Bombs go off in Manchester.

[Au165]

(05-24-2017, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess I just don't see your point of he wouldn't have travelled there if the ban was already in place, if being a Citizens of England would not have restricted his movement.

We have no idea what a travel ban new or already in place would have prevented/allowed. What we do know is that this man travelled to and from a country that we had on a banned list just days before he committed an act of mass terror.

You are free to go with it would not have mattered; but keep in mind you are speculating. Just as I would be speculating in saying it would have mattered.

As I have said there is going to come a time when folks must decide between securities and liberties when they are in conflict. Right now liberties are getting the nod.

No his movement can be restricted if he knows before leaving that traveling there would do such a thing. The issue is it can't be established while one is already somewhere. A law that isn't a law at the time can't be applied retroactively especially when dealing with something like citizenship and basic rights.

You are speculating that traveling to Libya had any impact on the act of terror. You are speculating that the ban would have a positive impact on terrorism as it relates to the U.S.. Your whole argument is built on speculation like every argument when it comes to terrorism.

30k people a year die from guns, but including 9/11 only about 3k people have died from terrorists in the U.S. (2900 were from 9/11 BTW), maybe people should sacrifice their liberties for security? I don't really think this, and I'm not really saying any right should be given up, but it is interesting the way perception works.