First, I'm not sure of the distinction you make between either 1 & 2 or 1 & 3. In #1, are the civilians you are referring to the hijackers or the other occupants of the plane?
If the former, it seems to be a generalization of the more specific #3. If the latter, it would seem to be a generalization of the more specific #2.
Yes, civilians on the plane were killed (note I don't count civilians working in the Pentagon). As I stated before and in a previous reply to my first post, like any other strike on a military target that unavoidably includes the death of civilians, it is not defined as a terrorist act. Otherwise, all military strikes that include the unavoidable death of civilians would be defined as terrorist acts (I'm not absolutely precluding that definition of terrorism, but it's a much different case to make). I make no distinction between the method of death, merely that it occured during the course of an attack on a legitimate military target. Others may wish to split hairs finer than that, but that is their perogative.
As for #3, that depends on your perspective. First, it is not necessary for a group to be a "nation" in order to declare war, and even if it is, the hijackers would have considered themselves members of the "nation" of Islam. Not to be confused with the Nation of Islam, but that's about as close a definition as you can get in English. It is interesting that, since the widely-disseminated accounts of history in any given location are invariably influenced by the ruling powers, those who break away from an established order are branded terrorists by the old power, while they consider themselves (especially if victorious) freedom fighters. Take pre- and post-revolutionary France and the USA, as well as pre- and post-Civil War USA. The definition changes depending on whose perspective you're taking, even though the actions are the same regardless.
Those are both examples of fighters who fought without a "country" from the perspective of the "old powers" in play at the time. That would be the same distinction made in this case, though the veracity of the idea of "country" again depends entirely on the perspective you subscribe to. However, if you agree with the concept that there is an inclusive "nation" of Islam (again not to be confused with the Nation of Islam), it would also stand to reason that the posting of foreign military troops ("infidels") in two of the holiest places of that nation (Mecca, Medina) could be considered by fundamentalists as an occupation.
Additionally, #3 depends on whether or not you subscribe to the official US position that Afghanistan harbored those responsible. If it did, that makes a de facto case for state-sponsoring of the event, which, as I said in another comment, lends more validity (if you believe in such things) to the idea of it being a military attack. If you don't subscribe to the US position, I must rely on the previous paragraph as the basis for my prior contention that it was not a terrorist attack.
I say what I have not so much to defend anything done by terrorists, but more because it is better to more fully understand the position of a foe to determine the better course in ending a conflict. It is easy to toe the line and flatly condemn every act as those of savagery, but as that is the common response, so is it common for history to show the repeated abuses of those in power, abuses that inevitably lead back into the same cycle of bloodshed. And after all, it is always the common folk who endure the brunt of this bloodshed, not the mullahs/politicians/patricians/priests/venture capitalists/generals/scientists/whatever your head of "religion" may be called.
No. As already stated in the section of my post that you quoted, they consist of collateral damage. The intent was not mainly to kill those on board. If that was the intent, they could have crashed it into the ground anywhere. Then it would have been an act of terrorism. If they had access to an empty plane, I'm sure they would have used that as well. Those are harder to come by than full planes though. Not to say that they didn't see the opportunity to kill a lot of "infidels" in the process as a plus (which they probably did), but that was obviously not the intent of that particular crash.
The intent was to attack a legitimate military target. If you want to go along with the rationale for attacking Afghanistan, it was a state-sponsored attack as well, lending it more military legitimacy (if there is such a thing). The fact that there was casual disregard for civilian lives would more than likely make it a war crime (assuming the state-sponsored link), but would not make it terrorism any more than a mistaken airstrike by the US on a non-military locale is terrorism.
Striking military targets is not terrorist action.
Halle-fucking-lujah!!
Someone who finally understands the definition of terrorism!
Terrorism is not bombing convoys or suicide bombs against mess halls. These are military targets. Even the crashing of a plane into the Pentagon was not a terrorist act, since the point was to attack a military target. The victims families might not like it applied to their family members, but those civilians killed on the plane were what is termed "collateral damage" in what was a military attack by definition.
