usenet/Cops_on_the_net.html
From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. Some of these posts are over a decade old. The author may have mellowed with age since these were written, but the basic views remain. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)
<![CDATA[From tms Wed Jan 17 15:39:55 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <redgreen-0501961033280001@redgreen.cc.ukans.edu>
<4d9f3r$3s8@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4d9tbv$dmr@spectator.cris.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
THE TROLL <spy001@cris.com> writes:
>
> Why dont you speak to your legislators about this?
> The police do not make the laws,they only enforce them.
"I was only following orders" didn't cut it at Nuremburg and it
doesn't cut it now.
> The police are given a set of laws and sent out to enforce
> those laws, be they popular or unpopular.
And they have the responsibility to not enfore unjust laws. Separation
of powers has a purpose.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"The first duty of love is to listen." -- Paul Tillich
From tms Mon Jan 22 17:01:47 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4d9tbv$dmr@spectator.cris.com> <4djmqu$6cv@shemesh.
tis.com> <30fdca6c.2352443@199.0.65.9>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net (Firehawk) writes:
>>> The police do not make the laws,they only enforce them.
>>
>> "I was only following orders" didn't cut it at Nuremburg and it
>>doesn't cut it now.
>
>You remain an incompetent sensationalist Mr. Swiss There is NO
>correlation between and officers following the law and NAZI's war
>crimes. Or have you seen police ordered to shoot babes and gas the
>elderly? GET a LIFE!
You just don't _want_ to understand, do you? Those Nazi _were_
officers following the law.
Police officers have shot and killed non-violent drug users in
`no-knock' blitzkrieg-style raids. Police officers have taken peaceful men
and women away to be locked in cages for stretches of several years, for
longer sentances than murderers and rapists. Just as the Nazi atrocities
were `permissiable' under the law of the land at the time, so the current
atrocities of the War on (Some) Drugs are deemed `permissiable' by our
current govenment. But those laws are still wrong. And those who freely
choose to enforce them are in the wrong.
No Act of Congress, no ballot or referendum, not even a Constitutional
amendment, can ever make it right to forcibly invade the most basic privacy
of the people, or to attempt to extend the jurisdiction of the government
into their minds and synapses. Or excuse those who participate in such an
attempt.
>>> The police are given a set of laws and sent out to enforce
>>> those laws, be they popular or unpopular.
>>
>> And they have the responsibility to not enfore unjust laws. Separation
>>of powers has a purpose.
>
>Seperation of powers does indeed have a purpose and if you studied
>history or law you'd know that as usual your comment is totally of the
>rocker. The reason you goto trial if you are aressted is because the
>police cannot interpret the law that is the Job of the court.
And the reason that these powers are separated is to prevent the abuse
of governmental power. The judicial branch can and is duty bound to prevent
the executive and legislative branches from abusing their powers.
> The
>police can't make it illegal for idiots like you to post in
>law-enforcement groups because they can't make laws that is the job of
>the legislative branch.
And the reason that these powers are separated is to prevent the abuse
of governmental power. The legislative branch can and is duty bound to
prevent the executive and judicial branches from abusing their powers.
Likewise, the executives of the law - including police - can and are
duty bound to prevent the legislative and judicial branches from abusing
their powers, by refusing to enforce unjust laws.
> They can arrest you for inhaling cocaine be
>cause they can and do ENFORCE the law.
And in Nazi Germany, they could and did enforce the law. During the
Spanish Inquisition, they could and did enforce the law. When Romans threw
the early Christians to the lions, they could and did enforce the law. In
the USA in the days of the Dredd Scott decision, they could and did enforce
the law. When the English faced Gandhi's followers demonstrating for
freedom, they could and did enforce the law. Back in the USA again, when
southern cops faced King's followers demonstrating for freedom, they could
and did enforce the law. When they raided Stonewall, they could and did
enforce the law. When they COINTELPRO'd civil rights and anti-war leaders
in the 1960's, they could and did enforce the law. When they rolled in the
tanks in Tiananmen Square, they could and did enforce the law.
THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT RIGHT, OR EXCUSE THE ENFORCERS FROM ETHICAL
RESPONSIBILTY ON THE GROUNDS THAT "IT WAS THE LAW."
You've seen these quotes before. Read them again and think about them
this time:
"Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on
society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians,
lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should
always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who
believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or
economic status, is a fool."
-- John J. Miller, "And Hope to Die"
(in _Jokertown Shuffle - Wild Cards IX_)
"[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that
violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in
particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private
life and the political affiliations of the citizens..."
-- Albert Einstein
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him."
-- "Aqualung", Jethro Tull
From tms Mon Jan 22 17:15:28 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <30fdca6c.2352443@199.0.65.9> <w0t91j5qt70.fsf@primus.
engr.sgi.com> <4dm798$2ck@spectator.cris.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
MFowler@cris.com (MFowler) writes:
>milt@engr.sgi.com (Milton Tinkoff) wrote:
>
>
>>Firehawk> You remain an incompetent sensationalist Mr. Swiss There is NO
>>Firehawk> correlation between and officers following the law and NAZI's
>>Firehawk> war crimes.
>
>>I think you've missed the point of the analogy. Which specific acts
>>were committed are not the issue here. It is the excuse of "I was only
>>following orders" used to justify the acts, that is the relevant part of
>>the statement.
>
>No Mr. Tinkoff, I think you missed firehawk's point. It's asinine to
>compare the unlawful murder of civilians to the police enforcement of
>the law.
The Nazi war crimes mentioned WERE acts of police enforcing the
law. And police enforcement of the War on (Some) Drugs has on occasion
amounted to the murder of innocent persons. The comparision, sad to say, is
all too justified.
> These are the laws YOUR legislators enacted.
Which doesn't necessarily make the laws or their enforcement
ethically justified in any way, shape or form.
> Please don't
>say, "I didn't vote for them." Thats a cop out. The relevency of
>this whole thread is quit crying about enforcement of the laws as you
>sit behind a keyboard doing nothing to change them.
Who says we're doing nothing to try and change them?
>>Whether it's enslaving blacks, gassing Jews, or locking up non-violent
>>drug users, "it's the law" or "I was obeying orders" are not excuses for
>>committing those acts.
Bing! You hit it on the head, Mr. Tinkoff.
>A large percentage of the people I lock up for drug offenses are as a
>result of searching them incident to arrest for another crime. Merely
>a coincidence? I think not.....
First, you didn't address Mr. Tinkoff's point at all. Second, no, it's
not a coincidence; drug possession is a clandestine act, and you are
unlikely to discover it without some incident to prompt a search. To
conclude from this, however, that drug users are more likely to commit real
crimes is a serious fallacy.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"There is no justification for taking away individuals' freedom
in the guise of public safety." -- Thomas Jefferson
From tms Mon Jan 22 17:24:23 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4d9tbv$dmr@spectator.cris.com> <4djmqu$6cv@shemesh.
tis.com> <4ds672$d2h@bubba.NMSU.Edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jd@acca.nmsu.edu (jd) writes:
>Tom Swiss wrote:
>: "I was only following orders" didn't cut it at Nuremburg and it
>: doesn't cut it now.
>
>This argument is just as stupid the hundredth time I hear it. I used to
>think legalizing drugs may be a good idea, but then I look at what they
>have done to THIS guys mind, and I wonder.
I'm sorry, was there an argument in there somewhere? All I see is an
unsupported statement of opinion and a juvenile attempt at a personal
attack. Tell you what, I'm in a kind mood today, I'll let you take another
crack at it.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"So long as governments set the example of killing their enemies, private
individuals will occasionally kill theirs." -- Elbert Hubbard
From tms Wed Jan 24 11:43:49 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <30ff14b0.76572416@199.0.65.9> <3100D297.4D8A@bluesky.
com> <4e0nai$425@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
> The comparisons of
>the Nazi's who performed experiments on humans, gassed and killed
>people for no cause imprisoned and executed people without and
>pretense of law, had no system of checks and balances and was
>commiting genocide. Has no connection to modern law officers.
The Nazis had more than a pretense of law. Their actions were
perfectly in accord with the law of the land at the time. The fact that law
enforcement officers may be acting in accord with the law does not excuse
them from committing morally reprehensable acts. Then or now.
> The
>police are not rounding up people just becuase they are different.
That's _exactly_ what they're doing to users of currently illegal
drugs, bucko. Rounding them up and locking them in cages because they're
different.
>Ohhh I really don't have time to be your law library goto the Library
>of Congress and read the Constitution and the Declaration of
>Independance. Then we can go further into this.
One hardly needs to go to the Library of Congress to read these
important documents. One can set one's browser to
and get both.
>>Do you mean to imply that officers have no leeway for personal
>>choice of action?
>
>Choice of action in day to day duty yes but not to decide not to
>enforce the law or ignore blatant violations of it.
If someone invites you to dinner, and serves wine to their eighteen
year old son, do you arrest them? (If you're response is "Not if I'm off
duty," what do you do if you see a mugging while you're off duty? Do you
make an arrest?)
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped, briefed, debriefed or
numbered. I am not a number. I am a free man." -- _The Prisoner_
From tms Thu Jan 25 11:30:32 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <30fdca6c.2352443@199.0.65.9> <4e11g9$2kv@shemesh.
tis.com> <4e331o$nd2@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
(
For those who came in late:
It started with firehawk@tiac.net's comment:
>>>>> The police do not make the laws,they only enforce them.
To which I responded:
>>>> "I was only following orders" didn't cut it at Nuremburg and it
>>>>doesn't cut it now.
)
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>Ummm Mr Swiss I have seen no evidence that Police officers have shot
>and killed non violent drug users or even opened fire on such said
>users without being held accountable to the law.
I remind you of the cases of millionaire Donald Scott, Reverend
Accelyne Williams, Jeffrey Miles, and Manuel Medina Ramirez, cases of
people dying in drug raids _that didn't even find any drugs_ and where the
cops walked.
> In 95% of the raids
And what about the remaining 5%?
>where arms are fired the "non violent drug user" In fact had a weapon
>and threatend to use it <pointing weapon at the officers>.
If someone breaks down my door and comes charging through, I'm getting
my gun. I'm not going to assume they're a cop. Cops getting guns pointed at
them is an inevitable result of blitzkreig-style "no-knock" attacks. (My
cynical side suggests that the architects of the War on (Some) Drug Users
_want_ the occasional cop to get shot, so they can jump up and down and
scream, "See! See! We told you these drug users were evil! We need another
twenty billion dollars and a complete revokation of the Bill of Rights to
get them!" And the marks fall for it. <weary sigh>)
> Those who
>are arrested the "peaceful men and women" broke the law if they did do
>the crime they wouldn't do the time and it's that damn simple.
So? If those Chinese students hadn't been protesting they wouldn't
have been run over by tanks. If those Christians had only converted they
wouldn't have been thrown to the lions.
> Drug
>use is a behaviour it can be changed the Nazi's took people who just
>weren't their ideal race and acted against them please show me how
>this is the same.
The Nazis acted against others besides Jews. They acted against
homosexuals and dissidents too - these are behaviors that can be changed,
also.
>Nor were the Nazi's acts permissable under the law of the land it was
>in fact blatant violation of the law.
Yes, they were in fact permissable under the law of the land; the
Nazis _made_ the law of the land, after all.
> If you don't like the law work
>to change it
I am.
> don't blame the police for doin the job they are ASSIGNED
>to do.
My dear Firehawk, the whole fucking point of the analogy to the
classic Nazi excuse of "I was only following orders" was that the fact that
one is doing the job that one is ASSIGNED to do does not excuse ones
immoral actions.
>> No Act of Congress, no ballot or referendum, not even a Constitutional
>>amendment, can ever make it right to forcibly invade the most basic privacy
>>of the people, or to attempt to extend the jurisdiction of the government
>>into their minds and synapses. Or excuse those who participate in such an
>>attempt.
>
>Very nice you make that up yourself?? No actually you didn't.
Yes, actually, I did. Those are my own orginial words. Are you
accusing me of plagiarism?
>Nor is
>it relevent to the topic what you are complaining about you are
>responsible for and can change if you actually LEARNED what the battle
>is and how to fight it but that would require you to admit you know
>nothing as it is now.
If I parse you mangled syntax as you intended, you're saying that _I_
am responsbile for the War on (Some) Drug Users, for the attempt of the
state to legislate our body chemistry?? How the the nine bloody
hells do you figure that?
>>>Seperation of powers does indeed have a purpose and if you studied
>>>history or law you'd know that as usual your comment is totally of the
>>>rocker. The reason you goto trial if you are aressted is because the
>>>police cannot interpret the law that is the Job of the court.
>
>> And the reason that these powers are separated is to prevent the abuse
>>of governmental power. The judicial branch can and is duty bound to prevent
>>the executive and legislative branches from abusing their powers.
>
>Very good idiot now if you are going to claim that the police should
>decide what laws to enforce what branch are you putting them in???
>Police are Executive not Judicial nor Legislative. In other words YOU
>ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE YOU HALF WIT!! you can quote the branchs
>but can't understand what it means??? GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND STOP
>WASTING BANDWIDTH!!!
Firehawk, you even quote the latter part of my message where I address
this. Did you not read the whole post before you responded, or were you too
busy thinking of childish insults like "idiot" and "half wit"? I at no
point stated or suggested that the police are part of the judicial
branch. I said:
>> Likewise, the executives of the law - including police - can and are
>>duty bound to prevent the legislative and judicial branches from abusing
>>their powers, by refusing to enforce unjust laws.
To which you respond:
>Wrong Executive branch has the ability to appoint the judges and to
>veto the legistlative branch. Police are not impowered to refuse the
>law.
You lost your free will when they handed you a badge?????
>> And in Nazi Germany, they could and did enforce the law. During the
>>Spanish Inquisition, they could and did enforce the law. When Romans threw
>>the early Christians to the lions, they could and did enforce the law. In
>>the USA in the days of the Dredd Scott decision, they could and did enforce
>>the law. When the English faced Gandhi's followers demonstrating for
>>freedom, they could and did enforce the law. Back in the USA again, when
>>southern cops faced King's followers demonstrating for freedom, they could
>>and did enforce the law. When they raided Stonewall, they could and did
>>enforce the law. When they COINTELPRO'd civil rights and anti-war leaders
>>in the 1960's, they could and did enforce the law. When they rolled in the
>>tanks in Tiananmen Square, they could and did enforce the law.
>
>Ugh this gets more and more tired The Nazi's commited crimes againt
>humanity and the Geneva convention this means they did not follow the
>law they broke the law. The Romans were not police but soldiers under
>the orders of the gods and the Emperor there was no law envovled here.
The Roman Empire had a Senate and laws. Its military was identical
with its police force. Sadly, we are seeing a drive in the USA now to more
closely link our police with our military - to involve National Guard in
law enforcement
>And the Dredd Scott decision was against the "laws of god"
"Laws of god"??? Your superstitions are your own business, but don't
expect them to carry any weight in an intelligent argument.
>and many a
>LEO turned a blind eye to escaping slaves unless directly confronted.
And many didn't.
>England vs India was another case of trying to make people a crime.
>and to make freedom a crime. The drug war is not such a case drug use
>is a behaviour like theft like murder like fraud.
No, it's not. Not in any way, shape or form. Theft, murder and fraud
involve harm to persons other than the perpetrator. Drug use, when it
involves any harm at all, harms only the user.
>> THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT RIGHT, OR EXCUSE THE ENFORCERS FROM ETHICAL
>>RESPONSIBILTY ON THE GROUNDS THAT "IT WAS THE LAW."
>
>Because it violated a "higher law" you are mixing incompatible cases
>and holding it up and saying see see I'm right. Your not. Get this
>straight people have the right to think what they want people have the
>right to be the race they are and be treated as equals. However past
>that you get into actions and actions are subject to society and
>embodied by law.
So `society', in so far as such a thing exists, could rightfully make
a law that told you what gods to worship, what books to read, what foods to
eat, what people to sleep with? How simple life must be for you, Firehawk,
to let the legislature decide for you how to life your life. Unfortunately
for you, not all of us are content to be lead like lambs. And you know
where those lambs get lead to in the old cliche
> "Laws are only words words written on paper, words that change on
> society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians,
> lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should
> always be obeyed would have made a fine slave catcher. Anyone who
> believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or
> economic status, is a fool."
> -- John J. Miller, "And Hope to Die"
> (in _Jokertown Shuffle - Wild Cards IX_)
>
>Great qoute but is slightly flawed <mostly because it's an opinion>
>The fact is the ideal police officer would do just that apply all laws
>equally to everyone. That this doesn't happen doesn't mean that isn't
>the goal.
