07-07-2005 12:59									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yes, real 'schooled'. The Supreme Court of the US says that the statute in question only applies when there is a clear and present danger to the government:

quote: The rule we deduce from these cases is that where an offense is specified by a statute in nonspeech or nonpress terms, a conviction relying upon speech or press as evidence of violation may be sustained only when the speech or publication created a "clear and present danger" of attempting or accomplishing the prohibited crime

quote: And we stated, "[The First] Amendment requires that one be permitted to believe what he will. It requires that one be permitted to advocate what he will unless there is a clear and present danger that a substantial public evil will result therefrom." 339 U.S. at 412.

From the second quote, you can see simply advocating overthrow has not been a crime in the US since, at least, 1951. Has your court countananced your sedition provision with similar language? Obviously the Canadian police do not believe it to be fair to apply to groups like those in the OP, but are they simply engaging in the police veto?

I guess that is what happens when a Canadian fails to realize that all US law is a product of all 3 branches and must be read in the context of judicial precedent.

	07-07-2005 13:04									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Uhmm, Imran, you were saying that such a statute didn't exist, weren't you?

	07-07-2005 13:05									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Fact of the matter is if someone went out and wrote an article saying that Al Queda was right and they should overthrow the government and replace it with an Islamic theocracy, US law would not be able to do anything to them. You are saying Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition.

	07-07-2005 13:06									#124
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Uhmm, Imran, you were saying that such a statute didn't exist, weren't you?

You said similar statute to one that allows people to be jailed for simply advocating overthrow of the US government. The USC statute does not do so because the SCOTUS has said it doesn't say that (it limited the meaning of its words).

	07-07-2005 13:09									#125
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I never said these people would be jailed in Canada. In fact I said the opposite. Still, I observed it is against the law. Laws that might be used if they became a more serious threat (actually started to act).

	07-07-2005 13:09									#126
	Inflate your Upload Space

You jumped up and down and said how such a law was impossible in the US.

	07-07-2005 13:11									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Still, I observed it is against the law

I never said that you said they would be jailed in Canada, I said that you said "Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition", which saying 'it is against the law' basically means.

	07-07-2005 13:14									#128
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither You jumped up and down and said how such a law was impossible in the US.

Currently, it is. If someone tried to prosecute someone for simply backing Al Queda, the prosecution would be struck down in a heartbeat as violating the First Amendment because of a lack of "clear and present danger".

A law for simple symphatizing with Al Queda would be impossible in the law. The USC section has had its meaning limited by the courts so that it couldn't touch simple advocation of a political belief without anything further.

	07-07-2005 13:15									#129
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Still, I observed it is against the law I never said that you said they would be jailed in Canada, I said that you said "Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition", which saying 'it is against the law' basically means.

Where did I say what you put in quotes?

	07-07-2005 13:17									#130
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It is against the law basically means Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition. What else does it is against the law mean?

	07-07-2005 13:21									#131
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You sure squirm well, Imran. or maybe not 'well', but whatever.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I'm still curious where these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action are. Where is this 'sedition' law that nye seems to be claiming the US has?

Must be a real ***** that I showed you the statute, eh?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Um... we have this thing called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prevents such a law to exist. Simply speech advocating the overthrow of the US government cannot be outlawed under our Constitution. Your sedition law is almost exactly what we had in the 50s, which was used to deal with Communists. That law isn't in existance anymore and even though the Supreme Court upheld it back then, the Court, as well as the society, has turned its back on that abhorrent era. The closest thing is that it is illegal to actually threaten (instead of an idle threat) to kill the President. Then again, if you do that against any regular person, it's assault, so nothing too special with that except for the penalties.

'exactly what we had in the 50s, which was used to deal with Communists. That law isn't in existance anymore and even though the Supreme Court upheld it back then, the Court, as well as the society, has turned its back on that abhorrent era,' Imran?

And what's this about the SC already upholding them?

Which is it?

	07-07-2005 13:22									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It is against the law basically means Canadian law would require that person to be prosecuted under sedition. What else does it is against the law mean?

I guess the police and prosecutors have no discretion where you come from then. Is that the case?

	07-07-2005 13:26									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Must be a real ***** that I showed you the statute, eh?

I'll ask again. Where are these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action?

I don't think anyone would argue that "clear and present danger" means someone who isn't engaging in any violent action.

Otherwise, where are all the Al Queda backers. Why aren't they in our jails! Oh noes!

quote: That law isn't in existance anymore

It isn't. As you can see, it has gone through numerous amendments because provisions used to nail Communists just for being Communists were declared by the Supreme Court to not fall under "clear and present danger".

quote: And what's this about the SC already upholding them?

Read Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. Then learn a valuable lesson where courts don't remain static.

Try again, nye, this smacks of desperation.

	07-07-2005 13:28									#134
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I guess the police and prosecutors have no discretion where you come from then. Is that the case?

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?

	07-07-2005 13:29									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Must be a real ***** that I showed you the statute, eh? I'll ask again. Where are these laws that allow the government to stifle individuals who are simply exercising their free speech rights without engaging in violent action? I don't think anyone would argue that "clear and present danger" means someone who isn't engaging in any violent action.

And I'll complete the bit you left out.

quote: Where is this 'sedition' law that nye seems to be claiming the US has?

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.

quote: Try again, nye, this smacks of desperation.

I'm being desperate?

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

	07-07-2005 13:31									#136
	Put an end to popups!

quote: 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?

	07-07-2005 13:32									#137
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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!

quote: I'm being desperate?

Yes... pathetically so

	07-07-2005 13:34									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	07-07-2005 13:36									#139
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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! quote: 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?

	07-07-2005 13:40									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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.

	07-07-2005 13:41									#141
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	07-07-2005 13:44									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	07-07-2005 13:44									#143
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	07-07-2005 13:45									#144
	Got spare money?

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

	07-07-2005 13:45									#145
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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!

	07-07-2005 13:47									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: 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?

	07-07-2005 13:48									#147
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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?

	07-07-2005 13:54									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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/Saf...?ID=11370&c=206

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	07-07-2005 13:55									#149
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	07-07-2005 14:01									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Funny you asked . http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/Saf...?ID=11370&c=206 quote: 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. quote: 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.