... the cherished principle of innocent until proven guilty?
The foundations of two-hundred years of sociological progress are being ripped to shreds, I fear.
[ June 21, 2002, 09:09: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, it's time to get one of these, one of these, one of these, or this, this, or one of these beauties!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I want a gun. I've decided. Living in East London does this to you. 'Course, it's illegal to won one. But can anyone recommend a good one for home defence? I'm keen for one that's not too heavy and without too much recoil, since I'd like to teach my wife how to use it and she's quite small.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Whay buy a gun when you can buy a tank?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
That's just scary. They don't have to have any evidence of anything. Which basically means that if the government decides they don't like you, they can lock you up. You'd think people would be smarter than to not see a problem with this.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Lee, take a look at one of Glock's compensated semi-autos -- the 19c is nice.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Get "one of those really amazing rotary machine guns, like Blaine had in "Predator!""
Posted by DeadCujo (Member # 13) on :
I'd take a dual chaingun any day.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i've always been a big fan of the HK P7M13, but it's pretty different from most pistols, and it takes a while to get used to it.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'll look that up. Thanks. 8)
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Funny. If this were a 'standard' war, with enemy prisoners being held in POW camps behind friendly lines, nobody would even blink at not allowing them access to lawyers. Or holding them indefinitely, until the end of the war. ESPECIALLY 'enemy infiltrators,' as these people could be considered (agents of the enemy working inside another country without a uniform are generally termed 'spies' and can be dealt with rather harshly, even under the Geneva Conventions) In fact, NONE of the elements alluded to above are out of the ordinary for wartime.
Did the POWs have lawyers in WWII? Didn't think so. Korea? Nam? Nope. Desert Shield? No, not even them.
This is such a non-issue that the people trying to make a big deal out of it deserve only scorn and derision. And so they shall have it.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
You wish it was, you bag of putrid air.
I didn't see the government grabbing white christians after Tim McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Building. Didn't see Timmy lose his right to a lawyer.
Regardless of what Bushy and the media would have you believe, we're not fighting a war. Not in the traditional sense, certainly not in the legal sense. Any laws that give the government the power to strip people within the US of guarenteed rights is wrong.
Of course you don't care about this. You're all about screaming "Big Brother!" when Billy is in office, but when Georgie is in office, it's all a-ok.
quote:The brief additionally stipulates that the government may declare anyone at all to be an enemy combatant, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, regardless of whether they were captured in battle or anywhere else.
This doesn't bother you AT ALL? Of course not. You're "Rob" ... and common sense and Rob don't go together. Bravo, Mr. Freedom Loving American who clearly isn't.
Or, as someone on another board replied after I posted this link:
When they took the Fifth Amendment, I didn't say anything becaue I wasn't a criminal. When they took the Fourth Amendment, I didn't say anything because I didn't use drugs. When they took the Second Amendment, I didn't say anything because I didn't own guns. Now that they have taken the First Amendment, I can't say anything.
[ June 22, 2002, 09:18: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
But as you continually pointed out they are not prisoners of war they have no status which is the problem, GWB has said that he will hold these people until the WAR ON TERRAH ends, well this is a perpetual war with no defined combatants so these people are screwed until somebody opens the cage someday and finds the bodies.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:The brief additionally stipulates that the government may declare anyone at all to be an enemy combatant, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, regardless of whether they were captured in battle or anywhere else.
Not EXACTLY what it says, more a third-hand interpretation of what it says.
quote:The filing also asserts the government's right to declare a prisoner an enemy combatant whether that person was captured on the battlefield -- such as Hamdi and Lindh -- or anywhere else, such as Padilla.
Writing that enemy combatants have no right to counsel, the Justice Department says: "That is true with respect to enemy combatants who are captured and detained on the battlefield in a foreign land; enemy combatants who are captured overseas and brought to the United States for detention . . . and enemy combatants who are captured and detained in this country."
That's a closer, still-out-of-context quote.
This 'brief' (which as I read it appears to be the ststement of the government's opinion, not a law or anything that's actually USEFUL,) has been applied to exactly three people so far.
The shoebomber, the 'dirty nuke' guy, and Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan.
Your slope is too slippery to stand on.
quote:I didn't see the government grabbing white christians after Tim McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Building. Didn't see Timmy lose his right to a lawyer.
