Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Should the judge ruling on Jose Padillla's case have to undergo the same treatment to determine if torture?
Answer:
Sorry, deux, you're getting to be too much of a liberal. If the judge released Padilla by reason of "outrageous government conduct", he'd be giving hundreds of "terrorists" the keys to their jail cells.
Seriously, as a human being, this judge could have figured that Padilla was tortured. The old obscenity standard gives a good enough definition.
The judge in the Padilla case only ruled that claims of torture were not enough to force a dismissal of the case. The torture claims can be raised at trial. Her ruling is not nearly as significant as the media would have us believe.
The judge is merely using the letter of the law. The media exploits the rest.
Should the internet be used only for pro-government opinions?
There should be a law that using the internet to inform others about government sins and agendas is a felony.
We need authority to be respected and obeyed, even if it will lead us to genocide and civil war.
Shouldn't there be a law banning anti-government sentiments?
.
Answer:
There probably already is such a law.... in CHINA.
If you want to live in a country where using the internet to point out your own government's "sins and agendas" is a felony, then move to China.
(I think I detect that your question really is just to get people to appreciate the importance of free speech. Nobody in America (not even Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly) could be so pro-government to suggest criminalizing dissent. Besides-- what's good for the goose is good for the gander....)
only when a liberal Dim is in power. it's the only way they can hold on to power
People have fought and died for the very right to criticize the government, taking away that very right empowers the government in ways we do not even want to imagine.
Sure if you are pro-fascism fight for such a law, however I for one will be one of the most outspoken critics of it.
Of course not, because it will give the poor unemployed Bush bashers nothing to do. Then everyone would lose the sacred secret of hiding behind their keyboard. There would be no anonymity. People would die or boredom or there would be mass suicides in all the "Red" states.
Besides, once a Democrat gets elected President I want to be able to complain about every fault of theirs. However, a Democrat won't be President until 2012 at the earliest. I mean when you have Mrs Clinton and Obama as your primary front runner??? Come on, you are going to have to do better than that.
Have you heard of your first amendment right to Free Speech? While we are at it maybe you would suggest we burn books too.
This country was built on the rights of people to say what they want to. In addition, the government is elected, made up of human beings , just like you and me and if they are committing crimes we the people who elected them have a right to know.
We need authority to be respected and obeyed, even if it will lead us to genocide and civil war.
Shouldn't there be a law banning anti-government sentiments?
.
Answer:
There probably already is such a law.... in CHINA.
If you want to live in a country where using the internet to point out your own government's "sins and agendas" is a felony, then move to China.
(I think I detect that your question really is just to get people to appreciate the importance of free speech. Nobody in America (not even Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly) could be so pro-government to suggest criminalizing dissent. Besides-- what's good for the goose is good for the gander....)
only when a liberal Dim is in power. it's the only way they can hold on to power
People have fought and died for the very right to criticize the government, taking away that very right empowers the government in ways we do not even want to imagine.
Sure if you are pro-fascism fight for such a law, however I for one will be one of the most outspoken critics of it.
Of course not, because it will give the poor unemployed Bush bashers nothing to do. Then everyone would lose the sacred secret of hiding behind their keyboard. There would be no anonymity. People would die or boredom or there would be mass suicides in all the "Red" states.
Besides, once a Democrat gets elected President I want to be able to complain about every fault of theirs. However, a Democrat won't be President until 2012 at the earliest. I mean when you have Mrs Clinton and Obama as your primary front runner??? Come on, you are going to have to do better than that.
Have you heard of your first amendment right to Free Speech? While we are at it maybe you would suggest we burn books too.
This country was built on the rights of people to say what they want to. In addition, the government is elected, made up of human beings , just like you and me and if they are committing crimes we the people who elected them have a right to know.
Should the Indian Court oversteps the limits of its authority ?
1)The courts are authorised to 'interpret the law'?(Not authorised for making any new legislation?
2)The court is authorised to see whether the new law (passed by the legslature)is within the costitutional limits.
Answer:
no court should overstep its authority
but, i don't understand what you are asking about
Yes
2)The court is authorised to see whether the new law (passed by the legslature)is within the costitutional limits.
Answer:
no court should overstep its authority
but, i don't understand what you are asking about
Yes
Should the government take our DNA and place it on file?
I wanted to see other peoples opinions on the subject.
Answer:
No, because it alters the relationship between the people and the state. If the state demands your DNA, it is saying that you're not a citizen, but rather a criminal or potential criminal who must be monitored and tagged.
Only vicious, out-of-control dictatorial regimes would believe in monitoring and controlling all citizens all of the time just 鈥榠n case鈥?a tiny minority of individuals get up to no good.
