NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, the 6 fools who were arrested in the Ft. Dix plot were undone by a Circuit City employee who saw what their tape contained (they wanted it put on DVD so they could give it to friends), and reported them to authorities.

So, in this age where plenty of people in the US believe there is "no war on terror," including some elected officials, or similarly, where some people believe that the contents of this tape constitute nothing other than self-aggrandizing video play, if you were the Circuit City employee, would you have contacted authorities and turned over the tape?

Information from the affidavit:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix1.html

News story about the guy who turned them in:
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS/70509011

Please restrict your answer to this specific case.

Apparently, the 6 fools who were arrested in the Ft. Dix plot were undone by a Circuit City employee who saw what their tape contained (they wanted it put on DVD so they could give it to friends), and reported them to authorities.

So, in this age where plenty of people in the US believe there is "no war on terror," including some elected officials, or similarly, where some people believe that the contents of this tape constitute nothing other than self-aggrandizing video play, if you were the Circuit City employee, would you have contacted authorities and turned over the tape?

Information from the affidavit:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix1.html

News story about the guy who turned them in:
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS/70509011

Please restrict your answer to this specific case.i would not turn anyone in-because-I would not watch the videos of costumers. Even if they were excellent quality porn.

i would not turn anyone in-because-I would not watch the videos of costumers. Even if they -looked like- excellent quality porn.

In this specific case... do you not understand English?

Probably couldn't help but watch it. Just like when one goes to get pictures developed.. or pictures put onto discs...the photo people have to look at EACH picture to check the quality of the development or copy.

In this specific case... I am talking about this case.. I would not turn anyone in-because-I follow company policy and not watch the costumers videos.

do you not understand English?do you?

I am talking about this case.. I would not turn anyone in-because-I follow company policy and not watch the costumers videos.

do you?

In this case he watched them. So, in this case, you've seen the video. Got it?

...the photo people have to look at EACH picture to check the quality of the development or copy.I had vhs copied onto DVD.. -It was private stuff- and I asked specifically about it.. They told me they never watch it.. and that if the quality was of the DVD was going to be the best possible output of the VHS tape.. guaranteed.

I thought the FBI had had them infiltrated for a good deal of time. The guy who "turned them in" shouldn't be getting a parade. If his turning them in is what prevented the incident from occurring, law enforcement is incompetent.

I wouldn't have turned them over. Having watched the tape I would watch the news for updates. I would deffinatley let the crazy bastards get on with it.

My general policy is follow the law and follow the company rules.

In this case he watched them. So, in this case, (he s) seen the video. that is Circuit City problem.. not mine.

In this case he watched them. So, in this case, you've seen the video. Got it?

what he means is that even tho he may have seen the video, company policy would most likely prevent any employee on acting on what they seen.

same for me, My access allows me to view patient data, but I cannot aknowledge nor act upon that data. Patient confidentiality and privacy is protected where I work. even if I see a friend or family member's name on the database, I cannot just pop in unless I am told about that person's visit, or find another reason to say why I know about the visit.

(back to the topic) for me, it would depend on what was said/shown and how it was portrayed.

I had vhs copied onto DVD.. -It was private stuff- and I asked specifically about it.. They told me they never watch it.. and that if the quality was of the DVD was going to be the best possible output of the VHS tape.. guaranteed.

Wasn't that way when I worked in a photo lab. But we only dealt with digital cameras, negatives, slides and already developed photos wanting to be copied. I just don't see why it would differ when copying from a vhs onto a disc. They can't know what the quality of the copy is unless they check it. But I guess if you got your copy home and saw it was no good. You just go back and tell them the copy was crap and that you want another for free, or want your money back. ...And they would just comply without checking (looking at) the disc ever. Makes no sense.

So, in this age where plenty of people in the US believe there is "no war on terror,"...

Please restrict your answer to this specific case.

If you want to restrict the commentary on this subject, don't insert stupid statements like the one quoted above. Don't give us reason to take you to the rhetorical woodshed again.

dp

If you want to restrict the commentary on this subject, don't insert stupid statements like the one quoted above. Don't give us reason to take you to the rhetorical woodshed again.

So I can put you down for "No"?

what he means is that even tho he may have seen the video, company policy would most likely prevent any employee on acting on what they seen.

same for me, My access allows me to view patient data, but I cannot aknowledge nor act upon that data. Patient confidentiality and privacy is protected where I work. even if I see a friend or family member's name on the database, I cannot just pop in unless I am told about that person's visit, or find another reason to say why I know about the visit.


I think if someones life is at stake, the trivial technicalities should be overided.

In this case he watched them. So, in this case, you've seen the video. Got it?

By that logic, in this case, he turned them in, so in this case, OD's turned them in.

So I can put you down for "No"?

Actually, you can't. If I were working in that situation and saw said video, I'd turn them in without hesitation. They lose all rights to privacy the moment they bring the video in for duplication.

what he means is that even tho he may have seen the video, company policy would most likely prevent any employee on acting on what they seen.

for me, it would depend on what was said/shown and how it was portrayed.Lets make up an scenario.. I buy/rent a Circuit City DVD.. The DVD is on the wrong Box.. and It is about a real life crime.. Yes I would call the cops.

Well.. if it was with AK training to break the front gates of a army base.. I would think its prank.. and maybe show it to my friends.. :D and post it on the net.. before sending it back to Circuit city.

By that logic, in this case, he turned them in, so in this case, OD's turned them in.like I said... if I received on-the-mail a DVD with a ridiculous Army base break in.. I would refer it to cops.

wait, no actually I would sell it for 50000 to CNN or FOX.. and then I would report it to the cops.

Lets make up an scenario.. I buy/rent a Circuit City DVD.. The DVD is on the wrong Box.. and It is about a real life crime.. Yes I would call the cops.

Well.. if it was with AK training to break the front gates of a army base.. I would think its prank.. and maybe show it to my friends.. :D and post it on the net.. before sending it back to Circuit city. but in your scenario, you are not an employee, but a customer. ;) you rented/bought the DVD and found the mistake. thus you did not break company policy.

if in that case, then yes. I would probably turn them in because they are playing around with firearms in an unsafe manner. I would also rather someone checks it out to make sure they are harmless than find out later that they were serious.

I think if someones life is at stake, the trivial technicalities should be overided.how does one determine when a life is at stake? of course without looking at the DVD, it cannot be said what the content provided. if it was as straight forward as that, then several copies might end up at the Feds from "a concerned citizen" but that would be about it.

like I said... if I received on-the-mail a DVD with a ridiculous Army base break in.. I would refer it to cops.

wait, no actually I would sell it for 50000 to CNN or FOX.. and let them call the cops. or? how about AND! :p

They were going to kill some american soldiers...Why should I exactly turn them in?

Well one, when you are copying over a tape to DVD or taking a DVD and making multiple copies...you sort of HAVE to watch the videos, though it's supposed to be confidential. But, if I noticed a strange commentary with shooting things I'd be interested...and if I noticed something similar with the things they are pretty much trying to point out, I'd get worried...not really...but enough to point it towards a Manager.

Really, it's the fuckheads' fault for having somebody else even HANDLE this sort of object.

or? how about AND! :p100000 work for me but...

they buy the exclusivity. so cant do.

They were going to kill some american soldiers...Why should I exactly turn them in?

Because not ever single Soldier in the US Army is as fucked up and evil as the small percentage of those that get a lot more news coverage than the ones keeping composure, and even taking their own lives in a selfless act to keep the ones around them safe.

Because not ever single Soldier in the US Army is as fucked up and evil as the small percentage of those that get a lot more news coverage than the ones keeping composure, and even taking their own lives in a selfless act to keep the ones around them safe.

Wait, some muslim terrorist soldiers want to get into a gunfight with some american soldiers. America in at war with terror, according to the declaration of their president, and islamist terror is at war with America, according to the declaration of their leader. What is illegal there? Let them have their battle.

It's not like they are going to slaughter unarmed civilians, they were going to pick a fight against soldiers. After all, the soldiers exist to fight battles against armed opponents, right? Why should I deny the right of those soldiers to do their jobs?

They were going to kill some american soldiers...Why should I exactly turn them in?

That's you're choice here.

If I was guaranteed that they wouldn't be able to get at me for passing on that information, then yes.

100000 work for me but...

they buy the exclusivity. so cant do.

... ever heard of a bidding war?

oh... CNN just offered $55000... what you got FOX? :D

Wait, some muslim terrorist soldiers want to get into a gunfight with some american soldiers. America in at war with terror, according to the declaration of their president, and islamist terror is at war with America, according to the declaration of their leader. What is illegal there? Let them have their battle.

It's not like they are going to slaughter unarmed civilians, they were going to pick a fight against soldiers. After all, the soldiers exist to fight battles against armed opponents, right? Why should I deny the right of those soldiers to do their jobs?

Yes, that's true the US Army is actively engaged with Islamo-Terrorists and others abroad. That doesn't mean it makes it right to sit by idley and let them being mercilessly targeted. I don't know if you know this, sweetheart, but US Army Bases have their weapons in storage facilities. All the soldiers in the base are unarmed, only a handful in sharpshooter nests are armed. Even then, admittedly, it could be easy to try and sneak by if you've got the right plan.

Also, it is not every American's ideal job to want to go to war. Even if they are Soldiers, many end up having to do it because of financial or education difficulties. Even then, some are pressured into it by family and friends. Also, the ones who have been serving BEFORE the Iraq War kick started up. Yes, "boo hoo" it's a part of their contract to shoot things if ordered too. But they are still human beings, and they don't necissarily deserve to be murdered.

The actions these 5, with the sixth accomplice, intended to due was to MURDER not KILL soldiers. There is a fine defining line between MURDER and KILLING. Atleast, there is one in my eyes. Not to mention, but there is quite a percentage of 17 year old Soldiers who aren't allowed to be deployed until they are 18. So, I guess they sort of deserve to die as well? Oh well, yea well I guess fuck it.

But also, it is not every Soldier's job to defend by means of firing a rifle or any other piece of equipment. Many of them have very Civil jobs, which many soldiers on base are performing such Civil jobs.

Assuming store policy is to view material as it is being copied for purposes of quality control, and I saw what was apparently depicted on the VHS, then I would inform the authorities.

As an interesting aside, what about if you are a psychologist and a patient tells you that they are going to commit a terrorist act during a therapy session. According to one law, you must keep silent. According to another, you have a duty to inform the authorities. Perhaps one of our lawyer types can answer this.

I would like to point out that this case has nothing to do with terrorism, as civilians were not being targetted, and every definition of terrorism that I have seen includes attacks on civilians as part of the definition.

It's not like they are going to slaughter unarmed civilians, they were going to pick a fight against soldiers.
actually, most bases in non-combat regions employ alot of civilian workers.

Bah I hope to make this clear that I'm a bit dyslexic, and when my mind starts moving a bit fast things come out a bit jarbled.

Anyways, basically a revision of my response...rebuttle...thing -

Sure, you could go ahead and do that. Sit there behind your countertop feeling a bit proud in a way that you've probably helped in something that goes against the establishment, the authority of sorts. Go ahead, I wouldn't even bother being pissed with you. Though, if you honestly think that stupid fucks like these guys really were only going to try and do it 'honorably' or such because it's happening in Iraq, and that you think they aren't going to harm any Innocent Civilians at all...be my guest.

It's what makes us all sleep better at night, believing in one stated thing and sticking to it. I see you're not to pro-Government too much, let alone US Government. I guess what I'm trying to say is - You're being completely naive on this whole situation.

Yes, that's true the US Army is actively engaged with Islamo-Terrorists and others abroad.maybe what Aelosia is trying to say is "this is comparable to a Navy seals projected attack on a Insurgent bunker or safe-house"?

.."then some Iraqi clerk discovered the plan.. and alerted the Insurgents" ?

She does hold a neutral citizenship.

Apparently, the 6 fools who were arrested in the Ft. Dix plot were undone by a Circuit City employee who saw what their tape contained (they wanted it put on DVD so they could give it to friends), and reported them to authorities.

So, in this age where plenty of people in the US believe there is "no war on terror," including some elected officials, or similarly, where some people believe that the contents of this tape constitute nothing other than self-aggrandizing video play, if you were the Circuit City employee, would you have contacted authorities and turned over the tape?

Information from the affidavit:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix1.html

News story about the guy who turned them in:
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS/70509011

Please restrict your answer to this specific case.

No. You see, I don't snitch. I'm in one of those no-snitching neighborhoods. If I snitched on them, I would lose ALL my street cred.

Yes, that's true the US Army is actively engaged with Islamo-Terrorists and others abroad. That doesn't mean it makes it right to sit by idley and let them being mercilessly targeted. I don't know if you know this, sweetheart, but US Army Bases have their weapons in storage facilities. All the soldiers in the base are unarmed, only a handful in sharpshooter nests are armed. Even then, admittedly, it could be easy to try and sneak by if you've got the right plan.

Also, it is not every American's ideal job to want to go to war. Even if they are Soldiers, many end up having to do it because of financial or education difficulties. Even then, some are pressured into it by family and friends. Also, the ones who have been serving BEFORE the Iraq War kick started up. Yes, "boo hoo" it's a part of their contract to shoot things if ordered too. But they are still human beings, and they don't necissarily deserve to be murdered.

The actions these 5, with the sixth accomplice, intended to due was to MURDER not KILL soldiers. There is a fine defining line between MURDER and KILLING. Atleast, there is one in my eyes. Not to mention, but there is quite a percentage of 17 year old Soldiers who aren't allowed to be deployed until they are 18. So, I guess they sort of deserve to die as well? Oh well, yea well I guess fuck it.

But also, it is not every Soldier's job to defend by means of firing a rifle or any other piece of equipment. Many of them have very Civil jobs, which many soldiers on base are performing such Civil jobs.

1.- First of your reasons: So surprise attacks with advantage against military targets are now so wrong?. If I turn those men in, I should had to go to Afghanistan and start telling the taliban fighters each time the Delta Force is going for a night attack, or each time a STEALTH plane takes off to blow them to bits while they are sleeping, to make it even. They were going to kill soldiers, not murder them. Or are you right now admitting that each time a stealth bomber picks a perfectly legitimate military target by surprise is murdering people? Or are you applying a double standard? Are you stating that Al Zarqawi was murdered by the US goverment because he was caught in a surprise bombardment? Perhaps he was unarmed, in the toilet. Did you care back then?

2.- When you enlist in any army, you know that you are painting a big bull's eye in your chest by any enemy of your country. You know it, and yet you do it willingly. There is no draft in the US, right?, they volunteered for it, as the islamists volunteered as armed activist. Why should I give one side advantage over the other? The islamists also are volunteering by their reasons, that may be different but as valid as of material gain, they also are pressured by familiars and friends and priests. Why is the american soldier standing in an upper terrain?

3.- Then your country shouldn't recruit 17 years old.

4.- No matter what exactly you do inside the military, even if you are the cook, you are a perfect, ethically valid target when you are using an uniform and inside a military facility.

Bah I hope to make this clear that I'm a bit dyslexic, and when my mind starts moving a bit fast things come out a bit jarbled.

Anyways, basically a revision of my response...rebuttle...thing -

Sure, you could go ahead and do that. Sit there behind your countertop feeling a bit proud in a way that you've probably helped in something that goes against the establishment, the authority of sorts. Go ahead, I wouldn't even bother being pissed with you. Though, if you honestly think that stupid fucks like these guys really were only going to try and do it 'honorably' or such because it's happening in Iraq, and that you think they aren't going to harm any Innocent Civilians at all...be my guest.

It's what makes us all sleep better at night, believing in one stated thing and sticking to it. I see you're not to pro-Government too much, let alone US Government. I guess what I'm trying to say is - You're being completely naive on this whole situation.

I'm not an american citizen, (that happens here in the forums). That is to say a lot, my perspective being a neutral bystander of the conflict of Terror vs USA.

They were going to do it as honorably as your Special Operations soldiers in other parts of the world. No more, no less.

I am completely pro authority, but what I fail to understand is why I should favor one side of this conflict over the other, if both behave the same way. I would had tried to stop the september 11th, but not this one.

I'm not being naive, I just have a better perspective than you, that seem to be entirely under the spell of your national leaders.

If it were just a video of a bunch of middle-eastern guys firing guns, no.

actually, most bases in non-combat regions employ alot of civilian workers.


Any civilians workers that died as a result of an attack on a military base would be defined as collateral damage. I am assuming that the intent of the attack is to target the military targets on the base, of course.

Ethically, I would have no choice but to inform the authorities.

Yes, there is an ethical requirement of confidentiality. But NO confidentiality requirement, save only the seal of the confessional, is absolute; there are situations that break both Lawyer-Client and Medical confidentiality, and I do not rate this as being as strong or as required as those are. Saving lives is by far a higher ethical requirement.

Beats me. I haven't seen the video.

If I saw something that made me think someone really was planning an assault on someone else, I'd turn it in. I don't know if this video would have done that or not.

Any civilians workers that died as a result of an attack on a military base would be defined as collateral damage. I am assuming that the intent of the attack is to target the military targets on the base, of course.

if they are going to attack a purely military target, then it would be something with as little chance of civilian casualties... such as a ship or convoy. People tend to forget that bases employ alot of civilians in the area.

if they are going to attack a purely military target, then it would be something with as little chance of civilian casualties... such as a ship or convoy. People tend to forget that bases employ alot of civilians in the area.


While I am not a military strategist, I would assume that anyone attacking a military target would have other considerations than the presence of civilians when determining targetting priorities.

I don't think they are forgetting that there are civilians in the area. I think they simply don't factor it in.

I'm not an american citizen, (that happens here in the forums). That is to say a lot, my perspective being a neutral bystander of the conflict of Terror vs USA.

I wasn't saying you were an American Citizen...I know...you were born in Spain, you live in Venezuela. We had sort of a funny talk about the Coffee Mug. No, but really you'd care not if innocence were going to be in the way and possibly killed? I mean, yes...US Soldiers have fired on Civilians either Intentionally or Indirectly, but it doesn't mean that if most Soldiers could...they wouldn't take it back, or even try to prevent it. This being, you can still remain fairly neutral if all you're trying to do is protect Civilians.

Also, running up saying ALALALALA isn't the same as having vastly superior technology and using it to your advantage.


They were going to do it as honorably as your Special Operations soldiers in other parts of the world. No more, no less.

The Technology thing should've gone down here :P. Sure, like we all are really sure what SOF are doing. But then, you're trying to say that SOF make training videos and go to Circuit Cities to try and have them mass produced to go give them to idiots who think they have a righteous cause. No wait...that sort of is the same...*scratches chin*...

Atleast one side is still sane enough to not be trying to gain ascension to 72 Vastal Virgins, ;).

But a more realistic response to this could be -

The intentions are wholeheartedly different.


I am completely pro authority, but what I fail to understand is why I should favor one side of this conflict over the other, if both behave the same way. I would had tried to stop the september 11th, but not this one.

No you shouldn't really have to favor any side. One, you're in a whole different country. Two, I never asked you to ever pick a side. But, turning something in really isn't chosing a side so much as going up to either side and saying "SIGN ME IN!". Yes, we'd all take back 9/11 if we could...which is great you would too seemingly. But, the thing is...oh fuck it not like it's going to make it past your skull anyways.


I'm not being naive, I just have a better perspective than you, that seem to be entirely under the spell of your national leaders.

And, like I said. It's not like it's going to make it past your skull, anyways. That meaning your whole heartedly sat on one side of the whole thing and I am on my own side of the thing. So, really, to solve the problem I just say...

"Ah, fuck it."

4.- No matter what exactly you do inside the military, even if you are the cook, you are a perfect, ethically valid target when you are using an uniform and inside a military facility.

I'm pretty sure that under the International law it is illegal to shoot an unarmed clearly marked non-combat medic.


to all you that it's a legitimate military attack,i would do this in Afghanistan, too.

Whether or not you support the war or not you should at least show some respect to human life. Doing it hear is fine, Doing it in Afghanistan is fine. But no matter your stance protecting those around you should be a good intention.

Lets say the USA was invaded.
you live next to the army base
It is your only protection
the same situation happens
What would you do?
unless you are sick in the head you would tell

the US army is our protection, like it or not and you should do what you can to protect them.

Lets try another example

a murderer kills your family
you overhear plans to kill him to stop his killing spree
do you turn the planners in?

I mean, there both preforming the same act, just with different intent.

