On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:40:27 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: >> If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local >> police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her >> with assault.
> I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and b) I > was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. Anyone in this country has the right to swear out a warrant for the arrest of anybody else in this country, regardless of the nationality, race, and/or the religion of the complainant. >> If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have >> been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie >> and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can >> get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement >> authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which >> they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the >> suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. >> As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to >> get away with it the incidents will continue. > It wasn't the victim wanting to let her get away with it, but the > authorities. In that case you could have filed a federal complaint charging the local authorities with violation of your civil rights. You could have contacted some anti-racist organizations such as the Jewish Defense League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. They would have provided you with with lawyers for free. You could have sued the town for a lot of money. The organizations I mentioned are very strongly against allowing the authorities to get away with this kind of thing. They have very strong and positive ties to the press and to the TV news networks. They can bring down very negative national media attention against any town which allows this kind of thing to happen. The investigative reporters could have set up some scenes involving people playing the role of foreign Jews and they could have interviewed the local authorities in such a way as to portray them very negatively. You could have fought back and won big if you knew how to go about doing it. You would not have even needed any money to press your case. >> Unfortunately racism is >> still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, >> especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in >> areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order >> groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold >> racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. >> > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and >> > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around >> > anywhere. >> The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and >> warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and >> they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he >> is a known madman. > Do you have proof that he is? If not, than this is merely your opinion. > Sure, he is at the very bottom of my list of favourite people. But so far, > we have no tangible proof that he is either a madman, or has certain weapons > stashed away. While he may well have them, I feel he is clever enough NOT to > use them. He will use them. He has in the past used chemical weapons even against his own people and with devastating results. This fact is not disputed. >> I don't think we need to worry so much about the >> other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq >> we have quite a problem with that. > Well, I feel like most people in the western world (including the US). The > regime is only evil because some right-wing madmen say it is. See above. >> > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just >> > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to >> > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have > no >> > means of getting them all the way to America. >> Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might >> try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical >> and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried >> by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are >> bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully >> conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also >> at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents >> also. > Maybe. But why would Iraq, or any other nation, want to do that? What would > be the reason for them to do it? Because they want to kill Americans. Why did the terrorists hijack some commercial airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center? It is because they wanted to kill Americans. >> > For that reason alone it would >> > be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to >> > "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war > in >> > the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is > that, >> > apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I > don't >> > want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... >> > Have a good day, Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
