Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    
    Maybe I missed the point, but I don't see the big thing.
    The IRS does this sort of thing all the time (with American
    citizens).
    
    As to the question "Does this sound like an American Court?"
    The answer is yes. Remember, this bill is directed towards
    non-Americans (who are not entitled to the rights under the
    Constitution).
    
    I'm assuming one of the reasons you are upset is the idea that
    this could bring back a sort of McCarthism. I'm sure there are
    enough real terrorists out there to keep everyone busy enough
    to shy away from witch-hunting.
    
    I understand, you are probably thinking of the poor foreigner
    who never hurt anyone and who may have been mis-understood or framed.
    I'm thinking of the authentic terrorist who just blew up a bus
    full of American children because his friend is justifiably in 
    prison.
           

    
>>    Maybe I missed the point, but I don't see the big thing.
>>    The IRS does this sort of thing all the time (with American
>>    citizens).

To some extent.  There are no secret trials with the IRS, and you always
have the right to representation (as for being innocent until proven guilty,
well, they don't believe in that).
    
>>    As to the question "Does this sound like an American Court?"
>>    The answer is yes. Remember, this bill is directed towards
>>    non-Americans (who are not entitled to the rights under the
>>    Constitution).

Non-citizens are legally entitled to all rights under the constitution 
except those specifically reserved for citizens (e.g. voting).
    
That's right - I think it can bring back a sort of McCarthyism.  I don't
see why we're so busy now with real terrorists that we won't go witch
hunting - we weren't busy in the early 1950's?  I do see increasing
anti-foreigner sentiment, especially aimed at the Japanese, and whichever
country the adminstration hates at the moment.

RE:                    <<< Note 898.1 by SWAM2::MASTROMAR_JO >>>
                              -< the other side >-

    
    
   >    I'm thinking of the authentic terrorist who just blew up a bus
   > full of American children because his friend is justifiably in 
   > prison.
           



    WHAT???

re: .2

   >>To some extent.  There are no secret trials with the IRS, and you always
   >>have the right to representation (as for being innocent until proven guilty,
   >>well, they don't believe in that).

It's true, there are no "secret" trials with the IRS, but they
are under no obligation to present any evidence against you (other
than saying from an undisclosed source).
Thus, making the trial sort of a phantom of the real thing. That's what I meant.

   >>Non-citizens are legally entitled to all rights under the constitution 
   >>except those specifically reserved for citizens (e.g. voting).
    
This is not true. What you said was a contradiction. They are entitled
to ALL rights EXCEPT...? The catagory of what they are not entitled to
is much larger than just voting.

   >>That's right - I think it can bring back a sort of McCarthyism.  I don't
   >>see why we're so busy now with real terrorists that we won't go witch
   >>hunting - we weren't busy in the early 1950's?  I do see increasing
   >>anti-foreigner sentiment, especially aimed at the Japanese, and whichever
   >>country the adminstration hates at the moment.

We weren't busy in the early 50's because there were no American Communists
(which McCarthy feared). There is an authentic fear and a valid concern of
terrorists in the 90's.

As for concentrating on the country that the administration "hates" at the 
moment, well, maybe they should. I'm sure Iraqi's in America during Desert
Storm were more likely to perform acts of terrorism than someone from
Spain. I'm of the thought that this bill is for the protection of the
country... not an excuse to harass foreigners.


re: .3

To put it another way, I was thinking that this bill was to deport
people that were more overtly acting in a terrorist or subversive manner.

Re  .4    I took your comments as an event/tragedy that actually happened.







Jim

    The Constitution does rule for all Federal cases in our legal system,
    regardless of the nationality of the accused.  It lays out the
    standards of how trials are to be held, evidence gathered, and the
    presumptions of guilt or innocence prior to verdicts being rendered.  I
    regard the right to a *public* trial, the right for a defendant to face
    his or her accuser, and the presumption of innocence to be extremely
    important aspects of ensuring that the trial process is fair and
    renders reasoned verdicts.
    
    I'm very concerned that the article outlines procedures which undermine
    all three of these principles.  When dealing with legitimate
    terrorists, it is certainly possible to find, arrest, and try such
    individuals within the legal context currently set out by the
    Constitution.  If anyone can prove to me that there is a large,
    outstanding problem of terrorist attacks in this country which
    justifies sending my right to being fairly treated by the legal
    machinery down the tubes, I wish they would bring it forward.  Quite
    frankly, I doubt that it exists, as I haven't heard of hijacked planes,
    indiscriminate bombings, or even terrorist-inspired assassination
    attempts taking place here.
    
    The concept that aliens aren't entitled to the protections of U.S. law
    when in the U.S. runs counter to everything I have ever been taught
    about travel in foreign countries.  (They are also subject to the
    penalties of U.S. law when such laws are broken.)  When I travel
    abroad, if I break one of their laws, I am tried and convicted
    according to the standards of their legal system.  The reciprocal
    should also be true.
    
    Alison 

Re:.0
>there  is  not  much  good  in  either  of  the  crime  bills  coming up for
>consideration  -  gun  control  is  the exception - but this blueprint for a
>kangaroo  court stands out. It's hard to see how anyone with respect for the
>American idea of justice could support it.

It's amazing how blind someone can be! Here you have a Bill which is in defiance
of the Constitution pointed be RE:6 and you think the gun control portion is the 
good part!!! What about the 2nd Amendment. This whole Bill is trash and shows 
you just what kind of job your lovely senators and representatives are doing!! 

    
    
    re: .6
    
    One quick thought... YOUR rights are not being sent down the
    tubes. If you are American, nothing will change. If you are not,
    somethings will change, but your rights still weren't sent down the
    tubes. If accused of criminal activity, you will have the chance
    to representation. If accused of terrorist activity (which to my
    knowledge is not Federal, but international), then you may be
    treated in accordance to this bill.
    
    If you don't know of any bombings or other terrorist activities,
    you haven't been watching the news. We can't blame everything on
    terrorism, but to turn your back to it's existance in this country
    is foolish.
    
    As for the rest, you said it yourself. When you go to another
    country, you are subject to the laws of the land. And if that law
    of the land states you go to a Turkish prison for 10 years without
    trial just for using Atta Turk's name in vain, then you do.
    
    I understand everyone's concern and agree (if this bill was let go
    to run rampart), But as I said earlier, I believe this to be set up
    to protect citizens (not harass aliens).
    
    The base note was very biased in his representation of the bill.
               

RE: a bunch

The idea that gun control is OK and the rest of the bill is wrong is appaling 
to some of us, but ignoring that

Under this crime bill(if/when it passes) If one murders a federal employee
he/she gets the death penalty, while beating an old lady to death with an axe 
will only get him/her the usual 14 years or so. The question is
what makes a federal employee so special?

Under the bill, right of appeal in capitol cases is severly limited
and in some cases will be almost non-existant.

there will be more (illegal IMHO) search and seizure allowed.

There is nothing good in this package and much that should terrify anyone.

to address the discussion of secret trials; the sixth Ammendment was 
specifically written to do away with the old European star-chamber courts
prevelant in the 1600-1700 era. Our founders knew very well the dangers
having witnessed the results. if you do not think it won't be used
*PRIMARILY* for "witch hunts" you've been living in la-la-land. look at
the history. OF THIS GOVERNMENT.

and though this is not the right note :-}
the gun control measures if passed will make criminals out of millions of law 
abiding persons, doing nothing to combat criminals and once the second 
amendment is gutted there will be no way to protect the rest of our freedoms.
the right to keep and bear arms also prevents abuse of government power.

There is a person, I will try to get permission to cross-post this, who 
recieved a letter frtom a congress-critter where he(the rep) made the
comment that "maybe we need a 7 day waiting period to buy pencils and paper".
In other words freedom of speech is something he is not crazy about when it is 
used to criticize government policies.

The supreme court has ruled against liberty and freedom over and over lately
and congress is playing with laws to create slaves of all of us. all in the
name of the (un)holy drug war or (imaginary)terrorists.

Amos

    re: .8
    
    I don't share your [to me] optimistic belief that government "does
    the right thing" either.  I'm afraid government action will follow
    "a witch in the hand is worth [at least] two terrorists at large" 
    sentiment.
    
    But, does anyone know what current procedure is?  
    
    nla
    

    Another question ... does this bill include those aliens here
    under diplomatic status?  Probably not, huh?
    
    nla
    

    
    
    Re: .9
    
    Hmmmm... Your points are well taken. Except for you implication
    that there are no such things as a drug war or terrorism in this
    country.
    
    Maybe my view of the bill is optimistic. I was looking at the spirit
    of the bill, as opposed to an evil government using every trick
    in the book to manuipulate us away from our rights.
    
    I was addressing only the portion of the bill that had to deal with
    the treatment of terrorist activity because that was the only one
    addressed in the base note. I was unaware of the rest of the bills.
    
    Open trials for accused terrorists often invite retaliation of 
    further terrorism. I believe this to be the reason for this bill.
    If the government moved swiftly and quitely, potential terrorist
    acts will not occur.
    
    I may agree with many of your other points, given more info. But,
    I have yet to be convinced that this portion of the bill is bad
    for Americans (or even a danger to loosing one's right or rights
    to a fair trial).
    
             

re .4:

The IRS, when it actually winds up in a trial, must present evidence.
But because it's not a "criminal" procedure, only a "preponderance" of
evidence is required, not beyond the shadow of a doubt.  

>>   >>Non-citizens are legally entitled to all rights under the constitution 
>>   >>except those specifically reserved for citizens (e.g. voting).
    
>>This is not true. What you said was a contradiction. They are entitled
>>to ALL rights EXCEPT...? The catagory of what they are not entitled to
>>is much larger than just voting.

The category does NOT include a suspension of the bill of rights.  It 
includes primily voting and holding office.

>>Spain. I'm of the thought that this bill is for the protection of the
>>country... not an excuse to harass foreigners.

How far should we go to provide "protection"?  Would you favor national
identity cards?  How about travel permits, where if you want to go to the
beach you need a permit from the local security bureau?  Perhaps we should
change to presuming guilt instead of innocence - wouldn't want to let any
terrorists go, right?

How does it hurt us to have open procedings and representation in
deportations?  I don't think it does, and since the administration 
sometimes does use deportation and immigration against its political 
opponents, at least there will be a little bit of exposure.

    
    re: .13
    
    How does it hurt to have open proceedings? Obviously, you didn't read
    my reply in .12. 
    
    As to how far we should go to provide protection for U.S. Citizens,
    It is apparent, that you basicly wanted to be insulting rather than
    conduct an intelligent conversation.     
    
    I won't dignify that response by trying to answer those idiotic
    questions.
    

re .14:

Sorry, I did miss your response in .12 regarding open procedings.  
And you're right about the problem of threats of terrorist procedings.

However, I was not trying to be insulting in .13. Some of the things
I facetiously suggested in .13 have been sponsored as counter-measures 
to terrorism, or to crime, or to drug trafficing, or to any of a number 
of other things.

So the point is, while all of these things will certainly make terrorist
activity more difficult (including spot searches, internal passports,
etc) they DO cut down on the rights of individuals in this country.
How much are you willing to have your rights curtailed?

    Re: .15
    
    I'm assuming those questions were directed towards us as Americans.
    
    The bill has to deal with foreigners (not Americans). As for carrying
    papers from state to state, Foreigners already have to do that.
    Don't they have papers and green cards and work permits?
    
    And when they move or leave the country temporarily, don't they have
    to inform the immagration beareau?
    
    So, in a sense, the answer to some of those questions are yes.
    More so, it is being done now.
    
    If this bill was directed towards Americans, I wouldn't be for it.
    I'm not even sure I'm for it in regard to aliens. But the base note
    seemed so biased in one direction, I thought I'd show some possible
    reasons why it was presented.
    
    However, a previous reply talked about the rest of the bill, which
    (honestly) turned my stomach.
    
    Sorry if I overreacted to your earlier reponse. It seemed to be
    of a patronizing tone (must have been something I ate).
    
    

>                   <<< Note 898.12 by SWAM2::MASTROMAR_JO >>>

    
    
>    Re: .9
    
>    Hmmmm... Your points are well taken. Except for you implication
>    that there are no such things as a drug war or terrorism in this
>    country.
    
I did not mean that there is no drug war, there is, however it is being 
carried out in a manner that is terrifying. Police are using it as an excuse 
to harrass and hurt innocent people. people are arrested on suspicion of 
dealing then having all their property confiscated *BEFORE TRIAL* so they
can't even afford a lawyer, Police are stopping and searching people on the 
roads, and in public transport(trains, buses) based on skin color or
apparent national origin. The solution to the drug problem is probably the
topic for another note but 1) legalize the soft-drugs to eliminate the
crimes commited by addicts merely to obtain drugs(prices would come down,
much like liquor in the 30's). 2) *EDUCATE, EDUCATE EDUCATE* use money to
teach kids (and adults) to not use the dangerous drugs. 3) hold individuals
responsible for their action while under the influence, anti-drunk-driving
laws/convictions have reduced the number of drunk-driver accidents in some 
places(Colorado notably, or Arizona, [brain fade]) but do not punish for
possesing one dose or private use.
    
Terrorism; I could tell you more about that subject than you will ever want to 
know. The amount of terrorism in this country is miniscule, there will be no
change in that by passing such a law. our regular legal system is quite 
capable of handling those cases.

The Bill of Rights is not a menu, the government should not, nor can citizens,
pick and choose. Every amendment is affected in some way by this bill
affecting our lives and our childrens lives. we are in far more danger from 
the government today than the colonists were from King George in 1770.

If you really want information on government abuse of citizens I can send mail
citing incidents and rulings.

Amos

    re: the war on drugs...
    
    Amos, we agree, exactly in sync on our views on the War on Righ-, I
    mean, Drugs.  Who woulda thunk???
    
    D!

    
    Re: .17
    
    I'm not so sure I agree with you.
    To begin with, I don't agree with the 'make it legal' rule of thumb.
    If that were the case, we could abolish crime all together by simply
    making everything legal.
    
    The question is, will society benefit more or less if the legalization
    of the act (as in buying soft drugs) is enforced? I'm not so sure
    society will benefit. 
    
    As for police stopping people based on color. That may be, but
    the answer for the detainment may be based on statistics
    and a personel decision from the on-scene commander rather than
    simple bigotry.
    
    I'm sure you can tell me more about terrorism than I WANT to know,
    but I'm not so sure you can tell me more than I DO know. And I
    do know that terrorism is a threat in our country today. Four
    years in the service (and 4 more in the ANG) taught me that.
    As to what I did in the service, I was a security policeman.
    
    Out of curiosity,
    what are you basing your statement that the threat is 'miniscule' on?
    
    The Bill of Rights is not a menu? I disagree. I think that's a good
    analogy on exactly what it is.
    
    If a person (or his representative) doesn't know his rights,
    he could very well go to jail when he doesn't have to. Conversely,
    someone who does know his rights to a 'T' can get off when he
    shouldn't. Unfortunately, Law is an art, not a science. 
    
    The rights of the people are constantly being changed. Amendements
    are added and subtracted (I think you even mentioned prohibition),
    and if the people vote for it, they can, very well, give up some of
    their rights. One example is having some public offices changed
    from election to appointment.
    
    Once again, I must say that this is for aliens, not Americans (which
    is totally different). However, you are right in suggestion I
    learn about the rest of the bill. Do you know who I could call?
    
    As far as siting examples of innocents being harassed, I'm not saying
    injustices don't happen. I crinch to think they do and could happen
    to me. I've seen cases of people being stopped for speeding and end
    up spending 8 years in jail because the person's name was similar
    to a real criminal (and he couldn't prove he wasn't).
    

RE:D! All us gunslingers aren't right-wing kill-em-all types :-} :-} :-}


>                   <<< Note 898.19 by SWAM2::MASTROMAR_JO >>>

I didn't even finish reading this before I hit reply.
    
>    Re: .17
    
>    I'm not so sure I agree with you.
>    To begin with, I don't agree with the 'make it legal' rule of thumb.
>    If that were the case, we could abolish crime all together by simply
>    making everything legal.
 
There is a tremendous amount of time and energy and *TAX MONEY* wasted on
investigating,trying,and punishing victimless crime. a lot of drug use
is one of the victimless crimes(another being prostitution IMHO, but that
idea may get me tarred-and-feathered here :-} :-}) This country needs to spend 
it's limited resources on investigating and solving real crime(did you know 
that only 1 of about 600 rapes is ever prosecuted?)

   
>    The question is, will society benefit more or less if the legalization
>    of the act (as in buying soft drugs) is enforced? I'm not so sure
>    society will benefit. 
 
If you will read the history of prohibition in this country then re-read
substituting drugs for booze you'll get an inkling. (the answer is yes)
   
>    As for police stopping people based on color. That may be, but
>    the answer for the detainment may be based on statistics
>    and a personel decision from the on-scene commander rather than
>    simple bigotry.
 
Have you been living under a rock?  one of my hobbies is reading and
memorizing the U.S. Uniform crime statistics as published by the F.B.I.
(it helps with various political activism projects in case you wonder)
*THE PROBLEM IS BIGOTRY* 
   
>    I'm sure you can tell me more about terrorism than I WANT to know,
>    but I'm not so sure you can tell me more than I DO know. And I
>    do know that terrorism is a threat in our country today. Four
>    years in the service (and 4 more in the ANG) taught me that.
>    As to what I did in the service, I was a security policeman.
    
>    Out of curiosity,
>    what are you basing your statement that the threat is 'miniscule' on?

Airport bombings 	=0     These are daily occurances in Europe 
kidnaping(politic)	=0     and the mideast. we have been spared.
political murders	=0     not to say it "couldn't" happen.


   
>    The Bill of Rights is not a menu? I disagree. I think that's a good
>    analogy on exactly what it is.
 
WRONG it is an all-for-every-person whether they choose to excercise them
or not the government may not take them away from the tiniest minority
or even a single person.(at least that is how it is supposed to work)
   
>    If a person (or his representative) doesn't know his rights,
>    he could very well go to jail when he doesn't have to. Conversely,
>    someone who does know his rights to a 'T' can get off when he
>    shouldn't. Unfortunately, Law is an art, not a science. 

Rights are there to protect. on occasion they are abused by the gov't
or procedures aren't followed and people do "get off" so??
    
>    The rights of the people are constantly being changed. Amendements
>    are added and subtracted (I think you even mentioned prohibition),
>    and if the people vote for it, they can, very well, give up some of
>    their rights. One example is having some public offices changed
>    from election to appointment.
 
I was refering to the Bill of rights which is the first 10 amendments
the others were either tinkering, as in prohibition, or filled a
real shortcoming such as women's voting and the civil rights bill

   
>    Once again, I must say that this is for aliens, not Americans (which
>    is totally different). However, you are right in suggestion I
>    learn about the rest of the bill. Do you know who I could call?
 
Your Senator! or there is a copy floating the net, I'll try to find it
if I can.  There is nothing to suggest it can't be applied to anyone
here on a green card as well. or on a student visa. shall we round them up
as we did with the Japenese in 1941?
   
>    As far as siting examples of innocents being harassed, I'm not saying
>    injustices don't happen. I crinch to think they do and could happen

See the LAPD starring role on video!

>    to me. I've seen cases of people being stopped for speeding and end
>    up spending 8 years in jail because the person's name was similar
>    to a real criminal (and he couldn't prove he wasn't).

I would like to see some proof of this. there are such things as fingerprints,
medical records, work history, etc.    

There is a paragraph missing in my answer.

Where you talk about statistics; Even *IF* 99% of all purple-polka-dot
people were drug-dealers the police have no right to stop a P_P_D person
and search/seize-property etc because they *ARE* P_P_D.

    
    Re: .21
    
    Ya, so? I never said they did? But, as I said... they do have the
    right to detain them.
    
    Re: .20
    
>I didn't even finish reading this before I hit reply.

Answering before listening?
The sure sign of a narrow mind.
   
>There is a tremendous amount of time and energy and *TAX MONEY* wasted on
>investigating,trying,and punishing victimless crime. a lot of drug use
>is one of the victimless crimes(another being prostitution IMHO, but that
>idea may get me tarred-and-feathered here :-} :-}) This country needs to spend 
>it's limited resources on investigating and solving real crime(did you know 
>that only 1 of about 600 rapes is ever prosecuted?)

Victimless crime? Excuse me. Social disease alone makes prostitution a crime
with innocent victims. Why don't we just legalize murder, we'll cut our
crimes in half. What I'm saying is legalizing drug use (even just lighter
drugs) may (in the long run) be worse for society. It may lead those
individuals to worse addictions. Not to mention having children using drugs
(legally) as they use cigarettes today.
   
>If you will read the history of prohibition in this country then re-read
>substituting drugs for booze you'll get an inkling. (the answer is yes)
   
In all honesty, alcohol is probably worse for you than some of the lighter
drugs. I don't even want to get into drunk driving. But, as I said, it may
lead individuals to worse addictions.
 
>Have you been living under a rock?  one of my hobbies is reading and
>memorizing the U.S. Uniform crime statistics as published by the F.B.I.
>(it helps with various political activism projects in case you wonder)
>*THE PROBLEM IS BIGOTRY* 

No, I didn't wonder... and no, I'm not living under a rock. But, apparently
I'm not living in your part of town, either. I'm living in the real world.
Let me get this straight? You are slamming me for saying statistically,
some minorities commit more crimes, so there may be reasons why they are
detained more. Then, you fall back on statistics yourself. If you're going
to argue, try and be consistant.

I never said bigotry didn't exist. I am saying, however, in some cases,
there may be other reasons why they are stopped other than what you happen
to feel is obvious.
   
>Airport bombings 	=0     These are daily occurances in Europe 
>kidnaping(politic)	=0     and the mideast. we have been spared.
>political murders	=0     not to say it "couldn't" happen.

Ya, so? Terrorism occurs in Europe more.
Basically, you are getting your information from the news?
This isn't wrong, BUT, anyone who says that terrorism doesn't exist
in the US is showing how naive he is. And that person should "wake up
and smell the coffee." Or is Terrorism one of those 'victimless crimes'?
   
>WRONG it is an all-for-every-person whether they choose to excercise them
>or not the government may not take them away from the tiniest minority
>or even a single person.(at least that is how it is supposed to work)

Don't tell me I'm wrong! I have an opinion, just like you.
YES, "AT LEAST THAT IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK." Exactly!
Supposed to. That doesn't mean it does. There are innocent people in
jail and only a fool would say that the guilty doesn't go free (at least,
sometimes). The government doesn't take these rights away, but my point is
if the right doesn't get stated, you could lose.
   
>Rights are there to protect. on occasion they are abused by the gov't
>or procedures aren't followed and people do "get off" so??

So? That's my point. We may have rights, but they are not always adherred to.
    
>Your Senator! or there is a copy floating the net, I'll try to find it
>if I can.  There is nothing to suggest it can't be applied to anyone
>here on a green card as well. or on a student visa. shall we round them up
>as we did with the Japenese in 1941?

From what I understand, we are only talking about Aliens and the secret
trials. I'm not saying to round anyone up, I'm saying that if they are
thought to be terrorists, maybe secret trials (to prevent further violence)
may be a good thing (for Americans and our society). 

I have already agreed with you that the rest of the bill may be bad.
I don't know for sure because I don't know the bill. 
I was only addressing the secret trial portion in the base note.
   
>See the LAPD starring role on video!

Ya, I saw it. I live in LA, I see it every night.
I'm sure, New England thinks King is a Saint. And I'm not justifying
anything the LAPD did, but since you are so hot on public trials, why don't
you let this one come to a conclusion before executing the LAPD?

>I would like to see some proof of this. there are such things as fingerprints,
>medical records, work history, etc.    

Yes, this is true. But, unless someone asks the question, that evidence
doesn't get involved. I have no proof, I saw it on the news a while ago.
Things like this do happen, unfortunately. It's easy to say they're not
supposed to, but it doesn't mean they don't.

RE:22

Let me restate as a question.
Do you believe that because minority X commits more of a type of crime
that it is allright for police to stop *ANY* member of minority x and detain
/search them?

Amos

    Regarding this bill, and the number of people who are willing to
    support it reminds me of a quote (I am unsure of the sourc but Thomas
    Jefferson comes to mind)
    
    "Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security will wind up
    with neither."
    
    Have you ever looked at a courier profile?  It is arbitrary beyond
    belief.
    
    African americans, hispanics, European americans, young people old
    people, cars with plates from New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Florida,
    people flying from those destinations, people with or without
    children, people with a lot, no or average amount of luggage, old cars,
    new cars, biracial couples, single race couples, poor people, middle
    class people, and anything else that might look suspicious on a given
    day.  I was raised in the 60's and was always told that this sort of
    behavior only happened in "Evil Empire" countries, that Americans were
    safe from such nonsense from their government. 
    
    Meg   

    "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security deserve
    neither the freedom nor the security."
    
    				--Benjamin Franklin
    
    \D/ the walking Bartletts

I'd like to know, assuming this were to become law (deity forbid), how the
authorities would determine whether one was an alien or not...






Jim

    
    crystal implant in the palm of the right hand...
    

    RE: Purple polka dots and crime
    
    IF 95% of certain crimes are committed by a particular group, does ANY
    given member of that group lose the right to not be hassled by
    law-and-order when simply walking down the street?
    
    Ok then, say most drug dealing is done by purple polka dotted people.
    ALL purple polka dotted people can be stopped by the police at any
    time. Well, *that* seems to translate into what happens in society...
    
    Let's try another analogy. 95% of rapes are committed by green plaid
    people. So any green plaid person can be stopped by the police and
    hassled at any given point in time, even if they are just walking
    down the street. Hmmm....now *that* doesn't seem to map to what goes
    on.
    
    Seems like there may be some selectivity at work. 
    
    --DE
    

    re: .27
    
    meta-x-obscure-rathole
    
    I guess I'm due to start flashing in another year or two then.
    
    *sigh*
    
    -Jody

    re .29 re .27

    Apt reply range, in that case.

    Humphf.  You didn't read the book; you saw the movie.
    
    						Ann B.