Portrait of the average American voter...

William Graham wrote:


In Patrick Henry's case, he preferred death......

He may have uttered inspiring words but died of simple ill health. In
any case he was talking about the Brits and "taxation" and all that
terrible rot. The Brits wanted the US to be prosperous and pay taxes.
A far cry from the threat of terrorism or being under religious control.

As to Islam there are many who find freedom in faith regardless of the
personal restrictions it might impose. And that is certainly not
limited to Islam, nor to states where personal restrictions are imposed.

What is abhorrent about some Islamic countries is the _imposed_
restrictions based on the _interpretation_ of the faith as decided by a
few "elite". But that is _not_ the intent of Islam.

To broadbrush Islam in this manner is to ignore Europe under the
Catholic church for most of the 2nd millenium.



I don't believe any form of government can be permanent....They are all
destined to be overthrown sooner or later. So, the best we can hope for is
for the maximum number of people to live as well as possible, for the
longest period of time in between those revolutions......I am very
lucky....I have lived high on the hog for 71 years. But, I fear the boom is
about to be lowered......

I fear it. You're getting close to Patrick H.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:59:54 GMT, nick c wrote:


Bunk.

If it's your intent to say political leaders in other countries like
Poland, Australia, England, Italy, Spain. etc., are stupid or run scared
you can lay that bunk on someone who would _want_ to believe it.


IIRC, Spain has already withdrawn from "The Coalition
of The Willing". Poland and Italy intend to withdraw
by the end of this year.

In reality, the only significant members (in terms of
troops at risk) have been the USA and Great Britain.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
SNIP
We would go to the US without anyhting but a verbal declaration.
Now you need photo ID of some kind that has some probable (not
certain) link to citizenship. Next year (or beginning of 2008, I'm
not sure) Canadians will need a passport to go to the US.

Consider yourself lucky.

Europeans also need to hand over all details about Credit card
spendings, religious believes, and feeding habits (or be refused
access). No record of (mis-) use of the (CC) info is made available
(other than commercial companies finding their details being used
against them). Also finger print details, iris scans, and DNA
information are required to be an integral part of our passports, if
we would 'like' to visit the USA.

Which means that anybody who can fake that, will have unrestricted
access. The first fakes have already emerged, so a false sense of
security will provide an even more baseless access for the bad guys,
and violation of the rights of innocent people at the same time.

--
Bart

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in

There are no other states. If you capture a terrorist he falls under

(your choice of the above) and he cannot be tortured. Otherwise what is
the United States?


Sometime ago, I stated (on this forum, I think) that non-citizens
shouldn't get the same constitutional rights as our citizens do. Everyone
came down on

There was actually a case before the courts that prompted somebody to
start to go for a Supreme Court ruling. However it never went anywhere.

me like a ton of bricks, and informed me that I was wrong, and that
today,

Yep.

any visitor here has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the
US.....Now, (it seems) this policy is coming back to haunt us.....It does

There is no privilege other than the _protection_ of the US Constitution.

pose a dilemma, when it is applied to spies who are here to do us harm.
Even a non-citizen here on a visa, who commits a crime, can't be deported
if we don't know where he came from. And, if we do, what's to prevent him
from coming back to finish his mission? I don't think we can survive
terrorism under your rules, Alan. We have no control over our borders,
and no right to treat non-citizen insurgents as spies. So you insist that
we give a fair trial to all these creeps, before a jury of their peers,
just like they were American citizens......I don't think that's possible.
So, our only alternative is to just hand them the keys to our country,
and meekly lay our heads on the chopping block.......

You don't understand the difference between defence and a police state.

I wonder if the terrorists understand the difference......



You also don't understand that if you declare people as POW, you still
can't torture them. The US practice of "exporting" people to countries
with less restrictive interrogation rules is just a legal workaround and a
moral disgrace.

And yes you can accuse non-citizens (and citizens too!!) of spying but
like any "free democracy" you have to have reasonable cause to bring it
before a grand jury &| judge. (Of course right now this is being bypassed
any time that someone can reasonbly be labeled a "terrorist". Under this
guideline an innocent Canadian (Arar) was arrested in the US and then
deported to Syria (where he was born) and then tortured by the Syrians.
This shoddy event is due to the negligence and incompetence of Canadian
and US officials alike.

Yeah, I saw that "60 minutes" clip......

The principle of US law was always "better a 100 guilty men go free than
that 1 innocent be jailed". This has been totally lost.

Countries that have had severe restrictions on borders has been a social
and economic misfits. The more severe the restrictions the more severe
the economic drag.

Canada and the US are the least restrictive countries in the world and are
mutually the largest trade partners in the entire world. I travel to the
US with a Quebec drivers licence, no problem (this privilege ends next
year due to US paranoia). We would go to the US without anyhting but a
verbal declaration. Now you need photo ID of some kind that has some
probable (not certain) link to citizenship. Next year (or beginning of
2008, I'm not sure) Canadians will need a passport to go to the US.

All of this will be restricive on economic activity. Day visits will drop
and harm commerce and tourism.

etc.

Cheers,
Alan

I sympathize with your inconvenience, but you still haven't addressed my
essential question. Where does "battlefield conditions," where you shoot
first, and ask questions later, end, and "try everyone in a court of law
before a jury of their peers" begin? In this type of terrorist war, the
soldiers aren't all dressed in uniform, and aren't all there standing in a
row, waiting to be gunned down like good soldiers are supposed to be.
In WW-II, an enemy combatant, caught behind our lines, out of uniform,
was considered a spy, and was summarily shot, without a trial by a jury of
his peers. Now, we are in a war, and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands
of, "enemy combatants", all dressed in civilian clothes, plotting to do us
grave bodily harm. So, what do you want us to do? I doubt if we can survive
by giving them all a fair trial before a jury of their peers.

That_Rich wrote:

From the US, I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico via
air, rail or boat 1 January 2007.
I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico by car or on foot
1 January 2008.


Maybe you should leave now?

That_Rich wrote:

From the US, I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico via
air, rail or boat 1 January 2007.
I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico by car or on foot
1 January 2008.
Travel is pretty restrictive here, the police can't drive across the
country line no matter what the circumstances. And no one can ride
their bike across the county line regardless of whatever documentation
they might have on them. In fact I have to show my drivers license
just to go to the next county.

Scott

Raphael Bustin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:59:54 GMT, nick c wrote:


Bunk.

If it's your intent to say political leaders in other countries like
Poland, Australia, England, Italy, Spain. etc., are stupid or run scared
you can lay that bunk on someone who would _want_ to believe it.


IIRC, Spain has already withdrawn from "The Coalition
of The Willing". Poland and Italy intend to withdraw
by the end of this year.

In reality, the only significant members (in terms of
troops at risk) have been the USA and Great Britain.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


Yep, but the comment Rich made "Unless of course Dubya and Co. tell
enough lies and offer up enough
threats" is still bunk.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
I don't believe any form of government can be permanent....They are all
destined to be overthrown sooner or later. So, the best we can hope for
is for the maximum number of people to live as well as possible, for the
longest period of time in between those revolutions......I am very
lucky....I have lived high on the hog for 71 years. But, I fear the boom
is about to be lowered......

I fear it. You're getting close to Patrick H.


I fear religious fundamentalists more than I fear government.

Any religion. That's about the only thing that William and I
will ever agree on, I suspect.

I ran across an *amazing* quote from Barry Goldwater
in Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion." I don't
have it in front of me, but basically Goldwater was
*blasting* his religious constituency and the religious right.

Read up on the "Quiverfull" movement for a real scare...


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"nick c" wrote in message
...

Yep, but the comment Rich made "Unless of course Dubya and Co. tell enough
lies and offer up enough threats" is still bunk.


Are you making a case for BushCo's honesty? LOL.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe b wrote:

I fear religious fundamentalists more than I fear government.

I once heard former President Carter quote something I
have heard elsewhere.

First they want to promote God's work
Then they start speaking to God
Then they are a communication channel to God exchanging messages
Then they speak on behalf of God
Then they say what God would say if God had all the facts.

w..