Talk-Polywell.org

Difficult to be clear if this story is actually true, but in these troubled times, I guess it is possible.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... Luke_Angel


I would presume that sending an abusive email to Obama would fit under the category of "petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances"!

Clearly, the 'inalienable rights..' are only inalienable to non-aliens!!

Worst President EVER!

WE don't have to allow anyone in but this seems over the top on a reaction. Of course, if he threatened the life of the President, that's pretty serious, even if he was just getting into his flame.

What a bunch of self serving garbage.
You don't know any details of the communication, except that it was apparently abusive, and yes, threatening.

From the link-

"A Bedfordshire Police spokesman said: "The individual sent an email to the White House full of abusive and threatening language."

Homeland Security and the FBI, etc. are required to consider internal and external threats and potential threats in order to try to avoid another September 11 , assassinations, etc.

Without details any conclusions you expound only serves to reinforce your views, and has nothing to do with reality.

[EDIT] Of course you might say the same about the Polywell, though we do have much more relevant detail than is represented by this article.

Dan Tibbets

According to the news items, the FBI reported it as 'unacceptable'. If it was threatening or dangerous I think they would've said so, eh?!

This boy called the President a prick, after watching a documentary and getting the hump about something. As mentioned, I rather think that comes under the 1st amendment. It would to a US citizen, why not to a foreigner?

Unfortunately he is reported as saying he remembers nothing further, so presumably the 'prick' comment was the zenith of the insults.

What is also noteworthy is that he was subjected to some form of treatment by the Police, yet had done nothing unlawful in the UK.

I'd like to know what email address he used. Nothing I ever send seems to get messages through, and if it was intercepted before Obama saw it, then there is no case for the other party [Obama] to have ever felt threatened.

You must have more details than I saw in the post. The quote was "threatening" by a British police source. The FBI does not generally discuss their reasoning to the press. The only thing that has any real validity, is the actual letter or e-mail, what does it say?
Saying there was no threat to the President is disingenuous. Of course the President doesn't read the probably thousands of e-mails to the White House that arrive daily. Many of these are probably critical, many are probably abusive. Some are threatening, Then the FBI, etc become involved, and they must evaluate the communication and it's source.
Implying that the president read, disliked and sent avenging agents to squash this miscreant is stupid.

Implying that the FBI, Secret Service, or the British equivalents do not evaluate, watch, and even take action against such individuals if they think they might be in the vicinity of the President, Queen, etc. is foolish. Unless of course you are convinced that you must be in a certain profiled group to be a threat and he is not in that group. The easiest method toprevent the individual feom being in the vicinity of the President in this case is to deny him a visa. Assuming that there was a perceived threat that was significant enough to generate this action, you can be fairly sure that the British authorities will keep tabs on him if the President visits that region. For all we know there may be other significant details that have been investigated, like his E-mail and website traffic to suspicious sites.

In short, we do not know any details that would clarify the innocence or danger of this individual.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. You cannot yell fire in a theater, of threaten your ex wife without potential consequences.

Dan Tibbets

I would certainly love yet another opportunity to revel in the fact our current president is truly a chicago-style gangster/fascist, but this isn't one of those times. I have to agree with Dan. OBama likely had nothing to do with formulating the 60 or so different reasons one can be banned from visiting the US. If there's a concern to be had here, it's whether those criteria were come about by legitimate authority or granted to Homeland Security with no say by the legislative. The executive branch really is not supposed to make up the rules. They're supposed to enforce them.

D Tibbets wrote:You must have more details than I saw in the post. The quote was "threatening" by a British police source. The FBI does not generally discuss their reasoning to the press.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -life.html

The FBI action may possibly be related to this area of the country having higher population densities of our Muslim friends than other parts of the country.

I would still suggest to take the press reports with a pinch of salt. Who really knows the difference between fiction and reality these days in the press. Yet another tool in the politico's box to keep the general-unwashed playing guessing games.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. You cannot yell fire in a theater, of threaten your ex wife without potential consequences.

Tell that to the genius in Florida with 50 followers, a lighter, and a book he never read.
Lots of Folks think he is 1st Amendment protected.

D Tibbets wrote:Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from responsibility. You cannot yell fire in a theater, of threaten your ex wife without potential consequences.

True. But if you can provide a rational argument for what you say and why you said it, however mislead by your opinions it might be, then that is free speech.

I'm interested in getting down to the knub of my original post - if a foreign national were to express the most extreme thing to the US administration that *would be* accepted as 1st amendment were it said within the US, would the Admin appy 1st amendment rights to what that person says, or would they take action on the basis that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to foreigners?