U.S. Can Not Detain Legal Residents Without Charge
Outstanding, we almost look like the Republic again!
In Major Setback For Bush Administration, Federal Court Rules U.S. Can Not Detain Legal Residents Without Charge As "Enemy Combatants"
Judge Diana Gribbon Motz said authorizing indefinite military detention: “would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”
“We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”
A true American hero and patriot!
You can watch, or listen to, it at the link.
A great day!
They keep this up and we are going to lose all of our Evil Empire coolness!:mad2:
Well I think that's a great step forward.
So when are they going to start charging people?
Ali, I would imagine when people break the law. If your not being a problem then you have nothing to fear. We are still a nation of laws, and have a constitution that guarantees everybody's rights.
Contrary to peoples thoughts on the subject we are not ruled by an emperor, but have an elected leader. The President works for us, we do not work for him or her. We have had good and bad and ugly in the last 231 years. George Washington said "I did not fight a war to kick out George the II to become George the 1st" or something like that.
Please don't get into the war in Iraq, or terror in general, but take the broader view, and remember that we are the same old U.S.A. When the war is over, Solders from the Big Red 1, will be handing out Hershey bars, and Skilcraft pens on street corners.
Hopefully, when the Big Red 1 comes home, they won't be selling Hershey bars, and Skilcraft pens on street corners.
The only one we need to worry about is, the big box from Arkansas.:headshake
fargon, well that's what I would expect also.
As an example (and I'm only choosing this one because it's the one I'm most familiar with), look at David Hicks. Finally his charges were laid, and what do you know? He's home again and will be looking at starting the new year with his life back.
Is that right or wrong? Who knows. Apparently what he's guilty of wasn't anywhere near as bad as first thought and yet he was held without charge for 5yrs. I know he's not a US citizen, but we can only hope that this new legislation will trickle down into all facets of US law.
If your not being a problem then you have nothing to fear.
That is a scary sentence.
but we can only hope that this new legislation will trickle down into all facets of US law
This is a very naive sentence. I have severe doubts about the trickle down theory in law as well as politics. Isn't the Bush administration appealing this decision? When I first heard about this, I got the impression that we were not yet quite in the clear on this one. :confused:
How depressing that "U.S. Can Not Detain Legal Residents Without Charge" is a "major setback" for the President of the USA. Even after all that has happened, that headline is a bit painful to read.
This is a very naive sentence. I have severe doubts about the trickle down theory in law as well as politics. Isn't the Bush administration appealing this decision? When I first heard about this, I got the impression that we were not yet quite in the clear on this one. :confused:
The fear mongers never want you to think any thing else. That is how they turn the US into a police state with your help, your terrified help.
When someone says "be afraid of this" your response should always be, "Show me proof, all of it & why it ACTUALLY matters, or you do not get any more power". Pretty simple.
The idea the we should trust our government is very new and
more silly.
By problem, I mean pulling a McVey (sp.) Don't go blowing things up, buildings, bridges, or other important things. We have a way to change things here, and it does not require terrorism.
This is a very naive sentence. I have severe doubts about the trickle down theory in law as well as politics. Isn't the Bush administration appealing this decision? When I first heard about this, I got the impression that we were not yet quite in the clear on this one. :confused:
Everything that happens in law affects everything else. For all new legislations passed, there are implications for many other laws. The most obvious after this one is then how long non-US residents are allowed to be detained without charge.
It's your opinion that my statement was naive. I disagree.
BTW Sam, do you believe it's ok to detain non-us residents for years without charge?
By problem, I mean pulling a McVey (sp.) Don't go blowing things up, buildings, bridges, or other important things. We have a way to change things here, and it does not require terrorism.
Sadly, terrorism has been used by home-grown citizens within democracies for years.
Not just the UK (although my personal experience is based on this) but also in Spain and Japan. And those are just the two examples I have off the top of my head.
Which has nothing to do with us. Britain is as far from free as a nation can get.
They decided some time ago that to fight the terrorists the government would just terrorize their own people.
The US needs to learn from the UK and do the exact opposite and stand fast, have the strength of our convictions.
If you give up your freedom, there is nothing to protect... might as well go ahead and blow everything up yourselves.
My post was in direct response to Fargon's, I was only pointing out that home-grown terrorism isn't recent or purely a US problem. Had I been suggesting the UK has the best way to deal with terrorism I would have written that.
rkz...your posts lately have been incredibly aggressive and ill considered in my opinion. Insulting even. It's quite clear that no nation on this earth has come up with a good way of fighting terrorism, including the USA. Might I remind you of all the problems you are having at the moment?
Don't turn yourself into a hypocritical yank mate.
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty we're free at last!
rkz...your posts lately have been incredibly aggressive and ill considered in my opinion. Insulting even. It's quite clear that no nation on this earth has come up with a good way of fighting terrorism, including the USA.
Can you blame him? I am told the Washington Beltway has signs that read "Report suspicious activity". IOW bring back Sen Joseph McCarthy. We have had this fear of mythical terrorism for longer than America was in WWII. Finally the reality of all these 'terrorist hiding among us' (ie another Orange Alert) is being acknowledged as mythical. At what point do we notice the common factor promoting mythical fears and thereby creating enemies among us?
Nations are creating their own home grown terrorism, instead, by promoting fear. Notice that every 'potential terrorism attack' is ill conceived, had no equipment, had no real plan, and was created mostly by anger towards the US government.
Furthermore, even 11 September probably could have been averted had Federal agents, multiple times in multiple cities, been permitted by the George Jr administration to investigate.
Terrorism is easy to stop when political agendas don't create them up front and when the little people - those Federal agents - are permitted to do their job without a Fatherland Security agenda.
Biggest problem America has is a government so corrupt as to even destroy the records so that these wacko extremists (people that TheMercenary and Urbane Guerrilla love) can remain in power and not be prosecuted. The biggest problem America has is fascism that even justified torture.
The biggest problem America has: Its people are just beginning to realize what Monty Python was warning us about. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
BTW, did you learn the latest? Government can read any electronic communication without judicial review - without a search warrant - if that communication is stored. If your e-mail is in transient, then government cannot read it. But if your e-mail is stored in a POP3 server, then government can access it. Americans and non-Americans alike have no right to privacy - except when the communication is in transient. Just another example of how wacko fascist extremist this George Jr administration has become because they must save us from ourselves.
Does this sound like a nation of freedom, laws, and human rights? No. This sounds more like Nazi Germany where homegrown terrorism and spying become more frequent.
"We have met the enemy and he is us". We were warned of this almost 40 years ago. Deja vue. That is where America's biggest problem lies. A problem openly advocated, endorsed, and encouraged by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, TheMercenary, and Urbane Guerrilla. The basic concept of America under attack in the tradition of Sen Joseph McCarthy, blacklisting, and mythical fears of an enemy hiding among us.
Did you notice that those who are a greatest threat to America (51 of the 88) even conveniently destroyed the evidence? After all, their political agenda is more important than rule of law, basic human rights, or the principles that define American. Burn the evidence. Justified by their political agenda to save us from ourselves. Therein lays a greatest problem in America.
"Report suspicious activity. Zieg heil."
rkz...your posts lately have been incredibly aggressive and ill considered in my opinion. Insulting even. It's quite clear that no nation on this earth has come up with a good way of fighting terrorism, including the USA. Might I remind you of all the problems you are having at the moment?
Don't turn yourself into a hypocritical yank mate.
I'm not, there is freedom and there rest. Either you believe in freedom or you do not. Vote Ron Paul.
Reading aggressive emotion into my posts is on your side.
We will do much better as soon as we get rid of BushCo. and out of the Middle East, let them deal with it themselves.
That the UK is no longer a free nation and that Australia is on it's way are facts, nothing insulting about a fact.
I think Ali migh have been responding directly to your response to my post. Again, I reiterate - all I was doing was stating that at least three countries had experienced terrorism by citizens. Spain by ETA, Japan by Aum Shinrikyo, the UK during the Troubles. None of this refers to Islam, Sept 11th, America etc.
I didn't mean to suggest we (other countries) dealt well with terrorism. I just meant that we had experience. You're new at it. If you can teach us a lesson we'd be very happy to learn it.
One thing no one should do, is treat their own innocent citizens like terrorists.
You are correct SG.
rkz, I happen to know people who are involved in anti-terrorism over here. In no way do they treat 'innocent australians' as terrorists.
Why don't you get your own country straight before you condemn others who are no more guilty of the same crimes you are? Even less in fact. We don't have illegal wire tapping for example.
Also, you talk all the time about overthrowing the government (this is for you also tw). What exactly are you doing to get rid of Bush then? Sitting on your hands waiting for someone else to make the first move? Or better yet, just hoping you get rid of him at the next election.
Yeah right, Australia is a terrible place.
Really. How do they view people who wanted to keep their guns when they decided to disarm their citizens so the government could "monitor" an unarmed population?
I will vote to get rid of him. If there is no election I will join any force that will try to do so with other means. It is not legal for him to run again.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never implied that.
You certainly did imply that rkz, intentionally or otherwise. I think you'll find others from Australia or the UK will back me up on that.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your first statement, Really. How do they view people who wanted to keep their guns when they decided to disarm their citizens so the government could "monitor" an unarmed population?
It is a question. Up to you to answer it accurately.
OK, I don't understand the question. Who is 'they' and what do you mean by, so the government could "monitor" an unarmed population
If you don't understand it, then you can't be offended by it.
Your posts being insulting is different to me being offended by what you've posted.
Aside from that, it was previous statements that I applied that sentiment to.
Are you going to create understanding or just have it your way?
I just don't see how I can make "so the government could monitor an unarmed population" any clearer.
Is there a specific word's definition that escapes you?
www.dictionary.comOwnership of handguns in the UK was banned due to the Dunblaine massacre.....not so that the government could monitor an unarmed population.
General ownership of weapons was not a major part of our culture anyway.....hasn't been for centuries.
We have had many examples of home grown terrorism over the years, most notably the bombing of the federal building in Okie City, the murder of Dr. King The I had a dream speech still moves me. JFK, and his brother. The FBI attack on Mt. Carmel, And Ruby ridge.
Their are more, and I find it sad that we can't get along. Maby the social Utopians were right, we need to come together and think about our differences. This does not mean we need big brother, or any other totalitarian government. People have to be allowed to live there lives as they see fit. IMHO we can get along if we try. We Americans want to be friends with everybody, granted we have our bad apples KKK and others, but they are less than 2% of the population.
In the words of Rodney King "Why can't we just get along".
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Think that's a catchy but ridiculous claim? Apparently the UK police don't think so now.
But notice that there aren't scores of articles - from any area of the press - demanding we be given the right to carry guns. It really isn't considered an aspect of freedom in this country - as Dana said it's not been part of our culture for a very long time.
So to hear your countrymen described as weak, undeserving of freedom and generally pathetic for letting a fascist Government ride rough-shod over them is really baffling.
As I've said before, I
know the UK does not have all the answers. Not when it comes to weapons, drugs, terrorism or healthcare. But I refuse to believe this country is sliding into dumb, drone-like slavery at the hands of The State. I also think that anyone who believes that should come and visit us for a while and talk to real Brits on the street. I don't mean the reasonably literate, reasonably liberal people who have the time and money to post here. I mean real, passionate, ignorant and blinkered Brits. The dry humour, lack of respect for authority and general all-round awkwardness of the average Brit in the street should reassure you that we don't do dictators here. Not since we woke up after Cromwell's death and decided, "I'll dance if I fucking well want to" anyway.
I really appreciate the diversity of views on here, but railing against what foreigners choose to do with their own country rarely gets you anywhere. Least of all when your opinions simply don't connect with people of that nationality.
I don't live in the land of the free. Fair enough. My upbringing in this country means I value things differently, and what you call freedom doesn't really concern me all that much. I'm not whistling past the graveyard - I'm a product of my upbringing. Much as Duck Duck is unable to understand how her perception of crime in America concerns anyone here.
Quit thinking you know all about life in Great Britain, will ya SG? Sheesh. ;)
I really do like to hear about how things are...not the version we think we know from whatever sources we are subjected to here.
I'm not commenting on the thread, I just noticed the occasional people telling you what it's like in your homeland.
I just don't see how I can make "so the government could monitor an unarmed population" any clearer.
Is there a specific word's definition that escapes you?
www.dictionary.com
I just wanted to make sure you were suggesting what it appeared you were before I told you what a stupid statement it was.
Thanks for that.
Nice post up there SG. I think you've summed it up very nicely.
I would suggest that it's much the same in Australia.
Edit: decided not to bother after all.
I just wanted to make sure you were suggesting what it appeared you were before I told you what a stupid statement it was.
Thanks for that.
"Stupid", I'm dazzled by your articulate, poignant, point-by-point reply.
Yeah, "we are just different" sure makes perfect sense... freedom changes with distance. How could I have not seen that before? :p
Perception of freedom changes with culture.
In the same way perception of acceptable crime levels changes with culture.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Nope, I just don't agree with it.
However, I have stated MANY times that most people are just not cut out for freedom.
However, I have stated MANY times that most people are just not cut out for freedom.
I think most people have different ideas of what freedom is.
big snip~ I really appreciate the diversity of views on here, but railing against what foreigners choose to do with their own country rarely gets you anywhere. Least of all when your opinions simply don't connect with people of that nationality. ~snip
No shit, do you think we aren't aware of that? Not everyone is Duck Duck, but we hear it every fucking day from one Brit/European/Aussie/Oriental or another, who feel quite free to criticize everything about the US. We don't do anything right, everything is our fault from the economy to the god damn weather.
I posted that article about guns in Britain to demonstrate to the all knowing, that just making a law against guns doesn't instantly solve the problem. This is an excellent example
because Brits are not a gun culture, and if there is still a problem there, imagine how bad it would be here.
OK, so this thread is degenerating into another gun debate. Oh what joy!
rkz, you seem to think that no one here owns a gun. Many people do. You are simply not permitted to carry concealable weapons, however, if you belong to a pistol club for example, you may own a hand gun which is licensed. People may not own semi-automatic weapons.
Your idea of freedom is very much different to mine. I like the feeling of not needing to own a gun in order to feel safe. If I did wish to own a gun however, I could certainly do so. That's it.
That is why your statement was stupid. You don't know what you're talking about.
No shit, do you think we aren't aware of that? Not everyone is Duck Duck, but we hear it every fucking day from one Brit/European/Aussie/Oriental or another, who feel quite free to criticize everything about the US. We don't do anything right, everything is our fault from the economy to the god damn weather.
Bruce, of all the users on the internet something like 70% come from the US. Most message board sites revolve around US issues or people.
If the general trend is to talk about US politics as it is here, rather than british, asian or australian, then of course members from other nations will comment.
Why are you arking up at SG for explaining that the US perception of other nations isn't entirely accurate? Surely that means both sides are guilty of the same thing?
I'm arking? What the fuck is that?
She said
I really appreciate the diversity of views on here, but railing against what foreigners choose to do with their own country rarely gets you anywhere. Least of all when your opinions simply don't connect with people of that nationality.
I pointed out that's something we put up with every fucking day.
Now what's your problem?
Now what's your problem?
Three times I wrote and destroyed a post to ask the same question. Really, Aliantha. What is your point? You make accusations. But your posts are so short on facts and examples that only speculation can make sense. Yes, that is what many must do to reply - speculate as to what you are saying.
Three times I wrote and destroyed a post to ask the same question. Really, Aliantha. What is your point? You make accusations. But your posts are so short on facts and examples that only speculation can make sense. Yes, that is what many must do to reply - speculate as to what you are saying.
You really are an anti-American Socialist idiot aren't you? :D
I'm arking? What the fuck is that?
She said I pointed out that's something we put up with every fucking day.
Now what's your problem?
To ark up means to get cranky. Pardon me for thinking you were cranky when you were using abusive language in your post. I guess you were just talking.
With regard to the rest of my post. My point was that the reason US citizens might feel criticised by posters from other nations is because it's mostly US issues which get discussed online due to the fact that it's mostly US users online. To be honest, I don't see too many people from other nations saying anything different to the sorts of things US citizens say though.
If you disagree then fine. I was just trying to suggest a reason for what seems to be a problem for you.
tw, I went back and read your post again. I didn't find anything of interest in it. I guess it's only an opinion that adding more words means there's any more substance to a post.
Thanks for your input.
My point was that the reason US citizens might feel criticised by posters from other nations is because it's mostly US issues which get discussed online due to the fact that it's mostly US users online. To be honest, I don't see too many people from other nations saying anything different to the sorts of things US citizens say though.
Well if that was your point, then why all this "We don't do anything right, everything is our fault from the economy to the god damn weather."
Nobody (of merit) was saying that. In the meantime it is completely in the interest of every non-American to comment fully about what happens in America. Those comments are necessary and welcome. However your previous posts were so vague as to not make clear your intended point. So it is only xoxoxoBruce who is touchy about criticism that, well, we don't get enough of.
This meandering thread is starting to make some sense (made more difficult because posts are not entirely clear to whom or what post that reply is intended; too much brevity of information).
To ark up means to get cranky. Pardon me for thinking you were cranky when you were using abusive language in your post. I guess you were just talking.
You guess right.
With regard to the rest of my post. My point was that the reason US citizens might feel criticised by posters from other nations is because it's mostly US issues which get discussed online due to the fact that it's mostly US users online. To be honest, I don't see too many people from other nations saying anything different to the sorts of things US citizens say though.
But when an American does it to some other country, we're arrogant dicks, we don't understand other cultures. Well, it goes both ways.
If you disagree then fine. I was just trying to suggest a reason for what seems to be a problem for you.
My problem is you accusing me of dumping on SG, when I was saying I understand what she's talking about because we see it every god damn day.
But when an American does it to some other country, we're arrogant dicks, we don't understand other cultures. Well, it goes both ways.
I have no dog in this particular hunt but
brav-fucking-0 dude.
:p
How depressing that "U.S. Can Not Detain Legal Residents Without Charge" is a "major setback" for the President of the USA. Even after all that has happened, that headline is a bit painful to read.
Yeah, I have to second this.
And-If this was a "major setback" I can't imagine what their highest ideal could have been.
Ooh I've got another Kafka feeling coming on. Ick.:yeldead:
Nobody (of merit) was saying that. In the meantime it is completely in the interest of every non-American to comment fully about what happens in America. Those comments are necessary and welcome. However your previous posts were so vague as to not make clear your intended point. So it is only xoxoxoBruce who is touchy about criticism that, well, we don't get enough of.
Nobody of merit ? Fuck you too, tw. And stop reading shit into my posts that I didn't say.
Tell us why you think those comments from foreigners are necessary and welcome?
Bruce it would appear that we agree.
End of argument.
Nobody of merit ? Fuck you too, tw. And stop reading shit into my posts that I didn't say.
Four letter words don't change reality - nobody of merit.
Welcome to the new Cellar where personal attacks are now acceptable and encouraged. As a result, many have left - some posting why they leave. Even tw has decided to be honest about the integrity of some posters only because personal attacks are now acceptable - actually encouraged - in the Cellar. Notice Aliantha new attitude. No reasons. Just a post based in hate. So much hate as to even agree with Bruce - just to promote animosity.
Nobody of merit. xoxoxoBruce had no reason to asssume that phrase was about him. It was even posted with no one in mind - just fishing to see who wants to fight over nothing. Bruce's guilt got the best of him. This is the new Cellar starting about when TheMercenary started posting.
You quoted what I said and then said nobody of merit said that. I think that's pretty clearly a personal attack. No guilt whatsoever, I mean what I say. Ali jumped on me for agreeing with SG, that's all.
But tw thinks the whole world has the right...no, duty, to tell us how to run our country. Not foreign policy that might affect them, the whole fucking shootin' match.
Of course tw wants to take it away from the criminals in Washington and hand it over to the criminals flooding across the border, too.... so we know where he's coming from.
Topics get raised for discussion and we all discuss them. Sometimes the topics up for discussion are about events in the UK and people from both sides of the pond (as well as our antediluvian contingent) put forward their views. More often the topics concern events or issues relating to America: that's quite natural given that Americans constitute a majority within the Cellar. Consequently, we find ourselves more often discussing American issues and events and we are more often in the position of non-Americans discussing American topics than vice versa.
Given that we generally find in any thread a range of opinions on the topic in hand, this necessarily means that we will often find non-Americans commenting in a critical manner on American topics. There will also be non-Americans taking a different view and Americans being critical. The only way to stop that would be if non-Americans refrained from expressing opinions on American topics.
Ahhhh Dana? I already said that...differently. lol See post 45. ;) It seemed that it was taken as a criticism, but oh well. I guess it's sometimes hard for different people to communicate effectively.
It seemed worth reiterating:P
You're a funny girl girlie.
But tw thinks the whole world has the right...no, duty, to tell us how to run our country. Not foreign policy that might affect them, the whole fucking shootin' match.
Of course our friends have every right to talk. Friends talk to friends. Enemies and children worry about conversations being politically correct. Adults especially love it when peers state opinions. Defined is a difference between a child who entertains his emotions verses an adult who wants facts no matter how bad that reality may be.
In Iraq, reporters were telling us how bad it was. Therefore children in the US government complained reporters were not telling the whole truth - not reporting good things. Reality: Iraq was even worse than reported. But children in America did not like that reality; blamed the reporters.
Be it reporters or our foreign friends, the more honest criticism we get, then the better. At least if one is an adult.
Bruce - did I just accuse you of being a child? Let's see whether you deal with facts or jump to an emotional response.
But again, this is the new Cellar - due to many who now jump to emotional conclusions rather than deal (like adults) with reality.
Sorry, Bruce. I temporarily don't have a personal insult to direct at you. I will make up for it later (or am saving it for TheMercenary who has earned the right to collect personal attacks).
Does anyone have a problem with Duck Duck’s posts? Why? She is a sixteen year old meaning she is really in her first year of grasping the world. Notice she cites the Washington Times as a source. Do we attack her for being naïve, or simply note problems with her logic? Notice how many now have become so ‘child’ as to be emotionally angry with Duck Duck. Silly me. Posts are now justified by a new Cellar attitude.
Did I mention that TheMercenary is a pedophile? He loves sex with young kittens.
tw, when you said before that I had changed my behaviour, what were you trying to say?
I don't think that agreeing on an issue with someone that you may in general butt heads with means a person has changed. To me it means that it's not personal, even if I may not like the way that person chooses to express themselves. It's obvious plenty here don't like the way I express myself either. Such is life. We all have to learn how to choose our battles.
There will also be non-Americans taking a different view and Americans being critical. The only way to stop that would be if non-Americans refrained from expressing opinions on American topics.
Many if not most Americans have little idea of anything outside of America. Who are the presidents of Mexico and Canada? I would bet most every American does not even know. But they certainly know when Canadians are critical of "Mission Accomplished". How dare they! Heaven forbid should Americans realize how correct Canadians were about justifications for war.
A double standard is acceptable because so many Americans have no idea what happens in other nations. Since naive Americans cannot criticize, then informed non-Americans have no right to criticize?
The useful solution is for naive Americans to listen rather than taking a child 'emotional' response to such criticisms. Duck Duck may be naive. Adult Americans would not reply with acidity.
Welcome to the new Cellar where personal attacks are now acceptable and encouraged. As a result, many have left - some posting why they leave. Even tw has decided to be honest about the integrity of some posters only because personal attacks are now acceptable - actually encouraged - in the Cellar. Notice Aliantha new attitude. No reasons. Just a post based in hate. So much hate as to even agree with Bruce - just to promote animosity.
Nobody of merit. xoxoxoBruce had no reason to asssume that phrase was about him. It was even posted with no one in mind - just fishing to see who wants to fight over nothing. Bruce's guilt got the best of him. This is the new Cellar starting about when TheMercenary started posting.
The King of Double Standard statements! Heh.:D
Someone give LJ a call.:3eye:
tw, you keep bringing up foreign policy which I clearly said I would expect foreigners to comment on because it effects them.
Duck duck doesn't bother me because she clearly has no clue. One of the reasons she has no clue, is she doesn't understand the culture of the US, she lives in a different culture, a different world. This is not an uncommon problem with foreigners, they just don't get it.
The same goes for Americans saying the Brits don't want freedom, which is preposterous. They don't understand the culture, and just don't get it.
The same goes for Americans saying the Brits don't want freedom, which is preposterous. They don't understand the culture, and just don't get it.
Which is understandable when so many Americans cannot even name the presidents of Mexico and Canada - let alone understand British (or French) culture. Distortion made easier if news sources are the local gossip or a political agenda (ie Fox).
Using the Washington Times as a 'window on America', well, Duck_Duck is young. She has years of learning how to put things into proper perspective. However I was appalled at how some adults could not take an adult perspective of her posts. So many replies with emotional angst rather than logical tolerance.
So many replies with emotional angst rather than logical tolerance.
Dude, you are the king of such idiocy.:eek:
Step 3: Attempting to disagree with an actual, thoughtful response.
You can do it...I'm rootin' for ya!
Step 3: Attempting to disagree with an actual, thoughtful response.
You can do it...I'm rootin' for ya!
You forgot Step 1, post an actual, thoughtful comment by which others can respond not peppered with speculative conspiracy theory.;)
Uh uh, that wasn't Step 1. Hopefully that's all behind us now.
Freedom is freedom, do what you like and say what you like as long as it does not harm others or infringe on their right to do the same.
If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else, change the channel or close their door.
That is freedom.
Being told you cannot speak your mind, think something and gather with like minded friends is not freedom.
Europe selects who they think should have rights. They choose who are "good" people and "bad" people and dole out their brand of "Freedom" to each according to who they like.
The BNP, or more hilarious, some BANDS, LOL!!! are "Bad" so they get less freedom than others.
Others are "Good" so they get more freedom of speech.
The idea that this is one idea of "freedom" is bullshit. It is not freedom it is fascism.
But, I could care less, the Europeans chose it, they want it and they can have it.
The reason I brought it up is because it is a good example of where we are headed if we let down our guard.
That is why I brought it up.
I could care less if others think that their comfort is worth their freedom of speech, not to be monitored by the government 24/7 or right to protect themselves.... it is not my problem.
The BNP, or more hilarious, some BANDS, LOL!!! are "Bad" so they get less freedom than others.
The BNP, much to my dismay, are an entirely legal political party. They can say anything they want as long as it does not contravene laws regarding incitement to racial hatred and violence. Laws were brought in to ensure that people did not have to right to incite racial hatred and violence, because we had a very large problem with racist violence and disturbances. We still do, but not to the same extent as we did under the older system, in which the NF (BNP's predecessors) led a reign of terror against the ethnic minority communities in Britain, as well as against any non-mainstream, left-leaning political group.
Even now, with our supposedly draconian laws, BNP speakers can whip up a rally of supporters, referring to 'ethnics' as 'cockroaches who should be wiped out, cleared out' do not actually face any sanction. The BNP has a paramilitary wing. It acts both within and without the law.
What happens, when the freedom they enjoy, extends to shouting 'Paki' and 'suicide bomber' through the letter box of a 67 year old widow, daubing 'SS' on her front foor and throwing rocks at the back window? Unless you can catch 'em at it, you can't prosecute. Incidents like that and worse are a daily occurrence in some areas. Racial tensions are a major factor in many of our towns and cities.
We had a lull, in this sort of stuff, for about a decade and a bit, things calmed down and the movement towards multi-culturalism was quite strong. That was when the NF had been effectively stomped down and (because any revolutionary movement necessarily runs out of steam as its supporters realise the revolution is not around the corner) before they had rebranded themselves as the BNP.
The American political paradigm, seems to be the strength or weakness of the rightwing, religious lobby. The European paradigm seems to be more to do with the strength or weakness of the far-right, nationalist, supremacist movements.
I am talking about free speech, the examples you used are assault and valdalism... but you know that. OT.
Try, if you can, to stay on topic please.
If someone wants to say they feel that the white/black/polish/russian race is superior, that is their right. If they want to use racial slurs, it is free speech. If they state they want people to hurt others, it is not. Pretty simple.
There is a difference between free speech, like wearing a swastika or Aryan cross and incitement to riot or violence and the difference is clear... at least to those who care about freedom.
Freedom is freedom is freedom.
If someone wants to say they feel that the white/black/polish/russian race is superior, that is their right. If they want to use racial slurs, it is free speech. If they state they want people to hurt others, it is not.
What if by saying all those things that they are free to say, and by using racial slurs without restriction, they foster a sense of fear amongst the group in question? What if the effect of that acceptance of racism is to foster further racism, and lead to a culture in which an ethnic minority lives in fear of the white majority? At what point does their right not to feel intimidated outweigh the right of a racist group to propogate hatred?
How racist is America? Serious question. I'm sure it's come up before but I'd really be interested to know.
No one has a right to be "protected" from another's speech. You are making it sound like people have a right to be comfortable... to me that is nuts.
There is only one race, the human race, no two people are the same color.
I don't believe in more than one race.
That's fine, neither do I.
How racist is America? Serious question. I'm sure it's come up before but I'd really be interested to know.
I think it is fairly racist, but also tolerant. I have spent a bit of time in Europe and I think they are more outwardly racist and less tolerant of people who are of a non-european ethnic origin. JMHO based on personal experience.
