...gasbags.

I feel dumber after hearing only two repsonses from Ned Lamont in the televised debate. And Schleisinger is touting habeas corpus for terrorists. That's bullshit. It applies to people accused of crimes within the borders of "the several states." It most certainly does not apply to people who take up arms against American soldiers on foreign battlefields. Hell, it wouldn't even legally apply if they took up arms against the CT National Guard within our borders! Taking up arms against the US does not fall into the realm of the courts. Ever. Period. It never has and never will unless the military turns the perpetrators they capture over to civil authorities for charges of treason. It is solely in the authority of the military to decide.

Here's an example: a group people decide to gather together and attack the Air National Guard helicopter repair facility at the Groton airport. The Guardsmen hit the armory (if they have one) and kick the crap out of the attackers, killing some and capturing most. Now, the theory is that those captured should be turned over to the cops. Not so fast. They attacked a military installation. Those Guardsmen would be under no legal obligation to instantly turn them over to civilian authorities. In fact, per the Geneva Convention, they could summarily execute as spies every last one of those captured if they so desired. Most of the time, the middle ground is chosen. Detention by the military.

Habeas corpus? No way. Geneva Convention rights as PoWs? No, because they were not lawful combatants in the struggle. The Geneva Convention only recognizes uniformed combatants fighting for a recognized nation. Terrorists do not fight for any nation; nor do they wear any uniform unless you count a dishtowel on the head as a uniform. A possible exception could have existed for the Taliban if they had adopted a uniform and had not been so controlled by al qaeda. Since none of that equalled reality, they are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights except the right to summary execution. No uniform, you're a spy. Habeas corpus has never ever applied to anyone taken into custody via the efforts of the military. If the military is needed to bring someone to justice, we are involved in a war. 'Nuff said.

Back to the debate:

Nice...Lamont supporters wouldn't even let Lieberman talk during one answer and during his final statement (they were singing some unintelligible song). Maybe they should have rushed the Stage (ala Columbia University) to really make their point. Points to Lamont for condemning their actions during Lieberman's response time and final statement time, but I still feel more stupid after listening to his drivel. Ned Lamont, you're not getting my vote. Why? Because of your actions in this crucial Senate race and the feeling I get that you are an appeasement scumbag like those who follow you.

I realize that I rambled in this post, but I don't care. It's my blog, and nobody reads it anyway.

...American troops in the Sinai.

Granted, it's a small amount (I think a battlion or so) and rotated out very often (I think every 6 months if I remember correctly). The point is, we try to keep the peace between Israel and Egypt with a symbolic gesture.

That begs the question...what if the shit hits the fan? What if Israel or Egypt lost their marbles and moved divsions of mechanized infantry into the Sinai. Do we expect our battalion along with the other UN forces to oppose the agressor or just stand by? Haven't we learned by now that UN forces have no teeth unless they are directly attacked and have to act in self defense?

As far as I know, the Sinai officially belongs to Egypt after the Israelis beat their asses, took their terriotory and then gave it back in good faith. All of that occurred after an attempt by Egypt to irradcate Israel (with some help, of course).

So here is what I propose...since the Suez canal is largely regarded by the bulk of the world as free for all nations to transit, why is the Sinai (which makes up the eastern border of the canal and staffed with UN troops) not an official "No-Man's land?" Because Israel gave it back? Please. They could still be in control of it today with Israeli warships patrolling the canal if it suited their national interests.

So, it's simple to me. It does not suit Israeli interests to contest "ownership" of the Suez Canal. But I'm willing to bet it's in Egypt's interests to "retain control" of what amounts to No-man's land (ceded to UN troops). What's the deal here? Just a reason to talk tough? I give up. The logic or lack thereof in that region totally escapes me.

...Atom bomb fizziles.

via Hot Air.com at the following link: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/08/report-north-korea-tests-nuke/

It falls in line (to me at least) like this:

Chest thumping Dear Leader orders a test detonation.

Scientists advise against due to "scientific abnormalities."

Dear Leader demands they proceed.

WOOMP!!! Massive (up to 4.2? Richter) fizzile. Sweet...we got a couple of kilotons! (instead of 10 times that amount)

They are trying, but not yet there. Think of their missiles, guys. If they can't even get a rocket to launch and hit the intended target (the Sea of Japan only counts if you live in the DPRK and buy into that sea as the intended target for a "medium range" or "long range" missile) and can't get Richter to tremble beyond 4.2, they are far from delivering a really effective warhead to anywhere. Via missiles or bombers.

Worst scenario I see based on the "unification" rhetoric is that the dumbass drops a small nuke on the DMZ. This will, of course, cause mass American causualties which will have us screaming (and mobilizing) for DPRK blood, but will also render at least a sizable portion of the DMZ useless to them as a battle frontier/transit area. Does anyone REALLY believe that they have the ability to mount a first strike and then actually fight in the same area? Well, Dear Leader might be that stupid.

Additionally, if it happens, I forsee the RoK as a whole nation giving up the "Yankee, go home!" attitude. They'll be begging and crying for us to reinforce/replace lost troops.

If Dear Leader really loses all his marbles and starts Korea II with a nuke, he better find himself a very deep bunker beforehand. The wrath of the world will come down on him with military action from at least the RoK, the US, Britain, (and some other NATO allies, though I'm not counting on many), Australia, New Zealand, the Phillipines, Japan, and perhaps even Russia and China. Oh yeah, all of our ships may even get refueled in Taiwan (perhaps even China's if they mobilize with us and the Taiwanese ports are simply more efficient). Hell, Taiwan may even launch air strikes. With tanker support, they can get there.

Nukes? Maybe (perhaps a series of 20 KT [hint: that's a small one for us] bombs dropped out of a B-2 or delivered with a cruise missile could convince them that we can do anything they can [ but 10 times better/faster] and instigate a total revolt). Overwhelming conventional force, definitely from the north or south or internal or all three. Perhaps even a limited draft of combat-age folks here in the US, though I suspect that wouldn't be necessary due to floods of volunteers. The DPRK will cease to exist, although (ironically) the RoK may acede to international wishes and absorb the defunct DPRK (with international compensation). Thus, the "unification" will have been achieved. Just not how Dear Leader envisions it.

If my above scenario happens, consider the DPRK completely gone within 3 or 4 years. 3-4 years? Not because of lack of willing participants, but because of lack of materials. The Feds would have to contract someone (GM, Ford, or maybe even Toyota and Hundai) to shift to war production. We might even see M1 Abrams tanks with a "Made in Taiwan" sticker on them. :P We've forever been a nation slow to anger, thus slow to mobilize/produce for war. But if this dumb bastard decides to kick off Korea II with a nuke, you'll see that mobiliation take place with or without Congressional consent/appropriation.

To: United States Congress

From: Dumbshit_Warmongering_American_Company #'s 1-10000

Subject: War Effort

Due to the tragic loss of so many of our servicemen and women due to the actions of a truly insane and idiotic leader, how may I present my company's abilities in the field of (XXXX) to support our war effort? Failure to respond within 20 days will result in my immediate arrival in person so you, the Congress of the United States, remain on the hook and can explain to the taxpayers and me why my offer was not accepted.

Yours sincerely,

Dumbshit_Warmongering_American_Company #'s 1-10000

I'm willing to bet letters of the like would come in long before Congress voted in any additional appropriations. Anyone want to bet against me?

Why the hell does it take a crisis of momentous proportions to mobilize this country in the fight for what is right? 9/11 did that for a short time. But the American psyche has forgotten the images of people hurtling to their deaths on the pavement instead of being incinerated. Our fight is not just against militant Muslims, people. It's also against everyone who wishes us harm. We must fight and crush our enemies so they ultimately leave us alone. We knew this during every war we fought in up to Vietnam. Look what "limited objectives" did then and then think about the consequences of the same type of action when (not if...when) we are provoked again. Yes, we fight for truth, justice and the American way, but for fuck's sake, aren't AMERICAN ideals the bedrock of the UN (whatever) document on human rights?

I want to develop a machine that generates electricity from the suction power of heads being pulled from asses. I'd only get rich in a time of extreme strife, but that's what the whole world is embroiled in right now, whether it be armed conflict or rhetorical. My first target for liscencing would be Denmark. At least some of their citizens have reversed the rectal/cranial inversion process.

Meh...all my posts seem to be turning into political diatribes.

...Foleygate.

This is getting ridiculous. No matter what news channel I turn to or log on to, I see stories about Foley. Ok. We get it. He made many reprehensible approaches to House pages. I cannot and will never, ever condone what he did. High-school aged pages? For Christ's sake, even I (self-admitted pervert that I am) limit my lustful objectification to college age, preferably beyond the age of stupid high-school fantasies (which varies widely but averages 22-23 :P); but if not and still willing, ok for a night. We are much better off with his resignation.

So what do we get when he resigns? A flood of news broadcasts with "new revelations" that ultimately don't mean shit since they only consist of, "Foley approached me too!!" hysteria or just build upon him being a teen predator. We know. He approached more than one. They were teens when he did it. The whole freakin world recognizes that. What we really need are real news reports on who knew and when and why nothing was done prior to this if something of substance was actually known, not this "he said-she said" political bullshit. What we need are news reports on who sat on this information (ABC, perhaps?) and potentially endangered many more pages so they could unleash a "political bombshell." Hell, with the way the media actually investigates things these days, I'm tempted to submit myself as a "Foley-victim™" and watch it get "reported" as fact along with the "fact" that I personally forwarded everything to Hastert. With the way real info is trickling out thanks to the blogosphere, I'd not be surprised to see some ABC editors get indicted for "Conspiracy to commit..." charges.

As far as anyone can tell by the mismatched "facts" being reported, Hastert both knew and didn't know about Foley. Well, which is it? Isn't it a journalist's job to get to the bottom of something before reporting conjecture as fact? Isn't it a journalist's ethical duty to report to authorities suspected crimes while still protecting their source's identity?

BREAKING NEWS: hey, mass media...Americans aren't stupid no matter what you might like to think. Granted, some are, but most are not. We want real news™, and not some bullshit political stunt concealed as journalism.

Everyone in the country should be happy that Foley resigned. We don't need people of that ilk making laws/policy for us. However, a pre-emptive crucifixion of someone who probablly didn't know the full story is a bunch of shit; and the bulk of America realizes that. Picture this: you're a business owner for a multi-billion dollar business. Your "assistant/aide/secretary" reports a potential sexual harrassment situation to you. Isn't the natural inclination to say, "deal with it if you can; If you can't, come get me?" How many corporate business owners involve themselves in the minutia of every single branch and/or store of their business? Easy answer. None. They rely on the people they hire (and more importantly what those people report to them) to reliably take care of the day-to-day crap and enforce the rules while they focus on moving the entire business forward. Everything I've seen so far falls into line with this. Hastert seemingly was informed of a potential problem and was then told it was taken care of (by his trusted "assistant/aide/secretary"); and no legal action developed, so he promptly forgot about it. Not worth wasting any more brain power on. Done deal, right? You'd think.

Don't get me wrong, here. If it turns out that Hastert knew about the sexually explicit, potentially illegal crap that was spewing from Foley's computer; his political career should be hung by the neck from the top of the Capitol Building. If not, simply shut up. The political destination of this nation is not in the hands of the media. It's in the hands (and the hearts) of every-day Americans like me who say, "if he's a criminal, prosecute; if not, leave him alone."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...horrible political campaigns.

It sickens me to my soul when one of the two main political parties resorts to attacks on the opposing party by citing the actions of one man, or resorts to the "anyone but..." rhetoric that is utterly rampant in the campaign ads here in CT. Especially since the Republican ads that are, truthfully, smear campaigns at least address basic issues. Republican: he/she is going to raise your taxes. Democrat: yeah, but he/she supports Bush!!

Wake-up call...it makes me NOT want to vote Democrat, and I'm registered as unaffiliated. I vote for people based on their perceived merit gleaned from what platform they are pushing or by their character if I know them. Democrats, your political ads do more to push average people (with real minds of their own) away from you than anything your opponents will ever advertise. We have a constant barrage of temper tantrums that only sway one sort of people...the base that will vote your way no matter what. I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that if I want this country to be run by spoiled brats, I'll vote Democrat. "Anyone but Bush," my ass. Provide a worthy candidate with real goals on real issues and I'll start listening. At least the President does what he says. Who among you can do the same and follow through? Seriously. Who? Show me one and I'll at least listen to him. This also goes for the Republicans in the future as well. No cry-baby ads. State your position on real issues. Let the chips (votes) fall as they may.

Oh, Ned Lamont, you can kiss my vote goodbye since you decided to air the commercial of a person reading out the names of the deceased Americans from CT who fought and fell in Iraq/Afghanistan for your "right" to use their ultimate sacrifice as a baseball bat to try to bludgeon your opponent with when you have no real platform. "I'm Ned Lamont, and I approved this message." Well, good. "I'm a concerned citizen, and I approved this middle finger." Or if it's a "National committee" sponsoring the ad, replace it with "The Concerned American National Committee sponsored this middle finger." ( I want coinage rights to those sayings if they ever take off) By the way, Ned...you forgot to list the other hundreds of thousands of American dead who died long before 9/11 who guaranteed your right to spew your colon/rectal region from your mouth.

Those people in uniform are confronting the enemy on foreign shores so you don't have to. And I'm ever so thankful for that (only God and you know what you'd cough up to avoid personal conflict). They are fighting a foreign war in which a President finally had enough cojones (does that get me the Hispanic vote?) to say "ENOUGH AMERICAN DEATHS," so that you (the great and powerful and awesome multi-millionaire that benefitted from Republican-sponsored tax breaks) don't have to whine about me (the great and powerful and awesome "lower-class-aspiring-to-a-stable-middle-class" scum [sensible person] who actually served) carrying a gun with me whenever I leave my house, or whine about bombs blowing up the natural gas storage tanks in New Haven. Honest...I don't even have a gun. I only took the SDS (Self Defense Stick) with me once when I took a walk in the early morning. Really, Occifer! I didn't realize that it was the law that self defence is illegal. Really! Judge tell him!.

Smarmy doesn't even come close to this political hack. He has a single-issue platform..."Bring our troops home." Ok, Mr. Lamont...say we do. Who will scream the loudest in 4 years when the military is patrolling every street in every city and busting down doors here at home? Who will scream the loudest when a curfew for public safety is declared here at home? I can admire your zeal to protect our troops, but you've lost sight of two very vital issues...they are protecting our way of life by confronting those most Americans view as our enemies on their own turf, and they all volunteered to do so. They certainly do not need some smarmy, self-important upstart such as yourself "speaking for them."

The troops may not (and I may not) agree with the current "strategy," but fighting this war beyond our borders is paramount to our society; and your attempted political distortions utterly enrage me. I'm sure there are at least one or two friends of those named in your ad who would happily punch you right in the mouth for your bullshit. Really, Occifer...he had it coming.

...complete irony.

There are 3 generations of Americans that still exist to remember a potential holocaust of nuclear missiles clouding the sky and smashing our cities and Western Europe's cities into radioactive fallout as ours did the same to Eastern Europe and the USSR, possibly including China depending on the political winds. Those generations are the WW II Generation, The Baby Boomers, and what people call Generation X. By the way, who the hell decided I'm an X and not a K or a C?

That threat is now gone. The fall of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain was hailed as a precursor to that ever-elusive world peace. Grand idea. The world started breathing a bit easier. Nerves jumped a bit as India and Pakistan successfully tested nukes, but then subsided as they realized the same M.A.D. that the US and USSR dealt with for decades applied between those two nations. To be fair and logical, the fall of the Eastern Bloc was inevitable and necessary. You can only squash creativity and self expression for so long before that style of government implodes (as in the case of the USSR) or gets overthrown (with much bloodletting).

Then came 9/11. People started digging deeper into the fringes of US and USSR policies during the Cold War. Suddenly, folks realized that both nations had , shall we say, less than savory dealings with militant jackasses. Suddenly, people realized that the militant jackasses might get their hands on fissile material. That could pose a few problems. Then people realized that there was no longer anyone to put the reigns to these militant jackasses, and at least two nations with nukes or highly advanced research into nukes that might supply them with the info (North Korea and Pakistan). Thankfully, the US didn't totally succumb to 8 years of demilitarization (I was there; so if you ever read this and care to try to dispute my claim, go for it).

So where does that leave us? Ironically, the fall of the USSR leaves us in a more uncertain and potentially dangerous world than we had 3 decades ago. 30 years ago, everyone (on both sides) knew who the enemy was. Now the enemies are shadow organizations that most likely have cells entrenched in the West and the East. Read that as a warning to Russia...you're as much a target as the US is...Chechnya isn't your only worry. Why? Because both sides funded shady dealings with the militant jackasses; and once they were no longer needed to fight against the other side, the funding was cut off. That led to an escalation of anger from them (not that they needed more).

What both sides during the Cold War failed to realize was that we were helping/funding radicals who had an ultimate agenda of their own. These people fight for the sake of subjugating the entire world, but researchers never realized that 30 years ago. Or they chose to ignore it as a fancy. Well, we have reaped the harvest now. Here in the West, I dare say more people are worried about a nuclear terrorist attack then anyone ever was about an attack from the USSR.

Do I think it likely that a nuke will detonate in the US anytime soon? No, not really. There are softer targets to go after first. Like Russian cities or Europian cities. Our only hope is that the lethargic "World" mobilizes to face this threat and provides a measured military response before the first mushroom cloud galvanizes the entire modern world into extremely violent action against these fanatics who are too stupid to drag themselves out of the 13th Century. Let's face it...nuking the Middle East is in nobody's best interest; but once pushed too far, the entire West may decide it's the best option.

...the best political move ever.

I know it's old news, but the IRA (at least publicly) de-militarizing in the wake of 9/11 and 7/7 was a huge step forward.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/28/ira.statement/index.html

I'm of almost 100% Irish descent. I've always wondered why England had a presence in North Ireland and I've read a few accounts from both sides. What I came up with is liable to not be popular at all, but I've concluded that England is trying to hold onto the very last area on the earth that is challenging their 19th century empire. So, that should spark outrage in me, no?

Well, if I was an Irish militant, yes, I guess it might. But I'm not. I'm an Irish-American, so I feel their pain, but not first hand. The end of the 19th century (which I feel occurred during WW II, not in 1900) drew a lot of lines. Some agreeable, some not, but drawn all the same. As always, the victors dictated the terms and arrived upon agreements not always agreeable to the vanquished. Since Ireland was 'neutral' during the war, there was no hope of solving the "Irish Problem" one way or the other through conflict with allied help for the English. England drew troops from North Ireland and took volunteers from "independant" Ireland during the war . What a conundrum!

In the end, it turned out to be a huge mess. England was still in posession of Northern Ireland, all of "southern" Ireland resented that and "some" of those resenters turned into 'jihadists' to free northern Ireland. On the flip side of that, Northern Irish consistently voted their 'occupiers' into power. CONUNDRUM!

In the end, it all boiled down to religion, and eventually, the IRA realized that it doesn't matter what one personally believes. They realized that they were earning no friends at all by using the tactics of Islamic militants. In fact, they realized that the more innocent Brits they killed, the less support they had. They moved on to politics and I wholeheartedly support the peaceful transition in North Ireland from British rule to rejoining the Irish nation.

If it gets ugly and protestants start massacring catholics in a bloodletting campaign. I'll bounce right back to "this is why the Brits are here...not to opress, but to put the hammer down on the bullshit."

Peaceful reform is the best way to go when amongst followers of a paceful faith.

To address the link of the IRA de-militarizing...I can only say that perhaps they have finally learned. They don't want the British occupation, but they also do no want to be identified with Islamic terrorists. Smart move. It took them almost 4 years after 9/11, but they finally got the message.

...teleportation.

Or at least we will once we stupid Yanks hook up with the Danes for research and funding. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/10/04/teleportation.reut/index.html

Small excerpt from the article:

"...'It is one step further because for the first time it involves teleportation between light and matter, two different objects. One is the carrier of information and the other one is the storage medium,' Polzik explained in an interview on Wednesday..."

The very idea is so intriguing to me. This is the beginning of the end (in the way distant future) for the constantly embattled, ineptly managed (except for a few), horribly expensive airline industry. Think of the possibilities of being able to teleport from terminal to terminal instead of having to fly and wondering if you're going to end up as somebody's violent "political" statement. Once the line of sight and distance and gravitational influence problems are solved, we could teleport to anywhere (and I mean not on earth). Well, at least as long as no "reception" terminal is required. Why not send this experiment up to the International Space Station which effectively has no gravitational issues? Let them try it out to see what happens in zero-G.

To Professor Eugene Polzik and your team at Niels Bohr Institute, I say KEEP WORKING!!! Toss a few mice into whatever contraption you have built and see if they come out of it alive. If they don't live, it's no huge disaster. Make some adjustments and toss a few million more through. Start small and work your way up.

Yes, yes I know!! That's horrible to the mice, but only PETA cares about mice. To the rest of the world, they are a nuisance or a source of food for cats/dogs/panthers/wolves. I say toss many millions of mice or rats into the teleportation device until it makes them come out alive on the other side. Better yet, start with whatever version of the mosquito that carries West Nile and/or Malaria. I can't forsee a huge protest evolving out of that. In fact, contact me for some funding to pass live subjects through (provided your test subjects are not humans) . I'll give you what money I can afford as a grant to try teleporting a mosquito, mouse, rat or even a polar bear (they don't serve any logical ecological purpose that I know of except to limit the seal/walrus populations that Inuits depend on). It might only be $5, but hey, it's $5 more than you had.

America Tolerates...

...a hell of a lot, actually.

1) We tolerate freedom of speech from anyone inside our borders to start. We tolerate the right to agree with, disagree with, believe in, don't believe in, mock, deride, condone, lambaste, excuse, disregard, forgive, excoriate, flay, pardon, overlook, smear, castigate, ignore, forgive, or whatever your favorite verbiage is to any paticular issue.

We do not tolerate our local, state, federal, or foreign governments/groups dictating to us what we may or may not say, mock, deride, support, overlook, forgive, ignore, believe in, etc.

2) We tolerate the freedom to own weapons which ties in with the 4th Ammendment as explained..

Yes, this causes one hell of a hoopla every time Something bad happens™ related to firearms. What a lot of people fail to realize is that most firearms used in the commission of a crime are obtained illegally. The call for further gun control always (sensibly) falls on deaf ears as a result. There is zero sense in wasting time passing further laws on gun control when the guns mentioned are already illegal.

There is zero sense in passing laws outlawing guns that are legal because idiotic teens or criminals get their hands on them . Why? Because it's already illegal for them to posess these weapons! Yet they get their hands on them. Yes, it's true. Instead of focusing government efforts on banning these weapons, why not focus on putting that monetary resource to closing down the black market for them? That means less money to the politicians and more to the cops. What a novel idea...let the cops try to do their job and limit funds to government to what will do the most good.

If banning of "arms" ever passes in the US as it did in Britain, the next step will be to outlaw souveniers that are "dangerous." How many folks in this country have something like a Samurai sword mounted on the wall? Quite a few, I'd wager. What about a paring knife? Want that banned? It could easily be used to slit a throat or stab an attacker, after all. How about something like the stick that I have? It's pretty stout and if anyone broke into my place, I'd beat the attacker senseless with it. Oh, the horror!! The blunt trauma might even kill the dumbshit who encroached upon my home intending to do harm.

Yes, simple theft is harm to the victim...and it's against the constitutional right to own property. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." Isn't "simple theft" covered there? Oh, but it really means the GOVERNMENT can't do the deed, right? Correct. They may not without probable cause. But it also means a criminal also may not do the deed without potentially dire consequences since he clearly has no probable cause. I'd call a burglar stealing something an "unreasonable seizure."

Bottom line...The 2nd ammendment exists to allow for the common people to defend themselves against any type of tyranny. Be it government or criminal activity.

3) We tolerate feeding/quartering our troops at our discretion.

We love our troops but won't stand for military orders to deprive us of our homes. I will happily tolerate, quarter and even cook for any of our troops if the current world war ever forces us to entrench ourselves behind two oceans, but since that isn't about to happen in my lifetime, it's a moot point. I seriously love you guys and gals; but if you want a home cooked meal, you have to ask me, not try to force me.

4) We tolerate lawful search and seizure.

If it be unlawful, it's not going to happen (if it does, color yourself a rich man/woman). If you hate America and advocate our destruction loudly within our borders, as long as you do not violate actual law in America, you are protected against our "fascist government" seizing your property. Sometimes, it sickens me to realize that our Constitution also applies to visitors whose ultimate intent is to cause harm within our borders. But what can be done without repealling the 4th Ammendment which will never happen and I would never want to see happen.

5) We tolerate the ability for a defendant to flip the bird to a judge and say nothing. Let the state prove their case! I wholeheartedly support this, and invoking the 5th ammendment should never be a determining factor in a jury decision. What if the defendant, while not guilty as charged was forced to incrimiate himself in something that he's not charged with and then subsequently gets charged with the new crime?

I'm sure a lot of folks would argue that, "he's guilty of something," or "he's hiding something;" but so what? Unless prosecutors can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, he's a free man. How would you feel if in a position to invoke the 5th? Not guilty as charged, but guilty of something semi-related (as the charges go) that might come up.

Let's use an easy example. You're charged with drug trafficking (selling pot specifically). You never have nor ever will. But occasionally, you buy pot which you are not charged with posesseing, just trafficking. Want the jury to find out that occasionally you like to get stoned so they can convict you of at least something? Didn't think so.

That's why the 5th Ammendment exists. Unfortunately, it's often used as a precursor to guilt. As soon as someone invokes the 5th, the jury (and especially the media) assumes guilt. What if every defendant in every case in the nation decided to invoke the 5th all at one time? Suddenly, the number of convictions would skyrocket, not plummet. Not because of better detective work by the prosecution, but because of "perceived guilt."

6) Speedy trials for accused citizens. Ok, ok...not all of them are what an average person would call "speedy," but blame the defense counsel to which an accused is also entitled for at least some of the sloth in the court system. Defense councils spend an inordinate amount of time filing motions that a judge has to think over, thus delaying proceedings. In any event, overall, the justice system at least keeps moving along. There isn't a lot of languishing in prison with no trial like in many other nations.

Ohhhh... Quiet! Can you hear it? Here comes the Gitmo outcry. Tough. Those people were foreigners actively conspiring or actively involved with trying to kill US citizens. Our military got them because our police forces are limited to operating within our own borders.

Oh, so that entitles them to POW status, right? Nope. Nowhere in the Geneva Convention that people are constantly screaming the US is violating does it allow for Prisoner of War status for combatants that are not uniformed, not a part of an actual military organization and/or seek shelter amongst civilians. In fact, by the letter of the convention, those people could have been summarily executed as spies on the battlefield. We chose to capture instead of kill so we could obtain information. Make no bones about it...we chose to capture when we were within our Geneva Convention rights to summarily kill.

For those people clammoring for POW status and access to lawyers for the detainees, think about this: they are mutually exlusive. Give somebody POW status and guess what? No lawyer. How many POWs has the United States ever granted an attorney unless they are accused of a crime? None? Sounds about right. So make up your minds. You either want them termed POWs (which they have no legal right to) or you want them to have lawyers which they are going to get when tribunals start.

7) We tolerate lawsuits to address grievances against another person, organization or even the government. Far too many frivilous ones in my opinion, but we still tolerate them. Granted, the wording of the 7th Ammendment is quite archaic. 20 bucks? I know it was a lot back in the 1780s, but what American nowadays doesn't absolutely hemmorage $20 bills out of their pocket on a daily basis? At least the court system has evolved along with common sense in the regards of small-claims suits.

8) We tolerate citizens charged with crimes walking free on the streets with a psoting of bail money. We tolerate common criminals being held in jails without cruel and unusual punishment. How many other nations can say the same? Well, all of them, I guess. How many other nations actually live by their claims? Not many.

9) We tolerate rights not specifically granted to still exist. The right to go anywhere one pleases for example. If I feel like going to Hawaii, I don't need specific government permission. The right to live ones life as one chooses is another example. I can be a bum or an astronaut at my own choosing.

10) We tolerate the people deciding certain things for themselves. Police forces, for example. The people, through their elected representatives, ultimately decide how much power they have. That's just one example of the powers of the American citizen. Being a citizen myself, I take so many of them for granted that they are hard for me to put into simple words. It would probably take a foreigner to ask me lots of questions for me to even begin to ennumerate them.

Just thought of another thing that ties in with both the 9th and 10th Ammendments. The persent-day Minutemen. They are nothing but a group of volunteers actively patrolling our southern border and turning back illegal immigrants. Thankfully, there has been no reported bloodshed as of yet; but I'm sure that will happen eventually. What a mess that's going to be in the courts.

"You see, Judge...the feds are totally inept at protecting our southern border from illegal invasion, and the Constitution doesn't prohibit me from doing it; so what are you charging me with? Murder? Killing to stop a crime isn't murder, Judge. Especially since he assaulted me and it was self defense."

Yes, it's going to be one huge mess.