3 Texas men terror plot foiled.

Anybody live locally that can give us an update on this case? I've tried a few news searches and come up with nothing on how the non-terrorism case is progressing. Have these "terrorists" been granted a reasonable level of bail yet? Are they still in lockup? Because if they are, then that's over a week now...

EDIT: Sorry...a little more searching answered my question. They should (hopefully) be posting bond tommorow at 10 grand apiece. So they'll have spent nine or ten days in lockup.
 
Gentleman,
I truly can understand your concern for the loss of our rights. I can understand not wanting to see the innocent jailed on a charges that later proves false. I even see your point as for the possibility of Hillary at some future point deciding that all firearm owners are terorists and using these tactics on us. Further more I'd like nothing more than to be able to hold onto the most strict interpretation of our Constitution's Bill of Rights. That said, at this point I'd like to ask you what is the best way to handle this type of situation? Obviously if someone does something that makes them suspect of terrorist acts, they need to be dealt with before they can act. What is your solution?
btw, Here's a quote from Cal Thomas:
“It is long past the time when we need to start ‘playing’ the equivalent of smash-mouth football with these [islamofascists]. They’ve got our number, but we don’t yet have theirs. The British are still shocked that people who are born in their country, go to their schools, have British accents and eat fish and chips would kill their fellow Brits. They do so because their allegiance is not to Britain, or to the Queen, but rather to their perverted view of God and the instructions from the hate preachers telling them to go bag some Jews, Christians, Westerners and other ‘infidels.’... This isn’t about ‘civil rights’ and constitutional protection. These people use our Constitution to protect themselves so they can kill us. And this is decidedly not a game. It is life and death. We want to live and they want us dead. Any questions?” —Cal Thomas

Don
 
That said, at this point I'd like to ask you what is the best way to handle this type of situation? Obviously if someone does something that makes them suspect of terrorist acts, they need to be dealt with before they can act. What is your solution?

This particular situation? Stop them, question them, possibly detain them for questioning (rather than arresting them), and if you still feel like they might have actual terrorist ties after that have them followed. If you detain them for a few hours, that should be enough time to put something together, maybe call the local FBI field office. After all, wouldn't you rather wait and see who they were delivering these cellphones to rather than just bust the mules? If indeed these men had been part of a terrorist organization, they were obviously throwaways...driving up and down the interstate from Wal-Mart to Wal-Mart making bulk cellphone purchases is (obviously, as this case shows) not a "low-profile" activity.

The point is you don't arrest them and hold them on excessive bail unless you have an actual good-faith belief that a crime has been committed. You don't toss them into lock-up for a week until you can figure out something to charge them with.

In general? You work within the confines of the Consitution to disrupt terrorism and arrest terrorists. If that means that you don't stop every last attack, you mourn your dead and keep at it. You treat terrorism as you would any other type of crime; it isn't as though drunk drivers, murderers, and child molestors don't do just as much damage to society as terrorists...they just do it at a steady pace and less dramatically. Sure, terrorists are hard to track down and catch before they can do their damage...then again, it isn't as if child molesters tend to wear T-shirts.

Most of all, you try to assuage the public's fear, rather than doing everything you can to fuel it (which I truly believe the government has been doing in order to convince us to put more power in their hands). The boogeyman can only hurt you if you're scared of him. If you change your life, change our society, because of fear then you've done what the terrorists want. Otherwise, all they can do is kill you. Big deal.

If you're that afraid of death, you should never go outside in the morning...or let those that you love out either. Because there are a dozen ways you could die every single day, many of them much more likely than a terrorist attack. I know I've been kinda harping on this point, but it's a biggie. I mean, for God's sake, a woman was killed when the ceiling of the Big Dig tunnel in Boston fell on the car she was riding in. People get killed in car accidents, many of which are caused by other motorists. Drunk motorists. Women are raped in dark alleys or in their own homes. Children get abducted and molested, or molested by family members. The world is a scary place if you stop to think about it, and when you put in in perspective all the Islamic terrorists in the world don't make it that much scarier.

Unless you let them. And Big Brother wants you to.*

Cal Thomas said:
These people use our Constitution to protect themselves so they can kill us. And this is decidedly not a game. It is life and death. We want to live and they want us dead. Any questions?

I chose this excerpt from your Cal Thomas quote because I think it illustrates the entire problem that leads to incidents like this one. Who are "these people?" Define "they." Because, believe it or not, it does not include all Middle-Eastern Muslims. Very few Middle-Eastern Muslims are actually involved in terrorism. And not all are in favor of it (though I do personally agree that a majority are). So is every random Arab one of "them?" Do all Arabs deserve the special treatment we've been reserving for them, to be singled out for abuse and suspicion for standing out from the crowd?

