Discussion:
Osama Plotting Against America, While Bush Plays Fake War in Iraq (GOP, The Party of Treason)
(too old to reply)
Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
2006-01-20 02:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Osama who?


-----

Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka ***@yahoo.com aka Yang's little poltregeist bitch)

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2221 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting

Having Bush fuck up my country: Worthless

-----


Contact duke's priest and ask
him why duke is such a racist:

http://www.stpatrickbr.org/
Father Gerard "Jerry" Martin
stpatrickbr<AT>bellsouth<DOT>net
Saint Patrick Catholic Church
12424 Brogdon Lane
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
Unpleasant Truth
2006-01-29 20:25:39 UTC
Permalink
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
Post by Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
Osama who?
You know - the Osama whom Bill Clinton had offered to him on a silver
platter, and deliberately let go. The Osama whom Bill Clinton refused to
take out when we had him in his sights multiple times. THAT Osama.
EC-10
2006-01-29 23:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
You know - the Osama whom Bill Clinton had offered to him on a silver
platter, and deliberately let go. The Osama whom Bill Clinton refused to
take out when we had him in his sights multiple times. THAT Osama.
I like The Now Show's assessment of Bin Laden's latest threatening tapes:

"'We WILL attack America again, but we've been REALLY busy...' It's a bit
like one of those family updates you get in naff Christmas cards, you know:
'It's all been nutty here at Al Q'aeda Towers! The kids are back at school
(finally!)... The cave looks great, and the extension is nearly done.
Builders, eh? What can you do...?'"

- BBC Radio 4; The Now Show
v***@p.com
2006-01-29 22:48:49 UTC
Permalink
"Oh, some have been laden!"
robw
2006-01-30 01:16:09 UTC
Permalink
And who had the first shot at Saddam??

And who followed Clinton as Pres and what did he do about Osama?

Went on vacation?

Idiot.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
Post by Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
Osama who?
You know - the Osama whom Bill Clinton had offered to him on a silver
platter, and deliberately let go. The Osama whom Bill Clinton refused to
take out when we had him in his sights multiple times. THAT Osama.
Unpleasant Truth
2006-01-30 03:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
And who had the first shot at Saddam??
And who followed Clinton as Pres and what did he do about Osama?
Well, Saddam participated in the coup that brought his Baath Party to
power in 1968, so that would have been LBJ.

He became head of state in 1979, so that would have been Jimmy Carter.
But Carter was resting on his "laurels" of helping install the first
modern Islamofascist Terrorist State and a bit preoccupied totally
mishandling the 444 day hostage disaster.

But I suspect you're referring to Bush 41. And he screwed up - because he
listened to the appeasers on the left rather than the serious people on
the right.
Post by robw
Went on vacation?
Idiot.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
"Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass"
Post by Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine Snorting Ass
Osama who?
You know - the Osama whom Bill Clinton had offered to him on a silver
platter, and deliberately let go. The Osama whom Bill Clinton refused to
take out when we had him in his sights multiple times. THAT Osama.
laffs@'em-all.com
2006-01-30 04:32:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:11:54 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by robw
And who had the first shot at Saddam??
And who followed Clinton as Pres and what did he do about Osama?
Well, Saddam participated in the coup that brought his Baath Party to
power in 1968, so that would have been LBJ.
He became head of state in 1979, so that would have been Jimmy Carter.
But Carter was resting on his "laurels" of helping install the first
modern Islamofascist Terrorist State and a bit preoccupied totally
mishandling the 444 day hostage disaster.
But I suspect you're referring to Bush 41. And he screwed up - because he
listened to the appeasers on the left rather than the serious people on
the right.
Bush was asleep in foreign policy---after being warned
about terrorists.

His ONLY concern was to get money flowing to the
richest and getting rid of regulations that protect the
American public from corporate greed.

Bush attacked Iraq----because he could---not because it
was a threat.

For over a year he was being told that Iraq had NOTHING
it could possible threaten us with----up to mere weeks
before he launched his attack.

Wilson told him that the "yellow cake" threat was BOGUS

The CIA told him that no such nuclear programs used the
"aluminum tubes" and that it was unlikey that any
nuclear threat could be held by Iraq

Hans Blix and UNSCOM were telling him that NO trace,
anywhere could be found to back up claims of "massive
amounts of WMD capable of being launched at a moments
notice or by missiles"

Yet your lying sack of shit didn't bat an eye to get
2400 Americans killed in what turns out to be for
POLITICAL GAIN.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
=======================================================================
Subject: golden/brown showers
Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30
swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
Unpleasant Truth
2006-01-30 07:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:11:54 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by robw
And who had the first shot at Saddam??
And who followed Clinton as Pres and what did he do about Osama?
Well, Saddam participated in the coup that brought his Baath Party to
power in 1968, so that would have been LBJ.
He became head of state in 1979, so that would have been Jimmy Carter.
But Carter was resting on his "laurels" of helping install the first
modern Islamofascist Terrorist State and a bit preoccupied totally
mishandling the 444 day hostage disaster.
But I suspect you're referring to Bush 41. And he screwed up - because he
listened to the appeasers on the left rather than the serious people on
the right.
Bush was asleep in foreign policy---after being warned
about terrorists.
Bill Clinton had bin Laden offered up on a silver platter. He could have
taken him into custody but he turned down the offer because he "didn't
have the evidence to hold him." The idiot thought bin Landen was just a
run of the mill criminal, not a terrorist. He deliberately let him go.
Then he had several opportunities to take bin Laden out, once when we had
him literally in our sights, but he didn't have the guts. All the
Democrats are the same way. That is why we can NEVER trust them with our
national security.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
His ONLY concern was to get money flowing to the
richest and getting rid of regulations that protect the
American public from corporate greed.
You mean like letting a large corporation named Loral sell our nuclear
missile technology to the Chinese in exchange for illegal campaign
contributions from the Red Army? O, htat's right, that was the traitor
Clinton.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush attacked Iraq----because he could---not because it
was a threat.
Saddam was a threat. The fact that Democrats consistently want to wait
until AFTER we are hit instead of taking preemptive action is another
reason why can NEVER trust them with our national security. Thanks to
Democrat mentality, N. Korea has nukes and may soon be selling them to
Iran.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
For over a year he was being told that Iraq had NOTHING
it could possible threaten us with----up to mere weeks
before he launched his attack.
Nope.

http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html

As problematic as the October 2002 NIE was, it was not the Community's
biggest analytic failure on Iraq. Even more misleading was the river of
intelligence that flowed from the CIA to top policymakers over long
periods of time--in the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and in its more
widely distributed companion, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief
(SEIB). These daily reports were, if anything, more alarmist and less
nuanced than the NIE. It was not that the intelligence was markedly
different. Rather, it was that the PDBs and SEIBs, with their
attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition, left an
impression of many corroborating reports where in fact there were very few
sources. And in other instances, intelligence suggesting the existence of
weapons programs was conveyed to senior policymakers, but later
information casting doubt upon the validity of that intelligence was not.
In ways both subtle and not so subtle, the daily reports seemed to be
"selling" intelligence--in order to keep its customers, or at least the
First Customer, interested.
----

If you want to take issue with the CIA, by all means do so. Just remember
it was Bill Clinton's CIA Bush inherited. And for decades, starting with
Frank Church, continuing with idiot Jimmy Carter and his idiot CIA
director Stansfield Turner, all the way through Bill Clinton, the left has
done its best to undermine our intelligence capabilities for one reason or
another.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Wilson told him that the "yellow cake" threat was BOGUS
Wilson has been completely discredited as a serial liar.

By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February
2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear
weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended
for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has
said publicly.

[i.e., he lied]

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that
the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war.
He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion
that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by
the White House.

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the
Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined
yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

[i.e., he lied several times]

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence
about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said,

[another Wilson lie]

bolstered the
case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions
and even the government's previous statements,

[yet another Wilson lie]

the CIA did not tell the
White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa
intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's
January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched
"yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar
intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the
intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was
unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his
role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that
his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into
whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were
disclosed to reporters last summer.

Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that
Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at
the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA.
The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an
investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials
provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA
employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an
investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge
anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert
officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that
Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12,
2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of
Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM
[prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots
of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort
of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas
officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report
said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to
send him to Niger.

{lie]

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir
published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the
trip."

[lie]

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame
was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he
said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

[lie]

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's
request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a
purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found
Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at
his wife's suggestion.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The
Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger
intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because
"the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

[lie]

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the
conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he
had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and
dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel
he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters.

[maybe not a lie - he told so many lies maybe he was confused]

The
documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were
not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have
tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State
Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane
Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in
June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an
Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between
Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to
discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after
debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let
the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA
contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger
intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated
possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing
reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from
Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited
as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after
it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an
assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was
trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
The CIA told him that no such nuclear programs used the
"aluminum tubes" and that it was unlikey that any
nuclear threat could be held by Iraq
Hans Blix and UNSCOM were telling him that NO trace,
anywhere could be found to back up claims of "massive
amounts of WMD capable of being launched at a moments
notice or by missiles"
http://www.kurd.org/newsletters/20041102145552.html#10

10) Blix Believed Iraq Dossier Was 'Understated'
Scotsman
By Gavin Cordon, Whitehall Editor
October 12, 2004

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix believed the Government's
controversial Iraq weapons dossier actually understated the case against
Saddam Hussein, according to documents released today by the Foreign
Office.

The papers released by the FO show that British officials at the United
Nations in New York showed a draft of the dossier to Dr Blix in September
2002, two weeks before the final version was published.

A note from one official, Adam Bye, said that Dr Blix had liked the
section
on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as he believed that it did not
exaggerate the facts.

According to the note, Dr Blix said that the dossier even risked
understating Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction -
particularly the lethal anthrax virus.

He also described the claim that even if Iraq was able to acquire fissile
material from abroad, it would still take at least two years to build a
working nuclear bomb as "modest".

Since war, Dr Blix has strongly criticised the case made for war by
Britain
and the United States, based on Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of
illegal WMD.

However, in a Commons statement, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that at
the time the dossier was published, the assumption that Iraq did indeed
have WMD was shared across the international community.

In his note, sent to Mr Straw's office, Mr Bye said: "On the whole, Blix
liked section 6 (on WMD) - he felt it did not exaggerate the facts, nor
revert to rhetoric, probably both desirable for its credibility.

"Blix felt that more evidence of illegal procurement activities would have
been good - this was the sort of activity/evidence that most impressed him
when reading WMD reports (Blix is of course a more sophisticated reader
than most).

"Blix also thought that the section risked understating Iraq's indigenous
capacity to produce WMD (ie meaning that, even if it held low stocks of
WMD, it could quickly produce more).

"Specific mention of anthrax might be particularly worthwhile in this
respect - Unmovic (the UN weapons inspectors) believed this was an area
where Iraq had very likely maintained indigenous capability (though
Unmovic
had not said so in public, nor was the case totally watertight)."

Under "additional thoughts", Mr Bye noted that Dr Blix regarded the
assessment in the dossier of the time it would take for Iraq to build a
nuclear bomb as "modest".

"Blix believed the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) had, at the
time, assessed Iraq could complete a nuclear bomb within a year. While
Iraq
had trouble putting together a missile (mismatch between the size of the
bomb and size of the missile) a bomb could have been delivered by plane,"
he wrote.

Mr Bye said Dr Blix also regarded the section on Iraq's chemical weapons
capacity as "modest" and he had not challenged the claim in the dossier
that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from the African state of Niger.

"He thought we should be clear that such uranium was not weapons usable
without enrichment (no small feat). However it was illegal for Iraq to buy
it," Mr Bye wrote.

However Dr Blix did challenge claims in the dossier that aluminium pipes
acquired by Iraq were for the purpose of uranium enrichment and that
castor
oil resin could be used by the Iraqis to create a battlefield weapon.

The comments by Dr Blix were made before UN weapons inspectors were able
to
re-enter Iraq and see for themselves conditions on the ground.

