Is this what the war on terror means ?

LA. Lower Alabama. Dale County.

Ah. I've only lived in the B'ham area. It can be a fun little town. Did you get my U2U? I'm not sure it went. I clicked reply, and it appeared in bold in my outbox.

[Edited on 12-2-2003 by Satyr]

Drinking and Driving?
I thought this Thread was about the war on terror?
Everyone makes mistakes, A strong person can realize them and move on.
Simple as that.

A training Camp is a camp where soldiers are trained for the art of war.
I have not heard of any other training from "AL QUEDA"
other than what he hear on the news.
Deep

Well, hatchet buried Satyr and please forgive me for throwing you out like the sacraficial lamb, as it were.

Your position was: They went to a terrorist camp and now they are forced into a guilty plea and they were just good ol' Americans that went to the wrong place. How could we ever prosecute for what we thought they would do.

I simply wanted to show you that it was not so "unjust" as it seems. You had some drinks and then drove. Did you mean to possibly harm anyone? No, I am quite sure you did not. Is .07 a clear distinction from .08? Really just a technicality. The fact is, you committed a crime (I never said I was a saint either ) and you were punished. The parallel is that we know drinking and driving can kill people, but we arrest them before that can happen. The evidence? Well, the .07 of course.

For them, they flew to the other side of the world and had a face-to-face with a known terrorist. They were in his camp (ie. drinking) and now they were back here driving. So, we take them off the streets. Are we going to chase every arabic person and lock them up? No.

The fact is that they really don't fall under civil or national law either. In this case, we are in a declared state of war. By there actions, they declared themselves enemies of this nation and subject to death. They got off easy with their "bargain" and they know it.

That is all and I'm glad we is all friends.

ps) Ok, maybe my point was extreme...and I never meant to offend.

[Edited on 2-12-2003 by Secado]

Well, just as I don't agree with sobriety checks, I don't agree with convicting people before a crime is committed. If a cop sees someone swerving, then yeah, they should have the right to pull them over, and possibly convict them if they're sloppy drunk...but only for DUI, not manslaughter!
I don't believe in preemptive justice, any more than I believe in preemptive war. At the time, they were doing absolutely nothing illegal. Two supreme courts have already threatened to overturn the stupid law. It's unconstitutional. And if they indeed turn out to be terrorists, tough #. You convict them when there's evidence. I was charged with DUI, not manslaughter. Why, you ask? Because there's no evidence that anyone would have been killed.
With your thinking, we might as well go ahead and convict everyone of DUI before they do anything wrong. It's safer that way, isn't it? I saw you coming out of that bar! Although you hadn't gotten anywhere near a car, I can be quite sure you were going to drive, right? Wrong!

The fact is that they really don't fall under civil or national law either. In this case, we are in a declared state of war. By there actions, they declared themselves enemies of this nation and subject to death. They got off easy with their "bargain" and they know it.

We weren't even at war with anyone, at the time. They're American citizens. They do have every right we have...especially since their trip was not after 9/11, but before.

[Edited on 12-2-2003 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
Well, just as I don't agree with sobriety checks, I don't agree with convicting people before a crime is committed.
Nothing more than a metal detector and a xray like at the airport. Do you not agree with those too?

If a cop sees someone swerving, then yeah, they should have the right to pull them over, and possibly convict them if they're sloppy drunk...but only for DUI, not manslaughter!
Hmmm...if someone you know was killed, would your viewpoint change? A wife, girlfriend, or child perhaps?

I don't believe in preemptive justice, any more than I believe in preemptive war. At the time, they were doing absolutely nothing illegal.
Ok, I give...they were just having tea with the man that ordered 3000+ civilian deaths. Just his at his Vacation home.

We weren't even at war with anyone, at the time. They're American citizens. They do have every right we have...especially since their trip was not after 9/11, but before. [B]We have been at war with OBL for longer than 9/11.[/B]

I give. You are right. Maybe we should let them free. I guarantee, that if their potential fireball includes someone you love...you will be all for the "stupid" law. Me? I would rather have "pre" than "post" but I guess there are all types out there. As I said, you would rather cry "foul" as they scrape innocent bodies up off the ground for evidence.

Sort of like if I heard someone was going to kick my ass, I would go straight to him and wham! Wait...the rules, the rules you say. Well, if he had the chance, he would do the same to me. I guess you would wait for the beating.

I can see OBL laughing at us now.

I'm not saying release them. Maybe keep them there for 6 mos, since they're already there. But it would've made alot more sense to investigate them and see if we could find out more. If there's a connection, it would have been better to try to find out all we can about them before we throw them in jail. With all the great new powers the FBI have, they could've gotten deep into these peoples' lives. Tap their phones, monitor their mail, computers, watch where they go, see what kind of shows they watch on TV....whatever they want to do. It would have, no doubt, been advantageous to the FBI to wait and collect evidence. Maybe even find the trail to OBL, eh?

[Edited on 12-3-2003 by Satyr]

Haha! True enough. Know your enemy.
That works for me.

Sorry. I hadn't seen these.

Originally posted by Secado
Nothing more than a metal detector and a xray like at the airport. Do you not agree with those too?

Those are far less intrusive, and more necessary just for the sake of keeping guns out of airports. People are allowed to have guns in cars legally, so I don't really see the correlation here.

Hmmm...if someone you know was killed, would your viewpoint change? A wife, girlfriend, or child perhaps?

I seriously doubt it. Someone I know has been killed by a drunk driver, actually. Do I have to go on my responsibility rant? I guess I do. You see, there are people who are never responsible. And there are people who are responsible. Irresponsible people only get worse under the influence of alcohol. Responsible people either don't get drunk in a situation in which they need to be responsible, or they get drunk in a place where it's ok to be irresponsible. Accidents like that have much more to do with the type of person, rather than alcohol. Careless people kill and/or die more often. Irresponsible/careless people also are the biggest repeat offenders. Alcohol and drugs don't make people irresponsible. They make irresponsible people more careless. Know what I mean?

Ok, I give...they were just having tea with the man that ordered 3000+ civilian deaths. Just his at his Vacation home.

He hadn't ordered 3000 civilian deaths yet. The fact that these people were not involved in 9/11 should be a point in their favor, IMO. They weren't on any of the planes.

[B]We have been at war with OBL for longer than 9/11.[/B]

We weren't at war with Afghanistan, previously. OBL even made several diplomatic trips to the US to have secret sit downs with our leaders. It's even been said that the Bush family had business dealings with OBL. What's your point? Our gov't sure didn't consider him any threat. The only person who supposedly considered him a threat was Oliver North, and that was just an email hoax.

[Edited on 12-3-2003 by Satyr]

How exactly were they trained? To shoot (you can learn this at any gun club in the U.S.)?

To run through tires? To swing on ropes? To hate Americans?


HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME:

Let's say one day you're online and you click on a link that takes you to a terrorist-supported website that has details on how to make bombs and where to place them in public areas so as to kill as many people as possible. You don't even know if it's serious or just someone's idea of a sick joke.

You read it, out of curiosity and maybe some morbid fascination.

Next day, the FBI shows up to your house. You're busted and you are forced to spend 10 years in jail.

And since nothing was done about the Lackwanna 6, you're *Censored. Do not go around the censor again.*.

This is how it begins, and unless you stop it, you or someone you know will suffer because of it.

Ask any German if they wish they had have fought for their freedoms in the early 1930's instead of just having a laissez-faire attitiude.


I know it's a stretch, but the government can stretch any law these days to fit with the War on Terror. And it's your ass that ends up being affected.


jakomo

ps. How do you PROVE to a court of Law that you're not thinking of committing a terrorist act?

[Edited on 3-12-2003 by Jakomo]

[Edited on 3-12-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Problem is Jakomo nobody is forcing them to spend 10 years in jail. They copped a plea to 10 years. If I click a website and the FBI comes a calling I'll explain my case if they press me further I'll have my day in court. I'm not going to plead guilty to something I'm not guilty of. You can scream into the wind about abuse and la de dah but once you sign your name to a confession that's it. Your fight is over, no appeals, nothing but time.

No, Jacko, they travelled overseas to something that was called a training camp to learn how to bake the tastiest hashish brownies, how to make really spiffy rugs and the proper technique in goat milking. In order to attempt your argument, you must try and assume the least information, and that only works if the other are willing to drop to that level. I am not willing.

Satyr, I agree with you; roadside spot checks are absolutely wrong. Wrong, that is, if you have not signed your privately owned auto over to the state, placed their tag on the back and allowed them to convert it into their "motor vehicle". If you have, then it is theirs, and they may stop and inverstigate it at anytime. Otherwise, those spot checks would be totally illegal and unconstitutional.
You knew something was very wrong, and you didn't know how they were able to do what they do. That is just the tip of their legal ways of violating us, and the tip of our ignorance and allowing them to do it.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Satyr, I agree with you; roadside spot checks are absolutely wrong. Wrong, that is, if you have not signed your privately owned auto over to the state, placed their tag on the back and allowed them to convert it into their "motor vehicle". If you have, then it is theirs, and they may stop and inverstigate it at anytime. Otherwise, those spot checks would be totally illegal and unconstitutional.
You knew something was very wrong, and you didn't know how they were able to do what they do. That is just the tip of their legal ways of violating us, and the tip of our ignorance and allowing them to do it.

I agree. They can only get away with as much as we allow. Unfortunately, there seems to be a majority of people who don't mind being walked on. They've become overly lenient of "sneaky" justice. They don't want a gov't, they want a babysitter for adults and kids alike. I may be old fashioned, but I don't believe that's their place. They're breaking serious rules, bending the Constitution, or ignoring it completely. As justified as it might seem, it's a dangerous practice. I've said this more times than I can count, and I'll say it again;
Once taken, your freedom will not be returned without a fight.