Pilot shot in head

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
anyone and rights begin to disappear.

That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good
thing.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

I completely agree with you, John. Labeling a suspect a "terrorist" in
order to restrict his/her rights with regard to bail, incarceration,
discovery, deposition of opposing witnesses, etc., logically prejudges
guilt, and should clearly be unconstitutional

In article ,
"Joe Johnson" wrote:

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
anyone and rights begin to disappear.

That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a good
thing.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

I completely agree with you, John. Labeling a suspect a "terrorist" in
order to restrict his/her rights with regard to bail, incarceration,
discovery, deposition of opposing witnesses, etc., logically prejudges
guilt, and should clearly be unconstitutional

Count me in -- it has other serious practical (and political) advantages
as well

"AES" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Joe Johnson" wrote:

"John Galban" wrote in message
oups.com...

Do you think it's wise to encourage the government to label every
criminal a terrorist, just so they can get more mileage on a case?
Frankly, I get a little disturbed when new laws that were specifically
targetted to improve terrorist intervention are used against common
criminals for common criminal acts. The result is that the increase
powers of law enforcement and prosecutors under these statutes are no
longer limited to the actual terrorists. They just slap a label on
anyone and rights begin to disappear.

That's well on the way down the slippery slope that started out by
rationalizing that taking away rights from "terrorists" would be a
good
thing.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

I completely agree with you, John. Labeling a suspect a "terrorist" in
order to restrict his/her rights with regard to bail, incarceration,
discovery, deposition of opposing witnesses, etc., logically prejudges
guilt, and should clearly be unconstitutional

Count me in -- it has other serious practical (and political) advantages
as well

They used to say "Don't make a Federal case out ot it", now everything is
not only a federal case, but terrorism.

It's the natural inclination of the power holders to usurp even more power.
Lord Acton was dead right.