Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Are you basing your little fantasy

Okay, you choose to ignore the LAX bomber. I understand why you would because it kills your whole position.

on the notion that Homeland Security will know better how to protect us than a judge, or is it all about the quantum of evidence required to convict someone?

Judges intentionally let people they know are murderers go free based upon procedural glitches, so yes. Judges and juries can convict people if there is BARD evidence of a crime. The problem is that anything we can convict most of them of is probably a misdemenor. I understand your point, and I understand that you want the judge to let the murdered go. Most of America would rather both those things get fixed.

As for the fascist thing, I said "smacks of." So rest easy. Your trains aren't running on time yet.

dude I repeat a blitzkreig on your ass about 5 times a week, you just look at the world from Uncle junior's eyes so you don't see it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Okay, you choose to ignore the LAX bomber. I understand why you would because it kills your whole position.

Judges intentionally let people they know are murderers go free based upon procedural glitches, so yes. Judges and juries can convict people if there is BARD evidence of a crime. The problem is that anything we can convict most of them of is probably a misdemenor. I understand your point, and I understand that you want the judge to let the murdered go. Most of America would rather both those things get fixed.

I hear many Italians liked on-time trains. Who woulda thunk it?

Just like judges, the executive branch can fuck things up, too. For example, consider what it did between January and September of 2001. Try to bake that into your fantasies about executive power.

dude I repeat a blitzkreig on your ass about 5 times a week, you just look at the world from Uncle junior's eyes so you don't see it.

Indeed, no one understands the victories you keep racking up in your fantasy world. It's rather sad.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I hear many Italians liked on-time trains. Who woulda thunk it?

Just like judges, the executive branch can fuck things up, too. For example, consider what it did between January and September of 2001.

most of January clinton was still prez. but do you mean bush failed since he didn't go after al queda for the Cole and the enbassy bombings. I agree, in retrospect he should have.

from wiki:

• Once he entered the United States on June 3, 2000, through Newark, New Jersey, the CIA says its surveillance of Atta ended. It is unclear whether the FBI or some other intelligence agency monitored Atta's activities in the United States.

clinton came! so did the terrorists!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
most of January clinton was still prez. but do you mean bush failed since he didn't go after al queda for the Cole and the enbassy bombings. I agree, in retrospect he should have.

from wiki:

• Once he entered the United States on June 3, 2000, through Newark, New Jersey, the CIA says its surveillance of Atta ended. It is unclear whether the FBI or some other intelligence agency monitored Atta's activities in the United States.

clinton came! so did the terrorists!

Fine. Assume that the Executive Branch screwed up under both Clinton and Bush. It kinda messes with your fantasy world where all we need to do to protect ourselves is give up our rights so that the Executive Branch can imprison whomever it likes. Cue Penske to bitch about Elian and the Branch Davidians, etc. Did you learn about checks and balances?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Fine. Assume that the Executive Branch screwed up under both Clinton and Bush. It kinda messes with your fantasy world where all we need to do to protect ourselves is give up our rights so that the Executive Branch can imprison whomever it likes.

first, when you say an administration should have moved mountains in its first few months, you show your ignorance of how our government works. really, to the extent you are trying to have intelligent discourse you should stop that.

The "screw ups" were sins of omission. If we had grabbed Atta, we would have taken his rights, but several thousand people would be alive today. and what was it you thought Clinton/Bush should have done about Atta again? wait until there was evidence of a crime. That is, the moment he took over the plane.

And again, the LAX bomber, what should Canada have done about him?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
first, when you say an administration should have moved mountains in its first few months, you show your ignorance of how our government works. really, to the extent you are trying to have intelligent discourse you should stop that.

The "screw ups" were sins of omission. If we had grabbed Atta, we would have taken his rights, but several thousand people would be alive today. and what was it you thought Clinton/Bush should have done about Atta again? wait until there was evidence of a crime. That is, the moment he took over the plane.

You think I'm talking about early 2001 to indict the Bushies for malfeasance, but that's not my point. My point is that you're willing to trash the Constitution because of this rich fantasy that the Executive Branch will be on their game and catch all the bad guys, albeit not with enough proof to ever convict them. You're spreading the fear that we can't trust the courts -- we need to put people away on the say so of the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI. And we just have to take their word for it.

That's not how this country works. If you like that kind of safety, move to Russia.

And again, the LAX bomber, what should Canada have done about him?

Caught him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Caught him.

and charged him with membership in a bad organization? when you were indoctrinated into the dem party did someone take a short cut and not show you the movies about how McCarthyism was bad?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the problem is that there are now people willing to do war-like acts of mass murder that do not tie into any particular country, and until the act of mass murder takes place there may often be little evidence. we got lucky with the LAX bomber because he decided to make the bomb in Canada and import it. for years the French were telling Canada to arrest him or kick him out*, BUT he hadn't done anything, other than be involved in training for a global jihad and all. Same with Atta.

Your point seems to be, to protect our freedom we have to let the next Atta roam free and even get on the plane. I suppose you could check his bags carefully or something.
See our laws aren't geared to deal with people like this- unless maybe if membership in al queda is made proof of insanity or something.

*gwnc disclaimer- I didn't mean that as Canada bashing. he simply had not done anything illegal. try to catch the PBS docu on the guy.

Actually we could have just revoked his visa and put him on a plane without much fuss.

The big problem is that on September 10, nobody would have conceived of what happened, and after September 11, some people seem to be believe that fear alone, without evidence or due process ought to be enough to allow the Executive to lock away anybody without allowing them to challenge the detention or see the evidence against them.

By the way, Hank, you have an engineering background, live in an area populated by a large number of people from the Middle East, and you seem to be far more preoccupied with terrorism than the average American. How do we know you're not one of them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and charged him with membership in a bad organization? when you were indoctrinated into the dem party did someone take a short cut and not show you the movies about how McCarthyism was bad?

No: conspiracy. Did HLS not teach you criminal law?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No: conspiracy. Did HLS not teach you criminal law?

wha? the LAX bomber acted alone. are you saying the mere fact of being associated with al queda is enough to convict of conspiracy to do all a.q. actions? or do you mean Atta. same question. conspiracy to do what?

THE Law School concentrated on less plebian things. I took a course on law of the solar system.
"Hypo: the gravity on Jupiter is 50 times that on earth. this would make it harder to steal property. Analyze what that should do to the sanctions for conversion."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually we could have just revoked his visa and put him on a plane without much fuss.

The big problem is that on September 10, nobody would have conceived of what happened, and after September 11, some people seem to be believe that fear alone, without evidence or due process ought to be enough to allow the Executive to lock away anybody without allowing them to challenge the detention or see the evidence against them.

By the way, Hank, you have an engineering background, live in an area populated by a large number of people from the Middle East, and you seem to be far more preoccupied with terrorism than the average American. How do we know you're not one of them?

now we can conceive of it, and we know of some people who maybe are inclined to repeat it. we can't really charge them with a crime. wait and see?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wha? the LAX bomber acted alone. are you saying the mere fact of being associated with al queda is enough to convict of conspiracy to do all a.q. actions? or do you mean Atta. same question. conspiracy to do what?

How come you think that association of Al Qaeda is enough to prove that someone is up to bad shit but not enough to prove that someone is up to bad shit?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How come you think that association of Al Qaeda is enough to prove that someone is up to bad shit but not enough to prove that someone is up to bad shit?

I know it when I see it.

what law is broken by being in al queda? our laws need to catch up. we are one movie theatre or school take over away from some serious change on this stuff. you should be happy it has been as limited as it has been.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know it when I see it.

what law is broken by being in al queda? our laws need to catch up. we are one movie theatre or school take over away from some serious change on this stuff. you should be happy it has been as limited as it has been.

How do we get e.g. Tim McVeigh or the kids who multi-murder in schools?

I still think you are in Stalinist Russia. Or Stalinist Soviet Union. Or are advocating a 21st century (fox) version of McCarthyism. That whole thing started with people who actually were hellbent on overthrowing the US government. But then look what it turned into.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what law is broken by being in al queda? our laws need to catch up. we are one movie theatre or school take over away from some serious change on this stuff. you should be happy it has been as limited as it has been.

How about 18 USC s. 2339B?

• Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

I was too lazy to see what portion of the statute had been amended since 2001, but I'm pretty sure that there was something similar on the books in the 1970s when the Feds were investigating the Irish Northern Aid Society to see if funds being raised for it by the Hibernian lodges in the US were being funneled to the Provisional IRA. And that professor who was tried for being a supporter of Hamas was originally charged before 9/11.*

eta: His name was Sami Al-Arian, and according to wikipedia, he was investigated by the FBI (including wiretaps) before 9/11, but wasn't charged until afterwards. Not Bob regrets the error.