i didn't say that. i have a right to silence.

if they subpoena me for testimony then that's a different story.

8/30/2006 1:05:48 PM

would you be silent because you had something to hide?

8/30/2006 1:07:25 PM

potentially. but silence is not evidence of guilt.

8/30/2006 1:08:04 PM

no its not technically evidence of guilt

but its tacit admittance of guilt

kind of like "how do you plead to the charges brought against you?" "no contest"

if they were innocent they should be adamant about it...answer any questions...they have nothing to hide if they're innocent

8/30/2006 1:09:43 PM

maybe they want to be questioned in the presence of a lawyer so that their rights aren't compromised.

and this has been established for a long time. you can't be forced to talk to law enforcement unless you've been subpoenaed for testimony (and are not implicated in the crime in which they are testifying about)

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 1:11:20 PM

they WERE implicated in the crime

plus they didnt have a problem answering the first round of questions without a lawyer

8/30/2006 1:14:05 PM

You have a legal responsibility to answer CERTAIN questions from law-enforcement. We live in a democracy and the legislature hath spoken and removed our rights to silence.

For example, you are required to honestly provide your name upon request of law enforcement, failure to do so is grounds for arrest.

Of course, these people aren't trying to avoid arrest, they are trying to board a plane. The owner of the plane has the right to refuse service for a number of good reasons which includes being named on a no-fly list. If it was my airline, I too would refuse to board them until the FBI gave me a thumbs up.

Therefore, it must be answered whether or not they are legally barred from returning or are simply unable to get on any airplanes for failure to answer questions. Perhaps they should try to gain passage on a QE2.

8/30/2006 1:14:37 PM

so the government has the right to blacklist people without providing any reason why?

8/30/2006 1:16:28 PM

the reason is that their relative told the feds that the two men had attended terrorist camps

also the airline company has every legal right to deny service to someone who the authorities deem as unsafe to fly

8/30/2006 1:20:36 PM

so why don't they detain them?

so it's ok for the government to blacklist people who haven't been charged with any crimes?

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 1:21:07 PM

why dont they answer the questions

god dammit you're dense

8/30/2006 1:21:24 PM

keep calling me names. it proves your point really well.

i've answered your question. maybe they don't want their rights compromised, so they want a lawyer present.

8/30/2006 1:22:31 PM

you lack the most basic common sense

you give them every benefit of the doubt

you play out every single hypothetical scenario in your head aobut why they didnt answer questions

except you never consider the possiblity that one or both of the men could be guilty

you never consider the possibility that they are on the no-fly list because they are a security risk

you only have your narrowminded views of your personal interpretation of certain rights, while ignoring any other laws that allow the airline to refuse service, etc

8/30/2006 1:23:25 PM

you're such a brillant debater. if at first you don't succeed, then start calling people names.

they could be guilty. but i believe in a trial to prove guilt. not just letting law enforcement guess at it. that leaves the door wide open for abuse. and i won't accept it.

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:25 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 1:24:17 PM

you are unbelievably naive

im just glad we have more competent people worried about our national security

you say you're for proving guilt/innocence in a court of law

how can you prove either if you refuse to answer any questions

8/30/2006 1:25:56 PM

just keep calling me names. that's all you seem to do. that and editing posts after someone has repsonded.

Quote :

"you say you're for proving guilt/innocence in a court of law how can you prove either if you refuse to answer any questions"

it's called evidence.

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 1:27:44 PM

you're unbelievable

btw i havent called you a single name...read through the entire page 6 and find where i called you a name

you cant...but i guess accusing me of calling you names is a good way to change the subject

8/30/2006 1:29:04 PM

do you think american citizens are afforded a right to a fair trial?

do you think american are afforded the right to remain silent?

8/30/2006 1:30:06 PM

do you think national security is important?

tell me where i called you a name since i didnt

keep changing the subject

8/30/2006 1:30:56 PM

not more important than our basic rights as citizens of the country.

8/30/2006 1:31:38 PM

like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? you know, those rights that come before the bill of rights?

the right of life that you dont seem to think is that important to protect? THE most important right there is? the right, that without, you couldnt do anything else because you'd be dead?

why arent you prioritizing THE RIGHT TO STAY ALIVE too high on your 'rights priority' list?

8/30/2006 1:32:56 PM

You heard it here...no limiting our constitutional rights for safety reasons.

Now get off my fucking guns.

8/30/2006 1:33:32 PM

whats more important sarijoul?

The Right to Remain Silent?

or maybe, i dunno

The Right to LIFE???

8/30/2006 1:34:27 PM

Quote :

"my point is that you're naive as shit and i'm damn glad that people like you arent in charge of our national security"

Quote :

"if you were president after 9/11 you'd probably think the only justice for bin laden would be a drawn out trial in a court of law"

Quote :

"god dammit you're dense"

Quote :

"you lack the most basic common sense"

Quote :

"you are unbelievably naive"

8/30/2006 1:35:40 PM

Quote :

"so it's ok for the government to blacklist people who haven't been charged with any crimes?"

