Xah Lee's Unixism

[Bulent Murtezaoglu]

>>>>> "jmf" == jmfbahciv  <jmfbahciv at aol.com> writes:
[...]
    jmf> Would rather he do like Italy?  They are letting them go.
    jmf> Then these released people go blow up something else. [...]
    bm> Why are those the only two choices?  Do you think people turn
    bm> into bomb-wielding terrorists by feat of mere suspicion?

    jmf> Oh, sigh!  [emoticon begins to hit head against wall because
    jmf> it feels better]

I didn't mean to upset you.  But sigh indeed.  Offtopic in all groups 
too.  Maybe we should get jailed?  Who knows _what else_ we might be 
up to?  Can't be too cautious these days.  What color was that alert 
now?  Better call the authorities.

    bm> I don't think the US abuses the 'enemy combatant' device as
    bm> much as we fear, yet.

    jmf> Hint..the US isn't abusing enemy combatants.

Um, I said 'the enemy combatant device' not the people themselves.
There's no doubt that the people themselves are being abused.  That's
the whole point of a separate status, no?  I thought the 'enemy
combatant' designation was devised to go around both the US law, and
the Geneva Convention pertaining to POWs.  As for the _US_ doing it, 
yes you are correct, the nation itself isn't doing it.  Indeed the 
whole reason for the invention of this odd locution was the thought 
that the nation would have expected its gov't to at least appear 
to stay within certain boundaries.  Maybe they needen't have bothered?  
 
    >> ...  But if the people in the US are convinced that the choice
    >> is between getting blown up and secret detentions w/o judicial
    >> oversight then it will get far worse than we fear. [...]

    jmf> WHAT SECRET DETENTIONS?
 
Responding in "hints" and ALL CAPS brings us to the ludicrous situation
where a Turk gets to give a pointer to the ACLU to an American:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13079&c=207

;) 

cheers,

BM


    >> I am beginning to think the US gov't and populace alike might
    >> be believing the "they hate us for our freedoms" line and
    >> trying to get rid of the said freedoms in the hope that it will
    >> appease the terrorists.

    jmf> Now there you actually made a point, but not the one you
    jmf> think you did.

Let's hear it.  

    >> Look, what is to prevent your government from putting cuffs on
    >> me and shipping me off to a dungeon the next time I am in the
    >> US because of the sentence above?

    jmf> Too many people coming in.  As long as you don't stand up and
    jmf> shout bomb or make a fool of yourself going through customs
    jmf> and fill out the paperwork without trying to be a smartass, I
    jmf> don't see people who are already overworked and stretched
    jmf> thin bothering with you.


    >> .. Would I see a judge?  Lawyer?

    jmf> I don't know.  I had understood that, if you didn't get
    jmf> through customs, you were put back on a plane out of the
    jmf> country.

    >> ...  Would anybody even know?

    jmf> Yes.  Lots of people.

    >> ..Are you guys truly scared enough to sanction this kind of
    >> behaviour from your gov't?

    jmf> If you are a terrorist with the intent to wreak death and
    jmf> destruction in this country, I sure as hell hope somebody
    jmf> doesn't let you in.

    jmf> /BAH

    jmf> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.