Reply With Quote
He also thinks black panthers standing outside a voting site armed isn't a crime and that terrorists should be read "their" miranda rights.
Eric Holder says it is
He also thinks black panthers standing outside a voting site armed isn't a crime and that terrorists should be read "their" miranda rights.
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.
Eric Holder
Then you will allow yourself to be waterboarded by the police, right?
It's harmless, right?
Criminal procedure is an adversarial process. It also works for terrorists. About 190 of them during the GWB administration, I think.
Even if that broad statement is true and the number is accurate, contextually, the fact is Bush isn't in office anymore. My statement was directed towards the beliefs of our current AG.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander isn't it? Obama's immediate predecessor convicted ~190 terrorists and sent them to prison. Is there some reason we shouldn't continue to?
Is there some reason Ashcroft/Mukasey shouldn't have, that Bush/Cheney failed to tell us about?
Why in your view should we stop using a process that has worked so well to date?
Where are you getting this number? Barack Obama? Yeah because he has a record of using actual numbers. It's the number used by Human Rights First which they stated in July 2009.
A. McCarthy
t says that 195 defendants have been convicted so far in 119 cases that have some connection, however attenuated, to terrorism. (See the report’s preface.)
HRF goes on (at page 5) to explain its methodology. It examined prosecutions that were in some way “related to Islamist extremist terrorist organizations” (emphasis added). It should be obvious enough that this does not mean the people prosecuted were necessarily “international terrorists,” or that the cases involved actual terrorism charges. But the report makes the obvious explicit:In building our data set of terrorism cases, we have attempted to capture prosecutions that seek criminal sanctions for acts of terrorism, attempts or conspiracies to commit terrorism, or providing aid and support to those engaged in terrorism. We have also sought to identify and include prosecutions intended to disrupt and deter terrorism through other means, for example, through charges under “alternative” statutes such as false statements, financial fraud, and immigration fraud. [Emphasis added.]This explanation makes clear that the cases HRF is talking about are, in the main, cases that no one disputes can be handled safely and efficiently by the civilian courts. For example, let’s say the FBI is investigating al-Qaeda and it interviews a person suspected of having relevant information. That person lies during the interview, so the prosecutors indict him for making false statements, and he pleads guilty. Under the HRF’s standards, that gets tallied as a conviction in a “terrorism case.” But it hardly means the defendant is an international terrorist, let alone a KSM.
http://article.nationalreview.com/42...rew-c-mccarthy
Those offenses are all included in terrorism statutes. Suggesting that the people convicted under them aren't dangerous because the included offenses don't sound very dangerous, is naive.
Do you recall what Al Capone went to jail for?
I'm wary of "terrorists" being tried in the civilian courts, only because that might provide an avenue through which to introduce torture into civilian law enforcement. Sure, the probability seems low, but given the current mindset of the American public I'd rather not find out.
You're as bad as chump. Get your information correct before using it to attack people. Bush, Capone. WFT??
The Goodspeed Rule: Bush
The Goodspeed Rule 2: Iraq
Goodspeed Rule?
I didn't attack you, and my information was correct. On the contrary, it's your semantic attempt to set aside terrorism convictions as somehow being irrelevant to terrorism, that's lame.
Was arrested, tried and went to prison for tax evasion.
I didn't say you attacked me. You are full of if you are going to stick with that number in relation to holder reading miranda rights to someone who almost murdered hundreds of Americans and KSM.
That's the way criminal process works. You're advised what you say can be held against you; you get a lawyer and trial by jury.
Used to be the American way. Now, sticking up for it makes you unpatriotic and *full of *. How times have changed.
Would you feel any better if they didn't read him his miranda rights and still had a criminal trial? (with the obvious, however small, possibility of exoneration).
Because I'm pretty sure you didn't want a civilian nor a military trial. You just wanted a conviction.
SnC doesn't really believe in the American justice system.
Nor does he believe that Bush tried and convicted suspected terrorists in federal court.
He probably also doesn't believe that there were any domestic terror attacks under Bush.
His political heroes told him to think a certain way, and by golly that's the way he's going to think.
American civilian justice system = bad. Nevermind that Moussaoui trial or any of these:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...190-terrorism/There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees, [NYU Center on Law and Security's Karen] Greenberg said.
Nonetheless, there are some, she said, including Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"; Bryant Neal Vinas, an American convicted of supporting al-Qaida plots in Afghanistan and the United States; Mohammed Jabarah, a Canadian who was active in al-Qaida and convicted of terrorism-related offenses; Shahawar Matin Siraj, a Pakistani-American who plotted to bomb Herald Square in New York; and Mohammed Junaid Babar, a Pakistani-American convicted of terrorist-related offenses in New York, and who testified in 2006 against a group of men accused of plotting bomb attacks in London.
These cases, although far fewer than those cited by Obama, provide powerful evidence that federal courts can appropriately handle many cases involving Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said.
"The trend lines demonstrate convincingly that federal courts are capable of trying alleged terrorists and securing high rates of conviction," Greenberg wrote in the report. "... Federal prosecution has demonstrably become a powerful tool in many hundreds of cases, not only for incapacitating terrorists but also for intelligence gathering. Much of the government’s knowledge of terrorist groups has come from testimony and evidence produced in grand jury investigations, including information provided by cooperators, and in the resulting trials."
There you have it, SnC. Bush and the Republican government convicted terrorists in civilian courts under terrorism statutes. Republicans like Giuliani praised the results of these trails. You can't deny it. You can't change it. It happened. Why was it a good idea for them to do it then but not now?
Please answer that question.
The American way has never been to give our cons utional protections towards wartime enemies, or non American citizens. You are full of because you tried to use numbers that were not consistent with the context of our argument. Now, out of pride I imagine, you won't back away from them.
Who called you unpatriotic. You are picking up some bad habits from the left. Are you having a conversation with an imaginary person again?
If that's what you are calling terrorists, Bush already did what you said isn't the American way. Did you about it then?
OK, we'll use the much smaller number above.You are full of because you tried to use numbers that were not consistent with the context of our argument. Now, out of pride I imagine, you won't back away from them.
It's still a number.
It still happened.
Under Bush.
Do you consider WH patriotic?Who called you unpatriotic. You are picking up some bad habits from the left. Are you having a conversation with an imaginary person again?
Though the "American way" has been to limit the powers of the state. Not to mention that included the process whereby war was declared by the Congress (so much for that). And, of course, the state itself is a signatory to at least one treaty prohibiting the use of torture.
Regardless, does it seem to square with the original intent of the Cons ution that torture by the state be allowed, regardless of the recipient? Bearing in mind that the Revolution had thrown off rule by a distant and despotic state, not to mention that the Bill of Rights was rather clear in limiting the power of the state.
Or, if the state is clear to engage in such practices, what exactly prevents it from using those same techniques on the citizenry?
Finally, why exactly are we to concern ourselves with incipient socialism which threatens property rights, which is based on a strict reading of certain parts of the Cons ution, while contenting ourselves to find a broad reading of state power in other passages to essentially allow the state to do whatever it wants with those whom it deems to be adversaries?
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 02-15-2010 at 12:27 AM. Reason: replaced state with the Congress
Hence the bipolar nature of modern "conservatism." On the one hand the state must be checked at every turn and the Cons ution is a great check on collectivism. On the other, a broad space must be read into the Cons ution for national defense and law enforcement.
Or, the Cons ution must be read strictly when the concern is opposing of the main principles of the left, equality in life, but the state must have broad powers when the concern is one of the main principles of the right, which is order in life.
Strict if it is intended to be against The People, loose if it is against some "enemy", real or imagined.
For instance, we both know that there is no way a patriot act or extreme airport security or what have you would fly pre 9/11. Any measure that increased security at the cost of freedom would of been obliterated by both parties on the day before 9/11.
But 9/11 did an incredible thing. It made an enemy. One that is invisible. One that hides among the population. Invincible. We will never defeat them. Now everything has a justification.
I'm wondering how many years until people don't give a crap about terrorism and actually fight back against these violations of freedom. Maybe when everyone born after 9/11 have the power.
If there is another major terrorist attack in the next few years, then the people are screwed.
True.
The weird thing is that we didn't have this kind of threat to our liberty when there existed a very real existential threat to our existence from another state during the Cold War.
Now the threat is so open ended and subject to interpretation and manipulation that anything can be a threat, and any state action can be justified in response, such that our very freedom is at risk from a state which ostensibly is acting to protect our existence.
We mock those who worry about threats from climate, but the moment the threat is from an enemy whose methods heretofore consist of nineteen dudes armed with boxcutters, we run to the illusory safety of a police state.
If this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, would not the proper response be to shrug it off and move on?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions