Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feds Use Patriot Act 2 Arrest/Detain 10 Grade

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 7:10:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's okay though, because it's all for our own safety.

I'm sorry, but this is horrific and disgusting. Supporters of this Act should be ashamed. And if they didn't know that this was the logical consequence of such an act, they're just f*cking naive and unassuming.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 7:24:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://myfacewhen.com...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 7:33:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The silver lining is that this is the perfect counter-point case to use to challenge the Act. Just be thankful the kid isn't muslim, or we'd have right wingers yelling at us for suggesting he get rights.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 7:55:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ok then, lets now look at all thel ives saved by this Act. Look that up instead.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 7:57:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 7:55:59 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok then, lets now look at all thel ives saved by this Act. Look that up instead.

How many lives were saved by stopping American citizens from receiving any form of legal representation after initial detention and interrogation?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:12:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 7:55:59 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok then, lets now look at all thel ives saved by this Act. Look that up instead.

Does it really matter?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:40:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:12:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 7:55:59 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok then, lets now look at all thel ives saved by this Act. Look that up instead.

Does it really matter?

"Uh, yes, officer, I did rob that bank, but look at all these bills I paid!"

-Wanda Sykes on justifying torture
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:42:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:40:44 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:12:38 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 7:55:59 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Ok then, lets now look at all thel ives saved by this Act. Look that up instead.

Does it really matter?

"Uh, yes, officer, I did rob that bank, but look at all these bills I paid!"

-Wanda Sykes on justifying torture

http://myfacewhen.com...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:50:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

A legitimate threat? There was literally no evidence found in the house that he was a threat.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 8:54:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

I actually have two questions for you, one serious and one semi-loaded:

1) Why should the State be held above the citizens it serves?

2) Would you consider it permissable for the State to execute a person for giving a speech which said that the State was flawed?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:02:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:54:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

I actually have two questions for you, one serious and one semi-loaded:

1) Why should the State be held above the citizens it serves?
The State controls the citizens, not the other way around. A State is the representation of its populous, and therefore designed to make decisions for this populous. Reasoning assumes that the State should protect the citizens it serves.
2) Would you consider it permissable for the State to execute a person for giving a speech which said that the State was flawed?
It all depends on the circumstances.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:02:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:50:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

A legitimate threat? There was literally no evidence found in the house that he was a threat.

Except a few dozen bomb threats from his IP. Pshhhh... no big deal
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:05:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:02:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:50:14 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

A legitimate threat? There was literally no evidence found in the house that he was a threat.

Except a few dozen bomb threats from his IP. Pshhhh... no big deal

Which is explained by IP spoofing, except for the fact that he isn't allowed to defend himself, so, while he's being detained indefinitely and stripped of his rights, the real threat is still out there.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:08:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:02:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:54:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

I actually have two questions for you, one serious and one semi-loaded:

1) Why should the State be held above the citizens it serves?
The State controls the citizens, not the other way around. A State is the representation of its populous, and therefore designed to make decisions for this populous. Reasoning assumes that the State should protect the citizens it serves.

....right, but how did the State come to power in the first place?

It's a cliche phrase, but it's true: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

In other words, the State is powerless without the people it serves, This is evident in the fact that you refer to it as a representation of the citizens.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:08:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:06:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Here oberherr: http://www.northstarwriters.com...
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...
http://www.spokesmanreview.com...

But then they mug 10th graders so the bill is kinda 50-50

More like 0-100 against it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:44:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

Wow. Honestly, sounds like you'd be content in Nazi Germany or Orwell's 1984. That last sentence might as well be their slogan. I'll repeat what you said: No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State. You realize that there is nothing more antithetical to everything the Founding Fathers fought for than that one idea, right? That's the polar opposite of everything America was founded on. Do you support fascism/totalitarianism?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 9:46:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:44:23 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

Wow. Honestly, sounds like you'd be content in Nazi Germany or Orwell's 1984. That last sentence might as well be their slogan. I'll repeat what you said: No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State. You realize that there is nothing more antithetical to everything the Founding Fathers fought for than that one idea, right? That's the polar opposite of everything America was founded on. Do you support fascism/totalitarianism?

He actually is a totalitarian.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:21:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 9:08:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:02:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:54:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

I actually have two questions for you, one serious and one semi-loaded:

1) Why should the State be held above the citizens it serves?
The State controls the citizens, not the other way around. A State is the representation of its populous, and therefore designed to make decisions for this populous. Reasoning assumes that the State should protect the citizens it serves.

....right, but how did the State come to power in the first place?

The State has always existed, as entity, from the dawn of civilization. It is made up of citizens, yes. However, these citizens are designed to implement the best policies and laws for everybody, including themselves (See O'Brien in 1984). This point is unfounded.
It's a cliche phrase, but it's true: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
It's just a quote. Something simply being a quote does not make it true.
In other words, the State is powerless without the people it serves, This is evident in the fact that you refer to it as a representation of the citizens.

The State is designed to implement policies and laws for everybody, creating a new benefit.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:22:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 10:21:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:08:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 9:02:16 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:54:20 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.

I actually have two questions for you, one serious and one semi-loaded:

1) Why should the State be held above the citizens it serves?
The State controls the citizens, not the other way around. A State is the representation of its populous, and therefore designed to make decisions for this populous. Reasoning assumes that the State should protect the citizens it serves.

....right, but how did the State come to power in the first place?

The State has always existed, as entity, from the dawn of civilization. It is made up of citizens, yes. However, these citizens are designed to implement the best policies and laws for everybody, including themselves (See O'Brien in 1984). This point is unfounded.
It's a cliche phrase, but it's true: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
It's just a quote. Something simply being a quote does not make it true.
In other words, the State is powerless without the people it serves, This is evident in the fact that you refer to it as a representation of the citizens.

The State is designed to implement policies and laws for everybody, creating a net benefit.

Fixed.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:41:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
LK, did you seriously quote O Brien from 1984? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Orwell wrote that character (and the things he said) specifically to demonstrate the horrors of totalitarianism/ the total suppression of our individual liberties. Not the best guy to quote while defending statism over natural rights.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:44:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 10:41:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
LK, did you seriously quote O Brien from 1984? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Orwell wrote that character (and the things he said) specifically to demonstrate the horrors of totalitarianism/ the total suppression of our individual liberties. Not the best guy to quote while defending statism over natural rights.

I never quoted anybody. Learn2read.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 10:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 10:44:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/2/2012 10:41:27 PM, jat93 wrote:
LK, did you seriously quote O Brien from 1984? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Orwell wrote that character (and the things he said) specifically to demonstrate the horrors of totalitarianism/ the total suppression of our individual liberties. Not the best guy to quote while defending statism over natural rights.

I never quoted anybody. Learn2read.

Okay, I'm sorry. You referenced somebody to that character. But he's clearly the antagonist. The freaking villain for gods sake. The stuff he said was literally designed to be similar to that of the leaders of places like Nazi Germany.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 7:30:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.:

If the "State" has it right, then there's no need NOT to formally charge him and give him a trial, right? Open and shut case, right? If the kid made the bomb threats, he needs to go to prison. But REGARDLESS of whether he did it or not, courts determine their guilt or innocence.

F*ck, I hope with all my heart you're arrested by the State and habeus corpus is suspended for you while you languish in some shithole.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 11:42:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 7:30:57 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/2/2012 8:45:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I don't see the problem with this. The State decided that this kid was a legitimate threat and they acted upon it. No amount of liberty or rights should supersede the security of the State.:

If the "State" has it right, then there's no need NOT to formally charge him and give him a trial, right? Open and shut case, right? If the kid made the bomb threats, he needs to go to prison. But REGARDLESS of whether he did it or not, courts determine their guilt or innocence.
Yes, the State should have authority to not formally charge him. However, there must be an investigation because imprisoning innocent people is not beneficial to society.
F*ck, I hope with all my heart you're arrested by the State and habeus corpus is suspended for you while you languish in some shithole.
Ad Hominem.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 11:46:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, the State should have authority to not formally charge him. However, there must be an investigation because imprisoning innocent people is not beneficial to society.:

You detain people with immediate evidence! You don't hold people against their will before you know the facts; that's called "false imprisonment." There's literally no reason why anyone shouldn't be formally charged with a crime and to stand trial for that crime.

F*ck, I hope with all my heart you're arrested by the State and habeus corpus is suspended for you while you languish in some shithole.
Ad Hominem.:

And your point is?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 11:51:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 11:46:56 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Yes, the State should have authority to not formally charge him. However, there must be an investigation because imprisoning innocent people is not beneficial to society.:

You detain people with immediate evidence! You don't hold people against their will before you know the facts; that's called "false imprisonment." There's literally no reason why anyone shouldn't be formally charged with a crime and to stand trial for that crime.
If the State receives information that the person might be some kind of threat, they have the absolute authority to detain him. Whether or not he should be given a trial for formal conviction is all dependent ton the circumstances. If the State has a reason for detaining the person, then it must be valid and accepted by all society.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 12:02:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the State receives information that the person might be some kind of threat, they have the absolute authority to detain him. Whether or not he should be given a trial for formal conviction is all dependent ton the circumstances. If the State has a reason for detaining the person, then it must be valid and accepted by all society.:

If the "State" has enough evidence to hold them accountable for a crime they likely committed, of course they can hold them. But then, that's the whole point of formally charging someone with a proveable crime and giving them a trial for that alleged crime! Why you aren't seeing this is beyond me.

The way it works with the Patriot Act completely circumvents their Constitutional right. Honestly, what are you afraid of with Habeus Corpus? Under HC, the guy is now in prison and he's not going anywhere. The judge can even deny bond if they feel he's a flight risk under the system we've been using since the Constitution was written. Then he has a trial, the evidence overwhelmingly supports his guilt, he goes to prison. Justice is served, bad guy off the streets.

The way that you seem so fond of would have people taken without knowledge of anyone else, not charge them because they have no real evidence to legitimately hold them with in the first place, and then not give them a trial in hopes they can dig up dirt or simply manufacture evidence so they can justify their initial detention.

How is that not extremely disconcerting to you as an American citizen?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2012 12:07:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/3/2012 12:02:02 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
If the State receives information that the person might be some kind of threat, they have the absolute authority to detain him. Whether or not he should be given a trial for formal conviction is all dependent ton the circumstances. If the State has a reason for detaining the person, then it must be valid and accepted by all society.:

If the "State" has enough evidence to hold them accountable for a crime they likely committed, of course they can hold them. But then, that's the whole point of formally charging someone with a proveable crime and giving them a trial for that alleged crime! Why you aren't seeing this is beyond me.
A formal conviction involves the involvement of lawyers which can easily circumvent the entire case in the opposite way that the State intended. The State cannot be shown as weak or wrong.... It is always right. A formal conviction might undermine this premise.
The way it works with the Patriot Act completely circumvents their Constitutional right. Honestly, what are you afraid of with Habeus Corpus? Under HC, the guy is now in prison and he's not going anywhere. The judge can even deny bond if they feel he's a flight risk under the system we've been using since the Constitution was written. Then he has a trial, the evidence overwhelmingly supports his guilt, he goes to prison. Justice is served, bad guy off the streets.
Habeus Corpus and formal convictions can get media attention which might therefore prove the State to be wrong (which is unacceptable) ex. See Geoffrey Bower's case.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."