Taking civilian hostages and killing them if your demands aren't met is terrorism, but much(or most, hard to tell from the watered-down news in the USA) of what the insurgents in Iraq do is not terrorism.
The comment at the end of the intro is absolutely lame, even though it was hopefully in jest. Being a soldier is not, and should not ever be, an industry. There should be no fighting for jobs in the military.
If the national defense could be effected without risking any lives on the front line, that would be great from the perspective of reducing loss of life.
That being said, I would only support it if the wars we fought were just. Since the US is mostly involved in wars based on lies and deception to further one agenda or another, I see the loss of life of soldiers as a necessary part of sustaining anti-war sentiment. Wars with no loss of life on the aggressor's part simply serve to increase the likelihood of further aggression with little regard for the consequences.
Serving your country "for the money" is not serving your country. Military service should be about serving your country for the sake of service. I have no sympathy for those who complain about the bad effects of military service simply because they wanted a paycheck and a free ride through college, for those who never expected to see combat.
That clause outlines the test for whether or not someone can be held without a Grand Jury indictment, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with which type of court any proceedings are brought in. The amendment as a whole isn't even considered in courts martial, because the only things considered are those contained in the UCMJ.
It does not prevent the Army (or other military branch) from bringing (or participating in) civil, criminal, or court martial actions, as the case may warrant. All it does is prevent the holding of an individual without a Grand Jury indictment, unless that person is in service during a time of war. Since by all accounts this person is not a member of the military, it means normal due process applies. No special rules, no exemptions because the Army is involved.
It was never my contention that it was not a severe criminal matter, or that civil charges could not be brought. I was simply disagreeing with the assertion that special rules applied as a result of that clause of the 5th amendment.
Your analogy between the 1st and 2nd amendments is flawed. A more correct analogy would be that your mouth is like a firearm, and your words are ammunition. It is a crime to threaten the President because of how you use your mouth to form and direct words, the target, and the circumstances of the use.
Similarly, simple ownership of a weapon and/or ammunition is no crime. However, if I use a weapon to fire a projectile into the head of any old pedestrian I happen to choose, that is a crime.
Under the 1st and 2nd amendments, people should be able to possess and use any words they wish, just as people should be able to own and bear any firearm they wish. The test of responsibility is in the use of each, because both can easily be used to commit crimes.
Current firearm restrictions are akin to restricting words. "You cannot utter (possess) words 'x' or 'y,' but any other is alright." Imagine if every printing press, typewriter, computer, pencil, and pen had to be registered, and there was a waiting period to buy them? Background checks to make sure you were competent to own a writing tool? No, the logic used for gun control is specious at best.
I wouldn't entirely agree with you. A self-replicating program is a virus/worm/whatever regradless of whether it is given the chance to actually self-replicate.
As far as the analogy between Benny and Frank, I'll grant that it is pretty disparate, but it illustrates the logic between putting the fox in to guard the henhouse. As long as you have some reasonable sort of oversight, you have a fox telling you how other foxes will attempt to steal the hens. Your particular fox can only abuse his position for so long before getting the axe himself.
On the one hand, yes, but without any evidence that he is involved in spreading viruses (something he strongly denies) it's more likely as he says: marketing theatre.
It's like saying that banks shouldn't pay Frank Abignail millions of dollars to help them stop check fraud because he at one time stole millions of dollars the same way. When you get someone with that much inside perspective, the good they do can far outweigh their perceived shortcomings.
You're quite correct that Schmeiser wasn't sued into oblivion, but only because of his particular circumstances. He's one of the few who have managed to keep the resources together to actually fight.
I'd like to see him get $10 million richer at Monsanto's expense. He's been saving seed since the 1950's, and Monsanto's practices should not have forced him to stop. And he certainly has lost a lot of money as a result of the litigation. Canola is a much more profitable crop than wheat. Since he won't do anything other than save seed, as he's done for 50 years, he can no longer grow canola in an area where cross-pollination is guaranteed.
Yes, it does speak of the failure of Canada's legal system. This particular failure is also inherent in the US legal system, as the burden is on farmers not involved with Monsanto to prevent contamination. Even if Monsanto pays to clean up the contamination, the farmer still loses all his seed and must purchase more stock from somebody EVERY year. This is not a good thing. This isn't even close to acceptable.
Canada's no more a political utopia than the US is. They're both fucked up, the fucked-up-ness just differs in certain areas while being the same (or similar) in others.
Normally I don't reply to ACs, but this deserves comment.
It is patently false that Monsanto's lawsuits only target contract holders. They sue every farmer who saves seed from the same crops as Monsanto-owned crops within the same geographical area.
A quick search turned up Monsanto v Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer kept from growing canola because he chose to save seed from his naturally-produced strains which became crossed with Monsanto-owned strains. It is an impossibility to prevent cross-pollination in most uncontrolled environments, thus the burden should be on Monsanto farmers to prevent pollen drift, rather than those whose crops are infected.
Monsanto puts farmers out of business with their predatory legal practices, plain and simple. They force their way into markets that they otherwise can't access by suing farmers who won't buy seed every year. If they can get one farmer in a geographical area to sign up, pollen and seed end up contaminating all same-species crops in the area, making seed-saving illegal. Shame on anyone who does that.
It's been public knowpedge that Monsanto has done this for years. They create poison-resistant strains so as to better produce yields from nutrient-stripped toxic soil. They sue into oblivion those who even accidentally use their seed (through cross-pollination).
They are also part of the group behind suing dairy farmers and packagers who actually have the audacity to advertise that they don't use rBGH in their cows. Thanks to American jurisprudence, they have been successful in Vermont, Texas, and several other states in preventing companies and individual farmers from advertising a FACT that many people find particularly salient in their purchasing decisions.
You hope to hell they don't, or you aren't able to save seed. Being in possession of Monsanto property without a license is a crime under US law. There is already case law supporting this, even as completely backward as the concept is. Not that I'd want to save any seed possibly crossed with Monsanto products...
I believe there was a case several years ago of a farmer countersuing Monsanto after being sued for planting wind-drift cross-pollinated corn. Can't remember anything more specific though, so take it with a grain of salt. I do know HE was sued for a fact though.
Not in this day and age. The current readings of the Constitution ignore the 9th and 10th amendments. Instead of the Constitution granting government specifically enumerated powers and leaving everything else to the people, it is read to grant specific rights to people and leaving everything else to the government.
Since there is no clearly enumerated right to parody, it won't be long until such right no longer exists. There is a perceived lack of many rights, even though all powers not expressly granted the government are retained by the states and people through the 9th and 10th amendments.
Welcome to the USA. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer, baby.
It's unlikely they'll get a trial. Most states have a minimum threshold of punishment to allow someone a trial by jury. It's a direct violation of the Constitution, but it happens all the time. If said violation is punishable by less than x dollars and y days in jail, no jury trial is allowed. They get around it by saying it's neither a criminal nor civil action.
Welcome to the USA. Papers please. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer.
Slander is something false that's spoken in an attempt to pass it off as fact. Jokes can in no way be considered slanderous.
People are not convicted of slander for insulting others, they are convicted of slander for lying about others. There are many differences between the two terms.
I would be interested in learning of any miscarriages of justice where someone was convicted of being insulting toward a particular group (other than actually inside an operating court room) though, so do share if you know of any specific instances where it's actually happened.
... except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...
Yes, special rules apply to the military, but the wording of this makes it clear that this regards internal matters. It doesn't say "in connection with," it say "arising in." That means the 5th amendment does not apply if and only if the situation involves members of the land/naval forces or militia forces when in actual service in a time of war or public danger.
I have no problem with them using legitimate judicial proceedings against computer criminals, however.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I'm not sure of the distinction you make between either 1 & 2 or 1 & 3. In #1, are the civilians you are referring to the hijackers or the other occupants of the plane?
If the former, it seems to be a generalization of the more specific #3. If the latter, it would seem to be a generalization of the more specific #2.
