Article

2005-11-09 Down Under

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-11-09 11:21|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Why mention the code. Just break the code and move on. If they don't know you are on to the code, they'll keep using it.

Posted by wxjames 2005-11-09 14:19|| 2005-11-09 14:19|| Front Page Top

#2 I hope our intel guys took note. You gave away how it was that we found out about the industrial chemicals and now they are registering names of companies to justify it.

Are you checking all newly registered co's that can get these chemicals? Are you doing anything about it - or is it as I suspect, that there is no one in charge of assuring that this doesn't happen here. Those of you who have some authority to get on this - might want to consider you and your families have the same chance of being blown to bits by these fanatics as the rest of us do....and put someone in charge of monitoring this.

Posted by 2b 2005-11-09 15:41|| 2005-11-09 15:41|| Front Page Top

#3 that is if there is anyone like that out there reading my post :-)

Posted by 2b 2005-11-09 15:44|| 2005-11-09 15:44|| Front Page Top

#4 The arrested men, who are being held in solitary confinement, would receive a diet in keeping with Islamic beliefs, he said.

Isn't it time to stop pandering to convicted criminals? While the individuals in question are not yet convicted, should they be, are they really entitled to halal meals? Food allergies are another question, but kosher and halal meals are not a "right."

I think not. Once you knowingly break the law, all bets are off. Criminals cast off any bonds of the social contract and should be treated accordingly. "Equal protection under the law" does not necessarily extend to dietary restrictions. In fact, quite the reverse is true.

Catering (quite literally) to one person's dietary wishes is simply giving a prisoner preferential treatment. It costs the state untold millions of dollars to segregate food preparation and service. None of this is deserved by criminals. In order to best serve the law-abiding public, prison operation costs should be held to a bare minimum.

There is no "cruel and unusual punishment" involved here. All prisoners are subject to similar dietary treatment and even if a criminal is able to afford having alternate food served to them, it should not be permitted. If an individual is prepared to break the law, then society should see fit to hold no respect for the dietary laws of that person.

I believe that there might be a noticeable drop in crimes committed by Muslims if all of them knew that they might end up being "unclean" or starving themselves to death upon incarceration.

Posted by Zenster 2005-11-09 16:00|| 2005-11-09 16:00|| Front Page Top

#5 "Isn't it time to stop pandering to convicted criminals? While the individuals in question are not yet convicted, should they be, are they really entitled to halal meals? Food allergies are another question, but kosher and halal meals are not a "right."

Ditto.

Posted by The Happy Fliegerabwehrkanonen 2005-11-09 17:22|| http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com]">[http://www.calderonswirbelwind.blogspot.com] 2005-11-09 17:22|| Front Page Top

#6 Are bread and water halal? If so, I think that would be an excellent dietary choice for these swine.

Posted by Remoteman 2005-11-09 18:05|| 2005-11-09 18:05|| Front Page Top

00:19 Elmenter Snineque1852
23:35 Besoeker
23:32 Pappy
23:30 trailing wife
23:28 Pappy
23:28 Besoeker
23:28 Pappy
23:22 Phil
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:22 muck4doo
23:20 trailing wife
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:18 trailing wife
23:15 Besoeker
23:14 trailing wife
23:13 Elmenter Snineque1852
23:13 Besoeker
23:10 trailing wife
23:10 Bomb-a-rama
23:03 Besoeker
23:03 JosephMendiola
23:00 3dc
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:57 Pappy