Another reason to fly GA...

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Gary Drescher wrote:

So you and your friend think it's "very clear" that the police should
summarily execute someone whom even the police believe at the time is
98%
likely to be innocent?

The terrorists aren't really fighting for Iraq or Afganistan. They're
fighting a war to, loosly speaking, convert our culture to theirs. The
foot soldiers may honestly believe otherwise, but the Bin Ladens have been
in the game long before Iraq or Afganistan.

What would it take for our culture to become theirs? For one thing, a
mentality that the state's well-being overrides individuals' well-being.
And I say we have that here. Following a path of reason that appears
quite
valid, that's exactly where London's gone.

What else? A theocratic tyranny of the majority. The majority in, for
example, the U.S. might be Christian today. But that's a problem easily
solved in the long term. Redefine the nation so that the majority can
impose its religious values upon the rest, and the remainder of the
"fight"
is just a generation or three of demographic work.

Guess what: we're losing this fight. The big problem is that we're aiming
at the wrong targets, and actually shooting ourselves in the foot.

Rather than letting us become more like an oppressive theocratic police
state, we need to become *more* ourselves. We need to place the values
that make us different - minority rights, freedom from oppression or
abuse,
freedom of expression and beliefm etc. - even higher upon our personal
totems.

There will still be people in opposition to us. But we'll never turn on
ourselves, and we'll never hand victory over.

- Andrew

Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers, the're
just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to live in a
ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those words and
ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live by.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ROhEe.67$S72.63@trndny06...
Doug Semler wrote:

Sooo, if I am a student (backpack) with a resemblance to someone
(passing or specific), wearing a "padded coat" (in mid to high 60's
weather and rain forecast, and I have the chills because of the flu)
and run from armed people (unclear whether these armed police were
plainclothes or not)...it gives those armed people the right to kill me
from 2 feet away?!?!?!

Yes, it does.


The terrorists' dream scenario.... a society killing its own.

The damage done to a society, by the death of 20 at the hands of terrorists,
will be far less than the damage done to the same society, by the death of a
single innocent person at the hands of the "law".

Because the terrorists will forever be recognized as the ones doing the
killing, will forever be in the "wrong", will never have sympathizers, will
be hunted and brought to justice one by one, too slowly for some to be sure,
but the enemy will be clear and civilized societies will band together for
the hunt to go on.

However, a single innocent person killed by authority, in a democracy
undermines that authority. A democracy without trust in its infrastructure
is doomed to become something considerably less than a civil
democracy...fighting its own citizens, fighting its own authorities,
fighting outsiders, a state of perpetual paranoia.

Even if our Brazilian electrician was, in fact, a bomb-carrier, there is no
guarantee that his death would have "saved lives". There is no way to know
what forces would be set in motion amongst his allies, friends, family, or
even complete strangers... who may have viewed this as his "martyrdom" and
a call to even more militancy... there is just no way to know whether the 20
lives saved here, may or may not have turned into 120 otherwise-safe lives
somewhere down the road.

Now it is one thing to kill someone that is truly "known" to be a
bomb-carrier. Killing people on mere suspicion, however, makes our
democracy a sham.

Even the war in Iraq could not start on *suspicion* of WMD. It started
because there
*!was!* WMD.

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:43:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:


When I lived in England in the 80's it was a loo or a crapper. Never
heard toilet used...



see? you put "here" as Europe (and everything over there is all the same).

here != England

#m

Funny, we were talking about the London shooting and last I knew London
was in England. Did they move it recently? :-)


Matt

"Franklin Newton" wrote in
ink.net:

Snipola
Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to
live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those
words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
by.

With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
such jeopardy.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Franklin Newton" wrote in
ink.net:

Snipola
Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to
live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those
words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
by.

With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
such jeopardy.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Acually Brian I do live here, the no longer relevant stuff was taken from
our current administrations views on international treaties and I have no
desire to live in a ninny or is it nanny, state and my personaol view is if
we lived and did by word and deed the ideals set out by our founders we
would not be in the current situation.

Icebound wrote:

The damage done to a society, by the death of 20 at the hands of
terrorists, will be far less than the damage done to the same
society, by the death of a single innocent person at the hands of the
"law".

Just posing a different point of view:

What's the damage to society if law enforcement is too reluctant to
prosecute suspicious individuals in the interest of protecting every single
innocent life?

I tend to agree with your sentiment, just not to the degree you seem to want
to take it. Firm checks must be maintained on state power (primarily, IMO,
to protect individual rights), but probably *the* most important role of
government is to protect and defend society.

A balance must be struck between protecting society from those who wish it
harm and protecting individual rights within that society. Unfortunately,
there will be times law enforcement will stray to either side of that
equilibrium.

