Name one instance where the said ideology has ever been managed to be implemented, without the totalitarianism/fascism.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck = has to be a duck.
People are essentially people. You cannot get them to voluntarily give up what they perceive as "theirs", without resorting to force/totalitarianism eventually, which in turn eventually, degrades to an authoritarian/fascist state. It has never worked even once in history.
But who gets to decide the standards of how the kids should be raised? What will these "standards" be? And what will you do, if some parents "lose the right to raise the kid"? Who raises the kid then? How (and why) do you decide that the other person raising the kid will be doing a better job at it? And if you take the kid away, how is that much different from not allowing the same parents to have the kid in the first place?
There are instances where you have no choice, i.e. in case of serious child abuse etc. where the child is in clear and present danger, where you DO have to take the child away. It is a clear-cut case. No arguments there. Even his/her being in a decently-run orphanage might be better for them than his/her being raped or being beaten to an inch of their life on a daily basis. Better still if another family.
But let us say that I am the person in charge of deciding whether you get to keep kids. So let us say that I personally don't like working moms. I subscribe to some sexist belief that "a woman's place is in the kitchen" and say that you are not giving enough time to the kid. Or that I don't care what your financial status is, and I want you to have a "separate room for the kid" and I think what you are providing to the kid is not expensive enough and therefore below what I think "the standard" should be. Or I decide that you raising your kid as a hindu or a muslim is a wrong "ideology" since he would be better off as a christian in America. How do you ensure that you always have the perfect person who is making such judgments?
Take a look at yourself. You believe that poor people should not be allowed to keep kids. I wonder what you are planning to do about the kids born to tribals in Africa. Or third world countries. Okay, so your concern is probably only about AMERICAN kids. Fine, so let us talk about poor people in USA then. Poor by whose standard then? Unable to feed the kid? Or unable to have a 15 feet kid swimming pool in the backyard? If former, isn't that what the state aid is for? to ensure that poor people should be able to feed the kid? But you want to stop that aid and forcefully take the kid away, because the parents were not rich enough to get good education for themselves and because they are now financially incapable to raise the kid since you stopped the aid. Does that make sense?
Or is it just that you want to pay less tax and so you would rather come up with ways to ensure that you can stop such expenses just because you are not benefiting directly? Is it that you don't care who brings up the kid as long as you get to keep some of that tax money?
What you also fail to understand is that we already have a system that is supposed to provide counter-training and testing for kids(to ensure that they are taught to think rationally, as opposed to being exposed to only what their parents believe). Yep kids, as opposed to their parents. It is called a school/college. And all you need are laws that ensure that kids are sent to them.
Allow me to introduce you to the amazing concept that child pornography statutes should NOT cover situations where no child was ever exploited/harmed by someone else.
Since your reading is selective I will post tragedy's comment for you.
"The point about the teenagers is that the pictures of naked minors were pictures they took of themselves. Leaving aside the question of whether mere nudity constitutes pornography, the generally accepted reason that child pornography is considered bad is because it cannot be made without a sexual assault on a minor. In this case, however, if they were being victimized, it was by themselves. If we extend laws about sexual contact with minors to allow the victim and the perpetrator to be the same person, then a good 90% or more of us are surely guilty of numerous counts of statutory rape due to the fact that most of us started masturbating before we reached the age of consent. I suppose, actually, that even those of us who never masturbated have still taken our clothes off, seen ourselves naked, touched our own bodies in ways that would be considered some sort of sexual abuse if an adult were doing it to us. So, prison time and sexual offender registry for everyone then?"
Feel free to answer that.
And so-called inaccurate statements are hardly inaccurate. They just point out the nonsensical situation that such laws create. The "hidden details" are meaningful only to nutcases like you. For us rational folks, it seems stupid that idiots like you would prefer to apply child pornography statutes to voluntarily self-taken photos and jail and harm the very kids you are pretending to protect with such statutes. It also seems idiotic when you foolishly try to protect imaginary drawings/imaginary children from sex-abuse by jailing folks. But then again, for nutcases like you, who accept laws for the sake of the laws, without considering whether or not they make sense, this is apparently "acceptable collateral damage" as part of your psychopathic over-zealotry of preventing harm to your imaginary friends/drawings. And you would apparently waste valuable time, money and other resources of the tax-paying public doing so.
Mate. The nest you riled up was due to several amazing pearls of wisdom from you.
a) Apparently you still fail to grasp the basic concept that kids will be kids. Nothing a kid can do, short of actually molesting, harming, raping another kid should ever fall foul of any laws that are directed towards adults in order to protect the kids. Apparently you do not want them prosecuted them as adults, but your constantly harping on the fact "but they were showing their nekkid body to other kids!!!" seems to imply that you do want them prosecuted by law somehow nevertheless! Actually you were brandishing the fact about "they were child pornographers!" as some kind of excuse for kids being charged. That is EXACTLY how it came across as. And once someone called you on it, now you are trying to be dishonest and do a complicated dance to save your face. All GP said was that no law should allow jailing or charging of children for taking and distributing any pics of themselves(naked or otherwise). Either you agree, or you disagree. Stop trying to weasel your way around this. If you disagree, please tell us how jailing and registering these children as sex-offenders for life is protecting them from harm.
Which part of "kids are NOT adults" are you unable to understand? The laws you harp about are directed towards adults, you idiot! Stop acting like they are meant to apply to kids as well! The rest of us rational and sane folks think that the police officials and DA that did this were total scumbags! Do let us know what terrible harm was done to anyone if some kid let someone else see himself/herself nekkid. If some older person coerced them even in the slightest to do it, they deserve to go to jail for life. But seriously! Once in your life, sit down, and actually use the grey cells to actually think about why you are so keen on seeing these kids prosecuted. since when is it a crime for kids to be kids? If they did something that is not accepted, it is the job of their parents to teach them. At the worst, you may hold the parents responsible for the actions of the kids and punish THEM instead.
