J
Jim Brown
David said:
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a ****ing clue about the most basic law.
And 'throw a "suspect child porn" label' isnt reasonable suspicion ANYWAY.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a ****ing clue about the most basic law.
And 'throw a "suspect child porn" label' isnt reasonable suspicion ANYWAY.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
No, but that's what the Canadian Commission of Inquiry says.
"there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any
offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of
Canada."
"The Commission also found no evidence that Canadian officials
acquiesced in the U.S. decision to detain and remove Mr. Arar to Syria,
but that it is very likely that the U.S. relied on inaccurate and unfair
information about Mr. Arar that was provided by Canadian officials"
DevilsPGD wrote
You don't know that.
No, but that's what the Canadian Commission of Inquiry says.
"there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any
offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of
Canada."
"The Commission also found no evidence that Canadian officials
acquiesced in the U.S. decision to detain and remove Mr. Arar to Syria,
but that it is very likely that the U.S. relied on inaccurate and unfair
information about Mr. Arar that was provided by Canadian officials"
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
Yes, it is:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=picture+of+self+charged+child+porn
Almost as obnoxious is that receiving unsolicited pictures can place you
in legal jeopardy even if you delete them immediately after receiving
them and request the sender cease sending such pictures.
No it isnt if its a picture of yourself.
Yes, it is:
http://www.google.ca/search?q=picture+of+self+charged+child+porn
Almost as obnoxious is that receiving unsolicited pictures can place you
in legal jeopardy even if you delete them immediately after receiving
them and request the sender cease sending such pictures.
J
Jim Brown
DevilsPGD said:In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
Yes, it is:
No it isnt.
Those are just the stupid US legal system thats been completely off the rails for centurys now.
Almost as obnoxious is that receiving unsolicited pictures can place you in legal jeopardy
No it can't in any jurisdiction with a decent legal system.
even if you delete them immediately after receiving them
If you do that, there is no EVIDENCE to charge you with, fool.
J
Jim Brown
DevilsPGD said:In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
No, but that's what the Canadian Commission of Inquiry says.
"there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any
offence or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada."
Irrelevant to what evidence the US may have had that it wasnt prepared to divulge to Canada.
"The Commission also found no evidence that Canadian officials
acquiesced in the U.S. decision to detain and remove Mr. Arar to
Syria, but that it is very likely that the U.S. relied on inaccurate and
unfair information about Mr. Arar that was provided by Canadian officials"
Easy to claim. Pity it cant possibly substantiate that claim.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
The lack of any evidence being presented anywhere, by anyone, speaks to
the results. That's how the legal system works, one is presumed
innocent until evidence to the contrary is presented.
Irrelevant to what evidence the US may have had that it wasnt prepared to divulge to Canada.
Easy to claim. Pity it cant possibly substantiate that claim.
The lack of any evidence being presented anywhere, by anyone, speaks to
the results. That's how the legal system works, one is presumed
innocent until evidence to the contrary is presented.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
Agreed. And yet, a naked picture a child or teen takes of themselves
does expose them to child pornography charges.
The fact that it's stupid doesn't make it less true.
It has happened in a variety of legal systems around the world, it's not
a problem limited to any one country.
Wow. Seriously wow. You don't think cell phone companies keep records
of transmitted messages?
No it isnt.
Those are just the stupid US legal system thats been completely off the rails for centurys now.
Agreed. And yet, a naked picture a child or teen takes of themselves
does expose them to child pornography charges.
The fact that it's stupid doesn't make it less true.
No it can't in any jurisdiction with a decent legal system.
It has happened in a variety of legal systems around the world, it's not
a problem limited to any one country.
If you do that, there is no EVIDENCE to charge you with, fool.
Wow. Seriously wow. You don't think cell phone companies keep records
of transmitted messages?
J
Jim Brown
DevilsPGD said:In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
The lack of any evidence being presented anywhere, by anyone, speaks to the results.
No it does not. Those that kicked Arar out of the US dont need publicly presented evidence to do that.
That's how the legal system works, one is presumed
innocent until evidence to the contrary is presented.
Doesnt work like that when the US refuses you entry to their country.
Doesnt work like that when any other modern first world
country chooses to refuse you entry to their country either.
J
Jim Brown
DevilsPGD said:In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
Agreed. And yet, a naked picture a child or teen takes of
themselves does expose them to child pornography charges.
Nope, they still have to prove it in a court of law and not one of yours did.
The fact that it's stupid doesn't make it less true.
You havent presented even a single conviction in a court
of law for child porn when its a picture of yourself.
It has happened in a variety of legal systems around the world,
Not one CONVICTION for that.
it's not a problem limited to any one country.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Wow. Seriously wow.
Pathetic.
You don't think cell phone companies keep records of transmitted messages?
They dont keep records of the CONTENT of the messages.
J
Jim Brown
You are Rod Speed in disguise, aren't you?
You're so stupid you cant even manage to work out for yourself why that is done.
You can change your name, but you can't hide the rodbot-style knee-jerk responses, the set phrases, and the
copy-and-paste replies.
You never ever could bullshit and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.
M
Mike Tomlinson
David Brown said:You are Rod Speed in disguise, aren't you?
It is. I never see any of his posts 'cos he and all his sockpuppets are
killfiled. When I opened this thread and saw 37 messages available out
of 56, I knew Woddles had been off his meds again.
Don't waste your time on a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
A
Arno
David Brown said:David Brown wrote: [...]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a ****ing clue about the most basic law.
And 'throw a "suspect child porn" label' isnt reasonable suspicion ANYWAY.
You are Rod Speed in disguise, aren't you? You can change your name,
but you can't hide the rodbot-style knee-jerk responses, the set
phrases, and the copy-and-paste replies.
My thoughts exactly. Possibly a Rod Speed _on_ his medication
and trying hard, but still. Added to killfile.
Arno
4
45tg
Arno said:David Brown said:David Brown wrote: [...]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont have a
****ing clue about the most basic law.
And 'throw a "suspect child porn" label' isnt reasonable suspicion
ANYWAY.You are Rod Speed in disguise, aren't you? You can change your name,
but you can't hide the rodbot-style knee-jerk responses, the set
phrases, and the copy-and-paste replies.
My thoughts exactly. Possibly a Rod Speed _on_ his medication
and trying hard, but still. Added to killfile.
Usual response when it gets done like a ****ing dinner, as always.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Jim Brown"
It's worth noting he wasn't trying to enter, just transiting through. I
realize the US requires entry to transit, but normally when you're
declined the right to enter and have to be deported in the process of
transiting, you're deported to your destination (or at worst, your
origin) not another country.
The fact that the US sent him to another country rather than routing him
through to his destination is telling though.
Doesnt work like that when the US refuses you entry to their country.
It's worth noting he wasn't trying to enter, just transiting through. I
realize the US requires entry to transit, but normally when you're
declined the right to enter and have to be deported in the process of
transiting, you're deported to your destination (or at worst, your
origin) not another country.
Doesnt work like that when any other modern first world
country chooses to refuse you entry to their country either.
The fact that the US sent him to another country rather than routing him
through to his destination is telling though.
R
Rod Speed
DevilsPGD wrote
Doesnt work like that when the US refuses transit thru their country.
Wrong, as always.
Wrong, as always.
Yes, they obviously decided he was a terrorist. You have absolutely
no way of deciding what evidence they considered on that.
The Canadian Commission of Inquiry doesnt either.
It's worth noting he wasn't trying to enter, just transiting through.
Doesnt work like that when the US refuses transit thru their country.
I realize the US requires entry to transit, but normally when you're
declined the right to enter and have to be deported in the process of
transiting, you're deported to your destination (or at worst, your origin)
Wrong, as always.
not another country.
Wrong, as always.
The fact that the US sent him to another country rather
than routing him through to his destination is telling though.
Yes, they obviously decided he was a terrorist. You have absolutely
no way of deciding what evidence they considered on that.
The Canadian Commission of Inquiry doesnt either.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Rod Speed"
So what is it that you think happens when someone attempts to transit
through the US on the way to the country of their citizenship if the US
refuses entry?
DevilsPGD wrote
Wrong, as always.
So what is it that you think happens when someone attempts to transit
through the US on the way to the country of their citizenship if the US
refuses entry?
R
Rod Speed
DevilsPGD wrote
They usually get to go wherever they want and get to pay for that themselves.
They are just detained until what they want to preceed on out of the US shows up etc.
The US clearly decided that that particular individual was Al Queda etc and chose to render him.
