Dear Old Dad!

[999_Springs]

I don't usually browse the debate forum, but I have a... question.

Would it have been possible in the first place for him to reject the police questions as described in this thread?

(Also, if anything like this happened in the UK, I'm sure that it would result in disastrous consequences for the authorities.)

[goatman]

The only reason why counter-terrorism acts exist is to give the government the power to lock anybody (and everybody) away with a plausible excuse. Government's are pathetic, same law in Britain, Australia and a few other countries.

And, it happens a lot more than you see, because naturally the innocent prisoner has little means to argue his case or make it public, without being ignored from accusations of insanity or 'evilness'. It's outrageous. If SlappyMcGee hadn't told you guys this, I doubt you would've even believed it truly happens.

[otters]

He is, in fact, in jail, in the United States, for suspicion of terrorism.

his bail is $25,000.

Is it only me who's confused by this? How could anybody justify granting bail to a suspected terrorist?

Yeah, let's take away their right to a trial and their Miranda rights, too.

Wait a second...

Are you actually serious, SkyPanda?

I think he's serious. If Slappy's dad was a terrorist, would it still be part of the system to grant him bail?

[blue_tetris]

He is, in fact, in jail, in the United States, for suspicion of terrorism.

his bail is $25,000.

Is it only me who's confused by this? How could anybody justify granting bail to a suspected terrorist?

Because that turns his opium money from the Fertile Crescent into American cash.

[blue_tetris]

"If this guy is really a murderer, should we give him bail at all?!"

"If this guy really did go 55 in a 45, should we give him bail at all?!"

Etc. etc. Fact of the matter is, you get bail when you're arrested for something--anything at all--having nothing to do with your crime, typically. It's just a stay for your actual trial. When you're actually found guilty of something, given due process of law, you can't pay your way out of jail. Until you're sentenced, what are you actually guilty of? Being suspicious?

[bobaganuesh_2]

this is ridiculous!

North American society is so warped, it's reached a hyper-sensitive paranoid state, where frankly no one is safe from these retard "authorities". They didn't even check his history or talk to witnesses to confirm his story, anything like that?

[scythe]

(Also, if anything like this happened in the UK, I'm sure that it would result in disastrous consequences for the authorities.)

Are you kidding me?
http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/is-this-a-joke/
http://usera.imagecave.com/lothianblue/gmp1.bmp.jpg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15 ... ographers/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... deo-police
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_ ... ilian_shot
http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8969 ... 005kr3.jpg (no, really: http://tvlicensing.co.uk/)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/2 ... -liberties
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/2 ... ecruit-spy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/2 ... law-courts

[SkyPanda]

Are you actually serious, SkyPanda?

Yep. The reasons for granting or not granting bail are different and more complex to the reasons why we have Miranda rights and trials.
I do not think that refusing bail, or detaining suspects without charge for extended periods of time, is at all desirable in most cases. However I was under the impression that terrorism was a pretty serious crime, and that terrorists are not usually the type to respect the judicial system, surety or no surety. Am I wrong on both counts there?
Typical requirements for bail- being unlikely to commit a crime once released, not posing a danger to any person, not being likely to flee- also don't seem to apply to your typical terrorist, don't you think?

That said, i'm talking about terrorism in general. I'm sure 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are very slippery words. Perhaps Slappy's dad is suspected of a lesser terrorism offence, or something, in which case there's likely to be much less reason to refuse bail.

Etc. etc. Fact of the matter is, you get bail when you're arrested for something--anything at all--having nothing to do with your crime, typically. It's just a stay for your actual trial. When you're actually found guilty of something, given due process of law, you can't pay your way out of jail. Until you're sentenced, what are you actually guilty of? Being suspicious?

Bail has everything to do with the crime (in this context) because a person suspected of certain crimes, for example treason, will not be permitted bail. Also, crimes that carry a death sentence usually exclude a person from being granted bail.
Bail aside, suspected terrorists can usually be detained without charge for longer periods than other crimes.

[blue_tetris]

Are you actually serious, SkyPanda?

Yep. The reasons for granting or not granting bail are different and more complex to the reasons why we have Miranda rights and trials.
I do not think that refusing bail, or detaining suspects without charge for extended periods of time, is at all desirable in most cases. However I was under the impression that terrorism was a pretty serious crime, and that terrorists are not usually the type to respect the judicial system, surety or no surety. Am I wrong on both counts there?
Typical requirements for bail- being unlikely to commit a crime once released, not posing a danger to any person, not being likely to flee- also don't seem to apply to your typical terrorist, don't you think?

That said, i'm talking about terrorism in general. I'm sure 'terrorism' and 'terrorist' are very slippery words. Perhaps Slappy's dad is suspected of a lesser terrorism offence, or something, in which case there's likely to be much less reason to refuse bail.

Etc. etc. Fact of the matter is, you get bail when you're arrested for something--anything at all--having nothing to do with your crime, typically. It's just a stay for your actual trial. When you're actually found guilty of something, given due process of law, you can't pay your way out of jail. Until you're sentenced, what are you actually guilty of? Being suspicious?

Bail has everything to do with the crime (in this context) because a person suspected of certain crimes, for example treason, will not be permitted bail. Also, crimes that carry a death sentence usually exclude a person from being granted bail.
Bail aside, suspected terrorists can usually be detained without charge for longer periods than other crimes.

The pith of my statement remains, regardless of what is actually in effect in the US: If you're not convicted of a the crime yet, what are you guilty of? Being suspicious. That's about it.

Also, knowing Slappy's dad, I doubt he's even guilty of this "lesser terrorism offense" that you claim. Did he only terrorize the whole of the American population a little? How do you only terrorize to a lesser extent? Can I get in a smidge of genocide before lunch? How many tiny massacres can I commit with my car alone? In what way has he terrorized? Is he part of a paramilitary organization? Is his crime terrorism because he's a foreigner? If an American buys illegal fireworks, it's a victimless crime, but if a Venezuelan buys them it's terrorism?

What constitutes terrorism, in your eyes, Skypanda? Try not to regurgitate the media-immersive definition and come up with something concise. Because it's my belief that "terrorism" is thrown around today just like "fascism" was thrown about in yesteryear--mostly as a meaningless term. Eventually, we'll take to calling the postal service "terrorist" for holding our unsigned parcels overnight. (I've heard them called "fascist", non-ironically, for the same act before.)

[SkyPanda]

If you're not convicted of a the crime yet, what are you guilty of? Being suspicious. That's about it.

The justice system of your country is not able to find guilt on the spot, instanteously, without a court. They just can't do that. It's really not possible. There are processes that need to be followed. Often trials.

Also, knowing Slappy's dad, I doubt he's even guilty of this "lesser terrorism offense" that you claim.

Oh, please don't. You're better than that.
But i'll humour you. Aiding. Abetting. Accessory. Accomplice. Somebody has to make the coffee. ;)

What constitutes terrorism, in your eyes, Skypanda? Try not to regurgitate the media-immersive definition and come up with something concise.

This would be far more effective had I not already explained, mere minutes ago, that terrorism is a hard word to pin down. Nevertheless, I shall rise to your belated challenge.
Terrorism, in my wide brown eyes, is a politically or religiously motivated destructive or violent act targeting civillians and intended to cause widespread terror. It can be distinguished from everyday violent crime, which is usually not intended to cause terror, not on the same scale, and is unlikely to be politically or religiously motivated. It can also be distinguished from an act of war, which is between nations.
You're welcome to argue with that, but considering that even the UN can't make their minds up, you might have a hard time of it.

I'm rather ashamed, blue_tetris, that you felt a post of such low quality was an appropriate response to mine. I shall try harder.



Here's a link I found related to something that scythe just posted.
http://www.mattgoff.net/blog/uploaded_i ... 753763.jpg
Haven't checked it out completely yet, seems real though.
The great surveillance nation strikes again? 1984 used to be the standard, but it looks like England is soon to surpass that.

[blue_tetris]

Also, knowing Slappy's dad, I doubt he's even guilty of this "lesser terrorism offense" that you claim.

Oh, please don't. You're better than that.
But i'll humour you. Aiding. Abetting. Accessory. Accomplice. Somebody has to make the coffee. ;)

Hm? I don't think I can see Slappy's dad as aiding or abetting to any act of terrorism. Don't know why the way I said that got knickers in bunches. You're saying that the guy is an abettor to terrorism for what he's done, as per Slappy's description of his crime. Which means the crime that Slappy described, to you, indicates he's helped out with terrorism or terrorists in some fashion. Let's read on to see exactly what you think terrorism means, to see what you think Slappy's dad helped out with:

Terrorism, in my wide brown eyes, is a politically or religiously motivated destructive or violent act targeting civillians and intended to cause widespread terror. It can be distinguished from everyday violent crime, which is usually not intended to cause terror, not on the same scale, and is unlikely to be politically or religiously motivated.

So the way in which you view terrorism is such that Slappy's dad's acts (in the way he has described them in this thread) could have been seen aiding and abetting to cause widespread terror to an entire populace. You said "perhaps Slappy's dad is suspected of a lesser terrorism offence", which (again, from Slappy's description of the events) indicates either a gross misuse of the term or indicates that you honestly believe he aided, abetted, and made coffee for people who incite terror in an entire population. It sounds to me that the man didn't even commit "violent crime", let alone the sort of violent crime you said was distinguishable in that it's on a broader scale.

Again, just trusting your words on this one. The guy actually is being held for allegations of terrorism and you suggest that it's possible these allegations don't refer to the big kind of real terrorism, but some sort of animated Tiny Terrorism Adventures, where the new cast has some tenuous link to the original widespread horrific terror but none of the initial voice actors.

I'm rather ashamed, blue_tetris, that you felt a post of such low quality was an appropriate response to mine. I shall try harder.

No need to unprovokedly act like a gaping cunt. I thought my post was good; and I thought your post was good; but then again, we're not in the business of rating the quality of posts in a hoity-toity, holier-than-thou fashion to place ourselves on some intellectual strata above the taudry confines of debate. Y'know, unless we're trying to act like gaping self-righteous cunts.

[SkyPanda]

I don't think I can see Slappy's dad as aiding or abetting to any act of terrorism.

I beg your pardon, the quotes should probably have gone like this:
"How do you only terrorize to a lesser extent?"
"aiding. abetting. accessory. accomplice."
Does that change your, uh, arguments?

Don't know why the way I said that got knickers in bunches.

For the audience, here's a run through of what b_t just did, with key words highlighted.
sky: "Perhaps Slappy's dad is suspected of a lesser terrorism offence, or something,"
big blue: "Also, knowing Slappy's dad, I doubt he's even guilty of this "lesser terrorism offense" that you claim."
It's really not that subtle. He's turned my speculation into what the poor man is accused of into a statement that implies I claimed Slappy's dad is guilty. You do it again in your latest post blue_tetris- i've already called you for it once, but you're going to keep trying?

So the way in which you view terrorism is such that Slappy's dad's acts.. *rambles on about Slappy's dad*

That's great, dude. I'm sure he's a real nice guy. I'd probably buy him a beer after what he's been through.
But get with the program. I don't know what his dad is accused of- how could I? I merely pointed out that the type and magnitude of crime he has been accused of, whatever that may be, can affect his ability to be granted bail.
So if we bring this back to a reasonable topic of dispute...
"If you're not convicted of a the crime yet, what are you guilty of? Being suspicious. That's about it."
...then I stand by what I said that suspected criminals sometimes need to be detained for practical purposes, and that the nature of the suspected crime will affect whether or not the suspect is granted release. This is going to inconvenience some, sure, but that doesn't make it unjust or an unreasonable deprivation of liberty.

What is an unreasonable deprivation of liberty is when the authorities don't permit the poor guy to contact his family. Perhaps the USA should look to the UK for guidance on this one- I believe that over there even suspected terrorists are permitted to contact one family member.

Something else that bothers me about these terror laws is that they remove any possible avenue for dealing with, or even recognising, incompetence and mistake. If the suspect isn't permitted to contact anybody, does that mean no lawyer? 2 months behind bars without a lawyer? Ridiculously unjust by any standards.

we're not in the business of rating the quality of posts

No need to get all defensive, your posts are usually really clever. The fact that your last was so uncharacteristically dodgy made me think that you didn't consider me worth putting proper effort in for, or something. :(
But you say that's not the case, so no worries.

[otters]

Until you're sentenced, what are you actually guilty of? Being suspicious?

I imagine, if they caught you covered in blood, with the knife in your hand and the dead victim in front of you, you would be guilty of more than that?

N.B.: The law officers in Slappy's father's case were douchebags. He obviously wasn't caught in the act of terrorism. He was buying some fucking tires and didn't tell these guys he was involved in crime ten years ago. Let me make this clear that I'm not saying Slappy's dad is obviously guilty. I'm just trying to contradict Dave by saying that at a certain point, you're actually guilty of more than just being suspicious when you're arrested.

[SlappyMcGee]

But everybody is entitled to due trial. No matter how guilty you are, and Slappy's Dad certainly is not, you're still a citizen. Even with absolute proof you did something horrible, America doesn't have a right to not grant you bail prior to the trial. The fact that they've set the bail for my dad at 25 Grand is ridiculous, even. It's a very fear oriented decision. I understand that you don't want suspected terrorists running around. But I also feel like they've elevated their power too high, here. My Dad has not been tried or even accused of anything in court. He's being held for three months in jail because there were some shitty cops, and there are always going to be those kind of shitty cops. What gives them the right to change the established agreement of criminal/law enforcement just because the word terrorist got thrown around?

The way I see it, before the trial, you aren't guilty of anything from a legal standpoint. So, how can the police make decisions like this?

[otters]

Oh, I get what you're saying.

[Adoniseppi]

I think he's serious. If Slappy's dad was a terrorist, would it still be part of the system to grant him bail?

Being a terrorist is different from being a suspected terrorist.

But the rights they're given in many cases are the same.

[blue_tetris]

Love the piece-meal quotations.

Don't know why the way I said that got knickers in bunches.

For the audience, here's a run through of what b_t just did, with key words highlighted.
sky: "Perhaps Slappy's dad is suspected of a lesser terrorism offence, or something,"
big blue: "Also, knowing Slappy's dad, I doubt he's even guilty of this "lesser terrorism offense" that you claim."
It's really not that subtle. He's turned my speculation into what the poor man is accused of into a statement that implies I claimed Slappy's dad is guilty. You do it again in your latest post blue_tetris- i've already called you for it once, but you're going to keep trying?

Your speculation? We've been told candidly what Slappy's dad has done pretty accurately by Slappy. We're to determine if it's a justified use of the law to hold him for terrorism offenses. You defended the law by saying: "Maybe he's just guilty of a lesser terrorism offense", which you later elucidated to be "maybe he's guilty of aiding and abetting to those who would cause widespread fear to the American population". So, if Slappy's dad isn't suspicious of aiding and abetting those who would use violence to cause widespread terror to the American population, then the law isn't being applied properly in this circumstance.

So the way in which you view terrorism is such that Slappy's dad's acts.. *rambles on about Slappy's dad*

That's great, dude. I'm sure he's a real nice guy. I'd probably buy him a beer after what he's been through.
But get with the program. I don't know what his dad is accused of- how could I? I merely pointed out that the type and magnitude of crime he has been accused of, whatever that may be, can affect his ability to be granted bail.
So if we bring this back to a reasonable topic of dispute...

