100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Government threatened Foley family | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 09/12/14 01:37 PM
|
|
Government threatened Foley family before son's execution After a series of recent interviews, members of the Foley family have said the government threatened to prosecute their family if they had raised and paid the money for the ransom sought for the life of their son, James Foley. According to ABC News, Diane Foley, the mother of James, said they were threatened with lawsuits multiple times if they had gone through with paying the ransom. "��We were told that several times and we took it as a threat and it was appalling." http://benswann.com/government-threatened-foley-family-before-sons-execution/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl Guess govt needed him beheaded to get the American people to fund their dirty little wars in Iraq and Syria..... all about politics and a speech by the POTUS before an election event |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figures.
And idiot liberals support this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope! And don't call us idiots!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I understand it. It's conservatives and tea partyists that had said NO to terrorists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always assumed the reason the U.S. does not negotiate with/pay ransoms to terrorists to secure the release of American hostages was that doing so would simply make ALL American citizens more vulnerable to becoming cash-cows for the kidnappers.
I heard the other day that Foleys were told not to pay a ransom because the money would be used by the kidnappers to fund/sustain terrorist activities. They'd not mentioned any threat of being sued IF they did; I don't know IF it's illegal to, as an independent citizen, break "rules" and policies the federal government has established in international matters. It seems like there might/must be; wasn't it illegal if - and U.S. citizens could be charged with a crime - travelling to Cuba due to a legislated trade embargo as part of our foreign policy? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
michelake
on
Fri 09/12/14 02:33 PM
|
|
It is not a government that would pay for this. But the family.The terrorists would not blackmail USA government with it in this case.
So in my opinion it changes the stance the USA government would be in. What loving family would not do just about anything to get their loved ones freed ? Liberal's, conservatives or democrats ? I really think there are devious motives behind this. So Sojourning_Soul i really share your opinion about this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope! And don't call us idiots! Not all liberals are idiots. But, all idiots are liberal. Guess it's still Bush's fault. oBozo certainly ain't managing crap.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not a government that would pay for this. But the family. So in my opinion it changes it. What loving family would not do just about anything to get their loved ones freed ? Liberal's, conservatives or democrats ? I really think there are devious motives behind this. So Sojourning_Soul i really share your opinion about this. I get that...that there's a difference between the government paying a ransom and a private citizen doing it. I'm trying to figure out if the government's acting like a bully or if there IS legitimate recourse for laws being broken. When the U.S. had a trade embargo on/travel restriction to Cuba, our country didn't send them goods and our government representatives didn't go there socially or for diplomatic purposes. Private U.S. citizens were banned from travel and conducting business, too; many traveled there and brought back Cuban cigars illegally and were often prosecuted for doing so. Does this situation fall under that same (or similar) jurisdiction? If so, they are correct - it's illegal and one CAN be (not necessarily WILL be) prosecuted/sued. If it doesn't, then the government was trying to strong-arm a grieving family. To me, it makes a HUGE difference on my opinion of it, IF it's true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Fri 09/12/14 02:42 PM
|
|
Truckloads of Cuban cigars are illegal.
I brought back, from Mexico a box full a Cuban friend gave me. Even declared them. Just had to pay the tobacco tax and get a stamp. If you like Cubans, here's a place you can order them from. http://www.ihavanas.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the USA lawyers must have had some grounds to assume that they would be on the "right" side of the law. And are able to stop this.
Or they would not have opposed the family with this. But it still raises the question why the USA government is so eager to stop this. Since it is a public initiative. And i am pretty sure that there have been hostage negotiations before with the USA government under the radar.In other situations. Where they would pay for the ransom. Or meet the demands of the kidnappers in some way. But they would just not tell the public about it. And keep it as a secret. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope! And don't call us idiots! Not all liberals are idiots. But, all idiots are liberal. Guess it's still Bush's fault. oBozo certainly ain't managing crap. yeah your absolutely right that only liberals are idiots.    but yeah your absolutely right these people must be liberals in desguise. Curse you for noticeing. Oh and your right obama isn't doing what he can about foreign affairs. I guess this article in cnn news that I found has absolutely nothing to do with it... http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/opinion/miller-syria-american-involvement/ wait was this in January? I had no Idea. I guess that makes me liberal then... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ server:
Thank you for pointing out the self-ascribed fallacy in the presented-as-fact statement "But, all idiots are liberal" was. Hell, it was DOA even before it popped up in this thread.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 09/12/14 03:15 PM
|
|
Nope! And don't call us idiots! Not all liberals are idiots. But, all idiots are liberal. Guess it's still Bush's fault. oBozo certainly ain't managing crap.   
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hussein doesn't make deals with terrorists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ server: Thank you for pointing out the self-ascribed fallacy in the presented-as-fact statement "But, all idiots are liberal" was. Hell, it was DOA even before it popped up in this thread. yeah your right I have no idea why it irks me so much. No that's an incorrect statement, it irks me the same way when I see someone treat a person of the female perspective as just an object. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ server: Thank you for pointing out the self-ascribed fallacy in the presented-as-fact statement "But, all idiots are liberal" was. Hell, it was DOA even before it popped up in this thread. yeah your right I have no idea why it irks me so much. No that's an incorrect statement, it irks me the same way when I see someone treat a person of the female perspective as just an object. Well? Hussein doesn't make deals with terrorists? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if it's against the law to deal with terrorists, why isn't Hussein in jail?
He just traded 5. Yep. That's right. Five top level terrorists for one deserter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sat 09/13/14 06:09 AM
|
|
I guess only this President is allowed to break long standing policies and pay ransoms to terrorists. He made Americans more valuable targets to terrorists when he traded 5 enemy generals for one treasonous, deserter, peon. That's like trading 5 Bugatti Veyron Gransports (the worlds fastest, most expensive car) for a stock VW Bug But parents aren't allowed to barter for their own children.....who aren't military? Since ISIS was armed and trained by our CIA and this admin and allowed to take over the biggest oil field in Iraq (selling millions of dollars a day in oil on the black market), an American backed bank holding over a Billion dollars, the American built airbase, its armory and arsenal, the largest energy generating dam....... I doubt a family paying for the return of their civilian son is really gonna help fund them much further than this admins foreign policies already have |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 09/13/14 05:51 AM
|
|
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/fbi-president-obama-is-a-domestic-terrorist
FBI Inadvertently Classifies President Obama As a Domestic Terrorist Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. � 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism": "International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.* "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. 18 U.S.C. � 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that: Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including � 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and � 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.). * FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. � 1801(c). Source: FBI.gov |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/fbi-president-obama-is-a-domestic-terrorist FBI Inadvertently Classifies President Obama As a Domestic Terrorist Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. � 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism": "International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.* "Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. 18 U.S.C. � 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that: Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including � 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and � 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.). * FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. � 1801(c). Source: FBI.gov Awesome info! You know by this definition, the police of Ferguson are domestic terrorist. Many of the leaders of the Tea-party movement are domestic terrorist. Oh and news reporters are clearly in violation of section (i). And business men that buy their favor in the government. I wonder why none of these people are being arrested and sent to Guantanamo bay! Oh wait I know! I know! maybe because the law itself is flawed and if say the pres was arrested or anyone else, there would be a supreme court decision on the law, and the law itself would be struck down and All (By this I mean every single person in Guantanamo bay that we have locked up for being a terrorist) would be set free. EVERYONE! I don't think you want that do you? |
|
|
|
|
