Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mosgood on June 17, 2004, 01:54:19 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=3&u=/nm/20040617/us_nm/crime_zetajones_dc_3
"The 33-year-old woman was arraigned last week on one count of stalking and 25 counts of making "terrorist threats," the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said in a statement. "
Unfortunately, this is part of the legacy of GWB and how he created the homeland defense policies so open for interpretation.
-
the article did not elaborate on the nature of the terroristic threats. Without some knowledge on these threats, I dont think anyone can draw a valid conclusion with respects to homeland defense policies.
Sounds more like ignorant liberal gas venting to me.
-
liberals should be taught to vent gas informedly.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
Unfortunately, this is part of the legacy of GWB and how he created the homeland defense policies so open for interpretation.
I compare this to the "Hate crime" trend from 10 years ago.
-
OMG this is great. "Terroristic threats..." :rofl
Don't you guys know what this is? :D
-
I am for anything they can slap on to add more time for the convited criminal to spend behind bars...I don't care what they call it
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the article did not elaborate on the nature of the terroristic threats. Without some knowledge on these threats, I dont think anyone can draw a valid conclusion with respects to homeland defense policies.
Sounds more like ignorant liberal gas venting to me.
amazing how fast you pucker up as soon as your dogma is threatened.
-
Originally posted by VOR
OMG this is great. "Terroristic threats..." :rofl
Don't you guys know what this is? :D
a Bushism?
-
so.. what exactly did she do that was considered a terrorist act? How did that fall under the patriot act?
and... How exactly do you feel about "hate crimes" moss?
when conservatives are in they kill SLA members... when liberals are in they kill a bunch of whacky church members and about 30 of their kids are roasted alive.
when liberals are in they create "hate crimes" when conservatives are in they create "terrorist" crimes..
so far... the lesser of two evils is the conservatives.. the ideal tho is less government.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so.. what exactly did she do that was considered a terrorist act? How did that fall under the patriot act?
and... How exactly do you feel about "hate crimes" moss?
when conservatives are in they kill SLA members... when liberals are in they kill a bunch of whacky church members and about 30 of their kids are roasted alive.
when liberals are in they create "hate crimes" when conservatives are in they create "terrorist" crimes..
so far... the lesser of two evils is the conservatives.. the ideal tho is less government.
lazs
I feel that domestic "Hate crimes" have nothing to do with the patriot act or the reasons GWB gave for enacting it.
I guess I should specify a little better my beef with the word "Terroristic". I am afraid that the word "terrorist" or "Terroristic" is an oppurtunity for government and local police agencies to infringe on our rights of privacy. Does that make me a liberal??? Laz.. you yourself promotes the right to bear arms for self defense as well as protection from an oppressive government. Well, the right to certain personal privacies need, IMO, to be as jealously guarded as well. And I DO NOT LIKE the way the word "Terrorist" can be used to justify infringment on them.... such as wire taps.... or the loss of right of due process. Is this the case here?? NO, but LAZ... you have your own concerns that if assualt rifles are banned, it's one step closer to an overall bane. So you fight for every inch you got. That's why I think that the use of the Patriot Act policies need to be watched like a hawk.
-
Nice rant, Mos, but this has nothing to do with Bush or his policies. The quote was from the LA County Sheriff's office regarding what the lady was doing and what she's charged with, and unless you have some compelling evidence to the contrary she was terrorizing Catherine Zeta Jones for all you know. You don't have to be from another country or even threaten the US to be a terrorist.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorist&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
-
Originally posted by SOB
Nice rant, Mos, but this has nothing to do with Bush or his policies. The quote was from the LA County Sheriff's office regardign what the lady was doing, and unless you have some compelling evidence to the contrary she was terrorizing Catherine Zeta Jones for all you know. You don't have to be from another country or even threaten the US to be a terrorist.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=terrorist&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter·ror·ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective
So... if this woman was terrorizing CZJ, should she be sent to cuba and held with the rest of the terrorist detained there (edit) without the right to do process?
-
Well, considering that isn't even relevant to this situation, I would say no. Do you honestly believe that she'll soon be shipped off to Gitmo? If so, I suggest you seek professional help.
Find another example, this one makes zero sense in connection with your rant. The patriot act goes too far in my opinion, and the sooner Asscroft and Bush are replaced the better, but neither have anything to do with that story. The woman terrorized someone, and has been charged - or do you think she should have just gotten a ticket for prank phone calls?
-
What do you mean it's not relevant. You posted the definition of the word. Why post the definition, if it doesnt mean the same thing in both situations to you?
If this person is judged to be a "terrorist", what makes her different than the "terrorist" held in Cuba in your eyes?
-
Sheesh,
Where have you guys been all your lives?
The term "terroristics threats" has been around many many years, and is used by law enforcement to describe the action of a person threatening physical violence towards another, where the action could be considered possible by virtue of immediacy or location.
It is not new, has nothing to do with Bush, or labeling a person a terrorist, and was used long before 9/11.
I repeat, Sheesh.
dago
-
the ones in Cuba are war criminals.
-
Originally posted by NATEDOG
the ones in Cuba are war criminals.
I thought they were "unlawful combatants", or has the terminology of covenience shifted again to skirt along "inconvenient" legal principles?
War criminals are entitled to due process like, oh I don't know, a trial, a lawyer, etc. Better be careful what you start calling them.
:D
-
Paranoid raving lunatic liberals, just keep in mind that he is watching....
(http://www.backoffjohn.com/images/picture_bottom.gif)
[SIZE=8]YOU[/SIZE]
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I thought they were "unlawful combatants", or has the terminology of covenience shifted again to skirt along "inconvenient" legal principles?
War criminals are entitled to due process like, oh I don't know, a trial, a lawyer, etc. Better be careful what you start calling them.
:D
Let's let them out and you can call them "Neighbors".;)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Sheesh,
Where have you guys been all your lives?
The term "terroristics threats" has been around many many years, and is used by law enforcement to describe the action of a person threatening physical violence towards another, where the action could be considered possible by virtue of immediacy or location.
It is not new, has nothing to do with Bush, or labeling a person a terrorist, and was used long before 9/11.
I repeat, Sheesh.
dago
Thanks Dago, I just didn't have the heart to tell em. This reminds me of the woman who had the "Blue Bonnet Plague".
:D
-
Originally posted by Nash
a Bushism?
Not quite...see above.
-
I sware some of you act like 9/11 never happend and wont ever happen again.
Example
Isnt blowing up a building to incite feer terrorism....isnt threatening to do the same a "terrorist threat" So why should I not be charged accordingly for doing either act.
I'm not saying this woman did this but Cmon...get real
Not even a half assed troll BTW
-
I think Dune or another lawyer can explain it better, but "terroristic threats" is a legal term which has been in state and local law way before Dubya got elected. Hell my uncle was arrested for that back in 1985 or so. Don't let that spoil the tinfoil-hat party though. Deth to Amreeka, Deth to Boosh!!!
-
Ah hell, Dago beat me.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think Dune or another lawyer can explain it better, but "terroristic threats" is a legal term which has been in state and local law way before Dubya got elected. Hell my uncle was arrested for that back in 1985 or so. Don't let that spoil the tinfoil-hat party though. Deth to Amreeka, Deth to Boosh!!!
My favorite was the bit about how fast people pucker up when their dogma is threatened. :rofl
-
Originally posted by mosgood
What do you mean it's not relevant. You posted the definition of the word. Why post the definition, if it doesnt mean the same thing in both situations to you?
If this person is judged to be a "terrorist", what makes her different than the "terrorist" held in Cuba in your eyes?
Your first question has been answered by others. Your second question is just stupid.
-
Gee... It was just a question - I haven't heard the term before, is all.
Getting to see Dago (of all people) whip himself into an admonishing frenzy and the peanut gallery backslapping over it (as if there was any question of that happening - what was yer daisy chain link again, funked?), made it well worth it though I reckon.
I shoulda known better. Had it really been a Bushism it woulda been along the lines of "terroristicle thrats".
-
Not trying to hurt yer feelers, Nash. I just watch too much "Cops" is all. Sometimes you can learn some neat legal-ese.
"Terroristicle thrats" = +2points on the rebound shot :D
-
The legal definition and concept of one person terrorizing another as well as the legal term "terrorist threat" (or "terroristic threat") has been around for a long time. It has absolutely nothing to do with organized terrorism, the war on terrorism, home defense, the Bush administration, Osama Bin Laden, AlQiera, the WTC, Cuban detainees or the price of tea in China.
"But it's all about the guvment infringing on our personal freedoms in the name of nashunal seecuritee!" :rofl
-
Originally posted by NATEDOG
the ones in Cuba are war criminals.
So they already were in the court and were convicted? Good for them :)
How long sentences did they got and what were the crimes ?
-
It's a legal term thats been around for years.
Example: A Guy calls up his boss that has fired him and tells him to give him his job back or he will kick his prettythang.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Your first question has been answered by others. Your second question is just stupid.
SOB,
you have a very good flare for dismissing questions with off handed insults. Either, you do not know what you believe or you are very young. Sometimes its the same thing. Hopefully, in your case as well.
My second question was not a statement that I believe she should be in cuba. It was asked to determine IF there are differnt types of terrorists. And if so, are they treated the same or different. I do not want to see lawyers and police agencies take advantage of the slight differences (btw... that you still have failed to make) in how the word "Terrorist" is used.
Yeager... btw.. have you any clue wtf I said?
-
*Sigh*
Yes mosgood ... there are different meanings and usages for the word "terrorist." There are different legal aspects for each meaning and usage. No there is no true correlation between the woman charged for making "terrorist threats" to CZJ and the Cuban detainees. There is no correlation between this criminal law case and national security. There is no foundation for this to be used as an example of an oppressive government for either political or rhetorical purposes.
-
moss.. we agree that big government is a bad thing. I believe that big liberal government is far worse than big conservative govenrment is all.
I am not aware of any Americans who are being affected unconstitutionaly by the patriot act but.... every single person charged with a so called "hate crime" is losing his guarantee of equal treatment under the law.
huge sentances can be imposed on people on a whim with "hate crime" laws...
I guess I would suffer better under big government intrusiveness while armed a lot better than big liberal government unarmed and driving a prius.
lazs
-
Black's Law Dictionary defines "terroristic threat" as:
A threat to commit any crime of violence with the purpose of (1) terrorizing another, (2) causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation, (3) causing serious public inconvenience or (4) recklessly disregarding the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
-
Yeager... btw.. have you any clue wtf I said?
====
repeat after me:
I AM NOT HERE
(you are not here)......
YOU DID NOT SEE ME
(we did not see you)......
THESE AREN'T THE DROIDS YOUR LOOKING FOR
(these aren't the droids we're looking for)....
-
LOL Yeager :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
*Sigh*
Yes mosgood ... there are different meanings and usages for the word "terrorist." There are different legal aspects for each meaning and usage. No there is no true correlation between the woman charged for making "terrorist threats" to CZJ and the Cuban detainees. There is no correlation between this criminal law case and national security. There is no foundation for this to be used as an example of an oppressive government for either political or rhetorical purposes.
What he said. I imagine that some LASO deputy screwed up and instead of saying she "terrorized" them or who knows what, said what he did. I sincerely doubt that he means she is a terrorist in the Hamas sense of the word. And the fact that any of you would jump to that conclusion in an effort to sling mud is...well, it's kinda stupid.
-
Making "Terroristic Threats" has been a chargable offense for many years. Why, even under Clinton you could be charged for that very crime :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mosgood
I feel that domestic "Hate crimes" have nothing to do with the patriot act or the reasons GWB gave for enacting it.
I guess I should specify a little better my beef with the word "Terroristic". I am afraid that the word "terrorist" or "Terroristic" is an oppurtunity for government and local police agencies to infringe on our rights of privacy. Does that make me a liberal??? Laz.. you yourself promotes the right to bear arms for self defense as well as protection from an oppressive government. Well, the right to certain personal privacies need, IMO, to be as jealously guarded as well. And I DO NOT LIKE the way the word "Terrorist" can be used to justify infringment on them.... such as wire taps.... or the loss of right of due process. Is this the case here?? NO, but LAZ... you have your own concerns that if assualt rifles are banned, it's one step closer to an overall bane. So you fight for every inch you got. That's why I think that the use of the Patriot Act policies need to be watched like a hawk.
Do you research anything or just try and push anything you find into a context that fits an anti-Bush agenda? Again... the crime of making "Terroristic Threats" is an old one. Get over it or plan on preaching against Clinton (at least) and maybe Kerry.
It's all in the wording, but in the end... a terroristic threat is a terroristic threat and should be dealt with accordingly. I think it works something like this:
"If you do that to me again(whatever), I'll kill you" <<
"I'm going to kill you"<<
It's hard to explain, and I'm sure the the person being threatened has to show he or she really believe the threat to hold merit. In any case... it's no GWB generated new thing.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Do you research anything or just try and push anything you find into a context that fits an anti-Bush agenda?
That's a good question... why don't you pull up my posts and do a little research yourself. There are things about Bush that I don't like, and there are issues that have been brought up about him that I've defended.... the same thing goes for the republicans and Democrats both.
btw... if you guys don't find a better way to communicate a disagreement about an opinion, this board is gonna be nothing but griefing real quick. I myself will be checking my own responses for now on just in case they come off as ****ty as some of you guys do on a regular basis.
-
"teroristic threats" has been a legal term for years. It has nothing to do with the WoT, or Bush. You ladies need to get out more.