A reasonable topic of dispute which you select, Skypanda? Seems to me that the topic had something to do with Slappy's "Dear Old Dad". Maybe I keep coming back to the situational analysis here because everytime I go to click on this thread, I see the topic title "Dear Old Dad", the threadstarter SlappyMcGee, and I presume that the topic is a discussion about Slappy's "Dear Old Dad" and--by extention--the events surrounding. We could obscure to a different topic, if you like. But I think the goal here is to determine whether the law is being applied correctly given the situation described about his "Dear Old Dad" by SlappyMcGee.

Like how you said "rambled" in my manner of posting. It really makes you seem better enough than me to justify getting around having to quote what I say. Do I bore you, Dr. Finneas? I haven't actually entered into many debates with you, but I'm starting to figure you just use weasely, pretensious habits in talking down to Suki and--who still posts here--Obby? Never remembered Serious Discussion like this.

What is an unreasonable deprivation of liberty is when the authorities don't permit the poor guy to contact his family. Perhaps the USA should look to the UK for guidance on this one- I believe that over there even suspected terrorists are permitted to contact one family member.

And, given everything that Slappy has told us about his dear old dad, you think that his inability to contact with his family is the only unreasonable curtailment of his liberty, then. Now we may be getting somewhere.

we're not in the business of rating the quality of posts

No need to get all defensive, your posts are usually really clever. The fact that your last was so uncharacteristically dodgy made me think that you didn't consider me worth putting proper effort in for, or something. :(
But you say that's not the case, so no worries.

And I don't know why you care to call posts "uncharacteristically dodgy" or, in effect, "below my usual standard of dealing with people" (hooo hooo hooo, more crumpet, madam). It seems to me that going around "rating posts" and making an effort to disparage people indirectly by saying that their posts suck instead of simply debating points is silly behavior. We've all read and appropriately responded to posts by macaddict, incluye, Obby, and even McP without distracting to a commentary about "dude, ur such a shit poster, i dont even wanna justify u with a respons lulz". We just debate and actually make an effort not to come off as a self-righteous twateroo. And if we can do no better than come off as a self-righteous twateroo in the general way we conduct ourselves, we should occasionally see someone getting "defensive" when their quotes are misconstrued and their commentary on a subject is impugned.

If you may recall, I didn't remove myself from the debate and comment that you were "getting defensive" when you said "like, uh, duh, lesser offense means aiding and abetting to the real offense", as if it were so obvious to be a silly question. I was simply getting to the bottom of things and didn't concern myself with the arrogant fashion in which you phrased it. But since you're going down on that character-management brand of debate pursual, we're there, bro. Didn't wanna be there, but you went there.

Anyhow, I'm all gung-ho on having a conversation about Slappy's "Dear Old Dad" and the veracity of the charges brought against him. If you wanna change the topic, I'll just go. I'd hate to be considered a less than exemplary contender for the renown debatester le Marquis de la Panda Ciel, who can burgeon forth from the bourgeoisie by being "less defensive", having "more worthy posts", and just generally being an all-around better guy. I just wonder why someone who has resorted to weasel words, personal assailment, and (perhaps worst of all) placing himself into the equation of a debate has managed to hang with the likes of Tsukatu, DemonzLunchBreak, and that guy incluye. You want your posts critically evaluated in the manner to which you've appointed yourself? You got it, dolt.



Also, Slappy's dad is a nice guy. Dunno what you have against Slappy's dad. Is it because he's Canadian? If so, that's fuggin' low, Johnny.

[golf]

I'd like to bring up another point that came to me when reading Slappy's first post. In it, he says that his dad forgot to tell the cops about "a charge for telemarketing fraud ten years ago" when they questioned him at the gas station. So my thought is, what about the statute of limitations? Granted, I have a very limited understanding of how this stuff works, but I thought it was only for seven years. So, are they really justified in bringing him in on what I understand to be a minor charge from that long ago?

Also, without prior clarification, this next point may not be valid. Assuming that Slappy's dad is Candian (which I seem to have heard) could there be some issue with crossing the border to get to the fire the night before? I'm thinking there can't be much of an issue that way, but since we seem to be looking at that kind of stuff I thought it worthy of mention.

[SlappyMcGee]

I'd like to bring up another point that came to me when reading Slappy's first post. In it, he says that his dad forgot to tell the cops about "a charge for telemarketing fraud ten years ago" when they questioned him at the gas station. So my thought is, what about the statute of limitations? Granted, I have a very limited understanding of how this stuff works, but I thought it was only for seven years. So, are they really justified in bringing him in on what I understand to be a minor charge from that long ago?

Also, without prior clarification, this next point may not be valid. Assuming that Slappy's dad is Candian (which I seem to have heard) could there be some issue with crossing the border to get to the fire the night before? I'm thinking there can't be much of an issue that way, but since we seem to be looking at that kind of stuff I thought it worthy of mention.

They cross the border rather frequently to help one of the Vermont Fire Departments for big fires, because we live literally on the border and it is faster for us to get our trucks there than any other Vermont stations. Frequent enough that it would be bizarre to become an issue now.

[otters]

...into the equation of a debate has managed to hang with the likes of Tsukatu, DemonzLunchBreak, and that guy incluye.

Man, for no reason at all, I feel really honored.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

*wakes up*
...hmph, hm? What? Did someone just say my name? Honestly, I've only been skimming this thread.
But umm... *yawn, stretch* yeah, SkyPanda's a douche. Lemme know if that ever becomes a controversial notion.

[SkyPanda]

I don't think Obby still posts here.. not as "Obby" at least. He was always into the religious debates though, right? Not really my scene...

Your speculation? We've been told candidly what Slappy's dad has done pretty accurately by Slappy. We're to determine if it's a justified use of the law to hold him for terrorism offenses. You defended the law by saying: "Maybe he's just guilty of a lesser terrorism offense", which you later elucidated to be "maybe he's guilty of aiding and abetting to those who would cause widespread fear to the American population". So, if Slappy's dad isn't suspicious of aiding and abetting those who would use violence to cause widespread terror to the American population, then the law isn't being applied properly in this circumstance.

Slappy's dad has been arrested and detained on suspicion of terrorism. We don't have any details on what kind of terrorism, or what magnitude. We know that it may have something to do with failing to declare a previous conviction, although seeing as that isn't actually 'terrorism' then it doesn't help us much.
I have said that major types of terrorism may/should warrant the refusal of bail, while less serious crimes may not. This is part of my argument that the type of crime can affect whether or not the person is granted bail. I reckon that if Slappy's dad has not been accused of a major terrorism offence, then he should have been granted bail.

And... ...dolt

Oh man, three paragraphs? I've managed to keep my banter to a few sentences so far. Le Marquis de la Panda Ciel does not approve of three paragraphs!

And, given everything that Slappy has told us about his dear old dad, you think that his inability to contact with his family is the only unreasonable curtailment of his liberty, then. Now we may be getting somewhere.

Yes. I think that he should have been allowed to contact his family. However, I also think that 3 months is an excessive period to detain somebody without charge. What kind of evidence takes 3 months to gather?

[blue_tetris]

Your speculation? We've been told candidly what Slappy's dad has done pretty accurately by Slappy. We're to determine if it's a justified use of the law to hold him for terrorism offenses. You defended the law by saying: "Maybe he's just guilty of a lesser terrorism offense", which you later elucidated to be "maybe he's guilty of aiding and abetting to those who would cause widespread fear to the American population". So, if Slappy's dad isn't suspicious of aiding and abetting those who would use violence to cause widespread terror to the American population, then the law isn't being applied properly in this circumstance.

Slappy's dad has been arrested and detained on suspicion of terrorism. We don't have any details on what kind of terrorism, or what magnitude. We know that it may have something to do with failing to declare a previous conviction, although seeing as that isn't actually 'terrorism' then it doesn't help us much.[/quote]

Slappy gave us pretty good facts. I don't know what magnitude of widespread terror throughout the American population that Slappy's dad is guilty of, but you'd think I'd have noticed that kind of terrorism. Like... is it really terror to a widespread American population if most Americans don't know it happened? I would wager most people don't know that Slappy's dad even exists, let alone that he threatens the fabric of American living and is doling out terror to women and children daily. Most Americans do know about 9/11. I think it does an injustice to dead Americans everywhere when you place minor Canadian infractions on the same level of massacre as 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, and so forth.

And... ...dolt

Oh man, three paragraphs? I've managed to keep my banter to a few sentences so far. Le Marquis de la Panda Ciel does not approve of three paragraphs!

You troll like a sloppy cunt and you'll get trollfood from the tetris. It's usually frowned-upon behavior, but tetris also has admin; so in the past when trolling maintained long enough, various McPs got banned and such. But, yeah, I replied more, so I've lost this round, Capitan. You can rest easy feeling a sense that you've won, and turn to the cool side of your pillow to be remiss in acknowledging how you've inaccurately grazed over and arrogantly misquoted people.

To think this has been a problem for a while and I've only born witness to it by joining this particular debate. Awful. You can be dismissive of my soporific banter all you like, pompous ass, but where you use such weasely tactics to maintain your argument, folks can only presume you don't actually know what you're talking about. Even when you do! They presume that these tactics are necessary and you don't fully grasp the points. Where it verges on trollery, as it does, it violates the spirit of the Debate forum (and possibly Demonz's written guidelines; dunno, haven't read 'em; didn't have to; you oughta give 'em a once over, guy).

And, given everything that Slappy has told us about his dear old dad, you think that his inability to contact with his family is the only unreasonable curtailment of his liberty, then. Now we may be getting somewhere.

Yes. I think that he should have been allowed to contact his family. However, I also think that 3 months is an excessive period to detain somebody without charge. What kind of evidence takes 3 months to gather?

The ridiculousness is in that you figure this is the only fashion in which his liberty has been unreasonably curtailed. If you can claim "terrorism"--that is to say, "widespread terror spread across the American population"--every time that someone from a different country does something unlawful (in the manner that Slappy's dad has), you may want to either redefine terrorism or stop throwing around the term "terrorism" for every crime. You're saying it's okay to refuse bail in instances where someone is accusedof a "lesser terrorism offense", but if such offenses include the ones attributed to Slappy's dad, I find it hard to believe that refusing bail is reasonable. If "lesser terrorism offense" actually meant what you say it does (aiding and abetting to widespread terror to a populace), refusing bail might be okay. Lemme break it down:

Some bad guys come over and kill off an entire race of people, and we call it "slabracy".
Ergo, "slabracy" is the genocide of an entire population.
Those thought guilty of slabracy are refused bail; and rightfully so, we've defined slabracy as being genocidal craziness--they could be a danger to an entire population.
Years later, people are commonly being accused of slabracy for shoplifting.
Those people who committed "slabracy" (in this case, shoplifting) are refused bail because they might be dangerous to an entire race (in this case, of petty merchandise).

Refusing the bail may just barely be reasonable in some instances, but you'd certainly have to define crime better to ensure that the person is actually dangerous simply by being suspected of something. Semantics aside, what the dude might have done needs to be dangerous enough that you think he might cause death or injury to others, mostly at random.

[SkyPanda]

You're saying it's okay to refuse bail in instances where someone is accused of a "lesser terrorism offense",

"Perhaps Slappy's dad is suspected of a lesser terrorism offence, or something, in which case there's likely to be much less reason to refuse bail."

"I reckon that if Slappy's dad has not been accused of a major terrorism offence, then he should have been granted bail."

We can't debate if we don't disagree. ;P

[scythe]

Yes. I think that he should have been allowed to contact his family. However, I also think that 3 months is an excessive period to detain somebody without charge. What kind of evidence takes 3 months to gather?

Makes you wonder if there might be some inherent problems with a system that makes abuse of the system so easy.

Also, re: most recent post: suspected and accused are actually rather different things. Bogus accusations happen all the time.