head of the WHO?

    2. Roger Daltrey went to North Korea?

      1. No Pete Townsend you dope.

    3. Do these people forget that until quite recently, for most of the world, starving was, or still is a major problem? For a poorer country, signs of obesity should be considered a good sign.

    4. Yikes, that’s absolutely disgusting. And while there may be doctors around, what kind of services can they provide. A doctor’s visit doesn’t mean much if I can get antibiotics or he can’t send my blood work to a lab.

  10. Lieberman and his ilk seem to think we should strip citizenship now, and then worry about silly things like proving his guilt later.

    “Sentence first; trial afterward.”

    1. (FULL) AUTO DA FE!

  11. Peter King is only opposed to brown terrorists, white ones are fine by him.

  12. Anyway, just now on Hardball, Michael Isikoff declared that there is a lot we don’t know yet. Jesus Christ and Mary on a double dildo, it’s only Tuesday!

    1. We can’t be too careful. This guy might yet wind up being a Tea Party participant, in which case I shall have to change my knickers yet again.

      1. Matthews, if you don’t find some way to spin the NYC bombing attempt to include angry white men, we’re SOOO gonna fuck you with our next online report.

        1. Ha!

          1. We’re not fucking around, Matthews. Either find a way to blame the tea-party movement on Faisal’s bombing attempt, or your ass goes on the no-fly list.

            I will personally see to the latter.

  13. Lost is on tonight!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.