QuoteWASHINGTON — Two Chicago men have been charged in what officials said was a plot to attack employees of a Danish newspaper that in 2005 published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that offended many Muslims, according to criminal complaints unsealed Tuesday in federal court in Chicago.
The most serious charges, conspiracy to murder and maim in a foreign country, were filed against David Coleman Headley, who was born in the United States, lived in Pakistan and now resides in Chicago.
The federal authorities said Mr. Headley told agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he had initially targeted a building occupied by the Danish newspaper, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen, but later proposed killing the paper's cartoonist and cultural editor instead.
The arrests were the latest in what federal officials acknowledged was a surprising surge of unrelated terrorism arrests in recent weeks, highlighted by last month's indictment of Najibullah Zazi, a Denver airport shuttle bus driver who has been accused of conspiring to detonate improvised explosives in an attack against an undetermined target, possibly in New York.
The officials offered no specific reason for the increased arrests, though they said some cases involved young men in the United States inspired to militancy by fiery religious appeals on the Internet and in other media outlets rather than by direct contact with terrorist groups.
In contrast, Mr. Headley, 49, who changed his name from Daood Gilani in 2006, and another man, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, 48, are older with seemingly more substantial ties to their communities. Mr. Rana is a businessman who was born in Pakistan and is now a Canadian citizen living legally in Chicago.
Mr. Rana, who is accused of providing material support to terrorism, has known Mr. Headley since they attended the same military school in the Pakistani town of Hasan Abdal, federal officials said. Mr. Rana is accused of using a travel agency to help Mr. Headley arrange visits to Pakistan and two trips this year to Denmark.
Mr. Headley was arrested on Oct. 3 at O'Hare airport in Chicago as he was boarding a plane on the first leg of a trip to Pakistan. Mr. Rana was arrested on Oct. 18 at his home. Both men are scheduled to appear in federal court in Chicago on Wednesday.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the top federal prosecutor in Chicago, said there was no imminent threat in the Chicago area. David S. Kris, head of the Justice Department's national security unit, said the case was a reminder of the threat posed by international terrorism organizations. A senior Danish intelligence official, Jakob Scharf, said in a statement issued by PET, the Danish security service, that his agency "views this matter very seriously."
Mr. Headley's lawyer, John Theis, said he had no comment on the case. Mr. Rana's lawyer, Patrick W. Blegen, said Mr. Rana "adamantly denies the charges and eagerly awaits his opportunity to contest them in court and clear his and his family's name."
Officials said they regarded the case as significant because Mr. Headley traveled to Pakistan and consulted closely with three Pakistani men identified in an F.B.I. affidavit as members of Harakat-ul Jihad Islami, a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda, with whom he referred to the plot as the "Mickey Mouse Project."
One F.B.I. document said Mr. Headley reported to Ilya Kashmiri, the operational leader of the terrorist group, who is based in a tribal region of northwest Pakistan. The authorities said that when Mr. Kashmiri was mistakenly reported to have been killed in a drone attack in September, Mr. Headley engaged in a number of coded e-mail exchanges about the impact on planned attacks. But Mr. Headley concluded after a conversation with Mr. Rana that "business must go on."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28terror.html?_r=1&hp
Fuck you, moonworshippers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashtheman.com%2Fsmash%2FUploads%2Fimage%2FMuslimCartoonAnger2.gif&hash=867dac21c924d896b2c196d4e1f20870262ba2a8)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fokieonthelam.com%2Fimages%2FCF01.jpg&hash=203517b75c9d13ea98ae477281ea47dea4947501)
Is it really so wrong to want to attack Denmark?
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 08:44:32 PM
Is it really so wrong to want to attack Denmark?
Yes. Sweden, not as much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2009, 08:47:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 08:44:32 PM
Is it really so wrong to want to attack Denmark?
Yes. Sweden, not as much.
Why? Not because of me, I hope :lol:
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:09:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2009, 08:47:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 08:44:32 PM
Is it really so wrong to want to attack Denmark?
Yes. Sweden, not as much.
Why? Not because of me, I hope :lol:
Ooooh, it's long before you, my little lutfisk.
I'm glad. Why then?
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:13:25 PM
I'm glad. Why then?
EUOT. 2003. Run up to the Big Iraqi Oopsie.
I could take on all the SuperSwedes(tm) at once, parrying their ZOMG U CANT HUG CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS Birkenstocks-and-granola Euroweenie peacenik bullshit with my blistering Star Spangled katas of wit and invective, commanding verbal judo throws of debate and discourse designed specifically to destroy their precious little We-Are-The-World bullshit global outlook of post-modern hippie Coke-commerical nitwit fucktardism.
That, and Hans Blix is a cockmunch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.commspeed.net%2Fguzzi%2Fimages%2FHansBrix.jpg&hash=155dfbfaf25b19756dc4e473e7a7a55f0077abb7)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2009, 09:22:36 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:13:25 PM
I'm glad. Why then?
EUOT. 2003. Run up to the Big Iraqi Oopsie.
I could take on all the SuperSwedes(tm) at once, parrying their ZOMG U CANT HUG CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS Birkenstocks-and-granola Euroweenie peacenik bullshit with my blistering Star Spangled katas of wit and invective, commanding verbal judo throws of debate and discourse designed specifically to destroy their precious little We-Are-The-World bullshit global outlook of post-modern hippie Coke-commerical nitwit fucktardism.
That, and Hans Blix is a cockmunch.
And don't forget the guy in those college courses you were taking.
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 09:28:00 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2009, 09:22:36 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:13:25 PM
I'm glad. Why then?
EUOT. 2003. Run up to the Big Iraqi Oopsie.
I could take on all the SuperSwedes(tm) at once, parrying their ZOMG U CANT HUG CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS Birkenstocks-and-granola Euroweenie peacenik bullshit with my blistering Star Spangled katas of wit and invective, commanding verbal judo throws of debate and discourse designed specifically to destroy their precious little We-Are-The-World bullshit global outlook of post-modern hippie Coke-commerical nitwit fucktardism.
That, and Hans Blix is a cockmunch.
And don't forget the guy in those college courses you were taking.
Oh yeah, that pompous dickhead. Fucking superiority complex with his snide little Bjork-Bjork-Bjork accent.
Motherfucker had a lot of nerve, too, bashing the American democratic process. Those fuckers still have a royal family, for fuck's sake.
And while we're at it, fuck IKEA and their bullshit uni-tools and plasterboard.
OK, fair enough :lol:
I'll add that the American posters of EUOT 2003 made me take the stance that if the yanks want to spend their time, effort and money on making the arabs play nice, they can do so all they want as far as I'm concerned. A stance that has served me well over the years.
QuoteMotherfucker had a lot of nerve, too, bashing the American democratic process. Those fuckers still have a royal family, for fuck's sake.
That's only symbolism.
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:34:00 PM
QuoteMotherfucker had a lot of nerve, too, bashing the American democratic process. Those fuckers still have a royal family, for fuck's sake.
That's only symbolism.
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
Do the right thing. Decapitate your royals. It's The Right Thing To Do.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:34:00 PM
QuoteMotherfucker had a lot of nerve, too, bashing the American democratic process. Those fuckers still have a royal family, for fuck's sake.
That's only symbolism.
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
We're not supposed to be democratic.
Federal republic FTW.
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 08:44:32 PM
Is it really so wrong to want to attack Denmark?
Krauts on bicycles had no trouble doing so. Is that something we want to see happen again?>
QuoteDo the right thing. Decapitate your royals. It's The Right Thing To Do.
Never! :angry: I remain loyal to the house of Bernadotte.
Anyway, this thread should be about Mooselimb-bashing.
Agreed, that's what I wanted it to be, it was you who hijacked it.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:34:00 PM
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
Are you attempting to take the novel position that the American constitution cannot be changed through the democratic process?
At any rate, I don't have much respect for the Bernadottes. But then again, I suppose I tend to feel that way about Scandinavia in general.
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:34:00 PM
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
Are you attempting to take the novel position that the American constitution cannot be changed through the democratic process?
Not exactly, but America gives the judiciary (interpreting the constitution) a lot of power and the legislative (elected democratically) little power.
Quote
At any rate, I don't have much respect for the Bernadottes. But then again, I suppose I tend to feel that way about Scandinavia in general.
It's a royal house founded by a product of the french revolution, but it's our royal house founded by a product of the french revolution :P
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:54:44 PM
Not exactly, but America gives the judiciary (interpreting the constitution) a lot of power and the legislative (elected democratically) little power.
But the constitution is determined democratically. Therefore, your point is moot.
Besides, the entire Western world suffers from an overpowerful judiciary.
QuoteIt's a royal house founded by a product of the french revolution, but it's our royal house founded by a product of the french revolution :P
Finland is better than Sweden.
QuoteBesides, the entire Western world suffers from an overpowerful judiciary.
Sweden has one of the weakest judiciaries in the western world :yeah:
QuoteFinland is better than Sweden.
They're a republic, hence they are not.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 08:25:04 PM
The most serious charges, conspiracy to murder and maim in a foreign country, were filed against David Coleman Headley, who was born in the United States, lived in Pakistan and now resides in Chicago.
Convert moonworshipers are the worst
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:54:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 27, 2009, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:34:00 PM
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
Are you attempting to take the novel position that the American constitution cannot be changed through the democratic process?
Not exactly, but America gives the judiciary (interpreting the constitution) a lot of power and the legislative (elected democratically) little power.
Quote
At any rate, I don't have much respect for the Bernadottes. But then again, I suppose I tend to feel that way about Scandinavia in general.
It's a royal house founded by a product of the french revolution, but it's our royal house founded by a product of the french revolution :P
It's the product of a cowardly and disloyal general. It's like if you combined George McClellan and Benedict Arnold and then gave him a crown. Of course it is the crown of an unimportant and backward country, but still.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:42:38 PM
Agreed, that's what I wanted it to be, it was you who hijacked it.
Swedebashing is always appropriate, and therefore not considered "hijacking", Hjalmar.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:34:00 PM
That's only symbolism.
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
:lmfao:
We've also got these things called
amendments. Besides, limited government and respect for the rule of law >>>>>>> democracy, though we are fortunate enough to have all 3.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 10:02:18 PM
QuoteBesides, the entire Western world suffers from an overpowerful judiciary.
Sweden has one of the weakest judiciaries in the western world :yeah:
Sweden isn't really one of us, what with their unreformed pro-Nazi attitudes and their refusal to join the West during the Cold War. But Sweden has worse problems than an overpowerful judiciary.
QuoteQuoteFinland is better than Sweden.
They're a republic, hence they are not.
Finland is a much nicer place, with a superior people. Besides, it's not like the Swedes have a branch of a real royal house, like the Windsors, ruling them.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 27, 2009, 10:10:03 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 08:25:04 PM
The most serious charges, conspiracy to murder and maim in a foreign country, were filed against David Coleman Headley, who was born in the United States, lived in Pakistan and now resides in Chicago.
Convert moonworshipers are the worst
IIRCD he isn't a convert.. he changed his name to appear more western.... his real name is something Pakistani
V
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:34:00 PM
That's only symbolism.
You've got a constitution and a bill of rights and shit. Stuff that can't be changed through the democratic process aint democratic :contract:
:blink: It's already
been changed 16 times through the "democratic process." There are only two short sections of the United States Constitution that
cannot be changed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2009, 09:36:00 PM
Do the right thing. Decapitate your royals. It's The Right Thing To Do.
It would be a waste to decapitate Madeleine. I'd rather keep her in my basement. :P
The lack of attention to Denmark in this thread is a travesty.
A man dressed as a woman?
Quote from: bogh on October 28, 2009, 11:12:29 AM
The lack of attention to Denmark in this thread is a travesty.
Yo, bogh. :)
Quote from: bogh on October 28, 2009, 11:12:29 AM
The lack of attention to Denmark in this thread is a travesty.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actionfigureinsider.com%2Fmain%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FLogos%2FLEGO_logo-710596.png&hash=48d0b85879a167497861ab07cc46c1c6bcb1bbb8)
There you go.
Quote from: bogh on October 28, 2009, 11:12:29 AM
The lack of attention to Denmark in this thread is a travesty.
I was hoping for more too. We might have to re-print the cartoons again.
boghart! :)
Quote from: bogh on October 28, 2009, 11:12:29 AM
The lack of attention to Denmark in this thread is a travesty.
I've demoted my Danebashing. Currently, no nation is currently #1 on my pet peeve list.
must be because C4 hasn't been around :D
V
Quote from: Valdemar on October 28, 2009, 02:36:48 PM
must be because C4 hasn't been around :D
V
Or having to go to Copenhagen. I know if I had to go again, they would work on my last nerve.
I never really got the C4 hate.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2009, 03:23:23 PM
I never really got the C4 hate.
He's a 15 y/o Danish Socialist.
