How to murder people with wood?

I would ignore this post. This is one scary individual. If you use
Goggle groups you can do a "view profile" and see the posting history
of this person.

What is depressing is this twisted person may actually commit a crime
at some point yet there is nothing anyone can do until the act is
committed.



On Oct 29, 7:51 pm, "Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>
> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
> avoid being arrested by the cops?

CW wrote:
> Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
> charges needed.

Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
wonder what they're thinking...

CW wrote:
> Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
> charges needed.

Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...

Bob Martin wrote:
> in 1324916 20061101 193059 [email protected] wrote:
> >CW wrote:
> >> Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
> >> charges needed.
> >
> >Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
> >with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
> >the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
> >wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...
>
> Just don't cry when they send you there.

I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I
don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is
there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The
Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who
disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of
very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be
disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would
the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist
BS has no substance.

[email protected] wrote:
> CW wrote:
> > Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
> > charges needed.
>
> Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
> with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
> the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
> wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...

How about due process and rights for persons falsely accused
of being dirtbags who have openly declared war on us?

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > CW wrote:
> > > Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
> > > charges needed.
> >
> > Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
> > with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
> > the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
> > wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...
>
> How about due process and rights for persons falsely accused
> of being dirtbags who have openly declared war on us?
>
> --
>
> FF

If you are an American citizen you will (and should) get the full
benefit of American due process. If you are an enemy of the state,
especially an illegal combatant; you do not (and should not) receive
the same benefits (and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions). I
hope Americans are smart enough not to try to hobble the whole system
by listening to the do gooders (or are they) who feel that all
terrorist and enemies deserve to be treated as if they are just another
domestic criminal.

And yes, unfortunately a few good people may get caught up in some kind
false identity or be unfairly accused but you can't castrate the whole
system to prevent this from happening to a few people. The system is
there to try to protect you from our enemies. If you are not an enemy,
you can be pretty confident that the government isn't out to lock you
up. Why would you think they are?

> Horseshit. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek.
>
> So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides
> that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons
> why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who
> have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there
> to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process.
> These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and
> are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men
> halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you
> piss your panties.
>
> Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to
> establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very
> difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but
> it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with
> "terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or
> systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran
> who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we
> can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is
> established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's
> effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia
> groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. Even
> though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. If
> the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
> citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
> through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
> murderers and thieves are next. Most of the people will so treated
> will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
> the initial cases.
>
> So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
> can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
> camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
> vote for very well could. Or a newscaster who has a story that
> embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
> (I hope.)
>
> Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
> con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
> wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
> grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
> they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
> for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
> deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.
>
> If you really think that honest, hardworking citizens can't be
> railroaded by a political trend, you need to do some research into
> McCarthyism. Here's a link for you.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
>
> It's not alarmist bullshit. It happened. It's a matter of public
> record, and it was not that long ago.

>
> Even with Habeus Corpus intact, thousands of innocent citizens were
> smeared by unfounded rumors and accusations that often cost them their
> jobs and families. Most had nothing to do with Communism whatsoever-
> it was a political tool, just as the term "terrorist" is. McCarthy
> was able to ruin many lives with nothing more than rumor, innuendo,
> and agressive "investigation" techniques. Think of how much more
> damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
> able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
> soil- never to be seen or heard from again.
>
> You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
> Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
> could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
> the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
> before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
> evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
> come too late.

You sound like a wannabe ACLU scheister. Nobody is talking about
suspending Habeus
Corpus for American citizens. But why let the facts get in the way of
your fiery bombast?

I want my country to have the tools it needs to protect itself against
enemies of the state and not be hobbled by activists who will do
anything they can to castrate and beat America down using its own
democracy against itself.

Because their activities and endeavors often serve enemies of the state
better than it serves American society at large, I have to wonder where
the loyalties of these activists lie; are they good citizens trying to
protect democracy (at any cost to the general public) or do they have
an agenda that may not be so true blue?

Prometheus for president! Even more seriously, though, well spoken.
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies,
foreign and domestic". Tom
Prometheus wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?
>
> None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign
> terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that
> with domestic terrorists, too. Remember Oklahoma City? ( I need to
> clarify this- I do not mean that McVeigh's civil rights were breached,
> I am pointing out an example of domestic terrorism )
>
> If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an
> authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock
> someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too
> dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused.
>
> >> Even
> >> though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists.
> >
> >So what?
> >
> >> If
> >> the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
> >> citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
> >> through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
> >> murderers and thieves are next.
> >
> >While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even
> >one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant.
>
> We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government
> declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people
> would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it
> a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when
> doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A
> lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags.
>
> >> Most of the people will so treated
> >> will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
> >> the initial cases.
> >>
> >> So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
> >> can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
> >> camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
> >> vote for very well could.
> >
> >Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected
> >office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that.
>
> You just don't get it, do you?
>
> >> Or a newscaster who has a story that
> >> embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
> >> (I hope.)
> >
> >So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they
> >want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that.
>
> Again, you missed the point. And you *should* have a problem with a
> government arresting a reporter and torturing them without evidence-
> regardless of their nationality. You don't support the people who
> behead American reporters in the Middle East, do you? Is that the
> behavior we are to emulate and adopt?
>
> >> Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
> >> con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
> >> wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
> >> grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
> >> they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
> >> for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
> >> deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.
> >
> >Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when
> >you own is wide of the mark.
>
> Well, you've convinced me. I guess I'll just have to assume from here
> on out that whomever is the most popular during any given election
> cycle is an honest and upright citizen who has the natural ability and
> good sense to use any amount of unlimited power properly.
>
> Whew, that's a relief.
>
> ><McCarthy stuff snipped>
> >
> >> Think of how much more
> >> damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
> >> able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
> >> soil- never to be seen or heard from again.
> >
> >So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after?
>
> There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an
> elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens-
> wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again?
>
> >> You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
> >> Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
> >> could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
> >> the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
> >> before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
> >> evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
> >> come too late.
> >
> >If you're a noncitizen.
>
> You're an ass.
>
> >Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what
> >some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to
> >"aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens.
> >Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the
> >Congress had that same restriction.
> >
> >The full text of the legislation may be found at <
> >http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109vNo5G3:: >.
> >
> >Note specifically
> >
> >"Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
> >Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
> >commission under this chapter."
> >
> >Also note
> >
> >"Sec. 948a. Definitions
> > In this chapter:
> > (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the
> >United States."
> >If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about
> >something that somebody actually did or was trying to do.
>
> Somebody did actually do it- you just sent the link describing it.
> And they will try to expand it, as sure as the sun rises in the East.

Prometheus wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 09:56:20 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >You sound like a wannabe ACLU scheister.
>
> Ahh, the pervasive slight-of-hand of the GOP spinners. How exactly is
> it that standing up for freedom and civil liberties has become an
> insult?
>
> > Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus
> >Corpus for American citizens. But why let the facts get in the way of
> >your fiery bombast?
>
> Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus Corpus for American
> citizens- yet. But there is a clear and logical path that will take
> us right there, and the administration is on it. They declare an open
> ended war on an ill-defined descriptive term, apply that term first to
> non-citizens and use it to suspend their human rights. Then sometime
> in the future when a nutjob decides to blow up the county courthouse,
> it's very easy and tempting for legislators to use the same arguments
> that worked so well against the foreigners to suspend the rights of
> known associates of the person or persons responsible for domestic
> terrorist activities. That's the door, and if the current legislation
> continues to be expanded, it will happen. Once that door is opened,
> it's a downhill slide. It's far easier to declare a person a
> terrorist and lock them away without specific charges or evidence than
> it is to actually establish facts.
>
> >I want my country to have the tools it needs to protect itself against
> >enemies of the state and not be hobbled by activists who will do
> >anything they can to castrate and beat America down using its own
> >democracy against itself.
>
> If you think most politicians are trying to actually protect you,
> you're wrong. They're trying to make you feel like they're doing
> something to protect you so you will vote for them again. Rather than
> doing the work of determining actual guilt or innocence, they're
> tossing people into detainment camps so that they can say they caught
> the bad guys. Without any facts or charges, we just have to take
> their word for it. Our government needs to be accountable to us.
> That's the whole deal- the whole point. Every single thing America is
> and represents is built on that concept.
>
> We lose that, we're no longer the America you love.
>
> >Because their activities and endeavors often serve enemies of the state
> >better than it serves American society at large, I have to wonder where
> >the loyalties of these activists lie; are they good citizens trying to
> >protect democracy (at any cost to the general public) or do they have
> >an agenda that may not be so true blue?
>
> Wonder away, but don't go convincing yourself that standing up for the
> Constitution and the principles it represents is somehow unpatriotic.
> I've seen the argument about our "social contract" only applying to US
> citizens, but that is completely contrary to the intentions of the
> Founding Fathers, and the spirit of our country. Crossing a border
> does not grant anyone the right to don jackboots and trample anyone
> that gets in their way. As a point of fact, that was the very
> behavior we were opposing when we went to Iraq the first time.
>
> If a British subject were accused of a crime, would you advocate
> taking that person and locking them away without trial or evidence
> because they are not a US citizen? How about a Dutch person, or an
> Austrailian? Are the French fair game? Can we go into Germany and
> torture their citizens?
>
> You guys with your Mom and apple pie arguments about the US always
> having clean underwear are getting us into very dangerous waters. We
> as a society do not have the right to pick and choose which people
> have rights and which do not. People have rights, period- that's the
> whole point of our social contract. It doesn't apply only between
> Maine and Alaska- it applies to the human race. You want your rights,
> and so does everyone else.
>
> Believe it or not, there are innocent people all over the place. They
> work hard and try to improve their lives, too. Some of them are
> criminals- but not most of them. They have families and jobs, and
> they do what they have to do to get by- just like you. Being lucky
> enough to be born in the *right* geographic area doesn't make you a
> good person, and being born in the *wrong* one doesn't make you a bad
> person deserving only of imprisonment and torture. Speaking a
> different language, dressing differently, or having a different skin
> tone does not make a person inferior to you.
>
> This is not that complicated. And you are not in as much danger as
> the TV tells you you are. You act as if terrorists are shelling your
> kids' school every second Tuesday, and suicide bombers blowing
> themselves up in front of the grocery store is an everyday occurance
> in Columbus, OH. Some bad people flew planes into three buildings on
> purpose- five years ago. It was a horrible thing- but it was less
> destructive than a hurricane. Fewer people die in terrorist attacks
> than in car crashes. There is still a better chance that I will be
> mauled by a bear than killed by a terrorist.
>
> So get your panties out of a bunch, take off the combat boots, and
> worry about your freedom- you're still as safe as you ever were. The
> real danger is handing our country over to despots because we got
> spooked.

Unfortunately, I do not have nearly as much time to spend on this as
you do. You seem to be ardent about getting your opinion across. That's
fine. I actually understand your opinion and, although I don't agree,
see merits in the some of the points you are making.

Both of our opinions require an intellectual compromise. I believe
yours requires that we be willing to compromise national security and
the protection of the citizenry at large to make sure that everyone,
even the worst of the worst, is given full protection to the letter of
the law and even going as far as creating new laws or changing existing
ones to extend those protections to people who aren't covered now, even
if it means impairing the ability of the government to protect against
threats.

My opinion is that the government needs to have the power to protect us
against threats. I don't believe now is a good time in history to apply
more restraints on the government. I believe that this is important
enough that we need to risk trusting our government to do the right
thing. I don't fear that our current government really wants to extend
and abuse its powers so it can become the fascist dictatorship that you
seem to fear. And that's my compromise; that we have to trust the
government to do the right thing.

You seem to have a mindset that the government is hell bent to strip
our rights away. (If you reply to this, maybe you can explain what you
believe the government's motive for this would be). I believe there are
a lot of people out there, that subscribe to many of the same thoughts
you do, that are willing to take active steps in undermining the
administration with no thought of any of the many other consequences.
They have become very skilled at battering and torturing the system by
implosion - destruction from within using the country's own democracy
as a weapon against itself. And believe me; the enemies of the state
are very happy to take full advantage of the numerous benefits that
come their way from this.

I believe if you going to fear a hostile regime coming to power, you
should REALLY fear the one that could come to power if America fails to
protect itself.

tom wrote:
> Prometheus for president! Even more seriously, though, well spoken.
> "Preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies,
> foreign and domestic". Tom

sycophant (n)
sycophant

syc=C2=B7o=C2=B7phant [s=C3=ADk=C9=99f=C9=99nt, s=C3=ADk=C9=99 f=C3=A0nt, s=
=EF=9D=8Bk=C9=99f=C9=99nt, s=EF=9D=8Bk=C9=99f=C3=A0nt]
n=20

toady, flatterer, bootlicker, brownnoser, minion, yes man

J. Clarke wrote:
> "Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > ... Next might be home-grown militia
> > groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either.
>
> So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?

Absent habeas corpus, how would one prove citizenship?

> ....
>
> So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they
> want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that.

And I have no problem with arresting reporters who are citizens,
so long as the arresting agent can demonstrate probable cause.

> ...
>
> > You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
> > Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
> > could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
> > the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
> > before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
> > evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
> > come too late.
>
> If you're a noncitizen.

There are two habeas corpi. One, is created by Federal Statute
and can be removed or modified by Federal Statute. The other,
sometimes called the Great Writ, is embodied in the Constitution
itself and my only be set aside by the Congress, and then only
in cases of invasion or rebellion, neither of which is currently
applicable.
The Great Write, which dates back to the Magna Carta, has always
been available to aliens on US soil.

>
> Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what
> some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to
> "aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens.
> Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the
> Congress had that same restriction.
>
> The full text of the legislation may be found at <
> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109vNo5G3:: >.
>
> Note specifically
>
> "Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
> Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
> commission under this chapter."
>
> Also note
>
> "Sec. 948a. Definitions
> In this chapter:
> (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the
> United States."
> If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about
> something that somebody actually did or was trying to do.

Again, absent habeas corpus, how would a citizen accused of
being an alien, proof he was not?

--

FF

>
> >I believe if you going to fear a hostile regime coming to power, you
> >should REALLY fear the one that could come to power if America fails to
> >protect itself.
>
> But I don't, because it won't happen.

Your point about Israel is compelling however; I am not so sure that we
are as safe as you think.

Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately
result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them
are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to
hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but
whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for
protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon
against the establishment and our society in general. The more these
people break down our system, the less secure we become.

[email protected] wrote:
> tom wrote:
> > Prometheus for president! Even more seriously, though, well spoken.
> > "Preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies,
> > foreign and domestic". Tom
>
> sycophant (n)
> sycophant
>
> syc=C2=B7o=C2=B7phant [s=C3=ADk=C9=99f=C9=99nt, s=C3=ADk=C9=99 f=C3=A0nt,=
s=EF=9D=8Bk=C9=99f=C9=99nt, s=EF=9D=8Bk=C9=99f=C3=A0nt]
> n
>
> toady, flatterer, bootlicker, brownnoser, minion, yes man =
=
Ahh, Mr. Shinola9. I miss=
poke, and added the words "from all enemies, foreign and domestic". I don't=
know why, but I thought those words were in the oath of office. You know, =
the oath taken by our elected officials at their inauguration in regards to=
their duties to the American people. I firmly believe that if you rely too=
heavily on government for your general protection and welfare, you will co=
me to depend upon it. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithful=
ly execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the be=
st of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Unit=
ed States."
--Presidential oath of office, Article II, Section 1, United States
Constitution
This is all I would ask of any governing entity. No more, and no less.
Tom

I remembered that wording "from all enemies, foreign and domestic" from
the oath of enlistment. Tom
tom wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > tom wrote:
> > > Prometheus for president! Even more seriously, though, well spoken.
> > > "Preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies,
> > > foreign and domestic". Tom
> >
> > sycophant (n)
> > sycophant
> >
> > syc=C2=B7o=C2=B7phant [s=C3=ADk=C9=99f=C9=99nt, s=C3=ADk=C9=99 f=C3=A0n=
t, s=EF=9D=8Bk=C9=99f=C9=99nt, s=EF=9D=8Bk=C9=99f=C3=A0nt]
> > n
> >
> > toady, flatterer, bootlicker, brownnoser, minion, yes man =
=
Ahh, Mr. Shinola9. I mi=
sspoke, and added the words "from all enemies, foreign and domestic". I don=
't know why, but I thought those words were in the oath of office. You know=
, the oath taken by our elected officials at their inauguration in regards =
to their duties to the American people. I firmly believe that if you rely t=
oo heavily on government for your general protection and welfare, you will =
come to depend upon it. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithf=
ully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the =
best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Un=
ited States."
> --Presidential oath of office, Article II, Section 1, United States
> Constitution
> This is all I would ask of any governing entity. No more, and no less.
> Tom

What an idiot.

You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
non-citizens. Not only that, but non-citizens who seek to kill your
fellow citizens, and have already killed three thousand civillians in
an un-provoked attack. But you don't care about that, if you did, you
never would have made the argument you did. You care more about legal
arguments, than about the lives of victims of murderers. I question
your patriotism. You are no American. I beleive the true nature of
your argument, it's wellspring, is simply cowardice, and hatred,
specifically of the working class, (the class the communist's always
thought would rise up and overthrow their capitalist oppressor's...how
suprised they were, when the American working class told the commies to
stick it, and how betrayed they felt, and still feel) albiet gussied
up in respectable legal form. But, in the end, you watch women and
children die, and all you do is talk. And mostly you talk about what
we should not do, to stop it from happening again. It's unfortunate
you, and others of your kind, can't suffer the fate you deserve, which
is to die, blindfolded, by the side of the road, falling into the ditch
that you just dug, with your last words being, of course, ones of utter
suprise, how this is just impossible!

