Humanities desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 11

Pinochet and the Devil

According to the major religious belief systems (such as Christianity, Judaism or Islam), will Pinochet meet up tonight with Satan/Iblis or will this come after a certain time has passed? --AlexSuricata 01:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Christian belief, any sinner, even Hitler, can go to Heaven if they have truly repented their sins. They must also take responsibility for their actions and redress them, and submit to whatever human processes might be appropriate eg. punishment for their crimes. The fact that Pinochet was never brought to justice does not necessarily mean he's going to Hell. JackofOz 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is, assume he's damned to hell—does he proceed there immediately, or is there some kind of waiting around first. According to Resurrection of the dead, "several churches" believe that "the dead remain dead (and do not immediately progress to a Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory) until a spiritual or physical resurrection of the dead occurs at the end of time." But many Christians believe you're in hell already upon your death (hell, some of them believe that if Pinochet was in a state separate from God during his life, he was already in hell). See further Particular judgment and Christian eschatology#Intermediate state. Wareh 02:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the phrase -- all the interesting people are in hell? Mathiemood 06:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "All the interesting people are in Hell?"? Anchoress 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of you know Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit? The basic premise is that in Hell there is no Devil, no fire, no torture; just three mutually incompatible people locked in the same small room forever, indulging in mental games and verbal torture. The play finishes with the classic line, Hell is other people! Well, just imagine Pinochet with, say, Eva Peron and Lenin. Hell is indeed other people. Clio the Muse 10:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is oddly quiet about Hell. By far the greater weight of writing is dedicated to how to ensure you get there (it's quite easy, whether you're Jewish or not) and once past that hurdle, how to maximise your "share of the world to come". To answer your specific question, Pinochet, as a non Jew, would only have had to observe the seven Noahide Laws to reach heaven. I'm not going to judge if he did or not... If he did, he's in Heaven. If he didn't... well, as is often the case with Jewish issues, there's no real consensus about whether there is indeed Hell and if there is, what it's like. (Two Jews, three opinions is the old joke.) You can look at our Gehenna article, but I don't believe it really reflects a spectrum of Jewish belief. I once read a definition of Hell that I thought was quite good. It was along the lines of Hell is a place where you can see Heaven, but you can't join in. Whether Pinochet is joining in or not...? I'd ask God, but I'm in no hurry to meet him just yet. --Dweller 10:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The views of different religious groups are discussed at Last Judgment. Edison 15:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Catholicism, the Particlular Judgement takes place (esentially just a you-and-God judgement). From there, you go either to hell, heaven, or purgatory, depending on your life, and whether you are in "the state of Sanctifying Grace". I don't know if this actually takes time (since God is a spirit, and so is the soul) though. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Protestantism (or at least Presbyterianism USA) no human (Jesus exempt) can be assured anything. God has the ultimate say and nobody (Jesus exempted) can say for sure whether someone went to heaven or hell. If you believe in the tenants laid out in the Apostles' Creed the bible says you will go to heaven, but God has the final say. You should always be skeptical if someone tells you you are going to heaven or hell, after all, who appointed them God? As for myself, (I am representing only myself and not the larger church or Christians in general) I believe in a merciful God. People are bound to disagree. Sifaka ^talk 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody seems to have picked up on the Muslim perspective I can say, from my reading and understanding of the Qur'an, that it is possibly the most direct of all. The wicked are consigned immediately to the fires of hell. There is no meeting with Iblis, no intermediate stage, no purgatory: the fires wait. Clio the Muse 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all the info!--AlexSuricata 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sc laws on probation violation

I need to know the laws or sc code of procedures on probation violation and sentencing for a family member who should have got his credits on time served and got out already but they messed up on his dates and not wanting to give him his credits and him serve another year. anything that you can tell me to help will be very appreciated thanks parkergirl05 Parkergirl05 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that South Carolina ? We don't generally give legal advice here. StuRat 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He should discuss it with his parole officer and his lawyer. -THB 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

experimental constitutional provisions

Have any of you heard about unusual, experimental or innovative solution/provision/right of freedom, in any of modern, contemporary consitution? Not limited geographically, but the state should be democratic. Thanks Yarovit 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? What are you referring to? What is your definition of "freedom"? Could you rephrase? 惑乱分からん 12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about Prohibition in the United States? GreatManTheory 12:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted it the other way around, that democratic states normally don't provide freedom, which kinda puzzled me... 惑乱分からん 12:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think examples of what he means would be a constitution that guarenteed the right to say...housing or education

State allegiances in the civil war

would you please help me find which states and territories were Union states, confederate states, and slaveholding Union states?

See the image in the article Union (American Civil War). –mysid ☎ 16:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could also see Confederate States of America. -THB 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still not clear to you, there were four slave holding Union states-Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. The last two were also nominally part of the Confederacy. The break-away territory of West Virginia, which remained with the Union after the seccession of the rest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, was also slave holding, though it did not officially become a state in its own right until after slavery was abolished. Clio the Muse 23:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Tennessee "Though Tennessee had officially seceded, East Tennessee was pro-Union. Tennessee came under control of Union forces in 1862 and was omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation. After the war, Tennessee was the first state readmitted to the Union." from Border states (Civil War). So from 1862 on Tennessee was a slave-holding Union State, as well as a Confederate State, which also had an army (the Army of Tennessee) fighting for the Confederacy. Edison 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, there's quite a difference between succession and seccession. JackofOz 03:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo amended. Clio the Muse 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

materanal

If my sister is the aunt to my daughter what would the aunt be to my granddaughter?

Great aunt (see cousin#Family tree). –mysid ☎ 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

judical review in the federalist number 78

what does judical review contribute to the practice of limited goverment and the rule of law? 64.173.170.64 16:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text: [1]. Alexander Hamilton was certainly a great statesman. -THB 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jurisdiction? I assume you're American, I am not. Neither are many wikipedians. Please state.martianlostinspace 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I American, but a question regarding the "federalist number 78" is a clear reference to the Federalist Papers, in particular Federalist No. 78. I'm unaware of any other country in the world where the term "federalist number 78" would apply. Loomis 02:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano De Crescenzo

I red few of his books,and I just finished reading "Storia della filosofia Greca"(i dont know how to translate it correctly).

I really enjoyed his books,so my question is,can you tell me more about him? I mean,about his life,is he still alive and what are his other most important publications?

Thanks

YXYX 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you read Italian, start at the Italian Wikipedia page on him: Luciano De Crescenzo. Some biography in English here. He seems to be still living (at the age of 78). Wareh 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Тhanks, this is excatly what I needed. I should have remembered to try to find it in Italian Wikipedia. Thank you again

YXYX 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western democracy

The treatment of the immigrants(particulary the asians) in the UK is a real misery. There is no democracy but only racism. Majority of the Indian workers are not allowed to work in the UK. The Whites there call the indians The Kumars at no.42 , At workplaces they are being discriminated against. Whats the point of globalisation and all this talk about freedom. The ones who start it in Iraq today dont take the responsilbilities for the havoc in every iraqi's lives. What exactly does the west want? Is it blatant abuse of freedom?? The west is allowed all the liberty in the east but the same reciprocity is not demonstrated by the west.

21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjvenus (talk • contribs)

Caveat: this entire following answer is subjective.

I am from the U.S. and to me it seems the states don't have the same magnitude of problem with Indians as what you are describing, but we have plenty of discrimination problems. I have been in the midst of one recently as I go to Duke University (2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal). I myself do not discriminate against Indians. I think the reason discrimination and racism exist is because of historical reasons that perpetuate socioeconomically and down through families. The U.K. specifically has a deep historical connection through India with colonialism. The Indian population was looked down on back then as "backwards" and even inferior. Of course, science has proven that entirely wrong. The discrimination, though continues to exist, because it is perpetuated socioeconomically and somewhat culturally.

I don't have any statistics to back me up on this but it seems likely in the UK that Indians probably make a lower mean income than Europeans. This can be traced back to the old colonialism days where Indians were effectively servants. When the Indians broke free from this role, things only got marginally better because the Indian people were still thought of as servants and the British population were not prepared to welcome them into a higher social class by giving them equal jobs or pay. They were still racist too. The result is a lot of poor Indians with little job security.

So why is this inequality perpetuated today? What was a racism problem is now a mostly socioeconomic problem. In just about anywhere in the world a group of people who has lower income and general security is more prone to being marginalized. That is because low income groups have more instability are more prone to crime and other negative behaviors. This is further exacerbated by closed communities. (i.e self discrimination) The result is that people look at the crime and the instability of this population and associate it with ethnicity. People make up all sorts of bullshit reasons (pardon the language) to explain this, i.e. it's their culture or why can't they fix themselves? The cycle perpetuates anew because the upper classes do not want to associate with lower security groups. When Indians receive equal status and gain more security, the problem should mitigate.

As proof of this, I would say look at the United States. From what I gather of U.S. stereotypes of Indians, is that they are good at science and tech, especially computers an math. Since a lot of outsourcing goes to India, including help lines people have the belief that Indians have a difficult time communicating. As for Asians in general, one of the stereotypes is that they are very smart. Asians have high pay in the U.S. compared to other ethnic groups like Latinos, African-Americans, and Native Americans. (All three heavily marginalized in the U.S.) The result is that Indians and Asians in general receive less negative discrimination (stereotypes are a form of discrimination). I hope this answered your question or at least helped. 152.3.73.203 21:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Hi, KJ. That was a short 24 hours. If you think the way Indians in the UK are treated is bad, you should see how Mexicans are treated in the U.S. And the Germans treat Turks poorly. The French hate the North Africans. And the Iraquis aren't too fond of Americans, the Jews and Arabs don't get along, etc. All over the planet you'll find discrimination and hate. Globalization doesn't eliminate hate. My suggestion is that each person must do what he can to expunge hatred from within his own soul, love his or her neighbor as he loves himself, and treat others as he would have others treat him. It all starts on an individual level. -THB 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the West wants petroleum. Oil. Black gold. Texas tea. -THB 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a solution. If they treat you like **** in the UK then why don't you boycott the UK. What force on earth can force you (against your will) to go to the UK? UK is not the only country in the world. I'm sure Saudi Arabia will treat you like a proper human being. I heard that they like foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. 202.168.50.40 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that is the best advice. Your best bet would be to bring the discrimination to the management for the nurses. Personally, do your best to break the stereotypes. If you live in a primarily Indian community, that may mean getting out of your community a bit more. One thing you might try is to go to a store somewhere that is primarily frequented by primarily upper class Europeans and shop there, presenting yourself in a favorable light. By doing that you make these people see that Indians are perfectly capable of all the positive qualities they don't ascribe to you. I tried to that while abroad, and I sure got stared at but I did my best to prove that Americans are not shallow, money laden, and culturally unaware. I bet many of these people have not had a meaningful experience with Indians, and by doing this you provide the counterexample.

Oh, and about the West being treated well in the East, that is not true at all. Many countries like China tend to be xenophobic. A lot of people in the middle East think Americans are Evil or at least think we are villainous and greedy. I read a recent story about one American student's battle to get her exchange family in Japan to realize she genuinely wanted to learn and partake of Japanese culture and that she didn't want to be treated like a stubborn foreigner. From my experience abroad, Americans are thought of as shallow, money laden, and culturally ignorant, sometimes with a predilection for cowboyism. I tried to talk about it when people asked, and usually were surprised when I actually knew something about their culture. Sifaka ^talk 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going right back to the original post, democracy and racism are not incompatible, sad to say. But there are, this fundamental point notwithstanding, many Asian workers in the UK. Indeed the Kumars at No. 42 is a television comedy which features Indian people making light fun of certain British cultural practices. You will find Indian and other Asian people in all walks of British life, and this includes a high number of very successful business people. There are, moreover, laws which specifically outlaw the forms of workplace discrimination you seem to be hinting at; so if you are speaking of some personal grievance, I urge you to seek legal advice. Racism may be a regrettable feature of democratic societies; but it is also a feature of these societies that you do not have to suffer this problem in silence. Clio the Muse 01:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Policy in North America (specifically Canada)

Hi, I have a question about immigration policy in Canada, though I expect the answer will be similar for many other countries (US, Australia ect).

I come from a European immigrant family and I have heard the complaint often enough from older family members that Canada doesn't let Europeans in anymore, only "middle easterners" and asians. This claim is certainly true if you look at the numbers in Canadian census, European immigrants are certainly the minority in moving to Canada.

My question is why? Is it becuase they dont apply as much? Is it because of Europes horribly low birth rate that people just are not leaving in droves. Are the europeans less skilled? Is there some element in Canadian Immigration policy that prefers people from certain countries? How signifigant is the refugee element?

I am looking for data/explanations to understand this trend, I looked at the 2001 census, but there is a lot there, and there is no actual data on who applied, just who got in. Just for a note, I am not a rascist or anything, I am just curious.

Have you looked HERE? I don't believe Canada gives preference to any country, but Canada accepts immigrants through two streams; the regular merit stream, which is based upon points (with education, age and proficiency in English having high priority), and the refugee stream. This would put non-English-speaking Europeans at a disadvantage, because they could not emigrate based upon need, and they might not have the English skills of, say, a family from the Indian Subcontinent. Anchoress 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more ways: Family class (to reunite separated families) and Business class (either skilled labor or "economic immigrants", those who have a net worth of $800,000 and can immediately invest half of it in a Canadian business)[2] Rmhermen 22:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was including your sections under merit (in my mind). :-) Anchoress 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's news in the UK is that about 10% of the UK-born population (5.5 - 6 million people) live abroad. About 603,000 live in Canada and 678,000 in the US (compare to 761,000 in Spain and 1.3 million Brits in Australia), so immigration rules don't seem to have impeded them much. -- Arwel (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada certainly does let Europeans into the country. In fact, under the "point system" Canada uses to grade potential immigrants, it's probably much easier for a European to immigrate to Canada than it is for someone from a Third World country. Indeed, I come across immigrants from Eastern Europe almost every day. There aren't a lot of immigrants from Western Europe anymore simply because there's no pressing reason for many Western Europeans to pack up and move overseas. (Unlike, say, when the potato famine hit Ireland in the 19th century.) -- Mwalcoff 01:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe third world countries, but India and China, two of the countries most well-represented in Canadian immigration, aren't third world. Anchoress 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Or maybe they're "developing countries." Whatever -- you know what I meant. As much as they've grown, they certainly aren't at the standard of living of Western Europe, North America or Japan. -- Mwalcoff 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is commonly made here in NZ too. IMHO, what they really mean is we don't prioritise European or more accurately white people enough anymore. Many countries, I suspect including Canada used to have policies which discriminated against non-whites. What are the actual figures for immigration to Canada? I know in NZ, despite what the detractors claim, the country from which the most immigrants come from is the UK. Also, in terms of refugees, I don't know about Canada but I suspect you'll find as in NZ that the percentage of immigrants who are refugees (I mean under the refugees category) is actually small. Nil Einne 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even Canada did so until around the second World War (see Head Tax (Canada), which was supposed to be a deterrent for Chinese coming into the country. Canada issued an apology and reparations recently.) There was also limitations on Eastern European immigration in the U.S. in the 1900s, if I remember correctly. ColourBurst 01:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the reasons, well as others have stated, quite a few immigrants emigrate for economic and social reasons. These reasons tend to be less present in Europe where many countries are considered developed and even those that are not, are often better off then those in Asia and if they do want to emigrate, would probably find it easier to emigrate to another European country especially if they are in the EU. Remember that emmigration is a big change and a big risk, you have to be willing to undertake the task. The conditions etc mean that Asians in general are more willing to undertake the process then many Europeans. Most importantly, bear in mind there are 3.6 billion Asians vs 750 million Europeans according to a quick Google (talking continents here). If we throw North America into the European mix it'll even things out a bit but then most of these people are also including Africans so we should throw Africans into the Asian mix. Nil Einne 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the number of immigrants to Canada in 2005:

Asia/Pacific, 138,054

Africa/Middle East, 49,273

Europe, 40,909

Latin America, 24,635

USA, 9,262 -- Mwalcoff 23:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two changes have happened since your older family members came to Canada: 1) Canada's immigration policy used to discriminate against people of non-European background. It no longer discriminates either for or against Europeans. So non-Europeans have an easier time immigrating than before, so long as they can meet the requirements of the immigration policy (either a close family member already in Canada, employment and language skills, or high net worth). At the same time, Europeans who want to immigrate need to meet those same requirements, which may be stiffer than the requirements they use to face. 2) It used to be necessary for many Europeans to leave Europe to achieve prosperity. That is no longer true. As other posters have pointed out, many European countries have become prosperous over the past 50 years, and Europeans from poorer countries now have the option of moving to a wealthier European country (instead of Canada), where they will be closer to their family and childhood friends and can more easily go home for visits. Therefore, Europeans have less reason now than in earlier generations to move across the ocean to Canada. If you are, say, Polish, why move 7,000 km to Toronto, when you can move 70 km to Berlin and enjoy longer vacations, a higher minimum wage, and easy trips home for the weekend? On the other hand, if you are Bangladeshi, Toronto could well be your best option. Marco polo 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy wording

There is a fancy word or phrase for " Chefs Choice". I am drawing a blank, can anyone help?

Do you mean du jour? Or leftovers? -THB 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chefs-d'oeuvre might be what you mean. De jour is "of the day" and leftovers... well I don't want to dine where THB does... Sifaka ^talk 22:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you've not worked in a restaurant, Sifaka! xxxx du jour = xxxx leftover -THB 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Chefs-d'oeuvre"=masterpiece, maybe you mean "hors d'oeuvre"=starter or appetiser "du jour" comes from "plat du jour"=today's dish. "Chef's choice", is it "the chef's suggestions"? I can't think of a fancy version. Keria 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Le choix du chef? (bs) Signature dish? Leftovers seems pretty accurate. It's usually the fish they ordered a week ago that hasn't sold. Specials? That's not really fancy Sashafklein 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poke center?

When talking about Pokemon, what's a "Pokecenter"? --Bowlhover 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Pokecenter is the same as a Pokemon Center - a building that "rejuvenates" Pokemon - in the video games it heals them to fulL HP for free, in the show it's somewhat of a health spa sort of deal. You can also switch out Pokemon there as well. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm doing a school assignment, and a Pokecenter is supposed to be the scene of a crime. However, I know absolutely nothing about Pokemon. --Bowlhover 23:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I saw the show, but the second episode deals with a Team Rocket break in at a Pokemon Center. You might use that as inspiration. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'm just concerned I had my period on the 23 of November and it ended on the 27 of November, I was on Depo Provera for 7 years. My concern is that I had sex on December 6th but that was my first day of ovulation and I took the Plan B pills on Friday, I just wanted to know if there is a chance of pregnancy? I wanted to also know how long does it take for sperm to reach the oval?--72.78.190.114 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Maria Luna[reply]

So you had sex on Dec. 6th and took the pills on Dec 8th? From emergency contraception: "ECP's are licensed for use until 72 hours after sexual intercourse." Therefore, the pill probably did its work. --W o o ty Woot? contribs 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some useful general information in our pregnancy and birth control articles, but you need to consult a medic, both to find out medical details and to discuss your options. We have no medical expertise here. Good luck. Yours, Sam Clark 22:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it is very unlikely that you will get pregnant because of the unlikeness of getting pregnant even when you want it. My advice would be to get a pregnancy test or, if it is really serious or important, go see your doctor or an emergency room. If it turns out you are pregnant, you will have to decide what to do after that. Cbrown1023 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second question: it takes anywhere from 45 minutes to 12 hours for a sperm cell to reach the egg. [3] --Bowlhover 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can also get an inexpensive yet accurate home pregnancy test kit. Since you apparently do not wish to be pregnant, I do hope that you're not. Good luck. -THB 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If requesting medical or legal advice ask a doctor or lawyer instead. Good luck. Edison 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American History

Which English Plan limited the powers of the ruler?

Do you mean the Bill of Rights, introduced by the English Parliament in 1689 after the succession of William III? By this Parliament made a clear declaration of the rights of the subject, and limited the prerogatives of the crown, thus laying the foundations for constitutional monarchy. The provisions in this measure were later confirmed and extended by the 1701 Act of Settlement. Clio the Muse 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Magna Carta an "English Plan?" It limited the powers of the ruler, and the barons planned it. Edison 00:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is indeed confusing. Your topic is "American History", yet you ask of an "English Plan". The only possible connection I can think of would involve some sort of pre-revolutionary British proposal to the colonies, in order to avert revolution (if any indeed existed). Still, I don't quite understand the question, so I'm afraid I can't contribute any more. Loomis 02:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British law and legal precedents before the American Revolution remain part of common law in force in the U.S. unless specifically changed by court ruling or statute, so the British Habeas Corpus Act 1679 law passed in the 1600's to prevent the King from locking people up in military bases outside the boundaries of the country was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court as a limitation on incarcerations without legal process at Guantanamo. This would be a 'British plan' from the 17th century possibly limiting the power of the U.S. ruler in the 21st century.Edison 15:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petition of Right? Sashafklein 07:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]