Not my title by the way -
I found this vid with O'Reilly and Judge Napolitano discussing the Portland incident involving a potential terrorist attack. The issue is, was this
guy led down the patsy path by the FBI or was he a genuine threat all along. In retrospect, and without reviewing all of the evidence It is my
opinion that this guy was a threat and should have been arrested. The issue is how this whole thing panned out. Napolitano is bringing
up a point about "thought crimes," as in someone can not be arrested for what they say or think, but this guy's own father called the FBI out of
concern, I guess what happened thereafter is under scrutiny. Do you think he should have been arrested after his father called with concern about his
son harming someone, before he actually put his plan into action?
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting analogy from both sides of the issue.
Yeah well if Republicans were in Office this would not be airing on Fox News.
In my opinion, as long as the evidence shows(and I believe it will) that they gave this terrorist every opportunity to back out of this, the FBI acted
appropriately. The reason they let it go as far as they did is so that they could build a stronger case for life imprisonment. If guilty, life
imprisonment is where this terrorist belongs.
Yeah well if Republicans were in Office this would not be airing on Fox News.
Curious to your thinking here? I don't think it would make a difference because it is a good story and another opportunity to show cons vs liberal
perspectives.
Other than that, I agree and am glad this guy got put away. I am just curious about the procedures involved leading up to the incident, and what some
may think.
Thanks for the reply,
spec
edit on 1-12-2010 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)