Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/27/2001 3:58:22 AM EDT
Here's a little piece from worldnetdaily.com - A Washington, D.C.-based political action group has urged minorities, and especially Arabs living in the U.S., not to cooperate with the FBI, claiming the agency will use any information it gathers "to harass, investigate or deport members of your community." "The law says you don't have to talk to the FBI," says a warning published by the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom. "FBI agents receive psychological training in making you feel it is wrong not to talk to them. But according to the U.S. Constitution, both citizens and non-citizens have the right to refuse to talk to any government agent (this includes the INS and local police)," the warning said. "The FBI has a history of harassing and harming minority and immigrant communities. Some people are spending a long time in jail because they or their friends talked to the FBI," said the warning. "It is now against the law to knowingly give humanitarian, charitable aid to certain foreign organizations, many of them in the Middle East," the warning said. "You or your friends could be deported, or if citizens, jailed 10 years for such donations. The FBI is collecting information about such donations in Arab, Muslim and other immigrant communities." See the entire article at: [url]http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24683[/url] Is this sound advice, or not? Eric The(OK,ButMaybeNotNOW)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:02:33 AM EDT
The only thing that can be learned by talking is that the volume of your mouth can expand to that of your foot.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:06:05 AM EDT
Something tells me that this time around, due to the circumstances, they will be talking like it or not.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:07:42 AM EDT
"We have ways..."
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:16:13 AM EDT
Remember, it's not how many bones you break, it's how you move the pieces around that counts! [}:D]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:30:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: A Washington, D.C.-based political action group has urged minorities, and especially Arabs living in the U.S., not to cooperate with the FBI, claiming the agency will use any information it gathers "to harass, investigate or deport members of your community." "The law says you don't have to talk to the FBI," says a warning published by the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom. Is this sound advice, or not? Eric The(OK,ButMaybeNotNOW)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Yes, objectively; absolutely. Subjectively, these "pick-a-cause-any-cause", knee-jerk groups sorta piss me off. They like to poke and prod at all the wrong times. I, for one, would not be focussing my legal efforts on protecting possible co-consirators, but that's just me. Their advice is almost a given in the legal community. LE, good LE, are trained to walk the thin line between a "custodial interview" where Miranda would apply, and an "investigative detention" or "witness interview" where it does not. Most ppl who are suspects have no clue. Another rant: I heard, right after 9-11, Allen Jerkowitz arrogantly proclaim that he would lend his expert knowledge to the DOJ in an effort to anticipate possible legal defenses for the perps; that they should be brought to trial and given a fair hearing. He's the skidmark on the underwear of the legal profession and that comment made me sick.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:40:08 AM EDT
[b]'There's no such thing as a deaf mute in prison'[/b] Eric The(SilenceIs,AtTimes,Assent)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 4:40:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2001 4:40:36 AM EDT by Major-Murphy]
I'm confused. There are alot of members who, on other threads, decry the whittling away of our rights that is occurring as a result of the "anti-terrorism" tactics being pushed by the Feds. Shouldn't they be 100% behind this group? If this group was giving this advice to say, a group of gun-owners from the Northwest, wouldn't we support it? Come on guys let's see some consistancy. Defend this group and what it's saying. Help those poor arab immigrants who have donated to terrorist, I mean, "humanitarian" organizations. Imbrog?
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 5:05:05 AM EDT
Shoot, boyz, as Emerson said 'consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.' If I'm representing a client on some charge of altering a post-ban so-called assault rifle, etc., my legal advice to him and my strategy with the investigators would be a [u]whole[/u] [u]lot[/u] different than if the client were being charged or investigated with a terrorist attack that killed thousands on American soil! There may be some great reasons to defy or attempt to skirt the federal bans on bayonet lugs and flash suppressors, but when the object is to determine if there are other 'sleepers' out there, ready to launch a second wave of attacks against civilian targets, I can think of no such compelling reasons! If my client were guilty of assisting in this criminal conspiracy, I would either have him spill his guts to the authorities, or he can find himself another lawyer! Why? The penalty for his crimes would only be enhanced in the event that he was convicted and did not 'assist', but would be mitigated if he did admitted to his guilt, accepted his own responsibility and assisted the prosecution of others! You know we're not talking Nathan Hale here, we're talking Benedict Arnold! Eric The(Inconsistent)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 5:19:00 AM EDT
Agreed. Common sense. An Arab should be scrutinized more heavily than a little old Chinese lady, when boarding a plane. ....and, sadly, when walking down the street.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 6:46:47 AM EDT
If the po-po comes around, I never talk to them. That just good policy to have. c-rock
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 7:47:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Allen Jerkowitz...that they should be brought to trial and given a fair hearing. He's the skidmark on the underwear of the legal profession and that comment made me sick.
View Quote
Is his name REALLY Jerkowitz? That's just too fitting. [:D]
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:18:36 AM EDT
Bold emphasis mine. [i][b]All persons born or naturalized in the United States[/b], and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/i] All of those talking about the "rights" of those involved in the attack need to realize that people in this country on work and/or studnet visas are [b]not[/b] afforded or entitled to the same protection as citizens as guaranteed by the constitution. They do not want to talk? Either jail 'em, if they have information that may be needed later, or deport them. They can explain to the "police" in their country all about "rights" and how they don't have to talk to them when they don't want to. The constitution, which the above was taken directly from, was not designed to be used to circumvent prosecution from criminal acts.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 8:29:34 AM EDT
I guess you have never heard of the 5th amendment. Vulcan94
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 9:44:58 AM EDT
Or, the fourteenth. (paraphrased from something I posted to ak-47.net) A little history about the 14th, at one time the US government illegally allowed separate and unequal sets of rights for citizens and noncitizens (which climaxed in the Dred Scott decision). The 14th amendment clarified this issue. It states that a person can not have their life, liberty, or property infringed without the due process of law. Also, it states the doctrine of equal protection. This is a very important right for gun owners. The government can't take away our guns or other property without due process, and the government can't create a set of laws that apply unequally to gun owners. I know that the laws of certain states (like RPK) ignore parts of the Constitution, but imagine how bad it would be if the Constitution didn't exist in the first place Of course a non US citizen has the same rights as a citizen. What part of inalienable do you not understand? Those are rights that can not be taken away by any means, even by majority vote, executive order, judicial action, state law or federal law without the due process of law. Are you really suggesting that Jefferson, et al. meant that the fundamental rights belong only to those that happen to have been lucky enough to have been born here or to have been granted citizenship? No, they apply to all of us no matter our race, our religion, our beliefs, our income level, etc.. Before someone can be deported, they are given the right to due process. It is called a deportation hearing, but it is actually a criminal proceeding. The idea that certain rights are inalienable is a very important concept for RKBA, because it means that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, and no law can change that. Think about how powerful that statement is. According to the Supreme Court, any natural right (ok, so we still have to get them to reaffirm that firearm ownership is a natural right) can not be taken away. No amount of rhetoric by Sweinstein or Billary can change that. Isn't that a very promising thing?z
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 9:50:36 AM EDT
The above was taken directly from the constitution. Anyone that wishes to please feel free to review it themselves. Anyone wishing to argue the point needs to talk to the founders that wrote it, not me. Not unlike the second amendment, I do not think there is much room for interruption.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 11:23:22 AM EDT
I mentioned this before when that muslim american civil rights group held a press conference and brought out some hysterical aclu type lawyer. He said the exact same thing. Now, they could help us in a time of need but instead pull that crap...
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 3:41:57 PM EDT
Zoom, You`re incorrect. The US Constitution doesn`t protect foriegners to the same extent it protects US Citizens. So said the federal appeals court in NY in a 1991 decision Dougherty vs. The United States. The beauty of it is he was a white irish catholic native english-speaking IRA terrorist. There was no race or ethnicity card to play. To do otherwise would completely devalue US citizenship.
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 10:15:59 PM EDT
Guilty until proven innocent? major-murphy?
Link Posted: 9/27/2001 10:21:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunslinger: The above was taken directly from the constitution. Anyone that wishes to please feel free to review it themselves. Anyone wishing to argue the point needs to talk to the founders that wrote it, not me. Not unlike the second amendment, I do not think there is much room for interruption.
View Quote
Should there be any question to the Founder's intent, required reading is the Federalist papers (and the Anti-Federalist papers that the above were written to counter)
Link Posted: 9/28/2001 4:06:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Guilty until proven innocent? major-murphy?
View Quote
All arabs are not part of the terrorist group trying to destroy the U.S. All members of the terrorist group trying to destroy the U.S. ARE, however, arabs. This makes it a little easier for us. Imbrog, what's your solution? Do you realize that if a nuke or a bio attack ocurs on our soil, it's all over. The economy destroyed (a depression we won't come out of). Civil rights gone. Maybe Martial Law. (We should hope it would be Martial Law, which is temporary, as opposed to a permanent loss of rights.) What's your solution? "They should have done a better job"? "Be more competent"?
Link Posted: 9/28/2001 4:55:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By arbob: Zoom, You`re incorrect. The US Constitution doesn`t protect foriegners to the same extent it protects US Citizens. So said the federal appeals court in NY in a 1991 decision Dougherty vs. The United States. The beauty of it is he was a white irish catholic native english-speaking IRA terrorist. There was no race or ethnicity card to play. To do otherwise would completely devalue US citizenship.
View Quote
Thank you Bob. I knew there was case law defining this but was too lazy to look it up.
Top Top