If there is one thing that will actually turn more and more Arabs against us, and to drive more to the ranks of the extremists, it's treating them like second-class citizens.

* EDIT: Even if you don't believe that anybody currently in government, at any level, is currently attempting a power grab so as to gain more control over the people of the US, the apparatus that we are creating right now is certainly one that I wouldn't want falling into the wrong hands...and I just don't trust the people of the US not to elect the guy attached to those hands.
 
Last edited:
Juan Carlos,
Very, *very* well said. The only thing I can think to add is that that the Constitution is neither negotiable nor optional. No matter how dire the threat, the executive branch is not at liberty to pick and choose which laws it will abide by.
 
Defense lawyers said Houssaiky and Abulhassan planned to resell the phones simply to make money. They say the men were targeted only because they are of Arab descent.

Bsmeter.gif
 
What a terrific post, with an annoying animated image to boot! A few more like that and you can take your terrific posts elsewhere.
 
OK, as a test why doesn't one of the white liberal yankee democrats here go fill up a van with $40,000 worth of cellphones, buying 40 or 50 at a time and see how long they last before they're pulled over? If all the racist arguments and business arguments are correct they will never be stopped and they can part out the phones for a good profit. :rolleyes:
 
OK, as a test why doesn't one of the white liberal yankee democrats here go fill up a van with $40,000 worth of cellphones, buying 40 or 50 at a time and see how long they last before they're pulled over? If all the racist arguments and business arguments are correct they will never be stopped and they can part out the phones for a good profit. :rolleyes:

We don't have to. Unless you're suggesting that these two groups of men are the first in history to partake in this business scheme, then the evidence suggests that no prior participants have recieved similar treatment.

Besides which, nobody is claiming that you wouldn't get pulled over. Just that you wouldn't be arrested and charged with federal terrorism violations quicker than you can say "racial profiling." You'd probably be out of the police station within hours, and certainly wouldn't spend over a week there.

I'd try it personally, if you wanna spot me a few thousand dollars and put me in contact with somebody who will take the phones off my hands. Otherwise I quite honestly don't have the resources to put this to the test.

Then again, use of the phrase "white liberal yankee democrats" suggests that you may not actually be looking for any well-reasoned arguments anyway, nor looking to test any actual hypothesis.

And since when is believing in things like probably cause, due process, and the idea that "all men are created equal" liberal, anyway?
 
No matter how dire the threat, the executive branch is not at liberty to pick and choose which laws it will abide by.
Not that it makes it any better, or justifies it, but can you think of one President that didn't at some point use his power in a way that was at least questionable when it comes to the Constitutionality of his actions? Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus(sp?) comes immediately to mind. Or maybe Clinton's use of the FBI HRT's at Ruby Ridge, or Waco, or even just to keep FBI files, on his political opponents, laying around the Whitehouse. The point is, this is nothing new to this country, so what do you do about it?
Don
 
Kudos to JuanCarlos, Redworm, GoSlash, and Roberta X - well said, all.

Yes, Blue, you have a good point there - many presidents have tried to usurp power not constitutionally granted to them - they ones you cite, FDRs threat to pack the Supreme Court with more justices to get his way on unconstitutional legislative schemes, Jackson's genocide of native Americans - it goes on and on - power will always attempt to further aggrandize power. Which is why we must always be vigilant. Always fight the good fight. Always try to stop it when it happens. And vote for presidents who will appoint SCOTUS justices who will follow the Constitution. Shrub has shown that he has failed miserably in that respect, by certain rulings that Roberts has sided with. I had had high hopes for Shrub (and even voted for him the first time in 00), that he would appoint true constitutional scholar justices - but instead he chose to pick Scalia-clone political hacks like Roberts.
 
I am staggered by that logic. No, calling it logic is too kind.

Why are you bothered by people upset about current events?

"This is nothing new so *shrug* what can you do about it?" is the same line of thought that enshrines corruption in mexico and ensures cooperation in rape-prone neighborhoods.
 
No, JuanCarlos for the experiment to work the subjects must be the most plain whitebread majority members that a blue state can provide. No minorities need apply because for a minority member (even a conservative Republican) would stand out for possible profiling and invalidate the test.

I made a falsifiable statement with simple conditions for proving its falshood. You may be right about many people doing this and it being legal and not problem for them, in which case it should not be a problem for you. Money should not be a problem if you are correct, nor should there be any problem with legality. If you're right then whoever does it can make a tidy profit by proving me wrong. :)
 
No, JuanCarlos for the experiment to work the subjects must be the most plain whitebread majority members that a blue state can provide. No minorities need apply because for a minority member (even a conservative Republican) would stand out for possible profiling and invalidate the test.