However they will be seen by the Foreign Office as further corroboration
for their view that at the time the dossier was published, the view that
Iraq had WMD was widely shared across the international community.
EC-10
2006-01-30 09:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
All the
Democrats are the same way. That is why we can NEVER trust them with our
national security.
Can't trust Democrats with your security; can't trust Republicans with your
freedom. Shame none of your politicians seem to have heard the phrase
"happy medium", isn't it?
Unpleasant Truth
2006-01-31 04:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
All the
Democrats are the same way. That is why we can NEVER trust them with our
national security.
Can't trust Democrats with your security; can't trust Republicans with your
freedom.
We can trust Republicans with our freedom a lot more than Democrats
(although still not nearly enough). Republicans don't want to break into
my house and confiscate my guns. Republicans lowered my taxes several
times. All Democrats have ever done is raise them.
Republicans/conservatives oppose using eminent domain to take private
property from individuals and give it to big corporation,
Democrats/liberals support it. (look at the vote on Kelo). Republicans
don't like laws telling property owners they can't even use their own
property, Democrats do. Republicans don't want to take away my religious
freedoms. Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time. Republicans don't make
up speech codes and racial quotas and censor speakers that don't agree
with their politics, as Bill Gates' Seattle prep school just did.
(They're perfectly within their rights to do so, of course. Just don't
lie and say leftists support free speech.)

The only "right" Democrats want to preserve is the right to kill the
unborn and newly born, the elderly and the handicapped, but then what do
you expect from the pro-slavery party?
EC-10
2006-01-31 16:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
We can trust Republicans with our freedom a lot more than Democrats
(although still not nearly enough). Republicans don't want to break
into my house and confiscate my guns.
I am not qualified to comment on this point. As a non-American I find your
apparently inextricable association of freedom with personal gun ownership
rather difficult to understand. However, this is perhaps because I live in
the UK, which has always had extremely strict gun control laws in
comparison to your nation. Maybe I am just conditioned by my environment
to be happy to leave guns to the military and the police.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans lowered my taxes
several times. All Democrats have ever done is raise them.
Again, this is difficult for me without knowing a great deal more about
American tax structure. I assume you are referring to taxes in general, as
opposed to lowering one while raising another. British parties usually
campaign on a promise to lower taxes, and indeed occasionally do so - but
we normally find something else quietly gets more expensive at the same
time.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't want to take away my religious freedoms.
Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time.
Is this the freedom to choose which religion you follow, or to choose none?
Or is it the freedom to choose Christianity or, well, choose Christianity?
From a foreign point of view, there seem to be a lot of Christian militants
associated with the Bush administration and the Republican party in
general, and that causes concern for many people. These groups do not seem
to hold an attitude of tolerance towards other faiths, or those who do not
follow a religion. Policy often seems to be influenced by what someone or
other thinks God wants - which in my view is wrong, and as far as I can
tell runs counter to the Constitution.

It strikes me, though, that any organisation established to resist the idea
of compulsory religion is going to exhibit some rather Newtonian behaviour:
it's going to push back most strongly in the direction from which it's
receiving most pressure. Is it perhaps possible that ACLU appears to be
focusing exclusively on Christianity because it is fundamentalist
Christianity that is exerting most pressure on Americans to conform to
their doctrines? And does it not then follow that those Christians against
whom ACLU appears to be pushing hardest will find it easy to claim that
they are being exclusively targeted? Is it not possible that such people
will naturally interpret such resistance to their own pressure to be an
attempt to undermine their faith completely?

Again, it may be because I am a clueless foreigner. But I have read ACLU's
website, and paid particular attention to their stated position on
religious freedoms:

"The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion,
or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

The site goes on to list several cases in which they have become involved
in religious liberties issues, including:

"September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-
grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show."

"May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who
was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners."

"November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of
evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas."

And so on. Now, it may be that these incidents did not in fact happen, or
that they are misrepresented on the website. At first glance, however,
these and other examples do seem to conflict with your assertion that ACLU
are trying to remove religious liberties. Perhaps there is some serious
discrepancy between ACLU's statements on their site and their statements
and activities in the 'real world'?
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't make up speech codes and racial quotas and censor
speakers that don't agree with their politics, as Bill Gates' Seattle
prep school just did.
I do recall reading about 'free speech zones' around the Republican
campaign presentations... Perhaps this was misrepresented? It just seems
a little odd in a country that has built itself around the idea that the
entire nation is nothing other than a 'free speech zone'.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
(They're perfectly within their rights to do so,
of course. Just don't lie and say leftists support free speech.)
I don't think I did. I think I said that you can't trust Democrats with
your security and you can't trust Republicans with your freedom, and that
it's a shame your politicians (and ours, for that matter) have no sense of
'middle ground'.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
The only "right" Democrats want to preserve is the right to kill the
unborn and newly born, the elderly and the handicapped, but then what
do you expect from the pro-slavery party?
Which is fine - as long as you do not expect me to take your opinions as
representing an objective point of view. Since you are clearly aligned
with the Republican party it is only to be expected that you will laud them
and demonise the other group.
Unpleasant Truth
2006-02-01 03:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
We can trust Republicans with our freedom a lot more than Democrats
(although still not nearly enough). Republicans don't want to break
into my house and confiscate my guns.
I am not qualified to comment on this point. As a non-American I find your
apparently inextricable association of freedom with personal gun ownership
rather difficult to understand. However, this is perhaps because I live in
the UK, which has always had extremely strict gun control laws in
comparison to your nation. Maybe I am just conditioned by my
environment
Post by EC-10
to be happy to leave guns to the military and the police.
You don't need to apologize. Leftists in this country (and by that, I
don't mean to call YOU a leftist, although I won't hesititate to do so if
I find cause :-) don't understand the individual's right and duty to
defend himself, his family and his property either.

However, you must be aware - unless there's censorship I'm unaware of -
that crime rates have soared since the U.K. banned guns. And in South
Africa, murder rates have increased 15 times since the gun control ban
there.

September 19, 2005

Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie

A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country
in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be
assaulted than in America.

England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults
while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.
---

In particular, burglary - a crime where the criminals break in while a
home is occupied, posing the risk of assualt or evern murder, represents a
far higher proportion of thefts in countries (or states) where there is
strict gun control
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm. The reason is
as obvious as it is simple - where criminals know the homeowner is legally
prevented from being armed, they have far less incentive to care whether
they are home or not than in cases where they risk being shot and killed.


*This is**
LONDON*
04/04/05 - News and city section

*105-year-old woman terrorised by burglars*
By Jo Pearson, Evening Standard

The first pictures have been released of the 105-year-old woman who died
after being targeted repeatedly by burglars.

Amelia Whale, shown here celebrating her 100th birthday, refused to move
from the home she shared with her younger brother Leonard in Islington,
despite four break-ins in 18 months.

Police installed security bars and CCTV last year after the third
burglary. But that did not stop Bernard Gallagher, 23, and Mark O'Brien
26, raiding her home last September and stealing £2,000.

The pair, both travellers, were caught on camera and traced to a
campsite. They now face jail.

But Miss Whale, known to her friends as Dolly, will never see them
receive justice. She died from natural causes last month after living in
fear. Her friends and family said she never recovered from the trauma of
the break-ins - and have called for lengthy jail sentences to be imposed.

Former neighbours Sheila and Tony Ashby said that Miss Whale's health
deteriorated after the raid and that she had died fearful of becoming a
victim yet again.

Mr Ashby, who now lives in Chingford, said: "They should get 20 years.
Terrorising old people is not a victimless crime. They knew she was an
old lady. She was as good as gold beforehand."

Mrs Ashby said her neighbour had been deliberately targeted by the
intruders. "After the burglary she was very nervous, especially when Len
went shopping. The cowards waited for Len to go out. They were taunting
her." Miss Whale, a former leather worker, had lived in the house off
Essex Road, for 93 years.

Gallagher and O'Brien admitted one count of burglary in court last Friday.

Snaresbrook Crown Court heard that they and an accomplice forced their
way in while Miss Whale was in the sitting room. They then ransacked the
flat, rifling through boxes and throwing them on to the floor.

They even dragged Miss Whale up from her chair to search underneath for
her pension book. She was unable to stand up by herself.

Eventually the burglars discovered the Whales' life savings, stashed in
a shoe box.

The CCTV set up at Miss Whale's home helped identify all three men.
Police arrested Gallagher and O'Brien at a caravan site in Wickford,
Essex. They will be sentenced on Friday, but the hunt for their
accomplice goes on.

Find this story at
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17686504?version=1
----

And in the rare instance where a British citizen dreams he still lives in
the land where one's home is one's castle, and has the audacity to
actually defend himself, one can be assured HE, not the criminal, will
serve a long time behind bars.


Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Yearsprint close
Tue 23 Mar 2004

3:23pm (UK)
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years

By Will Batchelor, PA News


A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed
for
eight years today.

Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater
Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.

When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and
stabbed one
of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times.

Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and
died
in hospital.

Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a
three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.

He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: "Four
men,
including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay
and
this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells' death.

"I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the
circumstances."

Three other men were charged with robbery and firearms offences in
connection with the incident, which took place in February last
year.
----

THAT is what freedom loving Americans can't understand.

And where gun control fails, what next? Here's what:

BBC NEWS
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
* A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to
reduce deaths from stabbing. *

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on
the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all
stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol
and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be
publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives
have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a
short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial
superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate
to inner organs.
...

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Published: 2005/05/26 23:48:35 GMT
----
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans lowered my taxes
several times. All Democrats have ever done is raise them.
Again, this is difficult for me without knowing a great deal more about
American tax structure. I assume you are referring to taxes in general, as
opposed to lowering one while raising another. British parties usually
campaign on a promise to lower taxes, and indeed occasionally do so - but
we normally find something else quietly gets more expensive at the same
time.
For the most part, these comments refer to income tax rates. Despite
lowered rates, however, due to the growth of the economy, tax receipts
have increased over the past couple of years.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't want to take away my religious freedoms.
Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time.
Is this the freedom to choose which religion you follow, or to choose none?
Both.
Post by EC-10
Or is it the freedom to choose Christianity or, well, choose
Christianity?
Post by EC-10
From a foreign point of view, there seem to be a lot of Christian militants
Please define "Christian militants" and give us a couple of real world
examples of the behavior you apparently find frightening. I try to look
at foreign news sources once in a while, but of course I cannot have a
feel for what you get as the normal fare.
Post by EC-10
associated with the Bush administration and the Republican party in
general, and that causes concern for many people. These groups do not seem
to hold an attitude of tolerance towards other faiths, or those who do not
follow a religion. Policy often seems to be influenced by what someone or
other thinks God wants - which in my view is wrong, and as far as I can
tell runs counter to the Constitution.
I should point out that the abolitionist movement in this country's 19th
century was Christian led, and the Civil Rights movement in the 20th
century was also. Does that trouble you?
Post by EC-10
It strikes me, though, that any organisation established to resist the idea
There is NO compulsion of religion anywhere. But there is plenty of
compulsion against it. Even voluntary prayers are banned in public
schools. Recently a federal judge ruled a chaplain could not utter the
word "Jesus" in his invocation prior to a session of the Indiana congress.
Post by EC-10
it's going to push back most strongly in the direction from which it's
receiving most pressure. Is it perhaps possible that ACLU appears to be
focusing exclusively on Christianity because it is fundamentalist
Christianity that is exerting most pressure on Americans to conform to
their doctrines?
Currently the ACLU's main activity has been running all over the country
tearing down long standing (well over 50 years) displays of the Ten
Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not even exclusive to Christians,
much less "fundamentalists."

They ACLU is even trying to erase every vestige of America's Christian
heritage. Recently they got the county of Los Angeles to remove a tiny
little cross from its seal.- a seal that includes a much, much larger
image of the pagan goddess Pomona, to celebrate the heritage and
importance of agriculture.

Now, is that anti-Christian bigotry or what?
Post by EC-10
And does it not then follow that those Christians against
whom ACLU appears to be pushing hardest will find it easy to claim that
they are being exclusively targeted?
They are.
Post by EC-10
Is it not possible that such people
will naturally interpret such resistance to their own pressure to be an
attempt to undermine their faith completely?
And, yes, that is a natural fear.
Post by EC-10
Again, it may be because I am a clueless foreigner. But I have read ACLU's
website, and paid particular attention to their stated position on
What they say and what they do are very different things.

