Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 11:05 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epcrmf$8ss_006(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <RpudnXjBi_-ulCTYnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epak56$8ss_005(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >> >>This is another sign of your dislike of democracy and people's rights. Why >>you live in the West is beyond me. Other than the religious orientation >>you >>would be much more suited in the Middle East. > > Not at all. We shall see. >>What you are saying here is that because innocent people can not be >>punished, there is more chance of something bad happening. > > You keep assuming that those who are planning to destroy your > infrastructure are innocent. They are not. Really? Have another look at your post. 1. I am not assuming those who are found guilty of planning to destroy my, or anyone elses, infrastructure is innocent and I would like to see you demonstrate otherwise. 2. You are assuming everyone you *think* is planning to destroy your, mine or anyone elses, infrastructure is guilty without the need for a trial or "due process." Now it seems important to me that the difference is highlighted here as you seem to overlook it with every post. You have a person who is _suspected_ of planning to [insert crime / terrorist act] which leaves you with two options. You either presume they are guilty and punish them before the case can be judged or you presume they are innocent and treat them fairly until the case can be judged. *You* repeatedly advocate the presumption of guilt. You refuse to accept the verdict of the legal process as to the innocence or guilt of the suspect. >>You are really off the rails. >> >>>>> >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. >> >>There were lots of things on the news. Can you be any more specific? >> >>Is this another example of where your memory may have conflated multiple >>bits of information and caused you to conclude something different to >>everyone else? > > Perhaps the BBC made up another story. There were a lot of > news items here that talked about a terrorist cell who had > plans to blow up the Underground. The news here reported > that the cops decided to move in and arrest them because > the cops thought the date of the bombings were within > the next week. Nobody blinked about the delay of picking them > up. [Interesting how you accuse the BBC of making up "another" story to carry the implication it has done so in the past. It then becomes ironic that your sources appear to not have been the BBC but US-based ones, so if the news was made up, it may well have been made up by your own news agencies.] Do you remember the outcome of this incident? The people (including the person shot) were determined to be innocent of any terrorist related crimes. Now, that is not "escaping a mess by the skin of [its] teeth." The people were not terrorists, so if the armed intervention had not taken place nothing would have happened. Even if they were terrorists, the police action would have been successful in detaining them and disrupting their activities. I realise you love to mangle language until it becomes almost unrecognisable, but how on Earth is that escaping by the skin of our teeth? Your post is, I feel, a good example of how you disagree with the rule of "Western Civilisation's" laws and the moral codes we [tinw] live by. This is why I think that if you could embrace Islam you would be better suited to living in the Middle East[*]. Then you would not have to worry as much about trial by jury letting mess makers go free. You would not have to worry as much about the presumption of innocent or any of the other things you dislike. -- [*] This is not meant to imply that I think the middle east actually lives up to your bogeyman fears.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 11:08 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BA04D4.C4ABE8DB(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >jjmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> 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. >> > >> >There were lots of things on the news. Can you be any more specific? >> > >> >Is this another example of where your memory may have conflated multiple >> >bits of information and caused you to conclude something different to >> >everyone else? >> >> Perhaps the BBC made up another story. > > That's just your prejudice talking there. > > >> There were a lot of >> news items here that talked about a terrorist cell who had >> plans to blow up the Underground. The news here reported >> that the cops decided to move in and arrest them because >> the cops thought the date of the bombings were within >> the next week. Nobody blinked about the delay of picking them >> up. > > What delay ? You said the cops picked them up before they could do any > damage. > Sounds to me like the police were doing their job. > > In any case, you have got things mixed up. I suspect you mean the plan to > bomb > an aircraft with 'liquid explosives' ( joke ) where the plotters were > indeed > arrested before they could do anything and the current trial of those who > did > indeed try to bomb the undergound and failed. Ah, I assumed she was talking about the Forest Gate incident where the house got raided by half the met and one guy got shot in the shoulder. "Statement by Peter Clarke, the Metropolitan police's deputy assistant commissioner, about the anti-terrorist operation in Forest Gate. " http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1789002,00.html and then 12 days later: "Police have apologised for the "hurt" they caused to two brothers arrested on suspicion of terrorism - one of whom was shot during the raid on their home." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5077198.stm
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 11:10 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:c866$45b94bf5$49ecf8f$1275(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <snip > > 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 > Nonsense.
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Jan 2007 05:03 In article <epcqla$8ss_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <9ZWdnVA-cKYNmiTYRVnyvgA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epacgd$8qk_002(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <ru2dnXYbBez24CrYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ep7jd1$8ss_006(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <45B64130.D6F8E740(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>In the UK it's a crime to belong to an illegal organisation or aid/abet >>>>>>one. >>>>>>Additionally it's apparently a crime also to fail to disclose/report >>>>> knowledge >>>>>>of such things. >>>>>> >>>>>>That would seem to cover pretty much what's required. >>>>> >>>>> Are people, who are arrested for that crime, able to post bail >>>>> before they are tried in your country? >>>> >>>>Anyone who is arrested _may_ be released on bail, however if they are >>>>considered a danger then it is unlikely. Most people charged under the >>>>various Prevention of Terrorism Acts we have had over the years have been >>>>refused bail. >>>> >>>>Are you worried that a guilty person may be offered bail? Is it worse if a >>>>guilty rapist is offered bail? >>> >>> It's a similar problem. Take that guy who goes after boys. He >>> can get out because the judge allowed bail. I don't trust judges' >>> descretions any further than I can spit. >> >>You really do not want to live in a representative democracy do you? > >Even a representative democracy needs to have some way to deal >with the people who go after little kids, and make other kinds >of messes. A democracy does not, and never has, meant that >all people can do anything they want without punishment. > No, but it does mean they have the right to a trial before they're punished. >I am noticing an attitude that believes a democracy implies >absolute freedom to do anything a person wants. This is >what an anarchist strives for....until one of his group >burns his house down. > >/BAH Which is what extreme right-wingers argue for -- no taxes, no laws, no "government interference."
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Jan 2007 05:06
In article <epcv0t$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <epb5e7$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 But you've had a string of Republican governors and Democratic legislatures. |