At my workplace we have had a few issues with people refusing to work well with our Indian sysadmin.
She speaks with a heavy accent and this causes some people to not want to do anything for her. When I say "some people" I mean colocation facilities that we pay $1-2000 a month, partly for their help getting things done.
This is only a problem at 3 out of about 150 locations, so there's that.
They are all in the South and I refuse to find that a coincidence.
I have not noticed any specific white-on-black racism in a long time. I have noticed a ton of black-on-white racism.
[youtube]ovUJgm6FicI[/youtube]
I have noticed a ton of black-on-white racism.
A HUGE issue in the Military today.
rkz, I'm assuming from your posts that you think it's ok for Klan meetings to take place and as long as they only talk about how much they hate non whites and only say the things they'd like to do to them it's ok?
rkz, I'm assuming from your posts that you think it's ok for Klan meetings to take place and as long as they only talk about how much they hate non whites and only say the things they'd like to do to them it's ok?
To bad for us, but in fact the First Amendment actually supports them in this specific act. As long as they do not plan or spew forth violent plans they are good to go. Does not change the fact they are a hate group in the same vein as Louis Farakan and his Negro hate group.
So they can't be arrested for 'conspiring to do whatever' because they're perfectly within their rights to talk all they like.
So they can't be arrested for 'conspiring to do whatever' because they're perfectly within their rights to talk all they like.
Correct. They are protected under our Consitution. As are the Nazi's and New Black Panther Party.
So they can't be arrested for 'conspiring to do whatever' because they're perfectly within their rights to talk all they like.
The 'crossed line' is a difference between "only talk about how much they hate non whites" verses "planning to actually perform a violent crime". We can talk all we want about the scumbag president. But the minute we talk about killing him, expect a visit by Federal agents. Another example of 'crossing the line'; when exercising one's rights imposes unacceptably on the rights of others.
In Skokie IL, the Civil Liberties Union defended the Klan's right to demonstrate in that very Jewish town. KKK had the right to declare hate of Jews. They had no right to plan actions that called for murdering Jews.
So they can't be arrested for 'conspiring to do whatever' because they're perfectly within their rights to talk all they like.
Correct. They are protected under our Consitution. As are the Nazi's and New Black Panther Party.
Well, no--that sort of thing is not protected under the Constitution. They can do it, and not be arrested for it, though.
Well we all know that people who live their lives talking about hating others, rarely live their lives only talking about hating others.
This is why I and most likely others don't agree that allowing people to express these sorts of hatred in public is a good thing.
If someone can explain or show me some evidence that this sort of talk is not harmful then I'm all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
I don't know, I get the feeling that many of those who talk so much about their hate for others, actually base their lives on it. Like a desperate grasp to feel better about themselves. That's why these groups form, I think.
There is a lot of propoganda floating around out there--and if you trace it to its source, it all comes from organized groups. They try to disguise it as random opinion, but there's always something sketchy about it.
The thing is, in Europe we had a rather sharp lesson about what happens when hate groups are allowed to fester unhindered. On the whole, over the years, very few people have actually gone far enough to be prosecutable, and even then mostly juries throw them out. It's a fine line similar to the line just described between talking about, and planning to.
The exceptions to that are symbols like swastikas, or holocaust denial. The holocaust denial bit I think is taken as a slander against the Jewish race. Swastikas, because of what they stand for in European culture, are seen as inherently inciting racial hatred.
Well, no--that sort of thing is not protected under the Constitution. They can do it, and not be arrested for it, though.
It's the First Amendment he's referring to. Free speech means Klansmen, Black Panthers, anybody.
If someone can explain or show me some evidence that this sort of talk is not harmful then I'm all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
It's not that hate speech isn't harmful. It's that we're not willing to risk the possibility that by restricting their speech, someone will someday find a way to restrict our own. We are, as a nation, deeply against anything that even appears to be a slippery slope.
rkz, I'm assuming from your posts that you think it's ok for Klan meetings to take place and as long as they only talk about how much they hate non whites and only say the things they'd like to do to them it's ok?
"Only talk about"?
What do you mean by that?
They can talk about what ever they want. That is freedom. Just because people don't like it does not mean they don't have the right.
Our beliefs disgust them as much as theirs disgust us. It is the SAME THING.
People are dying now so they continue to have the right to speak their mind.
It is the reason our nation was formed.
In Skokie IL, the Civil Liberties Union defended the Klan's right to demonstrate in that very Jewish town
A Jewish man defended them, a patriot.
You dislike them so much, do you only talk about it? Same thing.
Perhaps we should not just limit their rights like the Nazis did the Jews in Germany, as Europe is doing now... perhaps we should make them wear a symbol on their clothing? Is that good enough? Why let them breed? Why not just get rid of them for good?
It's the First Amendment he's referring to. Free speech means Klansmen, Black Panthers, anybody.
It's not that hate speech isn't harmful. It's that we're not willing to risk the possibility that by restricting their speech, someone will someday find a way to restrict our own. We are, as a nation, deeply against anything that even appears to be a slippery slope.
Yes, I know he's referring to the First Amendment, and I am aware that it applies to everybody. Just as it applies to everybody, when the expressions of views cross the line over to conduct. Conspiring to harm and personal intimidation are not protected by the First Amendment.
Personal intimidation is not protected, but looking scary is. Just because someone is afraid doesn't make it rational or reasonable.
Just because someone cowers in the corner booth, when a bunch of fierce looking bikers enter the bar, doesn't make it their fault. Nor are they compelled to change their dress or swagger.
When I worked in LA I used to joke around with my, actual/original, southern dialect (before I neutralized it). It was a predominantly gay company, very PC.
I was called into my boss' office because it "scared" some of my fellow office members.
I laughed and did not stop.
That kind of stuff should be ignored...
People do not have a right not to be afraid of others.
There is a lot of propoganda floating around out there--and if you trace it to its source, it all comes from organized groups. They try to disguise it as random opinion, but there's always something sketchy about it.
