Conservatives Terrified of Bringing Terrorists to Justice

[fossten]

Foss - what if it is a show trial - might there be good reasons to show the world what type of evil KSM embodies? I have been reading a bit more about Eichmann - and this could follow those same lines - the Eichmann trial was a slam dunk for the Israelis - It could be a bit harder for us - because of the actions that the Bush administration took. From what I have read so far - Eichmann was never tortured - unless one uses the pall of the death sentence as a means of torture. And also from what I have read that the Eichmann case had no ill effects on the judicial system in Israel. Once again - it was a great forum to show the world the horrors of the Holocaust. Obviously they were war crimes. We have the same forum here, a horrific act, the perpetrator being brought to justice - are we afraid to us the criminal justice system instead of the military justice system because embarrassing things might be unearthed?

Afraid? Haha that's an inconvenient truth if there ever was one! KSM had already confessed and was about to be convicted. It was OBAMA who halted this process.

Pelosi approved the use of waterboarding on KSM. Another inconvenient truth for you. Does she think that is torture? I predict that KSM will use your words in his defense. Well done, you're making his case for him. Terrorist sympathizer much, foxpaws?

I guess you don't understand the meaning of the term 'show trial.' In this context it means 'phony trial where the outcome is already determined, i.e. not fair.' Obama and Holder have both poisoned the potential jurors by declaring KSM guilty. So how is this justice? Furthermore, why should the United States give a rat's ass what a bunch of Third World dictators think of us?

You're the one always harping on how we can't lower ourselves to the level of our enemies, yet you're now advocating show trials?

Do you or do you not believe in due process?

 

[shagdrum]

Cal is very right Shag - the supreme court has been extending 'rights' to people in this country who aren't citizens since the 1800s, and our courts have tried numerous undocumented aliens, using the same 'rights' as afforded to citizens.

Apparently you missed the reason for that which I spelled out in my previous post.

And the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that all citizens are created equal,

Rhetoric aimed at distorting reality.

A government is only capable of protecting the rights of it's citizens. Anyone else is beyond the scope of it's jurisdiction. Extending rights to non-citizens in a by-product of protecting the rights of the citizens.

Interesting, the overly simplified straw man you are making is aimed at distorting reality and is clearly out-of-touch with reality. But that can't be since you reject philosophy, right?

 

[fossten]

And the Declaration of Independence doesn't say that all citizens are created equal, it very clearly states all men.

Well, well, well. Look at this. The Devil quotes Scripture.

You want to start including the Declaration of Independence as citable law now?

 

[fossten]

Apparently, the definition of torture by Eric Holder is, "Whatever we say it is, whenever we want to."

[Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.

Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?

Holder: Intent is a huge part.

Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.

... Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge, continued the “intent” line of questioning in an attempt to make some sense of the attorney general’s tortured logic.

Rep. Louie Gohmert: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct?

Attorney General Eric Holder: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

Gohmert: So what kind of intent were you talking about?

Holder: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

Gohmert: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

Holder: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.

 

[foxpaws]

Well, well, well. Look at this. The Devil quotes Scripture.

You want to start including the Declaration of Independence as citable law now?

Well the Declaration is considered one of the 4 pillars of American Constitutionalism and is often referred to and cited in many court decisions...

Or from Eidsmoe...

The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.​

Ah, I have be labeled - Devil, I do have a blue dress...

 

[fossten]

Well the Declaration is considered one of the 4 pillars of American Constitutionalism and is often referred to and cited in many court decisions...

Or from Eidsmoe...

The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.​

Ah, I have be labeled - Devil, I do have a blue dress...

No response to my other posts? Cat got your tongue?

 

[foxpaws]

No response to my other posts? Cat got your tongue?

How about those Miranda rights Foss? Obviously something much larger has your tongue...

 

[shagdrum]

Well the Declaration is considered one of the 4 pillars of American Constitutionalism and is often referred to and cited in many court decisions...

Or from Eidsmoe...

The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America.​

Ah, I have be labeled - Devil, I do have a blue dress...

You have no clue what that mean.

It does not, in any way prove that the DOI is citable law. It is a "part of the fundamental law" for a very specific reason which you miss.

 

[foxpaws]

It has been cited as 'law' quite often (Foss just stated if I wanted to use it as citable law, not if it was law) - now you are going to get picky - OK, cited as 'organic law' - even better than 'fundamental law'...

How's that for understanding...

 

[fossten]

How about those Miranda rights Foss? Obviously something much larger has your tongue...

You've dodged my question on Obama's show trial by being [deliberately?] obtuse. When you decide to have an honest debate, I'll be ready.

 

[foxpaws]

You've dodged my question on Obama's show trial by being [deliberately?] obtuse. When you decide to have an honest debate, I'll be ready.

And I have kept saying that I need to understand Eichmann's trial better - an obvious 'show trial' that worked well for the Israelis. I am still reading about it and trying to get a better handle on how a show trial furthered a cause and helped educate the world about a true evil, and trying to find out if a similar trial against KSM would have real value.

When I really do understand the ideas about what could define a 'good' show trial I will be much better able to discuss it with you Foss - maybe you already understand Eichmann's trial and have a good grasp of its ramifications - I don't, and I am not afraid to claim I need to look at this issue more closely.

 

[shagdrum]

It has been cited as 'law' quite often (Foss just stated if I wanted to use it as citable law, not if it was law) - now you are going to get picky - OK, cited as 'organic law' - even better than 'fundamental law'...

How's that for understanding...

You really do not understand the statement you cited do you?

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, do I understand that the DOI isn't law - of course. Do I understand why and how it is cited, especially within the context of supreme court cases, occasionally - it sort of depends on which court you are using as an example. When cited in early courts it is obviously cited as organic law - however in later courts they often move it somewhat out of the 'fundamental' category and then it becomes more difficult to understand how it is being cited, or 'used' within decisions. Some courts almost use it as 'law' and not just organic law.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, do I understand that the DOI isn't law - of course. Do I understand why and how it is cited, especially within the context of supreme court cases, occasionally - it sort of depends on which court you are using as an example. When cited in early courts it is obviously cited as organic law - however in later courts they often move it somewhat out of the 'fundamental' category and then it becomes more difficult to understand how it is being cited, or 'used' within decisions. Some courts almost use it as 'law' and not just organic law.

In short, no, you don't understand it.

 

[foxpaws]

So - go ahead shag-show me that you understand Eidsmoe's statement, but let's keep in short - in english - and 'real'.

Or in some alternate reality have you stated it philosophically, and in this reality you will continue to refer to this masterful philosophical gem?

 

[fossten]

So - go ahead shag-show me that you understand Eidsmoe's statement, but let's keep in short - in english - and 'real'.

Or in some alternate reality have you stated it philosophically, and in this reality you will continue to refer to this masterful philosophical gem?

Moving the goalposts pre-emptively, eh fox?

 

[shagdrum]

So - go ahead shag-show me that you understand Eidsmoe's statement, but let's keep in short - in english - and 'real'.

Or in some alternate reality have you stated it philosophically, and in this reality you will continue to refer to this masterful philosophical gem?

Why state it? It is much more fun to watch you try and figure it out.

Seriously, why should I treat your posts with good faith when you clearly don't treat mine (or those of anyone else you strongly disagree with) with consideration and good faith? Why should I respond to them in good faith? All you would do is misrepresent what I say and generally confuse things to allow for your claims, as you always do.

 

[shagdrum]

Moving the goalposts pre-emptively, eh fox?

Actually, I think that may be poisoning the well in addition to moving the goalposts. Apparently she can make compound false and misleading arguments.

 

[foxpaws]

Why state it? It is much more fun to watch you try and figure it out.

Seriously, why should I treat your posts with good faith when you clearly don't treat mine (or those of anyone else you strongly disagree with) with consideration and good faith? Why should I respond to them in good faith? All you would do is misrepresent what I say and generally confuse things to allow for your claims, as you always do.

Oh, you haven't a clue - thanks for clearing that up...

 

[foxpaws]

Moving the goalposts pre-emptively, eh fox?

No need to - since Shag obviously hasn't a clue - heck lets get into unwritten organic law and how that influenced the supreme court when it was hearing Dred Scott v Sanford, where the court went beyond the fundamental law within the DOI...

My source is better than your source... and plies me with chocolate...

 

[shagdrum]

Oh, you haven't a clue - thanks for clearing that up...

Again, I simply see no reason to engage someone in good faith when they do not return that courtesy. Convince me that I should...

 

[foxpaws]

Again, I simply see no reason to engage someone in good faith when they do not return that courtesy. Convince me that I should...

Convince me you have a clue...

 

[shagdrum]

No need to - since Shag obviously hasn't a clue - heck lets get into unwritten organic law and how that influenced the supreme court when it was hearing Dred Scott v Sanford, where the court went beyond the fundamental law within the DOI...

What "law" is actually in the DOI?

allusions to vague ideas like "organic law" and "fundamental law" are easy to throw around, but you were asked about citable law. Where, specifically, is that in the DOI?

Convince me you have a clue...

grow up

 

[foxpaws]

you can cite fundamental law shag... you can also cite organic law... both present in the Declaration of Independence, which is part of the US Code.
However the DOI does not create legislative law... so if you want to cite legislative law, you need to go elsewhere.

 

[fossten]

Convince me you have a clue...

Use anything but a flawed argument for a change.

Originally Posted by foxpaws
No need to - since Shag obviously hasn't a clue - heck lets get into unwritten organic law and how that influenced the supreme court when it was hearing Dred Scott v Sanford, where the court went beyond the fundamental law within the DOI...

The court cited the DOI in ruling against Dred Scott? Really?