[extropy-chat] Alert for Suspicious Farmers' Almanacs

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:36:49 -0800 (PST)
> Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Would a vehicle search be a civil rights violation?
> > > Yup. Does it
> > > matter? Nope. Why? Because national security is not
> > > bound by civil
> > > rights laws.
> > 
> > Yes it is.
> 
> Yes.  There is nothing in the Constitution that makes exceptions
> except an actual suspension of the Constitution. 

Wrong again Samantha. The Constitution makes room for signing treaties
with other nations. The Geneva Conventions are such treaties, and THEY
specifically make terrorism a military or war crime that is treated and
ajudicated differently from civil crimes.

> 
> > 
> > > Your civil rights being violated is
> > > only grounds to
> > > exclude incriminating evidence from trial, it is not
> > > a "get out of
> > > Guantanamo Free card".
> >
> 
> Your civil rights being violated is a crime committed against you by
> your government.  It is a small or large act of treason by government
> officials who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and be properly
> limited by it.   

With an emphassis on *your* government. Non-citizens have
constitutionally protected rights by courtesy. Yes, they have natural
rights, which we as a signor to the Geneva Conventions have agreed to
*recognise* to belong to non-combantats, legal combatants to a slightly
lesser degree, and to a far lesser degree, illegal combatants. I'll
bet, Samantha, that after two years of my needling you about it, you
STILL haven't read the Geneva Conventions.....

> > > The SCOTUS has ruled on a
> > > number of occasions
> > > that violtions of your civil rights taken in defense
> > > of national
> > > security are quite acceptable.
> >
> 
> Then the SCOTUS is simply wrong.  There is nothing in the
> Constitution, btw, that says the SCOTUS is the legitimate final
> arbitrar of what is and is not Constitutional.  

You know, Samantha, I've heard this claim made by some of the militia
bunker mentality types who wait for the black helicopters to come, but
never by anyone who knows the law and the Constitution.
 
> 
> > > Terrorism is NOT a
> > > civil crime, it is a
> > > military or war crime, and is properly subject to
> > > military law, not
> > > civillian law.
> > 
> 
> Terrorism is so bloody loosely defined that saying it is this or that
> category of crime is virtually meaningless.  Its definition is
> arbitrary so any acts or purported acts or secretly accused acts may
> be subject to whatever whim the authorities care to exercise.  This
> is clearly dead wrong.  It is so wrong it acts like a Big Lie
> stopping the thinking of even many liberty loving folks.

It's definition is only loosely defined in the minds of those who
consistently refuse to read, and remain proudly ignorant of, the Geneva Conventions.

=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                       - Gen. John Stark
"Fascists are objectively pro-pacifist..."
                                       - Mike Lorrey
Do not label me, I am an ism of one...
Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003