FBI Raid of SJP George Mason leaders found guns, ammo, terrorist flags and "death to Jews"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time to revisit this Prior to 1967, dual citizenship was not permitted in the United States. Under current US law, however, American citizens are allowed to hold dual nationality with another country.

Disallow dual citizenship and if that is found remove their legal status. Before 1967 you could lose your born and naturalized citizenship for dual:

Before 1967, the United States generally did not recognize dual citizenship, and American citizens could lose their citizenship if they took actions indicating allegiance to another country. These actions often included:

Naturalizing in a Foreign Country: If a U.S. citizen voluntarily became a citizen of another country, they were often considered to have relinquished their U.S. citizenship.

Serving in a Foreign Military: Enlisting in the armed forces of a foreign nation (especially one at odds with the U.S.) could result in the loss of U.S. citizenship.

Swearing Allegiance to Another Country: Taking an oath of allegiance to another country could also lead to a loss of citizenship.

Voting in a Foreign Election: In some cases, voting in a foreign political election was interpreted as an act of allegiance to another nation and could result in the loss of U.S. citizenship.

We can go even further back in history and do away with Israel as a state and then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

This would solve a lot of problems. There shouldn’t even by an Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must be missing something. What crime was committed?

Right wingers have essentially enshrined our rights to be heavily armed and say offensive things. The fellas had their guns legally and every right to them, as was evidenced when the court retuned them. They’re allowed to have banners with slogans you don’t like. This is about today’s America as you can get. So what’s the problem?

I think the difference is possible support for an organization on the terrorist list, which could violate federal law. As well it could be evidence of a hate crime if whatever the did as part of the protests caused harm. And I’m glad this is being made public because it shows that at least to some extent the campus protests were being instigated by anti-Semites not just pro-Palestinians.

+1. according to the article, 'they found "scores of ammunition" and pro-terror materials, including Hamas and Hezbollah flags and signs that read "death to America".'

The “article” was from an illegitimate right-wing propaganda site called the Free Beacon that has no credibility and no one takes seriously. So I will ignore its characterization of court documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must be missing something. What crime was committed?

Right wingers have essentially enshrined our rights to be heavily armed and say offensive things. The fellas had their guns legally and every right to them, as was evidenced when the court retuned them. They’re allowed to have banners with slogans you don’t like. This is about today’s America as you can get. So what’s the problem?

I think the difference is possible support for an organization on the terrorist list, which could violate federal law. As well it could be evidence of a hate crime if whatever the did as part of the protests caused harm. And I’m glad this is being made public because it shows that at least to some extent the campus protests were being instigated by anti-Semites not just pro-Palestinians.

+1. according to the article, 'they found "scores of ammunition" and pro-terror materials, including Hamas and Hezbollah flags and signs that read "death to America".'

The “article” was from an illegitimate right-wing propaganda site called the Free Beacon that has no credibility and no one takes seriously. So I will ignore its characterization of court documents.

you might as well ignore this whole thread, then, which is actually based on this article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must be missing something. What crime was committed?

Right wingers have essentially enshrined our rights to be heavily armed and say offensive things. The fellas had their guns legally and every right to them, as was evidenced when the court retuned them. They’re allowed to have banners with slogans you don’t like. This is about today’s America as you can get. So what’s the problem?

I think the difference is possible support for an organization on the terrorist list, which could violate federal law. As well it could be evidence of a hate crime if whatever the did as part of the protests caused harm. And I’m glad this is being made public because it shows that at least to some extent the campus protests were being instigated by anti-Semites not just pro-Palestinians.

+1. according to the article, 'they found "scores of ammunition" and pro-terror materials, including Hamas and Hezbollah flags and signs that read "death to America".'

The “article” was from an illegitimate right-wing propaganda site called the Free Beacon that has no credibility and no one takes seriously. So I will ignore its characterization of court documents.

you might as well ignore this whole thread, then, which is actually based on this article.

I'm not PP you're responding to but that's exactly what we should do. This whole thread is a bunch of nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

White people endorsing, “death to America”, carrying terrorist flags and having weapons and ammunition is scary and bad too.

What even is a “terrorist flag”. The very idea is inconsistent with the first amendment.

Probably they’ll start treating those pussy hats as evidence of dangerousness in the new adminstration.

A "terrorist flag" is a flag for a terrorist organization such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Houthis. Terrorist organizations actually have their own flags. The first amendment has limits. For example, the Houthi flag actually says "death to America" on it and that sounds like a threat. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

White people endorsing, “death to America”, carrying terrorist flags and having weapons and ammunition is scary and bad too.

What even is a “terrorist flag”. The very idea is inconsistent with the first amendment.

Probably they’ll start treating those pussy hats as evidence of dangerousness in the new adminstration.

A "terrorist flag" is a flag for a terrorist organization such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Houthis. Terrorist organizations actually have their own flags. The first amendment has limits. For example, the Houthi flag actually says "death to America" on it and that sounds like a threat. No?

That's 100% covered by the First Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

White people endorsing, “death to America”, carrying terrorist flags and having weapons and ammunition is scary and bad too.

What even is a “terrorist flag”. The very idea is inconsistent with the first amendment.

Probably they’ll start treating those pussy hats as evidence of dangerousness in the new adminstration.

A "terrorist flag" is a flag for a terrorist organization such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Houthis. Terrorist organizations actually have their own flags. The first amendment has limits. For example, the Houthi flag actually says "death to America" on it and that sounds like a threat. No?

That's 100% covered by the First Amendment.

I suspect the FBI may disagree with you, but time will tell. It will be interesting to find out if there are things that were found that they cannot yet report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time to revisit this Prior to 1967, dual citizenship was not permitted in the United States. Under current US law, however, American citizens are allowed to hold dual nationality with another country.

Disallow dual citizenship and if that is found remove their legal status. Before 1967 you could lose your born and naturalized citizenship for dual:

Before 1967, the United States generally did not recognize dual citizenship, and American citizens could lose their citizenship if they took actions indicating allegiance to another country. These actions often included:

Naturalizing in a Foreign Country: If a U.S. citizen voluntarily became a citizen of another country, they were often considered to have relinquished their U.S. citizenship.

Serving in a Foreign Military: Enlisting in the armed forces of a foreign nation (especially one at odds with the U.S.) could result in the loss of U.S. citizenship.

Swearing Allegiance to Another Country: Taking an oath of allegiance to another country could also lead to a loss of citizenship.

Voting in a Foreign Election: In some cases, voting in a foreign political election was interpreted as an act of allegiance to another nation and could result in the loss of U.S. citizenship.

We can go even further back in history and do away with Israel as a state and then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

This would solve a lot of problems. There shouldn’t even by an Israel.

*scapegoating*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this not national news?

What if the Washington Post reported this. Wouldn’t that be nice?

[Anonymous]

I'm Jewish, am glad the state of Israel exists (though I wish it had a different government and had made a lot of different choices along the way), and am an active member of a large synagogue in D.C. But I have a hard time getting particularly worked up about what the FBI found here.

It's not illegal to say "death to the Jews" in an abstract sense as long as it's not an imminent threat. It's not illegal to have flags supporting Hamas or any other movement, no matter how loathsome many of us find Hamas to be. And unfortunately, in most cases, it's not illegal to have guns or ammo, either.

So what exactly is the problem here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the paradox of the Second Amendment.

When white people exercise their right to bear arms, it's just plan American.

But when the Black Panthers or SJP do it, somehow it's scary and bad.

If it were up to me, we'd have far stricter gun laws, but we don't. That means the right needs to extend to everyone, even those whose political beliefs we find abhorrent.

White people endorsing, “death to America”, carrying terrorist flags and having weapons and ammunition is scary and bad too.

What even is a “terrorist flag”. The very idea is inconsistent with the first amendment.

Probably they’ll start treating those pussy hats as evidence of dangerousness in the new adminstration.

A "terrorist flag" is a flag for a terrorist organization such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Houthis. Terrorist organizations actually have their own flags. The first amendment has limits. For example, the Houthi flag actually says "death to America" on it and that sounds like a threat. No?

That's 100% covered by the First Amendment.

I suspect the FBI may disagree with you, but time will tell. It will be interesting to find out if there are things that were found that they cannot yet report.

DP. If the FBI thinks flags that say "death to America" on them are illegal, we have bigger problems in this country than whatever this group of student idiots is up to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm Jewish, am glad the state of Israel exists (though I wish it had a different government and had made a lot of different choices along the way), and am an active member of a large synagogue in D.C. But I have a hard time getting particularly worked up about what the FBI found here.

It's not illegal to say "death to the Jews" in an abstract sense as long as it's not an imminent threat. It's not illegal to have flags supporting Hamas or any other movement, no matter how loathsome many of us find Hamas to be. And unfortunately, in most cases, it's not illegal to have guns or ammo, either.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Why does everyone keep glossing over the fact that the sisters vandalized property, which lead to the search? Don't vandalize property and maybe the police won't come knocking down your door. If they conducted a search and then happened to find a dead body should they just ignore that because it wasn't the original reason for the search?

[Anonymous]

PP but yeah, there isn't anything criminal about the brother's beliefs. I agree with the judge's decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm Jewish, am glad the state of Israel exists (though I wish it had a different government and had made a lot of different choices along the way), and am an active member of a large synagogue in D.C. But I have a hard time getting particularly worked up about what the FBI found here.

It's not illegal to say "death to the Jews" in an abstract sense as long as it's not an imminent threat. It's not illegal to have flags supporting Hamas or any other movement, no matter how loathsome many of us find Hamas to be. And unfortunately, in most cases, it's not illegal to have guns or ammo, either.

So what exactly is the problem here?

Because they were found in the house of people suspected of crimes related to support for those terrorist organizations. The fact that the antisemitic writings were discovered also is a fact supporting that the other crimes were hate crimes - the first amendment does not apply to hate crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP but yeah, there isn't anything criminal about the brother's beliefs. I agree with the judge's decision.

giving him the guns back wasn’t a decision on any criminal charges relating to the sisters. It was just a determination that he had them legally and there was no evidence he was crazy or about to commit a crime.