But I sleep better at night, knowing that this great, FREE, country is
well protected, not by useless and self-important traitors like you,
but by brave men and women, who, by the way, come from the lower and
middle classes, and not the effete and effeminate upper class, and who
know the price of freedom is not measured by the paragraph.

Hope you didn't lose too many billable hours writng your post's.

Interesting that you mention Mcarthyism, with no mention of what led up
to it, namely communist spies, and sympathizers, taking over unions, by
intimindations and beatings, ruining and blacklisting any who opposed
them, for years beforehand. There was indeed a commiunist scare, it
was caused by communist spies and their friends. But the commies still
around don't want us to remember that. Just like the Wahhabbi's have
there friends in this country now...but I suspect you, the great
defender of our freedoms (as long as we are not actually alive to claim
them) already know that.


Prometheus wrote:
> On 2 Nov 2006 05:40:22 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Bob Martin wrote:
> >> in 1324916 20061101 193059 [email protected] wrote:
> >> >CW wrote:
> >> >> Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
> >> >> charges needed.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
> >> >with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
> >> >the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
> >> >wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...
> >>
> >> Just don't cry when they send you there.
> >
> >I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I
> >don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is
> >there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The
> >Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who
> >disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of
> >very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be
> >disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would
> >the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist
> >BS has no substance.
>
> Horseshit. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek.
>
> So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides
> that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons
> why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who
> have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there
> to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process.
> These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and
> are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men
> halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you
> piss your panties.
>
> Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to
> establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very
> difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but
> it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with
> "terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or
> systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran
> who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we
> can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is
> established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's
> effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia
> groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. Even
> though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. If
> the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
> citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
> through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
> murderers and thieves are next. Most of the people will so treated
> will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
> the initial cases.
>
> So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
> can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
> camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
> vote for very well could. Or a newscaster who has a story that
> embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
> (I hope.)
>
> Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
> con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
> wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
> grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
> they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
> for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
> deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.
>
> If you really think that honest, hardworking citizens can't be
> railroaded by a political trend, you need to do some research into
> McCarthyism. Here's a link for you.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
>
> It's not alarmist bullshit. It happened. It's a matter of public
> record, and it was not that long ago.
>
> Even with Habeus Corpus intact, thousands of innocent citizens were
> smeared by unfounded rumors and accusations that often cost them their
> jobs and families. Most had nothing to do with Communism whatsoever-
> it was a political tool, just as the term "terrorist" is. McCarthy
> was able to ruin many lives with nothing more than rumor, innuendo,
> and agressive "investigation" techniques. Think of how much more
> damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
> able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
> soil- never to be seen or heard from again.
>
> You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
> Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
> could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
> the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
> before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
> evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
> come too late.

Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
Inalienable rights for_all_ people. That should clear things up. Now go
back to watching "Lost". Tom
[email protected] wrote:
> What an idiot.
>
> You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
> non-citizens.

I don't think you understand what I mean. I believe I understand you,
however, and it's disturbing, to say the least. The "lost" comment was
directed at someone with the moniker "xiaoding2"(unless that's one of
yours). Oh, and I misspelled unalienable, too. For that, I'm sorry. Tom
J. Clarke wrote:
> "tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
> > equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
> > Inalienable rights for_all_ people. That should clear things up. Now go
> > back to watching "Lost".
>
> The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution and has little force
> in law.
>
> You don't need to _watch_ "Lost", you appear to be there already.
>
>
> Tom
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> What an idiot.
> >>
> >> You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
> >> non-citizens.
> >

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
> >equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
> >Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
>
> Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

It doesn't.

>
> Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious example is
> that only citizens have the right to vote.
>

True enough. If you read the Constitution, something that is
rare among those who comment on it, you will find that
the framers used the word citizen, or not, as appropriate.

Examples:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion
or invasion the public safety may require it.
...
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment,
shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state
where the said crimes shall have been committed; but
when not committed within any state, the trial shall be
at such place or places as the Congress may by law
have directed.
...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia,
when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
...
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted


The foregoing apply to all persons within the jurisdiction
of the United States whereas the following apply only to
citizens:

...
The right of citizens of the United States to vote
in any primary or other election for President or
Vice President, for electors for President or Vice
President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States
...
The right of citizens of the United States, who
are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not
be denied
...


--

FF

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Huh? So if the right to vote is not a "legal right" then what is it?

It is a civil right.

--

FF

On 10 Nov 2006 21:43:23 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>What an idiot.

<<< Snip brainless garbage >>>

And fuck you too.

That load of crap was so ignorant, it's not even worthy of a full
response.

in 1324916 20061101 193059 [email protected] wrote:
>CW wrote:
>> Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
>> charges needed.
>
>Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
>with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
>the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
>wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...

Just don't cry when they send you there.

"Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>
> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
> avoid being arrested by the cops?

I recommend buying a wooden stick. Buy a good one. Pay about $100 for it-
even though the saleperson says its only worth $10. That way it will
magically increase in potency to a higher level. Use the magic words- "Keep
the change, sucker!!!!"

Sharpen the stake. Use your own ass for that. It will help cure your
hemoroid ailments if you have them.

Next step, stab yourself in the heart. If you don't succeed - lie on the
ground holding the stake- that way, when a Mack Truck goes up it will assist
the penetration process.

Last step, you will become a vampyre, a member of the undead!! That way the
cops will never be able to catch you!!!!

Best wishes,

Wylie Wilde

Ed Zagmoon (in [email protected])
said:

| I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
|
| What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
| avoid being arrested by the cops?

Oleander chopsticks. When the police come to arrest you, climb into
your DIY wooden trebuchet (cleverly concealed in your basement) and
launch yourself through the basement window, over their heads, and
away...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

[email protected] (in
[email protected]) said:

| [email protected] wrote:
|| [email protected] wrote:
||| CW wrote:
|||| Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to
|||| Guantanamo, no charges needed.
|||
||| Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do
||| away with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more
||| rights for the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and
||| society. Ya gotta wonder what they're thinking or whose side
||| they're on...
||
|| How about due process and rights for persons falsely accused
|| of being dirtbags who have openly declared war on us?
|
| If you are an American citizen you will (and should) get the full
| benefit of American due process. If you are an enemy of the state,
| especially an illegal combatant; you do not (and should not) receive
| the same benefits (and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions). I
| hope Americans are smart enough not to try to hobble the whole
| system by listening to the do gooders (or are they) who feel that
| all terrorist and enemies deserve to be treated as if they are just
| another domestic criminal.

I presume you're referring to do-gooders like (cut & pasted):
<<
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat
Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams,
Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis
Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson,
John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John
Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson,
George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of
Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch,
Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
>>

when they affirmed that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal"

or are you of the "all men are created equal, except that some are
more equal than others" school?

| And yes, unfortunately a few good people may get caught up in some
| kind false identity or be unfairly accused but you can't castrate
| the whole system to prevent this from happening to a few people.
| The system is there to try to protect you from our enemies. If you
| are not an enemy, you can be pretty confident that the government
| isn't out to lock you up. Why would you think they are?

Then may you and those you love be those few good people.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Prometheus (in [email protected]) said:

| The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give
| us all something to hate and fear.

Hate is a drain on our strength that we can ill-afford. Fear is
nothing more than a non-intellectual notification of danger - to be
recognized and dealt with in the most rational and effective way
possible.

| They can hurt us from time to
| time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do
| that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win.

Well said. We've been hurt in the past and it's inevitable that we'll
be hurt again. Someone once said: "That which doesn't kill us outright
makes us stronger." I think that'll remain true as long as there are
enough who say: "Not on *my* watch!" - and I don't think we have any
shortage of such people.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:

| In article <[email protected]>,
| "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
|| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|
| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of Independence -
the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, has never been
repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor any subsequent
Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside the original
hand-written Constitution.)

The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor established
(British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - and yet these
have very real bearing on how the United States are/is governed and
what we recognize as the foundation of our system of justice.

| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.

This is a non sequitur. A significant proportion of US citizens do not
have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the right to
claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of American
justice.

Always it comes down to questions of ideal and principle and
whether/how we choose to state and act (or not) on our ideals and
principles.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:

| In article <[email protected]>, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|| Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:
||
||| In article <[email protected]>,
||| "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
|||| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|||| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|||| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|||
||| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
||
|| It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of
|| Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge,
|| has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor
|| any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside
|| the original hand-written Constitution.)
|
| But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is
| not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing,
| too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
| of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
| it..." is a call to revolution.

