posted on January 3, 2003 10:46:06 AM new
This is astounding! Evidently the government believes that the al Qaeda have no radios, something I find unbelievable.
Judge rejects request by confessed shoe bomber for radio in prison
"Prosecutors argued that Reid, 29, a self-proclaimed member of al Qaeda who has pledged support to Osama bin Laden, could use information gained from radio broadcasts about al Qaeda to send coded messages to other al Qaeda followers outside prison."
..."U.S. District Judge William Young said he believed the government's concerns about security were enough for him to reject the request for a radio"
***********
So...the only way the al Qaeda can find out what is being broadcast over the radio here in the US is by having the info sent to them by a nutcase in prison?
This is one of the silliest things I have heard in a while...
posted on January 3, 2003 11:08:00 AM new
What nonsense! Current issues of Time magazine may contain hot news also? Maybe they will let him read Martha Stewart. lol!
posted on January 3, 2003 12:44:02 PM new
They ignore their own agent's valid warnings and then dream up paranoid fantasy. Sounds like my nephew off his medication.
posted on January 4, 2003 05:54:15 AM new
Ohhhh...I feel so sorry for Reid....NOT!!! And as to: for an investigation of that judge's bias....give me a break. Bias against someone who pledges his continued support of A-Q AND who admitted he attempted to kill a plane load of people?
Reid pleaded guilty in October to attempting to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001.
You missed the point of the thread, Linda. The question was not if Reid should have the priviledge of having the use of a radio but rather if he could use information gained from radio broadcasts about al Qaeda to send coded messages to other al Qaeda followers outside prison.
The question is not about bias but a judge's ability to think.
posted on January 4, 2003 07:02:48 AM new
Helen - I don't need you to point out the topic of the thread for me.
And I'm free to comment on anything I wish.
posted on January 4, 2003 07:17:16 AM new
Well....you just continue supporting the rights of those who wish to destroy our country, and I'll back our government and our judges decisions in their reasons for not allowing anything they feel has the potential to put us in jeopardy.
Do you ever question any decision that your "government or your judges" make? Surely, you must disagree with some decisions. Do you ascribe to the motto, "My country right or wrong?" and feel that voicing opposition is anti-American or unpatriotic?
posted on January 4, 2003 12:20:27 PM newWell....you just continue supporting the rights of those who wish to destroy our country, and I'll back our government and our judges decisions in their reasons for not allowing anything they feel has the potential to put us in jeopardy.
The point is, Linda, that there is no "potential to put us in jeopardy." It's just plain silliness! Read this sentence again:
"Prosecutors argued that Reid, 29, a self-proclaimed member of al Qaeda who has pledged support to Osama bin Laden, could use information gained from radio broadcasts about al Qaeda to send coded messages to other al Qaeda followers outside prison."
Do you seriously think that members of the al Qaeda don't have radios of their own? That they would need coded messages from this fruitcake in order to get information? Not to mention the fact that the guys probably doesn't have enough brain cells to formulate a coded message--he was caught in the first place because he's a couple of cans short of a six-pack, for pete's sake!
edited for UBB
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Jan 4, 2003 01:00 PM ]
posted on January 4, 2003 12:42:36 PM new
I'll try to be more clear. I didn't answer to your idea of why it was silly because I really don't care if Reid was denied a radio...for any reason. I responded to other statements made with how I see these same ACLU type issues that don't bring common sense into the picture. What the person has done, admitted to etc. appear to have absolutely no bearing on their 'entitlements' according to some. Well, imo, they do/should.
If the government is taken to task about his 'lack of rights' and a judges sides with the government...then too bad. Just like when the government is brought to issue on other items and they loose. Too bad. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
posted on January 4, 2003 01:03:54 PM newLinda: show me, please, where anyone in this thread--besides yourself--even mentioned the guy's rights or lack thereof? Hint: no one did.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 4, 2003 01:11:18 PM new
Bunni - Your link is where it was stated....and I then responded to what Borillar said about the judge and his bias.
Reid's lawyer, Owen Walker, said Reid's First Amendment rights were being violated by the government's refusal to allow him a radio and its removal of articles about al Qaeda from copies of Time magazine Reid receives in prison. He argued that other federal inmates are allowed radios. "He is deprived of First Amendment access that other prisoners have," Walker said.
posted on January 4, 2003 01:16:07 PM new
Linda, our judicial system -- if you support that concept, is based upon the concept of Justice, not Sadistic Revenge. Judges are held to a higher moral standard than the rest of us ~ higher than any moral standard for a President even. They have to be, because it is they who use morality to insure that Justice and the laws of this land are applied both evenly and fairly. That is what the concern is here, Linda. not the subject Reid, but the Judge.
Bias by a judge is not permissable, not in the very least! Once a Judge uses personal feelings, such as yours Linda, then that Judge cannot rule fairly and with Justice. Because of that, we as a society are not in a more moral position than Reid is for having done what he did and that means that we can not put him on trial or incarcerate or hold onto him at all! Either we have the moral authority to dispense justice or we don't.
This judge, with that pronoucement of his or hers, is either mentally incompetant to sit on the bench and preside at trials, or is biased, which removes society's moral authority in the case of Reid. So, Linda, since you support this judge Right or Wrong, you have agreed to let Reid go unpunished and released from prison free!
posted on January 4, 2003 01:25:25 PM new
My idea of justice, Borillar. If it were within my powers this man who attempted to murder a whole plane load of people would have been shot upon exiting the same plane.
posted on January 4, 2003 01:39:07 PM new
I understand your sentiment, Linda, without agreeing to it. Personally, from the get-go, I felt sad for Reid. Imagine being so mentally ill that you not only go to take your own life, but you try to take the lives of everyone else with you in order to make it "right". How desperately confused (and dangerous!) he is. Reid certainly needs to be confined in a high security mental institution and treated for his delusions. However, only his doctor should be the one to say whether or not Reid would benefit from the use of a pocket radio and not a judge, who is clearly not qualified to say such things.
posted on January 4, 2003 01:49:55 PM newI understand your sentiment, Linda, without agreeing to it.
No, you only agree 'civil rights' should be trampled on when YOU believe it's the right thing to do.
Remember the book you just posted about that you feel should be removed? Same thing, different issue.
edited to add his statement. so for once, I'd like to see every copy of that book removed from the public and kept only as an exhibit as to how hatreds get to meet the press.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 4, 2003 02:20 PM ]
posted on January 4, 2003 02:22:11 PM new
I would like to know how Borillar is qualified to assess Reid's mental status. Who says he's mentally ill? That's bs. While I agree with Bunnicula that he may simply be a knucklehead, that doesn't mean that he is mentally ill and not responsible for his actions. Reid knew exactly what he was doing. However, having a low IQ is not the same thing as being "mentally ill".
