Do "madmen" and criminals have a right to bear arms?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Is anyone here THAT DAMN STUPID to think that once you open the door to the government to have THAT much control over ONE right, that they won't TAKE that same control over every other right they can?

WOW what a strawman

Your freedom of speech can not fly thru my walls and kill me.......
Your drunken playing around with a firearm.. OR a car can....

So do you advocate.. NO drivers licensing..... or drivers education???

AND.. by the way the Government already DOES intrude on your privacy daily.. get the fuck over it....ESPECIALLY since you support it.

Is it a strawman...when you make my case for me about the government intruding on privacy?

Why don't YOU "get the fuck over" the fact that your precious Dems are every bit as bad as what you claim the Reps are - unless, of course, you can show me ANY of those laws you so decry had NO Democratic votes for them at all.

What's that? You can't? I didn't think you could. Get the fuck over it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Your freedom of speech can not fly thru my walls and kill me.......
Your drunken playing around with a firearm.. OR a car can....

Free speech can result in deaths, as proven by anti abortionists. In some of those cases it has been ruled that their actions went beyond the boundaries of permissible speech, but it remains true that speech does have some fatalities associated with it.

Some of the proposals for mandatory training I've seen offered for California would effectively remove access for poor people living in rural areas. That seemed to be the intent. Again, I'm not really convinced that adding a day of gun school (similar to traffic school) will make a change in the small number of accidents that occur. As mentioned, hunting licenses typically require that level of training and accidents continue to happen. Just as skydiving accidents continue to happen.

We don't get to have a mistake free, no accident nirvana.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Is it a strawman...when you make my case for me about the government intruding on privacy?

Why don't YOU "get the fuck over" the fact that your precious Dems are every bit as bad as what you claim the Reps are - unless, of course, you can show me ANY of those laws you so decry had NO Democratic votes for them at all.

What's that? You can't? I didn't think you could. Get the fuck over it.

YOUR Patriot Act was Passed by a predominately REPUKE congress..

The Rendition program was put into effect by YOUR BOZOS who YOU voted for

The Torture provisions were put into place by YOUR BOZO"S in the Administration.. in contravention to several international treaties.....

So YOU need to get the fuck over it.. YOU SUPPORT IT.

[mnealtx 0]

Yeah, like I said, you couldn't do it.

Patriot Act: House Dems For: 145 Against: 62 Senate Dems For: 48 Against: 1

Yup, you're RIGHT - EVERY single Dem in Congress voted against it!!!*My guys*, alright.

Rendition/Torture: That would be the SAME rendition that your beloved Clinton started in the 1990's, yes? *PDD39 - June 1995*
Oddly enough, Bill didnt seem to have a problem with it, apparently.

Yup, it was ALLLLLL those EVIL REPUBLICANS.... you just keep on sippin that koolaid, Jeanne...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

GEEE want to post the numbers for the RUBBER STAMP Republicans there Mike????

[billvon 3,132]

>Patriot Act: House Dems For: 145 Against: 62 Senate Dems For: 48 Against: 1

Ah, it seems like only yesterday when the right wingers were calling the people who voted against the Patriot Act traitors and accusing them of supporting the terrorists. Now the argument has switched to "see? It wasn't just republicans who voted for it, so you can't blame it all on us!"

What a difference a few years makes. Already we're seeing "democrats supported the war, too, so it's not all our fault! Besides, the democrats are in power now and they didn't fix anything."

On the plus side, right wingers can look forward to a democratic president in a year or so; that will allow at least 90% of the blame for the war, the patriot act, extraordinary rendition, torture etc to be laid at the feet of the democrats.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Patriot Act: House Dems For: 145 Against: 62 Senate Dems For: 48 Against: 1

Ah, it seems like only yesterday when the right wingers were calling the people who voted against the Patriot Act traitors and accusing them of supporting the terrorists. Now the argument has switched to "see? It wasn't just republicans who voted for it, so you can't blame it all on us!"

Don't twist my words, Bill - you know damn well I've NEVER said that the Reps were innocent of all wrongdoing - I merely show that, unlike many here, I realize that BOTH sides of the aisle collaborated on it.

Quote

What a difference a few years makes. Already we're seeing "democrats supported the war, too, so it's not all our fault! Besides, the democrats are in power now and they didn't fix anything."

And how DARE we ask them to keep their promises, anyway... how *about* that "First 100 Hours", eh?

Quote

On the plus side, right wingers can look forward to a democratic president in a year or so; that will allow at least 90% of the blame for the war, the patriot act, extraordinary rendition, torture etc to be laid at the feet of the democrats.

That would the be the rendition/torture that started under Clinton, but nobody was worried about THEN - right?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

GEEE want to post the numbers for the RUBBER STAMP Republicans there Mike????

Why? YOU are the one saying it's ALL the Repub's fault...

BTW...no answer to other parts of the post?

No?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Were Gore elected in 2000, we'd have seen a similar Patriot Act. Clinton+Reno+Feinstein were angling for these sort of things already.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Rendition/Torture: That would be the SAME rendition that your beloved Clinton started in the 1990's, yes? *PDD39 - June 1995*
Oddly enough, Bill didnt seem to have a problem with it, apparently.

Mike,

Can you point out to me where in the redacted version of PDD-39 there is reference to torture or extraordinary rendition, i.e., extra-judicial transfer of suspect terrorist to a third part state (likely to employ torture) facilitated outside of the State Department or Department of Justice?

Section 2 of PDD-39 addresses legal return (i.e., legal rendition) of terrorist suspects to the U.S. “for prosecution.” For those nations w/which the US does not extradition agreements (“extraterritorial statutes”), PDD-39 directs State and DOJ to “work to resolve the problem, where possible and appropriate, through negotiation and conclusion of new extradition treaties.”

PDD-39 continues: “If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government, consistent with the procedures outlined in NSD-77, which shall remain in effect. (S).”

As far as I am aware, even the title of NSD-77, which was produced during President George HW Bush’s administration, remains classified. If you have a FOIA’d link to a redacted version, I’d love to see it!

(President Reagan also had a NSD-77 on unrelated subject.)

What is in the declassified PDD does not describe extraordinary rendition because it does not direct [1] extra-judicial transfer of a suspected terrorist to a [2] third-party state by the [3] CIA (as opposed to State & DOJ) without [4] judicial oversight.

I do see that the Wikipedia entry suggests that PDD-39 granted the CIA “rendition” powers.

I don’t read the primary declassified document as granting the CIA that power. Yes, the memo went to the Director of Central Intelligence; it also went to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Health and Human Services too.

My reading of the Wikipedia entry is either (1) whoever wrote & edited it, did so in error [which I judge more likely], or (2) someone has inadvertently disclosed classified information, i.e., either what was in the redacted portions of the declassified document or what one might speculate is the content of NSD-77.

Now, do I dispute Richard Clark, Stephen Grey, or Michael Scheuer’s assertions that extraordinary rendition was used during President Clinton’s tenure? No. I can’t authoritatively affirm or refute. If those assertions are accurate, which I judge probable to highly probable, that didn’t make it legal or right, either.

Nonetheless, I learned a bit - thanks!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

That is what I am understanding the section of the PDD you quoted to mean - rendition. I very well could be mistaken in regard to the PDD. The other link, however, does discuss rendition and transfer during Clinton's administration.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

That is what I am understanding the section of the PDD you quoted to mean - rendition. I very well could be mistaken in regard to the PDD. The other link, however, does discuss rendition and transfer during Clinton's administration.

One might argue they are fine points; like many things in the real world, the proverbial devil is in the details and in the definitions/usage of the legal terms.

Section 2 of PDD-3 refers to both legal rendition (in which a bilateral extradition statute exists) and irregular rendition (return to US for prosecution): "return of suspects by force without the cooperation of the host government."

Whether legal or irregular (which may be less-than-legal), the declassified portion of Section 2 of PDD-39 refers to returning suspects to the US for legal prosecution - that's the heading of Section 2 "*Return* of *Indicted* Terrorists to the U.S. for *Prosection*."


Extraordinary rendition refers to the points that I tried to emphasize for differentiation: [1] extra-judicial transfer of suspected terrorist(s) to a [2] third-party state by the [3] CIA (as opposed to State & DOJ) [4] lacking judicial oversight (i.e., no indictment).

The PBS Frontline site quotes from Stephen Grey's book, Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program:

"Until 9/11, reports Grey, the FBI published an annual summary of what they called 'irregular renditions.' Snatch operations may occasionally have broken local laws, Grey says, but ultimately the suspect was brought to court to face a judge and jury."

"In his book Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey, who has been investigating the CIA's secret rendition program for four years, reports that President Clinton orders that, in addition to bringing some terrorists to face trial in the U.S., others should be sent to foreign countries where they are wanted for a crime [not because norms against torture are less strict - nerdgirl]. To comply with the provisions of the Convention Against Torture, the CIA is ordered to get assurances from destination countries that suspects will not be tortured. 'At the minimum,' Grey says, 'countries with the very worst human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits at first.' Another key difference, he adds, 'Renditions before the Bush administration were carried out primarily to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals.'"

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

With the redacted portion immediately above it, I was not sure if that was in the same section or not. Thank you for pointing it out.

I believe the website also mentions the Yugoslavians that were turned over to Egypt, does it not?

Found a different link : clicky

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Douva 0]

Quote

I believe Mike's data showing that the fairly stringent rules Texas requires for a CCW permit are effective. I'd like to see something like those used as a model for gun ownership.

If we adopted Texas's CHL training/testing/background check requirements as a requirement for gun ownership in America, would you also be willing to adopt Texas's policy that those guns don't have to be registered, as well as Texas's policies about where those guns can be carried?

If you're willing to take gun registration off the table and open up all of America to legalized concealed carry by all legal gun owners, you might actually finds some support for that compromise.

But if you just want to impose the added restrictions, without the added benefits, that's not much of a compromise, and you probably won't have much luck getting legislative support.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I believe the website also mentions the Yugoslavians that were turned over to Egypt, does it not?

Yes, I believe that's from Stephen Grey's book.

Quote

Found a different link : clicky

I generally consider Human Rights Watch (HRW) -- the link above -- to be a credible source.

As the HRW report notes: "Qassim’s case is the first known rendition by the U.S. government to a third country with a record of torture." ... Qassim had already been convicted in Egypt: "Because Qassim had already been tried and convicted in absentia by a military tribunal in 1992, he was not retried after his return to Egypt."

W/r/t the Tirana cell, HRW notes: "Two of the rendered suspects, `Uthman and al-Naggar, had previously been sentenced to death in absentia by Egyptian military tribunals in March 1994 and October 1997 respectively."

As I wrote above, I can’t authoritatively affirm, dispute, or refute Richard Clark, Stephen Grey, or Michael Scheuer’s assertions that some form of less than legal to extraordinary rendition was used during President Clinton’s tenure. I would also judge those reports to have mid to high probability of accuracy, that still does not make it legal or right.

There are at least three options (1) the specifics are in the classified NSD-77 (from President GHW Bush's admin not Pres Reagan's admin), (2) the CIA Directorate of Operations did it of their own initiative, or (3) something else.

The HRW report suggests that there has been a 'slippery slope' approach to rendition -- from irregular to less than legal to extraordinary. Doesn't matter what administration or nation-state, it's wrong.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[mnealtx 0]

I don't disagree with that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If we adopted Texas's CHL training/testing/background check requirements as a requirement for gun ownership in America, would you also be willing to adopt Texas's policy that those guns don't have to be registered, as well as Texas's policies about where those guns can be carried?

If you're willing to take gun registration off the table and open up all of America to legalized concealed carry by all legal gun owners, you might actually finds some support for that compromise.

If the above were the case, and ALL restrictions on where you could carry were lifted, you could probably get a fair number to go along with it.

I worry more about the possibility of the same infringement/licensing intruding into other rights, though.

[quqote]But if you just want to impose the added restrictions, without the added benefits, that's not much of a compromise, and you probably won't have much luck getting legislative support

They consider it a compromise, though.... even though *they* don't give up anything. That's the unfortunate part.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

THEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns?

On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless.

Uh-huh. So you think that most of the 20,000 existing gun laws are worthless, but somehow the two that you now propose are going to magically work, where all the others don't? O-kaaaayyy...

Hope springs eternal for the gun-grabbers. Each law they try that fails just leads to yet more laws, which also fail. They'll keep trying something, anything at all, ratcheting up the controls one notch at a time, until all the guns are banned. And when that too doesn't work, what will they blame then?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

THEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns?

On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless.

Uh-huh. So you think that most of the 20,000 existing gun laws are worthless, but somehow the two that you now propose are going to magically work, where all the others don't? O-kaaaayyy...

Hope springs eternal for the gun-grabbers. Each law they try that fails just leads to yet more laws, which also fail. They'll keep trying something, anything at all, ratcheting up the controls one notch at a time, until all the guns are banned. And when that too doesn't work, what will they blame then?

A perfect example of 'ratcheting up the controls' is the FFL licensing. Back in '68, they touted it as "anyone not a criminal" could get the FFL so that they didn't have to do all the paperwork with shipping guns to gunsmiths, etc. Then, around 1990, they required that FFL's have a brick and mortar store, reducing the number of licensees by around 2/3.

(Please note that the BAT-boys budget didn't decrease by 2/3)

THAT's the liberal's idea of "compromise"....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Then, around 1990, they required that FFL's have a brick and mortar store, reducing the number of licensees by around 2/3

Hmmmm

And who was president in 1990.... Who held the presidency from 1981 to 1992?????








I somehow would not characterize the Reagan/King George the 1st as "liberals"

You get 25 demerits for incorrect usage of the "liberal" boogeyman

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then, around 1990, they required that FFL's have a brick and mortar store, reducing the number of licensees by around 2/3

Hmmmm

And who was president in 1990.... Who held the presidency from 1981 to 1992?????








I somehow would not characterize the Reagan/King George the 1st as "liberals"

You get 25 demerits for incorrect usage of the "liberal" boogeyman

I said around, as I don't have the exact date handy. Go play your strawman games somewhere else, Jeanne, if you can't contribute to the discussion.

If you don't believe that government as a whole, regardless of the administration seated at the time, is *NOT* liberal.... then you're being foolish.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Here is an interesting tidbit

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS06/801060602/1008

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

THEN you wouldn't come back and ask for yet more gun laws to be piled on top of the 20,002 that already exist? THEN, if madmen continued to get guns anyway, you would finally throw up your hands in defeat, and admit that gun laws don't stop madmen from getting guns?

On the whole I'd prefer 2 that work over 20,000 that don't work. The data show very clearly that most the laws currently on the books are pretty useless.

Uh-huh. So you think that most of the 20,000 existing gun laws are worthless?

That's what the gun enthusiasts around here are claiming when they bray "but criminals will always get guns". Are you now saying they're wrong?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

I have long said..."An Armed society is a polite society"

When a scumbag has to worry about his potential victim as not being the helpless sheep he is hoping they are.... it gives the sane ones at least a moments or two pause to reconsider.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I have long said..."An Armed society is a polite society"

When a scumbag has to worry about his potential victim as not being the helpless sheep he is hoping they are.... it gives the sane ones at least a moments or two pause to reconsider.

Absolutely not, Jeanne...didn't you know the good Professor says you shouldn't believe criminals when they say that because, well...they're criminals. But yet, you *should* believe criminals when they talk about where they get their guns... interesting conundrum, don't you think?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706