A democracy without trust in its
infrastructure is doomed to become something considerably less than a
civil democracy...fighting its own citizens, fighting its own
authorities, fighting outsiders, a state of perpetual paranoia.

Interesting. What happens when that democracy no longer trusts its
governmental institutions to protect them from valid threats?

Even if our Brazilian electrician was, in fact, a bomb-carrier, there
is no guarantee that his death would have "saved lives". There is no
way to know what forces would be set in motion amongst his allies,
friends, family, or even complete strangers... who may have viewed
this as his "martyrdom" and a call to even more militancy... there
is just no way to know whether the 20 lives saved here, may or may
not have turned into 120 otherwise-safe lives somewhere down the road.

Your point is valid. Now look at the other side of that. If law
enforcement now becomes more reluctant to pull the trigger on suspects, what
happens when they hesitate on the wrong suspect and they release another
chemical attack like the ones in Japan several years back? Or continue to
set off explosive attacks? How many innocent lives would be lost because of
the goal of law enforcement protecting every single innocent life?

Killing people on mere suspicion, however, makes our
democracy a sham.

I wouldn't go quite so far as to call it a "sham", but I agree with the
general sentiment. It's a judgement call to decide when the suspicion is
about to be confirmed in the most obvious way. "Do we shoot the suspicious
person before he's in position to do harm? Or do we wait until he pulls the
trigger to confirm our suspicions and clean up the mess?"

How to you prosecute a war where the enemy wears no uniform? Where he is
willing to sacrifice his life to achieve his tactical goal? Where he has no
apparent desire to discern miltary from civilian targets? Where there is
state sponsorship, but no state control?

I don't have the answers, but I'm working on them.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Franklin Newton" wrote in
ink.net:

Snipola
Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to
live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those
words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
by.

With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
such jeopardy.

Satire.

John T wrote:

What's the damage to society if law enforcement is too reluctant to
prosecute suspicious individuals in the interest of protecting every
single innocent life?

This has been answered numerous times, albeit with varied ratios grin.
Franklin's version was:

...that it is better 100 guilty Persons should
escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.

Do you imagine that he, and all those others that said something similar,
had no conception of the possibility that those guilty persons could harm
innocent persons? I dare say they did realize this, but that they
recognized that this reflects the nature of our society. We expose
ourselves to the risk of harm by individuals abusing our freedoms because
the alternative - an elimination of those freedoms - would be more harm
than those guilty persons could possibly hope to achieve.

Guilty persons can harm persons. The elimination of freedom harms the
society and every innocent member.

In Franklin's case, I expect that it was reasoning of this sort that
resulted in:

They who would give up an essential liberty for
temporary security, deserve neither liberty or
security.

How to you prosecute a war where the enemy wears no uniform?Â*Â*
Where heÂ*is willing to sacrifice his life to achieve his
tactical goal?Â*Â*WhereÂ*heÂ*hasÂ*no apparent desire to discern
miltary from civilian targets?Â*Â*WhereÂ*thereÂ*is state
sponsorship, but no state control?

I don't know the complete answer either, but I do know part. You deny your
enemy his weapons whereever possible. Terrorists thrive on terror. Deny
them this. Don't react with fear. Banning aircraft from wide swaths of
airspace is no more rational than banning rental vans from a city would be.

I've complaints about the UK's Tony Blair, but his "will not be terrorised"
was right on the mark. Where he claims "we will hold true to the British
way of life", he is denying the enemy the gain they crave when they write
"Britain is now burning in fear" on the web from their hiding spots.

Unfortunately, since the recent shooting of that unfortunate Brazilian, the
"fear" statement is a lot closer to truth. And that's completely
self-inflicted.

- Andrew

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Franklin Newton" wrote in
ink.net:

Snipola
Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want
to
live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused,
those
words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
by.

With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
such jeopardy.

Satire.


Well Matts, at least your mother didn't have to explain jokes to you, yes
it was satire/sarcasm.

"Do we shoot the suspicious
person before he's in position to do harm? Or do we wait until he pulls the
trigger to confirm our suspicions and clean up the mess?"

That depends on what kind of society we want to live in. What counts as
"suspicious" and what one may be "suspected of" changes from
administration to administration. What sounds good today will come back
and bite you tomorrow if you give the state too many teeth. And if the
state has too many teeth, it matters not whether the teeth that bite you
are from your own state or from outside.

I want to live in a society where one is innocent until =proven= guilty,
not innocent until =seemingly= guilty. Especially when the end result
is a bullet in my head or an anti-aircraft missle up my tail.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.