Yes, civilians on the plane were killed (note I don't count civilians working in the Pentagon). As I stated before and in a previous reply to my first post, like any other strike on a military target that unavoidably includes the death of civilians, it is not defined as a terrorist act. Otherwise, all military strikes that include the unavoidable death of civilians would be defined as terrorist acts (I'm not absolutely precluding that definition of terrorism, but it's a much different case to make). I make no distinction between the method of death, merely that it occured during the course of an attack on a legitimate military target. Others may wish to split hairs finer than that, but that is their perogative.
As for #3, that depends on your perspective. First, it is not necessary for a group to be a "nation" in order to declare war, and even if it is, the hijackers would have considered themselves members of the "nation" of Islam. Not to be confused with the Nation of Islam, but that's about as close a definition as you can get in English. It is interesting that, since the widely-disseminated accounts of history in any given location are invariably influenced by the ruling powers, those who break away from an established order are branded terrorists by the old power, while they consider themselves (especially if victorious) freedom fighters. Take pre- and post-revolutionary France and the USA, as well as pre- and post-Civil War USA. The definition changes depending on whose perspective you're taking, even though the actions are the same regardless.
Those are both examples of fighters who fought without a "country" from the perspective of the "old powers" in play at the time. That would be the same distinction made in this case, though the veracity of the idea of "country" again depends entirely on the perspective you subscribe to. However, if you agree with the concept that there is an inclusive "nation" of Islam (again not to be confused with the Nation of Islam), it would also stand to reason that the posting of foreign military troops ("infidels") in two of the holiest places of that nation (Mecca, Medina) could be considered by fundamentalists as an occupation.
Additionally, #3 depends on whether or not you subscribe to the official US position that Afghanistan harbored those responsible. If it did, that makes a de facto case for state-sponsoring of the event, which, as I said in another comment, lends more validity (if you believe in such things) to the idea of it being a military attack. If you don't subscribe to the US position, I must rely on the previous paragraph as the basis for my prior contention that it was not a terrorist attack.
I say what I have not so much to defend anything done by terrorists, but more because it is better to more fully understand the position of a foe to determine the better course in ending a conflict. It is easy to toe the line and flatly condemn every act as those of savagery, but as that is the common response, so is it common for history to show the repeated abuses of those in power, abuses that inevitably lead back into the same cycle of bloodshed. And after all, it is always the common folk who endure the brunt of this bloodshed, not the mullahs/politicians/patricians/priests/venture capitalists/generals/scientists/whatever your head of "religion" may be called.
As for your last statement, I agree completely.
No. As already stated in the section of my post that you quoted, they consist of collateral damage. The intent was not mainly to kill those on board. If that was the intent, they could have crashed it into the ground anywhere. Then it would have been an act of terrorism. If they had access to an empty plane, I'm sure they would have used that as well. Those are harder to come by than full planes though. Not to say that they didn't see the opportunity to kill a lot of "infidels" in the process as a plus (which they probably did), but that was obviously not the intent of that particular crash.
The intent was to attack a legitimate military target. If you want to go along with the rationale for attacking Afghanistan, it was a state-sponsored attack as well, lending it more military legitimacy (if there is such a thing). The fact that there was casual disregard for civilian lives would more than likely make it a war crime (assuming the state-sponsored link), but would not make it terrorism any more than a mistaken airstrike by the US on a non-military locale is terrorism.
Striking military targets is not terrorist action.
Halle-fucking-lujah!!
Someone who finally understands the definition of terrorism!
Terrorism is not bombing convoys or suicide bombs against mess halls. These are military targets. Even the crashing of a plane into the Pentagon was not a terrorist act, since the point was to attack a military target. The victims families might not like it applied to their family members, but those civilians killed on the plane were what is termed "collateral damage" in what was a military attack by definition.
Taking civilian hostages and killing them if your demands aren't met is terrorism, but much(or most, hard to tell from the watered-down news in the USA) of what the insurgents in Iraq do is not terrorism.
Perhaps you've never spent any time in Connecticut. There are rednecks everywhere.
That said, he was raised in Texas from age 2. Just because you were born somewhere doesn't mean you're from that location.
The comment at the end of the intro is absolutely lame, even though it was hopefully in jest. Being a soldier is not, and should not ever be, an industry. There should be no fighting for jobs in the military.
If the national defense could be effected without risking any lives on the front line, that would be great from the perspective of reducing loss of life.
That being said, I would only support it if the wars we fought were just. Since the US is mostly involved in wars based on lies and deception to further one agenda or another, I see the loss of life of soldiers as a necessary part of sustaining anti-war sentiment. Wars with no loss of life on the aggressor's part simply serve to increase the likelihood of further aggression with little regard for the consequences.
Serving your country "for the money" is not serving your country. Military service should be about serving your country for the sake of service. I have no sympathy for those who complain about the bad effects of military service simply because they wanted a paycheck and a free ride through college, for those who never expected to see combat.
No, that's not what that section means at all.
That clause outlines the test for whether or not someone can be held without a Grand Jury indictment, nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with which type of court any proceedings are brought in. The amendment as a whole isn't even considered in courts martial, because the only things considered are those contained in the UCMJ.
It does not prevent the Army (or other military branch) from bringing (or participating in) civil, criminal, or court martial actions, as the case may warrant. All it does is prevent the holding of an individual without a Grand Jury indictment, unless that person is in service during a time of war. Since by all accounts this person is not a member of the military, it means normal due process applies. No special rules, no exemptions because the Army is involved.
It was never my contention that it was not a severe criminal matter, or that civil charges could not be brought. I was simply disagreeing with the assertion that special rules applied as a result of that clause of the 5th amendment.
My kingdom for some mod points. :)
Your analogy between the 1st and 2nd amendments is flawed. A more correct analogy would be that your mouth is like a firearm, and your words are ammunition. It is a crime to threaten the President because of how you use your mouth to form and direct words, the target, and the circumstances of the use.
Similarly, simple ownership of a weapon and/or ammunition is no crime. However, if I use a weapon to fire a projectile into the head of any old pedestrian I happen to choose, that is a crime.
Under the 1st and 2nd amendments, people should be able to possess and use any words they wish, just as people should be able to own and bear any firearm they wish. The test of responsibility is in the use of each, because both can easily be used to commit crimes.
Current firearm restrictions are akin to restricting words. "You cannot utter (possess) words 'x' or 'y,' but any other is alright." Imagine if every printing press, typewriter, computer, pencil, and pen had to be registered, and there was a waiting period to buy them? Background checks to make sure you were competent to own a writing tool? No, the logic used for gun control is specious at best.
I wouldn't entirely agree with you. A self-replicating program is a virus/worm/whatever regradless of whether it is given the chance to actually self-replicate.
As far as the analogy between Benny and Frank, I'll grant that it is pretty disparate, but it illustrates the logic between putting the fox in to guard the henhouse. As long as you have some reasonable sort of oversight, you have a fox telling you how other foxes will attempt to steal the hens. Your particular fox can only abuse his position for so long before getting the axe himself.
So he can tell you how he'd break into it, of course.
On the one hand, yes, but without any evidence that he is involved in spreading viruses (something he strongly denies) it's more likely as he says: marketing theatre.
It's like saying that banks shouldn't pay Frank Abignail millions of dollars to help them stop check fraud because he at one time stole millions of dollars the same way. When you get someone with that much inside perspective, the good they do can far outweigh their perceived shortcomings.
You're quite correct that Schmeiser wasn't sued into oblivion, but only because of his particular circumstances. He's one of the few who have managed to keep the resources together to actually fight.
I'd like to see him get $10 million richer at Monsanto's expense. He's been saving seed since the 1950's, and Monsanto's practices should not have forced him to stop. And he certainly has lost a lot of money as a result of the litigation. Canola is a much more profitable crop than wheat. Since he won't do anything other than save seed, as he's done for 50 years, he can no longer grow canola in an area where cross-pollination is guaranteed.
Yes, it does speak of the failure of Canada's legal system. This particular failure is also inherent in the US legal system, as the burden is on farmers not involved with Monsanto to prevent contamination. Even if Monsanto pays to clean up the contamination, the farmer still loses all his seed and must purchase more stock from somebody EVERY year. This is not a good thing. This isn't even close to acceptable.
Canada's no more a political utopia than the US is. They're both fucked up, the fucked-up-ness just differs in certain areas while being the same (or similar) in others.
God: Hmm, maybe I should rethink those giant, carnivorous plants again.
They're opposites like two rapists fighting over a bound victim are opposites. The rape still occurs no matter who wins.
*shrug*
Normally I don't reply to ACs, but this deserves comment.
It is patently false that Monsanto's lawsuits only target contract holders. They sue every farmer who saves seed from the same crops as Monsanto-owned crops within the same geographical area.
A quick search turned up Monsanto v Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer kept from growing canola because he chose to save seed from his naturally-produced strains which became crossed with Monsanto-owned strains. It is an impossibility to prevent cross-pollination in most uncontrolled environments, thus the burden should be on Monsanto farmers to prevent pollen drift, rather than those whose crops are infected.
Monsanto puts farmers out of business with their predatory legal practices, plain and simple. They force their way into markets that they otherwise can't access by suing farmers who won't buy seed every year. If they can get one farmer in a geographical area to sign up, pollen and seed end up contaminating all same-species crops in the area, making seed-saving illegal. Shame on anyone who does that.
I'd say the only difference between the two is the entity claiming ownership. The little people would see little difference.
It's been public knowpedge that Monsanto has done this for years. They create poison-resistant strains so as to better produce yields from nutrient-stripped toxic soil. They sue into oblivion those who even accidentally use their seed (through cross-pollination).
They are also part of the group behind suing dairy farmers and packagers who actually have the audacity to advertise that they don't use rBGH in their cows. Thanks to American jurisprudence, they have been successful in Vermont, Texas, and several other states in preventing companies and individual farmers from advertising a FACT that many people find particularly salient in their purchasing decisions.
You hope to hell they don't, or you aren't able to save seed. Being in possession of Monsanto property without a license is a crime under US law. There is already case law supporting this, even as completely backward as the concept is. Not that I'd want to save any seed possibly crossed with Monsanto products...
I believe there was a case several years ago of a farmer countersuing Monsanto after being sued for planting wind-drift cross-pollinated corn. Can't remember anything more specific though, so take it with a grain of salt. I do know HE was sued for a fact though.
Nun, Volk, steh auf, und Sturm, brich los!
Not in this day and age. The current readings of the Constitution ignore the 9th and 10th amendments. Instead of the Constitution granting government specifically enumerated powers and leaving everything else to the people, it is read to grant specific rights to people and leaving everything else to the government.
Since there is no clearly enumerated right to parody, it won't be long until such right no longer exists. There is a perceived lack of many rights, even though all powers not expressly granted the government are retained by the states and people through the 9th and 10th amendments.
Welcome to the USA. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer, baby.
It's unlikely they'll get a trial. Most states have a minimum threshold of punishment to allow someone a trial by jury. It's a direct violation of the Constitution, but it happens all the time. If said violation is punishable by less than x dollars and y days in jail, no jury trial is allowed. They get around it by saying it's neither a criminal nor civil action.
Welcome to the USA. Papers please. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer.
Slander is something false that's spoken in an attempt to pass it off as fact. Jokes can in no way be considered slanderous.
People are not convicted of slander for insulting others, they are convicted of slander for lying about others. There are many differences between the two terms.
I would be interested in learning of any miscarriages of justice where someone was convicted of being insulting toward a particular group (other than actually inside an operating court room) though, so do share if you know of any specific instances where it's actually happened.
Yes, special rules apply to the military, but the wording of this makes it clear that this regards internal matters. It doesn't say "in connection with," it say "arising in." That means the 5th amendment does not apply if and only if the situation involves members of the land/naval forces or militia forces when in actual service in a time of war or public danger.
I have no problem with them using legitimate judicial proceedings against computer criminals, however.
And they all moved away from me...