they are really REALLY gonna get a kick outa me

my rocket project (new window)

No_One_Special: You can refuse to do so- if they have a warrant to search your files they can crack the damn thing themselves.

I'm *so* going to set my passphrase to "Custom agents are child molesting Gestapo wannabes" or something equally offensive.

Gotta love the shiatstorm on Fark when something like this happens. How long will it take us to realise both of our systems are far from perfect; we have shiat like this, and you can get locked up for stupid shiat like tiny-scale weed possession, and still have the death penalty.

Anyway, can't you guys see the problem with lecturing us on freedom when you have farking Guantanamo? I couldn't give two shiats that it's only Muslims who you imprison there.

Wow, I go home and the farking retards come out in force. I'll address you all in turn in separate posts, but the following should suffice. Given the idiocy of some of you, I'm sure it won't.

rattchett: You are correct in that "skipping bail" is serious. You are wrong in all your other assertions and I believe you are intentionally misconstruing what I have said.

To reiterate:

We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities. We are freer as a result.

In the story, the prosecution and the Judge were able to draw adverse inferences on the basis of the silence of the accused, resulting in a presumption of guilt. In the USA and Canada, exercising our right to remain silent in a criminal proceeding does not result in the onus shifting from being on the State to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence.

In the USA and Canada, model rockets and pocket knives are not illegal. Nor are we arrested for having information of the sort the accused in the article had.

With respect to the question of explosives - he was not charged and found guilty, so what's the relevance?

I know that Brits do not have rights enshrined in a constitution in the same way as we have here and I am certainly not trying to impose the constitutional rights upon British citizens. I do believe that we are freer as a result of our constitutional rights. We know that greater rights result in an increased potential for danger. Free speech and free association can result in riots. The right to read books on dangerous ideas can result in those ideas being put into practice. Freedom brings risk and responsibility. That said, we have for the most part decided that the freedom of the individual comes before the convenience of the State.

England may not be at 1984 or V for Vendetta and the USA and Canada are ...

I'll put it simply for you because you're misconstruing the whole thing: The traces of explosives and all of the extraneous little details constituted a reason to hold and question him under terrorism legislation that prohibits keeping quiet. In the ensuing events, it appears that the only sound he made was to, and pay attention here, this bit's important: PLEAD GUILTY TO ALL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM UNDER THAT LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS THE SEPARATE CHARGE OF SKIPPING BAIL!. Now, does convicting someone who pleads guilty NOT happen anywhere else? Should they have called his bluff and let him go after an admission of guilt?! If you answer "yes" then you're even more stupid than your previous posts suggest.

Let's move on to this farking gem: "We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities.".
He was imprisoned for ADMITTING THE CHARGES. How you don't understand that is pretty amazing. His lack of co-operation led to him being charged, NOT CONVICTED. I wonder who's deliberately misconstruing things here? For future reference, the police caution here goes as follows: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It's pretty clear from the opening sentence that your wrong in your assertions regarding our right to silence.

Britain is not on any more of a "slippery slope" than the US and your belief that they're "freer" as a result is a fallacy perpetuated by ignorance and an inability to think critically and base judgements on facts rather than your apparent dislike of Britain, itself based on ignorance. I base this opinion of you on your moronic belief that pen-knives and model rockets are illegal in the UK, which is utterly and demonstrably false. As proof I offer:

Link (new window)
and
Link (new window)
and, well, the other Google hits that come up after a mere second of effort.

And the same goes for penkinves.

As for the books: it quite clearly ststes that these books are LEGAL to purchase and own, but when ownership coincided with other suspicious factors this constituted enough reasonable suspicion to hold and question him. So I'll reiterate my opinion that you're basing your argument on ignorance which renders it completely wrong.

Pardon Me Sultan: I'll talk slowly since thinking adults are talking.

Yes, he broke the laws of the disgraceful system you're defending.

The rest of us are aghast at the assumption of guilt, and that not wanting to incriminate yourself is itself a crime under your beloved system.

You live in London? Awesome. You get to live in the shiatty system you love so much.

If that passes for thinking then I pity you. Put simply, the circumstances constituted enough probable cause to hold him and question him. As for the assumption of guilt, he admitted to all of the charges. Get that? He ADMITTED to the charges, leaving no option other than conviction. He confirmed guilt, it wasn't ASSUMED. He was tried fairly and admitted to the charges against him, removing any possibility of being found innocent, exactly as would have happened in the States. This really isn't that complicated.

As for "loving the system", please point out where I expressed anything like that? I merely refuted the idiotic assertions of a few, including you, which are based on ignorance.

No, no, this is a perfect example of why the US made their legal system the way they did- The legal idea that "a defense is inadmissible" unless divulged to police is draconian. In the US, all burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Anything they assert, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense just has to wait and see what they will assert and can then come up with any argument they please to create reasonable doubt.

So yes, a perfect example of the lack of freedoms in the British system. I had no idea defensive arguments had to be made prior to charges and the burden of proof lay on the defense. What.... what BOLLOCKS quite frankly.

The American system is flawed and embarrassing sometimes, but I'm just going to have to re-post this (new window) (Long but worth it)

asscorethethird: You are a farking moron. That all sounds fine to me. You retarded brits have no liberty. Here in the states we have absolutely no legal obligations to talk to the pigs about anything. I would have told them to go shove a stick up their ass. And the fact the pigs released the titles of some of the books in his library just goes to show that they are trying to smear him. Its farking disgusting.

I doubt you can read, but if you can, have a look at the prior posts directed at your fellow ignoramuses. They spell out very clearly the issues here, the issues that appear to have flown far over your head.

Do us all a favour and try entering the States with:
1) An outstanding arrest warrant (this is what happens when people skip bail. Yes, even in the US)
2) Traces of a high-explosive on your hands
3) A book describing how to make a pipe bomb
4) Encrypted data
Then, with that in place, tell the pigs to go fark themselves. I'm pretty sure you'll waltz out of the airport in a matter of minutes, no problem. In the apparently highly unlikely that event that you're detained, admitting to any charges brought against you will, according to you, not result in further detention, trial and conviction.

Get off of your Dad's computer you idiotic child. You very obviously have no clue what you're talking about, yet I'm the farking moron?! Ok pal.

No_One_Special: No, no, this is a perfect example of why the US made their legal system the way they did- The legal idea that "a defense is inadmissible" unless divulged to police is draconian. In the US, all burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Anything they assert, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense just has to wait and see what they will assert and can then come up with any argument they please to create reasonable doubt.

So yes, a perfect example of the lack of freedoms in the British system. I had no idea defensive arguments had to be made prior to charges and the burden of proof lay on the defense. What.... what BOLLOCKS quite frankly.

The American system is flawed and embarrassing sometimes, but I'm just going to have to re-post this (new window) (Long but worth it)

And an admission of guilt to all the charges doesn't constitute proof? They had enough to hold him under a SPECIFIC act stipulating that he had to divulge his encrypted data, which he refused to do. He was fairly tried to ascertain his guilt or innocence, during which process he admitted to being guilty. He could have claimed innocence but didn't and, according to this article, he did it after assuming he'd already served his time. Was the judge somewhow supposed to ignore the fact that he'd pleaded guilty and find him innocent, despite the fact that the admission of guilt was the ONLY statement he appears to have made? That's absurd.

The Envoy: Wow, I go home and the farking retards come out in force. I'll address you all in turn in separate posts, but the following should suffice. Given the idiocy of some of you, I'm sure it won't.

rattchett: You are correct in that "skipping bail" is serious. You are wrong in all your other assertions and I believe you are intentionally misconstruing what I have said.

To reiterate:

We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities. We are freer as a result.

In the story, the prosecution and the Judge were able to draw adverse inferences on the basis of the silence of the accused, resulting in a presumption of guilt. In the USA and Canada, exercising our right to remain silent in a criminal proceeding does not result in the onus shifting from being on the State to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence.

In the USA and Canada, model rockets and pocket knives are not illegal. Nor are we arrested for having information of the sort the accused in the article had.

With respect to the question of explosives - he was not charged and found guilty, so what's the relevance?

I know that Brits do not have rights enshrined in a constitution in the same way as we have here and I am certainly not trying to impose the constitutional rights upon British citizens. I do believe that we are freer as a result of our constitutional rights. We know that greater rights result in an increased potential for danger. Free speech and free association can result in riots. The right to read books on dangerous ideas can result in those ideas being put into practice. Freedom brings risk and responsibility. That said, we have for the most part decided that the freedom of the individual comes before the convenience of the State.

England may not be at 1984 or V for Vendetta and the USA and Canada are ...

I'll put it simply for you because you're misconstruing the whole thing: The traces of explosives and all of the extraneous little details constituted a reason to hold and question him under terrorism legislation that prohibits keeping quiet. In the ensuing events, it appears that the only sound he made was to, and pay attention here, this bit's important: PLEAD GUILTY TO ALL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM UNDER THAT LEGISLATION, AS WELL AS THE SEPARATE CHARGE OF SKIPPING BAIL!. Now, does convicting someone who pleads guilty NOT happen anywhere else? Should they have called his bluff and let him go after an admission of guilt?! If you answer "yes" then you're even more stupid than your previous posts suggest.

Let's move on to this farking gem: "We have the RIGHT to remain silent. You do not. As a result, we cannot be imprisoned for refusing to speak to the authorities.".
He was imprisoned for ADMITTING THE CHARGES. How you don't understand that is pretty amazing. His lack of co-operation led to him being charged, NOT CONVICTED. I wonder who's deliberately misconstruing things here? For future reference, the police caution here goes as follows: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." It's pretty clear from the opening sentence that your wrong in your assertions regarding our right to silence.

Britain is not on any more of a "slippery slope" than the US and your belief that they're "freer" as a result is a fallacy perpetuated by ignorance and an inability to think critically and base judgements on facts rather than your apparent dislike of Britain, itself based on ignorance. I base this opinion of you on your moronic belief that pen-knives and model rockets are illegal in the UK, which is utterly and demonstrably false. As proof I offer:

Link (new window)
and
Link (new window)
and, well, the other Google hits that come up after a mere second of effort.

And the same goes for penkinves.

As for the books: it quite clearly ststes that these books are LEGAL to purchase and own, but when ownership coincided ...

You are absolutely right. He plead guilty and I missed that when I read the article. While it is questionable whether he had the mental capacity to plead to the charge in light of his being sectioned, his guilty plea is a very important fact that I missed. I stand corrected.

That said, and in general terms, I believe that the right to remain silent is important and I believe that a law that results in an accused, as a result of his silence, having an adverse inference made against him so that the burden of proof shifts from the Crown having to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence is draconian.

I realize that stories posted on Fark come with an agenda, resulting in people who do not reside in Britain having a skewed perspective. However, to an outsider, there are aspects of Britain that are hard to fathom, such as the prohibition against carrying pocket knives generally, the number of CCTV units, parties being charged for giving rude gestures to traffic cameras, victims of violent assault being charged for defending themselves, a retired police officer charged for carrying the Swiss Army knife that his colleagues gave him at his retirement,the incarceration of a person for finding a gun in his back garden and transporting it to the authorities, and laws that say your can be convicted of a crime if you remain silent, to name but a few.

All of those things may be fine with you, and that's great, you live in England and I don't - a fact that we are both no doubt grateful for.

ratchett: You are absolutely right. He plead guilty and I missed that when I read the article. While it is questionable whether he had the mental capacity to plead to the charge in light of his being sectioned, his guilty plea is a very important fact that I missed. I stand corrected.

That said, and in general terms, I believe that the right to remain silent is important and I believe that a law that results in an accused, as a result of his silence, having an adverse inference made against him so that the burden of proof shifts from the Crown having to prove guilt to the accused having to prove innocence is draconian.

I realize that stories posted on Fark come with an agenda, resulting in people who do not reside in Britain having a skewed perspective. However, to an outsider, there are aspects of Britain that are hard to fathom, such as the prohibition against carrying pocket knives generally, the number of CCTV units, parties being charged for giving rude gestures to traffic cameras, victims of violent assault being charged for defending themselves, a retired police officer charged for carrying the Swiss Army knife that his colleagues gave him at his retirement,the incarceration of a person for finding a gun in his back garden and transporting it to the authorities, and laws that say your can be convicted of a crime if you remain silent, to name but a few.

All of those things may be fine with you, and that's great, you live in England and I don't - a fact that we are both no doubt grateful for.

Good post and as a result I apologise for my condescending tone, I think I could have made my point without it, I just let my ire get the better of me.

Now, this may sound like BS, but while I was considering this story after leaving work (feel free to post the "someone's WRONG on the internet!" pic) the issue of his mental state DID ocurr to me and I agree with you wholeheartedly. The judge should have asked for the standard assesment of his mental health and his assertion that he didn't think the guy would talk to the assesors, thereby making it pointless to order it, is piss-poor. I'm glad he's getting the care he should have received prior.

Also, considering your second paragraph, you're right again. That's a worrying stae of affairs and I can't logically defend that shifting of the burden of proof. I can only assume that, given the fact that this guy didn't seek or get legal representation, the issue was allowed to progress like it did. I think (hope) a half-decent lawyer could have hammered them Police and CPS for that. I do think that there was enough evidence to initially hold and question him, but from that point on it did get a bit too fascistic.

As for the issues that concern you, many are simply not that simple. 80% of CCTV cameras are privately owned (shops especially-shop-lifting is almost as popular as drinking as a national past-time) and the ones covering public areas are, for the vast majorty, not monitored. The sheer volume of them precludes that. Victimcs of violent assault being charged for defending themselves is also not common at all. For instance, the Indian gent who beat a home invader and fractured his skull being charged with GBH. Sounds terrible, but in reality he got a group of friends, dragged the guy in to a garden and set about him with a cricket bat and metal pole long when he was on the gorund and was no longer a threat. That's excessive force in anybody's book, but media like the Daily Mail gloss over the facts for the juicy outrage. Pen-knives are perfectly legal and I myself have been stopped carrying one in Victoria station in Central London carrying one, but I was on my way to work so they didn't even bat an eye-lid. I was stopped for a positive response from a drug-dog and hasten to add that I wasn't carrying anything! I think the issues arise when laws are poorly enforced and the shocking reporting simply focuses on that.

I actually have British/American nationality and don't like living here much. I'd far rather live in Australia, Canada or Thailand, truth be told. I like some aspects of the States, but I'll show my hypocrisy here and say that Farkers (and my conservative nutter grandfather) have put me off!

The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

The Envoy:

Good post and as a result I apologise for my condescending tone, I think I could have made my point without it, I just let my ire get the better of me.

Thanks for the apology and the debate.

Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

and as soon as it was determined that he was a US citizen (the guy spent almost his whole life in saudi arabia) he was moved to a US prison in norfolk. try again.

The_Original_Roxtar: Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

and as soon as it was determined that he was a US citizen (the guy spent almost his whole life in saudi arabia) he was moved to a US prison in norfolk. try again.

You said "name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo". That's precisely what I did. Try again.

As I've said anyway, I couldn't give two shiats who you imprison there, they're still imprisoned indefinitely without charge. Whether or not they're US citizens is irrelevant.

Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: Redscum: The_Original_Roxtar: TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: except that Gitmo is for damn dirty foreigners, not the local citizenry.

Hahaha, it's so cute that you believe that.

name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo.

Yaser Hamdi. That took me a good 10 seconds on Wikipedia.

and as soon as it was determined that he was a US citizen (the guy spent almost his whole life in saudi arabia) he was moved to a US prison in norfolk. try again.

You said "name 1 us citizen that has been confined at gitmo". That's precisely what I did. Try again.

As I've said anyway, I couldn't give two shiats who you imprison there, they're still imprisoned indefinitely without charge. Whether or not they're US citizens is irrelevant.

lets go back through the thread shall we?

iron chef: "gitmo is a STFU yank card"
me: "me gitmo is for foreigners... the UK is doing this to its own citizens. the comparison isn't apt"
you: "lolz it's cute that you think that"
me: "name a citizen that has been confined there"
you: "here's a guy who was surrendered along with a fark-ton of taliban in afghanistan after spending 20 years in saudi, but spent the week he was born in louisiana"
me: "as soon as he told us he was a citizen, we sent him to virginia"

You've still not proven your initial point, and my initial point remains uncontested.
Gitmo is NOT for US Citizens.

The_Original_Roxtar: Gitmo is NOT for US Citizens.

Regardless of what has been done to this point, the way the laws are written, you can be declared a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" and be sent to gitmo. There is nothing, zip, nada, in the rules that says you have to be a foreigner to be housed there.

TsukasaK: The_Original_Roxtar: Gitmo is NOT for US Citizens.

Regardless of what has been done to this point, the way the laws are written, you can be declared a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" and be sent to gitmo. There is nothing, zip, nada, in the rules that says you have to be a foreigner to be housed there.

incorrect.
US citizens cannot be denied entrance to the united states
the 5th amendment guarantees due process

one can only lose one's citizenship in a few ways: http://www.newcitizen.us/losing.html

basically, "join an army fighting against the US and we'll fark you up"
these rules are followed. if it were the afghani army that
Yaser Hamdi or John Walker Lindh were members of rather than the taliban, things would have gone differently.

Guantanamo is a naval base. naval, military. Unless marital law is declared, the military has no control over citizens.

martial
my hands are dyslexic lately.