Arizona Governor Signs Additional Controversial Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
forgive me for having a reasonable doubt but who is this "senior official"? do we have any official statement from... say a government agency as the whole that this was an act of terrorism?
Click to expand...
While they did not mention the name, one thing that I can tell you is that if the news source is Reuters then you can bet your bottom dollar that it's an unbias and factual story.
 
kokonut said:
"senior official" - seems pretty official to me.

So, the Ft. Hood shooting was indeed an act of terrorism. Period.
Click to expand...

How? you aren't right.

Our government hasn't officially announce about terrorist.

You are trying to act up to being right about anything so grow up.
 
kokonut said:
"senior official" - seems pretty official to me.

So, the Ft. Hood shooting was indeed an act of terrorism. Period.
Click to expand...

It is terrorism....

I am on the fence as to whether al queda or anyone else was behind it. I don't think they took him seriously. I think Hasan was a wannabe.
 
Foxrac said:
How? you aren't right.

Our government hasn't officially announce about terrorist.

You are trying to act up to being right about anything so grow up.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of personal complaints against posters here, do ya?

I'm agreeing with a "senior official" in the White House that the Ft. Hood massacre was an act of terrorism.
 
kokonut said:
You make a lot of personal complaints against posters here, do ya?
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you? Why does you think about what I'm doing with this forum?

I'm agreeing with a "senior official" in the White House that the Ft. Hood massacre was an act of terrorism.
Click to expand...

It is still not official from our government.
 
1. who is this senior official?
2. any official declaration from any government agency or White House or what (top position)?

nada? then 0 terrorist attack so far since 9/11 on American soil with 0 casualty - officially.
 
Foxrac said:
What is wrong with you? Why does you think about what I'm doing with this forum?

It is still not official from our government.
Click to expand...

Keep the petty complaints to yourself then if you cannot handle it.

Still, it is an act of terrorism.
 
kokonut said:
In speaking of trusting officials you have Obama who criticized the Arizona law without ever reading it. You have Holder who admitted that he hadn't read the bill or understood the context of the law yet criticized it first without looking. You have Janet Napolitano who did the same thing without reading it first. And now you have the State Department spokesman who was critical of the Arizona law admitted he, too, has not read it.
Breitbart.tv State Department Spokesman Critical of Arizona Law Admits He Too Hasn’t Read It

Unreal.

Perhaps if they want real credibility as officials they need to read the bill first before criticizing it because Arizona is following what the Federal law requires them to do. And what's even incredulous is that you have people defending those who never bothered to read the bill in the first place!
Click to expand...

:hmm:

Palin Misrepresents Arizona Law
Sarah Palin appeared yesterday in Arizona with Gov. Brewer to support the new anti-immigrant law in that state.

Palin used the speech as an opportunity to knock U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

“I think again it would be helpful if our national leaders would actually take the time to read the law,” she said.

But her response to a reporter may indicate that Holder isn’t the only “national leader” who speaks before he reads:
Palin said that the law shouldn’t be so controversial.

“It mirrors the federal law,” Palin said.

When one reporter pointed out that the state law goes beyond the federal law, neither Brewer or Palin responded.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
:hmm:
 
kokonut said:
Keep the petty complaints to yourself then if you cannot handle it.

Still, it is an act of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Stop being trolling on everybody. :roll:

No, our government hasn't say about terrorist.
 
Foxrac said:
Stop being trolling on everybody. :roll:

No, our government hasn't say about terrorist.
Click to expand...

exactly. that person needs to learn how to keep the petty complaint to himself.
 
Jiro said:
1. who is this senior official?
2. any official declaration from any government agency or White House or what (top position)?

nada? then 0 terrorist attack so far since 9/11 on American soil with 0 casualty - officially.
Click to expand...
Really. What is your source that what you say is official? :hmm:
 
Senior Administration Official – Fort Hood Shootings Were “An Act of Terrorism”

January 15, 2010 4:39 PM

ABC News’ Karen Travers reports:

A senior administration official said today that the shootings at Fort Hood by Major Nidal Hasan were “an act of terrorism.”

Asked if the shootings were a “terrorist attack,” this official (who was briefing on background) told reporters on a conference call: “It certainly in my mind was an act of terrorism as far as the tactic that was used there.”

The senior administration official later seemed to walk back from that strong language, calling the shootings “a terrorizing event” and the tactic used “a terrorist tactic.”

“The wanton slaughter of US service people in my mind was certainly a terrorizing event and something now for the appropriate authorities to determine the motivation and factors that lead to the decisions or his action on that day,” this official said. “The tactic itself was a terrorist tactic and there are different definitions and criteria associated with terrorism. To me what Major Hassan did was an act of murder and as we’re learning more about it and as the investigation continues I think we’re going to have a better sense of the motivating factors there.”

The senior administration official was briefing about the findings of a review ordered by President Obama after the Nov. 5 shooting. This review is separate from the one done by the Pentagon and another by the FBI.

The senior administration official did not want to say if Hasan’s actions were inspired by extremists in Yemen, noting only that they were “very concerned about many things that are coming out of Yemen, and many of the actions and statements, as well as the very extremist views being distributed by individuals associated with Al Qaida.

“Al Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula has a particularly strong extremist bent, as well as a dedication to carrying out terrorist acts. So any interaction with these extremist elements and terrorist elements in Yemen cause me great concern,” this official said. ““Motivation is always a difficult thing to determine as far as what was actually behind a decision to commit an act.”

This official said it was difficult to say whether there could have been steps taken by the government to prevent the Fort Hood shootings.

“What I think we have identified in both of these instances are places where there could have been a more rigorous review, more rigorous actions taken that might have, in fact, altered the course of events, but we don't know whether or not that would have been then to change the -- the events on those fateful days”

The White House ordered all relevant agencies and departments to conduct a review of the information the government had on Major Hasan and determine how that information was handled, shared, and acted upon within and across departments and agencies, with a deadline of Nov. 30. The president was presented a report on Dec. 1 and the administration said today that the appropriate Members and Committees of Congress were briefed.

The administration released the following key points on the review’s findings:

• Processes and Protocols: Though information sharing between agencies and departments has improved dramatically since September 2001, there is still room for improvement in certain areas. Communication protocols between DOD and the Department of Justice regarding disaffected individuals, in particular, need to be improved, and the policies governing information sharing and cooperation between the two departments on investigative matters require additional clarification and re-calibration.

• Intelligence and Law Enforcement Analysis: A more thorough and layered analysis of certain information available to intelligence and law enforcement personnel must be conducted, along with ensuring the appropriate allocation of resources to accomplish that goal.

• Information Technology: The United States Government must continue to enhance its information technology in order to better and more readily identify relevant data.

• Training: The Joint Terrorism Task Forces should improve their personnel training, including of detailees from other departments and agencies, to ensure that those assigned are both adequately equipped and fully aware of all available tools to perform the critical tasks they are called upon to complete
Click to expand...
Senior Administration Official ? Fort Hood Shootings Were ?An Act of Terrorism? - Political Punch
 
WASHINGTON - Independent U.S. senator Joe Lieberman on Wednesday called this month's deadly shooting spree at the Fort Hood army base "the most destructive terrorist attack on America since September 11, 2001."

Speaking at a meeting of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Lieberman, who chairs the panel, vowed to conduct a thorough probe of the shooting -- one of several planned by the US military and government officials....

Read more: Senator vows probe of Fort Hood ?terrorist attack?
Click to expand...
Senator vows probe of Fort Hood ?terrorist attack?
 
Jiro said:
5th, 6th, state doing the federal duty, and borderline racial profiling.
Click to expand...
5th Amendment- Only applies to the federal government, which is why the 14th amendment came to be, so if you're talking about due process, you're really talking about the 14th (although the courts have in time gradually applied all the bill of rights to the states). How would this law violate due process?

6th- More due process stuff. How does this take it away? Right to speedy trial, right to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, etc. I don't get it. Make some sense of this.

State doing federal duty- Wouldn't that then rule out your idea of the state going after employers?

Borderline racial profiling- A lot of laws give police the power to do things based on "reasonable suspicion". Any such law could be used by racist police officers to racially profile, no? So should we just scrap all police powers based on "reasonable suspicion"?

Jiro said:
good luck with the funds AZ does not have to detain them. and to enforce it.
Click to expand...
We're debating the legality of the law, remember? Focus!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top