|
Post by tjaman on Dec 19, 2005 22:53:16 GMT -5
* lighter * for Nick's contribution. Nicely stated.
And well posited, tickie.
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on Dec 20, 2005 12:59:39 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that we should do away with the law because it takes too much time?
So in what instances should we ignore due process? What about a suspected murderer. I mean if we take the time to adhere to the constitution he may get out on bail and kill again. Do you propose we get rid of the due process clause? Nope I did not want to get rid of due process. This is something entirely different. We have killers running around. Would yall rather get onto them now or wait 2 years when they already have a plan to blow up something else then actually get the case up and running.
If we have to spy for safety then it need be. I'd rather have that then someone go around killing folks. They tap into the potential terrorist lines to keep tabs on them. We got to catch the bad guys someone. Nobody else has any bright ideas from what I saw on tv or anywhere else. Europe doesn't have any but "leave now and let them kill themselves".
We are as it would be called the police. Beforehand we were isolationists that never got involved in anything. Just like the Laisaz Fairre Republican presidents were in the early century. They had the do nothing it will fix itself policy that bombed big time.
Sometimes extreme measures are needed to protect our country. I am glad President Bush is at least trying to do something. Effort is better than no effort at all.
|
|
|
Post by tickie on Dec 20, 2005 16:56:27 GMT -5
As someone who holds a lot of respect for our constitution I find the idea that due process should only be applicable in certain cases completely preposterous.
Why is due process any different for terrorism and those suspected of such?
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That is our constitution, the supreme law of our land. Do you think the President should be able to follow this and not follow this whenever he pleases?
|
|
|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on Dec 20, 2005 21:21:23 GMT -5
Just to butt in with more unwanted opinion ...
You do realize that even if the States withdrew every troops it has stationed across the globe, it still can't be said they're "isolationists". The States are so far away from isolationists that it's like saying Joss won't kill someone in his next movie.
|
|
|
Post by Charisma69 on Dec 20, 2005 22:50:39 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that we should do away with the law because it takes too much time?
So in what instances should we ignore due process? What about a suspected murderer. I mean if we take the time to adhere to the constitution he may get out on bail and kill again. Do you propose we get rid of the due process clause? Nope I did not want to get rid of due process. This is something entirely different. We have killers running around. Would yall rather get onto them now or wait 2 years when they already have a plan to blow up something else then actually get the case up and running.
If we have to spy for safety then it need be. I'd rather have that then someone go around killing folks. They tap into the potential terrorist lines to keep tabs on them. We got to catch the bad guys someone. Nobody else has any bright ideas from what I saw on tv or anywhere else. Europe doesn't have any but "leave now and let them kill themselves".
We are as it would be called the police. Beforehand we were isolationists that never got involved in anything. Just like the Laisaz Fairre Republican presidents were in the early century. They had the do nothing it will fix itself policy that bombed big time.
Sometimes extreme measures are needed to protect our country. I am glad President Bush is at least trying to do something. Effort is better than no effort at all.
As a Mother who has a son that is a victim of the new Anti-Terrorism laws your posts are really upsetting to me.
My son, and some of his friends, wrote "Tomorrow Is The Day" as a joke, it wasn't meant to mean anything bad but the school took it that way.
They arrested him and put him in Juvenile without Due Process. He was imprisoned for several weeks without a trial. That's completely against the constitution of the United States but it happened.
My son has never harmed anyone, nor has he given any indication that he would. He doesn't get in fights at school. He doesn't go around threatening anyone.
He doesn't have weapons or bomb making materials nor has he looked that info up on the Internet but he was still arrested and locked up.
I had to talk to him through a glass window like he was a hardened criminal. This happened in our country. The country that's supposed to be free.
He's a 14-year-old child that made a bad a bad joke. He can't go back to school until November of next year. He now has to go to Alternative school. I have to give him a ride there and pick him up since he's supposed to be too "dangerous" to ride the bus with the rest of the kids.
This means that unless I can find a job where I can work here in town and only work 8 - 3 so I can drop him off and pick him up then I won't be able to take a job using my degree.
I have to put my life on hold thanks to this law that Republicans put on the books.
My son is traumatized thanks to this law that Republicans put on the books.
So forgive me if I don't want to listen to you spout nonsense about stuff you know nothing about.
Sorry for being so upset, but do you think it's fair that my son was put through all this? This law is completely unconstitutional. The school broke so many laws during this but it doesn't seem to matter.
This law has so much potential for abuse and you think it's a good thing? To torment innocent children?
Edited to hopefully make it a little less with the bitchy but still make my point. Hopefully it worked.
|
|
|
Post by quantumcat on Dec 21, 2005 1:26:19 GMT -5
I'm still hoping Enzo can have things revised with time.
I guess they figure this is better than the homeschooling.
Cordy,can anyone besides you take him or can he use before/after school programs?
(You can't be the only one who's hamstrung by the 8-3 bit.)
What about when he/you are incapacitated or school isn't in session?
Yes,these are perilous times.
Yes,there are disturbed/dangerous people out there and some have very nice friends and family who think they are saints.
Yes,the bad guys aren't above using kids as tools to do their damage.
Yes,we can't afford to ignore potential dangers just because they seem innocuous on the surface.
But that means that if we impose extreme measures,we have to be _infinitely_ more scrupulous about handling them efficiently,equitably and rationally.
We can't have loose cannons and airheads implementing draconian systems with the same lack of wisdom they use to conduct normal existence.
That's not counting the pure evil types who will tend to be a lot more familar with potentially damaging set-ups than we would be and could utilize them either for their own agenda or as a means of using our own weapons against us.
That's one of the virtues of fighting your enemy with truth,justice,reason and compassion.
It doesn't hurt if the other side uses them,too ,if they use more of them than you do or if folks are exposed to them during peacetime.
If y'all don't trust the politicos (left,right or other),the pundits,the religious or social activist types,try reading some fiction in law-and-order or intelligence genres.
These are not 'dark future' types who want to show dystopias run by this or that ideology.
They are authors who tend to live and breathe with the dangers they describe.
They tell of rogue agents who use their power without accountability.
They tell of organized crime cells who use the intelligence-gathering tools to avoid disruption of their own efforts (including finding and neutralizing key evidence and witnesses).
Remember the scary stuff Jack Chick,etc. would write?
While we shouldn't jettison everything just because Satan might use it for his ends,you have to ask how much easier it would be to forge a world that makes the scenarios in Hal Lindsey's works,'I am the Cheese" "Anna to the infinite power",the "X-files",Stephen Cannell,etc. seem tame if we start eroding our freedom and morality now ourselves lest we get overwhelmed by an enemy who might do it for us.
We can't be such knee-jerk adherants to anything that we sacrifice our nobility or the safety of those around us.
Common sense and courage take more work than easy,glitzy "solutions" but can we afford the alternatives?
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on Dec 21, 2005 1:33:00 GMT -5
As someone who holds a lot of respect for our constitution I find the idea that due process should only be applicable in certain cases completely preposterous.
Why is due process any different for terrorism and those suspected of such?
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
That is our constitution, the supreme law of our land. Do you think the President should be able to follow this and not follow this whenever he pleases? Would you prefer them to have a long frame to prepare attack strategies? In most cases yes let due process go through. Went our security is in jeopardy we do not have time for messing around. We have to get the job done and however it takes to do it it must be done.
They are terrorists. They terror people. We either terror them or they terror us. I would prefer we terror them to keep them off our backs.
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on Dec 21, 2005 1:33:59 GMT -5
Just to butt in with more unwanted opinion ...
You do realize that even if the States withdrew every troops it has stationed across the globe, it still can't be said they're "isolationists". The States are so far away from isolationists that it's like saying Joss won't kill someone in his next movie. Why is it unwanted?
And we are not isolationists anymore. We use to be. That was the policy of not having anything to do with other countries affairs.
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on Dec 21, 2005 1:39:56 GMT -5
Nope I did not want to get rid of due process. This is something entirely different. We have killers running around. Would yall rather get onto them now or wait 2 years when they already have a plan to blow up something else then actually get the case up and running.
If we have to spy for safety then it need be. I'd rather have that then someone go around killing folks. They tap into the potential terrorist lines to keep tabs on them. We got to catch the bad guys someone. Nobody else has any bright ideas from what I saw on tv or anywhere else. Europe doesn't have any but "leave now and let them kill themselves".
We are as it would be called the police. Beforehand we were isolationists that never got involved in anything. Just like the Laisaz Fairre Republican presidents were in the early century. They had the do nothing it will fix itself policy that bombed big time.
Sometimes extreme measures are needed to protect our country. I am glad President Bush is at least trying to do something. Effort is better than no effort at all.
As a Mother who has a son that is a victim of the new Anti-Terrorism laws your posts are really upsetting to me.
My son, and some of his friends, wrote "Tomorrow Is The Day" as a joke, it wasn't meant to mean anything bad but the school took it that way.
They arrested him and put him in Juvenile without Due Process. He was imprisoned for several weeks without a trial. That's completely against the constitution of the United States but it happened.
My son has never harmed anyone, nor has he given any indication that he would. He doesn't get in fights at school. He doesn't go around threatening anyone.
He doesn't have weapons or bomb making materials nor has he looked that info up on the Internet but he was still arrested and locked up.
I had to talk to him through a glass window like he was a hardened criminal. This happened in our country. The country that's supposed to be free.
