"And imagine that radical Martin Luther King! He wanted the provisions of the 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments to be upheld as they were intended! Shockingly radical, to speak up for the Constitution in America!
I remind you that this nation was founded by radicals.
To listen to you, they should all have been under arrest."
What did I say to make you think that radicals should be arrested?
It doesn't make any sense for FBI to arrest radicals- the radicals are making the job of gaining intelligence on criminals easier. Since a radical does not imply that a person breaks the law and because criminals are not neccessarily desirable to the radical's goal. It makes sense for a radical to work with the FBI or cops. And it also makes sense for FBI and/or cops to provide a kind of special protection to radicals- though not necessarily as visible bodyguards but rather as undercover agents.
Current Events » in reply to It's a good thing there was no FBI in the 1840s.
re: It's a good thing there was no FBI in the 1840s.
The whole thread (48 posts)
- “Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify,†Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters.
- “Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify,†Def Sec Rumsfeld - Looks Like Rumsfeld was right again! (n/t)
- Clarke's immunity
- She already has testified before the commission...
- re: Rice
- re: Rice
- re: Al Qaeda
- re: The terrorists are losing???
- re: The terrorists are losing???
- re: The terrorists are losing???
- What would it look like if they were succeeding?
- The Administration, it has been alleged by a credible source, was too busy being not-Clinton on the terrorism front to notice that people the FBI knew were al-Qaida were in the country.
- re: The Administration
- The FBI is easy
- re: The Administration
- re: The terrorists are losing???
- re: Rice
