NationStates Jolt Archive


Why do people act like civil liberties have been taken now?

Colerica
21-07-2004, 05:17
When incidents such as what happened to Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge, happened long before the PATRIOT Act was ever a thought?

For those that may be unaware of what the Ruby Ridge incident was, take a look:


THE RANDY WEAVER CASE
BY JIM OLIVER

Another Federal Fiasco!

BATF's entrapment of Randy Weaver led to the violent deaths of three people. Says his defense attorney, Gerry Spence: "What happened to Randy Weaver can happen to anybody in this country."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeing his dog, Striker, shot to death by masked intruders clad in camouflage, Sammy Weaver, 14, fired back in fear for his life. The 4 ft., 11" tall youngster was hit in the arm, then shot in the back as he turned to run for home. He died instantly, killed by an agent of the federal government.

Cradling her 10-month-old daughter in her arms, Vicki Weaver stood in the doorway of her home, mourning her slain son, unaware that she herself had only seconds to live. In an instant a bullet tore into Vicki Weaver's face, blew through her jaw and severed her carotid artery. The bullet was fired from 200 yds. away by an agent of the federal government.

What had the Weaver family done to bring FBI snipers and submachine- gun-toting U.S. marshals to the woods around their cabin on Ruby Ridge in northern Idaho? Why did the government act as though the Weavers had forfeited the protections guaranteed all Americans by the United States Constitution? Who made the decisions that led to their unjustified deaths and also to the death of deputy U.S. Marshall William Degan?

For the six men working near Weaver's plywood cabin on Ruby Ridge, Aug. 21, 1992, was another day on a job that had been going on more than 16 months. Their employer, the U.S. government, was spending $13,000 a week, and there had been no end in sight to the work.

The cabin--really a shack--was home to 44-year old former Green Beret Randy Weaver and his family--wife, Vicki; son, Sammy; and daughters, Sara, Rachel and Elisheba. It was also home to their young friend, Kevin Harris. They were subsistence hunters, and tended a garden, putting up vegetables. A generator produced occasional electricity. They had no TV, no radio.

This day there were some new men on the job site not far from the cabin--one, 42-year-old William Degan, had been brought to northern Idaho on special orders. He was to help plan a successful conclusion to the job.

The men in the woods were dressed in their work clothes--camouflage commando outfits complete with masks. They carried the tools of their trade--two-way radios rigged for quiet operation, night vision equipment, semi-automatic handguns, fully automatic military rifles and at least one silenced HK submachine gun. One of the men was a medic, prepared to care for any casualties.

The weaver family had dogs. Somebody threw a rock to test their reaction. A golden retriever barked near the cabin and came running their way. A mission somebody in the Marshal Service had dubbed "Operation Northern Exposure" was about to end.

The "op" had included use of jet reconnaissance overflights with aerial photographic analysis by the Defense Mapping Agency, and placement of high-resolution video equipment recording activity by the Weaver family from sites 1 1/2 miles away--160 hours worth of tape used.

For nearly a year and a half, federal agents had roamed the area, picking locations for surveillance and for snipers. Degan, belonged to the Special Operations Group, the Marshals' national SWAT team. The six on-site this day were deputy U.S. Marshals.

The target of all of this--and of a Federal law enforcement and prosecution effort that would eventually total approximately $3 million--was Randy Weaver. What kind of criminal was he to demand this kind of attention? Was he a major drug dealer? Serial killer? Was he a terrorist bomber?

No. On Oct. 24, 1989, Weaver sold two shotguns whose barrels arguably measured 1/4 inch less than the 18 inch length determined arbitrarily by Congress to be legal. The H&R single-barrel 12-ga. and Remington pump were sold to a good friend who instructed Weaver to shorten the barrels. The "good friend" was an undercover informant working for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), who later told reporters he was in it "mainly for the excitement."

Eight months after he sold the shotguns, Weaver was approached by two BATF agents with an offer--spy on the Aryan Nations, a white supremacist hate group head-quartered in northern Idaho, or go to jail. Weaver refused to become a government informer, and--six months later--he was indicted on the shotgun charge.

On Jan. 17, 1991, as Weaver and his wife were driving to town for supplies, they encountered a pickup truck-camper with its hood up, a man and woman seeming to be in trouble. The Weavers stopped to offer their help. A horde of federal agents piled out of the camper. A pistol was pressed against Weaver's neck. Vicki Weaver was thrown to the slushy ground.

Weaver was arraigned before a federal magistrate, who later admitted he cited the wrong law. Out on bond, Weaver went back to his cabin. According to friends who testified in court, he and his wife vowed not to have any more dealings with the courts of the federal government. They would just stay on their mountain.

A hearing was set on the shotgun matter for Federal Court in Moscow, Idaho. The government notified Weaver by letter that he was to appear March 20, 1991. The actual hearing was held February 20--one month earlier. The error in dates was enough to give rise to a memo within the Marshal Service saying the case would be a washout. (Weaver did not show for the wrong date, either.) U.S. Attorney Ron Howen went to the grand jury anyway, and Weaver was indicted for failure to appear.

But why had the BATF picked Randy Weaver to set up as an informer? He was a man devoted to family, a man with no criminal record, a veteran who served his country with honor. It was Weaver's beliefs that made him an ideal target. His unorthodox religious and political views were far outside mainstream America. He was a white separatist. And, Randy Weaver was little, a nobody.

Over the next 16 months, the feds painted Weaver as racist, as anti-semitic, as a criminal. But they had to entrap him into his only crime, altering two guns. The media were unquestioning. In print and on TV and radio, Weaver's home--the plywood shack he built himself--became a "mountain fortress," and then "a bunker," and a stronghold protected by a cache of 15 weapons and ammunition capable of piercing armored personnel carriers."

The common shotguns Weaver sold became the chosen "weapons of drug dealers and terrorists" or "gangster weapons" that "have no sporting use." The media always added the universal out... "agents said." But there were no gangsters. There were no terrorists or drug dealers, just Weaver, the gun buyer and the government.

It was all a lie. Hate-hype. People believed it, maybe even the agents who planted the hate-hype began to believe it. It all ceased to matter on August 21, when Striker barked and sniffed out the agents spying on the cabin--lives changed, lives ended.

Nobody, except the people who were there, knows exactly what happened next. There were several versions of the story. But some facts jibe. Randy Weaver's little boy, Sammy--a kid whose voice hadn't yet changed--and Kevin Harris followed Striker. Harris and Weaver later said they thought the dog was chasing a deer. Harris carried a bolt-action hunting rifle. The boy also had a gun.

Without warning a federal agent fired a burst into Striker, killing him. (It came out in court later that there had been a plan to take the dog "out of the equation.") The boy, frightened, shot back, and when one of the agents fired another burst, Sammy lay dead.

Kevin Harris shot deputy William Degan in the chest. He died a few moments later. The shooting ended relatively quickly. The agents would claim Harris fired first. Harris claimed he fired after the boy was shot. Agents told the media their men had been pinned down for eight hours. It was a lie.

The dog was dead. The boy was dead. Deputy Degan was dead. Two American families had tragically lost loved-ones. During the night hours, Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris brought the little boy's body to a shed near the cabin and washed it.

Deputy Degan's shooting brought in the FBI. Soon, the Weaver property was ringed by a huge force of FBI, BATF, U.S. Marshals, Idaho state police and local law enforcement and Idaho National Guard.

Among the federal law enforcement commanders was Richard Rogers, the head of the FBI's hostage rescue team, which includes its snipers. On the flight out, he took an extraordinary step--he decided to alter radically the prescribed rules of engagement of FBI sharpshooters.

Normally, agents can only shoot when they are facing death or grievous harm. But 11 snipers that were positioned around the Weaver cabin were given new ordrs:

"If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual." This meant Randy Weaver's wife would be fair game. It went on:

"If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed if the shot can be taken without endangering the children."

Of words reminiscent of hollow justifications used in Waco, Texas, federal spokesmen kept telling the media of their concern for the children. In fact, Gene Glenn, the agent in charge of the siege, told The New York Times he considered the kids to be hostages. Yet they'd already killed one child.

The negotiators were not in place, and no effort had been made to contact the Weavers, when Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris--armed-- and 16-year-old Sara Weaver left the cabin and moved to the shed where Sam's body lay.

As the three reached the shed, an FBI sniper some 200 yds. away aimed at Weaver. He told the court he was aiming for the spine, just below the neck. He missed; shot Weaver in the back of the arm, the bullet exiting through the armpit.

Sara later told Spokesman Review staff writer Jess Walter in a copyrighted story:

"I ran up to my dad and tried to shield him and pushed him toward the house. If they were going to shoot someone, I was going to make them shoot a kid."

At the cabin, Vicki Weaver was waiting at the door, holding her infant daughter, Elisheba. The sniper fired again. His bullet hit Vicki Weaver. She was dead before the baby hit the floor, miraculously unhurt. Harris was hit by bullet fragments and bone from Vicki's skull. He was bleeding badly. Randy Weaver, daughters Sara and 10-year-old Rachel all saw the violent death.

Later, sniper Lon Horiuchi stated in court that killing Vicki Weaver had been a mistake; that he was aiming for Kevin Harris. Defense attorney Spence asked him, "You wanted to kill him, didn't you?" He answered, "Yes, sir."

Sara Weaver recounted the night following her mother's death. Again from reporter Jess Walter's story:

"Elisheba cried during the night. She was saying, 'Mama, mama, mama.'... Dad was crying and saying, 'I know baby. I know baby. Your Mama's gone....'"

She told Walters that on Sunday, they tried to yell at federal agents and get their attention, to tell them that her mother was dead. She said they got no resopnse. Instead they would her the FBI negotiators.

"They'd come on real late at night and say, 'Come out and talk to us, Mrs. Weaver. How's the baby, Mrs. Weaver,' in a real smart-alecky voice. Or they'd say, 'Good morning, Randall. How'd you sleep? We're having pancakes. What are you having?"

The FBI later claimed it had no idea that its sniper had shot Vicki Weaver. Yet a New York Times stringer quoted FBI sources as saying they were "using a listening device that allow(ed) them to hear conversations, and even the baby's cries in the cabin." Another lie?

On Thursday, August 27, radio newsman Paul Harvey used his noon broadcast to reach the Weavers, who he'd learned were regular listeners. Urging Randy Weaver to surrender, Harvey said, prophetically, "Randy, you'll have a much better chance with a jury of understanding homefolks than you could ever have with any kind of shoot-out with 200 frustrated lawmen."

As part of their efforts to make contact with the Weavers, the FBI sent a robot with a telephone to the cabin. But the robot also had a shotgun pointed at the door, so the Weavers feared that reaching for the phone could result in death or injury.

Somewhere in all of this, the FBI discovered the body of Sammy. They told the news media they didn't know he'd been killed.

The siege began to unravel six days after Vicki Weaver had been killed. Her body remained in the kitchen of the cabin all that time. Sara crawled around her to get food and water for her family. It was during this time that Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris dictated their version of their story to Sara. In this letter, Weaver accused his government of murdering his wife.

The news media, based on information from the feds, repeatedly reported that Vicki had been killed in "an exchange of fire" or in a "gun battle." More spin control.

The only shots were two--from the government's sniper.

Kevin Harris was the first person to come out. Sunday, August 30, badly wounded, he was rushed to a Spokane hospital where he was treated and charged with murder. A magistrate told him he was facing the death penalty.

The rest of the family came out on the next day. The surrender was negotiated--not by the FBI--but by Bo Gritz, former Green Beret hero.

All the lies and federal spin control over the story were about to end. The case was going to court.

The 36-day trial took place in the U.S. District Court in Boise, with Judge Edward Lodge presiding. The jury of eight women and four men heard the government put on 56 witnesses. The defense rested without calling a single witness, confident that the government had destroyed its own case. They were right.

The jury deliberated for nearly three weeks, and found Harris not guilty of murder or any other charges leveled against him. They found Weaver not guilty of eight federal felony counts. The judge had earlier thrown out two other counts.

Weaver was found guilty of two counts: failing to appear in court and violating his bail conditions. He was declared not guilty of the gun charge--the seed of all this misery.

It was a bizarre trial, full of contradictions, with government witnesses countering each other's stories as to the events of August 21, and countering the events leading up to Vicki Weaver's death the next day.

The question of who fired first--Harris or the Marshals--was key to the jury deciding on the murder charge against Harris. In the end they believed Kevin Harris acted in self-defense. Earlier, the death penalty had been ruled out. The law the prosecution cited had been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court two decades before.

The government spent days going over the Weavers' religious views, trying to establish they were racist and demonstrated a long-lived conspiracy to violently confront the government. The jury didn't believe it.

Marshall service witnesses told about a series of pre-siege scenarios to root Weaver out of his cabin. But when pressed by the defense, they said they never considered simply knocking on the door and arresting him.

During the trial, the government admitted that the FBI had tampered with the evidence; that the crime scene photos given the defense were phony reenactments. Physical evidence had been removed and replaced. The prosecutor knew this and had failed to tell the defense.

The prosecution also withheld documents that might have helped the defense. When ordered by the judge to produce them immediately, the FBI sent the material from Washington, D.C., via Fourth Class mail, which took two weeks to cross the country. For prosecutorial misconduct, the judge ordered the government to pay part of the defense attorneys' fees, an action almost unheard of in a criminal case. Prosecutor Hoiwen also was forced to apologize in open court. At the end of the trial, he collapsed in the middle of a statement, telling the judge, "I can't go on."
Gerry Spence told the jury, "This is a murder case, but the people who committed the murder are not here in court."

After the trial, Spence told The New York Times, "A jury today has said that you can't kill somebody just because you wear badges, then cover those homicides by prosecuting the innocent.

What are we going to do now about the deaths of Vicki Weaver, a mother who was killed with a baby in her arms, and Sammy Weaver, a boy who was shot in the back?"

Spence has asked the Boundary County, Idaho, prosecutor to bring charges against various federal agents. Should that happen, lingering questions about the Weaver case finally may be answered. Should that happen another jury undoubtedly will serve notice to those who have forgotten that the United States government is supposed to serve its citizens, not entrap them, not defame them, not falsify evidence against them and absolutely not kill their children.

****

Why is it that people only complain about the 'stripping away' of civil liberties now that the PATRIOT Act is in existance, when incidents like this (and Waco and Elian Gonzalez) happened before the PA?

Me!
Cold Hard Bitch
21-07-2004, 05:19
Liberals use the Patriot act as an excuse to hate Bush, Even with the fact that nobody has been hurt by it.
SilentSin
21-07-2004, 05:37
Liberals use the Patriot act as an excuse to hate Bush, Even with the fact that nobody has been hurt by it.

Yeah, thank God.

*cough Abu Ghraib prison cough*
Colodia
21-07-2004, 05:38
Yeah, thank God.

*cough Abu Ghraib prison cough*
I have NO CLUE how that plays in this topic
Cold Hard Bitch
21-07-2004, 05:40
Yeah, thank God.

*cough Abu Ghraib prison cough*



What does Abu Ghraib have to do with the Patriot act?
Incertonia
21-07-2004, 05:47
Liberals use the Patriot act as an excuse to hate Bush, Even with the fact that nobody has been hurt by it.Tell that to Jose Padilla. He has most certainly been harmed by it, and there but for the grace of God go you or me.
BlueNovember
21-07-2004, 05:56
The post was rather long, so I could have missed the fact that when US Marshalls were first going up to the Reaver cabin in regard to tax charges (they had decided to drop out of society and thus stop paying them), the Reavers ambushed and killed one officer. The dark clad individuals may have been the FBI agents ordered forward to put listening devices under the cabin (the higher ups wanted intel in this way, much to the annoyance of the FBI agents who had to do it). The first federal shot during the stake out was fired by a sniper after Randy and his wife ran out of the cabin in a dash to a rocky outcrop behind the house (it was of a natural formation that provided a lot of good cover) and she fired in their direction. The information I am presenting comes from "Cold Zero", a biography by Special Agent Christopher Whitcomb. The book is not pro-FBI garbage. It makes a lot of criticisms of FBI operations and tendencies in regards to hostile situations like this and HRT (Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI's special tactics group).
The Beeker Fanclub
21-07-2004, 06:01
Didn't someone make a fairly naff telemovie about the Randy Weaver incident?
Colerica
21-07-2004, 06:23
The post was rather long, so I could have missed the fact that when US Marshalls were first going up to the Reaver cabin in regard to tax charges (they had decided to drop out of society and thus stop paying them), the Reavers ambushed and killed one officer. The dark clad individuals may have been the FBI agents ordered forward to put listening devices under the cabin (the higher ups wanted intel in this way, much to the annoyance of the FBI agents who had to do it). The first federal shot during the stake out was fired by a sniper after Randy and his wife ran out of the cabin in a dash to a rocky outcrop behind the house (it was of a natural formation that provided a lot of good cover) and she fired in their direction. The information I am presenting comes from "Cold Zero", a biography by Special Agent Christopher Whitcomb. The book is not pro-FBI garbage. It makes a lot of criticisms of FBI operations and tendencies in regards to hostile situations like this and HRT (Hostage Rescue Team, the FBI's special tactics group).

A gov't agent was trying to get Weaver to saw-down the lengths on shotguns. After all of run-up to it happened, Weaver's dog spotted gov't agents sneaking to the cabin. The dog barked, the agents killed the dog. Watching his dog die, Randy Weaver's teenage son shot back at the agents (as he was fearing for his life, and all). The kid was shot once and when he turned around to run to the cabin was shot in the back and killed. Randy's wife, while holding their baby, was shot in the head and killed instantly.....

What I'm saying, incase people are missing it, is that civil liberty abuses are nothing new. More of them happened under Clinton's watch than have happened under Bush's. Ruby Ridge is just the tip of the iceberg....

Me!
HM Kaiser Wilhelm II
21-07-2004, 06:34
A gov't agent was trying to get Weaver to saw-down the lengths on shotguns.

The legal length of a shotgun barrel was at the time no less than 18 inches. The shotgun Randy Weaver sawed off had a barrel length of 17 and 3/4 inches. Everything that happened was a result of a quarter inch sawn off a barrel, and because Weaver did not appear in court.

At local gun shows undercover FBI agents often try to make people illegally buy firearms out in the parking lot, etc. They offer an outrageously good bargain on a damned nice rifle or handgun, then they will pressure you for as long as it takes. They'll follow you and shout at you and do everything but take the money out of your own wallet to pay for the gun. Of course, once you give in, you've broken the law and the guy immediately arrests you.

Anyways the Weaver "Ruby Ridge" case has been hashed over enough. It's been determined the Government far exceeded it's authority and violated the constitutional rights of the Weaver family.

Ruby Ridge is, truly, the tip of the iceberg as someone mentioned. Most of the violations of constitutional rights and most of the abuses of power by Government agents and agencies slip right underneath the radar.

-Kw.II
Druthulhu
21-07-2004, 06:39
Why is it that people only complain about the 'stripping away' of civil liberties now that the PATRIOT Act is in existance, when incidents like this (and Waco and Elian Gonzalez) happened before the PA?

Because if this shit can go on when it's clearly illegal, what is going to happen now that we've loosened our "servents' " leash?

Well, what has been going on, that we have no freedom to even know about. Let's just start with secret imprisonment. How many were imprisoned? How many are still imprisoned? Whatever the numbers are... who told us those numbers? They have ZERO accountability when they can arrest people without even putting anything in the public record.