OK that was poorly phrased, but you know very well what I meant, I explained myself further in my next post:
Quote... America gives the judiciary (interpreting the constitution) a lot of power and the legislative (elected democratically) little power.
The more power to the people's elected representatives, the more democratic. That America holds other things in higher regard than demoracy can be illustrated by this:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2009, 06:13:53 AM
limited government and respect for the rule of law >>>>>>> democracy
I rest my case.
QuoteFinland is a much nicer place, with a superior people.
What about Ogle?
From what I've gathered over the years, Europeans aren't too keen on 50% + 1 voting away basic rights of minorities either. :mellow:
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 03:45:04 PM
I rest my case.
We have laws protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority ergo we do not hold Democracy in high esteem?
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 03:57:01 PM
We have laws protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority ergo we do not hold Democracy in high esteem?
He's defining the characteristic "democratic" as investing more unfettered power in the voting public. It's a semantic argument.
Well it's not an either/or.
My serious opinion: There needs to be a balance between the legislative and the judiciary. From my perspective, the American judiciary is way overpowered. It gives the power to lawyers and judges answering to no-one instead of politicians answering to the people (and of course the power of lawyers in America is infamous). I study law in Sweden and in the legal field here there are people who think we should have a constitutional court like the one in Germany or the one in America, but that's just because they want to increase the power of the legal field. We've always done just fine without a constitutional court.
(Instead of a constitutional court we have the traditionally Swedish institution of Ombudsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman#Origins_and_etymology), which has been exported to countries on five continents)
QuoteHe's defining the characteristic "democratic" as investing more unfettered power in the voting public. It's a semantic argument.
You could say so, yes. But it's not just semantics, since it has practical implications.
By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 04:11:42 PM
From my perspective, the American judiciary is way overpowered. It gives the power to lawyers and judges answering to no-one instead of politicians answering to the people
...except the laws are written by the legislature.
Oh and by the way all the judges and public attorneys are elected in Texas.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 04:13:24 PM
By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?
If so, we have mechanisms to address just that.
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 04:17:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 04:13:24 PM
By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?
If so, we have mechanisms to address just that.
Like what?
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 04:14:40 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 04:11:42 PM
From my perspective, the American judiciary is way overpowered. It gives the power to lawyers and judges answering to no-one instead of politicians answering to the people
...except the laws are written by the legislature.
I know there are many knowledgable American lawyers here, but please by all means correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't the judges participate in law-making in the american legal system to a very high degree? With decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which has profound implications for all of America, not being a decision made by the legislative but by the judiciary.
Quote
Oh and by the way all the judges and public attorneys are elected in Texas.
Which in itself can be danger to the independence of the judiciary.
While I don't agree with Roe, it at least has the virtue of being a case where the Court is limiting the power of government rather than exerting power on behalf of the judiciary. Most other cases of "legislating from the bench" are also like that, which is why I'm somewhat ambivalent on the subject of SC nominees.
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 04:22:36 PM
Which in itself can be danger to the independence of the judiciary.
The judiciary is independent, it is just subject to the will of the people. Isn't that what you freaking want?
Wait so you want a judiciary that is not accountable to the people but that is somehow accountable to the people but should not decide cases that are important because that is what the legislature should be doing?
I am so confused. What is it exactly we should be changing here?
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 04:17:37 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 04:17:03 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 04:13:24 PM
By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?
If so, we have mechanisms to address just that.
Like what?
I assume you're talking about the FRA law. If the supreme court finds a conflict between the constitution and a law passed by the parliament, then the supreme court will judge according to the contitution, since the constitution is higher in the hierarchy of laws.
But I don't agree FRA is against the constitution.
Quote
2 kap. 13 §
Yttrandefriheten och informationsfriheten får begränsas med hänsyn till rikets säkerhet, folkförsörjningen, allmän ordning och säkerhet, enskilds anseende, privatlivets helgd eller förebyggandet och beivrandet av brott. Vidare får friheten att yttra sig i näringsverksamhet begränsas. I övrigt får begränsningar av yttrandefriheten och informationsfriheten ske endast om särskilt viktiga skäl föranleder det.
Vid bedömandet av vilka begränsningar som får ske med stöd av första stycket skall särskilt beaktas vikten av vidaste möjliga yttrandefrihet och informationsfrihet i politiska, religiösa, fackliga, vetenskapliga och kulturella angelägenheter.
