Except for the tiny little fact that the constitution doesn't actually include those words. It's rather sad that a CANADIAN has to point this out to a US citizen, but the idea that those rights are "inaliable to all men" comes from the Declaration of Independence, and NOT the constitution. In fact, the US constitution specifically states that:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nowhere in there does it say anything about the constitution being intended to secure the rights of foreigners.
It's ok though, you can rest secure in the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't actually know what the constitution says. If you keep making shit up, most people will believe you.
Yes...because as we all know, The Government Is Always Right. You are a naive, brainless sheep...and I can only hope that eventually you're one of the people who gets shafted by the government yourself. Maybe then you might learn something.
Yes...because as we all know, The Government Is Always Wrong. You are a naive, brainless sheep...and I can only hope that eventually you're one of the people who gets drafted by the government. Maybe then you might learn something.
Watada is simply doing what he was trained to do, do not execute an order that you feel is illegal.
No, that's wrong. He is in fact disobeying an order that he KNOWS is legal, because he is afraid that it might lead to him having to follow orders which are not. That's bull. He can't even claim ignorance since he's had plenty of access to JAG's who would have explained the situation to him.
I do not know if his orders were infact unlawful.
Then why are you commenting?
Please do yourself and those around you a favor and try to consider all sides before storming to a conclusion, it only makes you look foolish and closeminded, which I hope you are neither.
So let me get this straight. You admit that you have no idea who's right and who's wrong, yet you have the audacity to call me "closeminded" when I say that he's wrong? Do you have any idea how asinine that makes you look? I understand that Americans have this inherent desire to ensure that things are "fair", but when it comes to cases like this one, fairness doesn't apply. The guy disobeyed a legal order. He admits to doing it. There's absolutely no question about his guilt or innocence. He should be locked up for a long, LONG time.
First of all, having 5% of the world's population, they incarcerate 25% of the world's prisoners
Keep in mind that china has 1.5 SENTENCED prisoners. There's no way to track those who are being kept without a trial. Same goes for many other nations. Third world countries aren't exactly well known for recording and reporting their prison population figures. What they ARE good at is performing unrecorded executions, which, one would assume, would also have an effect on their prison populations.
Incarceration rates in the US are more a reflection of the populace than they are of the government. Americans have every basic human right, yet still manage to get themselves arrested more often than people in nations which oppress those rights. That should tell you something, and not about their government.
I can't think anywhere (else) in the world where this wouldn't be good enough.
Well, it wouldn't be good enough in Canada either. You don't get to set conditions on how the information is handled. If you are subpoenaed and ordered to turn over evidence, you either do it, or you go to jail. That's not unique to the US.
Let me give an example: habeas corpus. The constitution says that habeas corpus can only be suspended at time of war. Right now, the United States federal government is alleging that because the constitution doesn't explicitely say that habeas corpus is a right the rest of the time, that it isn't.
Really. What do you mean by "the United States federal government", exactly? What, the whole monolithic entity? Or one idiot senator somewhere? Who exactly is making these claims?
More importantly, realize that this claim doesn't have the writ of law. All US citizens still have the right of Habeas Corpus, and it's not likely to change any time soon. So I don't know why you would bother bringing this up.
If I own a DVD, that is perfectly legal in Canada, yet if I travel to the United States, I can get arrested for making software to let me watch the video from my own DVD on a different device. You call that the most free nation on earth?
Let me get this straight, you're complaining about an act meant to stop criminal copyright infringement, while in Canada we don't even have a basic right like FREE SPEECH?? Sure the US isn't perfect, but from a big-brother standpoint, Canada is MUCH worse.
Don't even get me started on the Patriot Act.
Please do. Considering the rest of the stuff you believe in, I would LOVE to see what misconceptions you've got about the Patriot Act.
The Press Freedom study is biased and non scientific - even a cursory examination of the list makes this clear.
The terrorism and military action shit has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
And Cindy Sheehan being arrested for acting like an idiot at the Presidents Address to the nation is not a violation of free speech, but an enforcing of trespass laws. Look it up. She's free to act like an idiot on the streets if she so chooses.
In other words, you're wrong about everything you wrote. Congrats.
Ugh. One guy is protecting criminals, and the other abandoned his men in order to make a political statement. Both of them are despicable scumbags, although if I had to choose one of them to beat the snot out of, it'd definitely be Deserter Watada.
Where do you get these silly ideas? Police state? The US is still THE most free nation in the world. We Canadians don't even protect free speech any more! I can be arrested simply for voicing unpopular views or beliefs, yet you dare call the US a "police state" because they're investigating a bunch of little anarchist retards who get off on breaking shit and causing a nuisance while hiding behind "a peaceful protest"? Please. It's people like you that have let Canada get to the state it's in right now. You don't give a shit about losing rights within your own borders because you're too worried about the boogyman to our south.
What are you, retarded? I'm saying people who molest children should go to jail, and you're saying they shouldn't, yet I'm the paedophile? Something's not parsing here, bud.
As for the "incident", I was 22, partying at a bar with friends, and she was there drinking with her friends. If she was able to fool the bartender, it's not a big surprise that she also managed to trick me. You're more than welcome to believe what you like though. If it helps you to think that I'm like you, then go for it.
Frankly, I'm rather glad we have a low age of consent. I had an incident with a young female who lied about her age that would have landed me in prison if I had been in the US. So I'm certainly not advocating that it be raised, I'm simply pointing out the truly bizarre contradictions in your argument. You clearly state that you think 14 should be below the age of consent, yet advocate not imprisoning adults who take advantage of them. That makes no sense. What should we do, fine them instead? Great, so now instead of facing jail time, the molester is really just paying for a service. Awesome idea.
On top of that, comparing consent laws to movie ratings is...well "insane" comes to mind. Even if it were somehow a relevant comparison, you'll notice that only one movie rating is actually enforced by theatres, and that's "R". Movie ratings are a guide for parents, not a law.
Sure you did! You said 14 is too low for an age of consent, but you don't think that an adult having sex with a 14 year old should be locked up. Therefore you don't think someone having sex with a person who is below the age of consent should be locked up. But I see what your problem is:
The situation can be dealt with in a reasonable, nuanced fashion... proportional to the individual circumstances of the crime.
That doesn't work. "Sliding scale" laws are notoriously bad because judges are all over the board when it comes to sentencing. If you leave it up to the judges discretion, you'll end up with all sorts of weird verdicts. What in one court gets you 10 years in prison will get you a slap on the wrist in a different court. Screw that. Laws need to be clearly defined.
And how exactly you managed to use the word "nuanced" while talking about the sentencing of child molesters is beyond me. Let me guess, you're a member of NAMBLA, right? And a university professor too?
I've been wanting to test out the legal aspects of these levies for a while now. Technically speaking, if I make a copy of an audio CD's to a CD on which I've paid a levy, I'm not doing anything illegal since I've paid for the right to do that. So why not set up store in downtown Toronto, selling copied CD's and DVD's for $3-$4 a pop? I'm sure I'd get arrested sooner or later....but it would make for an interesting case. I'm REALLY tempted to give it a shot.
Well, for one thing, prosecuting every single person whose computer has been infected with a trojan would pretty much bankrupt the US, and put most of your population, including all of your politicians, in Jail. Might not be such a bad thing, really...
Anyway, it'd be pointless to prosecute these people is because the vast majority of compromised machines aren't even IN any western nation. Every script kiddie knows that if you really want a bot-net, you scan Asian IP's. When I was 15 I had 2,400 Korean computers running seti@home:) I don't think there's a single computer in that whole country that isn't infected with something.
Prior to 9/11, how many aircraft had ever been intentionally rammed into buildings?
There's a first time for everything. Talk to some of the boys coming back from Iraq and they'll tell you - when it comes to improvised explosive devices, the only limit is your imagination. It's not good to be paranoid, no, but it's always a good idea to be careful.
I wasn't trying to scare anyone, I was simply asking a question. And now I'll ask another one:
Since you think that 14 is too young for consent, yet still think that an adult having sex with a 14 year old should not be "thrown in prison", do you feel the same way about an adult having sex with an 8 year old? Because that is the implication which you are making. You've basically stated that an adult who has sex with a minor should not be arrested.
So what you're saying is that the nest time one of these calls comes in, you'd like to see the bomb squad give the caller a collective "FUCK YOU!!!".
Well. I actually agree with you in principle. Just like in theory communism could be a great political system. Unfortunately, in the real world, communism doesn't work, and having a bomb squad tell civilians to fuck off ends in a LOT of law-suits. While your suggestion is nice in theory, it simply doesn't work in real life.
Well, I agree with you on the guns thing. I'm fully licenced to own weapons, but I hate the restrictions placed on us. On the other hand, I absolutely disagree with you about the US government being corrupt. You have THE most honest government on the earth today. I'm sure that this sounds pretty sad to you, but it's the unfortunate truth. I wish our government was as reasonable as yours.
Yeah, you're free to comment, and I wouldn't dream of taking away that right. On the other hand, I'm free to tell you that you're a clueless gluebag, and that your opinion is about as useful to me as a football bat.
On the other hand, you did make a decent point this time for a change. Still, when it's your life on the line, it pays to be cautious. I can't blame the boys for treating all of the devices seriously. All it takes is for one of them to turn out to be real. I'm sorry if you think that the extra hour you spent in traffic is more valuable than a bomb-technicians life, but...well, see above for my evaluation of your opinion.
We're sort of like Utah North. Except with less bible-thumpers. And more snow. And no guns. And WAAAAAY more retarded hippies and socialists. Ok, so we're not really like Utah North, but we're still pretty cool. Sometimes.
Your money aint payin' for my life. This is exactly why we don't set policy through voting - because clueless morons like you can't even be trusted to tie your own shoelaces, let alone dictate strategy for dealing with potentially lethal situations.
Anyway, if you're so pissed off about the delay and want to volunteer to come on by and handle the bomb yourself, hey, I've got no problem with that. We'll cordon off the area, give you a good 500 meters of space, and let you do your magic. It'll be great, we'll save some expensive equipment, and get rid of a clueless critic at the same time.
Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment. Until then, stick to your own damn job. You don't see me coming down to the bus station and telling you how to suck dicks, do you?
No, there's no permission clause. Age of consent is 14, period. Although technically it can be as low as 12. But parental permission never enters into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Except for the tiny little fact that the constitution doesn't actually include those words. It's rather sad that a CANADIAN has to point this out to a US citizen, but the idea that those rights are "inaliable to all men" comes from the Declaration of Independence, and NOT the constitution. In fact, the US constitution specifically states that:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Nowhere in there does it say anything about the constitution being intended to secure the rights of foreigners.
It's ok though, you can rest secure in the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't actually know what the constitution says. If you keep making shit up, most people will believe you.
The only thing I'm afraid of is the continued loss of common sense in western society. At this rate, we won't last more than a couple decades.
Then why are you commenting?
So let me get this straight. You admit that you have no idea who's right and who's wrong, yet you have the audacity to call me "closeminded" when I say that he's wrong? Do you have any idea how asinine that makes you look? I understand that Americans have this inherent desire to ensure that things are "fair", but when it comes to cases like this one, fairness doesn't apply. The guy disobeyed a legal order. He admits to doing it. There's absolutely no question about his guilt or innocence. He should be locked up for a long, LONG time.
Incarceration rates in the US are more a reflection of the populace than they are of the government. Americans have every basic human right, yet still manage to get themselves arrested more often than people in nations which oppress those rights. That should tell you something, and not about their government.
Well, it wouldn't be good enough in Canada either. You don't get to set conditions on how the information is handled. If you are subpoenaed and ordered to turn over evidence, you either do it, or you go to jail. That's not unique to the US.
Really. What do you mean by "the United States federal government", exactly? What, the whole monolithic entity? Or one idiot senator somewhere? Who exactly is making these claims?
More importantly, realize that this claim doesn't have the writ of law. All US citizens still have the right of Habeas Corpus, and it's not likely to change any time soon. So I don't know why you would bother bringing this up.
Let me get this straight, you're complaining about an act meant to stop criminal copyright infringement, while in Canada we don't even have a basic right like FREE SPEECH?? Sure the US isn't perfect, but from a big-brother standpoint, Canada is MUCH worse.
Please do. Considering the rest of the stuff you believe in, I would LOVE to see what misconceptions you've got about the Patriot Act.
Technically speaking, any government can do this. In the US you can buy a gun to at least give you a chance at preventing it. In Canada you can't.
The Press Freedom study is biased and non scientific - even a cursory examination of the list makes this clear. The terrorism and military action shit has nothing to do with what we were talking about. And Cindy Sheehan being arrested for acting like an idiot at the Presidents Address to the nation is not a violation of free speech, but an enforcing of trespass laws. Look it up. She's free to act like an idiot on the streets if she so chooses. In other words, you're wrong about everything you wrote. Congrats.
Ugh. One guy is protecting criminals, and the other abandoned his men in order to make a political statement. Both of them are despicable scumbags, although if I had to choose one of them to beat the snot out of, it'd definitely be Deserter Watada.
Where do you get these silly ideas? Police state? The US is still THE most free nation in the world. We Canadians don't even protect free speech any more! I can be arrested simply for voicing unpopular views or beliefs, yet you dare call the US a "police state" because they're investigating a bunch of little anarchist retards who get off on breaking shit and causing a nuisance while hiding behind "a peaceful protest"? Please. It's people like you that have let Canada get to the state it's in right now. You don't give a shit about losing rights within your own borders because you're too worried about the boogyman to our south.
I'm pretty sure I can use the "prior art" clause.
What are you, retarded? I'm saying people who molest children should go to jail, and you're saying they shouldn't, yet I'm the paedophile? Something's not parsing here, bud.
As for the "incident", I was 22, partying at a bar with friends, and she was there drinking with her friends. If she was able to fool the bartender, it's not a big surprise that she also managed to trick me. You're more than welcome to believe what you like though. If it helps you to think that I'm like you, then go for it.
So that's a yes to the NAMBLA thing?
Frankly, I'm rather glad we have a low age of consent. I had an incident with a young female who lied about her age that would have landed me in prison if I had been in the US. So I'm certainly not advocating that it be raised, I'm simply pointing out the truly bizarre contradictions in your argument. You clearly state that you think 14 should be below the age of consent, yet advocate not imprisoning adults who take advantage of them. That makes no sense. What should we do, fine them instead? Great, so now instead of facing jail time, the molester is really just paying for a service. Awesome idea.
On top of that, comparing consent laws to movie ratings is...well "insane" comes to mind. Even if it were somehow a relevant comparison, you'll notice that only one movie rating is actually enforced by theatres, and that's "R". Movie ratings are a guide for parents, not a law.
That doesn't work. "Sliding scale" laws are notoriously bad because judges are all over the board when it comes to sentencing. If you leave it up to the judges discretion, you'll end up with all sorts of weird verdicts. What in one court gets you 10 years in prison will get you a slap on the wrist in a different court. Screw that. Laws need to be clearly defined.
And how exactly you managed to use the word "nuanced" while talking about the sentencing of child molesters is beyond me. Let me guess, you're a member of NAMBLA, right? And a university professor too?
I've been wanting to test out the legal aspects of these levies for a while now. Technically speaking, if I make a copy of an audio CD's to a CD on which I've paid a levy, I'm not doing anything illegal since I've paid for the right to do that. So why not set up store in downtown Toronto, selling copied CD's and DVD's for $3-$4 a pop? I'm sure I'd get arrested sooner or later....but it would make for an interesting case. I'm REALLY tempted to give it a shot.
Well, for one thing, prosecuting every single person whose computer has been infected with a trojan would pretty much bankrupt the US, and put most of your population, including all of your politicians, in Jail. Might not be such a bad thing, really...
:) I don't think there's a single computer in that whole country that isn't infected with something.
Anyway, it'd be pointless to prosecute these people is because the vast majority of compromised machines aren't even IN any western nation. Every script kiddie knows that if you really want a bot-net, you scan Asian IP's. When I was 15 I had 2,400 Korean computers running seti@home
Prior to 9/11, how many aircraft had ever been intentionally rammed into buildings?
There's a first time for everything. Talk to some of the boys coming back from Iraq and they'll tell you - when it comes to improvised explosive devices, the only limit is your imagination. It's not good to be paranoid, no, but it's always a good idea to be careful.
I wasn't trying to scare anyone, I was simply asking a question. And now I'll ask another one:
Since you think that 14 is too young for consent, yet still think that an adult having sex with a 14 year old should not be "thrown in prison", do you feel the same way about an adult having sex with an 8 year old? Because that is the implication which you are making. You've basically stated that an adult who has sex with a minor should not be arrested.
So what you're saying is that the nest time one of these calls comes in, you'd like to see the bomb squad give the caller a collective "FUCK YOU!!!".
Well. I actually agree with you in principle. Just like in theory communism could be a great political system. Unfortunately, in the real world, communism doesn't work, and having a bomb squad tell civilians to fuck off ends in a LOT of law-suits. While your suggestion is nice in theory, it simply doesn't work in real life.
Well, I agree with you on the guns thing. I'm fully licenced to own weapons, but I hate the restrictions placed on us. On the other hand, I absolutely disagree with you about the US government being corrupt. You have THE most honest government on the earth today. I'm sure that this sounds pretty sad to you, but it's the unfortunate truth. I wish our government was as reasonable as yours.
A hell of a lot more than your comprehension abilities, that's for sure.
Yeah, you're free to comment, and I wouldn't dream of taking away that right. On the other hand, I'm free to tell you that you're a clueless gluebag, and that your opinion is about as useful to me as a football bat.
On the other hand, you did make a decent point this time for a change. Still, when it's your life on the line, it pays to be cautious. I can't blame the boys for treating all of the devices seriously. All it takes is for one of them to turn out to be real. I'm sorry if you think that the extra hour you spent in traffic is more valuable than a bomb-technicians life, but...well, see above for my evaluation of your opinion.
We're sort of like Utah North. Except with less bible-thumpers. And more snow. And no guns. And WAAAAAY more retarded hippies and socialists. Ok, so we're not really like Utah North, but we're still pretty cool. Sometimes.
Your money aint payin' for my life. This is exactly why we don't set policy through voting - because clueless morons like you can't even be trusted to tie your own shoelaces, let alone dictate strategy for dealing with potentially lethal situations.
Anyway, if you're so pissed off about the delay and want to volunteer to come on by and handle the bomb yourself, hey, I've got no problem with that. We'll cordon off the area, give you a good 500 meters of space, and let you do your magic. It'll be great, we'll save some expensive equipment, and get rid of a clueless critic at the same time.
*sigh*
I don't know why I bother.
Listen, when YOU have a job that involves risking your life on a regular basis, THEN you can comment. Until then, stick to your own damn job. You don't see me coming down to the bus station and telling you how to suck dicks, do you?
No, there's no permission clause. Age of consent is 14, period. Although technically it can be as low as 12. But parental permission never enters into it.