US citizen arrested

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

er: Michele
Subject: Re: US citizen arrested
Wow, good morning, Kallend
In reply to:
The arguments you make are the arguments Hitler and Stalin made.
Coming on a little strong about my opinions, don't you think? Equating my thoughts to that of Hitler and Stalin is
ludicrous, but since that's your opinion, you're welcome to them. For someone who doesn't know me, my background,
my experience, and my thought pattern, you're rather quick to judge me in a manner which is designed to provoke an
angry response, etiher via me or others reading this. As I can only speak for myself,

I don't know you, but your ideas are dangerous if you think that a little security is worth sacrificing your freedom. Did you ever read what Ben Franklin wrote on exactly that subject? And these ARE exactly the arguments used by Hitler and Stalin.

Quote

I shall say that my referencing the
common good is more specifically this: there are about 3000 dead people from 9/11, who died because of a madman
named Usama bin Ladin. You may think that your rights supercede those victims, but they don't. And yes, personal
happiness and safety is YOUR responsibility; the government is charged with the safety of the nation. You are not the
nation. The nation is made up of many individuals, and it is their collective good (welfare) which must be protected.

Have you ACTUALLY read the Constitution?

Quote

In reply to:
Most? How many other countries have you visited
Actually, the phrase "diasppeared" comes from the incredible situations in Columbia, Argentina, and other south
American nations which literally fight an on-going battle with people who oppose the thought of the government on that
particular day (note I didn't stake a position on the right nor wrongness of the government or rebels/terrorists).
Furthermore, that was something which was common in the former Soviet Union (which encompasses a huge chunk of
the globe). Let's not even talk about China, o.k.? And we won't talk about Iraq's Saddam Hussein who recently killed
a bunch of his top military personnel because he was a little scared of some sort of overthrow. That was my reference
point, not Germany, nor France (we can discuss those thoughts at another time.)

You said "MOST", but you only mention a handful. Most would require some 80 countries to act this way. You are simply wrong.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Speaking of the Germans, my girlfriends brother was on leave from the Army last month--he's been stationed in
Germany--and he was describing how violent the German police are when dealing with unruly club crowds. Basically, if
you are within arm's reach of them you can expect to be beaten bloody with an electric baton then zip-tied to the
nearest tree, street sign, car bumper or whatever else they find handy and hope you don't bleed to death. He made the
point that if the police are called in Germany, you really need to start running and get the hell our of their way.

I seem to recall several convictions in Illinois overturned after it was proved that the police tortured the suspects into giving confessions. I seem to recall an immigrant in New York being sodomized with a broom handle by the NYPD.
Your point is...?

[kallend 2,147]

<<>>
The reason it's a "law" is that H and S are the archetypical dictators, and this behaviour is classic dictator behavior: conjure up an external threat and use it as an excuse to eliminate the rights of the citizens. With Hitler it was the Reichstag fire and with Stalin it was all sorts of things, starting with Trotsky.
Americans read far too little history for their own good.

[Jasmin 0]

Ok firstly I'm not American and secondly I've just written a paper on the subject of H and S's treatment of their nation's citizens, so its interesting to see its still applies....
The point I want to make is that, the government exists to look after the welfare of the nation, but it should not do so at the expense of the indidivuals who make up that nation.
Sadam, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Napoleon, Khan, Malosevic etc.
All propagated a terror ie fear of state enemies, external and internal, to justify the police states they imposed on their citizens: A state where another person's inuendo and implications meant a citizen could be carted off, held without trial or justice, and tortured without discernible or questioned proof.
Oh hang on, isn't that exacly what is happening here?
If our freedom and way of life is sacrificed because of the Septmeber 11 attacks, then we've already lost. They seek to end our way of life, our beliefs, our freedom. When we make security measures and restricions that end our freedom and rights, we concede to those attackers.
Conversely, we need to agree to measures to lessen the effects the a**holes inflict on us. We need to re-work our (all countries) foreign policy. And we MUST not inflict civiilian casualties. Our attacks on the guilty must be exactly that, or we are no better than the racists, the terrorists and the murderers. In fact we'd be worse, as we would be crying out that we're the just and the noble, the inoocent and vulnerable....a hypocritical sentiment in that context...
I say f*** you to Osama Bin Laden, f*** you to the cowardly terrorists.
I WILL NOT LIVE IN FEAR, you are the patheitc scum of the planet and are not worth my attention.
To the troops fighting the Al Queda network and Taliban fighters, God Bless.

[FallRate 0]

Mr. Kallend, I made no comparison of the police in the US to those in Germany. It was pointed out that Germany would not release (suspected) Al Quaeda terrorists to the US for fear that they would not receive fair treatment. This reminded me of the story about the German police and what we Americans, or at least I, would consider to be appalling behavior. It was not a defense of American government abuses or Police brutality, as you mistakenly took it to be. It was simply an observation to highlight the ignorance of believing that we should take any cues on human rights from the Germans.
Perhaps if you wouldn't get so defensive, we could avoid bogging down the conversation with "What did you mean by that?"
FallRate

[Jasmin 0]

Children, children....! Stop attacking each other, this is not the forum for that crap!
Attack the issue!
Feel free to disagree in opinion but have the virtue and patience to learn from the others' point of view.
Tolerance is what stops these things from taking hold, ignorance is what propagates it. Which side are you two sitting on?
To me it would appear the same....but then, I am only an ignorant non-american....

[billvon 3,113]

>If someone tries to overthrow the government, to the government they are
>terrorists, to the supporters... they are freedom fighters.
Yep. And since we, as a country, were born of that very same terrorism - we should be pretty careful who we apply labels to.
-bill von

[rhino 0]

Very interesting Bill.. One can only hope this doesn't get out of hand.. I share in your concern..
Blue Skies .....

[billvon 3,113]

>I shall say that my referencing the common good is more specifically this: there
> are about 3000 dead people from 9/11, who died because of a madman named
> Usama bin Ladin.
Agreed. We've killed around 4000 innocent Afghanis since then. (BBC numbers.) I wish we hadn't, but if we could not avoid it in our attempts to get Bin Laden, then so be it. Just be careful bandying that number around, because we are no better in terms of our respect for innocent human lives. (other than we're "right" in killing those 4000, but that can get hard to defend.)
>You may think that your rights supercede those victims, but they don't.
Both victims and non-victims had exactly the same rights on 9/10. The survivors still have the same rights, as do all US citizens.
>The nation is made up of many individuals, and it is their collective good
>(welfare) which must be protected.
Absolutely wrong. The US was founded on the idea that everyone has inalienable rights; those rights are the most strongly protected in our constitution. It might serve the collective good if blacks, who provably commit more crimes in inner cities, had a separate curfew. It might protect the common good if anyone who looked Arab was denied boarding on airlines. It might protect the common good if no one was allowed to drink, or smoke, or skydive - fewer deaths, less health care cost, more productivity. None of those are acceptable because they violate the _individual's_ rights.
>The question is not "what's good for Kallend", but rather "what's good for the
> protection of the nation as a whole...but that is simply my opinion, and you can
> think it's Stalinism or Hitlerism if you choose.
I don't think the question is either. The question is "What rights do we remove from Michele?" There are some that we have to remove to live in a civilized society - the right to kill someone else for no good reason, the right to drive drunk on public highways. The rest are inalienable. People fought and died throughout history to protect them, and they are what makes this country what it is. We best bear that in mind when we consider which other of our rights we suspend during this non-war.
-bill von

[rhino 0]

Ummmm.... Florida is sunny!! My son caught 2 bass today!! His little pole bent half in the water as he was trying to reel it in.. It was funny as hell Blue Skies .....

[Michele 1]

Hi, John...

Quote

Did you ever read what Ben Franklin wrote on exactly that subject?

Yes.

Quote

Have you ACTUALLY read the Constitution?

Yes.

Quote

You said "MOST", but you only mention a handful. Most would require some 80 countries to act this way. You are simply wrong.

