From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 10:46 In article <45B8CDF1.C7D793F6(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> It only takes one time to destroy London. > >The Nazis tried to destroy London with thousands of heavily armed planes and the >V1 and V2 rockets and failed. > >I really don't think a few Muslims with flour bombs are going to do it do you ? All they need is a flu. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 10:47 In article <45B8CE4B.DE00B4A2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> 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? >> > >> >Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. >> >> A lot of them are elected. > >Judges here aren't elected. We would shudder at the very idea. Each US State has their own way of getting their judges. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 10:50 In article <PbOdne7Gj_BKHCrYnZ2dneKdnZypnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:ep7p0e$8qk_003(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> 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?! > >Yes. You dont know what you are talking about here, you just felt the need >to throw in a soundbite. > >How long do *you* think a suspected criminal should be detained before he or >she is charged with a crime? I don't consider these people criminals. I consider them enemies. <snip more denials> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 10:59 In article <45B782A7.A2676982(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> You see, here you demand that people be punished on the suspicion that >> >> >> they intend to do harm. >> >> >> >> >> >> It is sad you do not see this is a morally wrong thing to do. >> >> > >> >> >Naive views. >> >> > >> >> >You've ignored that conspiracy to commit a "main crime" is a >> >> >criminal act even before the "main crime" has been committed. >> >> >People are sent to prison for this rather frequently. >> >> > >> >> >Conspiracy is the usual case in the forms of terrorism that >> >> >are the basis of these discussions. >> >> >> >> When someone is arrested for this, do they not get to post >> >> bail and get out? Why would such a person stop making >> >> plans to make a mess just because he's been arrested and >> >> may have a trial in two years? >> > >> >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? > >If the judge believes that, I'd be inclined to trust his opinion. > >You see in the UK there has to be a high standard of evidence before a charge is >even brought in the first place. Exactly. Your chances of having a mess becomes more likely than less likely. >> >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. > >That's how a decent justice system woorks. Correct. We don't lock ppl up on >suspicion alone. > > >> I think London escaped a mess by the skin of their teeth. > >Which supposed 'mess' did you have in mind ? I think it was on the news this past summer. > > >> >You need to fix your legal system if ppl have to wait 2 years for a trial >> >btw. >> >> Most of this is because the defense lays down legal roadblocks all >> the way to after sentencing. > >After sentencing ? That has nothing to do with a trial date. Reread what I wrote. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jan 2007 11:03
In article <6f37f$45b7d4b2$4fe74e1$20782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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? No, I haven't. They jumped off the deep end with their assumption that these matters fall into the criminal category and claim that this will deal with the dangers of these terrorists. What is really puzzling is that their method did not stop their home grown terrorists at all. Their methods allowed those people to continue to make messes and they appear to be willing clean up the messes. > >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. I don't think it will. I think it would be an incentive to delay indefinitely. That would be one path to making the whole country be a welfare state. /BAH |