Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 11:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep7jtr$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B61D27.BE19A06E(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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. > > What if there isn't enough evidence that satisifies your legal > definitions? >> >> >>> Italy had the same legal opinion and let them go. They disappeared. >> >>Who were these people ? > > I don't remember. I remembered the incident because it pointed > to a chink in legal systems that wouldn't prevent a mess from > being made. Ok. Given that your other recollections are very vague is it not more than possible you have misinterpreted what happened and it's implications? Is it not possible that the people were not terrorists? If you cant remember who they were, they probably weren't. >>> 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. > > Of our (Western civilization) laws. Do you want to change our (western civilisation) laws to those of the Islamic extremists? >>> 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. > > And what about judges who have a political agenda and are > very willing to set bail so they can go about their mess-making > plans? Conspiracy theories R us. What about Law Enforcement or government officials who have a political agenda which involves racism and overthrow of basic rights? > This is a problem that needs to be solved. It is always a problem, with or without the law. This is such a non-argument it beggars belief. You claim the courts can not be used because judges may have an agenda, but secretive military systems are ok because there is no chance they will..... Can you see how crackpot this is? >>> 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. > > IMO, 30 days isn't long enough. How long do you think an innocent person should be detained without charge? >> >>Any longer was rejected by Parliament. > > I understand that. I don't think 30 days is long enough. All > these people have to do is include a contingency plan that allows > a 30-day delay. I don't know what the correct thing to do is. The correct thing for you to do is learn what "suspected" means. You work from the principle that the person detained is guilty before the trial. Are you aware how wrong this is? > Our legislators over here don't appear to be even thinking about > this problem.
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 11:10 Ken Smith wrote: > 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. In today's Daily Mail (a right leaning newspaper btw). "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists". ...................................................................................................................................... There is no "war on terror" on the streets of Britain, the most senior criminal prosecutor, the Director of Public Prosecutions has said. Sir Ken Macdonald said those responsible for atrocities like the 7 July bombings were not "soldiers" in a war, but "deluded, narcissistic inadequates" who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. He warned against allowing the threat of terrorism to trigger a "fear-driven and inappropriate" security response which damaged Britain's traditions of freedom. In what will be seen as a swipe against government measures, Sir Ken called for a "culture of legislative restraint" to deal with terrorism. His comments to members of the Criminal Bar Association put him at odds with Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary John Reid, who have justified tighter security laws on the grounds of the threat posed by a new kind of terror. Instead of viewing terrorism as a "war" threatening the very life of the nation, it should be dealt with as an issue of law enforcement, said Sir Ken, who leads prosecutors in England and Wales as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. One of the "primary purposes" of attacks by supporters of international Islamist terror was to tempt countries to "abandon our values". He continued: "London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. "They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists". His comments come as a study on attitudes by the National Centre for Social Research today shows a significant majority of British people believe that some curbs on terror suspects' civil liberties are a "price worth paying" for security. Comments (4) 4 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below. If the perpetrators claim to be fighting a war against their 'own country', I assume they are British citizens, are then they not guilty of treason? - W.G. Luck, Reading UK About time someone had some common sense and said it. The whole war on terror is nothing but an excuse for politicans to use ever more desperate powers in their own interests, to quieten dissent, (arrest people under anti-terrorisum laws for peaceful protest), in there efforts to force even more strict control on the people of this country. The reason why goverment policies don't make sense is because they're written to force obedience on us rather than protect us from terrorists. Congrats to Sir Ken Macdonald for standing up for us. - Stephen Wright, Braintree A voice of common sense at last. The last time we heard this was under Thatcher when the IRA were reduced to a bunch of criminals rather than so called freedom fighters. Blair gave these Muslim criminals an excuse to try and justify their actions and subsequently he has used their crimes as an excuse to pass draconian and unnecessary legislation. As the DPP has hinted at, laws were already in existence which could have been used more effectively had the political will been there. The real agenda for these new laws is to allow Blair, Clarke and Reid to name a few fascists in New Labour, to create a police state in which the populace can be monitored 24/7 in all their activities. - Mike, Alicante,Spain Hurrah for the DPP and some common sense. By talking of a "war on terror" this simply gives an excuse to the terrorists who can see themselves as soldiers instead of criminals. Let's treat terrorists as the criminals that they are. For those with British citizenship surely it's actually treason? - Graham, St Albans, Herts http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431042&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 11:11 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45B78122.2456F7C7(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message. >> > >> >> 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?! > > It is for someone who's innocent ! > > >> 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. > > And you keep thinking the answer is to lock up ppl on *suspicion* alone ! > > That's unacceptable in a civilised society. BAH's recent posts seem to point towards moving "Western Civilisation" towards her hated idea of what "Islamic Civilisations" are. Any one even slightly suspected of terrorism should be executed on the spot to prevent their messes being made and to hell with evidence.
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 11:14 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45B7850A.8C37EF3B(a)hotmail.com... > > > Ken Smith wrote: > >> 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. > > In today's Daily Mail (a right leaning newspaper btw). Interesting stance for the Mail to take.
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 11:18
Ken Smith wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's > >what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's > >legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged > >the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. > >This is not adequate. > > These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. > You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people without > cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. The terrorists have > already won. You have given up everything you hoped to defend. This is of course exactly the position now in the USA. Graham |