Difficult Civil Rights Question

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Maggie and Aliantha, I swear, someone needs to bash your heads together then make you shake hands!

Dana, I'm shocked and disappointed....advocating violence, what's the world coming to.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Dana, I'm shocked and disappointed....advocating violence, what's the world coming to.

Yes, I'm certain that in the UK, action would be taken under the "Anti-Social Behaviour" laws.

No, I'm not kidding.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No, I'm not kidding.

Those goddamn tree climbing flyposters have completey ruined the neighborhood. What's next, organized outdoor parties?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

What's next, organized outdoor parties?

If so, you can be certain they'll be Mandatory... :-)

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Yes, I'm certain that in the UK, action would be taken under the "Anti-Social Behaviour" laws.

No, I'm not kidding.

And "progressive " progress marches on

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

And "progressive " progress marches on

Is this very different from speed traps?

Does your title insinuate that "progressive" as in "liberals" are responsible for this?

Precicely...
"I was just punching, he got in the way."
Again, if they say it, you have to assume they are telling the truth.

[BigV]

So for example...

Did Ken Lay commit a crime?

Please be pretty clear.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

So for example...

Did Ken Lay commit a crime?

Please be pretty clear.

bump

:crickets chirping:

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

So for example...

Did Ken Lay commit a crime?

Please be pretty clear.

I said "the definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear". It's not at the time of conviction, it's at the time when the act adjudged to be criminal occurred.

Or are you confusing when a crime has been comitted with if a crime has been comitted? The if question is settled by the operation of the legal system

[BigV]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I said "the definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear". It's not at the time of conviction, it's at the time when the act adjudged to be criminal occurred.

Or are you confusing when a crime has been comitted with if a crime has been comitted? The if question is settled by the operation of the legal system

Well, this is not "pretty clear", but it moves the conversation along.

I'm sorry you're confused. Naturally, the answer to the question of "if" must precede the answer to the question of "when". That answer may be obvious, but often it is not. The answer may also render moot the question of "when". Is that clearer for you?

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear. When a conviction happens is clear too. And when appeals are exhausted.

Ok, these simplifications are ... somewhat helpful. Let me recast my remarks, which you selectively answered. When an "act" happens is pretty clear. When it is adjudged to criminal, what happens to that act? What happens to that "act" if the decision is otherwise? It's clear that the act doesn't change, but our decision as to it's legality is a separate process that happens later. This difference is at the heart of our system of due process. It is the manifestation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter. Especially concerning the part of the conversation that prompted me to jump in.

This section:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

best to err on the side of caution.

is what I was responding to when I tried to give my understanding of each side's thoughts. I would like to hear your answer to 9th's proposition.

[BigV]

Another difficult civil rights question.

Summary:

Two American citizens are on a plane returning home to Lodi California are forbidden to re-enter the United States by the FBI for refusing to answer questions.

Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, was questioned by the F.B.I. at the American Embassy in Islamabad, but his father, a naturalized United States citizen from Pakistan, declined to participate, Ms. Mass said. Jaber Ismail has refused further interrogation without a lawyer and has declined to take a polygraph test; Ms. Mass said the men were told these conditions had to be met before the authorities would consider letting them back into the United States.

WTF?!?! Conditions of reentry are polygraphs and interrogation without a lawyer present? No charges, of course, just step into the little room.

I take it back. This civil rights question doesn't seem difficult at all. Maybe for some, but not for me.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

Another difficult civil rights question.

Summary:

Two American citizens are on a plane returning home to Lodi California are forbidden to re-enter the United States by the FBI for refusing to answer questions.
WTF?!?! Conditions of reentry are polygraphs and interrogation without a lawyer present? No charges, of course, just step into the little room.

I take it back. This civil rights question doesn't seem difficult at all. Maybe for some, but not for me.

Another bump. Anyone, anyone?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

Another bump. Anyone, anyone?

Well, apparently they've been removed from the no-fly list, since the nephew/cousin who told the Feds they'd been to a terrorist training camp during the four years they'd been in Pakistan "studying religion" has turned out to be lying about other things.

I suspect that if I'd refused to answer any questions at passport control at KPHL I might well still be there, even though from a documenation POV (passport, D/L, pilot's licence, firearms licence) I'm a much better risk. I did notice that among the routine questions asked they slipped in a trick one to see if I really was the person the passport went with.

Originally Posted by Daniel Pipes

Is the Ismails' exclusion legal?

To get a reading on the feds' legal basis, I turned to William West, former chief of the National Security Section for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Miami, Florida. "It is a rare decision, but within the legal pale," he explained to me.

"Section 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC 1185 allows for the 'travel control' of the entry and departure of citizens. U.S. citizens use their passports only within the rules, regulations, and proscriptions as issued and decided by the president. Travel restrictions on U.S. citizens are seldom utilized (and usually to keep criminal or national-security suspects from fleeing). The law, however, does also allow for entry control."

Well, I took a look at 8 USC 1185, and I think he's blowing smoke. The "rules, regulations and proscriptions" language refers to aliens, not citizens...if a citizen has a valid passport that is enough to enter, according to 8 USC 1185. Of course, State can pull a passport, but I see no indication that happened in this case.

[Spexxvet]

Profiling, a little?