Som begränsning av yttrandefriheten och informationsfriheten anses icke meddelande av föreskrifter som utan avseende på yttrandes innehåll närmare reglerar visst sätt att sprida eller mottaga yttranden. Lag (1976:871).
Seems to me the power and influence of higher courts is going to be a function of how much territory your constitution covers.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 04:42:52 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 04:22:36 PM
Which in itself can be danger to the independence of the judiciary.
The judiciary is independent, it is just subject to the will of the people. Isn't that what you freaking want?
Wait so you want a judiciary that is not accountable to the people but that is somehow accountable to the people but should not decide cases that are important because that is what the legislature should be doing?
I am so confused. What is it exactly we should be changing here?
Like I said, it's about balance. Elections of judges is something I'd assume would lead to populism in decisions. That means the judiciary isn't independent from the people.
In the Swedish system judges aren't elected and are independent from the legislative and executive as well as from the people. The legislative are represented against the judiciary by the Justitieombudsman (JO), who also represent the people (who can raise matters to him independently from the legislative). The executive is represented against the judiciary by the Justitiekansler (JK).
And I'm not saying you should change your system, since that's a route you went down a long time ago and it's probably too late to go back now, but it's still interesting to make comparisons.
@miglia:
1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.
2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 28, 2009, 05:04:29 PM
Seems to me the power and influence of higher courts is going to be a function of how much territory your constitution covers.
That's true, and it's possible a more centralized system like the Swedish wouldn't work as well in America, and the larger the country the more checks and balances are required.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 04:13:24 PM
By doing fine you mean parliament taking enormous dumps on the constitution, right?
Constitutions are undemocratic. Try to keep up.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:06:13 PM
@miglia:
1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.
Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.
The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).
When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).
Quote2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).
No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.
If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.
And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:06:13 PM
@miglia:
1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.
Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.
The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).
When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).
Quote2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).
No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.
If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.
1. AFAIK the case didn't lead to the abolishing of existing unconstitutional laws.
2. You argue that the law is vague yet claim that the law makes it OK? Sorry, you can't both have your cake and eat it.
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:25:05 PM
And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?
EU membership comes to mind. Whether a person was for or against it the constitution would have had to be changed in important ways to accomodate it. It was not. There's little excuse for the lawmakers themselves to go against the law instead of changing it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 27, 2009, 08:26:51 PM
Fuck you, moonworshippers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashtheman.com%2Fsmash%2FUploads%2Fimage%2FMuslimCartoonAnger2.gif&hash=867dac21c924d896b2c196d4e1f20870262ba2a8)
I never realized what an insensitive, sick individual you are.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:34:38 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:06:13 PM
@miglia:
1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.
Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.
The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).
When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).
Quote2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).
No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.
If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.
1. AFAIK the case didn't lead to the abolishing of existing unconstitutional laws.
2. You argue that the law is vague yet claim that the law makes it OK? Sorry, you can't both have your cake and eat it.
1. The decision will have value of precedent, and so lower courts will judge differently.
2. I'm saying that I don't agree that it is against the constitution. Someone else could do a different interpretation, though I don't see how.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:25:05 PM
And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?
EU membership comes to mind. Whether a person was for or against it the constitution would have had to be changed in important ways to accomodate it. It was not. There's little excuse for the lawmakers themselves to go against the law instead of changing it.
But the constitution was changed :huh:
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:41:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:34:38 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:19:56 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:06:13 PM
@miglia:
1. Sorry, the supreme court is not an effective means of keeping parliament in check.
Take the famous Åke Green case as an example.
The lower courts followed Brottsbalken accurately and sentenced him for hate speech (a travesty, I know, but entirely according to the letter of the law).
When the case came to the Supreme Court, they acquitted him because a sentence would go against the European Convention of Human Rights (which is a part of Swedish constitutional law).
Quote2. While I am not talking specifically about the FRA law I will observe that you can't seriously be arguing that what you quoted makes it OK. Any limitation of freedom of speech is OK as long as it is done for national security? Even your own quote contradicts that (second paragraph).
No it doesn't, you'll have to read that second paragraph again. The second paragraph is left deliberately vague to allow the Supreme Court a free interpretation.
If you were arguing our constitution was weak on this matter, then I'd agree with you.
