Nightingale

Why? He doesn't seem to be too concerned with ignoring the Geneva Conventions or any off the bills he signs into law. They have been holding people for four years down there. I would be flat out shocked if this hasn't been planned for. Actually, this is a good call by the SC... the Geneva accords don't apply to illegal combatants, so they SHOULD be tried by civil court, to my mind. Yes, the Geneva Convention does apply (regardless of whether the US is acknowledging that). The Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. They're either a soldier or a civilian. Geneva 4 makes it very clear that it is intended to cover all persons not covered by Geneva 3.

I think many non-christians feel threatened by christians because there's no other religion trying to codify their own morality/religion into law (edit: in the United States). You don't see Hindus insisting that "Brahma created the world" be taught in science classes. I don't care what someone else believes or how they live their life. I do care when they want to force me to live my life the same way. Examples: gay marriage laws HCR-13 (missouri) abortion ban in South Dakota "broadcast decency enforcement act" "child interstate abortion notification law" "holly's law" "human cloning prohibition act" "marriage protection amendment" initiative funding "faith based" organizations Movements to teach "intelligent design" and creationism in public school ban on stem sell research "pledge protection act" "public expression of religion" bill "partial-birth" abortion ban "human life amendment" abstinence only education There are hundreds more... From the Christian Coalition website: "we continuously work to identify, educate and mobilize Christians for effective political action! Such action will preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history." Should non-christians feel threatened by christian legal agendas? Probably.

Didn't the people of Egypt follow their religion for around 3000 years, with a lot less change than christianity has gone through? I'm sure they felt inside themselves that what they believed was truth. In fact, their stories are so powerful that we read them now, 5000 years later. Just because a tradition is passed down for a very long time does not make it any more or less true.

These were a major hit at the American Boogie. We (Clownburner, McBeth and me) only made 25 of them because we didn't know how they'd turn out, but they were really, really good. Tasted kinda like chocolate mousse. We were asked for the recipe so often we just said we'd post it, so here it is: Pudding Shots 1 small pkg. INSTANT choc. pudding 3/4 C. milk 1/4 C. Vodka 1/2 C. Irish Cream 8 oz. Extra Creamy Cool Whip Mix pudding and milk for a couple of minutes with an electric mixer, then add alcohol, mix well. Mix in Cool Whip. Put into individual serving cups with lids. Keep in the freezer.

He's got a great sense of humor, but I don't know his state of mind at the moment. I haven't been able to talk to him.

He wants to jump but hasn't yet. He and his wife were planning on doing tandem jumps when he got home.

I'd love to visit, but he's in Texas and I'm in California. I can't afford a plane ticket or hotel right now.

who comes home seriously injured? A friend of mine came home from Iraq yesterday. A few days ago, the vehicle he was in encountered an IED and everyone in the vehicle was seriously burned. My friend was burned on his hands and face, and is currently on a ventilator, conscious but sedated. He was airlifted to Germany and from there, home to the US, to Texas. They're expecting it to take between three to six months before he can leave the burn center and go home. I can't call him, because he can't talk because of the ventilator, so I was going to send him a card. I sat down to write it out, and realized I have no clue what to say. "Get well soon" sounds so stupid...

When I had surgery, I had to fight with the anesthesiologist against being sedated. She insisted it was necessary. I wouldn't let her. The surgery was a bit uncomfortable, but I was a lot happier being aware of what was going on. Plus, I got to watch, which was really cool. Sometimes, you're given painkillers without being given a choice, especially when you've come into the hospital unconscious. They do what they think is best. Most of the time, people don't even ask what's being put into their IVs. I've had nurses come into the ER room to give me a shot (usually painkillers or antibiotics), and I stop them and say "wait a second, what is that and what does it do?" They always seem so surprised that I want to know what's being put into my body. If it's antibiotics for an open wound, I'll let them. If it's painkillers...if I haven't asked for them, I don't want them. Especially if I have to drive myself home.

FRINGE ON THE AMERICAN FLAG Gold fringe is used on the National flag as an honorable enrichment only. It is not regarded as an integral part of the flag and its use does not constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statutes. Records of the Department of the Army indicate that fringe was used on the National flag as early as 1835 and its official use by the Army dates from 1895. There is no record of an Act of Congress or Executive Order which either prescribes or prohibits the addition of fringe, nor is there any indication that any symbolism was ever associated with it. The use of fringe is optional with the person or organization displaying the flag. A 1925 Attorney General’s Opinion (34 Op. Atty. Gen 483) states: "The fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized additional to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under the law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe." It is customary to place gold fringe on silken (rayon-silk-nylon) National flags that are carried in parades, used in official ceremonies, and displayed in offices, merely to enhance the beauty of the flag. The use of fringe is not restricted to the Federal Government. Such flags are used and displayed by our Armed Forces, veterans, civic and civilian organizations, and private individuals. However, it is the custom not to use fringe on flags displayed from stationary flagpoles and, traditionally, fringe has not been used on internment flags. -http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/FAQ/FringeOnAmFlg.htm The quote below concerning gold fringe on the Flag is from the book "So Proudly We Hail, The History of the United States Flag" Smithsonian Institute Press 1981, by Wiliam R. Furlong and Byron McCandless. "The placing of a fringe on Our Flag is optional with the person of organization, and no Act of Congress or Executive Order either prohibits the practice, according to the Institute of Hearaldry. Fringe is used on indoor flags only, as fringe on flags on outdoor flags would deteriorate rapidly. The fringe on a Flag is considered and 'honorable enrichment only', and its official use by the US Army dates from 1895.. A 1925 Attorney General's Opinion states: 'the fringe does not appear to be regarded as an integral part of the Flag, and its presence cannot be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. An external fringe is to be distinguished from letters, words, or emblematic designs printed or superimposed upon the body of the flag itself. Under law, such additions might be open to objection as unauthorized; but the same is not necessarily true of the fringe.'" The gold trim is generally used on ceremonial indoor flags that are used for special services and is believed to have been first used in a military setting. It has no specific significance that I have ever run across, and its (gold trim) use is in compliance with applicable flag codes and laws. -http://www.usflag.org/colors.html Q: What is the significance of the gold fringe which we see on some American flags? A: Records indicate that fringe was first used on the flag as early as 1835. It was not until 1895 it was officially added to the National flag for all regiments of the Army. For civilian use, fringe is not required as an integral part of the flag, nor can its use be said to constitute an unauthorized addition to the design prescribed by statute. It is considered that fringe is used as an honorable enrichment only. -American Legion http://legion.org/?section=our_flag&subsection=flag_faq&content=flag_faq#10

I think that passing an amendment outlawing the burning of the flag is probably the only thing that could inspire some people to go out and burn one.

I usually go to the range in fullerton, because they'll let me use my shotgun too.

If you like, maybe you can come out to the local range with Clownburner and me. They've got a lot of guns you can rent for $5, so you can try a bunch of different ones. Last time I went shooting, I used a revolver, and it kicked worse than the glock I'd used before.

you might appreciate these: http://www.cafepress.com/buy/t-shirts/-/pv_design_prod/pg_1/p_storeid.29247824/pNo_29247824/id_8404446/opt_/fpt_________ar__gQ_DA____a___H/c_58/hlv_t

Mormon temples aren't the only place of worship. There are a little over 100 temples, I think, but many, many churches (over 7,000). Anyone can enter the buildings used for regular worship, but only Mormons in good standing can enter the temples, because they are considered to be a very sacred space.

I paid cash for most of AFF, but charged my rig. The interest on that portion of my debt is far less than renting gear every few weeks would cost, so it was a money-saver to have the rig up front. I probably saved myself several thousand dollars of $75 a day gear rental.