No mater what your opinions US troops do not intentionally cause civilian deaths. They are there to protect. Terrorists have been known to cause civilian deaths purposely. This group was aligning themselves with terrorists. Do both sides deserve the same treatment? I think not

The intentions are wholeheartedly different.when we bomb their Bunkers/safe-houses/training-grounds.. our intention is to "kill the enemy" isn't it?

I mean, there both preforming the same act, just with different intent.the intent is to "kill the enemy" isn't it?

yes, I would have.

4.- No matter what exactly you do inside the military, even if you are the cook, you are a perfect, ethically valid target when you are using an uniform and inside a military facility.

I'm pretty sure that under the International law it is illegal to shoot an unarmed clearly marked non-combat medic.


to all you that it's a legitimate military attack,i would do this in Afghanistan, too.

Whether or not you support the war or not you should at least show some respect to human life. Doing it hear is fine, Doing it in Afghanistan is fine. But no matter your stance protecting those around you should be a good intention.

Lets say the USA was invaded.
the same situation happens
What would you do?
...would you tell?Would I tell?
Dude.. If the US is invaded.. not only would I tell.. I would fight alongside our insurgency.. and kill as many invaders as possible.

I would personally kill the 6 DVD copiers.. :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

.. Do both sides deserve the same treatment? I think notI think these 6 amateurs are going to get the death penalty.. which is only fair..
because our Navy-Seals/SOF/SOCOM/whatever.. would also get deated if caught.

Most likely I would have.

Yes, that's true the US Army is actively engaged with Islamo-Terrorists and others abroad. That doesn't mean it makes it right to sit by idley and let them being mercilessly targeted. I don't know if you know this, sweetheart, but US Army Bases have their weapons in storage facilities. All the soldiers in the base are unarmed, only a handful in sharpshooter nests are armed. Even then, admittedly, it could be easy to try and sneak by if you've got the right plan.

Also, it is not every American's ideal job to want to go to war. Even if they are Soldiers, many end up having to do it because of financial or education difficulties. Even then, some are pressured into it by family and friends. Also, the ones who have been serving BEFORE the Iraq War kick started up. Yes, "boo hoo" it's a part of their contract to shoot things if ordered too. But they are still human beings, and they don't necissarily deserve to be murdered.

The actions these 5, with the sixth accomplice, intended to due was to MURDER not KILL soldiers. There is a fine defining line between MURDER and KILLING. Atleast, there is one in my eyes. Not to mention, but there is quite a percentage of 17 year old Soldiers who aren't allowed to be deployed until they are 18. So, I guess they sort of deserve to die as well? Oh well, yea well I guess fuck it.

But also, it is not every Soldier's job to defend by means of firing a rifle or any other piece of equipment. Many of them have very Civil jobs, which many soldiers on base are performing such Civil jobs.



She pretty much revealed herself and how she feels-dont waste your breath.

Wait, some muslim terrorist soldiers want to get into a gunfight with some american soldiers. America in at war with terror, according to the declaration of their president, and islamist terror is at war with America, according to the declaration of their leader. What is illegal there? Let them have their battle.

It's not like they are going to slaughter unarmed civilians, they were going to pick a fight against soldiers. After all, the soldiers exist to fight battles against armed opponents, right? Why should I deny the right of those soldiers to do their jobs?

Because of course every single person on a base is a soldier, and is armed.
It's not possible that they could be office workers, family, clerks at the PX, or pizza delivery guys.

But sure, why not let innocents get murdered. It's the prick thing to do.

No. You see, I don't snitch. I'm in one of those no-snitching neighborhoods. If I snitched on them, I would lose ALL my street cred.

Ah. One of the people whose silence actively helps the drug dealers spreading their poison and violence. It's just the way it is when twelve years old just happen to get shot for the incredible crime of going to the store.

Nice to know what scrupulous people we have here.

I don't know, if I reported every video or set of pictures with yayhoos wanking with their firearms I suspect that Remote Observer would have HLS officers at his door every other day...

Apparently, the 6 fools who were arrested in the Ft. Dix plot were undone by a Circuit City employee who saw what their tape contained (they wanted it put on DVD so they could give it to friends), and reported them to authorities.

So, in this age where plenty of people in the US believe there is "no war on terror," including some elected officials, or similarly, where some people believe that the contents of this tape constitute nothing other than self-aggrandizing video play, if you were the Circuit City employee, would you have contacted authorities and turned over the tape?

Information from the affidavit:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0508071ftdix1.html

News story about the guy who turned them in:
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS/70509011

Please restrict your answer to this specific case.
I hadn't read much about the details of this. Clearly these jihadists weren't the brightest bulbs on the tree. Were they even smart enough to show up at the right place?

And yes, I'd report them to the FBI in a heartbeat.

I don't know, if I reported every video or set of pictures with yayhoos wanking with their firearms I suspect that Remote Observer would have HLS officers at his door every other day...
How many of those yahoos are brown?

I hadn't read much about the details of this. Clearly these jihadists weren't the brightest bulbs on the tree. Were they even smart enough to show up at the right place?

And yes, I'd report them to the FBI in a heartbeat.

That's been a recurring theme with all these "terror cells" in the US--they couldn't find their asses with both hands and a road map. And the evidence seems to indicate, yet again, that the "terrorists" wouldn't have gotten as far as they did without significant help from FBI informants. Who wants to bet this case disappears as quickly as the Miami case did?

Because of course every single person on a base is a soldier, and is armed.
It's not possible that they could be office workers, family, clerks at the PX, or pizza delivery guys.

But sure, why not let innocents get murdered. It's the prick thing to do.

I translate the situation to a US war theatre and get the same answer. Not everyone present under a bombardment is a soldier, a terrorist, or an armed activist, really. I guess it is "collateral damage", acceptable under your terms, but in the US soil is murder?

I'm pretty sure family, workers, clerks, from time to time get a bomb or two.

I'm working under the assumption the guys were going to, according to declarations from everybody involved, kill american soldiers, as many as they could. They didn't say, or the US authorities said, that they were going to enter the base to kill office workers, family, clerks and pizza delivery guys. For me it's the same when the US army says they are going to start an operation to kill taliban activists. On those caves, there are family too, and sheperds, and a lot of people that get shot or bombed to pieces. Should then I warn them of incoming american attacks?, because that would be the right thing to do as a neutral side, either warn noone, or warn both belligerant sides.

Of course, to understand my point of view for american people, is quite harsh, as far as I can see. For me, you are the prick, sadly.

...some people believe that the contents of this tape constitute nothing other than self-aggrandizing video play, if you were the Circuit City employee, would you have contacted authorities and turned over the tape?

Da Tape !!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brV5q8bhoYM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brV5q8bhoYM

:D

I don't know, if I reported every video or set of pictures with yayhoos wanking with their firearms I suspect that Remote Observer would have HLS officers at his door every other day...... if had to report every video or set of pictures with yahoos wanking with their firearms.. I would expend most of my free time on the FBI waiting phone lines

Wait, some muslim terrorist soldiers want to get into a gunfight with some american soldiers. America in at war with terror, according to the declaration of their president, and islamist terror is at war with America, according to the declaration of their leader. What is illegal there? Let them have their battle.

It's not like they are going to slaughter unarmed civilians, they were going to pick a fight against soldiers. After all, the soldiers exist to fight battles against armed opponents, right? Why should I deny the right of those soldiers to do their jobs?

Well, if you were living in a nation that condoned their actions, that's one thing. If your living in America, that's being a trator. After all, I wouldn't blame any WWII German soldiers for shooting American soldiers, but if the citizen of nation HOSTILE to soldiers helped the soldiers, I would consider that a crime. Also, this thread is assuming you live in the U.S. And if you didn't, it's assuming the terrorists are targeting your nation's mailitary. So, 'nuff said.

I wouldn't blame any WWII German soldiers for shooting American soldiers... a WWII German soldier.. killing the concentration-camp German Guards.. and setting the prisoners free?
Is he a traitor and/or a criminal?

a WWII German soldier.. the Concentration camps Guards.. and setting the prisoners free?
Is he a traitor and a criminal?

No, not to Germany. As an American it would be my duty to work against him though, and as a soldier it would be my duty to kill or capture him. But when the war ended, he wasn't a traitor, nor should he be treated as such.

No.Ok..


not to Germany.Well If he is a German.. he can only be a traitor to Germany.. right? This one does not have dual citizenship.


As an American it would be my duty to work against him though, and as a soldier it would be my duty to kill or capture him.This is not about you.. I dont care what your duties are.


