IR15H;3293818Saying "Kill Bush" is not personally threatening to kill Bush, you could however argue it is encouraging others to do so.
That's a guess. Guesses can't just be assumed to be correct. They need to be investigated and checked out - which is exactly what happened.
If you just say Oh well, I'm sure she was just kidding - and a high ranking political official gets shot the next day - nobody is going to care whether or not it was a logical assumption.
Machiavelli's ApprenticeThat's a guess. Guesses can't just be assumed to be correct. They need to be investigated and checked out - which is exactly what happened. If you just say Oh well, I'm sure she was just kidding - and a high ranking political official gets shot the next day - nobody is going to care whether or not it was a logical assumption.
"Kill Bush" is not a personal death threat, "I will kill Bush" is, there is a difference. This girl did not threaten to personally kill Bush, as was being stated. It is a situation where someone has got into trouble for their words because it may prompt another's action.
IR15H;3295836"Kill Bush" is not a personal death threat, "I will kill Bush" is, there is a difference. This girl did not threaten to personally kill Bush, as was being stated.
She was being a 14 year old idiot and got what she deserved. If you think for one second the things you say here and in any other forum can/are not being watched by FBI etc you are foolish. It's really all about common sense here and that girl lacked it.
Like Bob said its a damn if you do/don't situation. Whiners will cry if something happens and we knew of it. Whiners will cry if nothing happens and we look into it. Whiners are great Monday morning quarterbacks on a lot of topics. Any teenager that writes "kill Mr President" is a retard anyway and is just following the teenie ignorance revolution. Or as I like to call it, TIR
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
IR15H;3295836"Kill Bush" is not a personal death threat, "I will kill Bush" is, there is a difference. This girl did not threaten to personally kill Bush, as was being stated. It is a situation where someone has got into trouble for their words because it may prompt another's action.
I was under the impression that urging someone to kill another counted as an actual attempt on their life rather than a threat to do so.
Anlushac11;3290540I think they were justified in questioning her, I think it was done in a inappropriate way and was meant to scare the girl. They could ahve just called her to the schools office or had the schools dean come get her but instead secret service come and take her out of class.
It was a intimidation lesson plain and simple.
And I think it was unthinkable to question the girl without her parents or legal representation present.
I also do not believe for a second they deleted her file.
Although I do not sympathize with Bush's politics in any way, I completely agree with you. This stupid teenager (unknowingly) commited a crime and gave reason to question her. Unfortunately, the Secret Service did it in an inappropriate way (in my opinion).
Maybe kids should be taught at school that posting (and therefore spreading) media on the Internet can have far-reaching consequences. It is NOT the same as drawing a picture in the classroom.
beef flaps.... Any teenager that writes "kill Mr President" is a retard anyway and is just following the teenie ignorance revolution. Or as I like to call it, TIR[/quote] I never said she wasn't an idiot, I just said she didn't threaten to personally kill Bush as far as I can see, nor did she conspire to do so, the only thing she could be accused of is incitement in my opinion. [quote=Nemmerle]I was under the impression that urging someone to kill another counted as an actual attempt on their life rather than a threat to do so.
Urging someone [else] to kill another. That was my point, she could be guilty of incitement, but I don't consider her statement to be a personal death threat towards Bush. I'm not saying what she did wasn't stupid, or that she shouldn't have been checked out. I'm saying having not personally threatened to kill Bush, or conspiring to do so, this would appear to go against America's freedom of speech ideology, you can be held accountable for your words for another's actions. To me, this seems more akin to some of the restrictions imposed on speech in Europe - which are often ridiculded by some Americans.
About my humorist association to this... This can pass because these guys got a microphone and they can yell louder. It just shows how powerless you are towards if you don't have a way of expressing yourself.. Just look at this band's album cover.
People can lie about there age on MySpace. Just because she said she was 14 on her MySpace doesn't mean she isn't in her twenties, thirties, Hell even sixties. The saem goes for her saying she was a girl on MySpace. You don't know if you've got a 14 year old school girl fed up with the president or the 44 year old leader of a terrorist cell near D.C. The picture could have been considered a signal to some group she could have been involved with to make an attempt on Bush's life. The thing is, they had no way of knowing anything for certain other than somebody else apparently wanted the president dead. The absence of evidence is not the evidnce of absence. I have the feeling some of you might be saying, "If they can't know anything then they couldn't know that she wanted to kill Bush!" Nothing else pointed to the true identity of this person, who really did turn out to just be a stupid 14 year old girl. But something was pointing to the fact that she wanted Bush dead. The SS had a lead on a possible threat to the man they are assigned to protect, and it was their duty to make sure the man they are assigned to protect is safe.
And about the girl's parents neding to be there when she was questioned or needing to give onsent, that's a whole lot of bull shit. When two groups of kids beat up each other in grade school, do they question each group as a whole? No! They won't evel let them talk to each other before they go in to see the principal. Do they need to ask their parents of it's all right for them to question them? No! If the parent doesn't give consent, then the kid essentially can do whatever he pleases with no reprecussions. When groups of suspects of a crime are interrogated, do they interrogate all of them at the same time? Hell no! Then they can make sure they all have the same exact story and can testify for everybody else that they weren't at the scene of the crime. Now, I understand that parents aren't the same as fellow members in a gang, but they have no way of knowing if the parents were in the terrorist group as the girl if she was in one. They needed to isolate her and make sure that there was no way that there could be ant ourside influences whatsoever. To the people saying that the SS shouldn't have the ones to question her, questioning people like her would be there job. They had a possible threat to deal with, why the Hell shouldn't they be the ones to deal with it? To the people saying that she should have just been warned or asked to remove the picture, WTF? If you're assigned to protect somebody and you find a threat to them, asking them to settle down isn't going to work. And personally, I think if anybody says or does anything that could be seen as a death threat/ an attempt to incite any kind of violence towards another, I believe they need the shit scared out of them, president or not. And on a side note, to those people flipping out over the government keeping tabs on every phone call in this country, you do realize that they can't actually listen in on every word of every person, right? They would honestly have a hard time keeping track on every word said on one phone. They keep track on the person making the call, who the call is made to, where the call is from, where the call is going, how long it lasts, and maybe a few other things that don't really matter. They aren't looking for what people are saying, they're looking for patters. If a group of a dozen people are making a great deal of calls amongst each other and to roughly the same area in the middle east, like in or near a place where there is know to be a large contingency of the people that want to kill us and is a location where somebody very high up in the organization might be, they know something's going on. I belive I have touched on everything I wanted to here. Fell free to babble on about "big brother" and 1984.
Now you could argue that they went to far - but we are being pretty hypocritical about this. When the government doesn't get too involved in our lives, and a crime or accident occurs, the public goes nuts. If the government DOES get involved, the public cries about our "rights being violated".
And to that, may I add, I have never noticed any of my rights being violated, nor has my family, nor my friends.
Before any of this gets out of hand, I just want to say, please keep yourselves from regressing in this thread. I have a feeling that somebody might put up a post saying "Oh you're just a government lover! You like it when you get pushed around!" or "Oh you're just a stupid anarchist that'll hate the government no matter what they do!". Please refrain yourselves from it, it'll only make you look like a moron and result in this thread getting locked for being nothing but flame after flame.