Never once said that the system is perfect. Just that your source of a newspaper's investigation isn't necissarily the most righteous of sources. Well, since oftentimes the sources used by the police are criminals, I wouldn't call them the most righteous of sources either. In fact, the newspaper is probably the only party involved that is even close to impartial. The cops are under pressure to arrest someone because the public wants to know someone answered for the crime, and the cops are under a microscope of public opinion until they provide a responsible party. The prosecutors are under pressure from public opinion as well as from their superiors, as prosecutors are heavily graded on their conviction rate. Police informants are often acting out of their own self interest to keep themselves out of trouble. The newspaper, on the other hand, will probably sell about the same amount of copies whether they run the story or not.

No. They're not. Usually, death penalty cases are entitled to one automatic appeal, but that certainly isn't to the US Supreme Court. The usual process is outlined below. What I've posted isn't accurate for every state, but in most cases the processes are similar, so it'll give you a good idea of the process. ____ Phase 1: Direct Appeal Unless it's a federal death penalty case, the appeal is to the court of appeal in that state (some states, such as Washington, California, and Virginia, allow for skipping this step and appealing directly to the state supreme court). After that, they can then appeal to the state supreme court. On their direct appeal, they can appeal to the US Supreme Court after appeal to the state supreme court. The Supreme Court only hears 1-2% of the cases brought to it, so granting certiorari is rare. Appellants are limited as to the grounds on which they may appeal during the automatic appeal process. Phase 2: Post-Conviction Relief If direct appeal is unsuccessful, or the supreme court doesn't grant certiorari (doesn't agree to hear the appeal), they can then go to state habeas corpus proceedings, which allows for the hearing of broader issues than originally permitted in the automatic appeal. They can raise claims based on facts outside the trial record, for example, such as ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, or claims that could not have been raised on direct appeal. If the state courts deny the appeal, the appellant may again ask the US Supreme Court for certiorari, which, again, is usually not granted. Phase 3: Federal Habeas Corpus Proceedings After exhausting their state appeals, they may petition for habeas corpus to the federal district court. To even get into the federal system at all, the petitioner must allege that the state is violating some federally protected right of the petitioner, such as due process, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. After the district court, they may appeal to the circuit court, and finally, after that, they can appeal to the US Supreme Court, which may or may not grant certiorari and hear the case. ___ It is NEVER guaranteed that a death penalty case will be heard by the US Supreme Court.

Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. The system does make mistakes. We wouldn't have an appeals process if the system didn't make mistakes. Sometimes, especially when the appeals and execution process is streamlined, innocent people may be executed before technology develops to prove their innocence. Here's another report: ___ "Four of the nation's top arson experts have concluded that the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence, and on Tuesday they called for an official reinvestigation of the case. In their report, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations, concluded that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters were based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved. ... The experts were asked to perform an independent review of the evidence after an investigation by the Tribune that showed Willingham had been found guilty on arson theories that have been repudiated by scientific advances. In fact, many of the theories were simply lore that had been handed down by generations of arson investigators who relied on what they were told. The report's conclusions match the findings of the Tribune, published in December 2004. The newspaper began investigating the Willingham case following an October 2004 series, "Forensics Under the Microscope," which examined the use of forensics in the courtroom, including the continued use of disproved arson theories to obtain convictions. In strong language harshly critical of the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana, southeast of Dallas, the report said evidence examined in the Willingham case and "relied upon by fire investigators" was the type of evidence "routinely created by accidental fires."" entire article here ___ We have no idea how many innocent people have been executed. This is primarily because groups that investigate the cases that have landed people on death row focus on saving the living. Once someone is executed, they can no longer be helped, so the focus of the independent investigators, such as The Innocence Project, shift to focus on other potentially innocent lives that can be saved. However, those organizations are learning that by looking to the past and finding evidence exonerating innocent people who have been executed, they help their cause far more, because they give people a name and a face of a victim of the system. If you get a chance, read "Death of Innocents" by Sister Helen Prejean. It's a very interesting book.

Well, in some jurisdictions there aren't degrees of indecent exposure. The guy streaking across the quad in front of a 17 year old college freshman and the guy who exposes himself deliberately to a four year old sometimes are convicted of the same crime. Is the first guy a sex offender? probably not. Is the second guy a sex offender? probably. The only way I can think of to even things out is to have a special circumstance of "sex offense" and define it as "a sexually based willful act that has caused physical, mental, or emotional harm or distress upon the victim." That definition implies that (a) there must actually be a victim and (b) the actions of the offender harmed the victim in some way and (c) the crime must be sexually based and (d) the offender has to know what he's doing. In the first situation I described above, while the 17 year old witness could, in theory, be considered a victim, as long as no harm took place and the victim wasn't traumatized by the incident, it wouldn't be a sex offense, especially as frat boys streaking across a quad really has nothing to do with sex. So, even if this guy's convicted of indecent exposure, it wasn't a sex crime. In the second scenario, the four year old would be considered a victim, and was probably traumatized by the incident, and that kind of indecent exposure usually has sexual motivations, so it would be a sex offense and, once convicted, the defendant would be required to register. The example someone else gave (Brie?) regarding a guy who bought porn with a 17 year old actress, if he knew the actress was 17, he should be convicted of purchasing and possession of contraband, or however the state has defined it. If the video was made in a country where 17 is a legal age to be in porn movies, you have no victim, so no sex offense. If the video was made in a jurisdiction where 17 year olds in porn movies is illegal, you do have a victim who was presumably harmed by the situation (a 17 year old couldn't consent), a knowing purchase of porn containing a minor, and a crime of a sexual nature, so it would be a sex offense. So, in this case "I didn't know she was 17" would actually be a defense, provided the prosecution can't prove otherwise.

LOL. I wish. I've just been dealing with situations like the one I described at work pretty often.

The sex offender list has nothing to do with justice. It's based on fear. Is the 19 year old college frat boy who streaks across the quad at midnight and gets arrested by campus police really a threat? No? If the guy gets turned over to the cops and takes a plea bargain at his arraignment, which most people do, included in that plea will probably be "X days in jail with credit for time served, a fine of X dollars plus penalty fees, a booking fee, a security fee, 3 years informal probation, and registration as a sex offender." If that guy's in jail, he's probably going to take the plea, especially if it means that his time served covers his whole jail sentence and he gets to go home. The sex offender thing usually doesn't sink in until later. People are on that list who do not belong on that list. People who do belong on that list because they are a threat should be in jail or a psychiatric facility. Post-release counseling should be required for a period of years after release, and failure to attend should be a parole or probation violation that lands them back in jail. The list is not about justice. It's about fear and revenge, neither of which should have a place in our legal system. I know that's idealistic, especially when it comes to sex crimes that get people's emotions going, but if we don't keep the ideal in mind, we continue to move farther away from it. Justice should not be emotional.

Uhm, hate to tell you this, but it's pretty unanimous in professional circuits that these people are beyond ever becoming productive members of society. I know that. If you read the rest of my post, I stated that if they're dangerous, don't let them out in the first place. If you're going to let them out, let them out when/if they're no longer a danger. If they're not a danger, there's no need for the registry. If they are a danger, they shouldn't be out in the first place, and there's no need for the registry.

This is one of the main reasons I oppose the registry. The registry prevents released offenders from becoming productive members of society. It makes it difficult for them to obtain employment and housing. If we're going to release these people, we need to make sure they actually have some chance of surviving outside of jail. If they're so dangerous that society needs to be warned about who they are, they shouldn't be released.

You may have had a very, very mild case of chicken pox as an infant (sometimes parents think it's just a rash), and were immune as a child. We've been discovering that chicken pox immunity can wear off years later if you're not repeatedly exposed, which might explain why you got it when you were 28 but not as a kid. Periodic reexposures keep our immunity to chickenpox high, and without those reexposures you can sometimes catch it again.