Sacramento Teen Question by Secret Service

[trust]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/

What do you all think of that? I don't think the Secret Service did anything worthy of criticism, they have to handle every threat as if it's 120% serious and it's certainly possible for a 14 year old to be a danger to the President. Look at all the kids (like that 8 year old) shooting their friends and classmates...why does she think she isn't a threat because of her age? She described herself as peace-loving, bs, if she was peace-loving she wouldn't have "Kill Bush" on her MySpace. There are better ways to be politically passionate than making death threats.

I think it's funny though that she'll probably never be allowed at any event that requires secret-service clearance, whether the president is Republican or Democrat.

[iago]

Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far. 


I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it?  I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

[Newby]

I think it's ridiculous. "OH NOES, A THREAT ON THE INTERWEBS"

[trust]

Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far. 


I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it?  I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

[Newby]

Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far. 


I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it?  I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

So if a kid in Canada that uses MySpace threatens Bush, what're they gonna do?

[iago]

Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far. 


I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it?  I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

That doesn't sound right to me, because of the basis of your constitution (armed militia groups are encouraged?), but that's ok.  I have a bigger question. 

Is killing the president really a threat to national security?  I mean, there's other people ready to take over, and it's not like she's planning a coup or something..

[Chavo]

No offense to anyone of either party, but you are going to get very biased answers to those kinds of questions from republicans and democrats.

[Armin]

What a little bitch. "OMG OMG THEY WEREN'T NICE TO ME!" I would've been pissed if I was a secret service agent, having to come all the way to California to do their job because some dumbass freshman girl decided to put a picture of herself killing Bush...

Haha, as much as I don't like Bush, that's going too far. 


I don't suppose this falls under "Free Speech", does it?  I don't really think so, but I can see some people arguing that it does

No because it's a threat to national security.

That doesn't sound right to me, because of the basis of your constitution (armed militia groups are encouraged?), but that's ok.  I have a bigger question. 

Is killing the president really a threat to national security?  I mean, there's other people ready to take over, and it's not like she's planning a coup or something..

iago, don't be silly.

[iago]

No offense to anyone of either party, but you are going to get very biased answers to those kinds of questions from republicans and democrats.

Then we can pretend they wanted to kill Clinton, too.  My answer would be the same either way. 

[CrAz3D]

National security cause we're without a leader for a short amount of time & then the whole country is in some state of vulnerability.

Also, its a threat...threats against the president are taken more seriously than against regular people, but if I found a MySpace that said kill (my name) I'd report that to the police & want them arrested too

[Sidoh]

I agree that this is a small threat to national security.  That doesn't mean it tops North Korea or anything like that, though.

The stupid little girl was way out of line and should have never posted anything like that on public domain.  What a fool.

[Chavo]

No offense to anyone of either party, but you are going to get very biased answers to those kinds of questions from republicans and democrats.

Then we can pretend they wanted to kill Clinton, too.  My answer would be the same either way. 

I wasn't referring to Bush at all.  Chances are if you ask any given Republican a question about 'National Security', freedom of speech, or constitutional rights their answer will differ consideratly from any given Democrat.  Those are all topics of considerable controversy between the two parties.  Personally, I prefer to not be associated with any set of ideals and vote on what I think is important, not what I think is more likely to win based on a party affiliation.

[Sidoh]

I wasn't referring to Bush at all.  Chances are if you ask any given Republican a question about 'National Security', freedom of speech, or constitutional rights their answer will differ consideratly from any given Democrat.  Those are all topics of considerable controversy between the two parties.  Personally, I prefer to not be associated with any set of ideals and vote on what I think is important, not what I think is more likely to win based on a party affiliation.

I think the definition of existing constitutional rights is pretty objective, isn't it?

I agree with being politically independant, though.  I'm generally more conservative than I am liberal, but I still don't think I'd want to be a republican.

[iago]

National security cause we're without a leader for a short amount of time & then the whole country is in some state of vulnerability.

Doesn't the power instantly pass to the Vice President?  Or am I mistaken?

I think the definition of existing constitutional rights is pretty objective, isn't it?

Not at all, I don't think. 

I agree with being politically independant, though.  I'm generally more conservative than I am liberal, but I still don't think I'd want to be a republican.

independent*

But anyway, I agree.  I think all politicians suck, the people who are good at getting votes should NOT be the people who run a country.  People are too gullible.  Democracy sucks.

[Sidoh]

Not at all, I don't think. 

That's what The Constitution exists for...

independent*

But anyway, I agree.  I think all politicians suck, the people who are good at getting votes should NOT be the people who run a country.  People are too gullible.  Democracy sucks.

Heh.  It's better than communism.

[CrAz3D]

National security cause we're without a leader for a short amount of time & then the whole country is in some state of vulnerability.

Doesn't the power instantly pass to the Vice President?  Or am I mistaken?

He's gotta be sworn in & all that junk.  So like 30 minutes later there is a new president.

I think the definition of existing constitutional rights is pretty objective, isn't it?

Not at all, I don't think. 

Liberties granted in the Constitution are ALWAYS being argued.  Privacy?  If you're a very strict Constitutionalist, there is no Bill of Rights protected privacy.
So it just depends who is sitting on the bench regarding what is and is not a constitutional/bill of rights protection

[Sidoh]

It's written on a damn infallible (in the context it can't be changed without a bunch of procedures) document.  What is there to argue about?

[CrAz3D]

It's written on a damn infallible (in the context it can't be changed without a bunch of procedures) document.  What is there to argue about?