1. AFAIK the case didn't lead to the abolishing of existing unconstitutional laws.
2. You argue that the law is vague yet claim that the law makes it OK? Sorry, you can't both have your cake and eat it.
1. The decision will have value of precedent, and so lower courts will judge differently.
2. I'm saying that I don't agree that it is against the constitution. Someone else could do a different interpretation, though I don't see how.
1. Sorry, that's just not good enough for something that is put forward as a serious alternative to a constitutional court.
2. Gee, I guess that's why it would be useful to, you know, have a constitutional court to settle these things. Funny that.
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:40:21 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:25:05 PM
And if you're not talking about the FRA law, then what are these "enormous dumps" on the constitution you talk of?
EU membership comes to mind. Whether a person was for or against it the constitution would have had to be changed in important ways to accomodate it. It was not. There's little excuse for the lawmakers themselves to go against the law instead of changing it.
But the constitution was changed :huh:
Not enough to accomodate EU membership.
Will this senseless violence never stop? :cry: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091028/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids_michigan
Why not?
Quote
2 kap. 23 §
Lag eller annan föreskrift får ej meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Lag (1994:1468).
This is one of the changes in Regeringsformen, there's a crapload more of them.
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:47:05 PM
Why not?
Quote
2 kap. 23 §
Lag eller annan föreskrift får ej meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Lag (1994:1468).
This is one of the changes in Regeringsformen, there's a crapload more of them.
QuoteAll offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.
This is still the first line of the constitution. But it's not true given EU membership.
Quote1. Sorry, that's just not good enough for something that is put forward as a serious alternative to a constitutional court.
Why not? Can you give any examples of when our current system has produced unwanted consequenses?
edit: because of this, I mean
Quote2. Gee, I guess that's why it would be useful to, you know, have a constitutional court to settle these things. Funny that.
And why can't the supreme court settle these things?
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:50:08 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:47:05 PM
Why not?
Quote
2 kap. 23 §
Lag eller annan föreskrift får ej meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Lag (1994:1468).
This is one of the changes in Regeringsformen, there's a crapload more of them.
QuoteAll offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.
This is still the first line of the constitution. But it's not true given EU membership.
That's a so called "Portalstadgande" and not to be interpreted literally. And yes it's true lol. :lol:
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:50:42 PM
Quote1. Sorry, that's just not good enough for something that is put forward as a serious alternative to a constitutional court.
Why not? Can you give any examples of when our current system has produced unwanted consequenses?
Quote2. Gee, I guess that's why it would be useful to, you know, have a constitutional court to settle these things. Funny that.
And why can't the supreme court settle these things?
The supreme court doesn't have the function a constitutional court would have.
There's for example in Regeringsformen that the Swedish constitution takes precedence over agreement with foreign entities. I.e. the constitution is at the top of the Swedish hierarchy of laws.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:56:03 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:50:42 PM
Quote1. Sorry, that's just not good enough for something that is put forward as a serious alternative to a constitutional court.
Why not? Can you give any examples of when our current system has produced unwanted consequenses?
Quote2. Gee, I guess that's why it would be useful to, you know, have a constitutional court to settle these things. Funny that.
And why can't the supreme court settle these things?
The supreme court doesn't have the function a constitutional court would have.
1. You still need to produce an example of when our current way of doing things has produced unwanted consequenses.
2. How would a constitutional court be better than what we have now?
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:53:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:50:08 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 05:47:05 PM
Why not?
Quote
2 kap. 23 §
Lag eller annan föreskrift får ej meddelas i strid med Sveriges åtaganden på grund av den europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Lag (1994:1468).
This is one of the changes in Regeringsformen, there's a crapload more of them.
QuoteAll offentlig makt i Sverige utgår från folket.
This is still the first line of the constitution. But it's not true given EU membership.
That's a so called "Portalstadgande" and not to be interpreted literally. And yes it's true lol. :lol:
No it's not. I don't think we will make much progress here though.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I suppose, since you apparently hold your opinion for reasons of ideology and you have no good reason for why it would be a better way of doing things
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:59:45 PM
We will have to agree to disagree.
Man back in the day these sorts of constitutional debates would have resulted in a battle to the death with long axes. Vikings are so wimpy these days.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 06:06:24 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 05:59:45 PM
We will have to agree to disagree.
Man back in the day these sorts of constitutional debates would have resulted in a battle to the death with long axes. Vikings are so wimpy these days.
Yes.