Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 11:30 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > > 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. > > You conflate justice with revenge. This seems to be a very American trait. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 11:38 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > 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. I've been reading it a bit recently. It generally makes quite good sense at the moment. I find the comments especially interesting to read. You get a few Colonel Blimp types but most of the comment is well-considered imho. The other thing is that their website is well organised and has quite broad coverage of issues. Graham
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 14:57 "The Demon Prince of Absurdity" <absurd_number_of_nicks(a)hell.corn> wrote in message news:pan.2007.01.24.19.45.39.693877(a)hell.corn... > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:06:26 +0000, T Wake did the cha-cha, and > screamed: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote... >>> Eeyore wrote: >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> "T Wake" 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? > > If there isn't enough evidence, then holding them anyway violates their > legal and human rights. > >>>>> 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. > > Why, that's just being sensible! Silly man, you're not supposed to do > that. Sorry, my mistake. >>>>> 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? > > No, I think he'd prefer the laws of Nazi Germany. Herr Bush certainly > would. BAH is female, but other than that, your comment seems perfectly valid to me. >>>>> 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? > > Now, now, that's just silly. Policemen, bureaucrats and politicians are > your _friends_! > >>> 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? > > Why, what's so crackpot about complaining about judges with hidden > agendas and demanding that military judges who are accountable to no one > outside the military try accused terrorists in secret? Apart from > apparently wanting to make it easier for conspiracies to form and > operate, that 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? > > "The police would never charge an innocent person with terrorist > activities"? If that's his answer, or if it resembles his answer, I have > the deed to some farmland in Antarctica to sell him... > >>>>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? > > "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." > > Now, what is wrong with the above two sentences? > >>> Our legislators over here don't appear to be even thinking about this >>> problem. > > Possibly because they're not deranged. > Certainly the most likely possibility.
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 15:35 The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: > T Wake did the cha-cha, and screamed: > > > > 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? > > Why, what's so crackpot about complaining about judges with hidden > agendas and demanding that military judges who are accountable to no one > outside the military try accused terrorists in secret? Apart from > apparently wanting to make it easier for conspiracies to form and > operate, that is. No such problems exist in the UK. You'd better put your own house in order I reckon. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 15:38
The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: > T Wake did the cha-cha, and screamed: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote... > >> Eeyore wrote: > >> > >>>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? > > "The police would never charge an innocent person with terrorist > activities"? If that's his answer, or if it resembles his answer, I have > the deed to some farmland in Antarctica to sell him... The Police tried that in the early days of IRA terrorism and it ultimately backfired on them. Partly as a result of that we now have PACE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_and_Criminal_Evidence_Act_1984 It won't be happening again. Graham |