If it has still not filtered through, there is NOTHING criminal whatsoever about a kid sending naked pic of themselves to friends. At most you can inform the parents and request them to take corrective measures. No one is being harmed in whatsoever way by kid's action. It is YOU who is intent on harming them by suggesting that it can somehow fall under child pornography. And before you try your clever dishonest dance of "i wasnt implying they should be held responsible", if you don't think it is a crime, or that they cannot be held responsible, then no crime was committed and the entire fact is irrelevant.
b) Pornography is pretty much legal in USA, in case you were trying to find something wrong with pornographic comic books. There are indeed laws that prosecute even imaginary drawings involving children. On the other hand, sex abuse laws related to minors were defined to protect them. "Them" to most sane folks, who are not blabbering, over-zealous idiots, means REAL children. If someone wants to *fantasize* about imaginary children, while the idea is offensive, yet trying to punish them for it, is basically being a thought police. You are wasting public tax money on solving a problem that has no victims, and punishing people basically just out of fear that they MAY commit a real crime someday. A comic book no matter how offensive or questionable, is just a comic book in the end, as long as it contains no real photos, or no drawings/images(i.e. computer generated) that may be mistook for a real child. Feel free to prosecute folks who are conspiring to actually commit a sex-crime. Feel free to chemically castrate folks who get convicted of harming any real child. But please stop wasting the world's time to protect imaginary children, just because it offends you somehow. Lots of things are offensive in this world. At best, put folks who possess such comics on a watch-list or something. Jailing them for no actual harmful c
What you are unable to grasp is that trial by media can happen only if police is caught doing something they are not supposed to do.
Nobody can blame you if all you did was just follow the given guidelines and acted maturely, rationally and reasonably.
Easy solution? Follow the book and the protocols.
Even if you get recorded, you were simply following the protocols and if anyone has objections with that, they can take it up with your superiors who provided you with those.
What police protocol directs you to give a merciless beating to anyone? You have a gun. You are entirely allowed to pull it out to subdue an armed suspect. You can even shoot him in the foot or something, if he is pointing the gun at you and refusing to drop it. If you are fired upon, return fire. You are authorized to do that. You are there to simply capture and arrest the criminals, not take revenge on them for shooting at you. Punishment is the job of the jury and courts. When did you get to decide, you can replace them?
Here is a clue. We allow you to carry weapons and firearms at all times when rest of us usually don't. We allow you to detain us, question us and investigate us. And you get paid for the job. You opted to sign up for the job, with all its restrictions and difficulties. You were not drafted or something.
So here is a thought, maybe if public is trying to catch you doing wrong, how about trying NOT to do something wrong and simply following the protocols laid out for you at all times?
You know, the ones that don't tell you to punch anyone or kick someone while he is lying on the ground? You have a gun that you can point at the suspect to subdue him. Use that.
And what is so hard about explaining the same rationale later on to whoever is concerned? Oh no! If we are recorded, someone may hate us and call us name! Goly! Can't let THAT happen!
Basically if I discovered a bloody knife in my house(with a murder victim lying outside on road) and decide to throw it away since I didnt want people to suspect me of wrongdoing, I can still be charged with destruction of evidence. But if an officer pre-emptively destroys evidence, that is all fine. They are officers after all! They don't really wanna do this job! They were drafted and being forced to do this, so we must cut them some slack while they take out their frustrations on non-armed normal folks.
"There are consequences for wrong decisions? oh no! Gosh, armed forces have to pay with their lives if they make a wrong decision, but *I* don't want there to be any consequences if I do some stupid stuff! Gosh!"
There are protocols for dealing with possibly armed suspects and they do not involve "punching" or kicking him in the face.
So the job sucks with all its restrictions and responsibilities? You have all the option for NOT signing up. Unlike the army, you are not being drafted. You get no sympathy from me. If you have such a thin skin and lack of basic understanding, perhaps a change of career for you, may help you and the world as well. There are plenty of good and mature officer who miraculously manage to get the job done in a more reasonable way.
Actually by prosecuting any one who was recording, they are still creating pretty good circumstantial evidence against themselves, if the original victim decides to sue with the help of a competent lawyer.
He can make his claim about the police brutality, and the witnesses can just say that they saw it happen, and all of this corroborated by the fact that officers did not allow the recording which means that they were actually trying to destroy evidence. It establishes intent.
while leaving out the small detail that the pictures were of naked minors in your argument
Are you retarded? If kids take naked pics of *themselves*, that is a heinous crime according to you? Shall we throw all the kids into the Jail to be sodomized since their masturbation acts can also be considered rape of a minor? Apparently according to geniuses like you it doesn't matters that there was no victim since they themselves did it.
And apparently any criticism of overreaching laws or of having any checks on the kind of laws we have is supposed to be a "condemnation of the entire system". When did he propose that we should scrap all laws and let murderers go free? Did you fell on your head as a kid or something? All he said was that the current system is broken and is due for a major overhaul and we should only allow very specific and narrow new laws.
Because as far as assholes like you are concerned, laws have stopped being about justice and more about revenge and powerplay. God forbid any guilty should go free, even if we have to throw a bunch of innocent kids into Jail. Right? Would you have liked spending your life registered as a sex-offender as a kid, just because you were a bit immature and took some naked pics of yourself?
There is a reason why kids generally cannot make legal contracts and are not treated as adults. They are too immature! Does the concept drill itself into your thick skull? I am sure it is the favorite fantasy of psychopaths like you to imagine 3 year olds being jailed for committing some "crime". But world is probably better off with nutcases like you locked up in mental asylums rather than kids being jailed.
The juvenile laws are there to just take care of kids that have committed serious crimes like murder or rape, and need to be separated from society till they become mature adults. And laws against minor pornography is to protect the children from exploitation by adults. But apparently for idiots like you, the laws are an end to themselves and cannot be questioned! Moron!
It cannot be helped if you lack imagination. With your limited logic, yes the plan definitely seems unfeasible.
But let us look at the obvious flaw in your argument. First, define "decent speed". The energy you are actually expending is in achieving escape velocity. Once you are in space and already moving towards Earth, little energy is required. There is no friction so as to speak of, in space, for one thing. And who said the fuel needs to reach us within a week? The ship might take 30 years. Or more. Think of it as a leisurely speed. With a few such ships being launched at regular intervals, you can establish a constant chain of supply.
Second flaw in your logic, you are a tad too eager with the "never ever". Like those other idiots who announced that the man is not meant to fly and will "never ever" do so. You fail to account for new technologies or creative solutions emerging. If we humans are good at anything, it is at solving problems. All that is needed is that we should actually WANT to go to other planets and mine them for resources. And that we should allot resources towards finding a way to do this.
Idiots like you of course, are short sighted and simply figure that it is a waste of your tax-money since only your kids/grandkids will benefit instead of you. Who cares if the mankind stays chained to a single planet and gets wiped out in a single catastrophe, since you do not think it likely within your own lifetime. And you do not give two hoots if your kids die cursing your name, for your short-sightedness.
It took decades/centuries of research and inventions before we got to the point where we actually directly benefit from Wright Brother's initial flight efforts. And at that time idiots like you existed who denounced it all as a waste of money. Now you will happily hop into a flight, since you are benefiting directly. If I pointed out how we have benefited from investing into NASA(ear thermometers used for babies, scratch resistant glasses, sports/athletic shoes, communication satellites that provide you with TV, telecommunications, safety grooving on highways that prevent accidents, water filters, CAT scanners, computer microchips which led to PCs and Laptops, insulation, speedo swimsuits, memory forams, rust-proof coatings to name a few), you will just poo-pah. You will rather have folks die instead of having NASA contribute to the MRI technology that saves lives across the world. Because NASA funding as per geniuses like you, is a waste of money.
Folks like you would demand moronic laws in the name of "think of our children" but when it comes to actually making their future a little better, folks like you don't actually give a shit about your children and your grand-children. After all, YOU are not benefiting immediately. Right?
Mind telling us, if these seeds are sterile, then why is monsanto suing farmers left and right for saving these "sterile" seeds?
If buying new seeds was cheaper, monsanto has nothing to worry about and should not be suing farmer, correct?
And apparently monsanto insists that it has right to destroy crops of farmers even if their crops became contaminated by accident. In fact they are so sure of the said contamination happening(they innovatively call it black-market piracy) that they petitioned Argentina government to allow them to collect royalty at harvesting time from ALL farmers, rather than at the time of purchasing of seeds.
Will you hate a company if they make GMO seeds that can in essence starve off the existing natural seeds and replace them, and then the said company patents these GMO seeds, and then goes around destroying the crops of farmers just because the GMO seeds got into their fields via cross-pollination? Their GMO seeds cause contamination of natural crops. And then the company has the gall to go and destroy natural crops just because some of their patented seeds landed in the field.
The seeds they make are designed to be tolerant to their herbicide product Roundup. In essence, Roundup kills all non--monsanto-GMO plants(weeds, natural plants) without harming their GMO seeds/plants. Which is all good and fine, except that Monsanto has been known to frequently hire crop duster planes to spray the herbicide on crop fields of farmers that are not their customers. If your crop survives, they sue you for using their GMO seeds illegally.
And the Roundup herbicide? It has proven to be significantly toxic to humans and is banned in several countries. It has been shown to cause problems with reproduction system of rats.
Personally, I have no problem if folks like you who would happily sacrifice their reproductive ability for some "tasty food", become recipients of darwin award and remove themselves as contributer to gene pool. But I digress.
And this is the same company that brought us now-banned DDT and Agent Orange.
GMO seeds/food need not be "evil", but thanks to the accountability-free corporate-as-a-human-person culture, they WILL be inevitably abused and cause more harm than good. There is currently absolutely no way to ensure that GMO seeds are designed in a responsible manner.
I wonder. Will it be illegal to start a group like Anonymous, near election time?
I mean declaring that we have had enough of this government and that come election, ALL of the group members vote for the specific list of guys(and against certain guys). The lobbyists have subverted the democracy anyways, so why not jump aboard? Get everyone, their grandma, cousins and who not to jump in. I mean mob flash events do work, don't they? So if we basically decided to collaborate over punishing certain guys at election time, it should automatically teach them a lesson. If you agreed to vote as per the dictates of the group(since you agreed with the principle behind it) it just might make a difference?
Or at the very least, a group that starts counter-propaganda during election to ensure that those who sold-out never get elected again. Would that actually work? Just wondering.
Especially since not many of us generally check in glasses of jars.
Perhaps they should have tried an actual normal bag? Not much of a test if you don't use real world example usage. Makes it easier to understand and trust the results. The only thing this tells me is that the Qantas system is not very effective when sending unpacked glass jars.
Oh my, I wonder how those damned terrorists would ever manage to bypass these. Let us see what I can think up(and I am not even a terrorist, who actually think up this stuff full-time probably). Let us see.
1. Needles dipped in quick-acting toxins/poisons say Saritoxin. You have to take down just one guy to scare up others. Probably the said US marshal, as you pretend to walk past him. Just incapacitating him and declaring that you have a poison needle, will be enough.
Oh and you threaten a Air-hostess to get her to trick the pilot(s) into opening the cockpit door. They are allowed into the cockpits.
3. Smuggle in Anthrax powder or some such bio-hazardous material to the airport. If you are on a suicide mission like the 911 chaps, you can spread it around the airport *and* inside the flight. Everyone dead.
4. You can purchase beer bottles from duty free shops at the Air port itself(and take it with you as cabin luggage). Break one to get an instant knife with sharp edge.
5. Just hide plastic explosives with a timer in your check-in luggage. If it is disguised well enough to pass the x-ray, it can be timed to blow up when the flight is passing over a populated area.
6. Just overpower the air marshal with help of your friends, to get the weapons you need from him.
7. Plan long term and get one of your guys an american citizenship like that David Coleman Headley guy and get him to become a commercial pilot. TSA can rape him..sorry pat him all they want. Pilots can crash the plane whenever they want.
I thought up these in flat 3-5 minutes. the folks who actually hate you and are terrorists will no doubt come up with hundreds of more plans. They need just one of them working.
Basically folks like you, the TSA and the entire USA government are idiots. The only way you beat terrorists is by ensuring that they don't hate you in the first place, or at least that they don't find much takers for their recruitment drives. One way to do that is by minding your own business. If you invading countries in the name of oil, you are just increasing the number of people who hate you. And when they hate you enough, they will always find some way to hurt you back in revenge.
Umm no. Google it up. Websites abroad got blocked due to trademark issues just because the owners wouldn't fly all the way to USA to defend themselves in court. If you do not show up to defend yourself, you lose the case by default in absentia. Isn't USA awesome? And do try and explain this :
Congress Party of India(basically the ruling party/government of India at the time) is NOT a US entity/citizen last time I checked. Yes, incredibly enough the government of India somehow is NOT a US entity. The accusation itself is without any actual evidence. The effect? Either the members of Congress party should spend a fortune coming down to USA and defending themselves, or be declared guilty since they failed to show up to defend themselves.
Oh, and yes USA is known to actually go and arrange for illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens that it thinks have committed some crime, instead of going through the extradition route. Feel free to google up Alvarez Machain as one example.
Isn't it amazing? USA thinks it can prosecute entire democratically, legally elected governments and question the actions of a sovereign democratic nation with a functional working legal system of its own. So yes, apparently you can be prosecuted in US courts for smoking weed in Amsterdam if someone actually bothers to file a case.
Should any other government do the same to USA for say the Waco massacre of innocents? Or say sue the USA army for Guantanamo bay or Al Gharaib abuses? And if they did, will USA government accept such prosecution as legitimate?
International Criminal Court was established for a reason. If USA was that concerned it would do far more good improving THAT, instead of interfering with other countries. I mean, unless you were okay with some Chinese official filing a trivial suit against you in China in your absence, winning the case since you were not willing to go over and defend yourself, and then perhaps even getting you kidnapped either from USA or some china-friendly country you were traveling in.
Before you go red with rage, this is exactly what USA usually does.
And yet none of them go around actually kidnapping citizens of foreign countries, instead of either waiting for them to enter their borders or instead of trying to extradite them!
Do you have any proof that Ray Davis was authorized/permitted by the Pakistan Government to "look for Al-Qaeda members"? You are simply proving my point.
Universal Jurisdiction is indeed claimed by several countries regarding crimes against humanity and has been actually practiced by almost none of the other countries due to the establishment of ICC. Belgium for example, has such a law but limits it to a Belgium citizen or someone present in Belgium being involved. Same goes for most of the other countries. Only and ONLY the USA has the dubious honor of thinking that this implies that they can arrange to illegally kidnap citizens from other countries to prosecute them(even if there was no real evidence against the kidnapped person). Draw your own conclusions.
There are certain things called treaties. Any civilized nation is supposed to respect the international norms and honor them. It means that you first try to use the extradition treaties to get your hands on the so-called criminal. If you think there was a major crime that cannot be prosecuted otherwise, you goto the ICC. And you can of course go ahead with the case, but actually arrest the guy only when he enters your borders. And no, this does not means sending a Death-squad or assassins to his home country to kill him, or kidnapping him to ensure that he can be arrested within your borders.
If you wish for your sovereignty to be respected, you have to accord others the same respect. Unless of course, you are completely fine with the Chinese dragging off some of your citizens/officials for some so-called "crimes" from your borders. It is only a matter of time, before the boot is on the other foot.
Or if you are trying to tell me that might is right, and therefore USA has some kind of right to do whatever it wishes, well, the Al-Qaeda seemed to have lots of so-called might as well on 911. I take it that you are okay with that too?
And USA is uniquely evil for trying to preach "do as i say, and not as I do". If you are so hung up on dispensing justice worldwide, you should allow your own rapists and murderers to be prosecuted by other countries as well. Ray davis may or may not have been looking for Al-Qaeda, but is that any reason to go around murdering people on mere suspicion? And what is your excuse for rapist US soldiers in Japan? They were trying to find Al-Qaeda members too in Japan? Pathetic!
Slashdot Mirror
Name one instance where the said ideology has ever been managed to be implemented, without the totalitarianism/fascism.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck = has to be a duck.
People are essentially people. You cannot get them to voluntarily give up what they perceive as "theirs", without resorting to force/totalitarianism eventually, which in turn eventually, degrades to an authoritarian/fascist state. It has never worked even once in history.
Try this one perhaps
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/16/37414.htm
Well to be fair, it is not like homicidal CIA american spies usually go to jail either.
I don't think you understood.
But who gets to decide the standards of how the kids should be raised? What will these "standards" be? And what will you do, if some parents "lose the right to raise the kid"? Who raises the kid then? How (and why) do you decide that the other person raising the kid will be doing a better job at it? And if you take the kid away, how is that much different from not allowing the same parents to have the kid in the first place?
There are instances where you have no choice, i.e. in case of serious child abuse etc. where the child is in clear and present danger, where you DO have to take the child away. It is a clear-cut case. No arguments there. Even his/her being in a decently-run orphanage might be better for them than his/her being raped or being beaten to an inch of their life on a daily basis. Better still if another family.
But let us say that I am the person in charge of deciding whether you get to keep kids. So let us say that I personally don't like working moms. I subscribe to some sexist belief that "a woman's place is in the kitchen" and say that you are not giving enough time to the kid. Or that I don't care what your financial status is, and I want you to have a "separate room for the kid" and I think what you are providing to the kid is not expensive enough and therefore below what I think "the standard" should be. Or I decide that you raising your kid as a hindu or a muslim is a wrong "ideology" since he would be better off as a christian in America. How do you ensure that you always have the perfect person who is making such judgments?
Take a look at yourself. You believe that poor people should not be allowed to keep kids. I wonder what you are planning to do about the kids born to tribals in Africa. Or third world countries. Okay, so your concern is probably only about AMERICAN kids. Fine, so let us talk about poor people in USA then. Poor by whose standard then? Unable to feed the kid? Or unable to have a 15 feet kid swimming pool in the backyard? If former, isn't that what the state aid is for? to ensure that poor people should be able to feed the kid? But you want to stop that aid and forcefully take the kid away, because the parents were not rich enough to get good education for themselves and because they are now financially incapable to raise the kid since you stopped the aid. Does that make sense?
Or is it just that you want to pay less tax and so you would rather come up with ways to ensure that you can stop such expenses just because you are not benefiting directly? Is it that you don't care who brings up the kid as long as you get to keep some of that tax money?
What you also fail to understand is that we already have a system that is supposed to provide counter-training and testing for kids(to ensure that they are taught to think rationally, as opposed to being exposed to only what their parents believe). Yep kids, as opposed to their parents. It is called a school/college. And all you need are laws that ensure that kids are sent to them.
This is a continuation of my comment below...
Allow me to introduce you to the amazing concept that child pornography statutes should NOT cover situations where no child was ever exploited/harmed by someone else.
Since your reading is selective I will post tragedy's comment for you.
"The point about the teenagers is that the pictures of naked minors were pictures they took of themselves. Leaving aside the question of whether mere nudity constitutes pornography, the generally accepted reason that child pornography is considered bad is because it cannot be made without a sexual assault on a minor. In this case, however, if they were being victimized, it was by themselves. If we extend laws about sexual contact with minors to allow the victim and the perpetrator to be the same person, then a good 90% or more of us are surely guilty of numerous counts of statutory rape due to the fact that most of us started masturbating before we reached the age of consent. I suppose, actually, that even those of us who never masturbated have still taken our clothes off, seen ourselves naked, touched our own bodies in ways that would be considered some sort of sexual abuse if an adult were doing it to us. So, prison time and sexual offender registry for everyone then?"
Feel free to answer that.
And so-called inaccurate statements are hardly inaccurate. They just point out the nonsensical situation that such laws create. The "hidden details" are meaningful only to nutcases like you. For us rational folks, it seems stupid that idiots like you would prefer to apply child pornography statutes to voluntarily self-taken photos and jail and harm the very kids you are pretending to protect with such statutes. It also seems idiotic when you foolishly try to protect imaginary drawings/imaginary children from sex-abuse by jailing folks. But then again, for nutcases like you, who accept laws for the sake of the laws, without considering whether or not they make sense, this is apparently "acceptable collateral damage" as part of your psychopathic over-zealotry of preventing harm to your imaginary friends/drawings. And you would apparently waste valuable time, money and other resources of the tax-paying public doing so.
Mate. The nest you riled up was due to several amazing pearls of wisdom from you.
a) Apparently you still fail to grasp the basic concept that kids will be kids. Nothing a kid can do, short of actually molesting, harming, raping another kid should ever fall foul of any laws that are directed towards adults in order to protect the kids. Apparently you do not want them prosecuted them as adults, but your constantly harping on the fact "but they were showing their nekkid body to other kids!!!" seems to imply that you do want them prosecuted by law somehow nevertheless! Actually you were brandishing the fact about "they were child pornographers!" as some kind of excuse for kids being charged. That is EXACTLY how it came across as. And once someone called you on it, now you are trying to be dishonest and do a complicated dance to save your face. All GP said was that no law should allow jailing or charging of children for taking and distributing any pics of themselves(naked or otherwise). Either you agree, or you disagree. Stop trying to weasel your way around this. If you disagree, please tell us how jailing and registering these children as sex-offenders for life is protecting them from harm.
Which part of "kids are NOT adults" are you unable to understand? The laws you harp about are directed towards adults, you idiot! Stop acting like they are meant to apply to kids as well! The rest of us rational and sane folks think that the police officials and DA that did this were total scumbags! Do let us know what terrible harm was done to anyone if some kid let someone else see himself/herself nekkid. If some older person coerced them even in the slightest to do it, they deserve to go to jail for life. But seriously! Once in your life, sit down, and actually use the grey cells to actually think about why you are so keen on seeing these kids prosecuted. since when is it a crime for kids to be kids? If they did something that is not accepted, it is the job of their parents to teach them. At the worst, you may hold the parents responsible for the actions of the kids and punish THEM instead.
If it has still not filtered through, there is NOTHING criminal whatsoever about a kid sending naked pic of themselves to friends. At most you can inform the parents and request them to take corrective measures. No one is being harmed in whatsoever way by kid's action. It is YOU who is intent on harming them by suggesting that it can somehow fall under child pornography. And before you try your clever dishonest dance of "i wasnt implying they should be held responsible", if you don't think it is a crime, or that they cannot be held responsible, then no crime was committed and the entire fact is irrelevant.
b) Pornography is pretty much legal in USA, in case you were trying to find something wrong with pornographic comic books. There are indeed laws that prosecute even imaginary drawings involving children. On the other hand, sex abuse laws related to minors were defined to protect them. "Them" to most sane folks, who are not blabbering, over-zealous idiots, means REAL children. If someone wants to *fantasize* about imaginary children, while the idea is offensive, yet trying to punish them for it, is basically being a thought police. You are wasting public tax money on solving a problem that has no victims, and punishing people basically just out of fear that they MAY commit a real crime someday. A comic book no matter how offensive or questionable, is just a comic book in the end, as long as it contains no real photos, or no drawings/images(i.e. computer generated) that may be mistook for a real child. Feel free to prosecute folks who are conspiring to actually commit a sex-crime. Feel free to chemically castrate folks who get convicted of harming any real child. But please stop wasting the world's time to protect imaginary children, just because it offends you somehow. Lots of things are offensive in this world. At best, put folks who possess such comics on a watch-list or something. Jailing them for no actual harmful c
Nobody can blame you if all you did was just follow the given guidelines and acted maturely, rationally and reasonably.
Easy solution? Follow the book and the protocols.
Even if you get recorded, you were simply following the protocols and if anyone has objections with that, they can take it up with your superiors who provided you with those.
What police protocol directs you to give a merciless beating to anyone? You have a gun. You are entirely allowed to pull it out to subdue an armed suspect. You can even shoot him in the foot or something, if he is pointing the gun at you and refusing to drop it. If you are fired upon, return fire. You are authorized to do that. You are there to simply capture and arrest the criminals, not take revenge on them for shooting at you. Punishment is the job of the jury and courts. When did you get to decide, you can replace them?
So here is a thought, maybe if public is trying to catch you doing wrong, how about trying NOT to do something wrong and simply following the protocols laid out for you at all times?
You know, the ones that don't tell you to punch anyone or kick someone while he is lying on the ground? You have a gun that you can point at the suspect to subdue him. Use that.
Basically if I discovered a bloody knife in my house(with a murder victim lying outside on road) and decide to throw it away since I didnt want people to suspect me of wrongdoing, I can still be charged with destruction of evidence. But if an officer pre-emptively destroys evidence, that is all fine. They are officers after all! They don't really wanna do this job! They were drafted and being forced to do this, so we must cut them some slack while they take out their frustrations on non-armed normal folks.
"There are consequences for wrong decisions? oh no! Gosh, armed forces have to pay with their lives if they make a wrong decision, but *I* don't want there to be any consequences if I do some stupid stuff! Gosh!"
There are protocols for dealing with possibly armed suspects and they do not involve "punching" or kicking him in the face.
So the job sucks with all its restrictions and responsibilities? You have all the option for NOT signing up. Unlike the army, you are not being drafted. You get no sympathy from me. If you have such a thin skin and lack of basic understanding, perhaps a change of career for you, may help you and the world as well. There are plenty of good and mature officer who miraculously manage to get the job done in a more reasonable way.
Here is a clue. There is a video on youtube about a cop pulling a gun on a guy on a bike for some minor traffic violation.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/04/19/motorcyclist-arrested-for-recording-cop-brandishing-gun-with-hel/
And yep, true to the form, the guy was arrested for recording the cop violating the law/protocols. Go and justify THAT, I dare you!
He can make his claim about the police brutality, and the witnesses can just say that they saw it happen, and all of this corroborated by the fact that officers did not allow the recording which means that they were actually trying to destroy evidence. It establishes intent.
Are you retarded? If kids take naked pics of *themselves*, that is a heinous crime according to you? Shall we throw all the kids into the Jail to be sodomized since their masturbation acts can also be considered rape of a minor? Apparently according to geniuses like you it doesn't matters that there was no victim since they themselves did it.
And apparently any criticism of overreaching laws or of having any checks on the kind of laws we have is supposed to be a "condemnation of the entire system". When did he propose that we should scrap all laws and let murderers go free? Did you fell on your head as a kid or something? All he said was that the current system is broken and is due for a major overhaul and we should only allow very specific and narrow new laws. Because as far as assholes like you are concerned, laws have stopped being about justice and more about revenge and powerplay. God forbid any guilty should go free, even if we have to throw a bunch of innocent kids into Jail. Right? Would you have liked spending your life registered as a sex-offender as a kid, just because you were a bit immature and took some naked pics of yourself?
There is a reason why kids generally cannot make legal contracts and are not treated as adults. They are too immature! Does the concept drill itself into your thick skull? I am sure it is the favorite fantasy of psychopaths like you to imagine 3 year olds being jailed for committing some "crime". But world is probably better off with nutcases like you locked up in mental asylums rather than kids being jailed.