You have no way of knowing whether the evidence they had
justified that conclusion unless it shows up on Wikileaks etc.
So what is it that you think happens when someone attempts to transit through
the US on the way to the country of their citizenship if the US refuses entry?
They usually get to go wherever they want and get to pay for that themselves.
They are just detained until what they want to preceed on out of the US shows up etc.
The US clearly decided that that particular individual was Al Queda etc and chose to render him.
You have no way of knowing whether the evidence they had
justified that conclusion unless it shows up on Wikileaks etc.
D
DevilsPGD
In message <[email protected]> "Rod Speed"
Right -- Which is what I just said above. The guy wanted to go to
Canada. He was a Canadian citizen, and was welcome in Canada. He
bought a ticket to travel to Canada. He landed on US soil, and the US
sent him to an uninvolved country rather than releasing him into
Canadian custody.
It's also worth noting that they did so without legal oversight, and
that he wasn't placed under arrest when he was deported, nor was he
extradited or anything else that would justify shipping him to an
uninvolved country.
DevilsPGD wrote
They usually get to go wherever they want and get to pay for that themselves.
They are just detained until what they want to preceed on out of the US shows up etc.
Right -- Which is what I just said above. The guy wanted to go to
Canada. He was a Canadian citizen, and was welcome in Canada. He
bought a ticket to travel to Canada. He landed on US soil, and the US
sent him to an uninvolved country rather than releasing him into
Canadian custody.
It's also worth noting that they did so without legal oversight, and
that he wasn't placed under arrest when he was deported, nor was he
extradited or anything else that would justify shipping him to an
uninvolved country.
R
Rod Speed
David Brown wrote
No one ever said anything like that. They **** up, just like everyone else does.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
Rod Speed wrote
Yes, we must all learn to trust the US authorities more.
No one ever said anything like that. They **** up, just like everyone else does.
They are, after all, the US authorities - the guardians of all that is good and just and free and democratic in this
world. They practically invented
democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights, and they founded their
country on the motto of "Freedom! Equality! Brotherhood!" (except of
course if you were a slave - they don't count).
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
By definition, therefore, anything the US authorities say is the
gospel truth. They cannot lie or make a mistake - you must just be
misunderstanding things. If it looks like they are supporting
anti-democratic regimes, or provoking wars, or selling arms to human
rights abusing countries, then it's just your lack of understanding.
Remember, you don't have to know everything - the US works in
mysterious ways, and there is always a plan and a reason beyond the
ken of the simple foreigner.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
So since the US authorities decided this character was a terrorist,
then he was a terrorist. Even though no one else thought so, and no
one else ever saw any evidence or justification behind this label, he
was still a terrorist. No more evidence is necessary - the US
authorities declared him a terrorist, therefore he was a terrorist. Why should they waste time and effort trying to
explain themselves to
the mere mortals across their northern border? Canada should know by
now that being an ally of the US means doing what the US says, when
it says it, and not asking questions. Canada doesn't have the right
to know what the US is doing to one of its citizens unless the US
gives them that right.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.
R
Rod Speed
DevilsPGD wrote
No it isnt, they arent DEPORTED. Just REFUSED ENTRY, a different matter entirely.
Thats happened to plenty of terrorists.
Because they believed that he is a terrorist.
There is never any legal oversight with the refusal to allow someone into the country.
If you dont like that, you had better do the decent thing and set fire to yourself on Capitol Hill or sumfin.
If he doesnt like the way the US does things, he shouldnt have tried to transit thru their country.
Right -- Which is what I just said above.
No it isnt, they arent DEPORTED. Just REFUSED ENTRY, a different matter entirely.
The guy wanted to go to Canada. He was a Canadian citizen, and was welcome in Canada.
Thats happened to plenty of terrorists.
He bought a ticket to travel to Canada. He landed
on US soil, and the US sent him to an uninvolved
country rather than releasing him into Canadian custody.
Because they believed that he is a terrorist.
It's also worth noting that they did so without legal oversight,
There is never any legal oversight with the refusal to allow someone into the country.
and that he wasn't placed under arrest when he was deported,
nor was he extradited or anything else that would justify shipping
him to an uninvolved country.
If you dont like that, you had better do the decent thing and set fire to yourself on Capitol Hill or sumfin.
If he doesnt like the way the US does things, he shouldnt have tried to transit thru their country.