He's a 14-year-old child that made a bad a bad joke. He can't go back to school until November of next year. He now has to go to Alternative school. I have to give him a ride there and pick him up since he's supposed to be too "dangerous" to ride the bus with the rest of the kids.
This means that unless I can find a job where I can work here in town and only work 8 - 3 so I can drop him off and pick him up then I won't be able to take a job using my degree.
I have to put my life on hold thanks to this law that Republicans put on the books.
My son is traumatized thanks to this law that Republicans put on the books.
So forgive me if I don't want to listen to you spout nonsense about stuff you know nothing about.
Sorry for being so upset, but do you think it's fair that my son was put through all this? This law is completely unconstitutional. The school broke so many laws during this but it doesn't seem to matter.
This law has so much potential for abuse and you think it's a good thing? To torment innocent children?
Edited to hopefully make it a little less with the bitchy but still make my point. Hopefully it worked. First off I am sorry and I do not know what the new laws are.
Number 2 I have not been here since like forever or anywhere so I have no idea what is going on.
My spouting knows enough. If a law is unsound. Then best be if it denying a specific part of the constitution then it is best to show them.
The terrorism factors of the law for TERRORISTS work. I do NOT KNOW how it applies in THIS case.
And No I do not thik your son should be locked up.
And that is as nicely as I can put that.
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on Dec 21, 2005 1:43:03 GMT -5
I'm still hoping Enzo can have things revised with time. I guess they figure this is better than the homeschooling. Cordy,can anyone besides you take him or can he use before/after school programs? (You can't be the only one who's hamstrung by the 8-3 bit.) What about when he/you are incapacitated or school isn't in session? Yes,these are perilous times. Yes,there are disturbed/dangerous people out there and some have very nice friends and family who think they are saints. Yes,the bad guys aren't above using kids as tools to do their damage. Yes,we can't afford to ignore potential dangers just because they seem innocuous on the surface. But that means that if we impose extreme measures,we have to be _infinitely_ more scrupulous about handling them efficiently,equitably and rationally. We can't have loose cannons and airheads implementing draconian systems with the same lack of wisdom they use to conduct normal existence. That's not counting the pure evil types who will tend to be a lot more familar with potentially damaging set-ups than we would be and could utilize them either for their own agenda or as a means of using our own weapons against us. That's one of the virtues of fighting your enemy with truth,justice,reason and compassion. It doesn't hurt if the other side uses them,too ,if they use more of them than you do or if folks are exposed to them during peacetime. If y'all don't trust the politicos (left,right or other),the pundits,the religious or social activist types,try reading some fiction in law-and-order or intelligence genres. These are not 'dark future' types who want to show dystopias run by this or that ideology. They are authors who tend to live and breathe with the dangers they describe. They tell of rogue agents who use their power without accountability. They tell of organized crime cells who use the intelligence-gathering tools to avoid disruption of their own efforts (including finding and neutralizing key evidence and witnesses). Remember the scary stuff Jack Chick,etc. would write? While we shouldn't jettison everything just because Satan might use it for his ends,you have to ask how much easier it would be to forge a world that makes the scenarios in Hal Lindsey's works,'I am the Cheese" "Anna to the infinite power",the "X-files",Stephen Cannell,etc. seem tame if we start eroding our freedom and morality now ourselves lest we get overwhelmed by an enemy who might do it for us. We can't be such knee-jerk adherants to anything that we sacrifice our nobility or the safety of those around us. Common sense and courage take more work than easy,glitzy "solutions" but can we afford the alternatives? Very well stated. Sometimes we have to do what is necessary for the real bad ones. Especially if they plan to blow up places. As you said someone has to do it.
|
|
|
Post by TheMasterGeek on Dec 21, 2005 1:43:32 GMT -5
Sorry, got to stop you there. If we terrorize our enemies, we are lowering ourselves to their level, and that is what they want. That gives them more ammo to use against us, and allows them to recruit more people, because we are terrorizing people. We need to act above the terrorists, we need to give them the same rights as the normal American, because it shows to the rest of the world that we aren't the great evil that our enemies make us out to be, by showing compassion. And then if we find out, through the right channels that someone is trying to hurt many Americans, we can come down on them with the full extent of the law. We need to protect our security, but not at the price that George Bush is pushing. We need to have checks and balances to make sure there are no abuses. And thats the problem with take away Due Process, it leads to abuses to the ones in power, and makes them have too much power, and that subverts the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on Dec 21, 2005 1:48:23 GMT -5
The terrorism factors of the law for TERRORISTS work. I do NOT KNOW how it applies in THIS case.
Basically, they're trying Enzo as though he is a terrorist, or at the very least, a terrorist in the making. They're taking away a lot of his rights, and due to some of the new laws passed to "fight terrorism", they don't even have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you read back to some of Cordy's posts about this, you'd hear how all they needed to pass judgement was their belief and paranoia. They didn't need any proof, or anything closely resembling that.
Those laws might have been made to fight terrorism, but right now, it seems as if it's being used more to keep the population in check than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on Dec 21, 2005 1:52:20 GMT -5
Just to butt in with more unwanted opinion ...
You do realize that even if the States withdrew every troops it has stationed across the globe, it still can't be said they're "isolationists". The States are so far away from isolationists that it's like saying Joss won't kill someone in his next movie. Why is it unwanted?
And we are not isolationists anymore. We use to be. That was the policy of not having anything to do with other countries affairs.
Don't mind me, twas just some depracating humour...
My point was that you seemed to say that not going to war or making those laws would make the States Isolationists. My argument was that it wouldn't
|
|
|
Post by TheMasterGeek on Dec 21, 2005 1:53:57 GMT -5
As a Mother who has a son that is a victim of the new Anti-Terrorism laws your posts are really upsetting to me.
My son, and some of his friends, wrote "Tomorrow Is The Day" as a joke, it wasn't meant to mean anything bad but the school took it that way.
They arrested him and put him in Juvenile without Due Process. He was imprisoned for several weeks without a trial. That's completely against the constitution of the United States but it happened.
My son has never harmed anyone, nor has he given any indication that he would. He doesn't get in fights at school. He doesn't go around threatening anyone.
He doesn't have weapons or bomb making materials nor has he looked that info up on the Internet but he was still arrested and locked up.
I had to talk to him through a glass window like he was a hardened criminal. This happened in our country. The country that's supposed to be free.
He's a 14-year-old child that made a bad a bad joke. He can't go back to school until November of next year. He now has to go to Alternative school. I have to give him a ride there and pick him up since he's supposed to be too "dangerous" to ride the bus with the rest of the kids.
This means that unless I can find a job where I can work here in town and only work 8 - 3 so I can drop him off and pick him up then I won't be able to take a job using my degree.
I have to put my life on hold thanks to this law that Republicans put on the books.
My son is traumatized thanks to this law that Republicans put on the books.
So forgive me if I don't want to listen to you spout nonsense about stuff you know nothing about.
Sorry for being so upset, but do you think it's fair that my son was put through all this? This law is completely unconstitutional. The school broke so many laws during this but it doesn't seem to matter.
This law has so much potential for abuse and you think it's a good thing? To torment innocent children?
Edited to hopefully make it a little less with the bitchy but still make my point. Hopefully it worked. First off I am sorry and I do not know what the new laws are.
Number 2 I have not been here since like forever or anywhere so I have no idea what is going on.
My spouting knows enough. If a law is unsound. Then best be if it denying a specific part of the constitution then it is best to show them.
The terrorism factors of the law for TERRORISTS work. I do NOT KNOW how it applies in THIS case.
And No I do not thik your son should be locked up.
And that is as nicely as I can put that.
Reb, they thought that Enzo was making a "Terroristic threat" by saying "Tomorrow is the Day", and they arrested him because of that. What the problem is, the law in Missouri is so vague, unconstitutionally vague, that something as innocent as "Tommorrow is the Day", which could mean anything, could be taken as a terrorist threat. Enzo got arrested for writing that on paper, even though he had no intention of doing harm to anyone. And that is the problem with the anti-terrorism laws, they could take a juvenile prank, and take it as someone blowing up a school. This doesn't help protect America from terrorists, it actually helps them. There is so much room for abuse by the people in power, that in the long run, it isn't productive.
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on Dec 21, 2005 2:02:51 GMT -5
Sorry, got to stop you there. If we terrorize our enemies, we are lowering ourselves to their level, and that is what they want. That gives them more ammo to use against us, and allows them to recruit more people, because we are terrorizing people. We need to act above the terrorists, we need to give them the same rights as the normal American, because it shows to the rest of the world that we aren't the great evil that our enemies make us out to be, by showing compassion. And then if we find out, through the right channels that someone is trying to hurt many Americans, we can come down on them with the full extent of the law. We need to protect our security, but not at the price that George Bush is pushing. We need to have checks and balances to make sure there are no abuses. And thats the problem with take away Due Process, it leads to abuses to the ones in power, and makes them have too much power, and that subverts the Constitution. You make some valid points on not scaring them to death.
What about in the cases that endanger us entirely if something isn't done immediately? Should we go through Due Process then? Or should there be a sped up version to get something accomplished?
If we can't find ways to catch them then we can't prosicute them. That is basically what the Wiretapping is. A way to arrest them in there words so we can prosecute them. They are smart they won't do anything if they know they are being seen.
|
|