- A.J.H.
Opal Isle
21-07-2004, 06:42
Liberals use the Patriot act as an excuse to hate Bush, Even with the fact that nobody has been hurt by it.
...that's not why I hate Bush...I have real reasons to hate him...because real reasons exist...
Studly Doright
21-07-2004, 06:45
Liberals use the Patriot act as an excuse to hate Bush, Even with the fact that nobody has been hurt by it.


i don't hate bush, i think he's a wacky zany guy, like a naughty trained orangatan dressed up in people clothes and dancing with a fat lady in a funny hat.
Trotterstan
21-07-2004, 07:10
societies and organisations that tolerate and condone violence produce individuals with violent tendencies. In case no one noticed, this is 'bowling for columbine' was about. If you have a buch of otherwise ordinary people and enroll them in an organisation (ATF, Marines) that trains them to use lethal force then you are also training them to think that it is OK or normal to use lethal force. This is what leads to incidents like Waco and Abu Ghraib.
Nazi Weaponized Virus
21-07-2004, 07:12
Why do people act like thier civil liberties have been taken from them?

Because they have?
Cold Hard Bitch
21-07-2004, 07:13
Tell that to Jose Padilla. He has most certainly been harmed by it, and there but for the grace of God go you or me.


Only you would defend a terrorist.
Studly Doright
21-07-2004, 07:14
Only you would defend a terrorist.


lets hope he isn't the only one.
Cold Hard Bitch
21-07-2004, 07:16
lets hope he isn't the only one.


You are what is wrong with the world today, why should anybody want to defend a terrorist? Would you defend Osama?
Goed
21-07-2004, 07:19
Because they are human beings, and we call ourselves "civil?" Because we understand that justice is important, but if we begin to reduce enemy combatants to a sub-human level, soon the entire worth of a human life will drop and war can be waged "just because?" Because we believe in "equality for all," not "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal then others?"
Freedomstein
21-07-2004, 07:20
Only you would defend a terrorist.
yeah, i mean, why have any rights at all? i mean, if you arent doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. nobody has been hurt by an illegal search and seizure that didnt have it coming.
Studly Doright
21-07-2004, 07:20
You are what is wrong with the world today, why should anybody want to defend a terrorist? Would you defend Osama?
i would hope someone would defend him with all due vigor in a court of law. i would hope if he was tortured people would defend his human rights. just because he wouldn't do the same for me doesn't releave me of the moral obligation to try to see that he is treated with decency and justice, not hatred, savagry and revenge.
Nazi Weaponized Virus
21-07-2004, 07:21
Ok lets look at the definition of Civil Liberties:

Civil liberties are protections from the power of governments.
Examples include freedom of speech

Which has been seriously curbed since 9/11, Patriot act did not deal with this directly but dealt with groups, specifically groups concerning human rights especially in relation to Guantanamo.
Corporate Media's refusal to broadcast/publish some stories which they believe might 'Put the lives of US Soldiers in danger' (an abysmal excuse of course).

freedom of assembly

As mentioned above, certain human rights groups as well as certain Lobby groups critical of US Foreign Policy have been targetted by the Patriot Act.

and trial by jury.

Guantanamo Bay, lack of access to legal advice could also be construed as a breach of civil liberties but trial by Military Court is of course the most important thing to consider, as it has serious implications on the rights of these detainees to recieve a fair trial. Saddam's Kangaroo court is yet another example, but this was just a propoganda ploy to make it look like The 'Sovereign' Iraqi Government actually had any power over the US occupational forces.

Civil liberties are usually protected by a constitution.

Which Mr. Bush constantly tries to amend to curb civil liberties.
Cold Hard Bitch
21-07-2004, 07:24
i would hope someone would defend him with all due vigor in a court of law. i would hope if he was tortured people would defend his human rights. just because he wouldn't do the same for me doesn't releave me of the moral obligation to try to see that he is treated with decency and justice, not hatred, savagry and revenge.



Once again, YOU are whats wrong with the world. Why should he get fair treatment after what he has done? You would treat him better than he treats you? SAD!

Osama is a terrorist bent on killing millons and opressing billions, he doesn't deserve fair treatment, just death!
Cold Hard Bitch
21-07-2004, 07:25
yeah, i mean, why have any rights at all? i mean, if you arent doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. nobody has been hurt by an illegal search and seizure that didnt have it coming.


Terrorist don't respect your rights.
Goed
21-07-2004, 07:25
Ah, the old "he isn't even human!" technique.

Did you read any of my post? Of course not.
Studly Doright
21-07-2004, 07:31
Once again, YOU are whats wrong with the world. Why should he get fair treatment after what he has done? You would treat him better than he treats you? SAD!

Osama is a terrorist bent on killing millons and opressing billions, he doesn't deserve fair treatment, just death!


chb, i'd give osama a fair trial, i'd give hitler one and stalin. i'd give one to child molesters and serial killers, because that's a fundimental part of what makes us a nation worth living it, dare i say its what makes us better than them.

without that we are just a corrupt and mighty empire, whose time will pass and whose memory will fade and whose legacy will be just a bit more suffering added to the sum of human misery.
Cold Hard Bitch
21-07-2004, 07:34
chb, i'd give osama a fair trial, i'd give hitler one and stalin. i'd give one to child molesters and serial killers, because that's a fundimental part of what makes us a nation worth living it, dare i say its what makes us better than them.

without that we are just a corrupt and mighty empire, whose time will pass and whose memory will fade and whose legacy will be just a bit more suffering added to the sum of human misery.


You make that sound like a bad thing.
Studly Doright
21-07-2004, 07:36
[/b]


You make that sound like a bad thing.


lol... nevermind

damn those hippies anyway, they must slipped something in my drink...
Nazi Weaponized Virus
21-07-2004, 07:38
Osama is a terrorist bent on killing millons and opressing billions, he doesn't deserve fair treatment, just death!

If that is the case, why do so many support his ideology concerning American Foreign Policy on the streets of Arab Capitols?

Maybe its because their all mad anti americans? Maybe....

But more likely its the double standards, the invasions of Islamic countries, the killings of civilians and most of all but least documented, the propping up of despotic regimes all over the Muslim World which commit gross violations of human rights. Don't those people deserve to be 'liberated' as well?
Druthulhu
21-07-2004, 07:40
A gov't agent was trying to get Weaver to saw-down the lengths on shotguns. After all of run-up to it happened, Weaver's dog spotted gov't agents sneaking to the cabin. The dog barked, the agents killed the dog. Watching his dog die, Randy Weaver's teenage son shot back at the agents (as he was fearing for his life, and all). The kid was shot once and when he turned around to run to the cabin was shot in the back and killed. Randy's wife, while holding their baby, was shot in the head and killed instantly.....

What I'm saying, incase people are missing it, is that civil liberty abuses are nothing new. More of them happened under Clinton's watch than have happened under Bush's. Ruby Ridge is just the tip of the iceberg....

Me!

Honey, take a look at your first post again. Look at the date there: on Aug, 21, 1992 George Herbert Walker Bush was President of the U.S.A., not Bill Clinton. But much as I'd like to bash that bastard too, the problem is not the President. The problem is the police culture and their enshrined metaphor of the "thin blue line". To the rooky this might still be seen as the cops, as a line, protecting the good people from the criminals, but in reality it is the line of "us" and "them" that the cops draw between their "brotherhood" and the rest of society. It is a line that does not regard the line that divides criminals from the law abiding, and thus it comes as no surprise that it transects that line, leaving a healthy portion of criminals on both the cop side and the rest-of-us side. And the real problem comes when they start to see it that way, when it's "them" vs. "us" and if they can bust one of us, they will, but they have to trust eachother to watch eachothers' backs when things get heavy, so if they see they guy they share the car with breaking the law, or his family, they're far more likely to look away.

And in a culture of (mostly) men-with-guns (pretty much all), peer pressure can be a considerable force, unlike any most of us has ever known I would expect. ESPECIALLY when that culture is expected to have your back when things get deadly. Just ask Frank Serpico.

And so few cops are criminals, some of them pretty bad especially in certain big cities, and for all of them there is at least a few 100% more who become criminals by being accesories after the fact, at the very least. How many? I don't pretend to know the real numbers in terms of police corruption, but I would say: too many. Judging from the volume of stories we hear, and considering the probable multiplicity of that number in the things we don't hear, I would say definitely too many, since after all one is too many.

I have the greatest of respect for lawmen. It is in my mind the noblest and most heroic calling in our society. But it is a path of Honour and far too few of our police follow it. Along with Serpico let us recognize officer Melanie Singer for testifying against the four pigs who continued to beat Rodney King, attached to two tasers which caused a galvanic response that kept him from positioning himself as ordered, until after 56 baton blows and six kicks over a period of two minutes he had kidney damage, brain damage and eleven skull fractures. One of those pigs also testified against the others, and was ultimately aquited, probably because he had the balls to shove away one of the other pigs when he saw that King was no longer moving.

I have the utmost respect for lawmen, but pigs... criminals with badges... belong in the general population of our great nation's maximum security prisons. The problem is that their silent accomplices amongst their fellow officers seem to think that they are needed in the fight against crime. Such stupidity is hard to root out in such a traditionally macho culture, but we can start by treating all criminals with badges, including their accessories, just like the criminals that they are.

We need to remove internal affairs from the police structure and from the police culture. It needs to be based on the concept of the community review board and representitive of every neighbourhood under the authority of the local police agency, as well as employing their own officers. They need to have full arrest authority over the police, since the police can often not be expected to properly police themselves. Police officers who break the law must not be treated as departmental regulations violators. They must be treated as criminals.

And true lawmen should be lauded as heros.



- A.J.H.
Dungeness-Scambonia
21-07-2004, 07:46
Liberals use the Patriot act as an excuse to hate Bush, Even with the fact that nobody has been hurt by it.

Actually, I can give two examples of people who've been hurt by it. One is James Bailey, a literally toothless old bum who goes by the handle of "Jimbow the Hobow". Up near Mt. Shasta he got drunk and and started raving, as he sometimes does; this time he got onto the subject of freeways and how he hated them and would like to see them torn down. The local cops accused him of a terrorist act--conspiring to destroy part of the nation's transportation system--and got him locked up for 18 months. He's out now, but 18 months is a hell of a long sentence for "drunk and disorderly".

