Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:53 In article <engh96$8qk_010(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >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. No, he is saying that the US is bound by its constitution. The constitution limits what government can do to the people. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:55 In article <e8364$459c1127$4fe756c$30741(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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....... No, the original statement was about the constitutional limits on what the US government can do. "Under US law" is the important phrase here. > > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 22:59 In article <pPidnTCZGJJjhgHYnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >does that mean you are subject to UK law? Ken Smith's comment (in its >original context) was about American citizens. No, actually, it was about those subject to US law. Someone visiting the country also gets a fair trial rather than a quick trip to the gallows if they are accused of murder. > 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. If you come into the US, you will be subject to US laws and the constitution will protect your rights. >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." > > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 23:04 In article <engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> 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. I expect you will say "BAH BAH" as you are led to the slaughter. Gone is "give me liberty or give me death". Now we have the era of "oh please please say you will protect me from the very slight risk adn I will be your slave". -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 3 Jan 2007 23:09
In article <de4d6$459c1096$4fe756c$30741(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >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. I know someone who many years ago claimed that his telexes from another country would be delayed if he added "OWHATASILLIGOOSEIAM" to them. I have often wondered if he was trying to pull my leg, someone was pulling his or that was "nuke washington" in some other language. > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |