Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and your evidence is....................

i realize we can get them once we know what they did, like Z(whatever). but Atta (or the LAX bomber), all you know he has ties to al queda. are you assuming he'll tell you about the plan and the guys helping him? have the courage of your convictions. you believe the protection of rights requires we let him go. that isn't a terrible position, but don't pretend it isn't what you're saying.

Hell Jed Bartlett killed a guy who he knew was a terrorist. Are you going on record as disagreeing with him?

I've said it about five different times, and I'll say it again. You seem to think that there are times when you trust the CIA to decide that someone is conspiring to engage in terrorism, but that you don't trust a judge to conclude the same. If you're asking me what my evidence is, it's whatever evidence you've got.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sometines we knowsomeone is bad, and the types of bad guys we have floating around are a different breed of bad guys.
If the government can't hold the people it knows (or strongly suspects) are of this breed, pretty much they will walk. and maybe that is cool becasue it is necessary to protect con. rights, but I will not let Ty and NB ignore that letting them walk is a certain result of rulings such as the one Ty hails.

So the government should be allowed to lock up people who it thinks are members of street gangs (or heavily armed religious cults) even though it lacks the evidence to bring criminal charges? Interesting.

I'm hoping this strain of conservative authoritarianism wanes when the next President is a Democrat. Y'all will suddenly remember the virtues of limited government.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've said it about five different times, and I'll say it again. You seem to think that there are times when you trust the CIA to decide that someone is conspiring to engage in terrorism, but that you don't trust a judge to conclude the same. If you're asking me what my evidence is, it's whatever evidence you've got.

okay. we agree. now just type this words "I believe we should let Atta walk under this hypo, just like the LAX bomber was allowed to walk."

If you just type it, I'll think better of you for your honesty.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So the government should be allowed to lock up people who it thinks are members of street gangs (or heavily armed religious cults) even though it lacks the evidence to bring criminal charges? Interesting.

I'm hoping this strain of conservative authoritarianism wanes when the next President is a Democrat. Y'all will suddenly remember the virtues of limited government.

do you have any idea what the government did to "bring down" the Mafia?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Well, the statute says that providing personnel, including oneself, to a terrorist group is a violation, so I think that you are wrong. How that is proved is a different issue.

can you get one of your associates to find a case where that was enough? everything I find has very detailed actions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
okay. we agree. now just type this words "I believe we should let Atta walk under this hypo, just like the LAX bomber was allowed to walk."

If you just type it, I'll think better of you for your honesty.

Your constant suggestions that I lie in my posts here create a rebuttable presumption that you are an asshole.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I lie in my posts

only to yourself.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your constant suggestions that I lie in my posts here create a rebuttable presumption that you are an asshole.

Ty, the position he's set up opposed to yours is so despicable that he won't even endorse it himself. Stop fighting the Hank strawman - the match has been lit, if you just walk away, it will burn.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ty, the position he's set up opposed to yours is so despicable that he won't even endorse it himself. Stop fighting the Hank strawman - the match has been lit, if you just walk away, it will burn.

so the governemnt is holding these people without any cogent reason? despicable?

people have been prosecuted under the statute, ask yourself why some others haven't been. maybe it's becasue they are close to my hypo, or the evidence could compromise other intelligence gathering. the downside of being wrong on these issues is huge.

Or maybe it is because the government is completely out of control and just grabbing people out of pure paranoia.

I think the difference in how Ty and I look at my last question frames why we feel differently about the decision.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Or maybe it is because the government is completely out of control and just grabbing people out of pure paranoia.

I think the difference in how Ty and I look at my last question frames why we feel differently about the decision.

When did conservatives become so trusting of Government?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
When did conservatives become so trusting of Government?

Hank's just a big fan of Minority Report.

Unfortunately, in Hank's version, Wolfowitz and Feith are the precogs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so the governemnt is holding these people without any cogent reason? despicable?

people have been prosecuted under the statute, ask yourself why some others haven't been. maybe it's becasue they are close to my hypo, or the evidence could compromise other intelligence gathering. the downside of being wrong on these issues is huge.

Or maybe it is because the government is completely out of control and just grabbing people out of pure paranoia.

I think the difference in how Ty and I look at my last question frames why we feel differently about the decision.

If you give a government unchecked power to lock people up, it will abuse that power, out of the best and worst of intentions. Quite possibly, the people who locked up this guy think they're protecting the public. On the other hand, he was in custody for sixteen months before they moved him to military custody, and they did not do this until the trial court set a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence. More here. You don't need to start tossing around words like "paranoia" to think that the government will get the balance wrong.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
When did conservatives become so trusting of Government?

January 21, 2001.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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?

If the best we can do is "may be inclined to repeat it" then yes, we wait and see. There are days when I'm sure you "may be inclined to throttle your daughter." Should they be able to lock you up?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and your evidence is....................

i realize we can get them once we know what they did, like Z(whatever). but Atta (or the LAX bomber), all you know he has ties to al queda. are you assuming he'll tell you about the plan and the guys helping him? have the courage of your convictions. you believe the protection of rights requires we let him go. that isn't a terrible position, but don't pretend it isn't what you're saying.

Hell Jed Bartlett killed a guy who he knew was a terrorist. Are you going on record as disagreeing with him?

Why are you fighting so hard to stay so wrong? Both of them: (i) conspired to aid/ engage in terrorism; (ii) entered or attempted to enter the United States under false pretenses in aid of the afroementioned conspiracy; (iii) provided personal services in aid of said conspiracy; and (iv) did so knowing and with intent that said conspiracy result in acts of terrorism and/or harm to persons or property within the United States.

All that aside, both of them were on temporary visas. We didn't actually need to arrest them. We could have simply revoked their visas and put them on a plane to somewhere the government would be very happy to see them.