Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons.
What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
"Ed Zagmoon" wrote in message ps.com... I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there another reason? |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
"Toller" wrote in message ... "Ed Zagmoon" wrote in message ps.com... I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there another reason? Does the word troll mean anything to you? |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
"Lee Michaels" wrote in message . .. "Toller" wrote in message ... "Ed Zagmoon" wrote in message ps.com... I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there another reason? Does the word troll mean anything to you? Sure, but troll are funny or clever. This one is just dumb; it doesn't qualify as a troll. |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
"Ed Zagmoon" wrote in message
ps.com... I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? I recommend buying a wooden stick. Buy a good one. Pay about $100 for it- even though the saleperson says its only worth $10. That way it will magically increase in potency to a higher level. Use the magic words- "Keep the change, sucker!!!!" Sharpen the stake. Use your own ass for that. It will help cure your hemoroid ailments if you have them. Next step, stab yourself in the heart. If you don't succeed - lie on the ground holding the stake- that way, when a Mack Truck goes up it will assist the penetration process. Last step, you will become a vampyre, a member of the undead!! That way the cops will never be able to catch you!!!! Best wishes, Wylie Wilde |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
"Ed Zagmoon" wrote in message ps.com... I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? Use your head. |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
|
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Toller wrote:
"Lee Michaels" wrote in message . .. "Toller" wrote in message ... "Ed Zagmoon" wrote in message ps.com... I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? Why would you post this? Do you think it is funny, or is there another reason? Does the word troll mean anything to you? Sure, but troll are funny or clever. This one is just dumb; it doesn't qualify as a troll. Sez the fish to the fisherman. "I is ready to be filleted, breaded and fried, but I's not been trolled". -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
In article om,
Ed Zagmoon wrote: I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people a gallows and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? Test it on yourself first. -- For every complicated, difficult problem, there is a simple, easy solution that does not work. Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
I would ignore this post. This is one scary individual. If you use
Goggle groups you can do a "view profile" and see the posting history of this person. What is depressing is this twisted person may actually commit a crime at some point yet there is nothing anyone can do until the act is committed. On Oct 29, 7:51 pm, "Ed Zagmoon" wrote: I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no
charges needed. "Jerry" wrote in message oups.com... I would ignore this post. This is one scary individual. If you use Goggle groups you can do a "view profile" and see the posting history of this person. What is depressing is this twisted person may actually commit a crime at some point yet there is nothing anyone can do until the act is committed. On Oct 29, 7:51 pm, "Ed Zagmoon" wrote: I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Ed Zagmoon (in )
said: | I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. | | What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I | avoid being arrested by the cops? Oleander chopsticks. When the police come to arrest you, climb into your DIY wooden trebuchet (cleverly concealed in your basement) and launch yourself through the basement window, over their heads, and away... -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking,alt.recipes.babies
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Ed Zagmoon wrote:
I want to be a serial killer and I want to use wooden weapons. What can I build with wood to kill people and how can I avoid being arrested by the cops? First you need to understand how a serial killer works. ps they're are extremly intelligent...so your best bet is taking a day job in a McDonalds. -- Sir Benjamin Middlethwaite |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
CW wrote:
Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no charges needed. Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta wonder what they're thinking... |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
CW wrote:
Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no charges needed. Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on... |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
|
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Bob Martin wrote: in 1324916 20061101 193059 wrote: CW wrote: Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no charges needed. Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on... Just don't cry when they send you there. I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist BS has no substance. |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
|
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
(in
) said: | wrote: || wrote: ||| CW wrote: |||| Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to |||| Guantanamo, no charges needed. ||| ||| Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do ||| away with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more ||| rights for the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and ||| society. Ya gotta wonder what they're thinking or whose side ||| they're on... || || How about due process and rights for persons falsely accused || of being dirtbags who have openly declared war on us? | | If you are an American citizen you will (and should) get the full | benefit of American due process. If you are an enemy of the state, | especially an illegal combatant; you do not (and should not) receive | the same benefits (and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions). I | hope Americans are smart enough not to try to hobble the whole | system by listening to the do gooders (or are they) who feel that | all terrorist and enemies deserve to be treated as if they are just | another domestic criminal. I presume you're referring to do-gooders like (cut & pasted): New Hampshi Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delawa Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton when they affirmed that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" or are you of the "all men are created equal, except that some are more equal than others" school? | And yes, unfortunately a few good people may get caught up in some | kind false identity or be unfairly accused but you can't castrate | the whole system to prevent this from happening to a few people. | The system is there to try to protect you from our enemies. If you | are not an enemy, you can be pretty confident that the government | isn't out to lock you up. Why would you think they are? Then may you and those you love be those few good people. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
In article .com,
wrote: ...snipped... And yes, unfortunately a few good people may get caught up in some kind false identity or be unfairly accused but you can't castrate the whole system to prevent this from happening to a few people. The system is there to try to protect you from our enemies. If you are not an enemy, you can be pretty confident that the government isn't out to lock you up. Why would you think they are? I guess you think that the WWII internment camps were a great idea, too. -- Often wrong, never in doubt. Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland - |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
On 2 Nov 2006 05:40:22 -0800, wrote:
Bob Martin wrote: in 1324916 20061101 193059 wrote: CW wrote: Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no charges needed. Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on... Just don't cry when they send you there. I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist BS has no substance. Horse****. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek. So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process. These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you **** your panties. Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with "terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. Even though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. If the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists, murderers and thieves are next. Most of the people will so treated will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold the initial cases. So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to vote for very well could. Or a newscaster who has a story that embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea (I hope.) Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it. If you really think that honest, hardworking citizens can't be railroaded by a political trend, you need to do some research into McCarthyism. Here's a link for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy It's not alarmist bull****. It happened. It's a matter of public record, and it was not that long ago. Even with Habeus Corpus intact, thousands of innocent citizens were smeared by unfounded rumors and accusations that often cost them their jobs and families. Most had nothing to do with Communism whatsoever- it was a political tool, just as the term "terrorist" is. McCarthy was able to ruin many lives with nothing more than rumor, innuendo, and agressive "investigation" techniques. Think of how much more damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign soil- never to be seen or heard from again. You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
wrote in message ... In article .com, wrote: ...snipped... And yes, unfortunately a few good people may get caught up in some kind false identity or be unfairly accused but you can't castrate the whole system to prevent this from happening to a few people. The system is there to try to protect you from our enemies. If you are not an enemy, you can be pretty confident that the government isn't out to lock you up. Why would you think they are? I guess you think that the WWII internment camps were a great idea, too. Those internment camps were interning US citizens. |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Prometheus said:
snip You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. On target summation! Greg G. |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... On 2 Nov 2006 05:40:22 -0800, wrote: Bob Martin wrote: in 1324916 20061101 193059 wrote: CW wrote: Just call him a suspected terrorist then he can be sent to Guantanamo, no charges needed. Yeah, and can you believe there are some a'holes that want to do away with Gitmo??!!! I guess they want more due process and more rights for the dirtbags that have openly declared war on us and society. Ya gotta wonder what they're thinking or whose side they're on... Just don't cry when they send you there. I don't need to worry about that. I am an honest hardworking citizen. I don't fraternize with terrorists or enemies of the state. Gitmo is there for those people, not me. Do you really think of America as "The Evil Empire" just looking for excuses to lock up honest people who disagree with "the regime"? If that were true (and it's not), a lot of very public, very outspoken anti-establishment activists would be disappearing unexplainably. If they are not locking them up, why would the lock me up (along with every other average citizen)? Your alarmist BS has no substance. Horse****. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek. So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process. These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you **** your panties. Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with "terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens? Even though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. So what? If the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists, murderers and thieves are next. While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant. Most of the people will so treated will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold the initial cases. So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to vote for very well could. Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that. Or a newscaster who has a story that embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea (I hope.) So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that. Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it. Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when you own is wide of the mark. McCarthy stuff snipped Think of how much more damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign soil- never to be seen or heard from again. So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after? You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. If you're a noncitizen. Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to "aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens. Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the Congress had that same restriction. The full text of the legislation may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109vNo5G3:: . Note specifically "Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Also note "Sec. 948a. Definitions In this chapter: (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about something that somebody actually did or was trying to do. |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Horse****. I thought your first post was toungue-in-cheek. So what happens if a different political party gains power and decides that your ilk are dangerous to society? There are very good reasons why we have due process and Habeus Corpus. Sometimes the guys who have to enforce the law make mistakes, and the court system is there to (at least try) to sort those out according to a reasoned process. These are basic human rights that date back to the 13th century, and are not to be casually trifled with because the idea that some bad men halfway around the world might come on camelback to get you makes you **** your panties. Law is an incremental process, they start small, with test cases to establish a precedent. Once the precident is set, it becomes very difficult to overturn- it's not impossible to disregard precedent, but it is generally not done in our legal system. So they start with "terrorists," (I use the word in quotes because without charges or systematic review, any one of those people could be a grocer from Iran who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time- the point is, we can't know, because the evidence is hidden) and once that is established, it can be applied in incremental steps to broaden it's effective range of applications. Next might be home-grown militia groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. Even though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. If the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists, murderers and thieves are next. Most of the people will so treated will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold the initial cases. So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to vote for very well could. Or a newscaster who has a story that embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea (I hope.) Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it. If you really think that honest, hardworking citizens can't be railroaded by a political trend, you need to do some research into McCarthyism. Here's a link for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy It's not alarmist bull****. It happened. It's a matter of public record, and it was not that long ago. Even with Habeus Corpus intact, thousands of innocent citizens were smeared by unfounded rumors and accusations that often cost them their jobs and families. Most had nothing to do with Communism whatsoever- it was a political tool, just as the term "terrorist" is. McCarthy was able to ruin many lives with nothing more than rumor, innuendo, and agressive "investigation" techniques. Think of how much more damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign soil- never to be seen or heard from again. You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. You sound like a wannabe ACLU scheister. Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus Corpus for American citizens. But why let the facts get in the way of your fiery bombast? I want my country to have the tools it needs to protect itself against enemies of the state and not be hobbled by activists who will do anything they can to castrate and beat America down using its own democracy against itself. Because their activities and endeavors often serve enemies of the state better than it serves American society at large, I have to wonder where the loyalties of these activists lie; are they good citizens trying to protect democracy (at any cost to the general public) or do they have an agenda that may not be so true blue? |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
|
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message .. . So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens? None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that with domestic terrorists, too. Remember Oklahoma City? ( I need to clarify this- I do not mean that McVeigh's civil rights were breached, I am pointing out an example of domestic terrorism ) If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused. Even though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. So what? If the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists, murderers and thieves are next. While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant. We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags. Most of the people will so treated will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold the initial cases. So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to vote for very well could. Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that. You just don't get it, do you? Or a newscaster who has a story that embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea (I hope.) So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that. Again, you missed the point. And you *should* have a problem with a government arresting a reporter and torturing them without evidence- regardless of their nationality. You don't support the people who behead American reporters in the Middle East, do you? Is that the behavior we are to emulate and adopt? Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it. Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when you own is wide of the mark. Well, you've convinced me. I guess I'll just have to assume from here on out that whomever is the most popular during any given election cycle is an honest and upright citizen who has the natural ability and good sense to use any amount of unlimited power properly. Whew, that's a relief. McCarthy stuff snipped Think of how much more damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign soil- never to be seen or heard from again. So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after? There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens- wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again? You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. If you're a noncitizen. You're an ass. Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to "aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens. Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the Congress had that same restriction. The full text of the legislation may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109vNo5G3:: . Note specifically "Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Also note "Sec. 948a. Definitions In this chapter: (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about something that somebody actually did or was trying to do. Somebody did actually do it- you just sent the link describing it. And they will try to expand it, as sure as the sun rises in the East. |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Prometheus for president! Even more seriously, though, well spoken.
