America and the ten step programme
-
Quote: Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list". "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee. "I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution." "That'll do it," the man said. :sigh:
You're a complete sucker if you actually buy that.
-
Surely the US government should be demanding his immediate extradition back to the US so that he can be assured protection and a fair trial in accordance with his rights as a US citizen? Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Craster wrote:
Surely the US government should be demanding his immediate extradition back to the US so that he can be assured protection and a fair trial in accordance with his rights as a US citizen? Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Raising arms against the United States while in a foreign country is grounds for immediate loss of citizenship and trial via military tribunal (not via the American judicial system). Nothing in America's constitution guarantees the rights of such scum.
-
What is to debate? There is general consensus that Virginia handgun laws had a loophole that needs to be closed: individuals referred for mental health treatment, but not institutionalized were not listed as ineligible to purchase handguns, but should have been. You may be surprised to hear that the NRA is working with congressional Democrats (and republicans) to add this requirement to Federal handgun regulations, so that ill people like Cho can't obtain weapons in the future. Virginia is also working to add this requirement to State regulations. Even with this, it is likely that Cho would have found other avenues to vent his rage - he had also made several bomb threats, and although there is as yet no evidence he had attempted to construct one. Note that it was illegal for Cho to possess handguns on the college campus, yet he had kept two in his college dormitory room without a problem. Laws rarely stop those who are willing to break them to achieve their goals.
Rob Graham wrote:
What is to debate?
Ah well that's fine then, seems like you've got things under control. Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
What is to debate?
Ah well that's fine then, seems like you've got things under control. Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
Kinda like when that guy in London killed 33 people with a sword?
-
Rob Graham wrote:
What is to debate?
Ah well that's fine then, seems like you've got things under control. Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
Guns don't kill people, people, kill people (sometimes using guns). You obviously never went past the first sentence of my previous post. There is no debate because there is consensus that the guns should not have been available to someone with Cho's mental health history.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Doesn't anyone see any link between the number of these appalling events in the USA and the wide availability of handguns? nah, that'd just be plain silly.
Kinda like when that guy in London killed 33 people with a sword?
-
Guns don't kill people, people, kill people (sometimes using guns). You obviously never went past the first sentence of my previous post. There is no debate because there is consensus that the guns should not have been available to someone with Cho's mental health history.
O yawn, guns don't kill people, well I never, neither do cars by the way. You've a huge arms industry whose interests you consider above the lives of people killed by handguns; note I'm saying "handguns" each time, you'd never catch me after rabbits with a handgun.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is very telling that the left seems to disparage democracy when it does not go entirely their way. Some how Bush represents an example of the failure of democracy because the left disagrees with his policies.
If you reject the will of the people when that will contradicts your own, then you're anti-democratic. It's a fundamental leftist belief that the people are dolts, democracy should be rejected and we should be led by an "intellectual" oligarchy. I've gotten at least half a dozen leftists here in the soapbox to flat out admit that. Why do you think leftists adore judicial legislation so much?
I agree completely.
Red Stateler wrote:
I've gotten at least half a dozen leftists here in the soapbox to flat out admit that.
They actively and proudly promote the concept. There is no doubt that, as a constitutional republic, the constitution trumps democracy in the US. But the courts exist exclusively to interpret the meaning of the constitution as it as been defined by the democratically elected representatives of the people. The meaning inherent in the constitution should ultimately be controlled by the people, not the courts. The problem is that the modern court is empowered, via current interpretations of the 14th amendment, to not merely interpret the constitution, but to actively add content to it with no concern at all for the will of the people. The constitution has gone from belonging to the people to belonging to the courts.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
O yawn, guns don't kill people, well I never, neither do cars by the way. You've a huge arms industry whose interests you consider above the lives of people killed by handguns; note I'm saying "handguns" each time, you'd never catch me after rabbits with a handgun.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
neither do cars by the way.
Absolutely correct. And automobile ownership is totally unregulated, even the criminally insane can buy them.
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
neither do cars by the way.
Absolutely correct. And automobile ownership is totally unregulated, even the criminally insane can buy them.
-
Craster wrote:
Surely the US government should be demanding his immediate extradition back to the US so that he can be assured protection and a fair trial in accordance with his rights as a US citizen? Ah - but wait. He's an arab, so why bother, eh?
Raising arms against the United States while in a foreign country is grounds for immediate loss of citizenship and trial via military tribunal (not via the American judicial system). Nothing in America's constitution guarantees the rights of such scum.
Red Stateler wrote:
Nothing in America's constitution guarantees the rights of such scum.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I don't see the word citizen anywhere. Rights are rights that belong to human beings, not US Citizens. Our founders intentionally left out the word 'citizen' for exactly that reason.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Nothing in America's constitution guarantees the rights of such scum.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I don't see the word citizen anywhere. Rights are rights that belong to human beings, not US Citizens. Our founders intentionally left out the word 'citizen' for exactly that reason.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
I don't see the word citizen anywhere. Rights are rights that belong to human beings, not US Citizens. Our founders intentionally left out the word 'citizen' for exactly that reason.
This part is pertinent:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public dangerThere are several exceptions in the constitution regarding acts of war against the United States and treason, regardless of citizenship. Raising arms with a foreign country against the US government is considered both treasonous and an act of war. Also note this:
Patrick Sears wrote:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
The left wants POWs to be tried in criminal courts, but the problem is that these people are not guilty of committing crimes within US jurisdiction and are consequently not "criminals". The term criminal[^] prosecution refers to prosecution for committing a crime[^], which is something contrary to law over which the law has jurisdiction. Acts of war are and always were extra-criminal and constitutional protections are not guaranteed regardless of citizenship.
-
An interesting article[^], whether you agree with it or not.
Interesting reading, to be sure. There are a lot of claims made without supporting documentation. And some of the evidence presented in support of the "steps" is pretty weak. But it's worth investigating.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Nothing in America's constitution guarantees the rights of such scum.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I don't see the word citizen anywhere. Rights are rights that belong to human beings, not US Citizens. Our founders intentionally left out the word 'citizen' for exactly that reason.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Patrick Sears wrote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
errr, you must have missed this part of what you posted.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;
errr, you must have missed this part of what you posted.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; errr, you must have missed this part of what you posted.
This section is talking about servicemen who break the law during wartime or during martial law; a commander doesn't have the luxury of carrying out a trial for a deserter. This leaves the door open to shoot them on sight, the typical punishment for desertion in wartime.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
I don't see the word citizen anywhere. Rights are rights that belong to human beings, not US Citizens. Our founders intentionally left out the word 'citizen' for exactly that reason.
This part is pertinent:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public dangerThere are several exceptions in the constitution regarding acts of war against the United States and treason, regardless of citizenship. Raising arms with a foreign country against the US government is considered both treasonous and an act of war. Also note this:
Patrick Sears wrote:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial
The left wants POWs to be tried in criminal courts, but the problem is that these people are not guilty of committing crimes within US jurisdiction and are consequently not "criminals". The term criminal[^] prosecution refers to prosecution for committing a crime[^], which is something contrary to law over which the law has jurisdiction. Acts of war are and always were extra-criminal and constitutional protections are not guaranteed regardless of citizenship.
Red Stateler wrote:
The left wants POWs to be tried in criminal courts, but the problem is that these people are not guilty of committing crimes within US jurisdiction and are consequently not "criminals". The term criminal[^] prosecution refers to prosecution for committing a crime[^], which is something contrary to law over which the law has jurisdiction. Acts of war are and always were extra-criminal and constitutional protections are not guaranteed regardless of citizenship.
This seems to be splitting hairs for the express purpose of violating individual's human rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court currently agrees with you. Personally, I should think that even if that argument makes sense legally (and I can accept that maybe it does), it would still be more honorable to try those people in a civil, criminal court to give the public confidence in their leaders and that the trials are about justice.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
Interesting reading, to be sure. There are a lot of claims made without supporting documentation. And some of the evidence presented in support of the "steps" is pretty weak. But it's worth investigating.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
Interesting reading, to be sure. There are a lot of claims made without supporting documentation. And some of the evidence presented in support of the "steps" is pretty weak.
I agree. I dislike those kinds of postings because they're always made with the express purpose of forcing the evidence to fit the crime. Not a shred of objectivity to be found.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
-
I thought the article suitable food for thought. On the subject of the US; one thing that strikes me weird and totally bonkers is how the recent shooting at some school or other hasn't ignited a handgun-ban debate, it beggars belief. I suppose the NRA has a tight grip on the media.
You folks living without the use of a device to listen to the news?? Various politicians have already started, claiming that we need to tighten gun control laws. They've (news stations) even had James Brady on TV to interview about this! C'mon, the left isn't going to let this slide --- there's too much to be gained politically to let this go.
John P.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The left wants POWs to be tried in criminal courts, but the problem is that these people are not guilty of committing crimes within US jurisdiction and are consequently not "criminals". The term criminal[^] prosecution refers to prosecution for committing a crime[^], which is something contrary to law over which the law has jurisdiction. Acts of war are and always were extra-criminal and constitutional protections are not guaranteed regardless of citizenship.
This seems to be splitting hairs for the express purpose of violating individual's human rights. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court currently agrees with you. Personally, I should think that even if that argument makes sense legally (and I can accept that maybe it does), it would still be more honorable to try those people in a civil, criminal court to give the public confidence in their leaders and that the trials are about justice.
------------ Cheers, Patrick
Where the hell is "justice" in a war? Wars have a separate distinction from criminal acts. The Nazis were tried after the war for crimes against humanity, and they weren't tried in 'civilian' courts, rather military tribunals! Just like the President wants to do with this current group of thugs and murderers who kill in the name of some religion. They lived by the sword, now they should die by the sword. They chose what they were doing. There are CONSEQUENCES to your ACTIONS. It's now time for the consequences to be carried out. I, for one, am tired of paying for their upkeep (and their Korans)!!
John P.
-
Where the hell is "justice" in a war? Wars have a separate distinction from criminal acts. The Nazis were tried after the war for crimes against humanity, and they weren't tried in 'civilian' courts, rather military tribunals! Just like the President wants to do with this current group of thugs and murderers who kill in the name of some religion. They lived by the sword, now they should die by the sword. They chose what they were doing. There are CONSEQUENCES to your ACTIONS. It's now time for the consequences to be carried out. I, for one, am tired of paying for their upkeep (and their Korans)!!
John P.
jparken wrote:
The Nazis were tried after the war for crimes against humanity, and they weren't tried in 'civilian' courts, rather military tribunals!
Very, very public ones. I think that's important. As for the rest of your post.. there's so much anger that it doesn't seem worth responding to.
------------ Cheers, Patrick