Hearing for 7 charged with terrorism

I am not entirely sure as to where I should even begin. Let me start with the fact that your entire argument is superbly misguided and entirely irrelevant in regards to the primary focus of the investigation. Before I proceed, let me make it clear that I do believe in our justice system's reasoning that defendants are in fact innocent until proven guilty. Now, as to my rebuttal...1) The legality of the weapons is irrelevant to the case and one that you are simply stating in order to support your biased opinion. Crimes can still be committed whether or not a firearm is illegally or legally obtained. The focus of the investigation is on the defendants' intent to use firearms to commit the accused crimes. The focus is not on the legality of the firearms, nor does it have any relevance in disputing the innocence or guilt of the defendants' intent to commit crimes. Let's say that the VA Tech shooter had been arrested prior to the tragedy solely based on gathered evidence that documented his INTENT to commit the crimes. With your reasoning, would you have supported releasing him simply because his weapons were legal? No, I highly doubt any competent or sane individual with any sense of compassion would have supported releasing him. Although this current case against the defendants is only in its initial phase, evidence quoting (hey you seem to like quotes) the defendants' intent to commit crimes as already surfaced. The line between freedom of speech and freedom of malicious speech isn't exactly difficult to draw. 2) Spewing out quotations of presidents from an entirely different diplomatic decade in order to support your argument is the kindergarten equivalent to telling your friend Jimmy that people of a different race are bad because your grandfather said so. My point is that beliefs and convictions from the 1980's are bound to differ from present day beliefs. Reagan did in fact make those statements, but they are entirely irrelevant to the defendant's present-day comments. If President Reagan were able to foresee the events of September 11th and the demonic beliefs of present-day terrorists, I highly doubt he would have supported these so-called "freedom-fighters". Thomas jefferson once said "I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in endowments both of body and mind." If I were to implement your method of reasoning into my argument, then we should still support racism simply because Thomas Jefferson supported it in the past, right? Let me reiterate the fact that I do believe in our justice system, and I believe that we should let it take its course. While I understand that you believe that these defendants should not have been arrested, your reasoning is an exceedingly feeble attempt to substantiate your point of view. If you are going to use quotes from the 1980's of former presidents in order to support your argument, then play it fair and take into account the defendants' present-day quotes obtained from wiretaps. Let the evidence speak for the defendants, not your misguided reasoning.