Printable View
Bottom line:
The arrest of 9 people in this conspiracy is proof that there is a vast right-wing domestic terror threat and completely validates Janet Nepoletano's DHS memo. Well, except none of these 9 people are veterans from Iraq that suddenly went rogue.
I don't remember the memo defining the potential threat in such narrow terms, Darrin.
Darrin can't play straight. He always loads the dice.
There is nothing summarily about it "if this is the case." Why should we pay for lifetime incarceration? Animals who cannot be civil in society need no be in society.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Because we have a justice system that dictates what the verdicts should be. Only authoritarians impose their will over the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Can't you see that I implied they had to be convicted first? And that I am for the changes in law? For me to impose my view over the law would be to become a vigilante in such cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
We have the death penalty already. I am all for expanding it. I disagree with you calling it authoritarian, but I'm not going to argue that point if that's how you wish to see it. Besides, it's no surprise I am all for the death penalty, is it? I have advocated it before, and do believe it to be a viable deterrent.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
However, let me tell you that I don't think you can show me any study where there's any proof that the death penalty actually has been an effective deterrent. Furthermore, as far as costs are concerned, I seem to recall that it costs more money to have people in death row than a life term in prison.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Under current law, that may be so. That needs to be changed too. I cannot think of too many things worse than waiting years for the penalty to take place. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment...Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Who's complaining about a tardy death sentence again, besides you, for someone else's sentence? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Let's assume the hypothetical where they actually carried out the terrorist attack. Do you believe they should then be entitled to the full protections of law as US citizens? Or do you think that, by committing this act of terrorism it is actually an act of war, thereby making them unlawful enemy combatants?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Bottom line:Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
The Bush administration completely owned you with its report and you are still whining about it.
Wikipedia says you are wrong. He was held in a military brig in South Carolina. Whether Wikipedia can be trusted, I wouldn't cite it in a legal brief.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
That said, he was indeed denied a trial in civilian courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
Yes, it is BS to deny him his rights as a citizen of this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I believe the MCA update of 2009 removed the ability to do that to citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
That said, considering we were discussing not long ago that the executive can order the summary execution of american citizens, I'm not sure it really matters... :lol
Thanks for the clarification ElBamba; ElNoNo, thanks for speaking to my larger point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Maybe Obama's wish of an indefinite detention time is the way he plans on getting around that pesky Bill of Rights.
i wonder how good ole' joe six packs like this would feel if us inner city folk had our own. we're we organized urban combat teams to defend our beliefs. they would probably quit their weekend warrior bullshit fast.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/Quote:
HUTTAREE HOOPLA UPDATE: Judge asks feds to show militia did more than talk. “A federal judge challenged prosecutors Wednesday to show that nine members of a Michigan militia accused of plotting war against the government had done more than just talk and should remain locked up. . . . Roberts pressed that point more than once as Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet argued in favor of keeping the nine in jail. The judge suggested she didn’t hear or read in the transcripts any indication that violence was imminent. ‘Mere presence where a crime may be planned is not a crime. … How does this add up to seditious conspiracy?’ Roberts said.”
Yeah, I read that. Silly activist judge trying to ask for actual evidence...
the government's case falls apart:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/USAvSto...Counts_1-7.pdf
via emptywheel
(for the record, I do not agree Wheeler's racialist gloss)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
lol "The WMD Charges against White People Get Thrown Out"
It's a conspir--... oh wait, nevermind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Silly headline and concluding sentence to be sure, but Wheeler supports the judge's conclusion that vile speech can't be prosecuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Do you?
Answers the question I asked back then:
Apparently, the justice system still works.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra