Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (122446)	5/5/2010 11:38:37 AM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Did President Obama & Eric Holder Suspend Another Bush Era Terrorist Investigation? (From LindyBill) By AJStrata on Times Square Bomber We all know AG Eric Holder's 'Justice' Department (sort of a oxymoron these days) closed down Bush era terrorist investigations into Major Nidal Hasan (killer in the Ft Hood Massacre) and probably also into radical US-born cleric al Aulaqi (see here, here and here for details). It is pretty obvious that shutting down the surveillance of these American traitors working with our enemies also gave Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab an opening to nearly bring down a plane full of passengers on Christmas Day as it landed in Detroit, MI. Reader Frogg1 points out a very disturbing blurb inside a New York Times article chronicling the Times Square Bomber's past: George LaMonica, a 35-year-old computer consultant, said he bought his two-bedroom condominium in Norwalk, Conn., from Mr. Shahzad for $261,000 in May 2004. A few weeks after he moved in, Mr. LaMonica said, investigators from the national Joint Terrorism Task Force interviewed him, asking for details of the transaction and for information about Mr. Shahzad. It struck Mr. LaMonica as unusual, but he said detectives told him they were simply "checking everything out." Emphasis mine. Shahzad was under surveillance by the Bush administration, that is why the was an active Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation in 2004. And I doubt it was ever suspended under President Bush given this: Mr. Shahzad apparently went back and forth to Pakistan often, returning most recently in February after what he said was five months visiting his family, prosecutors said. A Pakistani intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Mr. Shahzad had traveled with three passports, two from Pakistan and one from the United States; he last secured a Pakistani passport in 2000, describing his nationality as "Kashmiri." You don't go back and forth to Pakistan with connections like this without being at least checked. It appears the Pakistanis were assisting the US in monitoring this character. So how is it he was able to get within a bum detonator's distance from killing lots of people? Is this why the Pakistani arrests of his cohorts was so quick, yet the US is fumbling around looking for allies or other threats? And it seems there may be a link between Shahzad and the failed NY City Subway Bomber Zazi. Mr. Shahzad only recently became a US citizen last year, around the time Holder started closing down investigations. This act of resisting terrorists leads linked to Americans fits the pre 9-11 pattern of incompetence in the Obama administration. An administration filled with people who think President Bush went too far in protecting Americans from terrorist attack. Of course, all of us we avoided death and mutilation, pain and loss, would disagree that there was too much protection under Bush. I am sure the families of the victims in the Ft Hood massacre would have preferred Hasan and al Aulaqi were monitored instead of ignored. strata-sphere.com

To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (122446)	5/5/2010 1:35:53 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Freedom, my issue with the church is simply that they covered up these crimes. they still cover them up to this very day. that is their choice, it is their responsibility. the actual perps are responsible for their crimes. the church is responsible for covering up those crimes and putting future children at risk of being victims - as a matter of policy. we have the crime and we have the policy for dealing with the crime. the former is the perp's responsibility, the latter is the church's responsibility. imho, this is an extremely reasonable view. i'm sure some would attack the church in order to slander them. many of those same people would likely slander my religious beliefs - so i don't support them. i do support protecting children - and the catholic church continues to fail at doing that, IMHO, by covering up criminal activity.