CapNColostomy Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I think I pee'd a little just reading that. Please leave the Second Amendment alone, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Cap, change your panties. rccar, care to explain what's so "shaky ground" about the reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I think the US has been a little too nutsoid on protecting criminals' rights at the expense of victims' rights or stopping criminal activity--other countries are a lot more strict, and in some cases overly strict, but I think we're a bit too liberal. I don't want to change it much, just tweak it a bit to give it more balance. Here's what I'd like to see--a court or legislature-determined set of protocols that must be followed for it to be legal, or a 24 hour on-call judge to give an emergency ruling in order to wiretap. With technology moving so fast, waiting a day or 2 to get a judge's ruling is too long for certain things. I hate it when overwhelming evidence of obvious criminal activity is thrown out on a miniscule technicality. I understand why we have to protect rights, but I hate seeing criminals get away with crimes because some rookie cop forgot to cross one 't' on 40 pages of documents. I want us to find a good way to protect rights but keep up with the rapidly changing technology. The police need to have the ability to pursue criminals quickly by using the latest techniques, but they need to do it without abusing their powers. The laws need to catch up with our technology, too, though it's hard to keep up with everything changing so fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I agree. From a university law course I learned that the law is designed to protect the criminal, in so far as in court for example the odds are very much stacked in the defence's favor. This is even more true for minority groups and the young, whenever they are brought up on charges the toothlessness of the law is made crystal clear. That's not to say we should have something stupid like some of Asia's justice system's, some type of Red Corner deal, but anyone who does not see flaws in the law as we have it today are wearing blinders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 So0 no more spying by the NSA then. Makes the job to catch terrorists harder but if it makes Americans sleep easier at night... As far as the public is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Yeah, well, the government's a much bigger threat than terrorists, hey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I agree. From a university law course I learned that the law is designed to protect the criminal, in so far as in court for example the odds are very much stacked in the defence's favor.Even from what little I know, I could go on and on about how hard it is to get a rapist jailed, what total assholes the lawyers on defence can be, and how things that should work in favour of you can end up working against you. The cops and the "justice" system is just so f***ed up in so many ways (in Norway, at least - I'm sure the US, even with its Gitmo abuse and whatnot, is civilized enough not to have a law saying that rape is only punishable if the victim offers physical resistance). I've got five friends who've gotten raped. I could be completely wrong, but I have this nasty feeling I'm not. I've learned a couple of things, to put it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Yeah, well, the government's a much bigger threat than terrorists, hey? I think they are two different evils. Terrorists are out to kill without discrimination. Governments are out to quietly gain control. Which one is worse, the enemy you do see coming, or the one you don't see coming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 I guess we all saw the hijackings and suicide bombings coming on September 11. Without being smart, I can see the sort of things that Star Wars, V for Vendetta, ect warns against. The types of governments portrayed here cannot be expected to work for the people and are the sort of thing that should not under any circumstances be tolerated. With that said, America and the West are very liberal when compared to the former Soviet Union or communist China, and where Iraq could be seen as America overstepping it's bounds, call me crazy but while there are terrorist groups plotting the murder of innocent people there are little if any lengths I will not accept in order to stop them. That goes for anyone, not just America. If the peace movement had a way that would guarentee the safety and freedom of those terrorists targets and it did not call for war or spying I'm all for it. Remove forces from Iraq is one idea, a good one in my view, but terrorists will still be just as active regardless of what we do. Iraq had only given them a legitimate reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 I guess we all saw the hijackings and suicide bombings coming on September 11. Without being smart, I can see the sort of things that Star Wars, V for Vendetta, ect warns against. The types of governments portrayed here cannot be expected to work for the people and are the sort of thing that should not under any circumstances be tolerated. With that said, America and the West are very liberal when compared to the former Soviet Union or communist China, and where Iraq could be seen as America overstepping it's bounds, call me crazy but while there are terrorist groups plotting the murder of innocent people there are little if any lengths I will not accept in order to stop them. That goes for anyone, not just America. If the peace movement had a way that would guarentee the safety and freedom of those terrorists targets and it did not call for war or spying I'm all for it. Remove forces from Iraq is one idea, a good one in my view, but terrorists will still be just as active regardless of what we do. Iraq had only given them a legitimate reason. You can't very well speak for the majority of people though. Most Americans are against having their privacy invaded, and the government's job is to exercise and/or enforce the will of the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 You can't very well speak for the majority of people though. Most Americans are against having their privacy invaded, and the government's job is to exercise and/or enforce the will of the people. Yes. That is true. The problem we have is to get our government to respond to the will of the people and not to the will of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Since when has the government done that? Seriously, most Americans wouldn't like to have their privacy invaded, and fair enough, they shouldn't. Most Americans however are not criminals or terrorists, and it would be for that not even one percent that the survailence is conducted on. I'm certain all Americans would want to be kept safe from terrorism, unless they genuinely believe that America is the true threat are are willing to ally themselves with Al Qaeda to bring it down. No, I thought not. My point is by tying the hands of law enforcement as much as some people would want it would make the task of finding out and acting on terrorist plots very difficult if not impossible. Allow me to paint a picture for you. There's going to be a nuclear attack, you have a terrorist who said he knows how it will take place but he's not talking. How far will you go to get that information? Or will you sacrifice the millions of lives the attack would take and uphold the terrorist's 'rights', such as they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Since when has the government done that? Seriously, most Americans wouldn't like to have their privacy invaded, and fair enough, they shouldn't. Most Americans however are not criminals or terrorists, and it would be for that not even one percent that the survailence is conducted on. I'm certain all Americans would want to be kept safe from terrorism, unless they genuinely believe that America is the true threat are are willing to ally themselves with Al Qaeda to bring it down. No, I thought not. My point is by tying the hands of law enforcement as much as some people would want it would make the task of finding out and acting on terrorist plots very difficult if not impossible. Allow me to paint a picture for you. There's going to be a nuclear attack, you have a terrorist who said he knows how it will take place but he's not talking. How far will you go to get that information? Or will you sacrifice the millions of lives the attack would take and uphold the terrorist's 'rights', such as they are? I hate 24. This thread isn't about the rights of terrorists though, it's about the rights of the average American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Like the rights the people in the Twin Towers had? Or the Pentagon? How about Flight 93? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Like the rights the people in the Twin Towers had? Or the Pentagon? How about Flight 93? Uhh, that's why we're killing terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Exactly, and in order to find them and stop them, should we or should we not use any means avalible in order to keep terrorists from further acts of mass murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 17, 2006 Author Share Posted September 17, 2006 Like the rights the people in the Twin Towers had? Or the Pentagon? How about Flight 93? Yes. Exactly, and in order to find them and stop them, should we or should we not use any means avalible in order to keep terrorists from further acts of mass murder? No. For example, one mean would be to launch a war to exterminate the world of all Muslims. I'd certainly not be happy if we went with that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Allow me to paint a picture for you. There's going to be a nuclear attack, you have a terrorist who said he knows how it will take place but he's not talking. How far will you go to get that information? Or will you sacrifice the millions of lives the attack would take and uphold the terrorist's 'rights', such as they are? I will get that information any way that I can. My problem is that torture became public knowledge. When it comes to terrorists, we have to use any steps necessary to make sure our people are safe. With out destroying our own freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 No. For example, one mean would be to launch a war to exterminate the world of all Muslims. I'd certainly not be happy if we went with that option. No one should, because...I dunno how to break this to you, but the Muslim world is not terrorism anymore than all Americans are gun toting rednecks. Nuke the terrorists, I have no problem with that, but to attack innocents would make us no better than Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 ^^^^ Even though you are not talking directly to me, I agree with your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 No one should, because...I dunno how to break this to you, but the Muslim world is not terrorism anymore than all Americans are gun toting rednecks. Nuke the terrorists, I have no problem with that, but to attack innocents would make us no better than Israel. FYI, nuclear war = nuclear winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Nuclear war = the end of the world. I'm not talking about that, just gather up every last terrorist and fry the bastards. Realistically speaking nuclear anything is bad, in terms of the retalliation and how rogue states will join in the fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 17, 2006 Author Share Posted September 17, 2006 No one should, because...I dunno how to break this to you, but the Muslim world is not terrorism anymore than all Americans are gun toting rednecks. Nuke the terrorists, I have no problem with that, but to attack innocents would make us no better than Israel. Hey, all the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims right? Well, if there were no Muslims there couldn't be another 9/11! If we truely took every step possible to stop another 9/11, really, we'd have to kill every single Muslim, because we can't be sure which are radical and which are not. So no, we cannot take every step possible to stop another 9/11. That's the bottom line. As a free, non-murdering-every-single-Muslim-in-the-world society, we HAVE to always be vulnerable to some degree. That's something that we have to live with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Source Posted September 17, 2006 Share Posted September 17, 2006 Hey, all the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims right? Well, if there were no Muslims there couldn't be another 9/11! If we truely took every step possible to stop another 9/11, really, we'd have to kill every single Muslim, because we can't be sure which are radical and which are not. So no, we cannot take every step possible to stop another 9/11. That's the bottom line. As a free, non-murdering-every-single-Muslim-in-the-world society, we HAVE to always be vulnerable to some degree. That's something that we have to live with. I don't believe that every Muslim wants to kill us. If there were no Muslims, another faction would want to kill us. This has nothing to do with one specific culture or religion. This has to do with people who would follow their beliefs in an extreme manner, and they don't posses a single shread of moral stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 17, 2006 Author Share Posted September 17, 2006 I don't believe that every Muslim wants to kill us. If there were no Muslims, another faction would want to kill us. This has nothing to do with one specific culture or religion. This has to do with people who would follow their beliefs in an extreme manner, and they don't posses a single shread of moral stability. Of course not EVERY Muslim wants to kill us. The problem is that we don't know WHICH Muslims want to kill us. So if we were to REALLY use EVERY STEP POSSIBLE to stop terrorism - we would have to establish an authoritarian society where all Muslims are rounded up into death camps, because we can't tell which ones are terrorists and which ones are not. So saying that every step should be used to combat al-Qaeda is like saying that we should become Nazis. Not such a great idea IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.24edface7c76d897543b1e05da64a97d.gif)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.