From the magazine, Human Events:

Last Tuesday, the Opinion Journal's James Taranto, in his daily "Best of
the Web," <http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006144> cited the
following passage from the ACLU's "Free Speech" page
<http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm> *(UPDATE: Since this
column was first posted, the ACLU has changed their website. The text
below is /EXACTLY/ how it used to appear on their "Free Speech" page)*:

/"It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first
freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.' The Constitution's framers believed that
freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of
a democratic society."/

Notice anything missing?

See those ellipses in the ACLU's quotation of the 1st Amendment? Do you
know what portion of the Amendment the ACLU "censored"?

Here's the 1st Amendment in its entirety:

/"Congress shall make no law *RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR* abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances."/

No wonder the ACLU is usually wrong on religious issues: The ACLU
version doesn't include religious protections.
----
Post by EC-10
"The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion,
or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
The site goes on to list several cases in which they have become involved
"September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-
grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show."
"May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who
was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and
prisoners."
Post by EC-10
"November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of
evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas."
And so on. Now, it may be that these incidents did not in fact happen, or
that they are misrepresented on the website. At first glance, however,
these and other examples do seem to conflict with your assertion that ACLU
are trying to remove religious liberties. Perhaps there is some serious
discrepancy between ACLU's statements on their site and their statements
and activities in the 'real world'?
What you have experienced is called selective reporting (what else would
you expect from the ALCU's own web site?). Every once in a while the ACLU
defends some Christian somewhere. It has to - otherwise it would have
zero credibility for its claims. But those are greatly outweighed by its
relentless jihad against Christian religious expression in public.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't make up speech codes and racial quotas and censor
speakers that don't agree with their politics, as Bill Gates' Seattle
prep school just did.
I do recall reading about 'free speech zones' around the Republican
campaign presentations... Perhaps this was misrepresented? It just seems
a little odd in a country that has built itself around the idea that the
entire nation is nothing other than a 'free speech zone'.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
(They're perfectly within their rights to do so,
of course. Just don't lie and say leftists support free speech.)
I don't think I did. I think I said that you can't trust Democrats with
your security and you can't trust Republicans with your freedom, and that
it's a shame your politicians (and ours, for that matter) have no sense of
'middle ground'.
I just wonder what you base your assessment that "you can't trust
Republicans with your freedom" on. Based on your assessment of the ACLU,
it's pretty clear you're not getting anywhere near a balanced picture.

I should also point out that the ACLU is an extremist organization,
supporting even the distribution of child pornography. It is currently
defending an obnoxious group, called NAMBLA, which consists of homosexual
pedophiles who get together to swap stories (and who knows what else), and
publish booklets not only on how wonderful sex with children is ("sex
before eight or it's too late" is their motto), but also on how to lure
and rape children without getting caught.

Bradenton Herald | 03/23/2004 | ACLU aiding criminals

In October 1997, Jeffrey Curley, a 10-year-old Cambridge,
Mass.,
boy, was playing outside his home when he was lured into a car
by
Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari.
The two men, seeking a child to rape, attacked Jeffrey, who
fought
back. Then they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked
rag,
molested his dead body in Jayne's apartment in Manchester,
N.H.,
stuffed the body into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container and
threw
the poor child's remains, like a sack of garbage, into the
Great
Works River in Maine.
During their trials, at which the men were convicted of murder
and
sentenced to life without parole, it was revealed that Jaynes
and
Sicari were members of the abominable North American Man-Boy
Love
Association. This repugnant group advocates and even instructs
its
members on the sexual rape of little boys by grown men.
It was also revealed during the trials that Jaynes was a timid
pedophile for years, until he joined NAMBLA in 1996, according
to
his own diary. Then he became emboldened by the idea that
there were
others who shared his twisted, sick obsession. He fueled his
perversion through the group's Web site and e-mails filled
with
horrid, pornographic images of children. He read with great
interest
the NAMBLA publication entitled "The Rape and Escape Manual."
Jaynes and others of his notorious ilk take pleasure in
inflicting
sexual atrocities on the smallest, weakest members of
society - our
children. In our area, we have seen the horror inflicted on
families
by the abduction and murder of a child, most recently the
Carlie
Brucia case. Civilized society itself is ripped apart and
wounded by
these shocking acts against the defenseless. Obviously, those
who
commit such crimes should be put away, with no chance to ever
walk
among us again. But what of groups who aid and abet such
heinous
criminal acts?
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, NAMBLA is
simply
exercising its freedom of speech in publishing this bizarre,
outlandish material. In fact, the ACLU is defending NAMBLA
against a
$200 million lawsuit filed by the parents of Jeffrey Curley.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
The only "right" Democrats want to preserve is the right to kill the
unborn and newly born, the elderly and the handicapped, but then what
do you expect from the pro-slavery party?
Which is fine - as long as you do not expect me to take your opinions as
representing an objective point of view. Since you are clearly aligned
with the Republican party it is only to be expected that you will laud them
and demonise the other group.
I'm not aligned with any party - at least not to the extent that I support
the party above my principles. I am aligned with constitutional
conservatism and liberty, which means I support the smallest possible
federal government with most of the power delegated to the states - as the
founding fathers (or rebels, or whatever you call them :-) intended.
Therefore, I strongly opposed Pres. Bush's great expansion of Medicare and
education spending, as well as the rest of the grossly boated domestic
budget spending. I should point out, however, that in every case,
Democrats wanted to spend more - sigh.

In fact, I got my start in politics working on the campaign of a Democrat
governor - because he was more conservative than the Republican, and
because the Republican was engaging in such a slimy campaign that I was
enraged enough to get involve. So if the Democrats ever supported liberty
more than Republicans in any way, I would support that, and would say so -
and beat the Republicans over the head with it in an attempt to outdo the
Democrats. My dedication to liberty demands it.
EC-10
2006-02-01 13:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
You don't need to apologize. Leftists in this country (and by that, I
don't mean to call YOU a leftist, although I won't hesititate to do so
if I find cause :-) don't understand the individual's right and duty
to defend himself, his family and his property either.
However, you must be aware - unless there's censorship I'm unaware of
- that crime rates have soared since the U.K. banned guns.
It's not so much censorship as spin. As far as crime rates are
concerned, it's really not possible to tell exactly what's happening in
Britain, since the Government will say one thing, and various other
organisations and pressure groups will all say something else.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if crime rates HAVE gone up - certainly
public fear of crime has risen sharply and the media have gone into a
gleeful frenzy in their attempts to generate hysteria - but the cause of
any such upswing would also have to be carefully examined.

Is it down to the banning of guns? I'm pretty certain we can say it's
not. Bear in mind that guns weren't widely available in Britain even
before the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was introduced - they've never
really been a part of our national consciousness, you might say.
Relatively few people possessed weapons (excluding farmers who routinely
keep shotguns and rifles for vermin control); certainly only a small
percentage possessed handguns, and then only for sporting use. The 1997
Act was criticised because it really had very little effect other than to
outlaw handgun shooting as a viable sport in Britain.

Some would suggest that the increase - sorry, the *perceived* increase in
burglaries, car thefts and robberies is down to more widespread
availability of illegal drugs; where violent crime is commonly (and, I
think, justifiably) put down to the increasing inability of the British
to act responsibly with alcohol.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
September 19, 2005
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie
A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country
in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be
assaulted than in America.
Perhaps true. But I would ask what the statistics say about the nature
of the assault. While a person in Scotland (or in certain areas of
Scotland) might be more likely to suffer an assault, is that assault more
or less likely to involve a firearm in Scotland than in America?

I think we must both agree that statistics are difficult things to use.

But if I was asked to say what I think was the chief culprit with regard
to the sudden rise in crime levels, I would say that a large part of it
was the result of new police procedures with regard to the reporting of
crime. In the past, the police have always had a certain amount of
discretion as to what crimes they record. They no longer do. With the
new National Crime Recording Standard, and the National Standard of
Incident Recording, crime reports are being generated at a much higher
rate than in previous years. Where a report might once have been created
if there was evidence to suggest a crime had been committed, the approach
now is to create the report unless evidence suggests that a crime has NOT
been committed. A great many of these initial reports are subsequently
marked off as no crime - but by then they have already affected the
statistics.

The result is that there is a sudden rise in recorded crime levels, which
the media leap on as evidence that we are descending into the depths of
lawlessness, in the hope that it will frighten the public half to death,
which unfortunately it does. Thus, a measure taken to try to reassure
the public of a certain standard of service from the police results in
public confidence in the police being severely undermined.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
reason is as obvious as it is simple - where criminals know the
homeowner is legally prevented from being armed, they have far less
incentive to care whether they are home or not than in cases where
they risk being shot and killed.
Under British law, although a person is not permitted to have a gun lying
around the house to use against burglars, a person is entitled to defend
their homes using 'reasonable force'. If the person considers lethal
force to be reasonable, then so be it - but they must subsequently be
able to justify such force in a court of law. Many people have taken to
keeping swords as handy ornaments: "I just grabbed it, officer, I really
wasn't thinking, I was too scared". So far, those groups campaigning for
such weapons - sorry, ornaments - to be banned have been unsuccessful.

Recent clarification on home defence has stated that the use of excessive
force will not necessarily result in a conviction if it can be shown that
the home defender was driven by genuine fear for their own safety or that
of their family.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
And in the rare instance where a British citizen dreams he still lives
in the land where one's home is one's castle, and has the audacity to
actually defend himself, one can be assured HE, not the criminal, will
serve a long time behind bars.
See above. And please don't presume to judge our standards by those of
your own nation. Britain is a foreign country, and while we may follow
America's lead in almost everything, we are still entitled to form our
own opinions.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Yearsprint close
Tue 23 Mar 2004
3:23pm (UK)
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
By Will Batchelor, PA News
A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed
for
eight years today.
Carl Lindsay, 25
This case is well known, and the article you quote does not offer all the
facts. Carl Lindsay, 25, was a drug dealer who knew that he was likely
to be targeted. He pursued his erstwhile attackers - who by this time
were *running away* - out into the street, caught up with one of them and
stabbed him four times in the back. The court ruled that this did not
qualify as reasonable force in the defence of the home, and strictly
speaking Lindsay should have faced murder charges. The court also found
that he had purchased the sword with the specific intent of using it as a
weapon.

It is a mark of leniency that he was instead charged with manslaughter -
which is a lesser offence called in the US (according to Wikipedia)
'criminally negligent homicide'. In other words, it does not have the
element of premeditation or intent to kill required to support a murder
charge.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
THAT is what freedom loving Americans can't understand.
That is because, if this article is anything to go by, freedom-loving
Americans aren't given all the relevant information.

Those who portray Lindsay as the poor innocent victim in this case who
fought back against evil men and was unjustly punished by an uncaring
system are misrepresenting the situation.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
BBC NEWS
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
* A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to
reduce deaths from stabbing. *
Unfortunately, in Britain there is always some group or another calling
for the banning of this or that. Bread knives; fireworks; cheese...
Usually it is a play for publicity. Even a casual analysis of the
situation will highlight the futility - if not the ridiculousness - of
this particular call. But it is worth nothing that no such ban has been
introduced.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't want to take away my religious freedoms.
Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time.
Is this the freedom to choose which religion you follow, or to choose
none?
Both.
Sorry - this was my lack of clarity. This was one choice: "the freedom
to choose a religion or to choose none", against "the freedom to choose
Christianity".
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Please define "Christian militants" and give us a couple of real world
examples of the behavior you apparently find frightening. I try to
look at foreign news sources once in a while, but of course I cannot
have a feel for what you get as the normal fare.
Well, you might look at the recent case of whether Creatio... sorry,
'Intelligent Design' should be taught in schools. Religious
fundamentalists were portrayed (at least by the British media) as
mounting a campaign to have their religion taught alongside science in
schools, as though it was a viable alternative.

The Guardian, in May 2005, reported Tom DeLay's argment against stem cell
research, which he based on the claim that "Jesus of Nazareth" started
life as an embryo.

There is a widespread perception amongst British people that, as Bush is
known to be a fundamentalist Christian, so he is carefully placing those
of similar religious beliefs into position of power and influence in
America to pave the way for policies based on religious ideals rather
than on democratic principles.

You may recall the case of Terri Schiavo - the woman who suffered brain
damage and whose life support was withdrawn following a lengthy case
which could at the very least be described as 'bitter'. Various
political figures interfered with the courts and medical staff during
that case in attempts to prevent the removal of her feeding tube. The
involvement of Jeb and President Bush was widely perceived as being
driven by religious principles - but it was the fact that these people
were attempting to strong-arm the judiciary when they had no real right
to do so that caused surprise in many people here.

