Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 18:56 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:1c46a$45abd422$4fe74ce$18858(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:bb4c$45abb155$49ecfc6$17870(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <snip> >>> >>>In that case they fall under the laws regarding immigration and >>>weapons controls along with whatever "conspiracy to commit" >>>laws are on the books in the host country, "soldiers" or not. >> >> >> Probably true and a better example than the one I gave. Sorry. However, >> this reinforces the fact that it is criminal law which will deal with the >> terrorists better than military action. > > Noriega. > OK. So from now on the US will no longer request a nation extradites criminals for trial in the US but will invade. Do you not think that citing the example of some one who is effectively the leader of a nation is a bit disingenuous? Also, I wasn't aware Noriega was wanted for terrorist related offences, I thought it was more money laundering and RICO related offences which saw the end of him. (Although he does serve as a salutary lesson on why people should never trust the US...) At the end of the day, it was still criminal law which saw the downfall of Noriega.
From: Ken Smith on 15 Jan 2007 21:24 In article <7jalq25jis2n7krpqdsafe9f4441r8qelt(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: [....] >>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> In article <45A96EEA.690D405F(a)earthlink.net>, >>> Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >Ken Smith wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I worry more about the poor state of education. Someone in the airforce >>> >> may get hungry and push the button he things says "lunch" [....] >"It must _be_...? > >That's not fair. > >He may be talking about that he's philosophically opposed to the >wanton destruction of human life for political expedience, in which >case he knows where he'll deny his support. > >Good on him. It is funny the places where a quip can land us sometimes isn't it. You are right that I would have a great deal of trouble pressing the "launch" button. Also, however, as I have pointed out here before, it is a well known and completely uninteresting fact that I can't spell. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 15 Jan 2007 21:30 In article <35b13$45aa7d00$4fe76e9$22338(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [... nukes ...] >> The major risk in that area is that the world has taken the lesson that >> you need them to be safe. It isn't a failing memory of how destructive >> they are that will lead people to make new ones. It is the knowledge that >> they are very destructive along with the idea that such ability is needed >> that poses the greatest risk. It will cause lots of governments to try to >> make them. In the past, they were considered mostly useless. > >Then why were so many made, by both sides? The reasons were mostly political. If the russians can kill all the americans 11 times but the americans can kill the russians only 10 times, Russia would be seen to be "in the lead". Do you remember the so called "missile gap"? They were "mostly useless" largely because of their extreme destructive power. You wouldn't use them in many situation where you would use something less powerful. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 21:31 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:74722$45abd9ea$4fe74ce$19013(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... snip >>Ever since Al Capone the US has been putting all sorts >>of gangsters into prison based on tax laws. It doesn't >>much matter how you get them, so long as you get them. > > > Well, maybe. This is also effectively saying "I don't care that [person] is > not guilty of [crime] they need to be punished so we will find something > else to punish them for." > Surely if some one is not guilty of a crime, trying to get them for other > things (or even passing new laws to criminalise them) is faulty logic? We forbid retroactive legislation, so that doesn't happen here in the US. Usually if you have an individual who is, as we say, playing fast and loose, they usually manage to violate more than the main offense we notice them for. Prosecutors will go for whatever criminality they can prove in court. Capone and others in the mafia got really good at concealing their business tactics and relationships, but not so good at concealing the money their illegal enterprises earned them. Having money and not touching is is something they generally find impossible. It has been held sufficient, for the purposes of convicting them, that they were spending more money than their reported and taxed income could possibly support. Given the long prison terms available for tax fraud it seems prudent to prosecute and convict for that rather than to try to prove murder conspiracies or other similar well concealed crimes. We've had some occasions where an insider turned on his associated and provided a wealth of information leading to the sorts of convictions we'd prefer to see, bringing mob realities into the daylight. This is the "impure" reality of criminal process around the world AFAIK. It has a logic all its own.
From: Ken Smith on 15 Jan 2007 21:45
In article <eofvhp$8qk_001(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <eodp0j$gus$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >If you can recall the event last month, a _Russian_ seemed to >forget what his compatriots could and would do to people who >make messes. If a Russian can forget how it was 20 years ago, >why should I assume that people have not forgotten what happened >60 years ago? I note your phrase "seemed to forget". Brave people will often carry on with the course of action they have chosen in the face of fear. Do you think that Washington forgot that the Brits would hang him? >> Today they can still kill >>a lot of people but they no longer have the mindset that made them the >>major threat. > >And look how long it took to appear that the Russian mindset >has changed. We are now waiting for the progengy of both fUSSR >and the Nazis to achieve a change in mindset. The difference is >that there isn't any goal of maintaining the infrastructure; in >fact, the goal is the opposite--to destroy the infrastructure. You say that often and yet I see very little evidence of it. Many houses in the middle east have satelite dishes. [....] >>The major risk in that area is that the world has taken the lesson that >>you need them to be safe. It isn't a failing memory of how destructive >>they are that will lead people to make new ones. It is the knowledge that >>they are very destructive along with the idea that such ability is needed >>that poses the greatest risk. It will cause lots of governments to try to >>make them. In the past, they were considered mostly useless. > >Who considered atomic bombs useless? I know of nobody who did. Note I said "mostly useless". If you don't know people who thought the nukes were mostly useless, you need to get out more. Consider why the US didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam. In both cases, the risk of using them was considered too great. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |