Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 16:17 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45B7C300.B388B3DF(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. I suspect you have missed the element of sarcasm which runs through the post.
From: unsettled on 24 Jan 2007 16:29 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ad351$45b630fb$49ecfac$25551(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>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. Precisely what I said above. Thank you.
From: unsettled on 24 Jan 2007 16:31 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ep7p9v$8qk_005(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [.....] > >>>In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. It's >> >>down to >> >>>the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more serious cases >> >>whether >> >>>bail will be offered. >> >>What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >>threats by these terrorists? > > > In that case, chances are he is right. In England, however, the person is > still likely to be remanded (held) pending the trial. The trial will > happen soon there after. Bail is less frequent in the UK than in the US. > On a serious charge, the judge is not as likely to offer it. > > >>>Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand pending >> >>their >> >>>trial. >> >>But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there >>is a likelihood of guilt. I think London escaped a mess by the >>skin of their teeth. > > > If the police don't have enough evidence, the person is not very likely to > be in front of the judge in the first place. The police don't go around > arresting people at random. > > Read about probable cause. The threshold to arrest is less than the threshold to indict is less than the threshold to convict.
From: unsettled on 24 Jan 2007 16:35 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <7539e$45b764bc$4fe7370$11158(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > [.....] > >>Unless they're held under conditions not acceptable to some >>of our "friends" they'll continue with their program from >>jail. > > > This is simply false and I believe beneath you. For Christs sakes it has been done. The lawyer is in prison for being the carrier. Get a grip already. These people need to be held under conditions which don't allow any communication with the outside. That includes prevention of contact with randomly chosen or appointed lawyers and clergy. I can hear the objections already. > The things that have been > objected to by myself and others are things like torture of prisoners. Your threshold of what constitutes torture and mine differ vastly. > You appear to be arguing that prisoners must be tortured to prevent them > from continuing in their effort. Please tell me this isn't true. Whose standards are you using.
From: unsettled on 24 Jan 2007 16:50
Ken Smith wrote: > In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <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. Usually they're mistakes made by legislators when they're drafting a new law. > You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people without > cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. I haven't seen that. Has she actually said that? Besides, they have probable cause sufficient to make the arrest, and that's not nothing usually. > The terrorists have already won. You have given up everything > you hoped to defend. Not true either. Certainly not "everything." I'd like to see a law under which a person is paid whatever their usual earnings are while they're incarcerated until they are convicted, including fringe benefits. That would move justice along much faster. |