I'm not Latino...it's just a screen name. I'm as white as they come. Though I was inducted as an honorary Mexican back in high school by three bona-fide Mexicans (well, two and a half...but the half-Mexican's dad was illegal, which makes him count double). Hell, having been out of the Southwest for so long I can barely order a drink in Spanish anymore.

If you're right then whoever does it can make a tidy profit by proving me wrong.

Only if they have both the capital and connections required. Very few lending agencies are going to lend you twenty grand to go buy a thousand cellphones on the promise you'll be pulling in a profit on them. I'd also need to rent a van (they're not going to fit in my car) and pay for gas up front. And there is also the opportunity cost of what gainful activities I could be engaging in instead gathering the phones and trying to find somebody to unload the phones on and (I don't exactly run a cellphone shop in my free time).

So no, it is not as easy as you say for anybody to go disprove this using first-person experience.
 
Like JC, I cannot afford the props for the experiment, but I will volunteer my time if someone wants to sponsor it - I will call the authorities when the time is right and tip them off to the "apparent terrorist plot" involving cell phone possession. White people would NOT be arrested with the same story - that it's simply a for-profit business.
 
FF this reminds me of the story of the Greek philosophers who were arguing about the number of teeth horses possessed. They spent all day discussing it but could not come to a logical consensus. Then they became greatly offended when someone pointed out they could just look at a horse and count its teeth.

The reason I posted the challenge is that sometimes irksome to read poster after poster commenting about how prejudiced is the government and how wrong is our collective effort to protect ourselves from thugs who have chosen to hide amongst our mideastern minority but not a one of them will test a counter hypothesis. I would hope no one would actually DO such a harebrained scheme, at it is my belief there is probably no legal way to turn a profit, but as a thought experiment it is quite simple. If someone is able to do it without breaking some obscure law, make a legal buck and not get put in the slammer on suspicion my hat is off to them. :)
 
The reason I posted the challenge is that sometimes irksome to read poster after poster commenting about how prejudiced is the government and how wrong is our collective effort to protect ourselves from thugs who have chosen to hide amongst our mideastern minority but not a one of them will test a counter hypothesis. I would hope no one would actually DO such a harebrained scheme, at it is my belief there is probably no legal way to turn a profit, but as a thought experiment it is quite simple. If someone is able to do it without breaking some obscure law, make a legal buck and not get put in the slammer on suspicion my hat is off to them.

A little poking around should show you that this is a fairly common practice, and that people do indeed make money on it. No need to put up the capital or time to figure that out. As far as the legality goes, I'll admit it is somewhat iffy. The resellers (the entities that these individuals would have been delivering the phones to) have been sued by the phone makers, as these resales have cut into their profits. They've also argued that it violates the DMCA to unlock the handset, but the courts have ruled in the case brought by Lexmark that the anticircumvention portion of the DMCA only applies when a copyrighted work is being protected, so it likely wouldn't apply here either. The idea that the phones are counterfeit because they've been altered is interesting, and I'm honestly interested to see how it plays out in court. Personally I think it's unlikely any jury will convict, so hopefully these guys are dumb enough to plead out.

Regardless, a little searching shows that these Arab men are the first to be held on criminal charges for this...if you have evidence to the contrary, please share. Other than that the only issues have been civil suits brought against the companies actually doing the reselling. So, it's reasonable to think that since the first people to find themselves spending a week in the slammer for this are Arab, right after a terrorist attack is broken up and the country is put on high alert, then racial profiling is likely at play.

Now, if you want to debate whether or not racial profiling is reasonable in this case, and to what extent it should be used in general, then feel free...if I'm around, I might respond. But I think you may be the first person here (I'm not up for reading back through six pages to verifty this) to specifically claim that this isn't a case of racial profiling...an assertion so asinine that I honestly don't feel the need to reply to it any further.
 
Give me 20 gs and I'll devote 100% of my free time to doing this.

Who's going to step up to fund me? After all, it is "quite simple."

Lack of willingness to finance the experiment is comparable to trying to avoid having it happen altogether, naturally. ;)
 
The point is, this is nothing new to this country, so what do you do about it?
We can't do anything about past transgressions, but we can hold politicians accountable for current and future ones.
We could stop supporting unconstitutional measures just because we agree with the outcome. We could stop allowing our party loyalty to interfere in Constitutional matters. We could show support to politicians (and more importantly, Justices) who are following the Constitution and law even when we don't like the ruling itself.

Of course, very few Americans are willing to do that. The only realistic option is to keep a balance between the two parties so neither one has a blank check.
 
Back
Top