The juvenile laws are there to just take care of kids that have committed serious crimes like murder or rape, and need to be separated from society till they become mature adults. And laws against minor pornography is to protect the children from exploitation by adults. But apparently for idiots like you, the laws are an end to themselves and cannot be questioned! Moron!
It is how it SHOULD be, if not for apologists coward losers like you.
Officer : We found the body of that missing person. Eyeballs? what eyeballs? Are you sure, he had those before?
It cannot be helped if you lack imagination. With your limited logic, yes the plan definitely seems unfeasible.
But let us look at the obvious flaw in your argument. First, define "decent speed". The energy you are actually expending is in achieving escape velocity. Once you are in space and already moving towards Earth, little energy is required. There is no friction so as to speak of, in space, for one thing. And who said the fuel needs to reach us within a week? The ship might take 30 years. Or more. Think of it as a leisurely speed. With a few such ships being launched at regular intervals, you can establish a constant chain of supply.
Second flaw in your logic, you are a tad too eager with the "never ever". Like those other idiots who announced that the man is not meant to fly and will "never ever" do so. You fail to account for new technologies or creative solutions emerging. If we humans are good at anything, it is at solving problems. All that is needed is that we should actually WANT to go to other planets and mine them for resources. And that we should allot resources towards finding a way to do this.
Idiots like you of course, are short sighted and simply figure that it is a waste of your tax-money since only your kids/grandkids will benefit instead of you. Who cares if the mankind stays chained to a single planet and gets wiped out in a single catastrophe, since you do not think it likely within your own lifetime. And you do not give two hoots if your kids die cursing your name, for your short-sightedness.
It took decades/centuries of research and inventions before we got to the point where we actually directly benefit from Wright Brother's initial flight efforts. And at that time idiots like you existed who denounced it all as a waste of money. Now you will happily hop into a flight, since you are benefiting directly. If I pointed out how we have benefited from investing into NASA(ear thermometers used for babies, scratch resistant glasses, sports/athletic shoes, communication satellites that provide you with TV, telecommunications, safety grooving on highways that prevent accidents, water filters, CAT scanners, computer microchips which led to PCs and Laptops, insulation, speedo swimsuits, memory forams, rust-proof coatings to name a few), you will just poo-pah. You will rather have folks die instead of having NASA contribute to the MRI technology that saves lives across the world. Because NASA funding as per geniuses like you, is a waste of money.
Folks like you would demand moronic laws in the name of "think of our children" but when it comes to actually making their future a little better, folks like you don't actually give a shit about your children and your grand-children. After all, YOU are not benefiting immediately. Right?
You are either a liar or a total moron.
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/May/msg00044.html
Mind telling us, if these seeds are sterile, then why is monsanto suing farmers left and right for saving these "sterile" seeds?
If buying new seeds was cheaper, monsanto has nothing to worry about and should not be suing farmer, correct?
And apparently monsanto insists that it has right to destroy crops of farmers even if their crops became contaminated by accident. In fact they are so sure of the said contamination happening(they innovatively call it black-market piracy) that they petitioned Argentina government to allow them to collect royalty at harvesting time from ALL farmers, rather than at the time of purchasing of seeds.
Will you hate a company if they make GMO seeds that can in essence starve off the existing natural seeds and replace them, and then the said company patents these GMO seeds, and then goes around destroying the crops of farmers just because the GMO seeds got into their fields via cross-pollination? Their GMO seeds cause contamination of natural crops. And then the company has the gall to go and destroy natural crops just because some of their patented seeds landed in the field.
The seeds they make are designed to be tolerant to their herbicide product Roundup. In essence, Roundup kills all non--monsanto-GMO plants(weeds, natural plants) without harming their GMO seeds/plants. Which is all good and fine, except that Monsanto has been known to frequently hire crop duster planes to spray the herbicide on crop fields of farmers that are not their customers. If your crop survives, they sue you for using their GMO seeds illegally.
And the Roundup herbicide? It has proven to be significantly toxic to humans and is banned in several countries. It has been shown to cause problems with reproduction system of rats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)
Personally, I have no problem if folks like you who would happily sacrifice their reproductive ability for some "tasty food", become recipients of darwin award and remove themselves as contributer to gene pool. But I digress.
And this is the same company that brought us now-banned DDT and Agent Orange.
GMO seeds/food need not be "evil", but thanks to the accountability-free corporate-as-a-human-person culture, they WILL be inevitably abused and cause more harm than good. There is currently absolutely no way to ensure that GMO seeds are designed in a responsible manner.
I wonder. Will it be illegal to start a group like Anonymous, near election time?
I mean declaring that we have had enough of this government and that come election, ALL of the group members vote for the specific list of guys(and against certain guys). The lobbyists have subverted the democracy anyways, so why not jump aboard? Get everyone, their grandma, cousins and who not to jump in. I mean mob flash events do work, don't they? So if we basically decided to collaborate over punishing certain guys at election time, it should automatically teach them a lesson. If you agreed to vote as per the dictates of the group(since you agreed with the principle behind it) it just might make a difference?
Or at the very least, a group that starts counter-propaganda during election to ensure that those who sold-out never get elected again. Would that actually work? Just wondering.
Especially since not many of us generally check in glasses of jars.
Perhaps they should have tried an actual normal bag? Not much of a test if you don't use real world example usage. Makes it easier to understand and trust the results. The only thing this tells me is that the Qantas system is not very effective when sending unpacked glass jars.
Oh my, I wonder how those damned terrorists would ever manage to bypass these. Let us see what I can think up(and I am not even a terrorist, who actually think up this stuff full-time probably). Let us see.
