Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 11:22 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:7adc0$45ac3908$49ecf23$20986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >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. Retroactive legislation is not required. If someone is carrying out an activity the legislators do not approve of, legislation can be passed and the person has the choice of "mending their ways" or suffering what ever consequences. Also, the "get them for other things" aspect remains. Is this morally sound? I have no idea personally. > 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: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 11:24 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45ACC825.1D782922(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> For example, in a 40mph zone, what speed do you have to be travelling to >> be >> stopped by a police man and at what speed will you lose your licence? >> This >> is one are where the spirit of the law is much more adhered to than the >> letter. (some forces will fine at 44mph, some at 47mph, some will only >> fine >> if the driving is dangerous in another manner etc). > > As low as 44 ? I thought 46 was the minimum. ( 40 + 10% + 2 mph ). No, the 10% is an optional. Off the top of my head, Dorset will stop you at 44 and ISTR North Wales may even ignore the 10%. Some forces (Hampshire and Wiltshire off the top of my head) do 10% + 3mph. Even within some of the harsher counties, the individual officer will decide if it is worth it - I was stopped for doing 70 in a 50 zone in North Wales five years ago and ended up just being told off.
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 11:26 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:e3860$45acd0b4$4fe713a$26561(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <1ad2f$45aa7fb7$4fe76e9$22623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> [....] >> >>>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra >>>>to make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please >>>>explain how they make anything better. >>> >>>I've said before, disarm the population, seal the border, and we >>>can leave. >> >> >> Good plan, but with 20K more troops, there is no chance of doing so. >> With a few 100K perhaps it could be done. > > 20K can easily seal the borders in fairly short order. It is a big border and that would need a lot of mines and surveillance. > Then it > becomes a combination of clearing the worse areas of weapons > and attrition of weapons because no new ones are getting in. >
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 11:32 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoin84$8qk_004(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > <snip> Do > you think they are lying? They don't have to lie. > Interesting concepts. It is assumed in the west that pretty much all politicians lie and when ever they make public statements there is at best a small kernel of truth surrounded by a husk of spin and PR. Why do you assume that Middle Eastern politicians and political leaders are any different? In Iran's case, lying may well be in their best interests.
From: Eeyore on 16 Jan 2007 12:03
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > Why do you people keep forgetting Syria? None seem to think > > about Egypt. > > No one forgets Syria and people do think of about Egypt. As I pointed out to > you in a previous post both those nations are important. < snip > > Now on to some important questions which fall out of your post. Why do you > keep forgetting about Tunisia? None seem to think of Morocco. Or Turkey even ? Yet another Muslim nation in the region. Graham |