But when the war ended, he wasn't a traitor, nor should he be treated as such.well ..If he wasnt a traitor when he freed the Gypsies/Jews.. why would he be a traitor/criminal now?

I mean do.. traitors/War criminals stop being War criminals.. automatically when the War ends?
I dont think so.

Ok..


Well If he is a German.. he can only be a traitor to Germany.. right? This one does not have dual citizenship.

Yeah sorry, I was stating the evident there.

This is not about you.. I dont care what your duties are.

Alright, point made.

well ..If he wasnt a traitor when he freed the Gypsies/Jews.. why would he be a traitor/criminal now?

He obviously wouldn't

I mean do.. traitors/War criminals stop being War criminals.. automatically when the War ends?
I dont think so.
Of course not, sorry for saying so many obvious things, although I can't see why it would bother you enough to post on it.

Yeah sorry, I was stating the evident there.



Alright, point made.



He obviously wouldn't


Of course not, sorry for saying so many obvious things, although I can't see why it would bother you enough to post on it.
its probably because I am tired..
me bad.
I did not mean to be rude.
I better go to sleep.

a WWII German soldier.. killing the concentration-camp German Guards.. and setting the prisoners free?
Is he a traitor and/or a criminal?

Yes. He is a traitor. He is also a righteous man and a hero.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

a WWII German soldier.. killing the concentration-camp German Guards.. and setting the prisoners free?
Is he a traitor and/or a criminal?

OH, KILL the guards? Well, then yes he is a traitor to the goverment. But since the goverment is systematically executing millions of non-combatants, I would say he was doing something ethically correct. And since the goverment got replaced just after the war, he's only a traitor to a now-defunct govverment, not to his country, now run by a different goverment.

Yes. He is a traitor. He is also a righteous man and a hero.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

A fact sadly overlooked by too many people who have been conditioned to blindly follow orders. Just because your country/government orders you to do something, that does not automaticly make it right.

Aelosia is right on a few points, however: A: the perpertrators considered themselves to be combatants and were planning an attack on a legitimate military target, and when those targets are attacked (anywhere), there are often regretable civilian casualties. War is hell people. B. Being from a nuetral country, it doesn't matter to him/her, nor should it.

As to the OP, yes I would report it. Not because it iwould be right or wrong, simply out of self-interest.

Well, if you were living in a nation that condoned their actions, that's one thing. If your living in America, that's being a trator. After all, I wouldn't blame any WWII German soldiers for shooting American soldiers, but if the citizen of nation HOSTILE to soldiers helped the soldiers, I would consider that a crime. Also, this thread is assuming you live in the U.S. And if you didn't, it's assuming the terrorists are targeting your nation's mailitary. So, 'nuff said.

Oh, no, sorry, I should had missed the "American people only" part of the OP, or "if you are not american, then assume it is against your country's military". I stated a neutral position, not in favouir or against the United States military or people, and yet I get bashed for not being pro United States enough. I'm not pro United States in a war, because I'm not a citizen of that country.

This thread is not assuming that. You are assuming that.

I'm not sure the soldier in that scenario is a traitor, as his nation doesn't really benefit by killing off prisoners. As concentration camps are detrimental to Germany's image, having them disrupted benefits the country. Hence not a traitor IMO.

I wonder, why exactly is this such a huge news item? 6 incompetent jackoffs got caught planning an attack on a military base and we shit our collective pants. Back in the 90s it would barely have registered. In fact, does anyone (who is old enough) remember this? Why didn't we shit ourselves over this when there were 70 incompetent jackoffs involved?

Sorry, but I can't find the full article.

The way Eric Maloney tells the story, the plan to blow up Camp Grayling, a National Guard base in northern Michigan, was hatched in late January when 70 members of the Michigan Militia Corps, a statewide right-wing paramilitary group, met at a truck-stop restaurant northwest of Detroit. Mr. Maloney, ...

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60614FE395C0C768EDDAF0894DD494D81&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes+Topics%2FSubjects%2FF%2FFringe+Groups+and+Movements

... I would say he was doing something ethically correct. And since the goverment got replaced just after the war, he's only a traitor to a now-defunct govverment, not to his country, now run by a different goverment.Interesting..