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic". Tom Prometheus wrote: On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message .. . So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens? None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that with domestic terrorists, too. Remember Oklahoma City? ( I need to clarify this- I do not mean that McVeigh's civil rights were breached, I am pointing out an example of domestic terrorism ) If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused. Even though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. So what? If the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists, murderers and thieves are next. While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant. We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags. Most of the people will so treated will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold the initial cases. So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to vote for very well could. Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that. You just don't get it, do you? Or a newscaster who has a story that embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea (I hope.) So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that. Again, you missed the point. And you *should* have a problem with a government arresting a reporter and torturing them without evidence- regardless of their nationality. You don't support the people who behead American reporters in the Middle East, do you? Is that the behavior we are to emulate and adopt? Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it. Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when you own is wide of the mark. Well, you've convinced me. I guess I'll just have to assume from here on out that whomever is the most popular during any given election cycle is an honest and upright citizen who has the natural ability and good sense to use any amount of unlimited power properly. Whew, that's a relief. McCarthy stuff snipped Think of how much more damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign soil- never to be seen or heard from again. So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after? There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens- wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again? You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. If you're a noncitizen. You're an ass. Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to "aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens. Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the Congress had that same restriction. The full text of the legislation may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109vNo5G3:: . Note specifically "Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Also note "Sec. 948a. Definitions In this chapter: (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about something that somebody actually did or was trying to do. Somebody did actually do it- you just sent the link describing it. And they will try to expand it, as sure as the sun rises in the East. |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
"Prometheus" wrote in message ... On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message . .. So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens? None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that with domestic terrorists, too. What statute allows that? Remember Oklahoma City? ( I need to clarify this- I do not mean that McVeigh's civil rights were breached, I am pointing out an example of domestic terrorism ) So? If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused. So who have "they" "done it to" and what specific legislation has you so upset? Even though they're citizens, they could easily be labeled terrorists. So what? If the courts uphold the suspension of Habeus Corpus for even one US citizen, the precedent is firmly established, and can be broadened through a series of small steps- maybe child molestors, arsonists, murderers and thieves are next. While this may be true, who has proposed to suspend Habeus Corpus "for even one US citizen"? The last person to try i t IIRC was named Grant. We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags. So you're saying that laws that specifically do not affect US citizens are the camel's nose? Most of the people will so treated will likely be guilty- if there's much doubt, the courts won't uphold the initial cases. So a few years from now, when the precedent is firmly established, it can become a tool of politics. Chances are, you'll never end up in a camp- but a challenger in a political race whom you may have wished to vote for very well could. Well, now, personally I don't much hold with noncitizens holding elected office in the US so I don't really have a problem with that. You just don't get it, do you? Yes, I do. You're the one who isn't "getting it" because either you are misinformed about the legislation you fear or you believe that a nation is obligated to make no distinction between its own citizens and those of other nations. Or a newscaster who has a story that embarrases the administration. Or a Union leader. You get the idea (I hope.) So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that. Again, you missed the point. And you *should* have a problem with a government arresting a reporter and torturing them without evidence- regardless of their nationality. You don't support the people who behead American reporters in the Middle East, do you? Is that the behavior we are to emulate and adopt? Torturing? Who is being tortured? Nobody is for the goddamn terrorists. That's a cheap and dispicable con game on the order of the old "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Just because someone disagrees with your 5th grade understanding of the world and how it works, that doesn't mean they're out to get you and yours. In this case, they're looking out for your best interests, even though it seems fairly apparent that you deserve anything you get- after all, you're *asking* for it. Uh, you shouldn't go on about "fifth grade understanding of the world" when you own is wide of the mark. Well, you've convinced me. I guess I'll just have to assume from here on out that whomever is the most popular during any given election cycle is an honest and upright citizen who has the natural ability and good sense to use any amount of unlimited power properly. Whew, that's a relief. I'm sorry, but now I have no idea what you are on about. McCarthy stuff snipped Think of how much more damaging his reckless slander campaign might have been had he been able to simply whisk the people he suspected away to a camp on foreign soil- never to be seen or heard from again. So how many noncitizens _did_ McCarthy go after? There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens- wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again? Well, now, it happened to US citizens without whatever legislation has you so upset so what difference does that legislation make? You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. If you're a noncitizen. You're an ass. No, I'm a person who wishes that twits like you would post the docket number for whatever legislation you're on about so the rest of us can at least figure out what you're raving about,. Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to "aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens. Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the Congress had that same restriction. The full text of the legislation may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109vNo5G3:: . Note specifically "Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Also note "Sec. 948a. Definitions In this chapter: (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about something that somebody actually did or was trying to do. Somebody did actually do it- you just sent the link describing it. And they will try to expand it, as sure as the sun rises in the East. "Did it?" Did _what_, enacted legislation allowing the government to try noncitizen terrorists by military tribunal, with review by the civilian courts? Yeah, they did it. So what? If you're thinking that they'll remove the limitation to aliens that is there specifically because the Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot apply such rules to citizens. "They" can't "expand it" unless they replace the Supreme Court. I really wish people like you who go around being terrified of their own shadows would get lives. |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:52:00 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:34:25 -0500, "J. Clarke" wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message ... So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens? None. That's the problem. If it is okay to lock up foreign terrorists without evidence or trial, then it must be okay to do that with domestic terrorists, too. What statute allows that? Again, you are missing the point. But there are several places in S.3886 where definitions do not include the designation "alien" For instance: (7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense-- `(A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization, including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces, engaged in hostilities against the United States or its cobelligerents in violation of the law of war; `(B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or `(C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged. A judge who was willing to expand this could take this text as a writ that allows the President or Secretary of Defense to declare any person who is "affliliated" with a terrorist or suspected terrorist organization as an unlawful enemy combatant. It has created a loaded term that convicts without proof- and the day will come when an attempt is made to apply that term to a citizen. And while it is declared he Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions `Alien unlawful enemy combatants, as defined in section 948a of this title, shall be subject to trial by military commissions as set forth in this chapter. that alien combatants are subject to trial by military commission, it does not clearly state that citizens are not. And these are the real jewels: `(c) Hearsay Evidence- Hearsay evidence is admissible, unless the military judge finds that the circumstances render it unreliable or lacking in probative value, provided that the proponent of the evidence makes the evidence known to the adverse party in advance of trial or hearing. (3) Before classified evidence may be withheld from the accused under this subsection, the executive or military department or governmental agency which has control over the matter shall ensure and shall certify in writing to the military judge that the disclosure of such evidence to the accused could reasonably be expected to prejudice the national security and that such evidence has been declassified to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the requirements of national security. (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any defense counsel who receives classified information admitted pursuant to paragraph (4) shall not be obligated to, and may not, disclose that evidence to the accused. `(b) Treatment of Certain Items- The military judge in a military commission under this chapter may, upon a sufficient showing, authorize trial counsel in making documents available to the defense through discovery conducted pursuant to such rules as the Secretary shall prescribe-- `(1) to delete specified items of classified information from such documents; `(2) to substitute an unclassified summary of the information for such classified documents; or `(3) to substitute an unclassified statement admitting relevant facts that classified information would tend to prove. I don't know how you read this, but to my eyes it is an absolute violation of both due process and Habeas Corpus. A person can be tried for crimes without being informed of the evidence against them. Any evidence can be deemed harmful to National Security, and a trial can be conducted without the possibility of the accused to confront his accusors or to review and rebuke the evidence used to convict him. If you take this bill alone, it establishes the right of the President or Secretary of State or their advocates to strip the rights of an individual of their natural right to review the accusations and evidence against them by declaring them an unlawful enemy combatant, and hiding or altering the evidence that may or may not back those claims. For now, this only applies to aliens. But if another terrorist attack occurs in the future (and that is almost certain) which is found to have been either entirely or partially planned and carried out by citizens of the US, that will be the real test of the legislation. The provisions in the bill allowing the classification of evidence whose revelation could be construed as harmful to US national security could be taken as a precedent in the context of (for instance) domestic wiretapping. In the period of time immediately following such an attack, Congress will be under tremendous pressure to prevent future outrages through legislation. The natural course for them would be to suspend Habeas Corpus rights and expand the power of federal agencies to monitor private communications without warrants even further than they already have. All it would take is one prosecutor in one government agency to declare that they have indisputable evidence against an accused domestic terrorist that they suspect was acting in collusion with others, but the evidence and techniques used to obtain it needed to remained classified in the interest of catching the others involved with the plot, for Habeas Corpus to effectively be suspended for US citizens. After that, Anyone can be arrested, tried and convicted on the basis of secret evidence. They will not have to have done anything- the declaration that evidence was collected via classified means that a person was planning a terrorist attack and must remain secret so that the source of the claimed evidence will remain a viable venue for tracking others will be enough to put any person away without a declared reason. If there is argument about the total lack of substance in a particular case, the bill above allows the prosecutor "to substitute an unclassified statement admitting relevant facts that classified information would tend to prove." Or in other words- it could be used to grant the accusing agency the right to usurp the jury's task of interpreting the presented evidence and supply a set of conclusions based on secret information in lieu of facts. If they do it to even one person, they can do it to anyone. If all an authority needs is an accusation unsuppoted by evidence to lock someone up and torture them, that is a cudgel too powerful and too dangerous to rest in the hands of any man. It will be misused. So who have "they" "done it to" and what specific legislation has you so upset? They, being the Congress under the direct leadership of the current President, have granted the President and the Secretary of State the power to suspend the right of Habeas Corpus for persons who are accused of crimes, by what effectively amounts to a declaration that the revelation of the evidence against those persons is detrimental to national security, without the checks and balances built into our system of government by the founding fathers. The specific legislation is the "Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006" Placing that kind of power in the hands of an unfettered few men is a terribly dangerous thing to do- which is why the Constitution prohibits it. Judging from the continuing reactions to the Sept. 11th attacks, and the expected reaction to any future attacks from any quarter -foreign or domestic-, it's not only possible, but extremely likely that this power will eventually be expanded so it may be used against citizens who are suspected of either being active, or in collusion with, terrorists. That is where the reminder of Sen. McCarthy comes in. There was a man whose personality allowed him to start a massive witch hunt using the word "Communism". With the amount of fear and anger generated by terrorism, another witch hunt using the term "Terrorist" is not only possible, but in the event of another incident, likely. We get led with baby steps to the stockyards. If the government declared that all this was going to happen in one fell swoop, people would revolt. But if they do it slowly enough, we all get used to it a little at a time. They don't have to have malicious intentions when doing it- each step might really *seem* like the right thing to do. A lot of evil is hidden behind waving flags. So you're saying that laws that specifically do not affect US citizens are the camel's nose? If I am interpreting "the camel's nose" correctly by assuming that you meant that they are the groundwork for future erosion of our domestic rights, then yes, I am saying that. Yes, I do. You're the one who isn't "getting it" because either you are misinformed about the legislation you fear or you believe that a nation is obligated to make no distinction between its own citizens and those of other nations. As you wish. Torturing? Who is being tortured? You don't watch the news? There were probably a few. But I'd say the problem was that an elected official was conducting a witch hunt against citizens- wouldn't you? Do you think it could never happen again? Well, now, it happened to US citizens without whatever legislation has you so upset so what difference does that legislation make? The difference is that instead of slander that hurts an innocent person's reputation but leaves them free, the current administration has opened the door to imprisoning us and stripping our rights by decree. "Did it?" Did _what_, enacted legislation allowing the government to try noncitizen terrorists by military tribunal, with review by the civilian courts? Yeah, they did it. So what? See Above. If you're thinking that they'll remove the limitation to aliens that is there specifically because the Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot apply such rules to citizens. "They" can't "expand it" unless they replace the Supreme Court. Wrong. Article 1 of the US constitution states that "the priviledge of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The mechanism by which the right may be suspended is already given to the US congress in the Constitution itself- but it must not be invoked in this instance. By declaring a "war" on a nebulous and ill-defined concept like "terrorism", the President has granted the Congress the power and justification to indefinately suspend the writ on the basis of a single attack on domestic soil. We can not and will not ever "win" a war against a concept or behavior. If we were just at war with Iraq or Afganistan, there would eventually be an end to it- one way or the other. By passing the Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006, they have defined an alternate system of law that can be used as an alternative venue of prosecution for any person who stands accused of terrorism without allowing that person to challenge the evidence that is brought against them. It sounds just fair enough and good enough that most people will swallow it. So instead of being protected by the laws governing evidence and due process, we are now effectively at the mercy of the good intentions of our elected officials- many of whom have already shown us time and time again that they are not to be trusted. And then there are the murmurings that come flowing out of the spin machine that is the GOP. Evidently, if you're not one of their boys, you're one of the terrorists. If you care about your civil rights, you must have a shady hidden agenda that involves supporting terrorism. There have been propiganda machines like that before in history, and they've never ended in peace and happiness for all. I don't care for the Democrats either- but on balance, I don't see them pulling all the old hateful and murderous tricks in the despot's handbook out of their hats. I really wish people like you who go around being terrified of their own shadows would get lives. And what about you, who are so afraid of the boogeyman Arabs that you are willing to give your rights away at the first glimmer of trouble or danger? I'm not afraid of my shadow, and I'm not afraid of Terrorists. You know what I'm afraid of? Guys like you- who would sell your soul for a moment of fuzzy false security. |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Prometheus wrote: On 3 Nov 2006 09:56:20 -0800, wrote: You sound like a wannabe ACLU scheister. Ahh, the pervasive slight-of-hand of the GOP spinners. How exactly is it that standing up for freedom and civil liberties has become an insult? Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus Corpus for American citizens. But why let the facts get in the way of your fiery bombast? Nobody is talking about suspending Habeus Corpus for American citizens- yet. But there is a clear and logical path that will take us right there, and the administration is on it. They declare an open ended war on an ill-defined descriptive term, apply that term first to non-citizens and use it to suspend their human rights. Then sometime in the future when a nutjob decides to blow up the county courthouse, it's very easy and tempting for legislators to use the same arguments that worked so well against the foreigners to suspend the rights of known associates of the person or persons responsible for domestic terrorist activities. That's the door, and if the current legislation continues to be expanded, it will happen. Once that door is opened, it's a downhill slide. It's far easier to declare a person a terrorist and lock them away without specific charges or evidence than it is to actually establish facts. I want my country to have the tools it needs to protect itself against enemies of the state and not be hobbled by activists who will do anything they can to castrate and beat America down using its own democracy against itself. If you think most politicians are trying to actually protect you, you're wrong. They're trying to make you feel like they're doing something to protect you so you will vote for them again. Rather than doing the work of determining actual guilt or innocence, they're tossing people into detainment camps so that they can say they caught the bad guys. Without any facts or charges, we just have to take their word for it. Our government needs to be accountable to us. That's the whole deal- the whole point. Every single thing America is and represents is built on that concept. We lose that, we're no longer the America you love. Because their activities and endeavors often serve enemies of the state better than it serves American society at large, I have to wonder where the loyalties of these activists lie; are they good citizens trying to protect democracy (at any cost to the general public) or do they have an agenda that may not be so true blue? Wonder away, but don't go convincing yourself that standing up for the Constitution and the principles it represents is somehow unpatriotic. I've seen the argument about our "social contract" only applying to US citizens, but that is completely contrary to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and the spirit of our country. Crossing a border does not grant anyone the right to don jackboots and trample anyone that gets in their way. As a point of fact, that was the very behavior we were opposing when we went to Iraq the first time. If a British subject were accused of a crime, would you advocate taking that person and locking them away without trial or evidence because they are not a US citizen? How about a Dutch person, or an Austrailian? Are the French fair game? Can we go into Germany and torture their citizens? You guys with your Mom and apple pie arguments about the US always having clean underwear are getting us into very dangerous waters. We as a society do not have the right to pick and choose which people have rights and which do not. People have rights, period- that's the whole point of our social contract. It doesn't apply only between Maine and Alaska- it applies to the human race. You want your rights, and so does everyone else. Believe it or not, there are innocent people all over the place. They work hard and try to improve their lives, too. Some of them are criminals- but not most of them. They have families and jobs, and they do what they have to do to get by- just like you. Being lucky enough to be born in the *right* geographic area doesn't make you a good person, and being born in the *wrong* one doesn't make you a bad person deserving only of imprisonment and torture. Speaking a different language, dressing differently, or having a different skin tone does not make a person inferior to you. This is not that complicated. And you are not in as much danger as the TV tells you you are. You act as if terrorists are shelling your kids' school every second Tuesday, and suicide bombers blowing themselves up in front of the grocery store is an everyday occurance in Columbus, OH. Some bad people flew planes into three buildings on purpose- five years ago. It was a horrible thing- but it was less destructive than a hurricane. Fewer people die in terrorist attacks than in car crashes. There is still a better chance that I will be mauled by a bear than killed by a terrorist. So get your panties out of a bunch, take off the combat boots, and worry about your freedom- you're still as safe as you ever were. The real danger is handing our country over to despots because we got spooked. Unfortunately, I do not have nearly as much time to spend on this as you do. You seem to be ardent about getting your opinion across. That's fine. I actually understand your opinion and, although I don't agree, see merits in the some of the points you are making. Both of our opinions require an intellectual compromise. I believe yours requires that we be willing to compromise national security and the protection of the citizenry at large to make sure that everyone, even the worst of the worst, is given full protection to the letter of the law and even going as far as creating new laws or changing existing ones to extend those protections to people who aren't covered now, even if it means impairing the ability of the government to protect against threats. My opinion is that the government needs to have the power to protect us against threats. I don't believe now is a good time in history to apply more restraints on the government. I believe that this is important enough that we need to risk trusting our government to do the right thing. I don't fear that our current government really wants to extend and abuse its powers so it can become the fascist dictatorship that you seem to fear. And that's my compromise; that we have to trust the government to do the right thing. You seem to have a mindset that the government is hell bent to strip our rights away. (If you reply to this, maybe you can explain what you believe the government's motive for this would be). I believe there are a lot of people out there, that subscribe to many of the same thoughts you do, that are willing to take active steps in undermining the administration with no thought of any of the many other consequences. They have become very skilled at battering and torturing the system by implosion - destruction from within using the country's own democracy as a weapon against itself. And believe me; the enemies of the state are very happy to take full advantage of the numerous benefits that come their way from this. I believe if you going to fear a hostile regime coming to power, you should REALLY fear the one that could come to power if America fails to protect itself. |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
tom wrote: Prometheus for president! Even more seriously, though, well spoken. "Preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic". Tom sycophant (n) sycophant syc·o·phant [sÃ*kÉ™fÉ™nt, sÃ*kÉ™ fÃ*nt, sï?‹kÉ™fÉ™nt, sï?‹kÉ™fÃ*nt] n toady, flatterer, bootlicker, brownnoser, minion, yes man |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
|
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
J. Clarke wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message ... ... Next might be home-grown militia groups- I don't care for them, and chances are you don't either. So what home-grown militia groups are composed entirely of aliens? Absent habeas corpus, how would one prove citizenship? .... So what's a guy operating on a green card doing running a union? If they want to arrest alien reporters I don't have any problem with that. And I have no problem with arresting reporters who are citizens, so long as the arresting agent can demonstrate probable cause. ... You must, I repeat, must, respect and defend the right of Habeus Corpus in EVERY SINGLE instance. If you don't, one day your head could be the one on the chopping block- and you will have no say in the matter, having given your right to defend yourself away long before. You might see the value of the right to see and challenge the evidence against you then- but of course, that knowledge will have come too late. If you're a noncitizen. There are two habeas corpi. One, is created by Federal Statute and can be removed or modified by Federal Statute. The other, sometimes called the Great Writ, is embodied in the Constitution itself and my only be set aside by the Congress, and then only in cases of invasion or rebellion, neither of which is currently applicable. The Great Write, which dates back to the Magna Carta, has always been available to aliens on US soil. Have you actually _READ_ the "Military Commissions Act" and not just what some netloon has said about it? It applies specifically and _only_ to "aliens" who are defined in the act as persons who are not US citizens. Futher, every version of it that I could find that was considered by the Congress had that same restriction. The full text of the legislation may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109vNo5G3:: . Note specifically "Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter." Also note "Sec. 948a. Definitions In this chapter: (3) ALIEN- The term 'alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States." If you're going to whinge at least have the courtesy to whinge about something that somebody actually did or was trying to do. Again, absent habeas corpus, how would a citizen accused of being an alien, proof he was not? -- FF |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
Prometheus (in ) said:
| The problem is a gnat dressed up in giants' clothing to give | us all something to hate and fear. Hate is a drain on our strength that we can ill-afford. Fear is nothing more than a non-intellectual notification of danger - to be recognized and dealt with in the most rational and effective way possible. | They can hurt us from time to | time, but they cannot break and enslave our country- we have to do | that ourselves. *That* is how the terrorists win. Well said. We've been hurt in the past and it's inevitable that we'll be hurt again. Someone once said: "That which doesn't kill us outright makes us stronger." I think that'll remain true as long as there are enough who say: "Not on *my* watch!" - and I don't think we have any shortage of such people. -- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto |
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
I believe if you going to fear a hostile regime coming to power, you should REALLY fear the one that could come to power if America fails to protect itself. But I don't, because it won't happen. Your point about Israel is compelling however; I am not so sure that we are as safe as you think. Regarding the activists that are working towards things that ultimately result in the weakening of our nation: Are you sure that many of them are not actually enemies of the state? Are you sure you really want to hitch up behind people who claim altruistic and patriotic values but whose goals ultimately end up weakening our nation? I'm all for protecting the constitution but a lot of them are using it as a weapon against the establishment and our society in general. The more these people break down our system, the less secure we become. |
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
|
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
|
#40
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
How to murder people with wood?
In article .com, "tom" wrote:
I remembered that wording "from all enemies, foreign and domestic" from the oath of enlistment. Tom FWIW, civilian employees swear the same oath. At least in the DOD. I'm not sure about other branches of the Federal Civil Service. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
### micro-FAQ on wood # 66 | Woodworking | |||
### micro-FAQ on wood # 65 | Woodworking | |||
### micro-FAQ on wood # 64 | Woodworking | |||
### micro-FAQ on wood # 56 | Woodworking | |||
### micro-FAQ on wood # 55 | Woodworking |