Exactly so. It's also a reminder to _participate_ in a truly
representative government to effect those alterations when, in the
judgement of citizens, alteration is needed. The text of the DoI makes
clear (to my satisfaction, at least, and IMO properly) that revolution
was considered a last resort.

|| The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor
|| established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") -
|| and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States
|| are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our
|| system of justice.
||
||| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
||| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
||
|| This is a non sequitur.
|
| It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly,
| that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack
| thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights
| that non-citizens lack.

It _doesn't_ follow. At one time (assuming you're a US citizen) _you_
did not have the right to vote. I also, at one time, did not have the
right to vote even though I was an American citizen born in the United
States. That had nothing to do with my legal rights. Further,
non-citizens in the United States have the right to bring lawsuits in
the same manner as citizens; and are subject to lawsuits in the same
manner as US citizens.

The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
being's right to fair and just treatment. Citizenship does _not_
determine an individual human being's right to fair and just
treatment.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:

| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...

|| A significant proportion of US citizens do
|| not have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the
|| right to claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of
|| American justice.
|
| The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have
| the right to vote are minors, and if you think that what the
| Military Commisions do to noncitizen terrorists is bad then you
| haven't been paying much attention to the way the government treats
| children.

You're right about minors - but beyond that your assumptions about me
are a bit wobbly. I'm a good bit less concerned about treatment of
proven terrorists than I am of the possibility that non-terrorists are
mistreated because it's "inconvient" to use a legal system evolved
over centuries to ensure that persons in position of wealth/power not
be able to persecute the innocent.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:

| In article <[email protected]>, "Morris Dovey"
| <[email protected]> wrote:
|
|| The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
|| being's right to fair and just treatment.
|
| I never said that it does, and you're reading carelessly if you
| think I did. I
| brought that up only to illustrate the point that the set of rights
| held by
| citizens, and the set of rights held by non-citizens, may overlap
| -- but they are *not* identical.

I think I understand where you're coming from; but I see only a single
set of rights with an absolutely minimal set of
exclusions/reservations for those judged unable or unwilling to make
decisions in favor of the common good of the American people.

I do believe that it is in our best interests to ensure that Justice's
scales are kept in balance - and that her blindfold never slips.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:

| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
|| Doug Miller (in [email protected])
|| said:
||
||| In article <[email protected]>, "Morris
||| Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
|||| Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:
||||
||||| In article
||||| <[email protected]>, "tom"
||||| <[email protected]> wrote:
|||||| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
|||||| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
|||||| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
|||||
||||| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
||||
|||| It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of
|||| Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge,
|||| has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress
|||| nor any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined
|||| alongside the original hand-written Constitution.)
|||
||| But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is
||| not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing,
||| too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
||| of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to
||| abolish it..." is a call to revolution.
||
|| Exactly so. It's also a reminder to _participate_ in a truly
|| representative government to effect those alterations when, in the
|| judgement of citizens, alteration is needed. The text of the DoI
|| makes clear (to my satisfaction, at least, and IMO properly) that
|| revolution was considered a last resort.
||
|||| The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor
|||| established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") -
|||| and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States
|||| are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our
|||| system of justice.
||||
||||| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One
||||| obvious example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
||||
|||| This is a non sequitur.
|||
||| It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly,
||| that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or
||| lack thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have
||| rights that non-citizens lack.
||
|| It _doesn't_ follow. At one time (assuming you're a US citizen)
|| _you_ did not have the right to vote. I also, at one time, did not
|| have the right to vote even though I was an American citizen born
|| in the United States. That had nothing to do with my legal rights.
|
| Huh? So if the right to vote is not a "legal right" then what is
| it?
|
| Who gets to vote is defined by the Constitution and by statutes and
| case law. Every other right that a person has in the United States
| is also defined by the Constitution and by statutes and by case
| law. So how is voting different from the "legal rights" about
| which you are concerned?

The right to vote was offered as a generalization; and my point was
that it wasn't a particularly good proof of the point Doug seemed to
want to make, since /most/ laws don't apply only to citizens. I'm
aware of other laws containing exclusions as well; but as a general
rule our laws apply to all within our purview.

|| Further,
|| non-citizens in the United States have the right to bring lawsuits
|| in the same manner as citizens; and are subject to lawsuits in the
|| same manner as US citizens.
|
| And what provision of law established this "right"?

Good question. IANAL so I'll invite you to inform me. I have an
acquaintance who is both an attorney (US) and a barrister (UK) who
should be able to give me a good answer. I'll ask next time I see him.

|| The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
|| being's right to fair and just treatment.
|
| You are missing the point entirely.

In what way? (Are we each having separate discussions?)

|| Citizenship does _not_
|| determine an individual human being's right to fair and just
|| treatment.
|
| No, it determines what laws apply to him.

Not even that. A person becomes subject to American law (perhaps as
well as the laws of that person's country of citizenship) when they
enter territory under the purview of American law. An American citizen
in any other country is subject to the laws of that country as well as
the laws of the United States.

If you don't believe this, I'd suggest you not travel abroad.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:

| If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
| maybe they'll think twice about coming here.

It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
Russia, and a couple of *stans.

Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
the work we did together.

YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:

| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...

|| YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...
|
| 9/11.

Then I am truly sorry that in your anger and grief you were unable to
see or hear most of the rest of the world grieving with us and for
us - and reaching out to console...

...and I regret even more that those responsible for the attacks were
able to bring about this gulf between yourself and the far greater
number around the world who wish us well.

That disconnect is as much as they could possibly hope for.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>
> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
> avoid being arrested by the cops?
>
Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there another
reason?

Ed Zagmoon wrote:
> I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>
> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
> avoid being arrested by the cops?

First you need to understand how a serial killer works.

ps they're are extremly intelligent...so your best bet is taking a day job
in a McDonalds.


--
Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite

Toller wrote:
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>>>>
>>>> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
>>>> avoid being arrested by the cops?
>>>>
>>> Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there
>>> another reason?
>>>
>> Does the word troll mean anything to you?
>>
> Sure, but troll are funny or clever. This one is just dumb; it
> doesn't qualify as a troll.

Sez the fish to the fisherman. "I is ready to be filleted, breaded and
fried, but I's not been trolled".

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Sun, Oct 29, 2006, 7:51pm (EST-3) [email protected] (Ed=A0Zagmoon)
doth burbleth:
I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being
arrested by the cops?

Well, won't actually elevate you to serial killer status, but it
will work.

Get a long wooden post, and point one in. Plant it in the ground,
with the pointed en up, and sticking out about 4 feet.

Sit on the pointed end. Guaranteed killer, and the cops wont
arrest you.

Damn troll.



JOAT
If it can't kill you, it ain't a sport.

On 3 Nov 2006 09:56:20 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>You sound like a wannabe ACLU scheister.

Ahh, the pervasive slight-of-hand of the GOP spinners. How exactly is
it that standing up for freedom and civil liberties has become an
insult?

> Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus
>Corpus for American citizens. But why let the facts get in the way of
>your fiery bombast?

Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus Corpus for American
citizens- yet. But there is a clear and logical path that will take
us right there, and the administration is on it. They declare an open
ended war on an ill-defined descriptive term, apply that term first to
non-citizens and use it to suspend their human rights. Then sometime
in the future when a nutjob decides to blow up the county courthouse,
it's very easy and tempting for legislators to use the same arguments
that worked so well against the foreigners to suspend the rights of
known associates of the person or persons responsible for domestic
terrorist activities. That's the door, and if the current legislation
continues to be expanded, it will happen. Once that door is opened,
it's a downhill slide. It's far easier to declare a person a
terrorist and lock them away without specific charges or evidence than
it is to actually establish facts.

>I want my country to have the tools it needs to protect itself against
>enemies of the state and not be hobbled by activists who will do
>anything they can to castrate and beat America down using its own
>democracy against itself.

If you think most politicians are trying to actually protect you,
you're wrong. They're trying to make you feel like they're doing
something to protect you so you will vote for them again. Rather than
doing the work of determining actual guilt or innocence, they're
tossing people into detainment camps so that they can say they caught
the bad guys. Without any facts or charges, we just have to take
their word for it. Our government needs to be accountable to us.
That's the whole deal- the whole point. Every single thing America is
and represents is built on that concept.

We lose that, we're no longer the America you love.

>Because their activities and endeavors often serve enemies of the state
>better than it serves American society at large, I have to wonder where
>the loyalties of these activists lie; are they good citizens trying to
>protect democracy (at any cost to the general public) or do they have
>an agenda that may not be so true blue?

Wonder away, but don't go convincing yourself that standing up for the
Constitution and the principles it represents is somehow unpatriotic.
I've seen the argument about our "social contract" only applying to US
citizens, but that is completely contrary to the intentions of the
Founding Fathers, and the spirit of our country. Crossing a border
does not grant anyone the right to don jackboots and trample anyone
that gets in their way. As a point of fact, that was the very
behavior we were opposing when we went to Iraq the first time.

If a British subject were accused of a crime, would you advocate
taking that person and locking them away without trial or evidence
because they are not a US citizen? How about a Dutch person, or an
Austrailian? Are the French fair game? Can we go into Germany and
torture their citizens?

You guys with your Mom and apple pie arguments about the US always
having clean underwear are getting us into very dangerous waters. We
as a society do not have the right to pick and choose which people
have rights and which do not. People have rights, period- that's the
whole point of our social contract. It doesn't apply only between
Maine and Alaska- it applies to the human race. You want your rights,
and so does everyone else.

Believe it or not, there are innocent people all over the place. They
work hard and try to improve their lives, too. Some of them are
criminals- but not most of them. They have families and jobs, and
they do what they have to do to get by- just like you. Being lucky
enough to be born in the *right* geographic area doesn't make you a
good person, and being born in the *wrong* one doesn't make you a bad
person deserving only of imprisonment and torture. Speaking a
different language, dressing differently, or having a different skin
tone does not make a person inferior to you.

This is not that complicated. And you are not in as much danger as
the TV tells you you are. You act as if terrorists are shelling your
kids' school every second Tuesday, and suicide bombers blowing
themselves up in front of the grocery store is an everyday occurance
in Columbus, OH. Some bad people flew planes into three buildings on
purpose- five years ago. It was a horrible thing- but it was less
destructive than a hurricane. Fewer people die in terrorist attacks
than in car crashes. There is still a better chance that I will be
mauled by a bear than killed by a terrorist.

So get your panties out of a bunch, take off the combat boots, and
worry about your freedom- you're still as safe as you ever were. The
real danger is handing our country over to despots because we got
spooked.

In article <[email protected]>, "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
>equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
>Inalienable rights for_all_ people.

Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....

Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious example is
that only citizens have the right to vote.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>
> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
> avoid being arrested by the cops?
>

Use your head.

"Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>>
>> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
>> avoid being arrested by the cops?
>>
> Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there another
> reason?
>
Does the word troll mean anything to you?

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>

>
>And yes, unfortunately a few good people may get caught up in some kind
>false identity or be unfairly accused but you can't castrate the whole
>system to prevent this from happening to a few people. The system is
>there to try to protect you from our enemies. If you are not an enemy,
>you can be pretty confident that the government isn't out to lock you
>up. Why would you think they are?
>

I guess you think that the WWII internment camps were a great idea,
too.


--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland - [email protected]

in 1327065 20061111 180527 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then maybe
>they'll think twice about coming here.

Do you work in the Department of Tourism ?

in 1327093 20061111 204037 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:
>>
>> | If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
>> | maybe they'll think twice about coming here.
>>
>> It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
>> or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
>> Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
>> Russia, and a couple of *stans.
>>
>> Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
>> every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
>> the work we did together.
>>
>> YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...
>
>9/11.

And have you looked at the nationalities of those killed on 9/11 ?
About 100 were British.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Toller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>>>
>>> What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
>>> avoid being arrested by the cops?
>>>
>> Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there another
>> reason?
>>
> Does the word troll mean anything to you?
>
Sure, but troll are funny or clever. This one is just dumb; it doesn't
qualify as a troll.

In article <[email protected]>, "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I remembered that wording "from all enemies, foreign and domestic" from
>the oath of enlistment. Tom

FWIW, civilian employees swear the same oath. At least in the DOD. I'm not
sure about other branches of the Federal Civil Service.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>,
Ed Zagmoon <[email protected]> wrote:
>I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
>
>What can I build with wood to kill people

a gallows

>and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops?
>

Test it on yourself first.


--
For every complicated, difficult problem, there is a simple, easy
solution that does not work.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - [email protected]

On 2 Nov 2006 05:40:22 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 1324916 20061101 193059 [email protected] wrote:
>> >CW wrote:
>> >> Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
>> >> charges needed.
>> >
>> >Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
>> >with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
>> >the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
>> >wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...
>>
>> Just don't cry when they send you there.
>
>I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I
>don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is
>there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The
>Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who
>disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of
>very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be
>disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would
>the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist
>BS has no substance.

Horseshit. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek.

So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides
that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons
why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who
have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there
to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process.
These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and
are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men
halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you
piss your panties.

Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to
establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very
difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but
it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with
"terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or
systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran
who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we
can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is
established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's
effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia
groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. Even
though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. If
the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
murderers and thieves are next. Most of the people will so treated
will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
the initial cases.

So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
vote for very well could. Or a newscaster who has a story that
embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
(I hope.)

Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.

If you really think that honest, hardworking citizens can't be
railroaded by a political trend, you need to do some research into
McCarthyism. Here's a link for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

It's not alarmist bullshit. It happened. It's a matter of public
record, and it was not that long ago.

Even with Habeus Corpus intact, thousands of innocent citizens were
smeared by unfounded rumors and accusations that often cost them their
jobs and families. Most had nothing to do with Communism whatsoever-
it was a political tool, just as the term "terrorist" is. McCarthy
was able to ruin many lives with nothing more than rumor, innuendo,
and agressive "investigation" techniques. Think of how much more
damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
soil- never to be seen or heard from again.

You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
come too late.

In article <[email protected]>, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
>being's right to fair and just treatment.

I never said that it does, and you're reading carelessly if you think I did. I
brought that up only to illustrate the point that the set of rights held by
citizens, and the set of rights held by non-citizens, may overlap -- but they
are *not* identical.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> <...snipped...>
>
>>
>>And yes, unfortunately a few good people may get caught up in some kind
>>false identity or be unfairly accused but you can't castrate the whole
>>system to prevent this from happening to a few people. The system is
>>there to try to protect you from our enemies. If you are not an enemy,
>>you can be pretty confident that the government isn't out to lock you
>>up. Why would you think they are?
>>
>
> I guess you think that the WWII internment camps were a great idea,
> too.

Those internment camps were interning US citizens.

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2 Nov 2006 05:40:22 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>Bob Martin wrote:
>>> in 1324916 20061101 193059 [email protected] wrote:
>>> >CW wrote:
>>> >> Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to
>>> >> Guantanamo, no
>>> >> charges needed.
>>> >
>>> >Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away
>>> >with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for
>>> >the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta
>>> >wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on...
>>>
>>> Just don't cry when they send you there.
>>
>>I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I
>>don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is
>>there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The
>>Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who
>>disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of
>>very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be
>>disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would
>>the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist
>>BS has no substance.
>
> Horseshit. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek.
>
> So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides
> that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons
> why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who
> have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there
> to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process.
> These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and
> are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men
> halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you
> piss your panties.
>
> Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to
> establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very
> difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but
> it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with
> "terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or
> systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran
> who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we
> can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is
> established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's
> effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia
> groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either.

So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?

> Even
> though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists.

So what?

> If
> the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
> citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
> through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
> murderers and thieves are next.

While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even
one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant.

> Most of the people will so treated
> will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
> the initial cases.
>
> So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
> can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
> camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
> vote for very well could.

Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected
office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that.

> Or a newscaster who has a story that
> embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
> (I hope.)

So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they
want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that.

> Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
> con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
> wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
> grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
> they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
> for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
> deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.

Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when
you own is wide of the mark.

<McCarthy stuff snipped>

> Think of how much more
> damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
> able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
> soil- never to be seen or heard from again.

So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after?

> You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
> Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
> could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
> the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
> before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
> evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
> come too late.

If you're a noncitizen.

Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what
some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to
"aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens.
Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the
Congress had that same restriction.

The full text of the legislation may be found at <
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109vNo5G3:: >.

Note specifically

"Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
commission under this chapter."

Also note

"Sec. 948a. Definitions
In this chapter:
(3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the
United States."
If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about
something that somebody actually did or was trying to do.

"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?
>
> None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign
> terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that
> with domestic terrorists, too.

What statute allows that?

> Remember Oklahoma City? ( I need to
> clarify this- I do not mean that McVeigh's civil rights were breached,
> I am pointing out an example of domestic terrorism )

So?

> If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an
> authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock
> someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too
> dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused.

So who have "they" "done it to" and what specific legislation has you so
upset?

>>> Even
>>> though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists.
>>
>>So what?
>>
>>> If
>>> the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
>>> citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
>>> through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
>>> murderers and thieves are next.
>>
>>While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for
>>even
>>one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant.
>
> We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government
> declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people
> would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it
> a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when
> doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A
> lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags.

So you're saying that laws that specifically do not affect US citizens are
the camel's nose?

>>> Most of the people will so treated
>>> will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
>>> the initial cases.
>>>
>>> So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
>>> can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
>>> camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
>>> vote for very well could.
>>
>>Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected
>>office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that.
>
> You just don't get it, do you?

Yes, I do. You're the one who isn't "getting it" because either you are
misinformed about the legislation you fear or you believe that a nation is
obligated to make no distinction between its own citizens and those of other
nations.

>>> Or a newscaster who has a story that
>>> embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
>>> (I hope.)
>>
>>So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they
>>want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that.
>
> Again, you missed the point. And you *should* have a problem with a
> government arresting a reporter and torturing them without evidence-
> regardless of their nationality. You don't support the people who
> behead American reporters in the Middle East, do you? Is that the
> behavior we are to emulate and adopt?

Torturing? Who is being tortured?

>>> Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
>>> con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
>>> wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
>>> grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
>>> they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
>>> for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
>>> deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.
>>
>>Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world"
>>when
>>you own is wide of the mark.
>
> Well, you've convinced me. I guess I'll just have to assume from here
> on out that whomever is the most popular during any given election
> cycle is an honest and upright citizen who has the natural ability and
> good sense to use any amount of unlimited power properly.
>
> Whew, that's a relief.

I'm sorry, but now I have no idea what you are on about.

>><McCarthy stuff snipped>
>>
>>> Think of how much more
>>> damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
>>> able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
>>> soil- never to be seen or heard from again.
>>
>>So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after?
>
> There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an
> elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens-
> wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again?

Well, now, it happened to US citizens without whatever legislation has you
so upset so what difference does that legislation make?

>>> You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
>>> Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
>>> could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
>>> the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
>>> before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
>>> evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
>>> come too late.
>>
>>If you're a noncitizen.
>
> You're an ass.

No, I'm a person who wishes that twits like you would post the docket number
for whatever legislation you're on about so the rest of us can at least
figure out what you're raving about,.

>>Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what
>>some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to
>>"aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens.
>>Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the
>>Congress had that same restriction.
>>
>>The full text of the legislation may be found at <
>>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109vNo5G3:: >.
>>
>>Note specifically
>>
>>"Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
>>Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
>>commission under this chapter."
>>
>>Also note
>>
>>"Sec. 948a. Definitions
>> In this chapter:
>> (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the
>>United States."
>>If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about
>>something that somebody actually did or was trying to do.
>
> Somebody did actually do it- you just sent the link describing it.
> And they will try to expand it, as sure as the sun rises in the East.

"Did it?" Did _what_, enacted legislation allowing the government to try
noncitizen terrorists by military tribunal, with review by the civilian
courts? Yeah, they did it. So what?

If you're thinking that they'll remove the limitation to aliens that is
there specifically because the Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot
apply such rules to citizens. "They" can't "expand it" unless they replace
the Supreme Court.

I really wish people like you who go around being terrified of their own
shadows would get lives.

"tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are created
> equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all people.
> Inalienable rights for_all_ people. That should clear things up. Now go
> back to watching "Lost".

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution and has little force
in law.

You don't need to _watch_ "Lost", you appear to be there already.


Tom
> [email protected] wrote:
>> What an idiot.
>>
>> You have confused the rights of a citizen, with the rights of
>> non-citizens.
>

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | In article <[email protected]>,
> | "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> || Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
> || created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
> || people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
> |
> | Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
>
> It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of Independence -
> the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, has never been
> repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor any subsequent
> Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside the original
> hand-written Constitution.)
>
> The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor established
> (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - and yet these
> have very real bearing on how the United States are/is governed and
> what we recognize as the foundation of our system of justice.
>
> | Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
> | example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
>
> This is a non sequitur. A significant proportion of US citizens do not
> have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the right to
> claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of American
> justice.

The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have the right
to vote are minors, and if you think that what the Military Commisions do to
noncitizen terrorists is bad then you haven't been paying much attention to
the way the government treats children.

> Always it comes down to questions of ideal and principle and
> whether/how we choose to state and act (or not) on our ideals and
> principles.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
>
>

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | In article <[email protected]>, "Morris Dovey"
> | <[email protected]> wrote:
> || Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:
> ||
> ||| In article <[email protected]>,
> ||| "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
> |||| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
> |||| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
> |||| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
> |||
> ||| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
> ||
> || It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of
> || Independence - the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge,
> || has never been repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor
> || any subsequent Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside
> || the original hand-written Constitution.)
> |
> | But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is
> | not part of the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing,
> | too: "... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
> | of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish
> | it..." is a call to revolution.
>
> Exactly so. It's also a reminder to _participate_ in a truly
> representative government to effect those alterations when, in the
> judgement of citizens, alteration is needed. The text of the DoI makes
> clear (to my satisfaction, at least, and IMO properly) that revolution
> was considered a last resort.
>
> || The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor
> || established (British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") -
> || and yet these have very real bearing on how the United States
> || are/is governed and what we recognize as the foundation of our
> || system of justice.
> ||
> ||| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
> ||| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
> ||
> || This is a non sequitur.
> |
> | It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly,
> | that all have equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack
> | thereof. And that simply is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights
> | that non-citizens lack.
>
> It _doesn't_ follow. At one time (assuming you're a US citizen) _you_
> did not have the right to vote. I also, at one time, did not have the
> right to vote even though I was an American citizen born in the United
> States. That had nothing to do with my legal rights.

Huh? So if the right to vote is not a "legal right" then what is it?

Who gets to vote is defined by the Constitution and by statutes and case
law. Every other right that a person has in the United States is also
defined by the Constitution and by statutes and by case law. So how is
voting different from the "legal rights" about which you are concerned?

> Further,
> non-citizens in the United States have the right to bring lawsuits in
> the same manner as citizens; and are subject to lawsuits in the same
> manner as US citizens.

And what provision of law established this "right"?

> The right to cast a ballot does _not_ determine an individual human
> being's right to fair and just treatment.

You are missing the point entirely.

> Citizenship does _not_
> determine an individual human being's right to fair and just
> treatment.

No, it determines what laws apply to him.

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> | news:[email protected]...
>
> || A significant proportion of US citizens do
> || not have the right to vote; but that does not detract from the
> || right to claim *just* and *fair* treatment within the purview of
> || American justice.
> |
> | The only "significant proportion" of US citizens who do not have
> | the right to vote are minors, and if you think that what the
> | Military Commisions do to noncitizen terrorists is bad then you
> | haven't been paying much attention to the way the government treats
> | children.
>
> You're right about minors - but beyond that your assumptions about me
> are a bit wobbly. I'm a good bit less concerned about treatment of
> proven terrorists than I am of the possibility that non-terrorists are
> mistreated because it's "inconvient" to use a legal system evolved
> over centuries to ensure that persons in position of wealth/power not
> be able to persecute the innocent.

If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then maybe
they'll think twice about coming here.

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
> | maybe they'll think twice about coming here.
>
> It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
> or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
> Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
> Russia, and a couple of *stans.
>
> Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
> every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
> the work we did together.
>
> YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...

9/11.

"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in 1327093 20061111 204037 "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> J. Clarke (in [email protected]) said:
>>>
>>> | If noncitizens are mistreated in the US on a regular basis then
>>> | maybe they'll think twice about coming here.
>>>
>>> It's been my privilege to work here in the US with citizens of (more
>>> or less alphabetically) Australia, Bahrain, Britain, China, France,
>>> Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland,
>>> Russia, and a couple of *stans.
>>>
>>> Every single one of 'em was a hard-working top-rate professional; and
>>> every one of 'em enriched my life in some way completely unrelated to
>>> the work we did together.
>>>
>>> YMMV - but I'd have to wonder why...
>>
>>9/11.
>
> And have you looked at the nationalities of those killed on 9/11 ?
> About 100 were British.

And perhaps if we were more careful about who we let into the country and
scrutinized them more carefully while they were here those British might
still be alive.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?

None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign
terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that
with domestic terrorists, too. Remember Oklahoma City? ( I need to
clarify this- I do not mean that McVeigh's civil rights were breached,
I am pointing out an example of domestic terrorism )

If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an
authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock
someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too
dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused.

>> Even
>> though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists.
>
>So what?
>
>> If
>> the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US
>> citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened
>> through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists,
>> murderers and thieves are next.
>
>While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even
>one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant.

We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government
declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people
would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it
a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when
doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A
lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags.

>> Most of the people will so treated
>> will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold
>> the initial cases.
>>
>> So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it
>> can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a
>> camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to
>> vote for very well could.
>
>Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected
>office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that.

You just don't get it, do you?

>> Or a newscaster who has a story that
>> embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea
>> (I hope.)
>
>So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they
>want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that.

Again, you missed the point. And you *should* have a problem with a
government arresting a reporter and torturing them without evidence-
regardless of their nationality. You don't support the people who
behead American reporters in the Middle East, do you? Is that the
behavior we are to emulate and adopt?

>> Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable
>> con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your
>> wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th
>> grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean
>> they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out
>> for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you
>> deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it.
>
>Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when
>you own is wide of the mark.

Well, you've convinced me. I guess I'll just have to assume from here
on out that whomever is the most popular during any given election
cycle is an honest and upright citizen who has the natural ability and
good sense to use any amount of unlimited power properly.

Whew, that's a relief.

><McCarthy stuff snipped>
>
>> Think of how much more
>> damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been
>> able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign
>> soil- never to be seen or heard from again.
>
>So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after?

There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an
elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens-
wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again?

>> You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus
>> Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head
>> could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in
>> the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long
>> before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
>> evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
>> come too late.
>
>If you're a noncitizen.

You're an ass.

>Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what
>some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to
>"aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens.
>Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the
>Congress had that same restriction.
>
>The full text of the legislation may be found at <
>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109vNo5G3:: >.
>
>Note specifically
>
>"Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
>Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military
>commission under this chapter."
>
>Also note
>
>"Sec. 948a. Definitions
> In this chapter:
> (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the
>United States."
>If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about
>something that somebody actually did or was trying to do.

Somebody did actually do it- you just sent the link describing it.
And they will try to expand it, as sure as the sun rises in the East.

Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
charges needed.

"Jerry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I would ignore this post. This is one scary individual. If you use
> Goggle groups you can do a "view profile" and see the posting history
> of this person.
>
> What is depressing is this twisted person may actually commit a crime
> at some point yet there is nothing anyone can do until the act is
> committed.
>
>
>
> On Oct 29, 7:51 pm, "Ed Zagmoon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
> >
> > What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I
> > avoid being arrested by the cops?
>

Prometheus said:

><snip>
> You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the
>evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have
>come too late.

On target summation!


Greg G.

On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:52:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens?
>>
>> None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign
>> terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that
>> with domestic terrorists, too.
>
>What statute allows that?

Again, you are missing the point. But there are several places in
S.3886 where definitions do not include the designation "alien"

For instance:

(7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy
combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of
the President or the Secretary of Defense--

`(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or
organization, including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any
international terrorist organization, or associated forces, engaged in
hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents in
violation of the law of war;

`(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such
a force or organization so engaged; or

`(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a
force or organization so engaged.

A judge who was willing to expand this could take this text as a writ
that allows the President or Secretary of Defense to declare any
person who is "affliliated" with a terrorist or suspected terrorist
organization as an unlawful enemy combatant. It has created a loaded
term that convicts without proof- and the day will come when an
attempt is made to apply that term to a citizen.

And while it is declared here:

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Alien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in section 948a of
this title, shall be subject to trial by military commissions as set
forth in this chapter.

that alien combatants are subject to trial by military commission, it
does not clearly state that citizens are not.

And these are the real jewels:

`(c) Hearsay Evidence- Hearsay evidence is admissible, unless the
military judge finds that the circumstances render it unreliable or
lacking in probative value, provided that the proponent of the
evidence makes the evidence known to the adverse party in advance of
trial or hearing.

(3) Before classified evidence may be withheld from the accused under
this subsection, the executive or military department or governmental
agency which has control over the matter shall ensure and shall
certify in writing to the military judge that the disclosure of such
evidence to the accused could reasonably be expected to prejudice the
national security and that such evidence has been declassified to the
maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national
security.

(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel
who receives classified information admitted pursuant to paragraph (4)
shall not be obligated to, and may not, disclose that evidence to the
accused.

`(b) Treatment of Certain Items- The military judge in a
military commission under this chapter may, upon a sufficient showing,
authorize trial counsel in making documents available to the defense
through discovery conducted pursuant to such rules as the Secretary
shall prescribe--

`(1) to delete specified items of classified information
from such documents;

`(2) to substitute an unclassified summary of the
information for such classified documents; or

`(3) to substitute an unclassified statement admitting
relevant facts that classified information would tend to prove.

I don't know how you read this, but to my eyes it is an absolute
violation of both due process and Habeas Corpus. A person can be
tried for crimes without being informed of the evidence against them.
Any evidence can be deemed harmful to National Security, and a trial
can be conducted without the possibility of the accused to confront
his accusors or to review and rebuke the evidence used to convict him.

If you take this bill alone, it establishes the right of the President
or Secretary of State or their advocates to strip the rights of an
individual of their natural right to review the accusations and
evidence against them by declaring them an unlawful enemy combatant,
and hiding or altering the evidence that may or may not back those
claims.

For now, this only applies to aliens. But if another terrorist attack
occurs in the future (and that is almost certain) which is found to
have been either entirely or partially planned and carried out by
citizens of the US, that will be the real test of the legislation.

The provisions in the bill allowing the classification of evidence
whose revelation could be construed as harmful to US national security
could be taken as a precedent in the context of (for instance)
domestic wiretapping. In the period of time immediately following
such an attack, Congress will be under tremendous pressure to prevent
future outrages through legislation. The natural course for them
would be to suspend Habeas Corpus rights and expand the power of
federal agencies to monitor private communications without warrants
even further than they already have.

All it would take is one prosecutor in one government agency to
declare that they have indisputable evidence against an accused
domestic terrorist that they suspect was acting in collusion with
others, but the evidence and techniques used to obtain it needed to
remained classified in the interest of catching the others involved
with the plot, for Habeas Corpus to effectively be suspended for US
citizens.

After that, Anyone can be arrested, tried and convicted on the basis
of secret evidence. They will not have to have done anything- the
declaration that evidence was collected via classified means that a
person was planning a terrorist attack and must remain secret so that
the source of the claimed evidence will remain a viable venue for
tracking others will be enough to put any person away without a
declared reason.

If there is argument about the total lack of substance in a particular
case, the bill above allows the prosecutor "to substitute an
unclassified statement admitting relevant facts that classified
information would tend to prove." Or in other words- it could be used
to grant the accusing agency the right to usurp the jury's task of
interpreting the presented evidence and supply a set of conclusions
based on secret information in lieu of facts.

>> If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an
>> authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock
>> someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too
>> dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused.
>
>So who have "they" "done it to" and what specific legislation has you so
>upset?

They, being the Congress under the direct leadership of the current
President, have granted the President and the Secretary of State the
power to suspend the right of Habeas Corpus for persons who are
accused of crimes, by what effectively amounts to a declaration that
the revelation of the evidence against those persons is detrimental to
national security, without the checks and balances built into our
system of government by the founding fathers. The specific
legislation is the "Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and
Prosecution Act of 2006"

Placing that kind of power in the hands of an unfettered few men is a
terribly dangerous thing to do- which is why the Constitution
prohibits it. Judging from the continuing reactions to the Sept. 11th
attacks, and the expected reaction to any future attacks from any
quarter -foreign or domestic-, it's not only possible, but extremely
likely that this power will eventually be expanded so it may be used
against citizens who are suspected of either being active, or in
collusion with, terrorists.

That is where the reminder of Sen. McCarthy comes in. There was a man
whose personality allowed him to start a massive witch hunt using the
word "Communism". With the amount of fear and anger generated by
terrorism, another witch hunt using the term "Terrorist" is not only
possible, but in the event of another incident, likely.


>> We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government
>> declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people
>> would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it
>> a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when
>> doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A
>> lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags.
>
>So you're saying that laws that specifically do not affect US citizens are
>the camel's nose?

If I am interpreting "the camel's nose" correctly by assuming that you
meant that they are the groundwork for future erosion of our domestic
rights, then yes, I am saying that.

>Yes, I do. You're the one who isn't "getting it" because either you are
>misinformed about the legislation you fear or you believe that a nation is
>obligated to make no distinction between its own citizens and those of other
>nations.

As you wish.

>Torturing? Who is being tortured?

You don't watch the news?

>> There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an
>> elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens-
>> wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again?
>
>Well, now, it happened to US citizens without whatever legislation has you
>so upset so what difference does that legislation make?

The difference is that instead of slander that hurts an innocent
person's reputation but leaves them free, the current administration
has opened the door to imprisoning us and stripping our rights by
decree.

>"Did it?" Did _what_, enacted legislation allowing the government to try
>noncitizen terrorists by military tribunal, with review by the civilian
>courts? Yeah, they did it. So what?

See Above.

>If you're thinking that they'll remove the limitation to aliens that is
>there specifically because the Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot
>apply such rules to citizens. "They" can't "expand it" unless they replace
>the Supreme Court.

Wrong. Article 1 of the US constitution states that "the priviledge of
the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases
of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The mechanism by which the right may be suspended is already given to
the US congress in the Constitution itself- but it must not be invoked
in this instance. By declaring a "war" on a nebulous and ill-defined
concept like "terrorism", the President has granted the Congress the
power and justification to indefinately suspend the writ on the basis
of a single attack on domestic soil. We can not and will not ever
"win" a war against a concept or behavior. If we were just at war
with Iraq or Afganistan, there would eventually be an end to it- one
way or the other.