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

[Hitmen]

Kill George Bush.

* Hitmen ducks

[Sidoh]

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

Not really.

[CrAz3D]

interrpretations of the words.

Curel & unusual?....very vague
The whole right to privacy is basically fabricated by the supreme court

all of the wording is quite vague, the meanings change with the times

Not really.

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

[Sidoh]

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

I'm aware of the ambiguity.

I still think that the rights are pretty clearly defined.  Arguing over what is a cruel and unusual punishment (which seems pretty intuitive to me) is not the same as arguing what should be a consitutional right.

[iago]

What about, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which is generally said as "right to bear arms".  That's another interpretation that could be argued.


Yes, the most basic rights are totally objective, but how those right are interpreted or applied is often subjective and open to interpretation.

[dark_drake]

What about, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which is generally said as "right to bear arms".  That's another interpretation that could be argued.


Yes, the most basic rights are totally objective, but how those right are interpreted or applied is often subjective and open to interpretation.

Nonsense, all rights are clear cut.  My idea of these clearly defined rights is exactly the same as everybody else's. 

[Eric]

what do you mean not really?

or that Congress can pass any law "necessary & proper" to carry out their roles
cruel & unusual isnt vague?...how is that not vague language?

I'm aware of the ambiguity.

I still think that the rights are pretty clearly defined.  Arguing over what is a cruel and unusual punishment (which seems pretty intuitive to me) is not the same as arguing what should be a consitutional right.

You do realize that what you may personally feel to be "cruel and unusual punishment" in our present-day environment may have been substantially different to those in the seventeenth century, correct?  What you may perceive as a general consensus must cross ethnic, economic, and religious boundaries not only of the present, but of the past as well.  This concept is generally taught to any first-year philosophy student...

[Sidoh]

You do realize that what you may personally feel to be "cruel and unusual punishment" in our present-day environment may have been substantially different to those in the seventeenth century, correct?  What you may perceive as a general consensus must cross ethnic, economic, and religious boundaries not only of the present, but of the past as well.  This concept is generally taught to any first-year philosophy student...

I am (and was) aware.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/10/13/state/n173002D95.DTL

"They yelled at me a lot," she said. "They were unnecessarily mean."

STFU stupid girl.

"She obviously is not a threat to society, if you look at her age, her family background, the cartoonish nature of the MySpace page," said her father, Jim Moose, an environmental law attorney.

...which is why your daughter isn't currently in some federal prison, duh.  They investigated it to make sure it wasn't some person pretending to be a 14 year old girl.

"I wasn't dangerous. I mean, look at what's (stenciled) on my backpack — it's a heart. I'm a very peace-loving person," said Wilson

Peace...kill the president, same difference I spose.

[iago]

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

[dark_drake]

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side. 

[CrAz3D]

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

She wasnt accused of anything, other than making what appeared to be (after investigation) an uncredible threat.
I'd have to help Newby/Hitmen to kill Bush before I could be an accessory.  If anything you'd be hit before any of us (except maybe Newby & Hitmen)since you host the forums & provide & allow threats(credible or not) against the president of the U.S.

Newby just recently said "kill bush" on this forum.  Do you think he's now a threat to national security?  Hitmen has said the same thing in the past. 

You should probably stop associating with this board altogether, or you might be considered an accessory to whatever it is that girl was accused of.  Treason?

Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side. 

Hope he doesnt enjoy it too much

[Newby]

If anything you'd be hit before any of us (except maybe Newby & Hitmen)since you host the forums & provide & allow threats(credible or not) against the president of the U.S.

He lives in Canada. It's a long shot, but that's like saying they'd take out every last Iraqi kid that threatens Bush. It just won't happen. Haha.

Mehbe they'll anally probe Newby just to be on the safe side. 

Hope he doesnt enjoy it too much

I'll try not to. Maybe I'll just videotape it.

[Hitmen]

Someday I hope to sodomize the president with an icepick while pelting him with dead black baby jews.

[leet_muffin]

Someday I hope to sodomize the president with an icepick while pelting him with dead black baby jews.

Me too.

[BigAznDaddy]

Someday I hope to sodomize the president with an icepick while pelting him with dead black baby jews.

hahahahaha sodomize

[Armin]

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

[Newby]

Because everyone sucks. I'll merge it.

[CrAz3D]

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

oh my poor sad little mind...I though it was familiar...but I was thinkin another site

[iago]

She wasnt accused of anything, other than making what appeared to be (after investigation) an uncredible threat.
I'd have to help Newby/Hitmen to kill Bush before I could be an accessory.  If anything you'd be hit before any of us (except maybe Newby & Hitmen)since you host the forums & provide & allow threats(credible or not) against the president of the U.S.

MySpace didn't get questioned for the girl you're talking about.

Although this might be "just" a forum, you're in a clan led by Newby who said "kill bush".  I think that looks pretty bad, don't you? 

If you think what happened to that girl is right, then just think how it'll look for you to refer to Newby, who has said "kill Bush" before, as your "clan leader".

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

Although I noticed, I figured this was an update on the story.  *shrug*

[dark_drake]

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

I noticed it, but did it really matter?

[Armin]

http://www.x86labs.org:81/forum/index.php/topic,7589.msg94613.html#msg94613
I'm kinda confused as to why everyone took part in that thread didn't notice this was already posted.

I noticed it, but did it really matter?

No, but I was just really confused for the first couple minutes or so. I wasn't sure if I read here or somewhere else.