Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then I will explain it...

Quote:
You are quoting out of context a reply I made to someone else (not you).

I did not quote it 'out of context' as I included the entire quote.  And what does it matter who you were replying to?  If you wanted it to be a private discussion, you should have made the comment in a PM.

Quote:
Asking where you could buy a gun is part of planning to do the murder.  And people have been arrested in the UK for trying to procure a gun (or a gunman).

No, asking where you can get a gun changes the situation because it shows intent.  It also involves a second person which coould make it a conspiracy.  Something that would get you investigated, if not arrested.  Trying to procure a gunman will get you arrested here as well because, again, that shows intent.

Quote:
I fail to see what 'facts' I have mis represented.

I said, "I would be interested to see how an 'intent' law would work.  Just because I planned a robbery or a murder, doesn't mean I would actually carry out that plan."

To which you responded, "in the UK, people are arrested before they try and commit a murder if the authorities become aware."

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.  How do I know this?  Because you had to clarify your statement to include a criminal act...an attempt to buy a gun illegally.

Quote:
And have you spoken to the person I was replying to, to confirm that he is feeling distraught/wounded/dismayed about my clarification of what I meant.

Why would anbody do this?  First, your clarification was for a post you made to me.  Second, as I said before, this is a public forum.  If you don't want someone, other than the person you are responding to, to answer, don't make it a public post.

In addition, if this is the standard you are going to use, you never should have commented in the first place as the post you responded to was one I made to Northbloke.  Unless, of course, you spoke with him first "to confirm that he is feeling distraught/wounded/dismayed" by my comment. 

Re: intent laws

Okay, first off, I have no idea if the following is illegal anywhere, but I've gotta say if it isn't it ought to be:

Say I start scoping out a bank. I watch it daily, record everything about the guard rotations, money drop offs, opening/closing hours, cleaning crew schedules, etc. None of this is illegal in and of itself, I don't think.

Then I get a hold of the building blue prints. And the underlying sewer system plans. And the nearby subway system plans. Oh, and the make and model of the safe and the safety deposit boxes, as well as information on how to open them without the proper keys or combinations. Again, I don't think owning this kind of information is illegal. And if some of it is, let's assume I don't happen to get a hold of that particular piece of information.

After that I go out and by myself ski masks, digging equipment, rope, and whatever else anyone could conceivably need for a bank break-in. None of the things I'd buy is illegal to own.

I have all this stuff in my house. The equipment is on the floor, the plans and blueprints are on the wall and on my kitchen table.

Now... for some reason I get into a big fight with my wife, and it escalates to the point where the cops have to show up. They gain fully legal access to my house as they fear that people inside are hurting eachother, and while there they notice all my plans, blueprints, equipment, etc.

Would they not be able to arrest me for intending to commit a crime? And if the answer is yes, well, there's your example of how an intent law would work. If the answer is no, then I can only scratch my head and say there obviously needs to be a new law.

KM

Open question to those who feel that without the intervention of the US in the Second World War the Germans were on the verge of being defeated:  Have you ever heard of Lend Lease?

Maybe the US was late in entering WWII -- and maybe it took being attacked by the expansionist Empire of Japan to cause that entry -- much of the materiel that the Allies used -- including that used by Brother Joe and his Soviet Army -- was provided by the US.  My father told me that in the days immediately prior to the US entry into the war people were going around the US asking gun owners (remember those nasty, gun-happy types you antis are railing about) to donate handguns to be shipped to Britain because they (the UK) didn't have sufficient quanties of small arms to mount a suitable defense of the home island.  Maybe there wasn't a REAL need for this, but it did in fact happen.

BTW: My father wasn't terribly interested to help arm a country that felt its citizens couldn't be trusted to own private arms in peacetime.  He resented a country that was critical of our right to keep and bear arms coming to us in wartime with its hand out for weapons it wouldn't normally let its citizens own.

Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
Open question to those who feel that without the intervention of the US in the Second World War the Germans were on the verge of being defeated:

Just to clarify, I don't think anyone suggested that they were about to be defeated, and history tells us this was not the case, the German army would of certainly taken large tracts of Axis Europe without US intervention as Britain and Russia were forced to stay behind their borders.
Rich.

Gsyren,

As to your comment about "The War on Terrorism" being similar to the "War on Drugs" you make a valid point.

Quote:
The major point here is that I don't consider that you are actually at war (at least as far as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the like). You may call it a war, but just like "the war on drugs" it's not an actual war. You can't apply wartime laws on the war on drugs, and - IMHO - you can't do it in the war on terrorism.

I agree that the generalisation of the "War on Terror" is more of a branding and slogan in some respects. However when I would disagree is that we are at war with Al Qaeda. Our Congress in accordance with our laws passed what is in practical effect a declaration of war on them. It also bears reminding that Al Qaeda declared war on the US first.

As to your remarks here:

Quote:
I strongly disagree. If you declare war on someone, then it must be your intention to fight that someone. If 100% are unlawful combatants, then you are fighting someone who does not have the right to fight back. That is not war. That may be crime-fighting. And if it is, criminal law applies.

The members of Al Qaeda have every "right" if that's the correct term to "fight back" (although to be quite honest it's kind of offensive to suggest they would be "fighting back" against the US since they started the war and attacked us numerous times -- I think we're the ones "fighting back" quite frankly). If Al Qaeda (and their allies the Taliban) were to follow the rules of war "as far as defined by the Geneva Conventions and the like" they are more than welcome to fight my country "lawfully" all they want. Of course we would then be able to "lawfully" fight them in return.

The reason they are clearlly "unlawful combatants" (every last one of them IMHO) is because of what THEY do -- we are simply recognizing them as what THEY have chosen to be -- if they put on a uniform and selected only military targets (among other requirements) they would become lawful combatants. So the responsibility for their status as "unlawful combatants" lies with their own behavior. The US is following the requirements of the treaties we have signed. Also in point of fact most of the treaty requirements under the Geneva Convention are NOT being followed by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

As to your comment about the US acting like the "phone company" that I suppose is a matter of opinion and perception. I can assure you that for my part I believe we have made every reasonable effort to work with the international community on these issues and work to resolve the disputes that exist. The fact that we have over time and after discussions with various foreign nations released 2/3 of the original detainees clearly shows we are flexible. However our unwllingness to cede our national sovereignty and therefore our security policy to foreign nations in a time of conflict seems reasonable to me.

If Sweden were at war with terrorists killing your civilians I am sure you would want your leaders to do what they believe is in your nation's best interests (short and long term) rather than let foreign leaders and groups dictate how you are to fight. You certainly have the right to have an opinion on these issues but I also think it is reasonable for America to listen politely and then proceed to do what we think we should whether it comports with your interpretations of international treaties or not.

Thanks,

Brian

P.S. Rico thanks for the kind remark - it was appreciated.

Quoting whispering:

Quote:
Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Having said that, I think it's also fair to say that if you would have to name one single country that in the end beat the Nazis, it would have to be the Soviet Union, rather than either the US or Britain. Throughout 1944-1945 around 70% of German resources were concentrated on the Eastern rather than the Western Front (and still they couldn't stop the masses of T-34s the Russians threw at them).

Its also notable to point out that as bad as Nazi Germany was, Soviet Union wasnt any "less evil". Although its the popular thing to say that Nazis were the "Bad Guys" and allies were the "good guys". In my eyes, that is not what "good guys" do:

Quoting dee1959jay:

Quote:
Of course, this is not taking anything away from the sacrifices made by other nations. I for one am very grateful to be living in a free country thanks to the efforts of the British, Canadian, US and Polish forces that liberated it back in '45. 

I am also greatful to be living in a free country, but ironically thanks to Germany

Also note I am NOT trying to water down the war crimes Nazi Germany did. But its hypocritical to say they were the only ones.

The difference between Stalin and Hitler is Stalin was our ally.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Re: intent laws

Okay, first off, I have no idea if the following is illegal anywhere, but I've gotta say if it isn't it ought to be:

Say I start scoping out a bank. I watch it daily, record everything about the guard rotations, money drop offs, opening/closing hours, cleaning crew schedules, etc. None of this is illegal in and of itself, I don't think.

Then I get a hold of the building blue prints. And the underlying sewer system plans. And the nearby subway system plans. Oh, and the make and model of the safe and the safety deposit boxes, as well as information on how to open them without the proper keys or combinations. Again, I don't think owning this kind of information is illegal. And if some of it is, let's assume I don't happen to get a hold of that particular piece of information.

After that I go out and by myself ski masks, digging equipment, rope, and whatever else anyone could conceivably need for a bank break-in. None of the things I'd buy is illegal to own.

I have all this stuff in my house. The equipment is on the floor, the plans and blueprints are on the wall and on my kitchen table.

Now... for some reason I get into a big fight with my wife, and it escalates to the point where the cops have to show up. They gain fully legal access to my house as they fear that people inside are hurting eachother, and while there they notice all my plans, blueprints, equipment, etc.

Would they not be able to arrest me for intending to commit a crime? And if the answer is yes, well, there's your example of how an intent law would work. If the answer is no, then I can only scratch my head and say there obviously needs to be a new law.

KM

You have not committed any crime.  You cannot be arrested.  You may be able to be arrested if anything you are holding is contraband but that is it.  It is not illegal to plan a bank job.  It is illegal to discuss it with others or to try to sell it to someone who actually goes out and pulls the job, but in itself planning the job is not a crime.  Also remember if a cop came into your residence and found all you speak of, you'd find yourself answering some pretty tough questions.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then I will explain it...

Quote:
You are quoting out of context a reply I made to someone else (not you).

I did not quote it 'out of context' as I included the entire quote.  And what does it matter who you were replying to?  If you wanted it to be a private discussion, you should have made the comment in a PM.

Quote:
Asking where you could buy a gun is part of planning to do the murder.  And people have been arrested in the UK for trying to procure a gun (or a gunman).

No, asking where you can get a gun changes the situation because it shows intent.  It also involves a second person which coould make it a conspiracy.  Something that would get you investigated, if not arrested.  Trying to procure a gunman will get you arrested here as well because, again, that shows intent.

Quote:
I fail to see what 'facts' I have mis represented.

I said, "I would be interested to see how an 'intent' law would work.  Just because I planned a robbery or a murder, doesn't mean I would actually carry out that plan."

To which you responded, "in the UK, people are arrested before they try and commit a murder if the authorities become aware."

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.  How do I know this?  Because you had to clarify your statement to include a criminal act...an attempt to buy a gun illegally.

Quote:
And have you spoken to the person I was replying to, to confirm that he is feeling distraught/wounded/dismayed about my clarification of what I meant.

Why would anbody do this?  First, your clarification was for a post you made to me.  Second, as I said before, this is a public forum.  If you don't want someone, other than the person you are responding to, to answer, don't make it a public post.

In addition, if this is the standard you are going to use, you never should have commented in the first place as the post you responded to was one I made to Northbloke.  Unless, of course, you spoke with him first "to confirm that he is feeling distraught/wounded/dismayed" by my comment. 

I lost the will to live whilst reading this. So I'm not going to attempt to unravel it.