Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 11:28 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > > > >> 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. Terrorism *is* a crime. Terrorism Act 2000 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/20000011.htm Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2001/20010024.htm The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/prevention-of-terrorism/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Act_2005 I should point out that the above allows certain restrictions on suspects called 'control orders' that don't actually involve jailing them. Restrictions permitted by the Act Control orders may contain restrictions that the Home Secretary or a court "considers necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by that individual in terrorism-related activity", including: restrictions on the possession of specified articles or substances (such as a mobile telephone); restrictions on the use of specified services or facilities (such as internet access); restrictions on work and business arrangements; restrictions on association or communication with other individuals, specified or generally; restrictions on where an individual may reside and who may be admitted to that place; a requirement to admit specified indivuals to certain locations and to allow such places to be searched and items to be removed therefrom; a prohibition on an individual being in specified location(s) at specified times or days; restrictions to an individual's freedom of movement, including giving prior notice of proposed movements; a requirement to surrender the individual's passport; a requirement to allow the individual to be photographed; a requirement to cooperate with surveillance of the individual's movements or communications, including electronic tagging; a requirement to report to a specified person and specified times and places. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 11:39 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> And you people are talking about the wrong decade. > >> > >> I was using VT05s in 1972; IIRC, Hastings was typing on his > >> breadboard in 1971. I'm still pissed off at him for not > >> asking me about the keyboard layout. > > > >Not the wrong decade at all. The FFC announced its proposed rule making > >regarding computer emissions in 1976. > > Now what did they say about equipment that had already been > manufactured and couldn't be fixed? I do not recall specifically. It's fairly obvious though that if some equipment interfered with normal broadcast transmissions then the interfering equipment would have to be rectified. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 11:41 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Having been in meetings where these FCC issues were > >> discussed and hearing how DEC decided what we going to do > >> with VT05s might give me the idea that I know what I'm talking > >> about. > > > >You mean DEC *were* aware of the prblem after all ? > > > >That's not what you previously suggested. > > It wasn't a problem in 1972. You mean it wasn't widely known to be a problem. Graham
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epaaq8$8qk_007(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <d5ebc$45b61cff$4fe7715$22776(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> <snip> >>> >>> This opinion is a form of arrogance. >> >>Nothing wrong with arrogance when it works. > > European arrogance hasn't worked for a very long time. Interesting. Here we have an example of BAH's arrogance which certainly has never worked in this thread. Well done. > It > has continued to underestimate dangers and doesn't seem > to learn from its mistakes. They can afford to make > these errors because their governments assume the US will > save them with its military might. When we don't succeed > according to their expectations, we get dismissed as not > knowing anything about how to do foreign policy nor > statemanship. You round up with this drivel, which simply shows your lack of understanding.
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:38
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epal0o$8ss_007(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B8C4A5.BCD7F27C(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> They [Europeans] can afford to make >>> these errors because their governments assume the US will >>> save them with its military might. >> >>What do we need your military might for ? > > I don't know. I suspect so the politicians can point at the > US and call us the bad people when things don't go perfectly. > Smoke and mirrors. Do you feel like every one is out to get you? Do you see conspiracies every where you look? Do you feel like all the other nations are talking about you behind your back? I am sure just as many European politicians say this about the US as US politicians say similar things about Europe. You [*] are a prime example of this double standard. You try to say all the good things have been done by the US, but anything remotely negative is down to "European Broken thinking." The fact you are blind to the double standard is massively entertaining. -- [*] And I know you are not a politician, you are the example in this thread. |