|
Judge Upholds Constitution against Bush Thugs
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. "To do otherwise would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country’s constitutional tradition, but it would also be a betrayal of this nation’s commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties," he wrote. "For the court to find for (the U.S. government) would also be to engage in judicial activism. This court sits to interpret the law as it is and not as the court might wish it to be. Good. He gets it. Activist judges are a bad thing. Ruling for the government would have usurped the power of Congress. Pursuant to its interpretation, the court finds that the president has no power, neither express nor implied, neither constitutional nor statutory, to hold (Padilla) as an enemy combatant," Floyd wrote. Big deal. If the government loses on appeal, they'll deem him an unlawful combatant...and a whole new round of court appeals will begin. Iran will be a Democracy by the time Padilla gets out of jail. Of course, we could always send him to Jordan or Saudi Arabia for some softening up. As a result, Floyd ordered that Padilla be released within 45 days. The government is expected to appeal the decision. No kidding. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: Imprisoned terrorists still advocating terror 1993 World Trade Center bombers write letters exhorting jihad By Lisa Myers & the NBC investigative unit Updated: 7:52 p.m. ET Feb. 28, 2005 It was 12:18 p.m. on Feb. 26, 1993, lunchtime, when the van exploded. The massive bomb rattled the World Trade Center, leaving a giant crater in the underground garage. Six people were killed, and more than 1,000 were wounded. At the time, it was the worst act of terrorism ever committed on American soil. Three Islamic extremists were among those convicted, each sentenced to more than 100 years in prison. Former prosecutor Andy McCarthy convicted others involved in the attack. "It's difficult to imagine people who are more evil or inclined to do more mass homicide," says McCarthy. So the men were sent to America's most secure federal prisons, eventually ending up at Supermax in Colorado, supposedly unable to do further harm. Or so we thought. Letters and articles obtained by NBC News show that while behind bars, the 1993 bombers continued their terrorist activities. They wrote letters to other suspected terrorists and brazenly praised Osama bin Laden in Arabic newspapers. According to confidential Spanish court documents obtained by NBC, at least 14 letters went back and forth between the World Trade Center bombers and a Spanish terror cell. In February 2003, bomber Mohammed Salameh writes: "Oh God! Make us live with happiness, make us die as martyrs, may we be united on the Day of Judgment." The recipient, Mohamed Achraf, later allegedly led a plot to blow up the National Justice Building in Madrid and is awaiting trial. In July 2002, a letter Salameh sent from prison is published in the Al-Quds newspaper, proclaiming "Osama Bin Laden is my hero of this generation." "He was exhorting acts of terrorism and helping recruit would-be terrorists for the jihad," says McCarthy, "from inside an American prison." The letters to the bombers spoke of the need to "terminate the infidels" and said, "The Muslims don't have any option other than jihad." Among those corresponding is a man charged with recruiting suicide operatives in Spain. Spanish officials accuse him of using letters to and from the U.S. bombers as a recruiting tool. All this while the Bureau of Prisons reassured the public that terrorists were under control. "We have been managing inmates with ties to terrorism for over a decade by confining them in secure conditions and monitoring their communications closely," said Harley Lappin, the Bureau of Prisons director, in October 2003. Today, federal prison officials refuse to comment directly on what other law enforcement officials call a horrible lapse, saying only that inmates' letters are "monitored" and "inspected." So how did this happen? Federal officials tell NBC that the Justice Department failed to restrict communications to and from the three bombers because key officials didn't consider them all that dangerous. Michael Macko lost his father, Bill, in the trade center bombing and attended the 12th anniversary memorial on Feb. 26. "If they are encouraging acts of terrorism internationally, how do we know they're not encouraging acts of terrorism right here on U.S. soil?" asks Macko. That's just one of the many questions now being scrutinized by the Justice Department. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. |
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. |
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. "al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom? |
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:23:05 -0500, NOYB wrote:
I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. Obviously, we aren't, nor to United States citizens for that matter. I believe Frances' laws might be more to your liking. Here, you are innocent until proven guilty. |
You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. That is not true. The Clinton administration was successful in fighting terrorism. When Bush took over he was warned repeatedly about the terrorist and he and his team fell asleep for nine months. The 2001 WTC attack was easily preventable. Keep in mind that it occurred while George Bush was President. But, as is usual for everything that has occurred during his administration, he never takes any responsibility. Instead of fighting terrorist Bush has ****ed away all of our money and the lives of our finest men and women (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) to fight a battle we did not need to fight. Iraq is not part of the "war" on terrorism; it is a very dangerous distraction. If anything, it has been an excellent recruiting tool for the terrorist. Lee Huddleston |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. "al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom? The DoD. |
"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message ... You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. That is not true. The Clinton administration was successful in fighting terrorism. They were successful in hiding state-sponsored terrorism, and acting like it was a few rogue individuals acting alone. Here's a list of Americans killed by radical Islamic terrorists during Clinton's watch: January 25, 1993, Virginia, United States. A Pakistani gunman opened fire on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employees standing outside of the building. Two agents, Frank Darling and Bennett Lansing, were killed and three others wounded. The assailant was never caught and reportedly fled to Pakistan. February 26, 1993, Cairo, Egypt. A bomb exploded inside a café in downtown Cairo killing three. Among the 18 wounded were two U.S. citizens. No one claimed responsibility for the attack. February 26, 1993, New York, United States. A massive van bomb exploded in an underground parking garage below the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six and wounding 1,042. Four Islamist activists were responsible for the attack. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the operation's alleged mastermind, escaped but was later arrested in Pakistan and extradited to the United States. Abd al-Hakim Murad, another suspected conspirator, was arrested by local authorities in the Philippines and handed over to the United States. The two, along with two other terrorists, were tried in the U.S. and sentenced to 240 years. April 14, 1993, Kuwait. The Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former U.S. President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait. In retaliation, the U.S. launched a cruise missile attack two months later on the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. July 5, 1993, Southeast Turkey. In eight separate incidents, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) kidnapped a total of 19 Western tourists traveling in southeastern Turkey. The hostages, including U.S. citizen Colin Patrick Starger, were released unharmed after spending several weeks in captivity. December 1, 1993, north of Jerusalem, West Bank. Yitzhak Weinstock, 19, whose family came from Los Angeles, CA, was killed in a drive-by shooting. Hamas took responsibility for the attack Sometime in 1994: near Atzmona, Gaza. U.S. citizen Mrs. Sheila Deutsch of Brooklyn, NY injured in a shooting attack. October 9, 1994. Nachshon Wachsman, 19, whose family came from New York, was kidnapped and then murdered by Hamas. October 9, 1994: Jerusalem, Israel. Shooting attack on cafe-goers in Jerusalem. U.S. citizens Scot Doberstein and Eric Goldberg were injured. March 8, 1995, Karachi, Pakistan. Two unidentified gunmen armed with AK-47 assault rifles opened fire on a U.S. Consulate van in Karachi, killing two U.S. diplomats, Jacqueline Keys Van Landingham and Gary C. Durell, and wounding a third, Mark McCloy. April 9, 1995, Kfar Darom and Netzarim, Gaza Strip. Two suicide attacks were carried out within a few hours of each other in Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. In the first attack a suicide bomber crashed an explosive-rigged van into an Israeli bus in Netzarim, killing eight including U.S. citizen Alisa Flatow, 20, of West Orange, NJ. More than 30 others were injured. In the second attack, a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb in the midst of a convoy of cars in Kfar Darom, injuring 12. The Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Shaqaqi Faction claimed responsibility for the attacks. U.S. citizens Chava Levine and Seth Klein were injured. June 15, 1995: Jerusalem, Israel. U.S. citizen Howard Tavens of Cleveland, OH was injured in a stabbing attack. July 4, 1995, Kashmir, India. In Kashmir, a previously unknown militant group, Al-Faran, with suspected links to a Kashmiri separatist group in Pakistan, took hostage six tourists, including two U.S. citizens. They demanded the release of Muslim militants held in Indian prisons. One of the U.S. citizens escaped on July 8, while on August 13 the decapitated body of the Norwegian hostage was found along with a note stating that the other hostages also would be killed if the group's demands were not met. The Indian Government refused. Both Indian and American authorities believe the rest of the hostages were most likely killed in 1996 by their jailers. August 1995, Istanbul, Turkey. A bombing of Istanbul's popular Taksim Square injured two U.S. citizens. This attack was part of a three-year-old attempt by the PKK to drive foreign tourists away from Turkey by striking at tourist sites. August 21, 1995, Jerusalem, Israel. A bus bombing in Jerusalem by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) killed four, including American Joan Davenny of New Haven, CT, and wounded more than 100. U.S. citizens injured: Chanoch Bleier, Judith Shulewitz, Bernard Batta. September 9, 1995. Ma'ale Michmash. American killed: Unborn child of Mrs. Mara Frey of Chicago. Mara Frey was injured. November 9, 1995, Algiers, Algeria. Islamic extremists set fire to a warehouse belonging to the U.S. Embassy, threatened the Algerian security guard because he was working for the United States, and demanded to know whether any U.S. citizens were present. The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) probably carried out the attacks. The group had threatened to strike other foreign targets and especially U.S. objectives in Algeria, and the attack's style was similar to past GIA operations against foreign facilities. November 13, 1995, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A car bomb exploded in the parking lot outside of the Riyadh headquarters of the Office of the Program Manager/Saudi Arabian National Guard, killing seven persons, five of them U.S. citizens, and wounding 42. The blast severely damaged the three-story building, which houses a U.S. military advisory group, and several neighboring office buildings. Three groups -- the Islamic Movement for Change, the Tigers of the Gulf, and the Combatant Partisans of God -- claimed responsibility for the attack. February 25, 1996, Jerusalem, Israel. A suicide bomber blew up a commuter bus in Jerusalem, killing 26, including three U.S. citizens, and injuring 80 others, among them another two U.S. citizens. Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing. U. S. citizens killed: Sara Duker, of Teaneck, NJ, Matthew Eisenfeld of West Hartford, CT, Ira Weinstein of Bronx, NY. U.S. citizens injured: Beatrice Kramer, Steven Lapides. March 4, 1996, Tel Aviv, Israel. A suicide bomber detonated an explosive device outside the Dizengoff Center, Tel Aviv's largest shopping mall, killing 20 persons and injuring 75 others, including two U.S. citizens. Both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing. U.S. citizens injured included Julie K. Negrin of Seattle, WA. May 13, 1996, Beit-El, West Bank. Arab gunmen opened fire on a hitchhiking stand near Beit El, wounding three Israelis and killing David Boim, 17, an American-Israeli from New York. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, although either the Islamic Jihad or Hamas are suspected. U.S. citizens injured: Moshe Greenbaum, 17. June 9, 1996, outside Zekharya. Yaron Ungar, an American-Israeli, and his Israeli wife were killed in a drive-by shooting near their West Bank home. The PFLP is suspected. June 25, 1996, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. A fuel truck carrying a bomb exploded outside the U.S. military's Khobar Towers housing facility in Dhahran, killing 19 U.S. military personnel and wounding 515 persons, including 240 U.S. personnel. Several groups claimed responsibility for the attack. In June 2001, a U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, identified Saudi Hizballah as the party responsible for the attack. The court indicated that the members of the organization, banned from Saudi Arabia, "frequently met and were trained in Lebanon, Syria, or Iran" with Libyan help. August 17, 1996, Mapourdit, Sudan. Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) rebels kidnapped six missionaries in Mapourdit, including a U.S citizen. The SPLA released the hostages on August 28. November 1, 1996, Sudan. A breakaway group of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) kidnapped three workers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), including one U.S citizen. The rebels released the hostages on December 9 in exchange for ICRC supplies and a health survey of their camp. December 3, 1996, Paris, France. A bomb exploded aboard a Paris subway train, killing four and injuring 86 persons, including a U.S. citizen. No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but Algerian extremists are suspected. January 2, 1997, Major cities worldwide, United States. A series of letter bombs with Alexandria, Egypt postmarks were discovered at Al-Hayat newspaper bureaus in Washington, DC, New York, London, and Riyadh. Three similar devices, also postmarked in Egypt, were found at a prison facility in Leavenworth, Kansas. Bomb disposal experts defused all the devices, but one detonated at the Al-Hayat newspaper office in London, injuring two security guards and causing minor damage. February 23, 1997, New York, United States. A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine." July 30, 1997, Jerusalem, Israel. Two bombs detonated in Jerusalem's Mahane Yehuda market, killing 15 persons, including a U.S. citizen and wounding 168 others, among them two U.S. citizens. The Izz-el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, claimed responsibility for the attack. U.S. citizens killed: Mrs. Leah Stern of Passaic, NJ. U.S. citizens injured: Dov Dalin. September 4, 1997: Jerusalem, Israel. Bombing on Ben-Yehuda Street, Jerusalem. U.S. citizens killed: Yael Botwin, 14, of Los Angeles and Jerusalem. U.S. citizens injured: Diana Campuzano of New York, Abraham Mendelson of Los Angeles, CA, Greg Salzman of New Jersey, Stuart E. Hersh of Kiryat Arba, Israel, Michael Alzer, Abraham Elias, David Keinan, Daniel Miller of Boca Raton, FL, Noam Rozenman of Jerusalem, Jenny (Yocheved) Rubin of Los Angeles, CA. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. October 30, 1997, Sanaa, Yemen. Al-Sha'if tribesmen kidnapped a U.S. businessman near Sanaa. The tribesmen sought the release of two fellow tribesmen who were arrested on smuggling charges and several public works projects they claim the government promised them. The hostage was released on November 27. November 12, 1997, Karachi, Pakistan. Two unidentified gunmen shot to death four U.S. auditors from Union Texas Petroleum and their Pakistani driver as they drove away from the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. Two groups claimed responsibility -- the Islamic Inqilabi Council, or Islamic Revolutionary Council and the Aimal Secret Committee, also known as the Aimal Khufia Action Committee. November 25, 1997, Aden, Yemen. Yemenite tribesmen kidnapped a U.S citizen, two Italians, and two unspecified Westerners near Aden to protest the eviction of a tribe member from his home. The kidnappers released the five hostages on November 27. April 19, 1998, Maon, Israel. Dov Driben, a 28-year-old American-Israeli farmer was killed by terrorists near the West Bank town of Maon. One of his assailants, Issa Debavseh, a member of Fatah Tanzim, was killed on November 7, 2001, by the IDF after being on their wanted list for the murder. June 21, 1998, Beirut, Lebanon. Two hand-grenades were thrown at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. No casualties were reported. June 21, 1998, Beirut, Lebanon. Three rocket-propelled grenades attached to a crude detonator exploded near the U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut, causing no casualties and little damage. August 7, 1998, Nairobi, Kenya. A car bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi. The attack killed a total of 292, including 12 U.S. citizens, and injured over 5,000, among them six Americans. The perpetrators belonged to al-Qaida, Usama bin Ladin's network. August 7, 1998, Dar es Sala'am, Tanzania. A car bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Sala'am, killing 11 and injuring 86. Osama bin Laden's organization al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack. Two suspects were arrested. November 21, 1998, Teheran, Iran. Members of Fedayeen Islam, shouting anti-American slogans and wielding stones and iron rods, attacked a group of American tourists in Tehran. Some of the tourists suffered minor injuries from flying glass. December 28, 1998, Mawdiyah, Yemen. Sixteen tourists--12 Britons, two Americans and two Australians--were taken hostage in the largest kidnapping in Yemen's recent history. The tourists were seized in the Abyan province (some 175 miles south of Sanaa the capital). One Briton and a Yemeni guide escaped, while the rest were taken to city of Mawdiyah. Four hostages were killed when troops closed in and two were wounded, including an American woman. The kidnappers, members of the Islamic Army of Aden-Abyan, an offshoot of Al-Jihad, had demanded the release from jail of their leader, Saleh Haidara al-Atwi. October 31, 1999, Nantucket, Massachusetts, United States. EgyptAir Flight 990 crashed off the U.S. coast killing all 217 people on board, including 100 Americans. Although it is not precisely clear what happened, evidence indicated that an Egyptian pilot crashed the plane for personal or political reasons. November 4, 1999, Athens, Greece. A group protesting President Clinton's visit to Greece hid a gas bomb at an American car dealership in Athens. Two cars were destroyed and several others damaged. Anti-State Action claimed responsibility for the attack, but the November 17 group was also suspected. November 12, 1999, Islamabad, Pakistan. Six rockets were fired at the U.S. Information Services cultural center and United Nations offices in Islamabad, injuring a Pakistani guard. September 29, 2000. near Jerusalem Israel. Attack on motorists. U.S. citizens injured: Avi Herman of Teaneck, NJ, Naomi Herman of Teaneck, NJ. September 29, 2000, Jerusalem, Israel. Attack on taxi passengers. U.S. citizens injured: Tuvia Grossman of Chicago, Todd Pollack of Norfolk, VA, Andrew Feibusch of New York. October 4, 2000, near Bethlehem, West Bank. U.S. citizens injured: An unidentified American tourist. October 5, 2000: near Jerusalem, Israel. Attack on a motorist. U.S. citizens injured: Rabbi Chaim Brovender of Brooklyn. October 8, 2000, Nablus, West Bank. The bullet-ridden body of Rabbi Hillel Lieberman, a U.S. citizen from Brooklyn living in the Jewish settlement of Elon Moreh, was found at the entrance to the West Bank town of Nablus. Lieberman had headed there after hearing that Palestinians had desecrated the religious site, Joseph's Tomb. No organization claimed responsibility for the murder. October 12, 2000, Aden Harbor, Yemen. A suicide squad rammed the warship the U.S.S. Cole with an explosives-laden boat killing 13 American sailors and injuring 33. The attack was likely by Osama bin Ladin's al-Qaida organization. October 30, 2000, Jerusalem, Israel. Gunmen killed Eish Kodesh Gilmor, a 25-year-old American-Israeli on duty as a security guard at the National Insurance Institute in Jerusalem. The "Martyrs of the Al-Aqsa Intifada," a group linked to Fatah, claimed responsibility for the attack. Gilmor's family filed a suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington against the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, Chairman Yasser Arafat and members of Force 17, as being responsible for the attack. December 31, 2000, Ofra, Israel. Rabbi Binyamin Kahane, 34, and his wife, Talia Hertzlich Kahane, both formerly of Brooklyn, NY were killed in a drive-by shooting. Their children, Yehudit Leah Kahane, Bitya Kahane, Tzivya Kahane, Rivka Kahane, and Shlomtsion Kahane, were injured in the attack. The big ones you already knew about: 1993 WTC attack, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1999 Egypt Air crash, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Clinton's cronies also managed to conceal the fact that the 1996 TWA 800 disaster was a terrorist attack, downed by a surface to air missile. |
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. "al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom? The DoD. So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you, declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that before your time?) |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. "al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom? The DoD. So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you, declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that before your time?) I don't have to worry. You, Gould, DSK, and Harry should be afraid. Be very, very afraid. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. "al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom? The DoD. So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you, declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that before your time?) I don't have to worry. You, Gould, DSK, and Harry should be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Frankly, if we go down that road, then the sitting US government should tossed out. We either have a viable Constitution here and the rule of law, with the same laws for everyone, or we don't have anything at all. I lost two uncles in WW II who fought to defend the United States against the kind of thinking you are espousing. There are 3000 families who lost a relative on 9/11 because of the thinking you are espousing. Suppose Padilla is released and decides to settle in your neighborhood. Would you be OK with that? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4240038/detail.html "If the law in its current state is found by the president to be insufficient to protect this country from terrorist plots, such as the one alleged here, then the president should prevail upon Congress to remedy the problem," he wrote. Floyd wrote that, in essence, "the detention of a United States citizen by the military is disallowed without explicit Congressional authorization." This was shrewd move by a Bush appointee to spark Congress into enacting legislation that will give the President the necessary powers. Floyd knew of course that this case will be appealed to a US Court of Appeals...so he Padilla ain't gonna see the light of day anytime soon. Hahahahohohohehehe. Well, it surely will end up before the US Court of Appeals, no doubt about that. I have a suspicion that Bush isn't going to be getting any new powers in the area under discussion. I have a suspicion that you're wrong. Bush will push for this...and a Republican House and Senate will gladly oblige. Here's why terrorists shouldn't have any rights: That doesn't matter. What matters is that this country follow its own rule of law. The government should charge Padilla with a crime or not (and then set him free if not), set or deny bail, and give him his right to a speedy trial, represented by counsel. Period. Anything less contributes more to the destruction of this country than anything Padilla did or could do. I know the Bush Adminstration would prefer a police state, but we are not there yet. You can't fight international terrorism with existing US laws. The Clinton administration tried that after the 1993 WTC attack, and it resulted in the 2001 attack. So are you suggesting we suspend the Constitution, or just the Bill of Rights? I'm suggesting that we don't extend Constitutional rights to al Qaida terrorists. "al Qaida terrorists" As defined by whom? The DoD. So then we will have a military dictatorship --- they don't like you, declare you al Qaida and you "disappear" -- Just like Chili a few years ago -- as I recall the CIA was advising them at the time under Bush the first. Argentina had a similar process under Perone (or was that before your time?) I don't have to worry. You, Gould, DSK, and Harry should be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Frankly, if we go down that road, then the sitting US government should tossed out. We either have a viable Constitution here and the rule of law, with the same laws for everyone, or we don't have anything at all. I lost two uncles in WW II who fought to defend the United States against the kind of thinking you are espousing. There are 3000 families who lost a relative on 9/11 because of the thinking you are espousing. Suppose Padilla is released and decides to settle in your neighborhood. Would you be OK with that? If the man is released, it means there is no credible evidence to bring before a a grand jury. That's not necessarily true. Criminals get off on technicalities all of the time. I don't whether Padilla is guilty of anything. He is entitled to confront his accusers, to be charged, to have a bail hearing, to have counsel and to have a speedy public trial. If our government cannot do this, it must release him. We're not talking about sex offender here. What he does after that is his business. You're really, truly, advocating a "system of law" that more closely resemles that of Naxi Germany, the Stalin Soviet era, or the mess that was Chile. No. I'm advocating a system of law resembling that laid out by the Canadian "Emergencies Act". |
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? 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. 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. 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. Lee Huddleston |
"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message ... 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 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? NOYB wrote: There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was planned and executed in an 8 month period. That's not the point. The point is that Bush & Cheney did nothing... NOTHING! ... to stop the progress of the Sept 11th plotters, desptite the warnings and intel he was handed. Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the ******* prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an act. Unlike Bush & Cheney, who don't give a flying **** about the Constitution. 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. Guess what... Sept 11th hadn't happened yet. You're ignoring the fact that after Sept 11th, which Osama Bin Laden claimed full credit for, Bush & Cheney gave up looking for him. This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war... That's simply not true. *IF* Bush & Cheney had managed their intel & counter-terrorist ops half-competently, then Sept 11th would not have happened. Instead they were worried about how to hush up Cheney's oil policy. It is not a case on inadequate law, it is a case of incompetent leadership. DSK |
NOYB wrote:
"Lee Huddleston" wrote in message ... 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" |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Lee Huddleston" wrote in message ... 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. |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote:
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. Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles? http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html |
|
JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Lee Huddleston" wrote in message . .. 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? |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote: 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. Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles? http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html From your reference: "Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans. Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which officials insisted was not aimed at him." Yet nothing more was done... And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about doing nothing more... |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote:
How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston? As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes? |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:59:23 -0500, John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote: 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. Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles? http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html From your reference: "Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans. Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which officials insisted was not aimed at him." Yet nothing more was done... And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about doing nothing more... Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting attention from a BJ. |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:52:33 GMT, "Jim," wrote:
JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Lee Huddleston" wrote in message ... 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? Bill O'Reilly |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:03:52 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:59:23 -0500, John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote: 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. Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles? http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html From your reference: "Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans. Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which officials insisted was not aimed at him." Yet nothing more was done... And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about doing nothing more... Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting attention from a BJ. That blow job sure gave him a lot of excuses, didn't it? |
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:02:09 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote: How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston? As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes? Only if we had a policy of allowing stewardesses to be killed to prevent a hijacking. Did we have such a policy? |
John, You really have Harry on the run.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: More delusional screed. |
John H wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:02:09 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote: How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston? As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes? Only if we had a policy of allowing stewardesses to be killed to prevent a hijacking. Did we have such a policy? At the time it wold have been an airline policy, subject to interpretation of the Captain. I'd like to think that if I were captain, I would not sacrifice my plane and passengers for a stewardess. (yes i would feel guilty about the decision, and it would bother me for quite a while, but as with a ship captain, the safety of the vessel and passengers comes before one of the crew. |
"DSK" wrote in message . .. 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? NOYB wrote: There's not a person on the face of this Earth who thinks 9/11 was planned and executed in an 8 month period. That's not the point. The point is that Bush & Cheney did nothing... NOTHING! ... to stop the progress of the Sept 11th plotters, desptite the warnings and intel he was handed. Clinton had several opportunities to assassinate or arrest the ******* prior to 9/11, but was worried about the Constitutionality of such an act. Unlike Bush & Cheney, who don't give a flying **** about the Constitution. 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. Guess what... Sept 11th hadn't happened yet. Somalia had happened. The 1993 WTC attack had happened. Soon after the proclamation of war, the Khobar towers attack occurred...followed shortly by the USS Cole. After the Cole, Clinton didn't react even though all indications were that it was directed by bin Laden. You're ignoring the fact that after Sept 11th, which Osama Bin Laden claimed full credit for, Bush & Cheney gave up looking for him. No they didn't. The PDB's from the period leading up to 9/11 showed that Bush had directed the DoD to formulate an attack plan to go into Afghanistan. This is precisely the point that is being argued here. Our laws are inadequate to deal with international mass murder and/or war... That's simply not true. Yes it is. bin Laden should have been captured or killed the minute that he declared war on the US. *IF* Bush & Cheney had managed their intel & counter-terrorist ops half-competently, then Sept 11th would not have happened. 8 months wasn't enough time to formulate and implement a plan to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Besides that, the Bush administration had to deal with tensions over China's downing of one of our Naval planes. Instead they were worried about how to hush up Cheney's oil policy. It is not a case on inadequate law, it is a case of incompetent leadership. Right you are! From 1996 until 2000, Clinton had several opportunites to get the *******. |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Lee Huddleston" wrote in message ... 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" But I'll be that Marshall never imagined the scenario where 1 man could kill 9 million people by driving a nuke into NYC. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote: 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. Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles? http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html "Mr. Clinton took the politically safe path by treating the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center as a criminal matter rather than the terrorist attack that it really was. As a result, he shut the CIA out of the investigation. Administration blundering enabled Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a top bin Laden aide who coordinated the September 11 attacks, to escape capture in Qatar. The Clinton administration refused offers by the government of Sudan to turn over bin Laden and objected to efforts by the Northern Alliance - the anti-Taliban coalition in Afghanistan - to assassinate the terrorist leader. Mr. Clinton refused several offers by Sudan to take custody of two terrorists wanted in the August 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. On three occasions in 1999 and 2000, Mr. Clinton deferred or hesitated to launch missile strikes against bin Laden. This is but a partial listing of instances documented by Mr. Miniter in which the Clinton administration passed up opportunities to kill bin Laden and/or weaken his terror network." http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041...3817-9514r.htm |
NOYB wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Lee Huddleston" wrote in message t... 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. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:59:23 -0500, John H wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:30:43 -0500, thunder wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:59:43 +0000, NOYB wrote: 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. Why don't we just overlook the 75 cruise missiles? http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...attack-us.html From your reference: "Clinton and his national security team linked both sites to Osama bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire tied by U.S. intelligence to the twin bombings on Aug. 7 in Kenya and Tanzania. The bombings killed 12 Americans and nearly 300 Africans. Bin Laden, who is in Afghanistan, apparently survived the attack, which officials insisted was not aimed at him." Yet nothing more was done... And, strangely enough, I don't recall a lot of liberal whining about doing nothing more... Strangely, I remember considerable conservative whining about diverting attention from a BJ. I remember that too. And being the wonderful politician (but terrible President) that he was, he read the polls, put his tail between his legs, and quit pursuing the guy. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:46:02 -0500, John H wrote: How was it easily preventable, Mr. Huddleston? As the hijackers used nothing more than knives and box-cutters, a simple cockpit bulkhead would have prevented that particular attack. Yes? You can do that to all of the airplanes in just 8 months? |
"Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... JimH wrote: "Jim," wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Lee Huddleston" wrote in message et... 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. We're locking them up and throwing away the key. We should be throwing away the room. |
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 |
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:27:23 -0500, "Dr. Jonathan Smithers, MD Phd."
wrote: John, You really have Harry on the run. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: More delusional screed. Oh? Didn't even know he was posting. I wonder which post offended him. I don't think I've made any posts about his integrity lately, have I? |
NOYB wrote:
.... bin Laden should have been captured or killed the minute that he declared war on the US. So why hasn't Bush captured him yet? Fact: Approx four years after Bin Laden had "declared war" on the US, his organization was unable to carry out an attack on US soil. Fact: The President of the U.S. cannot simply order any person on earth killed. Fact: Bush has *still* not managed to capture of kill Bin Laden Fact: there is no proven link between Iraq and anti-US terrorism DSK |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:57 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com