NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4288333.stm


Well kinda...read the link and tell me what you think...

Technically, if that's what he discussed, it's correct, and he'll probably be convicted for it.

Here in the US, it is sufficient for you to discuss what you plan to do (on topics the Secret Service will find of interest), and to discuss it with another person, who doesn't turn you in, for them to get you on a) planning to do it, and b) conspiracy to do it.

Here in the US, you should be very, very careful about threats against people protected by the Secret Service. It's a quick way to get jailed here.

There are several mentally unstable people here in the US who go to jail for it every year (usually paranoid schizophrenics who have gone off their meds).

People in public places will report you if they overhear that sort of talk.

I just wanna clear this up. This man was held for nearly two years without a trial on the allegation that he had a conversation with someone?
The year isn't 1984 is it ;)
There has to be more to this story.

Technically, if that's what he discussed, it's correct, and he'll probably be convicted for it.

Here in the US, it is sufficient for you to discuss what you plan to do (on topics the Secret Service will find of interest), and to discuss it with another person, who doesn't turn you in, for them to get you on a) planning to do it, and b) conspiracy to do it.

Here in the US, you should be very, very careful about threats against people protected by the Secret Service. It's a quick way to get jailed here.

There are several mentally unstable people here in the US who go to jail for it every year (usually paranoid schizophrenics who have gone off their meds).

People in public places will report you if they overhear that sort of talk.

nice...no jokes about shooting the president there then...

Technically, if that's what he discussed, it's correct, and he'll probably be convicted for it.

Here in the US, it is sufficient for you to discuss what you plan to do (on topics the Secret Service will find of interest), and to discuss it with another person, who doesn't turn you in, for them to get you on a) planning to do it, and b) conspiracy to do it.

Here in the US, you should be very, very careful about threats against people protected by the Secret Service. It's a quick way to get jailed here.

There are several mentally unstable people here in the US who go to jail for it every year (usually paranoid schizophrenics who have gone off their meds).

People in public places will report you if they overhear that sort of talk.

Sorry dude but the country seems to be a bunch of paranoid people, well at least at the top I mean isn't this some sort breach of free speech. O the irony

Sorry dude but the country seems to be a bunch of paranoid people, well at least at the top I mean isn't this some sort breach of free speech. O the irony

Threatening to kill the President in public is not protected under Freedom of Speech.

it's not considered a breach of free speech because to threaten the pres with physical harm, is considered treason. which makes it a criminal offense to even talk or joke about it where you can be heard.
:sniper:

Sorry dude but the country seems to be a bunch of paranoid people, well at least at the top I mean isn't this some sort breach of free speech. O the irony

It's been the law for a long, long time. Since Kennedy, they take every word seriously.

At the very least, making the wrong sort of comment gets you a visit from a lot of black suits who want to ask you some questions.

At the most likely, though, they show up and lace your trachea into a reef knot.

Threatening to kill the President in public is not protected under Freedom of Speech.

Well I can threaten to kill the PM

Talking about it isn't enough for conspiracy in the UK, and I doubt that it really is in the US either. You need to have actually agreed to do it with someone.

Talking about it isn't enough for conspiracy in the UK, and I doubt that it really is in the US either. You need to have actually agreed to do it with someone.

Talking is enough to get the black suits to show up here in the US. They aren't amused, either.

If they can wrangle a way to say that you meant it, they'll definitely hang you out to dry.

Talking about it isn't enough for conspiracy in the UK, and I doubt that it really is in the US either. You need to have actually agreed to do it with someone.


I know that name you tried to convince me to join the "lets kill bush campaign" *rings FBI*

Well I can threaten to kill the PM

Don't care. We take the protection of our leaders seriously because everyone here has a gun.

How many guns are in your country?

Talking is enough to get the black suits to show up here in the US. They aren't amused, either.

If they can wrangle a way to say that you meant it, they'll definitely hang you out to dry.
sucks to be in the US then....

well, if you want to talk about killing the President anyway

Don't care. We take the protection of our leaders seriously because everyone here has a gun.

How many guns are in your country?
if anybody really wanted to kill the PM they would have no trouble finding a gun somewhere

sucks to be in the US then....

well, if you want to talk about killing the President anyway

Actually, I feel safer here in the US than in any other country I could name.

As for killing the president, sorry dude. I respect the office!

here's the law.

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20. :headbang:

if anybody really wanted to kill the PM they would have no trouble finding a gun somewhere

Yep, just look for the criminals. They'll have them.

Actually, I feel safer here in the US than in any other country I could name.

As for killing the president, sorry dude. I respect the office!
whats that quote about sacrificing liberty for security...?

Technically, if that's what he discussed, it's correct, and he'll probably be convicted for it.

Here in the US, it is sufficient for you to discuss what you plan to do (on topics the Secret Service will find of interest), and to discuss it with another person, who doesn't turn you in, for them to get you on a) planning to do it, and b) conspiracy to do it.

Here in the US, you should be very, very careful about threats against people protected by the Secret Service. It's a quick way to get jailed here.When Argentina's football (soccer to the Americans and others who use that term) coach said he didn't want to reveal his gameplan, he said jokingly that if he had a plan for assasinating then-President Bill Clinton, the American media would have printed it out in detail exactly what he was going to do. The Secret Service responded that they took all threats to the President seriously. The coach then had to clarify that he was just saying that he meant the American media would have published a detailed strategy for the match and he had no intentions of threatening the President.

whats that quote about sacrificing liberty for security...?

I feel safer because of the guns.

i was expecting a huge article then, and all there was were 3 paragraphs, i mean , come on hes the most powerful guy on the world and thats it

btw it looks like a feeble plot

I feel safer because of the guns.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
Benjamin Franklin

Lots of people in the UK own guns, though far less than in the US. And the police can refuse anyone a license. The number of illegal guns is on the up but they're mostly connected with criminal gangs so that route is effectively closed to wackos unless they're unusally determined and go and hang out with the bad boys. The PM might be shot, but what are you going to do? Stick him in a box? No serious assassins are going to chat about it in the pub beforehand (did Oswald?), so I don't really see that the FBI are doing a lot of good in return fro stripping you of civil liberties.

Also, the FBI can do as they please but it's the courts who make the decisions. Unless the courts are all corrupted too? :eek:

i was expecting a huge article then, and all there was were 3 paragraphs, i mean , come on hes the most powerful guy on the world and thats it

btw it looks like a feeble plot


Its only a breaking news story, it'll be fleshed out as more comes in, give it a chance...

if anybody really wanted to kill the PM they would have no trouble finding a gun somewhere

To be fair its not supprising really, I mean here in the UK only one Prime Minister has been assasinated and that was by another member of parliament. The US is ever so slightly different

i was expecting a huge article then, and all there was were 3 paragraphs, i mean , come on hes the most powerful guy on the world and thats it

btw it looks like a feeble plot

IIRC, this was a student who was detained in Saudi Arabia at US request. He's been there a while. His parents are trying to get the US government to ask for his release.

I imagine now that they will ask for his release into US custody, where he will get a trial.

If they have a tape of him saying these things, he's going to be found guilty. Simple as that.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
Benjamin Franklin

Would that the average American paid the slightest bit of heed to these words...

here's the law.

:headbang:

But how is threat defined? It will be in case law so I doubt you can find it (unless you're a lawyer), so that's a kind of rhetorical question. The issue is whether a statement of desire is a threat (as in 'I wish that bastard Bush was dead), and whether a statement of intent directed at someone other than the President is a threat (as in, 'I'm going to kill that bastard Bush' address to a mate). I think maybe the latter but not the former.

There will also almost certainly be 'mens rea' requirements (there must be a 'guilty mind'), so if he could show it was a throwaway remark with no real intent it is unlikley that he would be convicted.

Would that the average American paid the slightest bit of heed to these words...
pity many people worldwide dont

But how is threat defined? It will be in case law so I doubt you can find it (unless you're a lawyer), so that's a kind of rhetorical question. The issue is whether a statement of desire is a threat (as in 'I wish that bastard Bush was dead), and whether a statement of intent directed at someone other than the President is a threat (as in, 'I'm going to kill that bastard Bush' address to a mate). I think maybe the latter but not the former.

There will also almost certainly be 'mens rea' requirements (there must be a 'guilty mind'), so if he could show it was a throwaway remark with no real intent it is unlikley that he would be convicted.

The interesting problem most people run into is that prior to a trial, those particulars do not apply.

Make the threat, get overheard, and they will arrest you.

The mens rea thing would come up at trial. In the meantime, you get to appear on CNN in an orange jumpsuit while the news reader portrays you as a diabolical crazy person.

To be fair its not supprising really, I mean here in the UK only one Prime Minister has been assasinated and that was by another member of parliament. The US is ever so slightly different

I'm a reluctant nit-picker, but John Bellingham, the guy who killed Spencer Perceval in 1812, was not an MP (although the assasination did take place within the Houses of Parliament). He was merely a deranged bankrupt.

nice...no jokes about shooting the president there then...We can still mail him bags of pretzels though. :D

I'm a reluctant nit-picker, but John Bellingham, the guy who killed Spencer Perceval in 1812, was not an MP (although the assasination did take place within the Houses of Parliament). He was merely a deranged bankrupt.

*stands corrected*

The obvious assumption was made

The (very short) article cited stated the following:

Man charged for 'Bush death plot'

A US citizen formerly detained in Saudi Arabia has been charged with conspiring to assassinate President Bush.
An indictment read out in a US district court in the state of Virginia said Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, had discussed two scenarios with a co-conspirator.

It was proposed that Mr Abu Ali would shoot Mr Bush on the street or detonate a car bomb, the indictment said.

The alleged conspirator told the court he had been tortured during his detention which began in June 2003.

It appears that he discussed two scenarios with another person, but that was the extent of the 'Bush assasination plot'. Please note that the article does not mention who proposed that Mr. Abu Ali would attempt to kill the POTUS. One can only assume that it is the Saudis who are making this allegation.

The defendant also claims to have been tortured. Considering the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, this is not that far-fetched. So, my take on this is that a man was arrested, tortured for two years, then 'confessed' to plotting to kill Bush.

Thank God it was foiled in time! Sounds like it would definitely have succeeded, thereby destroying our fearless leader in his righteous holy war against the Muslims!...I mean terrorists!

Originally posted by Gataway Driver:
There has to be more to this story

yes im sure there is, the government just isnt telling us, what else is new

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4903-2004Dec16.html

IIRC, this was a student who was detained in Saudi Arabia at US request. He's been there a while. His parents are trying to get the US government to ask for his release.

I imagine now that they will ask for his release into US custody, where he will get a trial.

If they have a tape of him saying these things, he's going to be found guilty. Simple as that.Guilty of what?

Guilty of what?

Making threats against the President. That's what they're charging him with.

so does that mean that alll the times me and my freind drempt up imposible and humorouse ways to kill half the world leaders we could get arested?

Technically, if that's what he discussed, it's correct, and he'll probably be convicted for it.

Here in the US, it is sufficient for you to discuss what you plan to do (on topics the Secret Service will find of interest), and to discuss it with another person, who doesn't turn you in, for them to get you on a) planning to do it, and b) conspiracy to do it.

Here in the US, you should be very, very careful about threats against people protected by the Secret Service. It's a quick way to get jailed here.

There are several mentally unstable people here in the US who go to jail for it every year (usually paranoid schizophrenics who have gone off their meds).

People in public places will report you if they overhear that sort of talk.

Especially after 9/11 and columbine. When I was just finishing highschool if you even drew a gun or mentioned gun you would get a 3 day vacation and police record. :rolleyes:

so does that mean that alll the times me and my freind drempt up imposible and humorouse ways to kill half the world leaders we could get arested?

As long as the topic isn't one of the persons under the protection of the Secret Service, you're fine in the US.

Otherwise, you're going to have a visit from people who look a lot like Agent Smith.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
Benjamin Franklin

And I have the freedom to own a gun so what freedom am I giving up?

And I have the freedom to own a gun so what freedom am I giving up?

And I actually carry one everywhere.

Especially after 9/11 and columbine. When I was just finishing highschool if you even drew a gun or mentioned gun you would get a 3 day vacation and police record. :rolleyes:

I don't think you were allowed to pull a gun at my school either, even before 9/11. Funny, that... ;)


Corneliu - the freedom that is being given up is the freedom of speech, because you can't make casual remarks about the President.


Whispering Legs - I assume that the FBI won't often arrest people unless they have reasonable grounds, and if they don't then they can get busated for it in court. If I'm wrong then you guys are, by British standards, living in a fairly oppressive country. :eek:

And I have the freedom to own a gun so what freedom am I giving up?
the freedom to say whatever you want about your President?

The law about threatening people under Secret Service protection has been around for decades. Most people don't see it as oppressive, as most people never threaten anyone, much less those people.

I don't think they would have charged him if all they had was the statement of a tortured man. I believe that they had something on him before he went to Saudi Arabia, probably a taped conversation. They probably got worried that he was for real when he was on his way there, so they asked to have him detained.

If they have a taped conversation, or some email, and it sounds just right, he won't last 30 seconds in front of a jury.

it's not considered a breach of free speech because to threaten the pres with physical harm, is considered treason. which makes it a criminal offense to even talk or joke about it where you can be heard.
:sniper:

For something said to be a threat it has to be said TO the object of that threat. "I'm gonna kill you," is a threat, "I'm gonna kill that bastard" is not a threat. Nor is it a conspiracy.

Buying a plane ticket plotting a route to where you can spot the president from a distance, aquiring a hunting rifle, and gathering information on where the president is going to be is a conspiracy, if done by several people working together, but it is not a threat unless it accompanies a note saying "remove your bases from our holy lands or we will kill you," or something similar.

The law about threatening people under Secret Service protection has been around for decades. Most people don't see it as oppressive, as most people never threaten anyone, much less those people.

I don't think they would have charged him if all they had was the statement of a tortured man. I believe that they had something on him before he went to Saudi Arabia, probably a taped conversation. They probably got worried that he was for real when he was on his way there, so they asked to have him detained.

Yes because Saudi Arabia has a world renowned respect for civil rights due process of law. Add to that the Bush administration's scrupulous resistance to eroding our civil liberties...

oh, wait. I've been hanging out in Bizzarro world again, haven't I?

Making threats against the President. That's what they're charging him with.
Question:Who is charging him? Answer: the Amerikans.
Where was he arrested? in S.Arabia.
he cant be charged because even if there is a Law agains threatening the Diktator of S.Arabia...There is no Law regarding a foreign President.

So the if he did not Break the Saudi Law he was illegally Kiddnaped and tortured...and Amerika is complice.

then again Amerika uses other Puppet Govs. to Kidnapp and Torture...so its nothing new...Amerika the war Criminal does it again.

I don't think you were allowed to pull a gun at my school either, even before 9/11. Funny, that... ;)

Cant do that at any school.

Corneliu - the freedom that is being given up is the freedom of speech, because you can't make casual remarks about the President.

As stated before, making threats agains the president is illegal. I've called Clinton an idiot but nothing happened to me so what freedom am I giving up again?

There is no "right" to threaten physical harm on other people, and has been noted - especially those under secret service protection.

the freedom to say whatever you want about your President?

I've Clinton all kinds of names! Didn't threat to kill him though. Nothing happened to me either when I did call him names. So what were you saying?

The First Amendment does not protect "harmful" speech. Like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Yes because Saudi Arabia has a world renowned respect for civil rights due process of law. Add to that the Bush administration's scrupulous resistance to eroding our civil liberties...

Funny thing is, I still have ALL of my Civil Liberties. Care to tell me which ones have been eroded?

oh, wait. I've been hanging out in Bizzarro world again, haven't I?

Yes you have.

He (Ali) claims to have been tortured in his hearing today.

But, the government claims to have several conversations between him and another man.

Sounds like he screwed up.