The other example is all of us. We can't go to a library or bookstore without knowing that the FBI can go there right after we leave and get a list of what we're reading. If you don't hate stuff like that, I don't know what you're doing in this country.
Druthulhu
21-07-2004, 07:49
Only you would defend a terrorist.lets hope he isn't the only one.

No no... let's hope no one defends him. In fact let's hope that there are no lawyers who will defend anyone that "our" government chooses to call a terrorist, while we're at it. They don't deserve trials, after all, they're not like you or me. They're terrorists, and we don't need to give them trials to prove it, because our leaders tell us they're terrorists.

WHY CAN'T THAT BE ENOUGH FOR SOME PEOPLE??? :(
Goed
21-07-2004, 07:54
To steal a line from another poster's who's name I don't remember, but made me laugh quite loudly...


YAY doubleplusgood Ingsoc!
Druthulhu
21-07-2004, 07:57
Once again, YOU are whats wrong with the world. Why should he get fair treatment after what he has done? You would treat him better than he treats you? SAD!

Osama is a terrorist bent on killing millons and opressing billions, he doesn't deserve fair treatment, just death!

So to fight monsters, we must become monsters, and all now deserve death.

It's about good and evil, Bitch. It's about WHY they are the bad guys, and it's about what is supposed to make us the good guys. If as you seem to be saying there is no moral highground, then we are indeed no better than they are. In effect, all it comes down to is "he started it!", and we become children playing at death.

If we throw aside the rule of law we deserve everything we dish out. You are indeed correct in that they deserve what they have done to rain back upon them, but we deserve better than to become as they are.

"WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"



- A.J.H.
Capitallo
21-07-2004, 08:06
Yeah, thank God.

*cough Abu Ghraib prison cough*

This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act keep reading high times and leave real political issues to people who actually know something.
Drum Corps Purists
21-07-2004, 08:10
The legal length of a shotgun barrel was at the time no less than 18 inches. The shotgun Randy Weaver sawed off had a barrel length of 17 and 3/4 inches.
That is a restriction government has no place imposing, and so Randy Weaver did nothing wrong.
Everything that happened was a result of a quarter inch sawn off a barrel, and because Weaver did not appear in court.
Which was not even his fault, since the court sent him the wrong date.
Drum Corps Purists
21-07-2004, 08:11
Ah, the old "he isn't even human!" technique.

Are you implying that he and other murderers ARE human?

I'm sorry, but that's the most disgusting, despicable thing I've ever heard. Excuse me while I go vomit...
Drum Corps Purists
21-07-2004, 08:13
You are indeed correct in that they deserve what they have done to rain back upon them, but we deserve better than to become as they are.

Exactly. And the way to do that is to beat him severely and execute him painfully. That way, society will be administering justice, thus making it morally superior to the subhuman, who actively OPPOSED justice.
Capitallo
21-07-2004, 08:14
Actually, I can give two examples of people who've been hurt by it. One is James Bailey, a literally toothless old bum who goes by the handle of "Jimbow the Hobow". Up near Mt. Shasta he got drunk and and started raving, as he sometimes does; this time he got onto the subject of freeways and how he hated them and would like to see them torn down. The local cops accused him of a terrorist act--conspiring to destroy part of the nation's transportation system--and got him locked up for 18 months. He's out now, but 18 months is a hell of a long sentence for "drunk and disorderly".

The other example is all of us. We can't go to a library or bookstore without knowing that the FBI can go there right after we leave and get a list of what we're reading. If you don't hate stuff like that, I don't know what you're doing in this country.

You don't even mention the worst parts. A) The patriot act takes away habeus corpus rights. These are the rights to having a trial and to be tried by peers instead of a military tribunal. The supreme court has ruled that these rights can only be taken away in times of civil war in 1861. Hey anyone know when we were fighting a civil war?
b) this bill talks about how it wont be racist 28 times in its text. Why do they have to reassure us that many times? There are no checks on the CIA/FBI powers now that the are no longer independant agencies the once were.

I can name one incident when a good organization called the School of Americas Watch ( a group that protests the training of right wing guerilla training in Fort Brenning Georgia) was questioned for hours. None of them had criminal records a few were sent to be held in prison without seeing their lawyers. Remember this may not sound too bad but it is only the begining of a slippery slope of restrictions. They tried to pass another USA Patriot Act and thank God it failed.
Goed
21-07-2004, 08:18
Exactly. And the way to do that is to beat him severely and execute him painfully. That way, society will be administering justice, thus making it morally superior to the subhuman, who actively OPPOSED justice.

The fact that you call him subhuman scares me.

You know, one fellow once ruled a country and thought Jews were subhuman.
Druthulhu
21-07-2004, 08:22
Exactly. And the way to do that is to beat him severely and execute him painfully. That way, society will be administering justice, thus making it morally superior to the subhuman, who actively OPPOSED justice.

Well... is that Bitch in a new mask? ...hmm... I see she still shows online... well...

We are almost in agreement, whoever you are. For people like Saddam and Osama (and others) I don't think a quick and painless execution would be needed to comply to our own requirements of a punishment not being cruel AND unusual.

However, I would like to first see their crimes proven to the satisfaction of a jury in a trial in which they have the right and ability to give evidence of their innocence, if they can find any...

So... why DO you hate America?


- A.J.H.
Drum Corps Purists
21-07-2004, 08:33
However, I would like to first see their crimes proven to the satisfaction of a jury in a trial in which they have the right and ability to give evidence of their innocence, if they can find any...

Where have I said anything to the contrary?
Drum Corps Purists
21-07-2004, 08:34
The fact that you call him subhuman scares me.

You know, one fellow once ruled a country and thought Jews were subhuman.

Ahh, Hitler comparisons. The last refuge of the soundly defeated.
Goed
21-07-2004, 08:35
I noticed you didn't actually respond to what I said
Drum Corps Purists
21-07-2004, 08:39
No need to. Your choice of tactics speaks for itself.
Goed
21-07-2004, 08:44
No it doesn't.

Why do you refuse to respond? I made a simple statement. Or would you rather I go further?


By classifing anyone as "sub-human," you degrade humanity as a whole. Suddenly, someone can be seen as "not as equal" as others. Now yes, at first by you're opinion it would only be terrorists. However, it will encompass others eventually.

For more information onf sub humans and people being "less equal then others," please referr to the novel 1984 by George Orwell ^_^
Murl
21-07-2004, 09:16
Liberals use the Patriot act as an excuse to hate Bush, Even with the fact that nobody has been hurt by it.
Apart from the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Druthulhu
21-07-2004, 09:21
Where have I said anything to the contrary?

you have said it, by ommission, here:

Exactly. And the way to do that is to beat him severely and execute him painfully. That way, society will be administering justice, thus making it morally superior to the subhuman, who actively OPPOSED justice.

You said "the way" to do that is torture and death... that is not "the way" ...certainly not by itself. That is only the punishment that they should get when the government has proven their guilt... without torture, btw.

Perhaps you were thinking it but you certainly seemed to come up on Cold Hard Bitch's side of the debate (for want of a better word). What we were talking about is whether they should be defended. The Bitch seems to think they shouldn't while I say that kind of makes a fair trial hard.

But anyway since you are NOT on the "they don't deserve rights" side, I apologize for asking you why you hate America :( Sorry.



- A.J.H.
Sheilanagig
21-07-2004, 13:15
From what I remember, Weaver was entrapped into sawing off a shotgun by federal agents, too.

I've known about this and other incidents for a long time. Hell, I bet most of you didn't know that the Posse Comitatus act was almost repealed in the Patriot Act. I bet most of you don't know what it is.

Our liberties have been seeping away for a long time, and it's not because of anything but attrition. People don't care.
Zeppistan
21-07-2004, 13:51
I'm curious, but is it just me or does argument posed by this thread seem to be: "because there were civil rights abuses in the past and prior denials of civil liberties, nobody should complain if what few liberties you do have are eroded further"?


Interesting concept.
Studly Doright
21-07-2004, 14:51
Ahh, Hitler comparisons. The last refuge of the soundly defeated.


ahh the assine and obviously false statement pronounced as proven fact, the middling recourse of the innane and moderately pathetic.
Studly Doright
21-07-2004, 14:54
Exactly. And the way to do that is to beat him severely and execute him painfully. That way, society will be administering justice, thus making it morally superior to the subhuman, who actively OPPOSED justice.


stupid yet barbaric and self satisfied, while displaying a profound misunderstanding of the issues and even some of the terms...

...go you...
Colerica
21-07-2004, 17:40
Honey, take a look at your first post again. Look at the date there: on Aug, 21, 1992 George Herbert Walker Bush was President of the U.S.A., not Bill Clinton.

Did I say Clinton was President during this?
Drum Corps Purists
21-07-2004, 21:53
No it doesn't.

Why do you refuse to respond?

Simple.

If you recognize the difference in context between killing Jews just for being Jews and killing murderers for being murderers, yet you choose to equate me for the man responsible for the former in an attempt to discredit me, then you are simply being intellectually dishonest. I do not waste my time with the dishonest.

If you do not recognize that difference, then you are so warped that any further action on my part would be pointless.

Either way, you're not worth it.
Sheilanagig
21-07-2004, 22:03
No it doesn't.

Why do you refuse to respond? I made a simple statement. Or would you rather I go further?


By classifing anyone as "sub-human," you degrade humanity as a whole. Suddenly, someone can be seen as "not as equal" as others. Now yes, at first by you're opinion it would only be terrorists. However, it will encompass others eventually.

For more information onf sub humans and people being "less equal then others," please referr to the novel 1984 by George Orwell ^_^

I think you're actually thinking of Animal Farm.
Druthulhu
22-07-2004, 00:43
What I'm saying, incase people are missing it, is that civil liberty abuses are nothing new. More of them happened under Clinton's watch than have happened under Bush's. Ruby Ridge is just the tip of the iceberg....

. . .

Did I say Clinton was President during this?

Yes. Yes you did.
Zaxon
27-07-2004, 18:57
Apart from the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Don't forget the nun on the national watch list for airline flights. :headbang: