5238
Comments (172)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
8
TheMAGAnificent 8 points ago +11 / -3

Yes, we do actually.

Local precincts have proven they are influenced by local affairs: mobs, mafia, cartel, and foreign governments.

FBI is also supposed to be a centralized law enforcement link with the military and CIA, meaning capturing terrorists and other criminal elements. Not possible when trying to coordinate 800 different precincts in 5 states alone.

FBI is also able to work with foreign governments for criminal prosecution, criminal attainment/detainment, and US citizen rescue/extradition.

FBI also has a hand with working with different agencies fighting against large criminal organizations your local PD is not equipped to fight. I know this because of work done with fighting human trafficking and child rape organizations.

FBI is corrupt, as proven by J Edgar Hoover. But a far reaching entity needs to exist for purposes outside the wheelhouse of any local police force.

Do you really trust 70s NYPD to not be intimidated or corrupted by local mafia? Or El Paso PD to not be intimidated by billionaire cartel groups?

Extinguish and rename for all I care, have better oversight, but we do need federal law enforcement for good reasons.

6
Sanskrit 6 points ago +7 / -1

The above is what state police are for, and if those are corrupt, then the military aided by US individual citizens. Technology is very different today than in the past and there is no need for half the federal agencies that exist including the FBI. Government, and especially centralized government is a necessary evil, it is a risky vaccine that cures just enough more than it kills. That is where we must restart and be severely skeptical of any exigency that seems to require more. Without excess central government, we could simply laugh off the Chinese and our other enemies, with it, we are on the precipice of losing our way of life.

-2
TheMAGAnificent -2 points ago +3 / -5

Negative. Read any book that details the first few months of the afghanistan invasion or the hunt for UBL. Without dedicated communication between entities (military branches, via, etc), there were numberous occasions where we let valuable targets slip through our hands. We could've had Bin Laden months into the invasion, if not years before. There is a purpose for centralized governmental entities.

But I do not disagree with giving states more power and sovereignty.

3
DontArkancideMeBro 3 points ago +4 / -1

Did Bin Laden set all the charges to bring down tower 7?

2
AndrewLB 2 points ago +4 / -2

sigh

There were no charges. You cannot be this ignorant bro.

Jet fuel burns at 1600'f. Structural steel melts 2200'f. Building still stands right?

Nope. Heat structural steel to just 1,000'f for an hour and it will lose over 50% of its strength. Heat it to 1,600'f for that much time and its a wet fucking noodle. Heck, Carbon steel begins to anneal as low as 500'f when it begins to turn a "straw" color

As for building 7 (since i know you'll bring it up).... the entire WTC complex was built in what they call a "bathtub". 8-9 additional floors exist below street level, and when the towers collapsed, the bulk of the structure ended up below street level inside this "bathtub". Building 7 was built in the same 'bathtub' as the two towers were even though there is a road between them. That road was more of a bridge than anything since it was not constructed on land . The collapse of the towers heavily damaged just about every support structure below street level, and when combined with the fires that were raging underground, the steels strength eventually gave way which is why it fell.

Here... watch this short 2 minute video. https://youtu.be/FzF1KySHmUA

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0