Communist Revolution in Canada?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




So in your world being against the law doesn't mean that the law requires a person to be prosecuted if he violates that law? I didn't know that the police and prosecutors actually wrote the law in your neck of the woods.

What planet do you reside on anyway?

Apparently not one where I'll describe night as day and black as white. What's it like over there?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've shown you the law that you claim used to exist, but now you claim doesn't really mean anything... even if it does exist.

Yes, where does is this 'sedition' law? From the US statutes and case law, all I see is that the US can only get you if your advocation presents a "clear and present danger" to the US government. Where was the anti-Al Queda sympathizer law again? Hell, if we had one, this administration would love to use it!

I'm being desperate?

Yes... pathetically so

[Imran Siddiqui]

Apparently not one where I'll describe night as day and black as white.

You mean where statutes are clearly limited by judicial rulings which determine what their wording actually is? That actually seems to be a world where day is day and white is white. Telling that you can't see it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I've shown you the law that you claim used to exist, but now you claim doesn't really mean anything... even if it does exist.

Yes, where does is this 'sedition' law? From the US statutes and case law, all I see is that the US can only get you if your advocation presents a "clear and present danger" to the US government. Where was the anti-Al Queda sympathizer law again? Hell, if we had one, this administration would love to use it!

I'm being desperate?

Yes... pathetically so

You denied the law existed. You asked where it was. I showed you. It's your own bloody law, and you are a lawyer.

Now you are trying to hide behind the skirts of the justices like a reprimanded schoolboy will cling to mommy.

Where is the pathetic display?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Apparently not one where I'll describe night as day and black as white.

You mean where statutes are clearly limited by judicial rulings which determine what their wording actually is? That actually seems to be a world where day is day and white is white. Telling that you can't see it.

No, like saying something doesn't exist when it does, and then saying 'oh, that law, well that doesn't matter anyways because...'

You might be a good lawyer someday, Imran, even if you are ignorant of statute. You never give up, no matter how wrong your side has been demonstrated to be on the facts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You denied the law existed. You asked where it was. I showed you. It's your own bloody law, and you are a lawyer.

Now you are trying to hide behind the skirts of the justices like a reprimanded schoolboy will cling to mommy.

Where is the pathetic display?

The law that bars people who symphatize with Al Queda or Hamas, the law that prevents people from advocating overthrow of the government without taking any violent steps, has still not been shown to exist. The statute you've linked only applies when there has been "clear and present danger".

If you haven't noticed statutes aren't final authorities by themselves. There are these things, known as courts, that kind of define what the words mean.

And it all started by you saying that supporting Al Queda or Hamas (without any violent activity) would get you in legal trouble in the US.

Yes, yours is the pathetic display... one for not getting the law when its been explained to you and two for failing badly in showing that symphathy with Al Queda and Hamas will land you in jail or with a fine.

[notyoueither]

Well, Arar, and some Yanks apparently, have been detained, and some sent for torture, simply for sharing a mosque, or whatever other voodoo your wise men use.

Pong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

saying something doesn't exist when it does

And where does this statute that will punish you for simply sympathizing with Al Queda or Hamas exist? Where is this statute? If there is one, I'm sure the DoJ would like to know, because I'm sure they are itching to put those people in jail.

[notyoueither]

And I don;t see your courts doing a whole hell of a lot about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, Arar, and some Yanks apparently, have been detained, and some sent for torture, simply for sharing a mosque, or whatever other voodoo your wise men use.

And they were suspected of actively enaging in terrorist activity (as your government also thought they were), not simply of sympathizing with Al Queda or Hamas.

If sympathizing with Hamas could put you away, I'm shocked so many Muslims are allowed to live their lives in safety... even while working within the government!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

saying something doesn't exist when it does

And where does this statute that will punish you for simply sympathizing with Al Queda or Hamas exist? Where is this statute? If there is one, I'm sure the DoJ would like to know, because I'm sure they are itching to put those people in jail.

Well, from an earlier link, they are using a certain 'Material Witness Law' to good effect.

What are your courts doing about it, hmm?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And they were suspected of actively enaging in terrorist activity (as your government also thought they were), not simply of sympathizing with Al Queda or Hamas.

If sympathizing with Hamas could put you away, I'm shocked so many Muslims are allowed to live their lives in safety... even while working within the government!

Held without trial, representation, or any other rights simply for suspicion... I wonder if symathies with Hamas or AQ could play into that.

What do you say? Is it possible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, from an earlier link, they are using a certain 'Material Witness Law' to good effect.

What are your courts doing about it, hmm?

Funny you asked .

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11370&c=206

The American Civil Liberties Union today urged a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that the government unlawfully used the material witness statute to detain a Jordanian-born college student for 20 days.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the perjury charges against Awadallah and ruled that his detention as a material witness without being charged was unlawful. Authorities "made several misrepresentations and omissions" to get an arrest warrant for Awadallah and then misapplied the material witness statute to have him testify before a grand jury, she said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Held without trial, representation, or any other rights simply for suspicion... I wonder if symathies with Hamas or AQ could play into that.

What do you say? Is it possible?

Under US law, no. Such detention would be unlawful.

Unless you are seriously arguing that when the government acts unlawfully and the courts smack them down that means the law allows for that unlawful detention. But that's even too crazy for you, I hope.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Funny you asked .

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11370&c=206

The American Civil Liberties Union today urged a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that the government unlawfully used the material witness statute to detain a Jordanian-born college student for 20 days.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the perjury charges against Awadallah and ruled that his detention as a material witness without being charged was unlawful. Authorities "made several misrepresentations and omissions" to get an arrest warrant for Awadallah and then misapplied the material witness statute to have him testify before a grand jury, she said.

That's 1. 999 to go, or more, since the count could still increase.