By passing the Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act
of 2006, they have defined an alternate system of law that can be used
as an alternative venue of prosecution for any person who stands
accused of terrorism without allowing that person to challenge the
evidence that is brought against them. It sounds just fair enough and
good enough that most people will swallow it. So instead of being
protected by the laws governing evidence and due process, we are now
effectively at the mercy of the good intentions of our elected
officials- many of whom have already shown us time and time again that
they are not to be trusted.

And then there are the murmurings that come flowing out of the spin
machine that is the GOP. Evidently, if you're not one of their boys,
you're one of the terrorists. If you care about your civil rights,
you must have a shady hidden agenda that involves supporting
terrorism. There have been propiganda machines like that before in
history, and they've never ended in peace and happiness for all. I
don't care for the Democrats either- but on balance, I don't see them
pulling all the old hateful and murderous tricks in the despot's
handbook out of their hats.

>I really wish people like you who go around being terrified of their own
>shadows would get lives.

And what about you, who are so afraid of the boogeyman Arabs that you
are willing to give your rights away at the first glimmer of trouble
or danger? I'm not afraid of my shadow, and I'm not afraid of
Terrorists. You know what I'm afraid of? Guys like you- who would
sell your soul for a moment of fuzzy false security.

In article <[email protected]>, "Morris Dovey"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| In article <[email protected]>,
>| "tom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>|| Pardon me, but do the words "All men (and women and kids) are
>|| created equal" ring a bell? Not "All U.S. citizens", but all
>|| people. Inalienable rights for_all_ people.
>|
>| Just curious where that appears in the U.S. Constitution....
>
>It doesn't, of course. It appears in the Declaration of Independence -
>the first act of Congress (which, to my knowledge, has never been
>repudiated nor repealed by either that Congress nor any subsequent
>Congress - and which is today enshrined alongside the original
>hand-written Constitution.)

But neither is it a part of that Constitution, and therefore it is not part of
the law of the land. And that's probably a good thing, too: "... that whenever
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it..." is a call to revolution.
>
>The Constitution also does not mention the Magna Carta nor established
>(British) Common Law (or even "Jefferson's Notes") - and yet these
>have very real bearing on how the United States are/is governed and
>what we recognize as the foundation of our system of justice.
>
>| Non-citizens *don't* have the same rights as citizens. One obvious
>| example is that only citizens have the right to vote.
>
>This is a non sequitur.

It is not a non sequitur at all. The claim was made, implicitly, that all have
equal rights, regardless of their citizenship or lack thereof. And that simply
is not true. Citizens _do_ have rights that non-citizens lack.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:31:56 -0600, [email protected] ()
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
><...snipped...>
>>
>>Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately
>>result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them
>>are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to
>>hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but
>>whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for
>>protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon
>>against the establishment and our society in general. The more these
>>people break down our system, the less secure we become.
>>
>
>I'm confused at this paragraph, it would seem to be equally applicable
>to people on _either_ side of this argument.
>
>What is really meant by "weakening our nation"? and "these people
>(who) break down our system" Our system of laws and equal protection
>under them? Or our system of arbitrary enforcement?
>
>Remember what Orwell's slogan for the government: "Ignorance is
>strength, war is peace, and freedom is slavery"

And let us not forget that we are at war with Iraq, and Saddamn
Hussein is the devil incarnate because we have *always* been at war
with Iraq, and that man has *always* been the devil.

Also remember to thank your leaders for lowering the price of gasoline
in honor of the elections. It's like getting an larger chocolate
ration!

Shinola9 (for lack of any other name,) I want you to understand that I
am not attacking you personally. I've spent so much time on this
because if I can help even one person- yourself, or some others who
are merely reading along, understand this argument and begin to
question what has been going on in fits and spurts since the founding
of our country, it will have been worth any amount of time I can spend
on the subject. I am not trying to harm our democracy, I am doing the
only thing I can think of to help preserve it- because I want to live
in it, not just remember it fondly.

I will have you note that above, I am looking only for an
understanding of the total argument, and for you to question the party
line that is being given to us all for yourself. I do not wish for
you to simply agree with me- the truth of the matter is for you to
find.

That's all anyone can ask of you or any one of us- because we are
free. I understand the fear that a lot of people feel when they think
about this- but we cannot let fear rob us of our senses, or we will
forever be at the mercy of whomever can tell the scariest tale. There
will always be someone or something to fight against, and the world
will never be entirely safe for every single person. We will never
live forever, but we can live free and without fear until it's time to
go.

On 6 Nov 2006 11:42:46 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Both of our opinions require an intellectual compromise. I believe
>yours requires that we be willing to compromise national security and
>the protection of the citizenry at large to make sure that everyone,
>even the worst of the worst, is given full protection to the letter of
>the law and even going as far as creating new laws or changing existing
>ones to extend those protections to people who aren't covered now, even
>if it means impairing the ability of the government to protect against
>threats.

Yes, that's my compromise. Predicated on the idea that our legal
structures are intended to protect those who are *not* the "worst of
the worst." Given the egregious nature of our enemies' activities, it
should not be that difficult to properly convict them using the
standard that we are trying to preserve against their actions. If the
government needs to hold them for a limited time while gathering
evidence prior to a full trial, that would seem to be a valid
compromise. Conviction without evidence should never be allowed.

>My opinion is that the government needs to have the power to protect us
>against threats. I don't believe now is a good time in history to apply
>more restraints on the government. I believe that this is important
>enough that we need to risk trusting our government to do the right
>thing. I don't fear that our current government really wants to extend
>and abuse its powers so it can become the fascist dictatorship that you
>seem to fear. And that's my compromise; that we have to trust the
>government to do the right thing.

And that's yours. Aptly stated.

>You seem to have a mindset that the government is hell bent to strip
>our rights away. (If you reply to this, maybe you can explain what you
>believe the government's motive for this would be). I believe there are
>a lot of people out there, that subscribe to many of the same thoughts
>you do, that are willing to take active steps in undermining the
>administration with no thought of any of the many other consequences.
>They have become very skilled at battering and torturing the system by
>implosion - destruction from within using the country's own democracy
>as a weapon against itself. And believe me; the enemies of the state
>are very happy to take full advantage of the numerous benefits that
>come their way from this.

The motive of the government is the same as it always was. Power, and
it's aquisition. In our system, there are those who are good and
loyal citizens doing a tough job the best they can, and there are
those who are simply trying to gain and hold as much power as they
can. We've seen a lot of evidence these past few years that the
administration currently in power is willing and able to lie and
conceal things from us, and many of them are engaged in activities
that are entirely criminal. And we've seen evidence that the other
side has those same problems in past years, though those breaches are
often of a different character.

When our system of government was drafted, some very intellegent men
argued long and hard over every minute detail of the government they
were building, and one thing that comes through very clearly is their
insistance on three major things- First, that the government need be
accountable to the citizenry, second, that the three branches of our
government each have the ability to counterbalance the other two, and
third, that each citizen have the right to petition their government,
and each accused man have the right to confront his accusors.

They did not simply trust in the good intentions of the others who
were in that room, or those of the persons to follow them. That is
why our Union has stood for 230 years.

While it may work to the benefit of the odd "bad guy" when we protect
and honor our core principles, it is far more important to vouchsafe
the liberty of the innocent. Liberty is not, and has never been a
guarantee of safety. And liberty is the rock our country is built on-
not safety. We have our problems, sure- but not of the nature and
degree that other countries who do not afford people these basic
rights.

The beauty of the Constitution is that in never asks us to trust the
government. History and human nature teach us that when we do, we
open ourselves to enslavement.

>I believe if you going to fear a hostile regime coming to power, you
>should REALLY fear the one that could come to power if America fails to
>protect itself.

But I don't, because it won't happen. Irsael is a fraction of the
size and strength of the US, and is surrounded on all sides by the
conflict. The Arabs surrounding them have not managed to take over
thier country- so what makes you believe that we are so feeble and
weak that we will simply lay down arms and bow to Mecca if a couple of
thousand guys in dresses with AK-47s manage to make it across the
ocean? The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give
us all something to hate and fear. They can hurt us from time to
time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do
that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win.

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
<...snipped...>
>
>Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately
>result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them
>are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to
>hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but
>whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for
>protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon
>against the establishment and our society in general. The more these
>people break down our system, the less secure we become.
>

I'm confused at this paragraph, it would seem to be equally applicable
to people on _either_ side of this argument.

What is really meant by "weakening our nation"? and "these people
(who) break down our system" Our system of laws and equal protection
under them? Or our system of arbitrary enforcement?

Remember what Orwell's slogan for the government: "Ignorance is
strength, war is peace, and freedom is slavery"


rar

--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland - [email protected]