Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 09:01 In article <ep5aub$55p$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ep52il$8qk_001(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>>It is a shame you can not remember the details, because it would be >>>interesting to see how convicted terrorists escaped Italian law - they tend >>>to have quite good anti-terror and anti-organised crime legislation >>>now.(Albeit with a few spectacular mistakes!) >> >>If you insist on following your legalities that assume the nation >>is at peace, then you have to assume that a Muslim extremist >>is innocent until proven guilty. But, wait! He hasn't made >>any messes yet. So you can't arrest him. If your police do >>manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail and be free to continue >>his plans to make a mess. > >If this person is in the US there is the RICO law. Many european >countries have laws like that too. The person only needs to belong to the >crimianl organization to be quilty of a crime. > >There is no need to stop obeying the law to defeat these guys. > I have not heard of a case where a RICO complaint had no bail set. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 09:03 In article <qNedneB6CY-woCvYRVnyjQA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:45B61D27.BE19A06E(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >When you say Italy let terrorists go, what country had already found the >>> >people guilty of terrorism? >>> >>> So, the only time the people, who have an intent to destroy Western >>> civilization infrastructure and population, can be held in jail >>> is after they have been convicted. >> >> Of course not. They can be remanded for trial if a criminal charge is >> brought >> against them. >> >> >>> Italy had the same legal opinion and let them go. They disappeared. >> >> Who were these people ? >> >> >>> If you insist on following your legalities that assume the nation >>> is at peace, then you have to assume that a Muslim extremist >>> is innocent until proven guilty. >> >> That is indeed the rule of law. >> >> >>> But, wait! He hasn't made >>> any messes yet. So you can't arrest him. If your police do >>> manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail and be free to continue >>> his plans to make a mess. >> >> No - the police can object to bail where there's a public risk and a judge >> may >> not be willing to grant bail anyway. > >As is normally the case in terrorism trials. > >>> If you insist that these people be treated as criminals, then >>> you should be ready to cope with an interruption in your >>> life-style. >> >> It's been discussed here and voted on in the UK Parliament. The Police >> have >> powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 30 days ( IIRC ) without >> charge >> subject to regular judicial review. After that time they must indeed be >> released >> or charged. >> >> Any longer was rejected by Parliament. > >IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days is too long?! They don't care about jail. Most see it as a recruitment opportunity. You keep assuming that these people are deterred by Western civilization laws and the punishments associated with breaking them. You have an invalid assumption. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 24 Jan 2007 09:05 In article <MYSdnR7JjtAo2yvYnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:45B642AB.3192B3CC(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> > >>> > The Police [in the UK] have powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to >>> > 30 >>> days ( IIRC > ) without charge subject to regular judicial review. After >>> that >>> time they must indeed be >>> > released or charged. >>> > >>> > Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >>> >>> IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. >> >> It's too long for someone who's innocent for sure. Hopefully the judicial >> review >> element will prevent abuses of that possibilty. >> >> The 60 days the police were asking for was totally over the top though. > >It is a difficult problem. If you are the innocent person being detained, I >suspect 30 minutes is long but if you are the SOCA officer trying to gather >evidence on some one (s)he *knows* is a criminal, 60 days may not be long >enough. Especially if the action that criminal is planning will result in killing thousands and shutting down your metro system. Or something else just as deadly. /BAH
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 09:44 In article <ad351$45b630fb$49ecfac$25551(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> That isn't true. For the insanity defence to work, the insanity needs to >> be seen to have either prevented the person from understanding what they >> are doing is wrong or prevented them from conforming their actions. If >> you believe that all green eyed people are going to kill you and that you >> must defend yourself by killing them first, you may seem normal when there >> are no green eyed people about. > >And the insanity defense won't work in the real world. > >"strictly a legal term, not a clinical term, the definition of which >varies by jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, this legal concept means >a severe mental illness extant at the time the crime was committed such >that the illness substantially impaired the defendant's capacity to >understand and appreciate the moral wrongfulness of the act. A small >minority of jurisdictions differentiate moral and legal wrongfulness." > >www.psychologyandlaw.com/Definitions.htm > >Paranoia of the type you're describing doesn't impair the >insane person's ability to understand the wrongfulness of >the act despite their emotional imperative to follow >through on their paranoia. This person understands the >law and respects it even though he violates it. You have that incorrect. If a person truly believes that his life is at risk, is acting in self defence. Acting in self defence is legal and therefor he believes his actions are legal and moral at the time he commits them. >This person is understood, by law in most jurisdictions, >to be responsible for his actions. I very very much doubt it. >On the main topic. Islamist terrorists don't accept the >validity of laws or morality outside their narrowly construed >dictates handed down from Allah through their Mullah to them >that it is their duty to kill the infidels or whoever their >Mullah tells them to kill. From Allah's mind through the >Mullah's mouth, that's all they concern themselves with. I have never discussed this with a terrorist so I can't prove it but I believe you are wrong in this or at least wrong in most cases. I don't think that many of them have thought through what they really think. Very few of them can actually read Arabic. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 09:46
In article <GJydnV29I7-YpSvYRVnyvgA(a)pipex.net>, T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: [....] >Actually, you have been given several options of multiple words to use. Did >you ignore those posts? Several people have responded with terms which are >better, but you demand a "single word." I even suggested "Anticrimeeffort" if she really needs to make it one word. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |