Jump to content

Phantomoutlaw

Member
  • Content Count

    252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Phantomoutlaw last won the day on June 11 2009

Phantomoutlaw had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Good

About Phantomoutlaw

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday May 5

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • AIM
    phantomoutlaw1

Profile Information

  • Name
    Cool Guy
  • School
    Cool H.S.
  • Biography
    I'm really cool
  • Location
    Coolisville
  • Interests
    Being really cool
  • Occupation
    Training other's to be as cool as me.
  1. Bump. Seriously,does anyone have this video...
  2. No problem. Thanks a lot! Thanks for the resources! I'll send you a copy don't worry. Anybody else?
  3. Does anyone have a rape trivialization critique or any useful cites? Basically the argument goes that making inappropriate metaphors to rape outside of sexual assault e.g. "we are raping this team on this argument, vote negative" or "I just got raped by that test" is bad, marginalizing, silencing, etc. Not doing this for debate purposes, but some external academic work. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for help!
  4. What are good critiques of rationality? Rational Decision Making or that indivduals are rational decision making units? What comes to mind is biopowerish type K's that talk about the power of social institutions in disciplining and regulating decision making.
  5. I'm looking for files that critique of the discourse of sub-Saharan Africa. Can anyone hook me up?
  6. Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll read with interest.
  7. I think what's going on now is different then what happened in the past and all the articles you posted. The articles you linked were all rhetoric and posturing. Even the military exercises with the U.S. and South Korea were routine defense drills that the N. Koreans lashed out against. This situation in the Korean peninsula is different in five ways. 1. Re-designation of N. Korea as a "principal" enemy by S. Korea. 2. Physical attack and loss of life on a S. Korea by N. Korea. 3. Material restrictions by both countries: S. Korea's restrictions of trade and sea lane use; N. Korea banishing of officials, and air and sea use. 4. Communication cut off by both countries. 5. Unique military to military actions between U.S. and S. Korea as a "response." This NYT is pretty good on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/world/asia/26korea.html?hp North Korea Cuts All Ties With South as Tensions Rise By CHOE SANG-HUN SEOUL, South Korea — Relations between North and South Korea, already strained over the sinking of a South Korean warship, deteriorated to their worst point in many years on Tuesday as the South Korean president redesignated the North as its archenemy, and the North retaliated by severing its few remaining ties with the South. The moves heightened concerns about where the acrimony on the Korean Peninsula was heading. North Korea’s state news agency said the North would cut off all communications between the countries, including a Red Cross contact at the border, as long as the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, was in office. The North also said it was expelling all South Korean officials, but not workers, from a joint industrial park at the North Korean town of Kaesong. The North also banned South Korean ships and airplanes from using its territorial waters and airspace. On Tuesday, the South’s two main airlines, Korean Air and Asiana, began rerouting passenger jets to avoid North Korean airspace. Earlier, President Lee said he would once again classify North Korea as his country’s main enemy, as the South Korean and United States militaries announced plans for major naval exercises in a show of combined force. South Korea’s relisting of North Korea as its “principal enemy” — a designation dropped during inter-Korean detente in 2004 — symbolizes the shift in South Korean policy toward the North. On Monday, South Korea cut off trade with North Korea, denied North Korean merchant ships use of its sea lanes and called on the United Nations to censure the North for what it called the deliberate sinking of one of its warships by a North Korean torpedo. Forty-six sailors were killed in the March 26 sinking. South Korea had formally designated North Korea as its “principal enemy” in 1994 after the North threatened to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire” during the height of an international crisis over its development of nuclear weapons. But that designation, renewed in the South’s Defense White Paper every other year, was dropped in 2004, the same year the two Koreas also suspended propaganda broadcasts across their border. The 2010 paper was due out in October. “In the past 10 years, we have failed to establish the concept of principal enemy,” Mr. Lee told a meeting of senior advisers for his government on Tuesday, referring to the Sunshine Policy of cultivating reconciliation with the North by his two liberal predecessors, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. “We have ignored the very danger under our feet.” Tensions between the Koreas escalated after the sinking of the vessel and after Mr. Lee’s pledges to make North Korea “pay a price.” The two countries have technically remained at war for more than 50 years. A 1953 armistice ended three years of fighting in the Korean War, but no peace treaty has ever been signed, and the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas is among the world’s most heavily armed borders. The North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, whose government has threatened an “all-out war” against any sanctions, has ordered his military and reserve forces to be ready for war, said an organization of North Korean defectors on Tuesday. Last Thursday, when the South formally accused the North of torpedoing its ship, a senior North Korean general relayed Mr. Kim’s order through a broadcast to intercoms fitted at most North Korean homes, said North Korea Intellectuals Solidarity, a Web site based in Seoul and run by North Korean defectors. The news caused the main stock index in Seoul to drop more than 3 percent in early trading. The South Korean won also weakened sharply. The ruffles in the financial markets indicated that investors, already shaken by financial trouble in the euro zone, were seriously monitoring the current phase of tension-raising on the divided Korean Peninsula. The exile group said it learned of the order from sources inside the North. “We do not hope for war but if South Korea, with the U.S. and Japan on its back, tries to attack us, it’s Chairman Kim Jong-il’s order to finish the task of unifying the fatherland, which was left undone” during the Korean War, the group quoted the instruction as saying. It said the North Korean authorities were also mobilizing outdoor rallies of reserve soldiers under the slogan of “Retaliation for retaliation! All-out war for all-out war!” Those mobilized were ordered to wear their military uniforms. South Korean officials could not immediately confirm the report. During periods of tension with the outside world, the North has often mobilized huge outdoor rallies. It uses such rallies to strike fear of the outside world into its impoverished people and to popular support around Mr. Kim, analysts said. With Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling the Korea situation “highly precarious,” the Pentagon and South Korea announced they would soon conduct joint naval exercises, including antisubmarine drills in the Yellow Sea. On Monday evening, South Korea resumed its “Voice of Freedom” radio broadcasts directed at the North Korean people. It broadcast a South Korean pop song by a girl band, boasted the South’s economic prosperity and belittled the North Korean government for failing to feed its people. Soldiers were also rebuilding loudspeaker systems along the border to bombard the front-line North Korean soldiers and villages with the same broadcasts. On Monday, the North warned that it might shell those tools of “psychological war.” On Tuesday it said it was launching an unspecified “counterattack.”
  8. Scu-- I basically, agree with you. A few further thoughts below: I agree with you on universal check, that's why I side stepped the question. Your right but it appears to me that proper enforcement of the federal statue, would be to ask everyone - nationals, citizens, and aliens - about status and subsequent documents. Also, its just defense against the argument that people shouldn't be required to carry proof of status at all the times becuase it is already required for a sub-set of the population. Lastly, why is it a problem that nationals and citizens be asked to prove their status?
  9. Neg rep is fun-- I got one response so far from someone anonymously: Yes, but that doesn't mean you're required to search them for it. You're required to have a driver's license, but unless you're driving erratically, you can't be stopped and forced to produce it, etc. ad infinitum. Thanks for the comment, however.
  10. Open question to anyone: I posted before about how federal law, already on the books, mandates immigrants carry around alien registration forms with them. So in that context, why is the Arizona law so bad in regards to mandating legal status documents? I understand the racial profiling arguments. I'm more curious about the hang-up of the requirement to have constant identification, when that already current law (as I understand it). Fox On Socks, for instance, you gave examples of discrepancies you have with the identification requirement or scenarios that may prove difficult for the ID requirement. Would you advocate repeal this federal law below? Found this: 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304: Forms for registration and fingerprinting http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1304 (d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General. (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
  11. Found this: 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304: Forms for registration and fingerprinting http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VII/1304 (d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General. (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
  12. Two things: 1. I heard that federal law has required immigrants to carry their alien registration documents with them at all times since 1940. Is this true? 2. An article on the subject: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU= Arizona and 'Lawful Contact' [Andy McCarthy] My column this morning is about the Arizona immigration law and attempts to make the point (among other points) that the state law is a measured response to a serious economic, social, and law enforcement problem. As I detail, the powers invoked by the statute are tiny compared to the federal government's border enforcement powers, which are not subject to any of the usual protections of the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause. Contrary to the hysterical charges of racism being leveled at the statute, it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance. There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion." Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity. The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person. Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place. The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific "reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien. Two more principles are instructive here. The first involves the complaint that this law may result in a person's being found to be an illegal alien even if the reason the police officer stops him has nothing to do with his immigration status. So what? If the police stop you because you are driving erratically and they find an illegal gun in your car, you may be prosecuted for possession of the gun — the fact that the cops weren't looking for a gun is irrelevant. Ditto if police get a warrant to search your home for stolen appliances and, while lawfully searching, find a bag of cocaine — you can be charged for violating the drug laws even though that is not what the warrant allowed the police to look for. The question is not what the police were expecting to find; it is whether they were lawfully conducting a search in the first place. Second, all of the above takes place within the context of the the civil rights laws. Under Section 1983 of Title 42, United States Code, state law enforcement officers may be sued if they deprive a person of any rights, privileges or immunities to which the Constitution entitles him. Police officers who enforce the law in bad faith, who harrass people without a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, are liable to civil suit. The legal, financial, and professional consequences of violating the civil rights laws can be very damaging. As I indicated in my column, I agree with Byron: The people who are complaining about this law almost certainly either have not read it or are demagogues who would make the same absurd claims no matter what they law said.
  13. Are there an outline/cites available for this aff? I'm not going to the tournament or anything just interested.
  14. I judge in the D.C. UDL. PM me your email and we'll discuss.
×
×
  • Create New...