Those who say "if you've nothing to hide etc" then presumably you wouldn't object to the Government putting spy cameras in every room in the house (incl. bedroom and bathroom) "just in case" you were a terrorist/ child molester/ burglar/ wofe beater etc.
That's a big no.
Absolutely not - unless you are a convicted criminal.
Yes, most definitely.
Everychild born in America and every person entering America should provide DNA proof of identity and fingerprints.
Then, when little Johnny grows up to be a serial rapist we will know right where to look.
No way. Do you trust your government to do anything right? With all the foreign owned businesses and medical corporations, how can you possibly believe that they won't illegally use your DNA or even begin to harvest your organs for their lawbreakers? Almost every database in the USA has been hacked. Medical identity theft is growing almost as fast as identity theft.
I do, however, favor keeping criminal DNA and DNA from illegal immigrants in a database.
Abso-freaking-lutely NOT! They have no business having my DNA on file, I have committed no crime (that they know about) and I still have a right to some sort of privacy, especially the privacy of my DNA code. Thanks and have a nice day.
Wow, in looking at some of the other responses, it is nice to see that fascism is still alive and kicking.
why not? if you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
and I wouldn't mind if the govt. put cameras in my house. Ive got nothing to hide. is your privacy supposed to be more important than national security?
Absolutely not! That is invading my privacy!
If they have ever been arrested I think they should do it this way if they want to do it but only if they take you in for any crime they should be able to and need to.
Gestapo.
why would they want to do that any time they want it they could get it even if you're dead stupid question
Hell No! This would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; The right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures and arguable in the 5th Amendment; no one must witness against his or herself, no loss of life, liberty or private property without due process. Taking someone's DNA without having been convicted of a crime wreaks of a totalitarian police state.
There is also a clear violation to the 9th %26 10th Amendments respectively. The 9th Amendment states; The rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people, any right not stated is enumerated as belonging to the people. The 10th Amendment states; Undelegated powers belong to the people unless given by the people to their respective state. This is not nor should it ever be a "Federal" issue. This would be unconstitutional to say the least. I have heard the argument that it would help stop terrorism and catalogue every person that should not be in this country. So, you give your DNA over and the crimminals and terrorists don't. The government argues that this would help make us safer, however they can't guarantee you will be safe. Okay, if you can't guarantee my safety, then I'll just say NO to your scams and keep my Bill of Rights! Think about it? There are no guarantees to safety anyhow. Yet, we hand our constitutional rights over to a bunch of morons who'll probably get us killed one way or another! Benjamen Franklin said it best; "Those that are willing to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
I like my relationship with the government to be on a need to know basis.
I think we as citizens need to resist invasion of our privacy. Do you really want the government know everything about you ?
I dont like crime either. So lets work on getting people out of desperate situations that lead them to turn to crime. Educated people who are not stressed about finding money will make for a much less violent society. Not give them all our information so that they can find out everythign about us.
Sometimes governments try to control their people, you dont want to give them ways to do so. Cause you never know when the wrong people will be in office.
Answer:
No, because it alters the relationship between the people and the state. If the state demands your DNA, it is saying that you're not a citizen, but rather a criminal or potential criminal who must be monitored and tagged.
Only vicious, out-of-control dictatorial regimes would believe in monitoring and controlling all citizens all of the time just 鈥榠n case鈥?a tiny minority of individuals get up to no good.
Those who say "if you've nothing to hide etc" then presumably you wouldn't object to the Government putting spy cameras in every room in the house (incl. bedroom and bathroom) "just in case" you were a terrorist/ child molester/ burglar/ wofe beater etc.
That's a big no.
Absolutely not - unless you are a convicted criminal.
Yes, most definitely.
Everychild born in America and every person entering America should provide DNA proof of identity and fingerprints.
Then, when little Johnny grows up to be a serial rapist we will know right where to look.
No way. Do you trust your government to do anything right? With all the foreign owned businesses and medical corporations, how can you possibly believe that they won't illegally use your DNA or even begin to harvest your organs for their lawbreakers? Almost every database in the USA has been hacked. Medical identity theft is growing almost as fast as identity theft.
I do, however, favor keeping criminal DNA and DNA from illegal immigrants in a database.
Abso-freaking-lutely NOT! They have no business having my DNA on file, I have committed no crime (that they know about) and I still have a right to some sort of privacy, especially the privacy of my DNA code. Thanks and have a nice day.
Wow, in looking at some of the other responses, it is nice to see that fascism is still alive and kicking.
why not? if you haven't done anything wrong, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.
and I wouldn't mind if the govt. put cameras in my house. Ive got nothing to hide. is your privacy supposed to be more important than national security?
Absolutely not! That is invading my privacy!
If they have ever been arrested I think they should do it this way if they want to do it but only if they take you in for any crime they should be able to and need to.
Gestapo.
why would they want to do that any time they want it they could get it even if you're dead stupid question
Hell No! This would be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment; The right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures and arguable in the 5th Amendment; no one must witness against his or herself, no loss of life, liberty or private property without due process. Taking someone's DNA without having been convicted of a crime wreaks of a totalitarian police state.
There is also a clear violation to the 9th %26 10th Amendments respectively. The 9th Amendment states; The rights beyond the Bill of Rights belong to the people, any right not stated is enumerated as belonging to the people. The 10th Amendment states; Undelegated powers belong to the people unless given by the people to their respective state. This is not nor should it ever be a "Federal" issue. This would be unconstitutional to say the least. I have heard the argument that it would help stop terrorism and catalogue every person that should not be in this country. So, you give your DNA over and the crimminals and terrorists don't. The government argues that this would help make us safer, however they can't guarantee you will be safe. Okay, if you can't guarantee my safety, then I'll just say NO to your scams and keep my Bill of Rights! Think about it? There are no guarantees to safety anyhow. Yet, we hand our constitutional rights over to a bunch of morons who'll probably get us killed one way or another! Benjamen Franklin said it best; "Those that are willing to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."
I like my relationship with the government to be on a need to know basis.
I think we as citizens need to resist invasion of our privacy. Do you really want the government know everything about you ?
I dont like crime either. So lets work on getting people out of desperate situations that lead them to turn to crime. Educated people who are not stressed about finding money will make for a much less violent society. Not give them all our information so that they can find out everythign about us.
Sometimes governments try to control their people, you dont want to give them ways to do so. Cause you never know when the wrong people will be in office.
Should the government crack down on smoking laws?
Just answer yes or no. It's for an opinion poll in my government class. Thanks all!
Answer:
your question cannot be answered correctly.
you need to re word it. it is confusing
should the government enforce anti smoking laws,
and create new ones?
No
if these answers your counting are going to be used as a result for your poll in class. understand that your data is incorrect. you might as well just make up the numbers
I suggest scratching this question (pick a best answer though) and try reposting your question correctly
I'll keep an eye out for your new one and answer it.
No
yes
no
Crack down on smoking laws? Yes.
Crack down on smoking? No.
Eh. Nah.
yes
yup!
No.
no
yes
smoking should be banned from the world!!!!!!!!!!!
no if that happens we well all go crazy
You really need to re-word this question.
Are you asking if the government should abandon anti-smoking laws or are you asking if government laws should be enforced against smokers?
I don't understand what you are asking.
No answer, you didn't state what cracking down means.
I agree w/ Anthony Spears.
I can't tell from your question if that means yes or no.
no
The government should crack down on lying politicians!
And then go find the safety belts that are missing from the transit buses!
If they are really are that concerned about ones safety and welfare?
yes
Like others said, I'm not sure how to interpret your question.
I'm GLAD they just banned smoking inside public building in AZ.
Beyond that I don't really care what they do.
Not sure what you mean by crack down but here is a shot at it.
As far as smoking goes it is a personal choice- so no.
As far as smoking in public places you are not the only one there and you shouldn't be able to expose people to carcinogens against there will- so yes.
As far as cracking down on, oh say, people selling to underage and such, it depends on how they go about it- so with certain rules in place yes.
Sorry if this doesn't help out.
Answer:
your question cannot be answered correctly.
you need to re word it. it is confusing
should the government enforce anti smoking laws,
and create new ones?
No
if these answers your counting are going to be used as a result for your poll in class. understand that your data is incorrect. you might as well just make up the numbers
I suggest scratching this question (pick a best answer though) and try reposting your question correctly
I'll keep an eye out for your new one and answer it.
No
yes
no
Crack down on smoking laws? Yes.
Crack down on smoking? No.
Eh. Nah.
yes
yup!
No.
no
yes
smoking should be banned from the world!!!!!!!!!!!
no if that happens we well all go crazy
You really need to re-word this question.
Are you asking if the government should abandon anti-smoking laws or are you asking if government laws should be enforced against smokers?
I don't understand what you are asking.
No answer, you didn't state what cracking down means.
I agree w/ Anthony Spears.
I can't tell from your question if that means yes or no.
no
The government should crack down on lying politicians!
And then go find the safety belts that are missing from the transit buses!
If they are really are that concerned about ones safety and welfare?
yes
Like others said, I'm not sure how to interpret your question.
I'm GLAD they just banned smoking inside public building in AZ.
Beyond that I don't really care what they do.
Not sure what you mean by crack down but here is a shot at it.
As far as smoking goes it is a personal choice- so no.
As far as smoking in public places you are not the only one there and you shouldn't be able to expose people to carcinogens against there will- so yes.
As far as cracking down on, oh say, people selling to underage and such, it depends on how they go about it- so with certain rules in place yes.
Sorry if this doesn't help out.
Should the government burn down the pizza place where the Fort Dix attacker worked?
It was owned by his father,
"One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father's pizzeria 鈥?Super Mario's Restaurant 鈥?in Cookstown and made deliveries to the base, using the opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said."
His father must have known his son was a radical, yet he refused to inform the police. That makes him an accomplice to terrorism. Why is allowed to continue to be open?
Answer:
I just saw another question pertaining to this same topic, so I'm just going to give the same answer here. (Note: I don't think the government should burn anything down! Burning the place down is accomplishing nothing except wasting a perfectly good pizza restaurant. It's not the building's fault that these people did this!)
What I don't understand is how the security at that base allows the delivery drivers to just go straight through onto the base! I'm sure that there is some security checkpoint/guard shack at all the entrances to the base that are manned 24 hours a day. The pizza driver should be required to wait outside the base at the guard shack, and the person who placed the order can come out and get it. Have you have ever heard of Menards (Big home-improvement store similar to Home Depot or Lowes)? I delivered pizza for three years in the city that is home to the Menards distribution center, and even that place wouldn't let us past the guard shacks due to security threats! They have golf carts, etc to travel quickly between the guard shack and the buildings, so its not like the person ordering the food has to even walk far! Something is seriously wrong with the "system" if a home-improvement store has higher security measures in place than an air force base!!
i don't think they should burn down anything!
If you read the article, his father claims not to have known. And this is America, not Riyadh, we don't go around burning down stores on account of some man's son's behavior!
I think that the government should definately burn down the pizza place, but first they should take out all the pizzas.
I hate to see a tasty pizza go to waste just to punish terrorist scum!
no they were just stupid and thought they could kill the people but they were wrong so just leave it alone
"One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father's pizzeria 鈥?Super Mario's Restaurant 鈥?in Cookstown and made deliveries to the base, using the opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said."
His father must have known his son was a radical, yet he refused to inform the police. That makes him an accomplice to terrorism. Why is allowed to continue to be open?
Answer:
I just saw another question pertaining to this same topic, so I'm just going to give the same answer here. (Note: I don't think the government should burn anything down! Burning the place down is accomplishing nothing except wasting a perfectly good pizza restaurant. It's not the building's fault that these people did this!)
What I don't understand is how the security at that base allows the delivery drivers to just go straight through onto the base! I'm sure that there is some security checkpoint/guard shack at all the entrances to the base that are manned 24 hours a day. The pizza driver should be required to wait outside the base at the guard shack, and the person who placed the order can come out and get it. Have you have ever heard of Menards (Big home-improvement store similar to Home Depot or Lowes)? I delivered pizza for three years in the city that is home to the Menards distribution center, and even that place wouldn't let us past the guard shacks due to security threats! They have golf carts, etc to travel quickly between the guard shack and the buildings, so its not like the person ordering the food has to even walk far! Something is seriously wrong with the "system" if a home-improvement store has higher security measures in place than an air force base!!
i don't think they should burn down anything!
If you read the article, his father claims not to have known. And this is America, not Riyadh, we don't go around burning down stores on account of some man's son's behavior!
I think that the government should definately burn down the pizza place, but first they should take out all the pizzas.
I hate to see a tasty pizza go to waste just to punish terrorist scum!
no they were just stupid and thought they could kill the people but they were wrong so just leave it alone
Should the government be encouraged to humiliate criminals and bring back the stocks?
The idea of allowing the criminals victims and family, (who have been damaged and humilated), the chance to throw things at the criminal, who is housed in wooden stocks for a long time. The procedure can be requested at any time and as often as they want.
Answer:
I think when it comes to more serious crimes that affect survivors, survivor is the preferred term instead of victim, that we should re-evaluate our laws. For instance, if some sick freak rapes a 4 year old, should he just spend some time in jail? I say no! Lets crack down and make people do some serious time, make criminals suffer. God kows the survivors suffer plenty for the rest of the lifes!
Yeh good thought we could always bring back the cat-o-nine tails as well and whip their hides in public displays !
No way, this is what we should have learned from the Mcarthy hearings.
One has to prove something and then he will have to pay his debt to society, but how will public humilation make him reform his ways?
Answer:
I think when it comes to more serious crimes that affect survivors, survivor is the preferred term instead of victim, that we should re-evaluate our laws. For instance, if some sick freak rapes a 4 year old, should he just spend some time in jail? I say no! Lets crack down and make people do some serious time, make criminals suffer. God kows the survivors suffer plenty for the rest of the lifes!
Yeh good thought we could always bring back the cat-o-nine tails as well and whip their hides in public displays !
No way, this is what we should have learned from the Mcarthy hearings.
One has to prove something and then he will have to pay his debt to society, but how will public humilation make him reform his ways?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)