NOYB wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...


JimH wrote:



"Jim," wrote in message
...



NOYB wrote:



"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message
. net...




On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:08:16 -0500, "NOYB" wrote:






Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists
during
Clinton's watch:


NOYB,

I noticed that you did not respond to my point that 2001 WTC occurred
on George Bush's watch. Since when did a commander not take
responsibility for what happened on his/her watch?


There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was
planned and executed in an 8 month period. bin Laden made his
declaration of war against the US on August 23, 1996.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/OPF980830.htm

Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the *******
prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an
act. In fact, he's on record (audiotape) as saying that he didn't know
under what legal grounds he could hold him when the Sudanese offered
to hand him over.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clint...utf-8&oe=utf-8

This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are
inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war...which
is why the Constitution affords special rights to the President under
special circumstances. Most countries do.









This is especially
true when there were so many warnings of exactly what happened. From
Clark, from the FBI, and from the FAA (recently revealed). All they
did not know was what public building. And WTC having been attacked
before, they could have figured that out if they had put any effort
into it.

As for your comment that criminals get free on "technicalities" all
the time, that is not true either. The technicalities that you refer
to are the constitution and the rule of law that has been developed
over a thousand years. The criminal "justice" system is weighed very
heavily in favor of the government.


Not true. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. All it
takes is enough reasonable doubt to convince one person out of twelve
that the prosecution's case doesn't hold water. If a guy like Harry,
Chuck, or you were to sit on a jury in a trial of Donald Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, you guys already have enough doubt before the case even
begins. That's the fundamental flaw in our system...particularly when
politics gets in the way.





This is doubly so with regard to
the federal government. More often than not people (especially poor
people and African/Americans) get convicted and screwed by
technicalities in favor of the government.


So you're a champion for the little guy, eh? What about victim's
rights? What about the poor girl who is kidnapped and murdered by a
serial sex offender in Sarasota because the judge didn't have the
power to hold the guy under existing law?





You just think that
criminals get free due to some liberal, whimpy "technicality" because
you listen to the lies and distortions put forth from "conservative"
propagandist.



No. It's because I read stories about life-long criminals committing
multiple violent acts becaus they're out on technicalites.

I think it was Chief Justice Marshall who said something to the effect
of 'Better 100 guilty men go free, than we execute 1 innocent man"


Not when it comes to terrorists.

terrorists as defined by whom?


Those folks with the task of defending against them: the DoD.



We went around on this last evening (do you remember?). What you're
advocating is a military government similar to Chili, or Argentina under
Perone.


We're not executing people.

They just happen to die while being tortured.
We're locking them up and throwing away the
key. We should be throwing away the room.

Remember the famous Bushism (I thought he was joking at the time)
See it at
http://www.newsgateway.ca/bush_dictator.htm

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot
easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000