Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 08:03 In article <4031e$45b949ce$49ecf8f$1217(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >Federal judicial appointments are extremely politicized, with >Supreme Court justice appointments the most politicized of all. Sure. Massachusetts has their judges appointed. There was talk about changing this to elections when our lovely Liberal judges started sentencing those who go after kids with only a few months in jail, if that. That talk has died down even though the problem still remains. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 08:04 In article <45B8D166.5761542A(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: >> > >> >> All these people [terrorist suspects] have to do is include a contingency >> plan that >> allows a 30-day delay. >> > >> >What a strange idea. 30-day delay of what ? >> >> Killing everybody in your Underground for example. > >You clearly haven't thought this through. A plot is a plot regardless of whenever >it's supposed to take place. That makes no difference to a prosecution. > >And furthermore you can't "kill everyone in the Underground". > >You're 'losing the plot' again BAH ! Yes, you can. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 08:14 In article <564ef$45b94a90$49ecf8f$1251(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >Wake writes these "questions" is a highly propagandized mode. The >legitimate question would be "How long do you think a suspected >criminal may legitimately be detained....." By using the word >"should" he's altered the entire implication of his "question". His use of the word 'should' is a secondary issue. The more important one is his implication that all these problems will be resolved under the English criminal justice system. There a problem with this assumption because those, who intend to kill him, do not regard his justice system to be legal. They don't play by the same legal rules that he does. When these enemies of his "cheat" by not following his rules, he will blame his enforcement infrastructure and his prime minister and the US for not killing these people before the mess was made in his back yard. This will happen in each, and every country, that has a Western civilization living style. Now, those who used to be subject to the USSR seem to understand that this political movement has to be stopped. They just got out from underneath a viscious dictatorship; they don't want another one that is even more viscious and plans to use slavery to do the work. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 08:17 In article <epb5e7$all$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >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. >> >>Graham >> > >You should. We elect judges here in Georgia, and it's a real mess. We don't in Massachusetts and it, also, is a mess because of one political party being dominant for too long. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 08:27
In article <c866$45b94bf5$49ecf8f$1275(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >The never have gotten over Ghandi and their guilt for >their wholesale mistrating of all their colonials for >centuries. There appears to be some British sense that >if they spoil their criminals the government will >finally be better loved around the world. LOL I think this has more to do with the West figuring out that exspansionism wasn't working and started to stop. It took until WWII for Germany and Japan to change their minds. France still has wafts of it hanging around but is no longer willing to military might behind their ideas. Now we have society centers in the Middle East who are finally rich enough to fund expansionistic projects. India and Pakistan haven't settled their boundary differences. China is inching their boundaries slowly out. It isn't guilt that causes the English to behave the way they do in these matters. It is socialism that does. It only takes a teensy upset of the society to push it into communistic dictatorship or an anarchy. Either way, the Western civ piece of the society will disappear. /BAH |