Communist Revolution in Canada?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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.

You mean unlawful like the case you just cited? Didn't the gov still do it?

Ping.

[notyoueither]

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?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


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.

QFT

This might be a very interesting sequence for anyone interested in watching accidents as they happen.

CRASH!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You mean unlawful like the case you just cited? Didn't the gov still do it?

So you are arguing that the government doing something contrary to the law, as decided by a judge, means that it is allowed under that law? So if the Canadian government unlawfully detained someone and a court said so, that means the unlawful detention was something that flowed from under the law.

I can't believe it... you actually are that crazy.

[notyoueither]

see above

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

ruled that his detention as a material witness without being charged was unlawful.

QFT

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


So you are arguing that the government doing something contrary to the law, as decided by a judge, means that it is allowed under that law? So if the Canadian government unlawfully detained someone and a court said so, that means the unlawful detention was something that flowed from under the law.

I can't believe it... you actually are that crazy.

I'm not saying anything of the sort, you silly man.

I have not said that the US govt is detaining people AFTER a judge says let them go.

I am saying that people have been detained for their sympathies. If you wish to deny that you are worse than a fool, you are a dangerous fool.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am saying that people have been detained for their sympathies. If you wish to deny that you are worse than a fool, you are a dangerous fool.

I see... so someone is a fool for denying something said by someone who has only circumstantial evidence, at best. If people are being detained for their sympathies, why so few? Why not the vast numbers of people who may hold such sympathies.

Could it be because the authorities believed that the detainees may have been involved in terrorist activities (actually activities, not just saying wouldn't it be nice)? And perhaps they attempted to misuse the law because while they believed those people may have been involved, they didn't have conclusive proof of that fact? Perhaps they were mistaken, but to assume that mistakes don't happen in law enforcement is fanciful (many innocents have been detained for interrogation or whatnot even before 9/11).

It simply makes no sense to say that people have been detained because of their sympathies, or else it'd be far, far, far more than the numbers actually detained, including plenty in my Muslim community back home who may have felt that the US deserved it (none of whom have been detained, btw).

If you want to stick to your fantasies so you can somehow justify going after anarchist groups, go right ahead.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Frankly, I'd think it appauling that a Western democracy would close down a group like this for 'sedition'. A blatent violation of free speech rights (Oh, and laws that the Germans and French, etc, have against Nazi parties already do appaul me, fyi).

Originally posted by notyoueither
What is the status of alQ in the US, Imran?

Hamas?

The exchange that started this... entertaining diversion.

Please show me where I said I wanted the authorities to shut these guys down before they actually took any action.

And what is the status of AQ, Imran? It would be unlawful to put up a site for recruiting on a US server, would it not? For how long after the war on terror is won?

Can you not understand bans on Nazis in Germany?

Nevermind. I can count on you for neither an honest nor an informed opinion on US law.

[Patroklos]

Wait until their property is confiscated. History shows that they get real mean. Don't forget there is lots of historical precedent to go by.

Errr....

Wouldn't that mean the capitalists are defending themselves against communists using violence to take their property?

Communists....

[Kidlicious]

Ownership is control over something. They would be defending their control, just like every other government who has faced revolutionaries in the past.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Errr....

Wouldn't that mean the capitalists are defending themselves against communists using violence to take their property?

Communists....

See?

[Saras]

Originally posted by techumseh


See?

See, he posted "see?"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ninot
so which one is which?

is Hitler the mollester, or the drunk driver?

You really aren't that ignorant, are you?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Is that accurate? Does that note mean that the statute is still active as of the year 2000?

IIRC, the Smith Act was declared unconstitutional in 1977.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You really aren't that ignorant, are you?

I thought about it, and I think an argument can be made for either.

Same goes for Stalin.

So whats your answer?