1. Needles dipped in quick-acting toxins/poisons say Saritoxin. You have to take down just one guy to scare up others. Probably the said US marshal, as you pretend to walk past him. Just incapacitating him and declaring that you have a poison needle, will be enough.
Oh and you threaten a Air-hostess to get her to trick the pilot(s) into opening the cockpit door. They are allowed into the cockpits.
3. Smuggle in Anthrax powder or some such bio-hazardous material to the airport. If you are on a suicide mission like the 911 chaps, you can spread it around the airport *and* inside the flight. Everyone dead.
4. You can purchase beer bottles from duty free shops at the Air port itself(and take it with you as cabin luggage). Break one to get an instant knife with sharp edge.
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/08/07/broken-bottle-used-as-weapon/
5. Just hide plastic explosives with a timer in your check-in luggage. If it is disguised well enough to pass the x-ray, it can be timed to blow up when the flight is passing over a populated area.
6. Just overpower the air marshal with help of your friends, to get the weapons you need from him.
7. Plan long term and get one of your guys an american citizenship like that David Coleman Headley guy and get him to become a commercial pilot. TSA can rape him..sorry pat him all they want. Pilots can crash the plane whenever they want.
I thought up these in flat 3-5 minutes. the folks who actually hate you and are terrorists will no doubt come up with hundreds of more plans. They need just one of them working.
Basically folks like you, the TSA and the entire USA government are idiots. The only way you beat terrorists is by ensuring that they don't hate you in the first place, or at least that they don't find much takers for their recruitment drives. One way to do that is by minding your own business. If you invading countries in the name of oil, you are just increasing the number of people who hate you. And when they hate you enough, they will always find some way to hurt you back in revenge.
Umm no. Google it up. Websites abroad got blocked due to trademark issues just because the owners wouldn't fly all the way to USA to defend themselves in court. If you do not show up to defend yourself, you lose the case by default in absentia. Isn't USA awesome? And do try and explain this :
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-26/us-canada-news/29474292_1_sikh-riots-sfj-communal-violence-bill
Congress Party of India(basically the ruling party/government of India at the time) is NOT a US entity/citizen last time I checked. Yes, incredibly enough the government of India somehow is NOT a US entity. The accusation itself is without any actual evidence. The effect? Either the members of Congress party should spend a fortune coming down to USA and defending themselves, or be declared guilty since they failed to show up to defend themselves.
Oh, and yes USA is known to actually go and arrange for illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens that it thinks have committed some crime, instead of going through the extradition route. Feel free to google up Alvarez Machain as one example.
Isn't it amazing? USA thinks it can prosecute entire democratically, legally elected governments and question the actions of a sovereign democratic nation with a functional working legal system of its own. So yes, apparently you can be prosecuted in US courts for smoking weed in Amsterdam if someone actually bothers to file a case.
Should any other government do the same to USA for say the Waco massacre of innocents? Or say sue the USA army for Guantanamo bay or Al Gharaib abuses? And if they did, will USA government accept such prosecution as legitimate?
International Criminal Court was established for a reason. If USA was that concerned it would do far more good improving THAT, instead of interfering with other countries. I mean, unless you were okay with some Chinese official filing a trivial suit against you in China in your absence, winning the case since you were not willing to go over and defend yourself, and then perhaps even getting you kidnapped either from USA or some china-friendly country you were traveling in.
Before you go red with rage, this is exactly what USA usually does.
One word. 911. And consequences for Americans are still not yet over thanks to that. So much for your arrogance.
And yet none of them go around actually kidnapping citizens of foreign countries, instead of either waiting for them to enter their borders or instead of trying to extradite them!
Do you have any proof that Ray Davis was authorized/permitted by the Pakistan Government to "look for Al-Qaeda members"? You are simply proving my point.
Universal Jurisdiction is indeed claimed by several countries regarding crimes against humanity and has been actually practiced by almost none of the other countries due to the establishment of ICC. Belgium for example, has such a law but limits it to a Belgium citizen or someone present in Belgium being involved. Same goes for most of the other countries. Only and ONLY the USA has the dubious honor of thinking that this implies that they can arrange to illegally kidnap citizens from other countries to prosecute them(even if there was no real evidence against the kidnapped person). Draw your own conclusions.
There are certain things called treaties. Any civilized nation is supposed to respect the international norms and honor them. It means that you first try to use the extradition treaties to get your hands on the so-called criminal. If you think there was a major crime that cannot be prosecuted otherwise, you goto the ICC. And you can of course go ahead with the case, but actually arrest the guy only when he enters your borders. And no, this does not means sending a Death-squad or assassins to his home country to kill him, or kidnapping him to ensure that he can be arrested within your borders.
If you wish for your sovereignty to be respected, you have to accord others the same respect. Unless of course, you are completely fine with the Chinese dragging off some of your citizens/officials for some so-called "crimes" from your borders. It is only a matter of time, before the boot is on the other foot.
Or if you are trying to tell me that might is right, and therefore USA has some kind of right to do whatever it wishes, well, the Al-Qaeda seemed to have lots of so-called might as well on 911. I take it that you are okay with that too?
And USA is uniquely evil for trying to preach "do as i say, and not as I do". If you are so hung up on dispensing justice worldwide, you should allow your own rapists and murderers to be prosecuted by other countries as well. Ray davis may or may not have been looking for Al-Qaeda, but is that any reason to go around murdering people on mere suspicion? And what is your excuse for rapist US soldiers in Japan? They were trying to find Al-Qaeda members too in Japan? Pathetic!