Today's JF is a very special one. We get to see a document of one of the 58% of the US population who agrees with the current atrocities being committed here in the US. In an e-mail, he defends the violation of Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments to the US Constitution. He does not foam at the mouth. His words, though, have been put there by Sean Hannity, et al. His actual words written are hilighted in blue. My original email is in black. My final rebuttals are in green at the bottom.
Four short notes on it.
First, I say clearly that they are denying the sixth amendment. The e-mailer *accidentally* picks the fifth, which has a clause which allows for military personel to be thrown in a brig, not civilians. The sixth has no provision for that and if it did, it wouldn't matter because Jose Padilla is a civilian.
The second note is that he assume my lack of respect for public danger. *Oh no, we're all gonna die!* Bullshit. Putting Jose Padilla in jail solves the problem.
The third note is that he says that he thinks that torture is just retribution for American military who murder innocent civilians. Tell that to the soldiers who murdered innocent women and children in My Lai, Vietnam. One person went to jail for it for less than a year. No torture, no death sentence. Why? Because the American government values American soldiers who kill innocent people more than the innocent people.
The fourth note is on the bottom. He says that all day CNN and Fox have been reporting that there is material evidence of Iraq transporting weapons of destruction. This is not true. It is probably due to his not paying attention to the bullshit that the idiot tube feeds him. There is NO EVIDENCE that Iraq has any banned weapons of mass destruction. When they give me any shred of evidence, I will gladly stop repeating this.
This person says quite often: to preserve our rights, we must violate them for anyone who we choose, including those protected by them. In other words: these human rights only exist for me. That is the definition of elitist tyrrany and oppression. To say that America is the land of the free is to lie through your teeth.
A little info on this person: 53-years-old, right-wing republican, Second Amendment defender, First Amendment attacker, SUV driver, computer programmer, home owner, and disc golfer.
Subject: USA renames itself North Korea
How's it going? About the Patriot Act, we have new information that the denial of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to a US Citizen is being used to keep Jose Padilla in permanent military detainment where he is being tortured and interrogated. This type of treatment was highly criticized by the US and the world when North Korea used it on actual enemy combatants, but not citizens of their own country?
Did these tortureds kill 2,000 innocent citizens? If so give them hell. Jose Padilla has made his choices extremely clear. He is on the other side and we have made extremely clear what we will do to anyone going to that side. Death or worse if possible.
The founders of US are rolling in their grave. When people like you will give away the only rights guaranteed to everyone against tyrrany hoping that it will ensure that there is no terrorism, you ensure this tyrannical terrorism on yourself and innocent US citizens.
Exactly how is denying US citiziens their Sixth Amendment and torturing them going to end terrorism? It most certainly is not. As long as there is murder of innocent people, there will be terror. As long as there is tyrrany, there will be terror. Saying that the Patriot Act is temporary is only true if you assume that there will be a revolution against the US government.
Talk to you later,
Joel R. Voss
RE: USA renames itself North Korea
From: "Terry Voss"
To: "'joel randolph voss'"
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:14:42 -0800
Joel, It took a 10 second search to find the following which I believe answer all your questions very easily:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of ...War or public danger...; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
5th Amendment to U.S. Constitution
So you have to accomplish a life of crime and then visit Al Quaida terrorist camp and then fly back, with imprisoned Al quaida leader fingering you with other corroborating evidence in hand to be in hand that he was definitely involved in a dirty radiological bomb to be put in a military prision. Big woop. We are in a war. Read the amendment. 1 Do you care about public danger or would you rather ignore that particular detail to further your radical egoism?
No problem, see if your radical foundation wants to fund your education.
NOTE to readers: He might be pointing to the fable: he who pays the piper calls the tune. What he forgets is that his poor lifestyle can't pay for my education or his own retirement. In fact, my radical egoism has paid for my education, thank you very much for reminding me that I don't need you. 2.
Microsoft Certified Partner
70-305: ASP/VS .NET certified
Sixth, not fifth.
From: joel randolph voss
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:12:35 -0800 (PST)
I said sixth amendment, not fifth. But thank you for reminding me of the fifth. The sixth, which has been violated along with the fifth holds zero allowance for times of war. The fifth amendment says that it has to be a person "in the land or naval forces or in the militia -->>when in actual service<<-- in time of war or public danger..." Thus both fifth and sixth amendments are being violated. What do I expect them to do with a person planning terrorism? Put him in jail, give him a lawyer, allow him to plead his case and don't let him out of jail. Oh wait, I just saw another amendment, number 8 which allows a person to not recieve cruel or unusual punishment for a crime committed. Brainwashing and torture are cruel and unusual punishment. Putting him in jail is more than enough to keep him from doing any harm.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a --->>speedy and public trial<<---, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of --->>counsel for his defense<<---.
I might also point out that this is the same constitution that guarantees your right to bear arms. Is that out of date? Terrorists might shoot someone, RIGHT?! Of course! Your gun needs to be taken from you since you might be a terrorist. Don't think that the fascists aren't thinking of it, because they are. Just like you use the word "terrorist" as as a license to murder innocent people (Afghanistan) and torture US citizens (Padillo), and deny that the Constitution protects the US from TYRRANY, the same will be said in the defense of taking your guns away in three years from now. When it does, I am going to say that you deserve it since you obviously agree with it.
If you've read 1984, you know that torture and inducing fear of torture (terrorism) are the tools of a tyrannical government. By opposing the torture, brainwashing, and interrogation without legal counsel, I am supporting the country that the founding fathers built as well as supporting freedom from tyranny and from terrorism that tyranny is. And by supporting the terrorism of tyrrany, you are destroying the country far quicker than any terrorist could hope. If Pete is right that terrorists are trying to steal our rights, you are aiding the terrorists by supporting tyranny.
Radical egoism, my foot. I am simply a believer in human life without violence or compulsion, which are the only tools of government. You wanted a list of anarchists. Here they are: Leo Tolstoy (wrote War & Peace and a Christian anarchist book that inspired Ghandi and MLK, both semi anarchist), Ayn Rand (Fountainhead features destruction of a government housing project, Atlas Shrugged features a call for dissolution of income tax, the core of the government), Henry David Thoreau (believed no government is the best government, went to jail for not paying taxes, pacifist, and lived in isolation), Peter Kropotkin (scientist/geographer who wrote much of anarchist theory), Emma Goldman (chained herself to Spokesman-Review in protest, wrote many books on anarchism, and sustained American anarchism her whole life), and lastly the Haymarket martyrs (blamed when police attacked a protest for an 8-hour-day). There are millions more, but those are the ones you know.
From time to time, I get to thinking that it would be easier to get taxes repealed in a pacifist-socialist country than to get the US to stop bombing every country around the world, especially the US itself. But that would go against my assumption that an anarchist can live even in the midst of tyrrany as long as he/she lives without violence, compulsion, or tyrrany.
I see your point of view. You believe that violence, compulsion, and tyranny is fine as long as it is done to "bad" people and not to "good" people. It's very safe since people have believed that for centuries. Such as it is with the philosophy that says "an eye for an eye". But it simply is not correct. Violence begets violence and thus a war on Afghanistan begets terrorism. Torture and brainwashing are an extreme case of compulsion similar to 100% taxation, both are compulsion. Tyranny when you are in control is no better than tyrrany when "they" are in control. If only for protection against the democrat who will be elected president in 2004, you definately should get rid of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act since by it, you as well as 80% of Republicans can be named as enemy combatants.
Joel R. Voss
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Terry Voss wrote: Joel,
UN Inspection team today found clear evidence that Iraq has been importing items that it is not allowed to import due to the War in the Gulf resultant sanctions.
Iows they can hide certain things pretty well, but the stuff that is currently coming in is a little harder since the trucks are still coming in and have to transport to the hiding places.
Where exactly did you get this news that the UN inspectors have clear evidence?
It has been on CNN and FOX all day........it was because of this progress they asked for more time to show more.
The only thing I saw was they were asking for 10 more months (ie. they have no evidence). I did see a lot of good news, though. Middle East leaders are promising Saddam exile to ensure a peaceful liberation of Iraq without any intervention of the USA. I'm not sure who would assume dictatorship,
There has been a group in US ready to go in for about a year.
but perhaps he would be well liked by the international community enough to get sanctions lifted.
I had a thought the other day that perhaps Bush's insane war drive towards Iraq is just a scare tactic. That Bush knows that there is absolutely no way that the US could invade Iraq, but he has come up with the perfect plan to scare the shit out of Saddam so that he leaves and the UN is able to peacefully lift sanctions when he leaves. If this is and it works, I might have a bit of respect for Bush. A leader who pretends to be evil to scare his enemies away so that he doesn't have to resort to violence. That is the tactic of a true great pacifist. Or maybe I'm wrong and Bush is insane and it's just working out that possibly the end of Iraqi conflict will happen without massive bloodshed.
Quickly, you get a lesson. The lesson is, if you write (or even say) things that I get ahold of and they can be used against you in a trial of crimes against humanity, you had better assume that high water or libel lawsuits will not stop me from printing it. If you don't want me to criticize you publicly for your support of fascism, you had better keep it to yourself. I have had as much fascism as I can stomach. I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!"