I'm not saying that our perception of such situations is correct, any
more than your perception of the Carl Lindsay case was correct. Both our
countries are at the mercy of their media. But suffice to say that
merely the potential for the USA to come under the control of a
theocratic government is enough to cause very serious concern.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
I should point out that the abolitionist movement in this country's
19th century was Christian led, and the Civil Rights movement in the
20th century was also. Does that trouble you?
There is a difference, though, between 'Christian' and 'militant
Christian'. I have no problem with anyone choosing the religion they
feel best suits them. But when their choice of religion starts to affect
me, my family, or friends, or colleagues, then I do start to have a
problem. Religions, including Christianity, can be very worthy, and can
achieve great things. But they can also be used to rationalise terrible
things. I am just cautious.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
There is NO compulsion of religion anywhere.
There is if national policies are determined based on what the
lawmakers' religion dictates.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
But there is plenty of
compulsion against it. Even voluntary prayers are banned in public
schools. Recently a federal judge ruled a chaplain could not utter
the word "Jesus" in his invocation prior to a session of the Indiana
congress.
And this is where I lose track again. You see, I can see no reason why
prayers need to be made in public, voluntarily or otherwise. I certainly
see no reason why they need to be said out loud at a public gathering.
God knows what we are thinking. Making a public ritual out of prayer
seems rather, well, showy, to me. I guess this must just be another
cultural thing. Everyone knows we Brits are repressed.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Currently the ACLU's main activity has been running all over the
country tearing down long standing (well over 50 years) displays of
the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not even exclusive to
Christians, much less "fundamentalists."
They ACLU is even trying to erase every vestige of America's Christian
heritage. Recently they got the county of Los Angeles to remove a
tiny little cross from its seal.- a seal that includes a much, much
larger image of the pagan goddess Pomona, to celebrate the heritage
and importance of agriculture.
Now, is that anti-Christian bigotry or what?
Quite possibly. But again, while you would highlight these examples,
using the wording that you have, the ACLU would no doubt argue that they
are merely trying to be fair, and perhaps present the same cases in a
very different light. And those who support the ACLU would no doubt give
me all sorts of reasons why I should believe that view. As I said, it is
only to be expected that you (and they) will present the information in a
way sympathetic to your politico-religious position - and I do not know
enough about the situation to say "it is not so".
Post by Unpleasant Truth
What you have experienced is called selective reporting (what else
would you expect from the ALCU's own web site?).
Selective reporting, however, is all I have. From them, and from you. I
can expect nothing else, and must simply make a judgement.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't make up speech codes and racial quotas and censor
speakers that don't agree with their politics, as Bill Gates'
Seattle prep school just did.
I do recall reading about 'free speech zones' around the Republican
campaign presentations... Perhaps this was misrepresented? It just
seems
Post by EC-10
a little odd in a country that has built itself around the idea that
the entire nation is nothing other than a 'free speech zone'.
??
Post by Unpleasant Truth
I just wonder what you base your assessment that "you can't trust
Republicans with your freedom" on. Based on your assessment of the
ACLU, it's pretty clear you're not getting anywhere near a balanced
picture.
I haven't yet heard your views on these supposed "free speech zones",
either.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
I should also point out that the ACLU is an extremist organization,
supporting even the distribution of child pornography. It is
currently defending an obnoxious group, called NAMBLA, which
... I'd always thought was straight out of an episode of South Park.
Quietly, I suppose I'd always *hoped* it was just made up.

But, having heard so many people mention it in discussions like this, I
finally gritted my teeth and ran a search in Wikipedia (so I'm expecting
NCIS banging on my door in a few minutes), and lo and behold, it does
appear that this organisation is in fact real.

I'm surprised, I admit. I guess fiction will never be able to beat
reality for the completely depraved - not to mention utterly fatuous -
things that they'll accept.

Still, child pornography is still some way from religion, and it's not a
topic I particularly want to discuss. So, okay, you've told me that ACLU
supports this 'NAMBLA'. Fine. It's your statement, I can't verify it.
You've given me a newspaper report, but as we've seen above, they don't
always paint an accurate picture.

Frankly, I don't really want to spend time digging through that sort of
thing, so I can't argue the point with you. So I guess I give up.
Unpleasant Truth
2006-02-02 07:41:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
You don't need to apologize. Leftists in this country (and by that, I
don't mean to call YOU a leftist, although I won't hesititate to do so
if I find cause :-) don't understand the individual's right and duty
to defend himself, his family and his property either.
However, you must be aware - unless there's censorship I'm unaware of
- that crime rates have soared since the U.K. banned guns.
It's not so much censorship as spin. As far as crime rates are
concerned, it's really not possible to tell exactly what's happening in
Britain, since the Government will say one thing, and various other
organisations and pressure groups will all say something else.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if crime rates HAVE gone up - certainly
public fear of crime has risen sharply and the media have gone into a
gleeful frenzy in their attempts to generate hysteria - but the cause of
any such upswing would also have to be carefully examined.
Is it down to the banning of guns? I'm pretty certain we can say it's
not. Bear in mind that guns weren't widely available in Britain even
before the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was introduced - they've never
really been a part of our national consciousness, you might say.
Relatively few people possessed weapons (excluding farmers who routinely
keep shotguns and rifles for vermin control); certainly only a small
percentage possessed handguns, and then only for sporting use. The 1997
Act was criticised because it really had very little effect other than to
outlaw handgun shooting as a viable sport in Britain.
Some would suggest that the increase - sorry, the *perceived* increase in
burglaries, car thefts and robberies is down to more widespread
availability of illegal drugs; where violent crime is commonly (and, I
think, justifiably) put down to the increasing inability of the British
to act responsibly with alcohol.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
September 19, 2005
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie
A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country
in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be
assaulted than in America.
Perhaps true. But I would ask what the statistics say about the nature
of the assault. While a person in Scotland (or in certain areas of
Scotland) might be more likely to suffer an assault, is that assault more
or less likely to involve a firearm in Scotland than in America?
I think we must both agree that statistics are difficult things to use.
But if I was asked to say what I think was the chief culprit with regard
to the sudden rise in crime levels, I would say that a large part of it
was the result of new police procedures with regard to the reporting of
crime. In the past, the police have always had a certain amount of
discretion as to what crimes they record. They no longer do. With the
new National Crime Recording Standard, and the National Standard of
Incident Recording, crime reports are being generated at a much higher
rate than in previous years. Where a report might once have been created
if there was evidence to suggest a crime had been committed, the approach
now is to create the report unless evidence suggests that a crime has NOT
been committed. A great many of these initial reports are subsequently
marked off as no crime - but by then they have already affected the
statistics.
The result is that there is a sudden rise in recorded crime levels, which
the media leap on as evidence that we are descending into the depths of
lawlessness, in the hope that it will frighten the public half to death,
which unfortunately it does. Thus, a measure taken to try to reassure
the public of a certain standard of service from the police results in
public confidence in the police being severely undermined.
Can we at least agree that the even stricter ban on guns did not REDUCE
crime as expected by its supporters?
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
reason is as obvious as it is simple - where criminals know the
homeowner is legally prevented from being armed, they have far less
incentive to care whether they are home or not than in cases where
they risk being shot and killed.
Under British law, although a person is not permitted to have a gun lying
around the house to use against burglars, a person is entitled to defend
their homes using 'reasonable force'. If the person considers lethal
force to be reasonable, then so be it - but they must subsequently be
able to justify such force in a court of law. Many people have taken to
keeping swords as handy ornaments: "I just grabbed it, officer, I really
wasn't thinking, I was too scared". So far, those groups campaigning for
such weapons - sorry, ornaments - to be banned have been unsuccessful.
Recent clarification on home defence has stated that the use of excessive
force will not necessarily result in a conviction if it can be shown that
the home defender was driven by genuine fear for their own safety or that
of their family.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
And in the rare instance where a British citizen dreams he still lives
in the land where one's home is one's castle, and has the audacity to
actually defend himself, one can be assured HE, not the criminal, will
serve a long time behind bars.
See above. And please don't presume to judge our standards by those of
your own nation. Britain is a foreign country, and while we may follow
America's lead in almost everything, we are still entitled to form our
own opinions.
Well, it's not "foreign" to YOU. :-)

Of course you're entitled to your opinions. But remember, YOU were the
one who made the charge that "Republicans could not be trusted with [our]
freedom." It seems you should have a better understanding of the issues
here to make such a charge and certainly be able to present more specific
examples.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Yearsprint close
Tue 23 Mar 2004
3:23pm (UK)
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
By Will Batchelor, PA News
A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed
for
eight years today.
Carl Lindsay, 25
This case is well known, and the article you quote does not offer all the
facts. Carl Lindsay, 25, was a drug dealer who knew that he was likely
to be targeted. He pursued his erstwhile attackers - who by this time
were *running away* - out into the street, caught up with one of them and
stabbed him four times in the back. The court ruled that this did not
qualify as reasonable force in the defence of the home, and strictly
speaking Lindsay should have faced murder charges. The court also found
that he had purchased the sword with the specific intent of using it as a
weapon.
It is a mark of leniency that he was instead charged with manslaughter -
which is a lesser offence called in the US (according to Wikipedia)
'criminally negligent homicide'. In other words, it does not have the
element of premeditation or intent to kill required to support a murder
charge.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
THAT is what freedom loving Americans can't understand.
That is because, if this article is anything to go by, freedom-loving
Americans aren't given all the relevant information.
In that case, perhaps. But I did not - nor would not - base my impression
on a single case. That one just happened to be handy. There are others,
and they can't all involve drug dealers, can they? What about Tony
Martin? http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/News/Index/TonyMartin.asp


http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixop.html

Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities'
response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to
advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a
secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police. They are not
to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might
get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the
burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud The
Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.

The practical removal of the right to self defence began with Britain's
1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned
firearms. It was motivated by fear of a Bolshevik-type revolution rather
than concerns about householders defending themselves against robbers.
Anyone wanting to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local
police chief certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and
had a good reason to have it. The definition of "good reason", left to the
police, was gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided "it
should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the
protection of his house or person". Since these guidelines were classified
until 1989, there was no opportunity for public debate.

Self defence within the home was also progressively legislated against.
The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public
place any article "made, adapted or intended" for an offensive purpose
"without lawful authority or reasonable excuse". Any item carried for
defence was, by definition, an "offensive" weapon. Police were given broad
power to stop and search anyone. Individuals found with offensive weapons
were guilty until proven innocent. The scope is so broad that a standard
legal textbook explains that "any article is capable of being an offensive
weapon". The public were told that society would protect them and their
neighbours. If they saw someone being attacked they were to walk on by,
and leave it to the professionals.

Finally, in 1967, tucked into an omnibus revision of criminal law,
approved without discussion, was a section that altered the traditional
standards for self-defence. Everything was to depend on what seemed
"reasonable" force after the fact. It was never deemed reasonable to
defend property with force. According to the Textbook of Criminal Law the
requirement that an individual's efforts to defend himself be "reasonable"
is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it
still forms part of the law". Another legal scholar found it "unthinkable"
that "Parliament should inadvertently have swept aside the ancient
privilege of self defence. Had such a move been debated it is unlikely
that members would have sanctioned it." She was confident that Parliament
would quickly set things right: "In view of the inadequacy of existing law
there is some urgency here." That plea was written 30 years ago, and the
situation is infinitely more urgent now.

At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility for protecting
individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders.
Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or
a half of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they
were to be protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer
jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole
because he posed a danger to other burglars. "It cannot possibly be
suggested," the government lawyers argued, "that members of the public
cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences" adding, "society can
not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury".

...

Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a
"natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no
government can protect the individual in his moment of need". This
Government insists upon having a monopoly on the use of force, but can
only impose it upon law-abiding people. By practically eliminating self
defence, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime: a people able to
defend themselves.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't want to take away my religious freedoms.
Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time.
Is this the freedom to choose which religion you follow, or to choose
none?
Both.
Sorry - this was my lack of clarity. This was one choice: "the freedom
to choose a religion or to choose none", against "the freedom to choose
Christianity".
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Please define "Christian militants" and give us a couple of real world
examples of the behavior you apparently find frightening. I try to
look at foreign news sources once in a while, but of course I cannot
have a feel for what you get as the normal fare.
Well, you might look at the recent case of whether Creatio... sorry,
'Intelligent Design' should be taught in schools. Religious
fundamentalists were portrayed (at least by the British media) as
mounting a campaign to have their religion taught alongside science in
schools, as though it was a viable alternative.
Evolution, as taught here, presents it as a proven fact that life
originated from non-life in a purely materialistic, undirected manner, and
goes on from there. This is simply preposterous, and it does not require
relgion to come to that conclusion. Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist, deemed
evolution to be impossible. And Anthony Flew, a former atheist, has come
to believe in god (not Christianity) partly as a result of the scientific
arguments of intelligent design. It is the evolutionists who insist on
complete censorship of ANY challenge to evolution. But I really don't
care to pursue that argument. I say present both sides.
Post by EC-10
The Guardian, in May 2005, reported Tom DeLay's argment against stem cell
research, which he based on the claim that "Jesus of Nazareth" started
life as an embryo.
Perhaps if there had been such a strong pro-life force in Germany in the
1930s, Hilter would not have been able to kill 6 million Jews. To many
here life is too sacred to allow cloning and its cheapening of human life.
Post by EC-10
There is a widespread perception amongst British people that, as Bush is
known to be a fundamentalist Christian,
Except, he's not. He's a Methodist. Don't you have those in England too?
Post by EC-10
so he is carefully placing those
of similar religious beliefs into position of power and influence in
America to pave the way for policies based on religious ideals rather
than on democratic principles.
Now you're moving into being a leftist. What makes you think there is a
dichotomy between religious ideals and democratic principles? In fact, it
was precisely that devotion to religious ideals that led to Americans
rejecting the tyranical power of a king. King George, III, referred to
the American Revolution as "that Presbyterian revolution."

You should read this:

http://www.mdtaxes.org/NEWS-STORIES-2005/Commentary.David.Gelernter.Americanism&enemies.1.2005.htm

*Americanism-and Its Enemies
David Gelernter
January 2005*

(David Gelernter, by the way, is not a Christian, much less a
fundamentalist. He is a Jew.)

and this:

Bible Illiteracy in America
From the May 23, 2005 issue: A report just issued by the Bible Literacy
Project suggests that young Americans know very little about the Bible.
The report is important, but first things first: A fair number of
Americans don't see why teenagers should know anything at all about the
Bible.
by David Gelernter

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/606lxblg.asp
Post by EC-10
You may recall the case of Terri Schiavo - the woman who suffered brain
damage and whose life support was withdrawn following a lengthy case
which could at the very least be described as 'bitter'. Various
political figures interfered with the courts and medical staff during
that case in attempts to prevent the removal of her feeding tube. The
involvement of Jeb and President Bush was widely perceived as being
driven by religious principles - but it was the fact that these people
were attempting to strong-arm the judiciary when they had no real right
to do so that caused surprise in many people here.
And many of us - myself included - oppose executing the handicapped, even
the severely handicapped, by withholding - not extraordinary care - but
simple food and water, especially in this case where there was no
documentation of her desire to be killed in this way, her "husband's"
motives were suspect at best, and where her parents were more than willing
to care for her. We see troubling signs of the elderly being killed
against their will in Europe as "useless eaters."
Post by EC-10
I'm not saying that our perception of such situations is correct, any
more than your perception of the Carl Lindsay case was correct. Both our
countries are at the mercy of their media. But suffice to say that
merely the potential for the USA to come under the control of a
theocratic government is enough to cause very serious concern.
Now there you go again. We are nowhere near being a "theocratic
government." In fact, thanks to the ACLU, atheism is very close to being
the official religion, especially in the monopoly government schools which
turn out such poorly educated graduates.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
I should point out that the abolitionist movement in this country's
19th century was Christian led, and the Civil Rights movement in the
20th century was also. Does that trouble you?
There is a difference, though, between 'Christian' and 'militant
Christian'. I have no problem with anyone choosing the religion they
feel best suits them. But when their choice of religion starts to affect
me, my family, or friends, or colleagues, then I do start to have a
problem. Religions, including Christianity, can be very worthy, and can
achieve great things. But they can also be used to rationalise terrible
things. I am just cautious.
I hate to tell you, but the abolitionists were QUITE militant. And the
end of slavery and the fallout of the Civil Rights movement, especially
the perversion into reverse discrimination, affected many millions of
people negatively. Christians in this country are far more tolerant of
diverse viewpoints than non-Christians.

Please illustrate some of these "terrible things" Christianity has
perpetrated in the past century - contrasted, say, with anti-Christian
Nazism and atheistic communism.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
There is NO compulsion of religion anywhere.
There is if national policies are determined based on what the
lawmakers' religion dictates.
So you are basically echoing the leftist idea that if a legislator's
principles are based on religion, he cannot vote for those. But if they
are based on atheism, he can. Where do you get that idea?

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And while the
constitution sets up a secular federal government, every single state
constitution refers to God in some way or another. If you're honestly
interested in this, do read the references I listed above. They're not
long.

The constitution says we cannot establish a national church, as they had
in England. It does not say, as some radical anti-Christians wish, that
only non-Christian principles can be legislated (although one can
understand how people who look at what's been going on here for the past
50 years and think that).
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
But there is plenty of
compulsion against it. Even voluntary prayers are banned in public
schools. Recently a federal judge ruled a chaplain could not utter
the word "Jesus" in his invocation prior to a session of the Indiana
congress.
And this is where I lose track again. You see, I can see no reason why
prayers need to be made in public, voluntarily or otherwise.
Who determines NEED? You? This is supposed to be a free country. The
First Amendment guarantees the free EXERCISE of religion.
Post by EC-10
I certainly
see no reason why they need to be said out loud at a public gathering.
God knows what we are thinking. Making a public ritual out of prayer
seems rather, well, showy, to me.
So now YOU are forcing YOUR VALUES on everyone else. How intolerant of
you.
Post by EC-10
I guess this must just be another
cultural thing. Everyone knows we Brits are repressed.
You are. But you have that right. Just don't force that on others. By
contrast, those who do care to say a simple prayer in public are repressed
compared to, say, southern blacks in the way they express their religion.
(I walked into an all-black church one time when I was in Washington, DC.
And although it was the same strict liturgical denomination as the one I
went to in the almost lily-white suburbs of Boston, I guarantee you, it
was like being a different world. :-)
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Currently the ACLU's main activity has been running all over the
country tearing down long standing (well over 50 years) displays of
the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not even exclusive to
Christians, much less "fundamentalists."
They ACLU is even trying to erase every vestige of America's Christian
heritage. Recently they got the county of Los Angeles to remove a
tiny little cross from its seal.- a seal that includes a much, much
larger image of the pagan goddess Pomona, to celebrate the heritage
and importance of agriculture.
Now, is that anti-Christian bigotry or what?
Quite possibly. But again, while you would highlight these examples,
using the wording that you have, the ACLU would no doubt argue that they
are merely trying to be fair, and perhaps present the same cases in a
very different light. And those who support the ACLU would no doubt give
me all sorts of reasons why I should believe that view. As I said, it is
only to be expected that you (and they) will present the information in a
way sympathetic to your politico-religious position - and I do not know
enough about the situation to say "it is not so".
Post by Unpleasant Truth
What you have experienced is called selective reporting (what else
would you expect from the ALCU's own web site?).
Selective reporting, however, is all I have. From them, and from you.
I
Post by EC-10
can expect nothing else, and must simply make a judgement.
Then google is your friend. You can get an extremely wide set of sources
that describe their activities.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't make up speech codes and racial quotas and censor
speakers that don't agree with their politics, as Bill Gates'
Seattle prep school just did.
I do recall reading about 'free speech zones' around the Republican
campaign presentations... Perhaps this was misrepresented? It just
seems
Post by EC-10
a little odd in a country that has built itself around the idea that
the entire nation is nothing other than a 'free speech zone'.
??
Post by Unpleasant Truth
I just wonder what you base your assessment that "you can't trust
Republicans with your freedom" on. Based on your assessment of the
ACLU, it's pretty clear you're not getting anywhere near a balanced
picture.
I haven't yet heard your views on these supposed "free speech zones",
either.
Perhaps because I'm not sure what you are referring to. In today's world,
of course, there are security cordons set up around anywhere the president
goes, and a political campaign is certainly within its rights not to have
its message shouted down by others. (The only real "speech free" zone we
have set up by the government, by the way, is a "bubble zone" the Supreme
Court established around every abortion clinic, where no one is allowed to
say a word against abortion. So much for free speech.)
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
I should also point out that the ACLU is an extremist organization,
supporting even the distribution of child pornography. It is
currently defending an obnoxious group, called NAMBLA, which
... I'd always thought was straight out of an episode of South Park.
Quietly, I suppose I'd always *hoped* it was just made up.
But, having heard so many people mention it in discussions like this, I
finally gritted my teeth and ran a search in Wikipedia (so I'm expecting
NCIS banging on my door in a few minutes), and lo and behold, it does
appear that this organisation is in fact real.
I'm surprised, I admit. I guess fiction will never be able to beat
reality for the completely depraved - not to mention utterly fatuous -
things that they'll accept.
Still, child pornography is still some way from religion, and it's not a
topic I particularly want to discuss. So, okay, you've told me that ACLU
supports this 'NAMBLA'. Fine. It's your statement, I can't verify it.
You've given me a newspaper report, but as we've seen above, they don't
always paint an accurate picture.
It seems to me a there's a difference between leaving out details, as you
say the Scotsman did (gee, and I thought papers in the U.K. - tabloids
excepted, of course - were better than the ones we have here) and
manufacturing them, which is what you are accusing the Bradenton Herald of
doing.
Post by EC-10
Frankly, I don't really want to spend time digging through that sort of
thing, so I can't argue the point with you. So I guess I give up.
Will you accept the ACLU's own (self-serving, of course) admission that it
is in fact defending NAMBLA?

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
(8/31/2000)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the
American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist
Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for
Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for
everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of
all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal
sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA
today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships
between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The
lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of
freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit
says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the
murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The
principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those
who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it
are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many
people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is
most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was
true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

----

Of course, NAMBLA is more than just repulsive - it is criminal. And there
is no free speech protection intended by our constitution for publishing
brochures teaching child molesters how to lure and rape children and get
away with it.
EC-10
2006-02-02 09:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Will you accept the ACLU's own (self-serving, of course) admission
that it is in fact defending NAMBLA?
You have had my surrender. You do not need any more.
Bob LeChevalier
2006-02-02 11:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Will you accept the ACLU's own (self-serving, of course) admission
that it is in fact defending NAMBLA?
You have had my surrender. You do not need any more.
Note that the ACLU defends ANY group or individual, from Nazis to
Christian groups, to right wingers, who have their first amendment
rights abridged as the ACLU interprets those rights.

Their assistance does not in any way imply support for the principles
of any of these organizations or individuals, and thus it is rather
foul tactics to note that ACLU is "defending NAMBLA", and various
positions that seem to "attack religion", while not noting the
following:

ACLU of New Jersey Joins Lawsuit Supporting Second-Grader's Right to
Sing "Awesome God" at Talent Show

ACLU of Rhode Island Files Appeal on Behalf of Christian Prisoner
Barred from Preaching at Religious Services

lojbab
robw
2006-02-02 00:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Be armed to the teeth.

Let me ask yr this, when yr are home with your loved ones, is the gun in
your lap?

Reason I ask this.
Home invasion..

