LawTalkers - Waiting for Fitzgerald

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:

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.

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?

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

Page 317 of 334

317

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