LawTalkers - Waiting for Fitzgerald

Originally posted by Not Bob
Bullshit on his "fine" motives. He was a spy, and I could care less that he acted for Israel instead of another state. Israel acts in Israel's interests -- happily, their interests coincide with our interests much of the time, but that doesn't change the fact that Pollard betrayed his country at the behest of the Israelis.

I acknowledged that the act was criminal. Motives are not criminalised, acts are (that's right, right? You lawyers would know better than I). I stand as being fine with his motives and also with being against his acts (not dissimilar to how I feel about a parent of a child who is molested who then kills the molester).

Further, I am of the opinion, despite his motives and our alliance with Israel, that Mr. Pollard should serve out his fully sentence. In the US.

Spanky

11-02-2005 04:51 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
John Andre, Arnold's co-conspirator, was hung only after being found guilty by a military tribunal, and Washington was subject, even during war, to criticism for providing him with an inadequate trial.

The Founders would have had a number of different views, but, ironically, the more conservative among them would, I believe, have been very protective of the concept that later became known as due process. They viewed their right to a trial by jury, their right of habeus corpus, and other such rights as among their most fundamental.

This really bears no relevene to what is happening today. Since the founders allowed slavery to continue (and many were slaveholders), and only allowed white men to vote, it is not like they should be used as the ultimate guidance when it comes to the proper respect for human rights. I don't think any of them would have cared at all how a muslim prisoner (especially one that had targeted women and children) were treated.

Sexual Harassment Panda

11-02-2005 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Looks like ol' Billy Jeff still has the touch.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0ajpg-717v.jpg

eta: Quadrangular!

He's pointing to his intern in 2010.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 04:52 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is that from the bases at which there's insufficient armour?

bTW, is that where teh Iraq WMDs were moved to by Saddam from his rat hole?

Yes and no. He moved them before he was in the rathole. Did you read the article for the words or the beat?

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 04:56 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
This makes no sense. A weakened Syrian military does wonders for Israel's self-defense. Imperialistic conquest - what are you talking about?

If Israel wanted Syria weakened it could go kick Syria's arse. It doesn't need us to do it for them and they can probably do it better than we can.

What part of the word "imperialistic" don't you understand?

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Looks like ol' Billy Jeff still has the touch.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0ajpg-717v.jpg

eta: Quadrangular!

Ha ha ha. Sexual predators and sexual abuse of kids are hilarious topics.

Captain

11-02-2005 04:58 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
This really bears no relevene to what is happening today. Since the founders allowed slavery to continue (and many were slaveholders), and only allowed white men to vote, it is not like they should be used as the ultimate guidance when it comes to the proper respect for human rights. I don't think any of them would have cared at all how a muslim prisoner (especially one that had targeted women and children) were treated.

Interesting.

The Founders views were relevant when you thought Washington denied Andre any process and summarily hanged him, but are irrelevant once you are shown to have been mistaken.

Captain

11-02-2005 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Looks like ol' Billy Jeff still has the touch.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0ajpg-717v.jpg

eta: Quadrangular!

It's the look on her face that makes that one priceless.

Sexual Harassment Panda

11-02-2005 05:00 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
If Israel wanted Syria weakened it could go kick Syria's arse. It doesn't need us to do it for them and they can probably do it better than we can.

You're not that naive. Of course Israel wants Syria weak. But if they invade they automatically invite all of Syria's buddies to the party and that they do not want. So they get the US to do it, don't get Israelis killed in the process, and have the bonus of further deflecting Arab rage to the US.

Bottom line - the Israelis have every reason to lie to us about WMDs being in Syria, and none to be truthful if they're not there.

Hank Chinaski

11-02-2005 05:00 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Were we signatories to the Geneva Convention then?

yes. the 30% that felt bush stole the election, that thought the war was wrong and was to get oil for Cheney.

everyone else realizes that it's shit that needs to happen- even if some of it shouldn't, in retrospect. it is a practical necessity.

What's funniest to me (and i am pro abortion rights) is that the libs bring up legal arguments to say we shouldn't torture terrorists when the torture could save lives- article 5 of the blah blah blah would be impacted- yet those same people argue that abortion is a practical necessity w/o ever admitting the legal support is shakier than anything Bush has rasied to justify detainee treatmen

Hank Chinaski

11-02-2005 05:02 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's not self-defense if they're in prison. Even super- secret double-supervision plausibly deniable until it got leaked prison. And God doesn't talk to Bush.

Sexual Harassment Panda

11-02-2005 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ha ha ha. Sexual predators and sexual abuse of kids are hilarious topics.

Speaking of which - you're in Seattle - has Jim West been arrested yet?

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:04 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You're not that naive. Of course Israel wants Syria weak. But if they invade they automatically invite all of Syria's buddies to the party and that they do not want. So they get the US to do it, don't get Israelis killed in the process, and have the bonus of further deflecting Arab rage to the US.

Bottom line - the Israelis have every reason to lie to us about WMDs being in Syria, and none to be truthful if they're not there.

You can't be that ignorant of 50 years of history. Which buddies are the Syrians going to invite to the party? the Palestinians? Oops Israel is already at war with them. Lebanon? Oops, it's already part of Syria. Egypt? Do they want to lose the Gaza? Again? Jordan? Do they want to lose the rest of their country? The Gulf States? Ha ha ha ha ha. Iraq? Nope, US controlled.

Israel doesn't need us to take out Syria and their history of self-defence trumps anything we could do over there. Why the hate? Are you anti-semitic?

Captain

11-02-2005 05:04 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'll bet you think you're pretty clever for finding that Achilles heel in my argument, which pretty much fucks up my argument completely. Well, to that, man, I say....

You are pretty smart.

Uncle.

But I never really expected to slip that one past the goalie anyway, so there (as I take my ball and leave...).

No, no, don't go.

Don't leave me here alone with ... them.

Help!

Hank Chinaski

11-02-2005 05:07 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Why the hate? Are you anti-semitic?

please. He's anti-Jewish. semites include the people he'd turn the land over to.

taxwonk

11-02-2005 05:09 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Don't give me some shit about "If you don't stand up to torture here, you're standing up FOR it everywhere." We're beyond that shit reasoning/sloganeering/gamesmanship, aren't we?

Yes, we're beyond that. Because after all, it's going to be so easy for America to remain the Leader of the Free World and command respect if we just explain to the rest of the world that when we torture and maim, and do all the shit that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and laws say we aren't allowed to, we're beyond that sloganeering shit.

taxwonk

11-02-2005 05:10 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Finally. That's cleared up.

You should have all asked me in the first place.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Speaking of which - you're in Seattle - has Jim West been arrested yet?

he's not in Seattle. In Seattle it's Jihadi Jim McDermott who should be arrested.

Hank Chinaski

11-02-2005 05:11 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
No, no, don't go.

Don't leave me here alone with ... them.

Help!

Here. Let me take over for him. Secret CIA interrogation places are exactly for people who may or may not be guilty. The fact that someone is there doesn't make him guilty- it makes him someone who's there.

Sexual Harassment Panda

11-02-2005 05:11 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You can't be that ignorant of 50 years of history. Which buddies are the Syrians going to invite to the party? the Palestinians? Oops Israel is already at war with them. Lebanon? Oops, it's already part of Syria. Egypt? Do they want to lose the Gaza? Again? Jordan? Do they want to lose the rest of their country? The Gulf States? Ha ha ha ha ha. Iraq? Nope, US controlled.

Israel doesn't need us to take out Syria and their history of self-defence trumps anything we could do over there. Why the hate? Are you anti-semitic?

Nice PoPD. Your hatemasters Rove and Cheney would be so proud of you.

If I understand correctly, the Israeli military is so kickass that it isn't afraid of anyone in the ME, either alone or all together. Since the WMDs are more of a problem for them than for us, I suggest we just let them take care of the Syrians, find the WMDs, and we'll go home. They'd do a better job, anyway.

Sexual Harassment Panda

11-02-2005 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
he's not in Seattle. In Seattle it's Jihadi Jim McDermott who should be arrested.

I know. He's in Spokane. You're closer than me.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:13 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yes, we're beyond that. Because after all, it's going to be so easy for America to remain the Leader of the Free World and command respect if we just explain to the rest of the world that when we torture and maim, and do all the shit that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and laws say we aren't allowed to, we're beyond that sloganeering shit.

As much as the looney left, the UN and the decayed states of (Western) Europe would like to wish it weren't so, the world needs us more than we need the world. Money talks.

taxwonk

11-02-2005 05:14 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yes. the 30% that felt bush stole the election, that thought the war was wrong and was to get oil for Cheney.

everyone else realizes that it's shit that needs to happen- even if some of it shouldn't, in retrospect. it is a practical necessity.

What's funniest to me (and i am pro abortion rights) is that the libs bring up legal arguments to say we shouldn't torture terrorists when the torture could save lives- article 5 of the blah blah blah would be impacted- yet those same people argue that abortion is a practical necessity w/o ever admitting the legal support is shakier than anything Bush has rasied to justify detainee treatmen

When are you going to stop parroting the same empty rationalizations? Good God, Man. DO you ever stop to ask yourself the Hard Questions?

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:17 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Nice PoPD. Your hatemasters Rove and Cheney would be so proud of you.

If I understand correctly, the Israeli military is so kickass that it isn't afraid of anyone in the ME, either alone or all together. Since the WMDs are more of a problem for them than for us, I suggest we just let them take care of the Syrians, find the WMDs, and we'll go home. They'd do a better job, anyway.

Why is that PoPD? I am asking you a question. No implication, just curious.

It wouldn't be the first time they were are proxy. I think we have them under contract to take out Iran's nukes. that will be more than enough of a benefit to us.

Replaced_Texan

11-02-2005 05:18 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Huh? There's a US Supreme Court case that says torture is OK?

You may be able to argue that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is wrong, but it is very solid legal support for abortion rights.

Secret_Agent_Man

11-02-2005 05:19 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Nice. You are wrong, but who cares. (A standard technique, but notr nearly smooth enough.)

S_A_M

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I know. He's in Spokane. You're closer than me.

I suppose. [outable]

1. I am a relatively recent transplant [/outable]; and

2. Eastern and Western Washington seem like very distinct unrelated places.

That said, assuming he's guilty of the allegations, I condemn him. Even if he's not, he seems like a doofus and none too bright to boot.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:21 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
When are you going to stop parroting the same empty rationalizations? Good God, Man. DO you ever stop to ask yourself the Hard Questions?

Dissent. Hank's post made sense to me, et al.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:22 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Huh? There's a US Supreme Court case that says torture is OK?

You may be able to argue that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is wrong, but it is very solid legal support for abortion rights.

[hello Alito!] It is getting less solid by the day.[/hello Alito!]

Hank Chinaski

11-02-2005 05:24 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

You may be able to argue that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is wrong, but it is very solid legal support for abortion rights.

The line of cases is based upon legal arguments far shakier than anything Bush has thrown out for detainees. I feel that the right to torture and detain those that might be al queda is found in a prenumbra of the amendments- plus the freedom to contract.

sebastian_dangerfield

11-02-2005 05:27 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You may be able to argue that the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is wrong, but it is very solid legal support for abortion rights.

Thats what the whole "super-precedent" thing discusses. If you haven't heard it yet, many people have been touting Roe as a "super-precedent" standing for the principle thhat abortion must be legal. They say - and Roberts himself acknowledged - that Roe can't be overturned just on the basis that its technically not great law. its a flawed justification for a social policy which can't be overturned, and the last 30 years of decisions upholding it are the Court's best attempts to avoid undoing on a technicality a right of women which our society can't afford to undo.

Nobody knows this better than the GOP - thats why Arlen Specter and his cronies have pushed the concept of the "superprecedent" recently. It gives the GOP an avenue around the states rights advocates who really just want to flip Roe. The GOP can't flip Roe. Its political suicide. Look for a "superprecedent" justification for Roe in coming years.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:28 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The line of cases is based upon legal arguments far shakier than anything Bush has thrown out for detainees. I feel that the right to torture and detain those that might be al queda is found in a prenumbra of the amendments- plus the freedom to contract.

Also the self defence addendum to the UMC.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:32 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Thats what the whole "super-precedent" thing discusses. If you haven't heard it yet, many people have been touting Roe as a "super-precedent" standing for the principle thhat abortion must be legal. They say - and Roberts himself acknowledged - that Roe can't be overturned just on the basis that its technically not great law. its a flawed justification for a social policy which can't be overturned, and the last 30 years of decisions upholding it are the Court's best attempts to avoid undoing on a technicality a right of women which our society can't afford to undo.

Nobody knows this better than the GOP - thats why Arlen Specter and his cronies have pushed the concept of the "superprecedent" recently. It gives the GOP an avenue around the states rights advocates who really just want to flip Roe. The GOP can't flip Roe. Its political suicide. Look for a "superprecedent" justification for Roe in coming years.

What was Plessy, a superduperprecedent? Is Brown the example of a superduperprecedentoverturner?

I wonder what case will be the superprecedentoverturner of Roe?

Hank Chinaski

11-02-2005 05:33 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Roberts won't vote to reverse. Chill.

Penske_Account

11-02-2005 05:38 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Roberts won't vote to reverse. Chill.

Bush may get another couple on there before he's done. I don't give Stevens until the end of this term and Ginsburg is shaky.

bush owes the court its first hispanic and another woman. Garza and JRB. We won;t need Roberts then.

Replaced_Texan

11-02-2005 05:41 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
[hello Alito!] It is getting less solid by the day.[/hello Alito!]

Based on the dissent in Casey, which used the framework of Roe, but came to a different conclusion with regard to undue burden?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

11-02-2005 05:44 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Nobody knows this better than the GOP - thats why Arlen Specter and his cronies have pushed the concept of the "superprecedent" recently.

Who are specter's cronies? He has a rather different view on the matter than most Rs in the Senate.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

11-02-2005 05:45 PM

More predictions

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Bush may get another couple on there before he's done. I don't give Stevens until the end of this term and Ginsburg is shaky.

bush owes the court its first hispanic and another woman. Garza and JRB. We won;t need Roberts then.

He'll get one more, but with a democratic senate, it will be a tough push.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:19 AM.

Page 119 of 126

119

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page