U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,187,522 times
Reputation: 3949

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
Speak High English please.
I guess there is no word for "irony" in your native tongue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:36 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,653,642 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
No case was stated that said a person that has broken the law can keep a covering on their heads at all time.
That wasn't your blanket assertion. Is that the sound of moving goalposts, or backpedaling? I can't tell. Bad speaker.

Quote:
They lose all rights, although those rights are not taken automatically.
This is where you have been proven wrong, even if the sentence above didn't contradict itself to some degree.

Quote:
You seem to have a problem understanding can and will. I can shoot a person in the face if they break into my house, but I don't have to in the slightest. can =/= will, savvy?
I savvy that you said inmates lose all rights. Then proof that this was false was posted.

Now you're flailin'.

Quote:
Only if your arguments are based upon the ignorance of facts, sure.

Busted? Speak High English please.
Facts like the existence of free exercise cases brought under a statute that authorizes them proving that inmates DO retain some rights?

Facts like that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,214,451 times
Reputation: 27525
There could have been a knife, cellphone, dirty bomb under that hijab.
It's a concealing piece of clothes..religious or not.

So what started out as welfare crime will turn them into millionaires.

Only in America folks can welfare fraud criminals turn around and sue the very government who was trying to serve justice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:38 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,653,642 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
There could have been a knife, cellphone, dirty bomb under that hijab.
It's a concealing piece of clothes..religious or not.

So what started out as welfare crime will turn them into millionaires.
Now there's some cosmic irony for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:38 PM
 
398 posts, read 700,218 times
Reputation: 154
Okay, so let her wear the scarf, throw her in with the other prisoners, and see if they don't remove it for her. Other prisoners most likely could care less about her religious scarf and they can be a rough group of people. She might be more protected in jail without it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:40 PM
 
43 posts, read 13,477 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
I quoted from the opinion in my very first post. If you missed it, let me post it for you again.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/08-56423.pdf

As I've said, this is not the least restrictive means of achieving prisoner safety. When imposing on a person's religious beliefs, the government has the obligation to use the least restrictive means possible to achieve their purpose.

First of all, that's not true at all. Secondly, there's a congressional statute exactly on point. As I posted before:



42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a)

The government shall not impose a substantial burden on the religious persons of people in an institution. That means that prisoners generally have a right to free exercise of their religion unless the government imposing the burden proves that they are doing so in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, using the least restrictive means possible. This level of review is known as strict scrutiny, and it's hard for the government to meet that level of burden. It doesn't seem like they met that burden here at all.
It says that they did not check? Show me.

Removal of cloth is too restrictive? Um, they do that to all prisoners.

I don't see how checking cloth for safety does not stand up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:44 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,162,922 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
There could have been a knife, cellphone, dirty bomb under that hijab.
It's a concealing piece of clothes..religious or not.
Making sure that the other detainees and officers were safe is a compelling interest; however, as stated several times, ordering her to remove it and keep it off in front of a group of male strangers is not the least restrictive means of achieving that goal, thus violating the federal law.

Quote:
So what started out as welfare crime will turn them into millionaires.

Only in America folks can welfare fraud criminals turn around and sue the very government who was trying to serve justice.
Maybe the government should not be violating the First Amendment rights of their citizens then.

Quote:
Okay, so let her wear the scarf, throw her in with the other prisoners, and see if they don't remove it for her. Other prisoners most likely could care less about her religious scarf and they can be a rough group of people. She might be more protected in jail without it.
Maybe, but that's not for the government to decide. Further, if they did nothing to protect her when being assaulted by other detainees, then they would be liable for a violation of Khatib's civil rights under 42 USC 1983.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:46 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,162,922 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
It says that they did not check? Show me.

Removal of cloth is too restrictive? Um, they do that to all prisoners.

I don't see how checking cloth for safety does not stand up.
LEAST. RESTRICTIVE. MEANS.

I just posted exactly what the facts on the record were in the case. Checking under the headscarf for safety can be done in a less burdensome manner than forcing somebody to take off, and keep off, their headscarf in front of a group of male strangers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:46 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,653,642 times
Reputation: 3185
Prisoners' rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Prisoners retain some other Constitutional rights, including due process in their right to administrative appeals and a right of access to the parole process. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been held to apply to prison inmates. Prisoners are therefore protected against unequal treatment on the basis of race, sex, and creed. Additionally, the Model Sentencing and Corrections Act provides that a confined person has a protected interest in freedom from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or sex. Prisoners also have limited rights to speech and religion."


<cough>


Why can't alibaba grasp that if his assertion was true, we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,214,451 times
Reputation: 27525
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
Making sure that the other detainees and officers were safe is a compelling interest; however, as stated several times, ordering her to remove it and keep it off in front of a group of male strangers is not the least restrictive means of achieving that goal, thus violating the federal law.



Maybe the government should not be violating the First Amendment rights of their citizens then.



Maybe, but that's not for the government to decide. Further, if they did nothing to protect her when being assaulted by other detainees, then they would be liable for a violation of Khatib's civil rights under 42 USC 1983.

Well they will probably end up with millions. Maybe then they can pay the fine for the welfare fraud instead of the community service that they didn't do.

Criminals: 1
Legal system: 0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top