Guns are where?
Post by EC-10
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
We can trust Republicans with our freedom a lot more than Democrats
(although still not nearly enough). Republicans don't want to break
into my house and confiscate my guns.
I am not qualified to comment on this point. As a non-American I find
your
Post by EC-10
apparently inextricable association of freedom with personal gun
ownership
Post by EC-10
rather difficult to understand. However, this is perhaps because I live
in
Post by EC-10
the UK, which has always had extremely strict gun control laws in
comparison to your nation. Maybe I am just conditioned by my
environment
Post by EC-10
to be happy to leave guns to the military and the police.
You don't need to apologize. Leftists in this country (and by that, I
don't mean to call YOU a leftist, although I won't hesititate to do so if
I find cause :-) don't understand the individual's right and duty to
defend himself, his family and his property either.
However, you must be aware - unless there's censorship I'm unaware of -
that crime rates have soared since the U.K. banned guns. And in South
Africa, murder rates have increased 15 times since the gun control ban
there.
September 19, 2005
Scotland tops list of world's most violent countries
By Katrina Tweedie
A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country
in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be
assaulted than in America.
England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults
while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.
---
In particular, burglary - a crime where the criminals break in while a
home is occupied, posing the risk of assualt or evern murder, represents a
far higher proportion of thefts in countries (or states) where there is
strict gun control
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm. The reason is
as obvious as it is simple - where criminals know the homeowner is legally
prevented from being armed, they have far less incentive to care whether
they are home or not than in cases where they risk being shot and killed.
*This is**
LONDON*
04/04/05 - News and city section
*105-year-old woman terrorised by burglars*
By Jo Pearson, Evening Standard
The first pictures have been released of the 105-year-old woman who died
after being targeted repeatedly by burglars.
Amelia Whale, shown here celebrating her 100th birthday, refused to move
from the home she shared with her younger brother Leonard in Islington,
despite four break-ins in 18 months.
Police installed security bars and CCTV last year after the third
burglary. But that did not stop Bernard Gallagher, 23, and Mark O'Brien
26, raiding her home last September and stealing £2,000.
The pair, both travellers, were caught on camera and traced to a
campsite. They now face jail.
But Miss Whale, known to her friends as Dolly, will never see them
receive justice. She died from natural causes last month after living in
fear. Her friends and family said she never recovered from the trauma of
the break-ins - and have called for lengthy jail sentences to be imposed.
Former neighbours Sheila and Tony Ashby said that Miss Whale's health
deteriorated after the raid and that she had died fearful of becoming a
victim yet again.
Mr Ashby, who now lives in Chingford, said: "They should get 20 years.
Terrorising old people is not a victimless crime. They knew she was an
old lady. She was as good as gold beforehand."
Mrs Ashby said her neighbour had been deliberately targeted by the
intruders. "After the burglary she was very nervous, especially when Len
went shopping. The cowards waited for Len to go out. They were taunting
her." Miss Whale, a former leather worker, had lived in the house off
Essex Road, for 93 years.
Gallagher and O'Brien admitted one count of burglary in court last Friday.
Snaresbrook Crown Court heard that they and an accomplice forced their
way in while Miss Whale was in the sitting room. They then ransacked the
flat, rifling through boxes and throwing them on to the floor.
They even dragged Miss Whale up from her chair to search underneath for
her pension book. She was unable to stand up by herself.
Eventually the burglars discovered the Whales' life savings, stashed in
a shoe box.
The CCTV set up at Miss Whale's home helped identify all three men.
Police arrested Gallagher and O'Brien at a caravan site in Wickford,
Essex. They will be sentenced on Friday, but the hunt for their
accomplice goes on.
Find this story at
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17686504?version=1
----
And in the rare instance where a British citizen dreams he still lives in
the land where one's home is one's castle, and has the audacity to
actually defend himself, one can be assured HE, not the criminal, will
serve a long time behind bars.
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Yearsprint close
Tue 23 Mar 2004
3:23pm (UK)
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
By Will Batchelor, PA News
A man who stabbed to death an armed intruder at his home was jailed
for
eight years today.
Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater
Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun.
When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and
stabbed one
of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times.
Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and
died
in hospital.
Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a
three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.
He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.
After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Sam Haworth said: "Four
men,
including the victim, had set out purposefully to rob Carl Lindsay
and
this intent ultimately led to Stephen Swindells' death.
"I believe the sentences passed today reflect the severity of the
circumstances."
Three other men were charged with robbery and firearms offences in
connection with the incident, which took place in February last
year.
----
THAT is what freedom loving Americans can't understand.
BBC NEWS
Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
* A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to
reduce deaths from stabbing. *
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on
the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all
stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol
and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be
publicly available at all.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives
have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a
short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.
The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial
superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate
to inner organs.
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Published: 2005/05/26 23:48:35 GMT
----
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans lowered my taxes
several times. All Democrats have ever done is raise them.
Again, this is difficult for me without knowing a great deal more about
American tax structure. I assume you are referring to taxes in general,
as
Post by EC-10
opposed to lowering one while raising another. British parties usually
campaign on a promise to lower taxes, and indeed occasionally do so -
but
Post by EC-10
we normally find something else quietly gets more expensive at the same
time.
For the most part, these comments refer to income tax rates. Despite
lowered rates, however, due to the growth of the economy, tax receipts
have increased over the past couple of years.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't want to take away my religious freedoms.
Democrat/ACLU types do it all the time.
Is this the freedom to choose which religion you follow, or to choose
none?
Both.
Post by EC-10
Or is it the freedom to choose Christianity or, well, choose
Christianity?
Post by EC-10
From a foreign point of view, there seem to be a lot of Christian
militants
Please define "Christian militants" and give us a couple of real world
examples of the behavior you apparently find frightening. I try to look
at foreign news sources once in a while, but of course I cannot have a
feel for what you get as the normal fare.
Post by EC-10
associated with the Bush administration and the Republican party in
general, and that causes concern for many people. These groups do not
seem
Post by EC-10
to hold an attitude of tolerance towards other faiths, or those who do
not
Post by EC-10
follow a religion. Policy often seems to be influenced by what someone
or
Post by EC-10
other thinks God wants - which in my view is wrong, and as far as I can
tell runs counter to the Constitution.
I should point out that the abolitionist movement in this country's 19th
century was Christian led, and the Civil Rights movement in the 20th
century was also. Does that trouble you?
Post by EC-10
It strikes me, though, that any organisation established to resist the
idea
Post by EC-10
of compulsory religion is going to exhibit some rather Newtonian
There is NO compulsion of religion anywhere. But there is plenty of
compulsion against it. Even voluntary prayers are banned in public
schools. Recently a federal judge ruled a chaplain could not utter the
word "Jesus" in his invocation prior to a session of the Indiana congress.
Post by EC-10
it's going to push back most strongly in the direction from which it's
receiving most pressure. Is it perhaps possible that ACLU appears to be
focusing exclusively on Christianity because it is fundamentalist
Christianity that is exerting most pressure on Americans to conform to
their doctrines?
Currently the ACLU's main activity has been running all over the country
tearing down long standing (well over 50 years) displays of the Ten
Commandments. The Ten Commandments are not even exclusive to Christians,
much less "fundamentalists."
They ACLU is even trying to erase every vestige of America's Christian
heritage. Recently they got the county of Los Angeles to remove a tiny
little cross from its seal.- a seal that includes a much, much larger
image of the pagan goddess Pomona, to celebrate the heritage and
importance of agriculture.
Now, is that anti-Christian bigotry or what?
Post by EC-10
And does it not then follow that those Christians against
whom ACLU appears to be pushing hardest will find it easy to claim that
they are being exclusively targeted?
They are.
Post by EC-10
Is it not possible that such people
will naturally interpret such resistance to their own pressure to be an
attempt to undermine their faith completely?
And, yes, that is a natural fear.
Post by EC-10
Again, it may be because I am a clueless foreigner. But I have read
ACLU's
Post by EC-10
website, and paid particular attention to their stated position on
What they say and what they do are very different things.
Last Tuesday, the Opinion Journal's James Taranto, in his daily "Best of
the Web," <http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006144> cited the
following passage from the ACLU's "Free Speech" page
<http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm> *(UPDATE: Since this
column was first posted, the ACLU has changed their website. The text
/"It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first
freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no
law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.' The Constitution's framers believed that
freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of
a democratic society."/
Notice anything missing?
See those ellipses in the ACLU's quotation of the 1st Amendment? Do you
know what portion of the Amendment the ACLU "censored"?
/"Congress shall make no law *RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF
RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR* abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances."/
No wonder the ACLU is usually wrong on religious issues: The ACLU
version doesn't include religious protections.
----
Post by EC-10
"The right of each and every American to practice his or her own
religion,
Post by EC-10
or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
The site goes on to list several cases in which they have become
involved
Post by EC-10
"September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-
grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show."
"May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman
who
Post by EC-10
was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and
prisoners."
Post by EC-10
"November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of
evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas."
And so on. Now, it may be that these incidents did not in fact happen,
or
Post by EC-10
that they are misrepresented on the website. At first glance, however,
these and other examples do seem to conflict with your assertion that
ACLU
Post by EC-10
are trying to remove religious liberties. Perhaps there is some serious
discrepancy between ACLU's statements on their site and their statements
and activities in the 'real world'?
What you have experienced is called selective reporting (what else would
you expect from the ALCU's own web site?). Every once in a while the ACLU
defends some Christian somewhere. It has to - otherwise it would have
zero credibility for its claims. But those are greatly outweighed by its
relentless jihad against Christian religious expression in public.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Republicans don't make up speech codes and racial quotas and censor
speakers that don't agree with their politics, as Bill Gates' Seattle
prep school just did.
I do recall reading about 'free speech zones' around the Republican
campaign presentations... Perhaps this was misrepresented? It just
seems
Post by EC-10
a little odd in a country that has built itself around the idea that the
entire nation is nothing other than a 'free speech zone'.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
(They're perfectly within their rights to do so,
of course. Just don't lie and say leftists support free speech.)
I don't think I did. I think I said that you can't trust Democrats with
your security and you can't trust Republicans with your freedom, and
that
Post by EC-10
it's a shame your politicians (and ours, for that matter) have no sense
of
Post by EC-10
'middle ground'.
I just wonder what you base your assessment that "you can't trust
Republicans with your freedom" on. Based on your assessment of the ACLU,
it's pretty clear you're not getting anywhere near a balanced picture.
I should also point out that the ACLU is an extremist organization,
supporting even the distribution of child pornography. It is currently
defending an obnoxious group, called NAMBLA, which consists of homosexual
pedophiles who get together to swap stories (and who knows what else), and
publish booklets not only on how wonderful sex with children is ("sex
before eight or it's too late" is their motto), but also on how to lure
and rape children without getting caught.
Bradenton Herald | 03/23/2004 | ACLU aiding criminals
In October 1997, Jeffrey Curley, a 10-year-old Cambridge,
Mass.,
boy, was playing outside his home when he was lured into a car
by
Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari.
The two men, seeking a child to rape, attacked Jeffrey, who
fought
back. Then they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked
rag,
molested his dead body in Jayne's apartment in Manchester,
N.H.,
stuffed the body into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container and
threw
the poor child's remains, like a sack of garbage, into the
Great
Works River in Maine.
During their trials, at which the men were convicted of murder
and
sentenced to life without parole, it was revealed that Jaynes
and
Sicari were members of the abominable North American Man-Boy
Love
Association. This repugnant group advocates and even instructs
its
members on the sexual rape of little boys by grown men.
It was also revealed during the trials that Jaynes was a timid
pedophile for years, until he joined NAMBLA in 1996, according
to
his own diary. Then he became emboldened by the idea that
there were
others who shared his twisted, sick obsession. He fueled his
perversion through the group's Web site and e-mails filled
with
horrid, pornographic images of children. He read with great
interest
the NAMBLA publication entitled "The Rape and Escape Manual."
Jaynes and others of his notorious ilk take pleasure in
inflicting
sexual atrocities on the smallest, weakest members of
society - our
children. In our area, we have seen the horror inflicted on
families
by the abduction and murder of a child, most recently the
Carlie
Brucia case. Civilized society itself is ripped apart and
wounded by
these shocking acts against the defenseless. Obviously, those
who
commit such crimes should be put away, with no chance to ever
walk
among us again. But what of groups who aid and abet such
heinous
criminal acts?
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, NAMBLA is
simply
exercising its freedom of speech in publishing this bizarre,
outlandish material. In fact, the ACLU is defending NAMBLA
against a
$200 million lawsuit filed by the parents of Jeffrey Curley.
Post by EC-10
Post by Unpleasant Truth
The only "right" Democrats want to preserve is the right to kill the
unborn and newly born, the elderly and the handicapped, but then what
do you expect from the pro-slavery party?
Which is fine - as long as you do not expect me to take your opinions as
representing an objective point of view. Since you are clearly aligned
with the Republican party it is only to be expected that you will laud
them
Post by EC-10
and demonise the other group.
I'm not aligned with any party - at least not to the extent that I support
the party above my principles. I am aligned with constitutional
conservatism and liberty, which means I support the smallest possible
federal government with most of the power delegated to the states - as the
founding fathers (or rebels, or whatever you call them :-) intended.
Therefore, I strongly opposed Pres. Bush's great expansion of Medicare and
education spending, as well as the rest of the grossly boated domestic
budget spending. I should point out, however, that in every case,
Democrats wanted to spend more - sigh.
In fact, I got my start in politics working on the campaign of a Democrat
governor - because he was more conservative than the Republican, and
because the Republican was engaging in such a slimy campaign that I was
enraged enough to get involve. So if the Democrats ever supported liberty
more than Republicans in any way, I would support that, and would say so -
and beat the Republicans over the head with it in an attempt to outdo the
Democrats. My dedication to liberty demands it.
Unpleasant Truth
2006-02-04 04:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by robw
Be armed to the teeth.
Let me ask yr this, when yr are home with your loved ones, is the gun in
your lap?
Reason I ask this.
Home invasion..
Guns are where?
Exactly where they should be - loaded, in an extremely secure lock box
with a simplex lock I can open in the dark with one hand. And with two
100 lb dogs, one bred to protect farmers' herds from bear and the other a
mountain dog, we get plenty of warning when anyone approaches our house.
There are, of course, other warning devices - security systems, small
dogs. But none of those will help if armed invaders choose to ignore
them. In that case ONLY a gun, in the hands of a trained gun owner, is of
any use.
Bob LeChevalier
2006-01-30 11:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush was asleep in foreign policy---after being warned
about terrorists.
Bill Clinton had bin Laden offered up on a silver platter. He could have
taken him into custody but he turned down the offer because he "didn't
have the evidence to hold him." The idiot thought bin Landen was just a
run of the mill criminal, not a terrorist.
No. He thought that the United States was bound under its laws to
prosecute a terrorist as a criminal because in fact that is the *only*
thing allowed under our constitution.