You are correct inasmuch as I named only a handful...I could have wasted more bandwith naming each country, but my point was amply demonstrated. As to being wrong, you can have whatever opinion you choose to of me -with my blessings, and with all due respect...
When you are finished vetting me about my reading, and my ability to count, and are willing to have a discussion rather than rant like a spoiled child at me, I am ready willing and able. When you are interested in sharing your views, and not shoving them down my throat, and when you are interested in asking me about mine and listening to the reasoning behind them, I suspect we could have a very engaging conversation.
Until then, let me close by wishing you very safe jumps, with huge white puffy clouds dotting the horizon...
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
Life is what you make it; always was, always will be.
~Grandma Moses~

[Michele 1]

Quote

but if we could not avoid it in our attempts to get Bin Laden, then so be it.

Ah, but if I'm not mistaken, we could have, several times...but the previous administration(s) did not take the chances offered. As a result, our options drastically narrowed. Further, the current adminsitration gave ample opportunity to hand over UBL, and the Afghanistan government didn't. It could have been avoided in many ways. Sadly, it wasn't, and I regret he necessary actions which have taken a number of lives.

Quote

Both victims and non-victims had exactly the same rights on 9/10. The survivors still have the same rights, as do all US citizens.

You're right. They had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But their lives were taken by madmen in planes on a beautiful blue summer morning in September. So the question remains, Bill, what steps can we take which will prevent this in the future? Which will prevent the madmen bringing in dirty bombs? Smallpox? Any number of other terrorist weapons? As to the right to be an American citizen, that is something which can be forfeited - check the back of your passport for one small example of how.

Quote

The US was founded on the idea that everyone has inalienable rights; those rights are the most strongly protected in our constitution

Agreed. But it can be argued that the right to life is not inalienable, inasmuch as under certain circumstances, the Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty (note I am not taking a position on the right nor wrongness of it); liberty is not inalienable, either - just ask Joe in Jail. His liberty was forfeit, too. Now, you can argue that he was given due process, and as such deserved to have his liberty removed during his incarceration. But it is not an inalienable right. I could continue, but you get my point - while certain rights are looked at as "inalienable", they are in fact "alienable" ...
Which comes back to the orignal point of this conversation: what happened to Padilla's due process? Again, I would suggest that you look into material witnesses, and the ability for the government to actually suspend someone's due process (or modify it). It might help explain what exactly occurred with Padilla and his arrest.
You don't strike me as a Henny Penny type, Bill. But recently, it would seem, you do think (or are at least very concerned) the sky is in fact falling. I seriously doubt it is, and I suspect the court challenges which are upcoming to the PA will clarify some of the issues for most people. Frankly, I am not too worried that the Constitution is near collapse, as some would think. It has undergone numerous revisions, and has withstood the test of time, as it were. I think it will be seriously challenged, but I suspect it will survive.
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
Life is what you make it; always was, always will be.
~Grandma Moses~

[FallRate 0]

Quote

My son caught 2 bass today!!

OK, killing innocent civilians is bad enough. But tricking a harmless little fish into swallowing a hook!? That's just demonic!!! I'm calling PETA!
FallRate

[skyhawk 2]

um there is one thing wrong with what you are arguing about, the guy wasnt just as described your missing one crucial point he was also a known and convicted ganster, not an engineer, or scientest or even just somebody that has an interest in nuclear etc fields he was a know and convicted ganster, murderer etc
Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[kallend 2,147]

er: Michele
Subject: Re: US citizen arrested
<<< Hi, John...
In reply to:
Did you ever read what Ben Franklin wrote on exactly that subject?
Yes.>>>
So, which part of it don't you agree with?
<<point was amply demonstrated. As to being wrong, you can have whatever opinion you choose to of me -with my
blessings, and with all due respect...>>>
You made a statement that the majority of nations of the world are police states that commit summary executions. That is simply incorrect.
By the way, does anyone recall the name of the prisoner who was beaten to death in the police station by sherriff's police in Chicago last year? Or how about the unarmed guy in New York who was shot more than 30 times by NYPD a couple of years back?

[kallend 2,147]

***
The difference is that official German government policy is not to extradite certain individuals to the USA because of concerns that official US policy will deprive them of rights that the Germans think are important.
There are bad police in all nations, including the US and Germany. Chicago (where I live) seems to have more than its fair share.

Quote

Perhaps if you wouldn't get so defensive, we could avoid bogging down the conversation with "What did you mean by that?"

Oh, I thought I was being offensive.

[Michele 1]

Morning, John

Quote

You made a statement that the majority of nations of the world are police states that commit summary executions. That is simply incorrect.

Actually, I made no statement about police states. Nor did I ever use the term summary executions. When you get upset with something I say, may I suggest you go back and read exactly what I say, and address that, instead of reacting to something I didn't say, or using it so that it loses it's original context? I'd appreciate it, and it may in fact help our communication.
As to which part of the Constitution I don't agree with, there are many things which were changed from the original document, those pesky little ammendments, dontcha know? LOL, like giving women the right to vote, freeing slaves and banning the ownership of them, giving minorities full participatory rights in our governmental process, etc. As a matter of fact, I agree with the Constitution (amendments included) and the Bill of Rights wholeheartedly.
Have a most excellent Wednesday, and wishing you many happy jumps!
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
Life is what you make it; always was, always will be.
~Grandma Moses~

[bmcd308 0]

>>In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you ever read what Ben Franklin wrote on exactly that subject?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
<<
And do you agree with him?

[billvon 3,113]

>You're right. They had the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But
> their lives were taken by madmen in planes on a beautiful blue summer morning
> in September. So the question remains, Bill, what steps can we take which will
> prevent this in the future?
Any and all steps we need to that are not proscribed by our consitution and laws.
> Which will prevent the madmen bringing in dirty
> bombs? Smallpox? Any number of other terrorist weapons?
We can try to prevent it, but there is nothing we can do that will absolutely stop them. No steps that anyone has discussed so far could have stopped Timothy McVeigh, for example.
The best we can do is make it difficult to do. We've taken some steps already - we will take more in the future.
>As to the right to be an American citizen, that is something which can be
> forfeited - check the back of your passport for one small example of how.
And I have no problem with that. US citizens who commit crimes forfeit their rights as well. We have a system to do just that - our court system, which evolved specifically to address injustices and balance the rights of the accused against the good of the people. We should not discard that system now.
>Agreed. But it can be argued that the right to life is not inalienable, inasmuch as
> under certain circumstances, the Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty
I agree 100%. They are the correct entity to decide that. A government official is the _wrong_ person to decide that, and is also the wrong person to decide to remove someone else's rights.
>You don't strike me as a Henny Penny type, Bill. But recently, it would seem,
> you do think (or are at least very concerned) the sky is in fact falling.
Well, it has fallen in the past. Wire taps, concentration camps for US citizens, FBI blacklists - we have screwed up before. I hope we avoid it this time. I think if we are vocal enough, we just might.
>Frankly, I am not too worried that the Constitution is near collapse, as some
> would think. It has undergone numerous revisions, and has withstood the test of
> time, as it were.
Exactly. We should continue to heed it - 9/11, while a tragedy, is not something completely new to us. We have been attacked without warning before; we have had terrorists strike at our buldings (even the same buildings!) before. The constitution stood then, and it can stand now.
>I think it will be seriously challenged, but I suspect it will survive.
I suspect it will too, though it will be eroded a bit. I hope we limit that erosion.
-bill von

[FallRate 0]

Quote

Oh, I thought I was being offensive.

If that was your intent, to offer a challenging argument, I don't believe you did. You cited irrelevant examples of abuse by the police in the US in an attempt to challenge the valid illustration that the Germans commit what we would consider to be civil rights abuses. Therefore making a consideration of their opinion about our system rather questionable.
To make this simple, your point seems to be that the Germans will not extradite suspected terrorists to the US because they are concerned that these prisoners will not be treated fairly, and we should see this as an indication that we, as a nation, have little, not enough or no concern for fair treatment. My point is that we should not concern ourselves with what the German government thinks of our system of Justice, or INjustice if you prefer. Saudi's believe us to be a disgustingly deprived nation because we allow women to "expose" themselves in public, but I doubt that anyone thinks we should revisit public dress codes because of this.
In an attempt to fend off any rebuttal to this, aimed at convincing me that there are serious civil rights violations in this country that I am ignoring, please be assured that I am aware that serious violations due occur and quite often. My Father, who is a retired cop, has a saying: The Criminal Justice System in the US is a terrible system and has nothing to do with Justice, but it is entirely Criminal!
FallRate

[Michele 1]

Hi, Bill....

Quote

I agree 100%. They are the correct entity to decide that. A government official is the _wrong_ person to decide that, and is also the wrong person to decide to remove someone else's rights.

The situation must occur first, and then lawsuits brought, and the long, tedious (or not so long) process of bringing it in front of the Supreme Court before they can rule/decide on it. The processes have been started, and the climb up the stairs has begun. Eventually it will be brought before the Court - under just which petitioner's name I don't know - and will be heard in the right place. Of that I am confident.

Quote

Exactly. We should continue to heed it - 9/11, while a tragedy, is not something completely new to us. We have been attacked without warning before; we have had terrorists strike at our buldings (even the same buildings!) before. The constitution stood then, and it can stand now.

If you are referring to the '93 bombing of the WTC, there really wasn't any actual Constitutional challenges brought before the SC (unless I am mistaken - which has been known to happen!

Quote

Well, it has fallen in the past. Wire taps, concentration camps for US citizens, FBI blacklists - we have screwed up before. I hope we avoid it this time.

I agree, we have made some significant mistakes. And I hope we do avoid it this time.
I suspect you and I agree on many things - we may disagree in some respects as to the finer points of the law, or the application of it, but I also think that there is more common ground than there isn't. And I definately appreciate a clear, concise communication, which is generally what I perceive from you.
Here's hoping you have a great day!
Ciels and Pinks-
Michele
Life is what you make it; always was, always will be.
~Grandma Moses~

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

In reply to:
> You made a statement that the majority of nations of the world are police states that commit
> summary executions. That is simply incorrect.
Actually, I made no statement about police states. Nor did I ever use the term summary executions. When you get upset with something I say, may I suggest you go back and read exactly what I say, and address that, instead of reacting to something I didn't say, or using it so that it loses it's original context? I'd
appreciate it, and it may in fact help our communication.

Hello, M.
What you actually wrote was, and I quote directly your own words:

Quote

Look, in most other countries, had this person been picked up for the charges alleged against him, he would
be taken to the back country and a bullet put through his brain for treason, after massive beatings to
obtain all his information. Then his colleagues would be rounded up and done the same way.

If that isn't descriptive of summary executions in a police state, I don't know what is. And "most" does imply a majority, if I recall English 101 correctly.

[rhino 0]

Hey now!! We let one of them go.. The other one died too quick and bloated in the non-live well... lol
Caught another good one today.. Man that kid is good.. Going to be on the bass tour before you know it..
Blue Skies .....

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

If that was your intent, to offer a challenging argument, I don't believe you did. You cited irrelevant
examples of abuse by the police in the US in an attempt to challenge the valid illustration that the Germans commit what we would consider to be civil rights abuses. Therefore making a consideration of their opinion about our system rather questionable.

It was a response to the statement about the German police brutality, which was itself irrelevant to the point about official German government policy of not extraditing suspects to the US because of concerns over their rights. There are rogue cops in all nations but we generally don't use their behavior as a guide to national policy.
Reminds me of the old joke:
In a perfect world
The engineers are German
The cops are British
The chefs are French
The bankers are Swiss
The lovers are Italian
The wives are Japanese
The houses are American
In the worst possible world
The engineers are Italian
The cops are German
The chefs are British
The houses are Japanese
The bankers are French
The lovers are Swiss
And the wives are American

[FallRate 0]

Kallend, I did forget to point out that the behavior described of the German police is apparently considered to be acceptable by the government of Germany. I imagine they really wondered what all the fuss was about when they saw the video of the Rodney King beating.
Again, I just like the idea of dealing with these issues ourselves. For every condemnation we can find for American abuses of power, those who commit or support the abuses can find examples of far greater levels of human rights violations. I believe we must hold our government to our own standard.
FallRate