Well stated. I see it that way as well.
Originally Posted by Aliantha
rkz, I'm assuming from your posts that you think it's ok for Klan meetings to take place and as long as they only talk about how much they hate non whites and only say the things they'd like to do to them it's ok?
"Only talk about"?
What do you mean by that?
They can talk about what ever they want. That is freedom. Just because people don't like it does not mean they don't have the right.
Our beliefs disgust them as much as theirs disgust us. It is the SAME THING.
People are dying now so they continue to have the right to speak their mind.
It is the reason our nation was formed.
In Skokie IL, the Civil Liberties Union defended the Klan's right to demonstrate in that very Jewish town
A Jewish man defended them, a patriot.
You dislike them so much, do you only talk about it? Same thing.
Perhaps we should not just limit their rights like the Nazis did the Jews in Germany, as Europe is doing now... perhaps we should make them wear a symbol on their clothing? Is that good enough? Why let them breed? Why not just get rid of them for good?
Heeelllllooooooooo?
hello what?
My point is that one thing leads to another.
You think it's ok for people to talk about doing violence but it's not ok for them to actually do it.
If they weren't thinking about doing it, they wouldn't be talking about it.
Yep, I'm glad you're proud to live in a country that openly allows such bigotry and hate to go unchecked.
You go ahead and defend the rights of those racists to be the arseholes that they are.
One day when their talk leads to actions which affect your family then come and tell me how it's their right to plot and plan their evil deeds.
When did I say anything about violence?
Evil deeds? LOL!!!
One is the same as another, theirs and those who would do unto them... the SAME, identical.
It is not the same because normal rational people don't hate other people based on the colour of their skin.
Normal rational people don't hold meetings and get togethers with their friends and talk about the foul things they'd like to do to people who don't look just like them.
Do they? Or is it that different in America that those sorts of behaviours are considered normal?
Normal, rational, people don't want to have more rights than others.
Elitists and fascists do... that's the definition of both of those words.
yes well I'm not going to debates rights again. It's been done to death already.
I disagree with you and your defense of your constitutional rights. I don't buy it and I never will. You all talk of freedom and yet from the outside it simply doesn't appear that anyone is free. I'm sure you feel differently. You've said so many times. I simply don't agree that what you have is that great and I don't believe it's as black and white as you do.
Other laws restict people's behaviours if they want to live in a so called 'free' society. Laws to do with how much alcohol you are 'free' to drink if you want to drive a car. Laws to do with being quiet when you go to watch a trial. Laws to do with which side of the road you drive on. Laws are created to protect the innocent.
How many more innocent people have to suffer for your freedom?
No, what I said is that most people can't handle freedom and you prove it.
That's bullshit rkz. Surely you can find a better retort than insinuations about what I can and can't handle.
You are no better than I am.
"No better"? I never stated or insinuated I was better than anyone. Much less stated I should have more freedom or rights than anyone, or any group.
Should i not take your statement, "most people can't handle freedom and you prove it" literally?
Am I to assume you feel/stated that you feel comfortable sorting out who should have freedom of speech and who should not; who gets to say what and who does not?
I don't think you should assume anything.
Are you going to answer my question?
If you mean that I am stating that:
A: Most people cannot handle being free
B: I feel you are one of them based on your opinions expressed in here
C: That enough in Europe and other nations feel it is acceptable to hold the same oppressive attitude toward those who do not think/speak as they do, most cannot handle freedom
Absolutely.
Your turn.
Well that's your opinion rkz. Very far from fact if you're making a comparison between say the US and Australia.
You are a product of your environment just as much as anyone else and that's very clear.
The US constitution is very far from a perfect document as is the US government very far from a perfect form of governance. Consider first that criticizing another way of life or thought doesn't make your own way of life or thought better.
No country is perfect in the way it manages its people and its laws. Not even the US believe it or not.
Just because other nations are not the US does not mean they or the people who live there are less free simply because they don't have the same constitution as you do.
Actually I was talking to you about the Euro policy then your opinion, I don't remember bringing Australia into it.
Are you going to answer my question now that I answered yours?
Am I to assume you feel/stated that you feel comfortable sorting out who should have freedom of speech and who should not; who gets to say what and who does not?
I believe everyone in a democratic nation has a right to state their case and try and change the things that they think are wrong within their society.
If I had a problem with the laws regarding free speach and the right to demonstrate in my country I would do something about it.
At this stage I have no problem with them and i believe them to be fair.
We are comparing apples and oranges. Freedom as a word carries different cultural connotations in different cultural groups. Most Americans will have a slightly different set of assumptions about the concept of freedom than do most Europeans.
I still say that is BS. Freedom is freedom.
Some just don't want their neighbors to have it so they are ok with giving it up themselves.
What is truly funny to me is that by making those groups "outlaws" Europe makes them MUCH more attractive to the disenfranchised youth that they target, harder to track, more powerful and entrenched within their own community, forces them to deal with terrorist groups (which the Euro groups do and the US groups do not), and makes it much harder to know what they are doing and discussing at any time.
It also sends a message of weakness, states clearly that they cannot handle them and, therefore, must make special laws for them based on fear. It lends them credibility.
Dumb, dumb, DUMB.
What is truly funny to me is that by making those groups "outlaws" Europe makes them MUCH more attractive to the disenfranchised youth that they target, harder to track, more powerful and entrenched within their own community, forces them to deal with terrorist groups (which the Euro groups do and the US groups do not), and makes it much harder to know what they are doing and discussing at any time.
Dumb, dumb, DUMB.
Yea, I would have to agree, Euopeans don't have much to talk about when talking about treatment of immigrants, legal or otherwise. They certainly should not be throwing stones from the glass house they live in.
What, no rational, clear retort?
Yea, I would have to agree, Euopeans don't have much to talk about when talking about treatment of immigrants, legal or otherwise. They certainly should not be throwing stones from the glass house they live in.
So, unless we have perfected our technique for dealing with the immigration issue, any denizens of Europe have no right to comment on American immigration issues, when it is raised on an internet forum? I seem to recall I have been in here many times railing against my own country's handling of immigration, I don't reserve my negative opinion for America on this.
What, no rational, clear retort?
Is that aimed at me? I didn't feel there was much point continuing the conversation. This is something we have discussed before and I think there's little chance of either of us moving in any way nearer to the other in our opinions.
But to answer your charge. If you are referring to making right wing political groups illegal, that is not really true of Britain. Certain activities, including speech intended to incite racial hatred, are illegal. The definitions are very narrow and this is seen, by most people, as no more of a bar to free expression as are libel and slander laws. The same applies to published material.
Right wing political organisations are as free to form and exist as any other group as long as their stated intent does not contravene the laws already mentioned. The British National Party stands in elections and from time to time wins seats. They publish leaflets with fairly racist stuff, but it treads enough of a line that it doesn't contravene the laws. Other organisations are also careful when publishing, so as not to contravene libel laws. Yet, in terms of what can and does get published we are no more (arguably much less) censored than anywhere else. Likewise in terms of what can be, and is shown on television.
Those judicial attitudes to libel have been a part of our culture for a very long time, and the laws on inciting racial hatred to me seem very similar. One protects an individual or organisation from malicious or frivolous attacks on the character, and the other protects people from a similar attack on their ethnicity.
This is the way we organise our society. We consider our society to be free in our own terms. You are free to define 'freedom' in whatever way best corresponds to your cultural identity.
It's much the same here, Dana. Although the press has a little more editorial latitude, individuals or groups inciting violence and hatred, in both speech and print, are censored. I can say white people are best but not that black people are evil.
*nods* I see. We recently had a case of a meeting held in a hall. It was a private meeting, just party members (BNP) and affiliate supporters. Two of the main speakers (the leader of their party and a young upcoming type) made comments and called for things that, had they been directed at a specific ethnic group would have contravened those laws. They were directed though at "illegals" and "ethnics". I'm talking about some fairly strong stuff here, if you replaced the word 'ethnic' with the word 'Jew' it has a ring of 30s Germany: references to an infestation of cockroaches 'and what do we do with cockroaches?' *insert noises of approval and some fairly unpleasant 'joke' comments here*.
The meeting was infiltrated by a member of one of the anti-nazi groups and a journalist. Charges were brought against the two speakers, but both were cleared in court. A lot of people were upset that such blatant calls to ethnic violence slipped through the system. Upset to the point of considering tightening the laws. Fortunately that impulse was resisted and the law is as it was.
It's much the same here, Dana. Although the press has a little more editorial latitude, individuals or groups inciting violence and hatred, in both speech and print, are censored. I can say white people are best but not that black people are evil.
Of course you can. We have a newspaper in our county that is nothing but pure racism. That "black people are evil" as well as other races and Jews appear in it all the time. Perfectly legal.
You just cannot say it about an individual, that would be liable.
I worked at the publisher where it was printed for a time.
Why do you not have the right to say suchthings about an individual? What is the rationale behind libel laws?
The paper is called The Eagle. It is disgusting, I have never made it through one, but when I joined the Marines I remember thinking of it. Thinking that it even was one of the things I may die for. (I joined, but was discharged before shipping to boot. Paperwork is only on file, no more. My arthritis. I had already qualified for OCS if I did well in training. :headshake )
Liable is about a specific Person or Entity (like a business/club/etc. race does not exist, every individual is a different color and comes from a different place)
I think perhaps ethnicity is a more useful marker in this than race.
I'm surprised, I never heard of The Eagle and thought they had pretty much cracked down on inflammatory written material.
I Can't find it on Google but your time reference points to a few years ago so I wonder if it still exists?
I've never met anyone from only one ethic background.
It's local. Pretty sure it is still around. I've seen the boxes (free boxes that are here and there).
The publisher is our old Sheriff.
What are you talking about?
Most of the writings from the old Klan, Order and the like are still printed. Mien Kamph is still in book stores. You can buy the CDs of the hate groups with lyrics that will turn your stomach. White Law from Ireland or Wales is really bad, the US groups are worse.
The Satanic black metal groups from some of the Nordic nations are VERY anti-Semitic.
Why do you not have the right to say suchthings about an individual? What is the rationale behind libel laws?
The line is always whether you are hurting anyone with your words. By speaking out against an individual, you have the possibility of hurting their career, social status, etc. But on the other hand, it is not libel* if you can prove that what you said is true in the individual's case. For example, if I said that Mr. Jones must be a thief because he is black, and it turns out that he actually
has stolen things, then I cannot have damaged his reputation and am not guilty of libel, even if I was saying it in a racist fashion with no foreknowledge that he had actually stolen something.
*rkz -
libel is a written defamatory statement;
liable is an adjective and means to be held responsible for something.
Pete: You miserable little snake! You stole from my kin!
Ulysses Everett McGill: Who was fixin' to betray us.
Pete: You didn't know that at the time.
Ulysses Everett McGill: So I borrowed it until I did know.
Pete: That don't make no sense!
Ulysses Everett McGill: Pete, it's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.
The line is always whether you are hurting anyone with your words. By speaking out against an individual, you have the possibility of hurting their career, social status, etc. But on the other hand, it is not libel* if you can prove that what you said is true in the individual's case. For example, if I said that Mr. Jones must be a thief because he is black, and it turns out that he actually has stolen things, then I cannot have damaged his reputation and am not guilty of libel, even if I was saying it in a racist fashion with no foreknowledge that he had actually stolen something.
*rkz - libel is a written defamatory statement; liable is an adjective and means to be held responsible for something.
I have a serious prejudice against nannies. One of the few I have.
You lost me. Are you calling me a nanny for some reason?
Net nanny, they correct people's spelling and grammar.
Sorry, I wasn't doing it to be condescending. You're an educated guy and have expressed your love of reading and knowledge before. I personally appreciate it when someone lets me know I have something wrong, I honestly thought you would too. I didn't mean to nag.