Bush has concocted the theory that we can declare war on "terrorism"
(although without a formal declaration by Congress), abrogate all
treaties on the law of war (because bin Ladin didn't sign those
treaties, even though the treaties cover non-signatories as well), and
then simply kill him because Bush decrees it under his assumption of
dictatorial executive power in the defense of the country.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
He deliberately let him go.
Then he had several opportunities to take bin Laden out, once when we had
him literally in our sights, but he didn't have the guts.
He didn't have the law.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush attacked Iraq----because he could---not because it
was a threat.
Saddam was a threat. The fact that Democrats consistently want to wait
until AFTER we are hit instead of taking preemptive action
means that they follow international law, which compels such in the
absence of proof that preemptive action is needed. ... and the proofs
that were presented at the time were all phony.

lojbab
EC-10
2006-01-30 13:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
No. He thought that the United States was bound under its laws to
prosecute a terrorist as a criminal because in fact that is the *only*
thing allowed under our constitution.
Makes sense. Until the War on Terror (tm), Britain also prosecuted
terrorism cases as crimes. Throughout the IRA campaigns against the UK it
was up to the police and the Security Service to deal with most of the
cases, albeit the military were deployed to a policing role in some areas.

Now, though, all bets are off. Now we've got Al Q'aeda, who've managed to
do what the IRA never did: frighten Britain half to death. Why?
Primarily, I think, because America has now discovered terrorism, and is
terrified. At least, its media and government are doing their utmost to
terrify the public. And if Americans are scared, then Britain, as the 51st
State*, should be scared as well. And if America needs the military to
hunt down and kill terrorists (and who knows exactly who qualifies as a
terrorist these days?) then, obviously, so do we. It's all very bizarre...

~~
(*) I say that in an affectionate sort of way. I actually like America -
and Britain. Not too keen on what W. and Blair are turning them into,
though...
Unpleasant Truth
2006-01-31 04:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush was asleep in foreign policy---after being warned
about terrorists.
Bill Clinton had bin Laden offered up on a silver platter. He could have
taken him into custody but he turned down the offer because he "didn't
have the evidence to hold him." The idiot thought bin Landen was just a
run of the mill criminal, not a terrorist.
No. He thought that the United States was bound under its laws to
prosecute a terrorist as a criminal because in fact that is the *only*
thing allowed under our constitution.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11. Thank you for illustrating why the left
can never be trusted with our national security.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Bush has concocted the theory that we can declare war on "terrorism"
(although without a formal declaration by Congress), abrogate all
treaties on the law of war (because bin Ladin didn't sign those
treaties, even though the treaties cover non-signatories as well), and
then simply kill him because Bush decrees it under his assumption of
dictatorial executive power in the defense of the country.
Not "dictatorial," constitutional, as in Commander in Chief.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
He deliberately let him go.
Then he had several opportunities to take bin Laden out, once when we had
him literally in our sights, but he didn't have the guts.
He didn't have the law.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11. Thank you for illustrating why the left
can never be trusted with our national security. Because if we do,
millions may die next time.

By the way, what "law" did Clinton have to go into Kosovo - a place that
had ZERO national security relevance?
Bob LeChevalier
2006-01-31 20:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
No. He thought that the United States was bound under its laws to
prosecute a terrorist as a criminal because in fact that is the *only*
thing allowed under our constitution.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11.
Are you saying that the United States is incapable of defending itself
if it abides by the constitution and the rule of law?
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Thank you for illustrating why the left can never be trusted with our national security.
If the only way to save the country is to violate the fundamental
principles that caused us to seek nationhood, then there is no
"national security is at stake, because the American experiment has
failed.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Bush has concocted the theory that we can declare war on "terrorism"
(although without a formal declaration by Congress), abrogate all
treaties on the law of war (because bin Ladin didn't sign those
treaties, even though the treaties cover non-signatories as well), and
then simply kill him because Bush decrees it under his assumption of
dictatorial executive power in the defense of the country.
Not "dictatorial," constitutional, as in Commander in Chief.
The Constitution does not define and special powers of a
"commander-in-chief"; he's just the highest officer in the army and
navy. The Constitution DOES give Congress the power to "make Rules
for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". So
as commander in chief, he is supposed to abide by the laws of
Congress. As the leader of the executive branch, he is supposed to
execute the laws of Congress. The president has no independent powers
except pardons and seeking advice, and he has the dependent powers of
appointment and treaty (both of which must be followed by
Congressional action), and the limited power of a recess appointment.
Everything else is just executing the laws that Congress passes.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
He deliberately let him go.
Then he had several opportunities to take bin Laden out, once when we had
him literally in our sights, but he didn't have the guts.
He didn't have the law.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11.
No it isn't.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Because if we do, millions may die next time.
Millions might have died at any time in the Cold War and nothing any
president could do would stop it - at best we could have retaliated by
killing more millions.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
By the way, what "law" did Clinton have to go into Kosovo - a place that
had ZERO national security relevance?
If Clinton broke the law, then the House could have (and probably
would have) impeached him. They did it once - and a violation of the
laws regarding military force would have been a lot more meaningful
impeachment charge than the ones that were actually brought.

I don't hold Clinton up as a paragon of virtue, so claiming that
"Clinton did it" is no argument to me.

lojbab
Mickey
2006-01-31 21:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
No. He thought that the United States was bound under its laws to
prosecute a terrorist as a criminal because in fact that is the *only*
thing allowed under our constitution.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11.
Are you saying that the United States is incapable of defending itself
if it abides by the constitution and the rule of law?
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Thank you for illustrating why the left can never be trusted with our national security.
If the only way to save the country is to violate the fundamental
principles that caused us to seek nationhood, then there is no
"national security is at stake, because the American experiment has
failed.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Bush has concocted the theory that we can declare war on "terrorism"
(although without a formal declaration by Congress), abrogate all
treaties on the law of war (because bin Ladin didn't sign those
treaties, even though the treaties cover non-signatories as well), and
then simply kill him because Bush decrees it under his assumption of
dictatorial executive power in the defense of the country.
Not "dictatorial," constitutional, as in Commander in Chief.
The Constitution does not define and special powers of a
"commander-in-chief"; he's just the highest officer in the army and
navy. The Constitution DOES give Congress the power to "make Rules
for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". So
as commander in chief, he is supposed to abide by the laws of
Congress.
Sorry to cut you off midstream, but the situation is not quite this
black and white. For a ludicrous but legal example, if Congress were to
confine by statute the army, navy, and airforce to within a ten mile
radius of Biloxi, Mississippi and to carry nothing more lethal than a
thuringer not to exceed 12 inches in length, how is the president to
fulfill his oath of office if the country is attacked in New York?

SCOTUS has affirmed any number of times, particularly from the civil war
on (the Prize cases), that when the country is attacked, the powers of
the president as CIC expand EVEN IF CONGRESS HASN'T DECLARED WAR.
Quoting from Justice Grier in 67 US 635

"The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself,
without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name; and no name
given to it by him or them could change the fact."

This would seem to mean the President not only has the authority to
react to a national threat but to do so in a manner appropriate to the
threat. This might even mean abandoning PRIOR strictures put on his
action by act of Congress if those strictures interfered with the
performance of his principle duty.

There is general principle of law that a person cannot be compelled to
perform a vain (useless) act. Being CIC while being denied the means to
effectively perform the role is certainly vain.

Mickey
Unpleasant Truth
2006-02-01 05:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
No. He thought that the United States was bound under its laws to
prosecute a terrorist as a criminal because in fact that is the *only*
thing allowed under our constitution.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11.
Are you saying that the United States is incapable of defending itself
if it abides by the constitution and the rule of law?
No. I'm saying Clinton failed to realize we were in fact at war and
allowed his legalisms to get in the way of doing what should have been
done. Arrests happen all the time, even when it turns out there is
insufficient evidence to hold the suspect. But that's for the courts to
decide.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Thank you for illustrating why the left can never be trusted with our national security.
If the only way to save the country is to violate the fundamental
principles that caused us to seek nationhood, then there is no
"national security is at stake, because the American experiment has
failed.
What "fundamental principles?" The "right" to receive phone calls from
the enemy in time of war without having anyone listen in? I guess I
missed that one - or it's equivalent - in the Bill of Rights. And what
"fundamental principles" of our constitution protect Osama bin Laden, who
committed multiple acts of war against us?

But let's take a more extreme example. Do you think torture is legal?

I assume not.

So if we had a situation where we knew there was a nuclear bomb planted in
the U.S., soon to go off, and we had a terrorist - even an American
citizen - in custody who admitted he knew about it, should that person be
tortured to prevent perhaps a million American deaths?

And by the way, what gave FDR the power to put over 100,000
Japanese-American CITIZENS in concentration camps during WWII? And what
gave Lincoln the power to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War. And
how about Wilson's sedition acts? If you want to go after Bush for his
trivial acts, we'll first have to conduct a bunch of posthumous
impeachments.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Bush has concocted the theory that we can declare war on "terrorism"
(although without a formal declaration by Congress), abrogate all
treaties on the law of war (because bin Ladin didn't sign those
treaties, even though the treaties cover non-signatories as well), and
then simply kill him because Bush decrees it under his assumption of
dictatorial executive power in the defense of the country.
Not "dictatorial," constitutional, as in Commander in Chief.
The Constitution does not define and special powers of a
"commander-in-chief"; he's just the highest officer in the army and
navy. The Constitution DOES give Congress the power to "make Rules
for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". So
as commander in chief, he is supposed to abide by the laws of
Congress. As the leader of the executive branch, he is supposed to
execute the laws of Congress. The president has no independent powers
except pardons and seeking advice, and he has the dependent powers of
appointment and treaty (both of which must be followed by
Congressional action), and the limited power of a recess appointment.
Everything else is just executing the laws that Congress passes.
Have you actually read about any of the historical rulings that apply
here?

The founding fathers - you know, the people who wrote and ratified the
constitution - certainly felt differently about it when they acted as
commander in chief.

There were a lot more of them in Congress than in the White House. If
they felt the president was exceeding his authority, they could have
slapped him down - as can the current Congress.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
He deliberately let him go.
Then he had several opportunities to take bin Laden out, once when we had
him literally in our sights, but he didn't have the guts.
He didn't have the law.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11.
No it isn't.
So you claim that 9/11 would have happened anyway if we had taken Osama
into custody three years earlier?
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Because if we do, millions may die next time.
Millions might have died at any time in the Cold War and nothing any
president could do would stop it - at best we could have retaliated by
killing more millions.
Which is why Reagan and other conservatives opposed M.A.D.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
By the way, what "law" did Clinton have to go into Kosovo - a place that
had ZERO national security relevance?
If Clinton broke the law, then the House could have (and probably
would have) impeached him. They did it once - and a violation of the
laws regarding military force would have been a lot more meaningful
impeachment charge than the ones that were actually brought.
I don't hold Clinton up as a paragon of virtue, so claiming that
"Clinton did it" is no argument to me.
OK - name a president in time of war whom you do. FDR? Lincoln? Wilson?
Bob LeChevalier
2006-02-01 12:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Are you saying that the United States is incapable of defending itself
if it abides by the constitution and the rule of law?
No. I'm saying Clinton failed to realize we were in fact at war
By our constitution, we are only at war when Congress declares war.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
and allowed his legalisms to get in the way of doing what should have been
done.
In other words, you do not believe in the rule of law, and expediency
trumps the constitution for you.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Arrests happen all the time, even when it turns out there is
insufficient evidence to hold the suspect. But that's for the courts to
decide.
Bush has been holding prisoners without allowing them the benefit of
the courts.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Thank you for illustrating why the left can never be trusted with our
national security.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
If the only way to save the country is to violate the fundamental
principles that caused us to seek nationhood, then there is no
"national security is at stake, because the American experiment has
failed.
What "fundamental principles?"
Read the constitution.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
And what
"fundamental principles" of our constitution protect Osama bin Laden, who
committed multiple acts of war against us?
bin Laden is not capable of committing an act of war. He has
committed numerous *crimes*, and should face justice for those crimes.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
But let's take a more extreme example. Do you think torture is legal?
We have signed and ratified treaties that forbid us from engaging in
torture. The Constitution says that ratified treaties are the law of
the land.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
I assume not.
So if we had a situation where we knew there was a nuclear bomb planted in
the U.S., soon to go off, and we had a terrorist - even an American
citizen - in custody who admitted he knew about it, should that person be
tortured to prevent perhaps a million American deaths?
That is an ethical decision, and not a legal decision, and is thus
subjective. It would be illegal to torture him. A person who engaged
in torturing him should be tried in a court of law. If the torture
was in fact justified, then the jury will undoubtedly find him not
guilty. But the law still requires that he face that jury.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
And by the way, what gave FDR the power to put over 100,000
Japanese-American CITIZENS in concentration camps during WWII?
He illegally and unconstitutionally assumed the power.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
And what gave Lincoln the power to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War.
He illegally and unconstitutionally assumed the power, and indeed the
courts later ruled against him
Post by Unpleasant Truth
And how about Wilson's sedition acts? If you want to go after Bush for his
trivial acts,
They are NOT trivial. Clinton's blow job was trivial.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
we'll first have to conduct a bunch of posthumous impeachments.
Impeachment is only applicable while someone is in office.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
The Constitution does not define and special powers of a
"commander-in-chief"; he's just the highest officer in the army and
navy. The Constitution DOES give Congress the power to "make Rules
for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". So
as commander in chief, he is supposed to abide by the laws of
Congress. As the leader of the executive branch, he is supposed to
execute the laws of Congress. The president has no independent powers
except pardons and seeking advice, and he has the dependent powers of
appointment and treaty (both of which must be followed by
Congressional action), and the limited power of a recess appointment.
Everything else is just executing the laws that Congress passes.
Have you actually read about any of the historical rulings that apply
here?
The founding fathers - you know, the people who wrote and ratified the
constitution - certainly felt differently about it when they acted as
commander in chief.
Note how right-wingers who are strict constructionists when it comes
to abortion and church-state, are eager to find ways to redefine what
the constitution means when it suits THEIR political interests.
Hypocrisy, I say.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
There were a lot more of them in Congress than in the White House. If
they felt the president was exceeding his authority, they could have
slapped him down - as can the current Congress.
The Founders also eschewed factionalism, and the concept that Congress
would vote along party lines on such issues, as would almost certainly
be the case, would be anathema to them. It is precisely because
Congress has NOT stepped up to its oversight responsibilities, because
its leadership is playing kiss-ass with the President, that the
President wasn't slammed on these matters long ago.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
He didn't have the law.
Which is exactly why we got 9/11.
No it isn't.
So you claim that 9/11 would have happened anyway if we had taken Osama
into custody three years earlier?
No idea. Moslem extremists have the demonstrated capability to
replace their leaders, and if the plan was already in the works,
arresting one man would not have stopped it.

Of course, bin Ladin might have been tried and acquitted by 9/11,
since in fact there was no insufficient evidence to convict him, and
the US would have suffered international ignominy even earlier for our
refusal to abide by our own proclaimed principles.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Because if we do, millions may die next time.
Millions might have died at any time in the Cold War and nothing any
president could do would stop it - at best we could have retaliated by
killing more millions.
Which is why Reagan and other conservatives opposed M.A.D.
<belly laugh>
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by Bob LeChevalier
I don't hold Clinton up as a paragon of virtue, so claiming that
"Clinton did it" is no argument to me.
OK - name a president in time of war whom you do.
I don't. Our Presidents are not Jesus Christ, without sin. They are
human beings who make mistakes, and should be honestly judged for
those mistakes, both while in office, and by history. I don't worship
any of them, like some right-wingers worshipped Nixon and Reagan and
now Bush.

lojbab
Gray Shockley
2006-02-04 08:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
The Constitution does not define and special powers of a
"commander-in-chief"; he's just the highest officer in the army and
navy.
Well, actually the Pres is /over/ the military, rather than a part of it.

The fast and accurate definition of "military" is, "Is this person bound by
the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" (UCMJ)? The President is not.
Post by Bob LeChevalier
The Constitution DOES give Congress the power to "make Rules
for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". So
as commander in chief, he is supposed to abide by the laws of
Congress. As the leader of the executive branch, he is supposed to
execute the laws of Congress. The president has no independent powers
except pardons and seeking advice, and he has the dependent powers of
appointment and treaty (both of which must be followed by
Congressional action), and the limited power of a recess appointment.
Everything else is just executing the laws that Congress passes.
That's such a good and accurate statement.


Traditionally,the royalty of a country are not bound by the laws and rules
that govern the citizens of the country - they are, truly, "above the law".


President Bush, sad to say, has - apparently - never read - or if read,
understood - the Constitution.

If we have gotten what we deserve, we should be begging forgiveness from our
children and our grandchildren.


Gray Shockley
------------------
... a government committed to a policy of
improving the nation by improving the condition
of some of the individuals will eventually run
into trouble in attempting to distinguish between
a national good and a chocolate sundae.
                  - E. B. White

laffs@'em-all.com
2006-01-31 00:22:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:08:51 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush was asleep in foreign policy---after being warned
about terrorists.
Bill Clinton had bin Laden offered up on a silver platter.
Bullshit

Clinton was NEVER offered Bin Laden.

even if he could have gotten him, he was bound by
existing LAW.

The executive was granted stronger power by the
"patriot act"---AFTER clintons presidency
Post by Unpleasant Truth
You mean like letting a large corporation named Loral sell our nuclear
missile technology to the Chinese in exchange for illegal campaign
contributions from the Red Army? O, htat's right, that was the traitor
Clinton.
That is an "allegation"

NO such evidence exists to support it.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush attacked Iraq----because he could---not because it
was a threat.
Saddam was a threat.
How?
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
For over a year he was being told that Iraq had NOTHING
it could possible threaten us with----up to mere weeks
before he launched his attack.
Nope.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html
If you want to take issue with the CIA, by all means do so.
Why?

The CIA debunked the Aluminum tubes bullshi
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Wilson told him that the "yellow cake" threat was BOGUS
Wilson has been completely discredited as a serial liar.
No such thing has ever occurred.

Wilson substantiated TWO other reports that said the
SAME thing about Nigerian "yellow cake"

Wilson was also a Bush appointee.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February
2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear
weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended
for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has
said publicly.
Absolute rubbish

Plame only relayed a message to wilson

She had no power to recommend anyone. that wasn't her
function.

Wilson was chosen SOLELY on his credentials by the CIA.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the
Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined
yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
Nonsense

TWO other identical reports were issued by Bush
diplomats before wilson issued his

ALL concluded that NO SUCH transaction ever took place,
nor could it.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence
about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said,
Who writes that rubbish?

Wilson was one of THREE who issued the same reports.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched
"yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar
intelligence that remains an open question
How in fuck could Saddam buy what Nigeria had nothing
to sell?

Nigeria does not mine Uranium. it has none.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have
tried to buy uranium in Niger
They have NONE to sell

Two Different mining consortiums (which include France)
mine Uranium.

Nigers ONLY participation in all of this is to grant
mining permits, you fucking goofy.
Unpleasant Truth
2006-01-31 06:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:08:51 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush was asleep in foreign policy---after being warned
about terrorists.
Bill Clinton had bin Laden offered up on a silver platter.
Bullshit
Clinton was NEVER offered Bin Laden.
Well, when all you read is left wing rags, you don't get the truth.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
even if he could have gotten him, he was bound by
existing LAW.
The executive was granted stronger power by the
"patriot act"---AFTER clintons presidency
Post by Unpleasant Truth
You mean like letting a large corporation named Loral sell our nuclear
missile technology to the Chinese in exchange for illegal campaign
contributions from the Red Army? O, htat's right, that was the traitor
Clinton.
That is an "allegation"
NO such evidence exists to support it.
I repeat - when all you read is left wing rags, you don't get the truth.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Bush attacked Iraq----because he could---not because it
was a threat.
Saddam was a threat.
How?
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
For over a year he was being told that Iraq had NOTHING
it could possible threaten us with----up to mere weeks
before he launched his attack.
Nope.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/report.html
If you want to take issue with the CIA, by all means do so.
Why?
The CIA debunked the Aluminum tubes bullshi
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Wilson told him that the "yellow cake" threat was BOGUS
Wilson has been completely discredited as a serial liar.
No such thing has ever occurred.
Wilson substantiated TWO other reports that said the
SAME thing about Nigerian "yellow cake"
Wilson was also a Bush appointee.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February
2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear
weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended
for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has
said publicly.
Absolute rubbish
So now you renounce a "bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report" in
a story from the left wing Washington Post? Now that really is relentless
close-mindedness, even for a leftist.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Plame only relayed a message to wilson
She had no power to recommend anyone. that wasn't her
function.
Wilson was chosen SOLELY on his credentials by the CIA.
You really are a left wing dupe, aren't you? Wilson had ZERO credentials
for such a mission. Go ahead - name one.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the
Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined
yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
Nonsense
TWO other identical reports were issued by Bush
diplomats before wilson issued his
ALL concluded that NO SUCH transaction ever took place,
nor could it.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking
intelligence
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Post by Unpleasant Truth
about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said,
Who writes that rubbish?
The Senate Intelligence Committee.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Wilson was one of THREE who issued the same reports.
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched
"yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar
intelligence that remains an open question
How in fuck could Saddam buy what Nigeria had nothing
to sell?
Nigeria does not mine Uranium. it has none.
That's what I "love" about lunatic leftists like you. You're so stupid
you don't know you're completely ignorant. Then you parade that ignorance
out for everyone to see. And you feel smug about it. Wow! It's NIGER,
not NIGERIA. They're not the same country. (Another proud graduate of
America's failed public schools that teach nothing but do a great job
indoctrinating left wing thought.)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107843.html
Niger
Natural resources: uranium, coal, iron ore, tin, phosphates, gold,
petroleum. Exports: $280 million (f.o.b., 2002 est.): uranium ore,
livestock, cowpeas, onions.

Look at the four exports. Now which one do YOU think Saddam would have
been interested enough in to send a high level emissary? Come on, now,
even you might guess right.
Post by laffs@'em-all.com
Post by Unpleasant Truth
Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have
tried to buy uranium in Niger
They have NONE to sell
Two Different mining consortiums (which include France)
mine Uranium.
Nigers ONLY participation in all of this is to grant
mining permits, you fucking goofy.
Like I said about that smugness. Sad - really sad. (Here's another
hint - swearing only makes you look even more stupid.)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...