Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 16:03 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:86c37$459c124f$4fe756c$30793(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> news:engmkb$f7p$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >> >>>In article <f0efd$459a7d43$4fe7539$20621(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>We live in a world of surveillance. How many cameras in >>>>the UK today? > >>>They don't have a Bill of Rights. > >> Nor does it make it "right." > >> Nor is using a foreign nation as an example of what should or shouldn't >> be allowed in your own nation particularly relevant. People in the UK >> have become lax in safeguarding their civil liberties and now we have >> much less "freedom" than [for example] when I was in School. > > Unfortunately freedom and liberty are always conditional. It > is quite one thing to voluntarily give up some freedom in > exchange for security, still another to give up freedom in > order to have someone fill their pockets with wealth. Both > have the same consequence while one is generally bearable > while the other isn't. I agree with the principles you point to here. However, the vast majority of the "freedoms" given up by people in the UK are not there to provide any real form of security and probably never will. Also, these are freedoms people are "giving up" with out having the option not to give them up. As you say, the UK has one of the highest (if not the highest) incidence of CCTV systems in the world. You can not walk more than a few meters down a street in any of our big cities without your actions being recorded. Has violent crime (the overt reason this was brought in) reduced in the last 15 years? No. The problem with governments selling "National Security" to the public, is by and large the public follow a herd mentality and as long as some on TV tells them that XYZ will make them "safer" they will swallow pretty much anything. I will not comment on things like biometric passports or the US entrance visa requirements (because they affect people making the *choice* to travel so if you really don't like them, don't go) but the legislation which keeps raising its heads in the UK is shocking.
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 16:11 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:e8364$459c1127$4fe756c$30741(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:engh96$8qk_010(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <45999E2D.56197467(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Until someone is found guilty of a crime, that person has the full >>>>> rights >>>>>under US law. >>>> >>>>Unless *suspected* of terrorism of course in which case their rights are >>> >>>voided. >>> >>>If you agree with Ken's statement, you are also agreeing to be >>>a subject of the US Constitution. If that is the case, >>>you can find your tax forms at irs.gov. >> >> >> Pure false reasoning > > Nope, she has merely extended it include very precisely > everything that the original statement included, even if > some of that was inadvertent. > > It is a very black/white approach, but then....... I disagree, it has the implicit belief that you can not pass comment on another nations legislation or legislative activities without becoming a subject of that nations laws. Obviously taken out of context it can be read that Ken Smith is saying "Everyone" should have full rights under US law. For example, if I said something about UK law and you agree with what I said does that mean you are subject to UK law? Ken Smith's comment (in its original context) was about American citizens. I agree with Ken's statement that American citizens should have the full rights under US law until found guilty. This does not mean I agree to be subject to the US constitution. Removing the original context makes /BAH's comment tenuously acceptable but it is even more of a cheap shot than I would resort to. If anyone missed Ken Smith's post it is at: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.chem/msg/50cd1eb303ce1f70 and the original context was: "Not really. I am pointing out that under the US system, the accused retains all the rights. Until someone is found guilty of a crime, that person has the full rights under US law."
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 16:12 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:de4d6$459c1096$4fe756c$30741(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>[....] >>>> >>>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>>country that are being lost. >>>>> >>>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>>> >>>>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>>>Constitutional rights. >>> >>>No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >>>wrong. >>> >>> >>>>Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >>> >>>He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >>>if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >>>procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >>>do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >>>1975 or so. >>> >>>Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >>>longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >>>through security? >>> >>>Use your noodle. > >> But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point >> forward all your electronic comms are monitored. > > Of that I have no doubt. Everything usenet is international and > public with *no* expectation of privacy. This is just like > the bugged parking meters. Many of have assumed for years that > usenet is scanned for such key words. I've seen all sorts of > attention seeking posts using dozens of suspect expressions > like anthrax, bomb, suitcase bomb, hijacking, concealed weapons, > and the like. > > There, think that got someone's attention? > > I sure hope so! Otherwise the boys are asleep at the switch. And there is no way of knowing if they are.
From: T Wake on 3 Jan 2007 16:32 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:33970$459c13e1$4fe756c$30832(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >> news:engn63$f7p$8(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >> >>>In article <enghkv$8qk_001(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <45999D6B.96DDFDF1(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>>>country that are being lost. >>>>>> >>>>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>>>> >>>>>So who gets to decide if they're an enemy ? >>>> >>>>The Patriot Act specifies who. >>> >>>No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an >>>enemy >>>combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. >>> >>> >>>>Actions demonstate who are enemies. >>>>Letters of intent give pointers to who is an enemy. >>> >>>And how can one man be given authority to take away constitutional >>>rights? >>> >>> >>>>>What happens if someone denounces *YOU* for example. >>>> >>>>As you people have denounced me in this thread? Nothing happens to me. >>>>I do need to make a decision on whether it's useful to continue >>>>to educate and learn in order to prevent messes from happening. >>>> >>>> >>>>>You can then be 'disappeared' >>>> >>>>I have no idea where you are getting this notion. You didn't >>>>happen to watch a certain "Law and Order" TV show, did you? >>>>Hint. Those stories are fiction and have started other >>>>urban myths. >>>> >>>> >>>>>and you'll simply officially cease to exist. I >>>>>believe this kind of thing was reputedly common in Communist Russia. >>>> >>>>I don't think I'll officially cease to exist. That means that >>>>I no longer have to pay property and income taxes. >> >> >> I think /BAH missed the point here. As you say the problem with >> legislation such as the UK's prevention of terrorism act is that some one >> "suspected" of a certain crime loses the ability to defend themselves or >> challenge the accusation for a certain period of time. > > Not the same as "disappearing". True, but if you were subjected to such an arrest - without the ability to defend yourself or get legal counsel (or even see the evidence against you), then I suspect the initial feelings would be similar. >> While I am not suggesting that either the current UK government or the US >> government would use such "power" for the wrong things - there is nothing >> to say the same limits will apply to future governments. I can only >> assume the potential pitfalls of this legislation are what Eeyore was >> referring to and the sarcastic reply was just an evasion. > > I think dumb donkey dove headfirst into a set of issues he > doesn't understand. That's not unusual for him. So what? If this is true he is not the only person on the thread to do that and /BAH is continually doing it. > Neither the US nor the UK is likely to have a "cease to > exist" sort of disappearance he's discussing as our > future. I agree. > That's the stuff of scifi and "The Prisoner" > as I mentioned earlier. Again, I agree. While I accept that the "thin end of the wedge" argument may be construed as a logical fallacy, there is reason to be concerned at the gradual erosion of liberties and, more importantly, the perception of those liberties. The UK prevention of terrorism acts (and associated legislation) overturns centuries of law and assumed freedoms. [*] While we can look at our current government (and ones from the last, say 200 years) as stable, rational and acceptable, there is no reason to assume this will remain true in the future. Each freedom which is surrendered (willingly or otherwise, for good reason or otherwise) is a freedom which future generations may have to give their lives to reclaim. Using the Chilean "disappeared" as an analogy may be comical today and in the near future for a "western democracy" but as people become more trusting of the state, as more power is given to the state, as more assumptions are made that the state is looking after "our" interests it could be less and less comical. A trivial example is the custodian of the data. In the UK recently, the Metropolitan Police (the most high tech, best resourced etc force in the UK) had it's officer's payroll details stolen because they were stored on laptops. Come the day that we have a national biometric database (for security), what happens if someone gains illicit access to it? As the UK becomes more accustomed to "surveillance" (CCTV, ID Cards etc), the less people question the information they give away about themselves and more importantly the less they question what is being done with it. -- [*] Note: My examples are mostly UK biased because I have no idea about US law and only minimal interest in learning more
From: unsettled on 3 Jan 2007 17:13
T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:a633e$459c0f5b$4fe756c$30709(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>Right now Iran is walking a tightrope and needs some >>very "liberal" friends, so Europe is being played against >>the US by them much as it is throughout the middle east. > Very true, but this further undermines /BAH's comment that "Europe is > responsible for Iran." Possibly clarification is necessary. I leave that to her if she wishes to provide it. > That is simply playing Europe against the US over the Middle East. >>Read Machiavelli. > I have done. Goos man! >>>>There isn't much >>>>going on is there? And Iran's delaying tactics are working. >>>>In two years, we'll see if these tactics worked as well as >>>>they did in the 1930s. >>>Iran didn't use delaying tactics in the 1930s. >>She's talking about European delaying tactics and appeasement >>of the 1930's bing replayed by Iran. I realize that sometimes >>BAH skips a few steps which makes discussions difficult for >>some folks to follow. For some of us those skipped steps are >>more necessary than for others. > I knew the inference she was making and (as discussed more > time than I care to repeat) it is (IMHO) an incorrect analogy. I can understand your take tough I disagree and agree that it isn't a subject worth flogging to death once again. > I was only taking a cheap shot > on the terminology for my own amusement. Good man! > There is a legitmate line of debate > that the delaying tactics of the 1930's were valuable rather than craven, > but as it has been done to death and the only people who will participate > are already very heavily polarised, I see no point in restarting it. Stalin rather liked it while he was in process of decimating his general staff and had rather hoped it would last a bit longer than it did. > Also, "appeasement" of Nazi Germany was carried out by more countries than > the ones in Europe. For sure. But we do love to blame you. LOL > I am sure if Iran annexes the Persian version of the Sudetenland the analogy > may be more appropriate, but at the moment it isn't. The future is bound to be interesting. >>>>>>The US anti-Bushers >>>>>>seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. >>>>>There is no "European Law". >>>>Exactly. >>>Blimey. IKWYABWAI variant if ever I saw one. >>Part of the disagreements in this thread are real legitimate >>head on crashes. Some of them are the product of a significant >>cultural mismatch which perhaps neither of the two of you >>actually grasps. > Two of who? You and BAH. snip |