Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor's Non-lethal Weapon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 10983" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>JT's non lethal weopon...</strong></p><p></p><p>In answer to your statements, Wolf:</p><p></p><p><em>I think maby I wasn't clear about what I meant. As to implanting caputred terrorists to see where they go, it isn't a law enforcement matter. It is the military's job to protect us from forign threats. </em></p><p></p><p>The whole operation is run as a criminal investigation and execution of open warrants-- police procedure-- performed by the military. In recent years, the government has persisted in blending the military and the police. Whenever a broad attempt is made to suppress rights, those in power need the tool of a domestic paramilitary "state police" force. Read your modern history. The framers of the Constitution could barely stomach the idea of a standing army for this very reason. </p><p></p><p><em>Unfortunatly the people they are fighting now don't stand up and fight by the "rules" They are willing to use any dirty trick they can to kill us. I think it would be best if the military were to root out and end the threat as quickly as possible. If that means doing something a little underhanded to some forign terrorists, fine. The sooner this thing ends, the less of an excuse the government has to undermine our rights here. </em></p><p></p><p>History will also show you that it is never a good idea to give the military this illusory "temporary" power to conduct police activity without restraint. We simply cannot give the armed forces the license to suspend the rights of those arrested and accused simply because officers have chosen to. Remember that in a democracy, authority is exercised in your behalf and in your name. To permit "underhanded" exercise of authority is to permit the government to do what it deems expedient or necessary for its own ends-- more and more not our ends; more and more their own ends. Not for one moment does the government get an "excuse" to undermine our rights. It doesn't know the limits, and doesn't want them.</p><p></p><p><em>Mr. Nickol's tracker was part of a bond agreement, not an investigation. He had already been arrested, araigned and charged. He was technically still in custody. I said that was a grey area. The courts had every right to keep him locked up. instead he agreed to being tracked. (considering the charges I'm shocked that they even let him bond out) </em></p><p><em>That may not be a rights violation, however, putting a tracer in somone who is mearly under investigation would be an unacceptable one. Putting them in the population at large must never be allowed to happen. </em></p><p></p><p>Being "merely under investigation," "arrested, arraigned and charged," and "locked up" prior to conviction are all of equal status to the provision of rights under the fundamental Constitutional rule of the presumption of innocence. The government does not get to make you a little more guilty once it simply has you under arrest. If you believe that "putting them in the population at large" is wrong, then you must understand that putting them in <em>anyone </em>is wrong. A terrorist is not a terrorist just because the government calls him one (as it is painfully learning daily while watching its cases against accused detainees go south).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 10983, member: 42"] [b]JT's non lethal weopon...[/b] In answer to your statements, Wolf: [i]I think maby I wasn't clear about what I meant. As to implanting caputred terrorists to see where they go, it isn't a law enforcement matter. It is the military's job to protect us from forign threats. [/i] The whole operation is run as a criminal investigation and execution of open warrants-- police procedure-- performed by the military. In recent years, the government has persisted in blending the military and the police. Whenever a broad attempt is made to suppress rights, those in power need the tool of a domestic paramilitary "state police" force. Read your modern history. The framers of the Constitution could barely stomach the idea of a standing army for this very reason. [i]Unfortunatly the people they are fighting now don't stand up and fight by the "rules" They are willing to use any dirty trick they can to kill us. I think it would be best if the military were to root out and end the threat as quickly as possible. If that means doing something a little underhanded to some forign terrorists, fine. The sooner this thing ends, the less of an excuse the government has to undermine our rights here. [/i] History will also show you that it is never a good idea to give the military this illusory "temporary" power to conduct police activity without restraint. We simply cannot give the armed forces the license to suspend the rights of those arrested and accused simply because officers have chosen to. Remember that in a democracy, authority is exercised in your behalf and in your name. To permit "underhanded" exercise of authority is to permit the government to do what it deems expedient or necessary for its own ends-- more and more not our ends; more and more their own ends. Not for one moment does the government get an "excuse" to undermine our rights. It doesn't know the limits, and doesn't want them. [i]Mr. Nickol's tracker was part of a bond agreement, not an investigation. He had already been arrested, araigned and charged. He was technically still in custody. I said that was a grey area. The courts had every right to keep him locked up. instead he agreed to being tracked. (considering the charges I'm shocked that they even let him bond out) That may not be a rights violation, however, putting a tracer in somone who is mearly under investigation would be an unacceptable one. Putting them in the population at large must never be allowed to happen. [/i] Being "merely under investigation," "arrested, arraigned and charged," and "locked up" prior to conviction are all of equal status to the provision of rights under the fundamental Constitutional rule of the presumption of innocence. The government does not get to make you a little more guilty once it simply has you under arrest. If you believe that "putting them in the population at large" is wrong, then you must understand that putting them in [i]anyone [/i]is wrong. A terrorist is not a terrorist just because the government calls him one (as it is painfully learning daily while watching its cases against accused detainees go south). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John Titor's Non-lethal Weapon
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top