The government does have the right to investigate crimes, including investigating whether or not a crime has occured, as well as acting to prevent the commission of a crime. While it is true that you don't have to answer all questions asked by the government, your silence or lack of silence will be used as part of the investigation.

Quote :

"maybe they don't want their rights compromised, so they want a lawyer present."

Which is perfectly acceptable (in fact, I'd encourage it). However, please keep in mind that the FBI has not refused to conduct interviews with a lawyer present. The Ismails have refused to return for subsequent interviews.

8/30/2006 1:35:56 PM

pointing out the fact that you are naive is not calling you a name

but whatever you want to dwell on to "make your point"

i just wish you were as adamant about the right to LIFE as you were about other rights

8/30/2006 1:36:42 PM

Quote :

"However, please keep in mind that the FBI has not refused to conduct interviews with a lawyer present. The Ismails have refused to return for subsequent interviews."

that hasn't been made clear in any of the information i've read.

^we should just have some stalin-style blacklists. send some people to siberia for speaking against the government.

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 1:38:41 PM

we should have some reality courses at state to teach people like you about the world

8/30/2006 1:40:37 PM

"if you don't agree with me you don't know about the world."

8/30/2006 1:42:17 PM

Quote :

"that hasn't been made clear in any of the information i've read."

Uh...........

Quote :

"She said the teenager had run afoul of the FBI when he [Ismail] declined to be interviewed again without a lawyer and refused to take a lie-detector test."

8/30/2006 1:42:26 PM

nothing is clear to sarijoul after he reads it

i've given up...he's not gonna change his mind...the right to fly on a plane is more important to him than the right to life

8/30/2006 1:42:54 PM

it hasn't been made clear if the two would have been allowed to be questioned with a lawyer present. it just said that they refused to be questioned without a lawyer.

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:43 PM. Reason : keeping on with ad hominem twista]

8/30/2006 1:43:19 PM

are you one of these folks that thinks that mccarthy was ok?

8/30/2006 1:44:34 PM

are you one of those folks who doesnt value your life?

btw my arguments arent fallacious

you however ARE quite naive

maybe some of the other people in here with common sense can knock some sense into your thick skull...i doubt it

8/30/2006 1:44:57 PM

not if i have to live in a police state.

8/30/2006 1:45:39 PM

ok salisburyboy

8/30/2006 1:46:08 PM

note: i haven't resorted to trying to insult you once. you've done it time after time. (in this thread. not sure about other times.)

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 1:46:35 PM

note:

you've insulted me by completely dismissing my arguments as ad hominems

i've informed you how naive you are when it comes to national security

8/30/2006 1:47:10 PM

i've only called your stuff ad hominem you resort to calling me stupid or the sort. that's no argument. it's just an attack on me with no basis other than my opinion on this matter.

8/30/2006 1:48:20 PM

i havent once called you stupid

why do you accuse me of things i havent done

8/30/2006 1:49:17 PM

Quote :

"god dammit you're dense"

Quote :

"dense /d?ns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dens] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective, dens?er, dens?est. 1. having the component parts closely compacted together; crowded or compact: a dense forest; dense population. 2. stupid; slow-witted; dull."

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2006 1:51:19 PM

does the FACT that you're hardheaded mean i called you an idiot?

work on your definitions and reading comprehension

8/30/2006 1:52:20 PM

Quote :

"it hasn't been made clear if the two would have been allowed to be questioned with a lawyer present. it just said that they refused to be questioned without a lawyer."

1) Why would the article report "The FBI has not refused to conduct the interviews" when it is the Ismails refusing to be interviewed?

2) I feel confident that if the FBI refused to conduct interviews with a lawyer present, it would have been reported and the ACLU would have made sure that it was reported.

Quote :

"are you one of these folks that thinks that mccarthy was ok?"

Being a communist is not a crime. Being a terrorist is.

[Edited on August 30, 2006 at 1:56 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2006 1:52:45 PM

so because i don't agree with you and you haven't convinced me to change my mind, i'm dense?

8/30/2006 1:53:16 PM

no

now you're just a fucking idiot

or hopefully hopefully HOPEFULLY just a troll

8/30/2006 1:53:54 PM

you're really showing your true colors.

Quote :

"Being a communist is not a crime. Being a terrorist is."

i agree. but they have not been found to be terrorists. they haven't been charged with anything yet.

8/30/2006 1:54:39 PM

you've been showing your true colors the whole time

that you are naive and hardheaded and value the right to fly on a plane more than the right to live

its pathetic

common sense is really lacking in some people nowadays...their priorities are completely screwed up...its sad...i feel sorry for you

8/30/2006 1:59:23 PM

ok. we disagree. i think i've made my case clear and you've made yours. it's too bad you can't just accept that people disagree with you. you presume that they must be idiots to believe other things than you.

8/30/2006 2:04:23 PM

oh i know people will disagree with anything at first glance

i just dont know how you can still think the same way you do on this issue after everything in this thread, after countless examples from multiple people that rationalize the FBI's position

in the last few pages, you have been the ONLY one arguing your viewpoint

8/30/2006 2:08:05 PM

i don't believe in compromising rights when there are mechanisms to investigate terrorism that do not.

8/30/2006 2:14:52 PM