That man is made of straw, and you know it. 1. You can't show too many connections between the average white Christian and McVeigh. The individuals to whom this brief is being applied show, at the very least, a more-than-coincidental relationship to the enemy.
Timmy was not part of an organized military.
quote: Regardless of what Bushy and the media would have you believe, we're not fighting a war. Not in the traditional sense, certainly not in the legal sense.
M: (Inaudible) Talbot(?). Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom? (Scattered Laughter)
JB: "The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what ... against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President."
A Constitutional Scholar, AND a Democrat! Will wonders never cease?
It's a WAR. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an ignorant fuckwit.
quote:Any laws that give the government the power to strip people within the US of guarenteed rights is wrong.
OOOH, did you open a can you'll never close with THAT one. Trust me, you'll never be a cop if that little statement gets out.
Incidentally, the Constitution gives the President, and Congress, the right to do just that, under certain circumstances. Suspend habeas corpus, etc? Remember? Whup, better trash it.
And it's good to know for sure that you've dropped ALL advocacy of gun control.
Didn't you used to be one of the guys who said there were no such things as guaranteed rights, but only the rights one was "given" and that was why the Constitution was a 'living' document?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Timmy was not part of an organized military.
Woah there. Are you saying Al_Queda is an organized military? Wouldn't they then fall into the Geneva Convention? You can't have it both ways.
quote:Didn't you used to be one of the guys who said there were no such things as guaranteed rights,
There aren't. Rights are good only so long as the Constitution has specific Ammendments.
quote: but only the rights one was "given" and that was why the Constitution was a 'living' document?
Rights are given. They're given to the people, by the people. Bush wants to change the Constitution around, he's either going to have to get a case in front of the Supreme Court, or write new Ammendments. If the Constitution WASN'T a living document, there would be a) No Supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality v. Unconstitutionality, and b) no way to create or delete ammendments.
[ June 22, 2002, 16:48: Message edited by: Snay ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hey, it's like Moonlighting.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Under the Constitution...there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force."
That's because the latter doesn't exist in the US Constitution.
Now, this new "Use of Force" act apparently lets the president send troops in for sixty days, and then Congress has to decide what to do. The only ways for the troops to stay are if Congress declares war, if they give some other sort of permission, if they ignore the matter, or if the president declares a national emergency.
So, it still isn't an actual war. It may be an official act of the government involving the invasion of another country by our military forces, but it shouldn't be called a "war" unless they declare war.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I disagree, incidently. Oh, not about Tim's constitutional scholarship, which I trust is up to snuff, considering his AWESOME RESEARCH SKILLS AND LIBRARY POWERS!, but about the war thing. A war is a war, and everyone knows it, whether we call it a "police action" or an "intervention" or a "redistribution of force." It's all the same for the people involved, and while I don't find a grand conspiracy in the move away from declared wars post WWII, I do think the move away from calling them wars in the everyday vernacular is dangerous, or at best disingenuous.
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
Snay, that page you posted about the P7M13 is incorrect. it is perfectly possible and legal for civilians in the United States of America to procure and own that pistol.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Dude, um, I don't care. I just posted a link so Vogon could see a picture. Why don't you send that page an e-mail and correct them instead of harassing me, eh? Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
that's the problem with the 'net. people throw info around, but they don't have the brains/energy to care whether it's right or not.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think that the most basic problem here is the definition of the word "war."
In the traditional sense a war is a massive conflict between nations, each with an established government, clearly defined borders, an economy, and an organized military.
In the case of the "War on Terror," many of those definitions need to be twisted around. Al-Qaida does not have a "government" per se, but it does have an authority structure, controlled by Bin Laden. It also has a military, although it's not organized at all like any national army. And it has no defined borders at all. It was originally easy to pick on Afghanistan because that was a location where it was confirmed (or at least strongly suspected) that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida had their bases.
The Oklahoma City bombing was basically an isolated incident. Yes, it was certainly an act of terror, but it was still the act of a criminal, a US citizen. Due process was upheld in that case, mainly because it was isolated.
However, in the case of many of the terrorist suspects, the problem is that having public hearings, and use of due process, works in the REAL terrorists' favor, because a great deal of information relating to their activities (and the direction of the government's attention) is published.
But then... there's the fact that if we ARE at "war," then captured agents/soldiers of the "enemy" would then fall under the Geneva Convention. Which means no interrogations, proper treatment, and so on. It's like the administration is trying to argue on both sides of the issue.
Damn, this is a can of worms. To get reasonably back on track...
One of the key problems is that the terrorists' methods of operation are tailored to take advantage of the weaknesses of our system. Due process? That's just a way of "going easy" on them to give them a chance to get their things done.
The trouble is, how do we know WHO is guilty? If we knew in advance, this would all be a lot easier...
I guess what it comes down to is, "do you trust the government?", and "do you trust the system?" Although a lot of the actions taken certainly stretch the definitions of the Constitution and our laws to the limit, I do believe that they're taking actions with the interests of best combating the threat of terrorism. Yes, some toes are being stepped on, but consider how many more lives could be lost if another attack on the scale of the World Trade Center were carried out? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (Yes, I admit that I believe this partially because my toes aren't being stepped on. In that regard, Snay's quote about taking away the amendments is very appropriate, and very disturbing.)
Furthermore, while I don't really trust the current administration (good ol' Dubya and his clowns), I certainly trust the SYSTEM. There's the immediate, short-term actions to be taking to face the threats, and then there's the longer-term policies. I trust the SYSTEM of our government to get things sorted out and maintain the principles and rights which the Constitution originally set forth.
Posted by The Same Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Main Entry: war Pronunciation: 'wor Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse Date: 12th century 1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3
Semantically, everyone's accomodated.
[ June 23, 2002, 15:42: Message edited by: The Same Ultra Magnus ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...Tim's constitutional scholarship, which I trust is up to snuff, considering his AWESOME RESEARCH SKILLS AND LIBRARY POWERS!..."
Actually, I just looked up the copy of the US Constitution in The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1997 that I have.
Anyway, I'll grant that something can be a war de facto w/o being officially called "war". However, my problem is that they keep calling it a war w/o actually declaring war, which opens the way for abuse of power. They can do things like what they're doing now (holding people w/o charges or legal assistance) and claim that it's because of the war. However, if they later want to do something that they aren't allowed to do in a war, they can fall back on the "we never declared war, so it isn't a war" excuse.
If they're going to treat this as a war, they should declare war. If they don't, they shouldn't be allowed any powers they aren't allowed in peacetime. It's as simple as that.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:OOOH, did you open a can you'll never close with THAT one. Trust me, you'll never be a cop if that little statement gets out.
Well, since Rob needs everything explained for him ... Rob, any law that is unconstitutional is illegal. Thus, any law that seeks to sneak around due process is illegal. Clear enough for you?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, I was adding this particular incident of research to your larger body of work, Tim.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Rob, any law that is unconstitutional is illegal. Thus, any law that seeks to sneak around due process is illegal. Clear enough for you?
I know that that's what you MEANT, but it's not what you SAID.
What you said was "Any laws that give the government the power to strip people within the US of guarenteed rights is wrong" which could, if taken at face value, basically be interpreted as "I'm opposed to locking bad guys up or restricting their freedoms in any way," because the laws that do that ARE laws which give the government that power.
quote:If the Constitution WASN'T a living document, there would be a) No Supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality v. Unconstitutionality, and b) no way to create or delete ammendments.
a - not quite. The SC is supposed to rule about whether a law is in-line with the Constitution or not, not vice-versa. The SC has no power to CHANGE the Constitution, only to INTERPRET what it says. Sometimes even the SC interprets wrongly, which is why you see it occasionally reversing previous decisions. The Constitution hasn't changed.
b - yes, but the way the Constitution was written shows that creating new amendments was supposed to be Very Damned Hard, and not a matter for Executive, Judicial, OR Legislative whim (Prohibition notwithstanding)
[ June 24, 2002, 12:39: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
But the government only has that power with due process.
Oh, by the way: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
We have not been invaded. We are not facing rebellion. Bush's legal actions are illegal. Civil libertarians everywhere have taken note.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's still an invasion if they come in legally, and proceed to blow stuff up. It's not a large-scale Normandy-ish invasion, but it's still an invasion. Agents of a hostile organization.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)