So, then, Firehawk, you think you would have made a fine slave
catcher?
>> "[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that
>> violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in
>> particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private
>> life and the political affiliations of the citizens..."
>> -- Albert Einstein
>
>100% correct and 100% idealistic can't have it all.
I'm sorry, was there a point, or even a statement, in that
psudeo-sentance? 'Cause if there was I missed it. Take another shot.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be
serious when people laugh." -- George Bernard Shaw
From tms Thu Jan 25 11:39:13 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4ds672$d2h@bubba.NMSU.Edu> <Pine.ULT.3.91.960121173930.
12674C-100000@chinook.halcyon.com> <4e1e68$jkk@bubba.NMSU.Edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jd@acca.nmsu.edu (jd) writes:
>
>What I disagree with is the comparison of the job police officers do in
>the United States to what the Nazi's did in 1940's Germany. It is a
>ridiculous comparison, and anyone in their right mind knows it.
The comparison was between the statement "The police do not make the
laws,they only enforce them," and the classic Nazi excuse "I was only
following orders." If you think that comparison is not valid, try arguing
against it.
>: BTW are you an example of a drug free person?
>
>Recreational drugs? Yes, I am drug free. I use over the counter pain
>relievers, cold remedies, etc when necessary, and prescription drugs upon
>the advice of a physician. I RARELY drink, and quit smoking in 1988.
"RARELY" is irrelevant to the question. You consume ethanol, a
powerful, toxic, strongly addicictive mind-altering drug. (No offense, so
do I.) You are a recreational drug user.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be
serious when people laugh." -- George Bernard Shaw
From tms Mon Jan 29 13:24:46 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4e0nai$425@sundog.tiac.net> <4e55ec$iku@ixnews3.
ix.netcom.com> <4e8edu$eap@cloner3.netcom.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
sfurbish@ix.netcom.com (Steve Furbish) writes:
>
>>So, do police have a mind?
>
>Yes, and they have a duty - to enforce laws as they exists today.
>Citizens have a duty as well - to obey the laws or change them.
Police have no duty to enforce, and citizens no duty to obey, laws
which are abhorent to basic human rights, laws which attempt to extend the
state's dominion into areas where no government can rationally claim
jurisdiction.
"[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that
violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in
particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private
life and the political affiliations of the citizens..."
-- Albert Einstein
>>It sure helps to have support - especially from police officers who
>>know it is WRONG and stand on a point of MORALITY!
>
>What about those of us who stand on a point of morality, but know the
>law is RIGHT?
How is it RIGHT to lock a person in a cage for altering their body
chemistry, or possessing the tools to do so?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
From tms Mon Jan 29 14:46:47 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4e0nai$425@sundog.tiac.net> <4e5nk5$ji7@shemesh.
tis.com> <4eau8q$a70@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>
>Here we go again Tom <sigh don't you ever research your history before
>you start typing??> The Nazi's did not have pretense of law 90% of
>those placed into a camp never saw a court room are a police officer
>only SS gestpo or Nazi soldiers no defence was permitted no appeal
>nothing.
And that _was_ the law of the land. In fact, its very similar to some
more extreme proposals to Rid America of the Drug Menace put forth by
some. (Civil forfiture victims never see a courtroom.)
> It was not the law of the land it was the law of the
>Military
That was the law of the land at the time. Hitler, sad to say, came to
power in accordance with the legal requirements of the time and was legally
authorized, by the structure of the German government, to do what he did.
in other words an order. The law of the land had courts and
>trials they just were bypassed by the Nazi dictatorship.
They weren't bypassed, they were superseded.
>>> The
>>>police are not rounding up people just becuase they are different.
>
>> That's _exactly_ what they're doing to users of currently illegal
>>drugs, bucko. Rounding them up and locking them in cages because they're
>>different.
>
>Wrong again Boy'o you can't change skin color
The statement I was responding to said nothing about "skin color". And
as I've noted before, the Nazis did not just persecute people of certain
ethnic backgrounds. They also went in for persecution on basis of religion
(a changable behavior), sexual orientation (a changable behavior), and
political affiliation (a changable behavior).
> Drug
>use is an action or habit what ever you want to call it. You don't
>have to do it you have a choice.
You also have a choice as to what religion you practice, what books
you read, and who you sleep with. This doesn't give any government any
jurisdiction in these areas, justify laws that attempt to control these
areas, or excuse those who attempt to enforce such laws. The same applies
to laws that attempt to regulate the body chemistry of the people.
> it has nothing to
>do with being different it has to do with violating the law doesn't
>matter if your rich or poor black, white purple and poka dotted.
Um, are we living in the same country? If you truly think that poverty
and race don't affect one's chances of being arrested...
>> If someone invites you to dinner, and serves wine to their eighteen
>>year old son, do you arrest them? (If you're response is "Not if I'm off
>>duty," what do you do if you see a mugging while you're off duty? Do you
>>make an arrest?)
>
>By law police cannot lawfully interfear with a family unit without
>extreame cause.
Tell that to the former neighbors of a friend of mine. Black masked
narco-stormtroopers busted down their door and held them at the points of
automatic weapons. Their small children were terrified. The woman was strip
searched and fondled by a male officer in front of her children. The
narco-stormtroopers tore the house apart and found something like a gram of
cannabis.
I'd call that interfering with a family unit without extreme cause.
> Add to that I would be off duty I have no legal power
>to act. A mugging or other blatant violation of law especially that
>endagers the health and saftey of the public requires a police officer
>it react.
I'm sorry, but " requires a police officer it react" is not at all a
clear statement. Please clarify: what do you do if you see a mugging while
you're off duty? Are you able to make an arrest?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
From tms Mon Jan 29 14:55:35 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4e8edq$eap@cloner3.netcom.com> <310AB103.7812@bluesky.
com> <4egqgr$rj@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
sfurbish@ix.netcom.com (Steve Furbish) writes:
> Drugs in general tend to alter a person in a variety of ways from
>the simple loss of motor skills, mental confusion, and impaired judgement
>displayed by your everyday drunk driver to the violent, antisocial,
>criminal activity of your armed robber seeking to feed a habit.
Such behavior is not a result of the pharcological actions of the
drug, but of the social and legal structure that surrounds the use.
> Resources
>which should go to the family but are frequently squandered by addicts in
>need of a fix
Another result of prohibtion; how much would an addict squander if he
could get his fix for pennies, without the inflated prices of the black
market?
> or babies born with drug addictions are all indicative of the
>lost morals of drug addicts.
Babies are born with problems caused by legal drugs, too. Much more
often, in fact. And making a criminal out of a pregnant addict is no way to
encourage her to get proper pre-natal care!
> Whether a particular drug is more harmful than
>others is not something I'm qualified to assess, but the blanket statement
>of them being "fundamentally harmful" is an assertion which I think speaks
>clearly to any logical audience.
What is "fundamentally harmful" is drug prohibition.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
From tms Mon Jan 29 15:04:04 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <redgreen-0501961033280001@redgreen.cc.ukans.edu>
<4e43ta$7g@bubba.NMSU.Edu>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
jd@acca.nmsu.edu (jd) writes:
>Roger Tinkoff wrote:
>: People don't compare Nazis to LEOs because LEOs bust people for
>: violating unreasonable and hypocritical laws. It's because to say "I
>: was only following the orders of my superiors" can never be used as
>: justification for doing something to another person you know is wrong.
>
>There in lies the problem though, rogt. *A LOT* of people DON'T think
>it's wrong. A LOT of people support the WoD, and call the police to
>report these types of crimes. You are trying to force YOUR beliefs onto
>those who enforce the laws and support criminalization.
Excuse me???
Anti-prohibitionists are forcing their beliefs on others?
Which side is forcing people into cages at gunpoint?
> There are those
>who believe that its unconstitutional or immoral to enforce these laws,
>and those who don't. What the Nazi's were doing, EVERYONE knew that was
>wrong.
Er, no. THEY DIDN'T. That's what makes it such a tragedy. That so many
"good Germans" bought into the lies. If everyone knew it was wrong, the
Nazis would never have come to power in the first place!
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
From tms Mon Jan 29 15:09:48 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4e9hgj$qee@kendaco.telebyte.com> <4eb092$ca7@sundog.
tiac.net> <55vilyz6yy.fsf@holmes.engr.sgi.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
rogt@sgi.com (Roger Tinkoff) writes:
>
>Oh, I think the meat of the debate starts right here. His point was
>that while prohibition would not exist without drugs, drugs have been in
>existence and use *much* longer than prohibition.
It's worse than that; drug use has been around longer than human
kind. Many other animals use psychoactive drugs, from alcoholic fermented
berries to coca leaves. It seems safe to say this was going on before some
half-bright balding ape knocked two rocks together and made a spark.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
From tms Mon Jan 29 15:40:30 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4e1e68$jkk@bubba.NMSU.Edu> <4e8bni$o8i@shemesh.tis.
com> <4eauf0$a70@sundog.tiac.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
firehawk@tiac.net writes:
>
>> The comparison was between the statement "The police do not make the
>>laws,they only enforce them," and the classic Nazi excuse "I was only
>>following orders." If you think that comparison is not valid, try arguing
>>against it.
>
>I've been arguing against it and proving my points you just keep
>spouting the same thing over and over again. An order and a Law are
>not the same thing. How hard is that to understand??
An order is part of military law.
An order is a directive from some person or persons telling another
how to behave. A law is a directive from some person or persons telling
another how to behave. We often use "ordered" to mean "required by
law". The only real difference is that one comes from the military
leadership and one from the civilian leadership.
>>>Recreational drugs? Yes, I am drug free. I use over the counter pain
>>>relievers, cold remedies, etc when necessary, and prescription drugs upon
>>>the advice of a physician. I RARELY drink, and quit smoking in 1988.
>
>> "RARELY" is irrelevant to the question. You consume ethanol, a
>>powerful, toxic, strongly addicictive mind-altering drug. (No offense, so
>>do I.) You are a recreational drug user.
>
>Inncorrect if you consume it within the rules of your faith <Ie the
>four toasts at a passover sedar>
Quite true. The phrase "I RARELY drink" suggests recreational use to
me, but if jd meant religious use, I apologize.
I note, however, that the law makes no distinction for currently
illegal drugs between medical, recreational, and religious use. (With the
partial exception of the flip-flopping position on peyote.)
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'." -- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
From tms Wed Jan 31 11:55:38 EST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Cops on the net
Summary:
Expires:
References: <310BAE31.F2E@primenet.com> <w0td9827pn4.fsf@primus.
engr.sgi.com> <310EB39D.127A@primenet.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
Colin Sword <sword@primenet.com> writes:
>
>Are you now saying that it is better to let the drugs be legalized and spend
>money on welfare or medical costs of addiction?? NOT!!!!
That's one possible course of action. In purely financal terms, it
would be less expensive to the taxpayer; we already spend tax dollars on
the treatment of poor addicts of both legal and illegal drugs. Over the
long term, we can expect to see _less_ addiction, as people graviate
towards softer drugs like cannabis instead of hard drugs like ethanol, and
as new, less harmful intoxicants are developed. Legalization would allow
addicts to work, pay taxes, and lead mostly `normal' lives; how would
Edison, Freud, (cocaine addicts) or Halsted (co-founder of John Hopkins
hospital, surgical pioneer, and morphine addict) fare today?
>I also put the same question to Cliff about legalizing drugs and not
>invoicing society. What is it about you guys and having someone else pay
>for your discretions?
I haven't asked anyone to pay for my indiscretions. (My
`indiscretions' haven't cost anyone, unless you count my occasional
headache as I wake in the morning realizing that I should _not_ have had
that last rum and coke.) I'm saying that we shouldn't be paying money to
lock people who have harmed no one in cages for spans of several
years. Once we agree on that, we can begin the debate on what to do with
the money we've saved. We could return it to the taxpayer, spend it on
poverty relief, pay renumeration to all the drug users locked up under the
old laws...there are many possibilities.
> What's wrong with being responsible for your
>actions?
Locking people in cages for acts that harm no one can in no reasonable
way be called holding them responsible for their actions.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh
vegetables." -- _The Tick_
]]>
3 days 22 hours ago
6 days 16 hours ago
1 week 8 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 2 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
2 weeks 10 hours ago
2 weeks 11 hours ago
2 weeks 23 hours ago
2 weeks 2 days ago