Predicto Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 There is no question that some things are easier for a totalitarian country to handle. For example, if we just killed all criminal suspects without a trial, we would have absolutely no recidivism. I guess some people think that would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 There is no question that some things are easier for a totalitarian country to handle. For example, if we just killed all criminal suspects without a trial, we would have absolutely no recidivism. I guess some people think that would be a good thing. Maybe we could even get carbon credits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Which is my point,instead of actions directed at the problems,we take away freedoms from the populace at large. Your plea might make more sense if you weren't the one trying to take away freedoms from the populace at large. Good, so I wasn't the only one who read that first quote above and had that particular reaction. I'm amazed at the total lack of faith some folks have in the justice system, when it comes to the high-visibility crimes for which the justice system's value is arguably greatest. Should Tim McVeigh have received no trial? Mohammed Salameh? Ted Kaczynski? John Allen Muhammad? Omar Hammami? ...Eric Rudolph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I'm amazed at the total lack of faith some folks have in the justice system, when it comes to the high-visibility crimes for which the justice system's value is arguably greatest. Should Tim McVeigh have received no trial? Mohammed Salameh? Ted Kaczynski? John Allen Muhammad? Omar Hammami? ...Eric Rudolph? Well feel free to argue it,maybe you will restore some of my faith in it. It might need some more restoring after 'negotiations' with the POS ends. added http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/04/taking-terrorism-seriously/ What’s in a name? Does it matter whether or not it’s called “war on terror? Is Obama’s approach any better or worse than Bush’s? My response: It matters whether or not it’s called “war on terror,” because war, whether declared or not, changes the legal regime — from law enforcement, aimed primarily at investigating and prosecuting domestic crimes after the fact, to protecting a people from acts of war before they happen by means unavailable outside of war. In discharging his duty to protect the nation, President Obama has moved slowly, inconsistently, and often begrudgingly from the law-enforcement to the war paradigm. Al-Qaeda has shown no such confusion or irresolution. Just this morning, for example, the Washington Post reports that at its web site yesterday, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula ”called for ‘every Muslim’ to kill ‘every cross-worshiper who works at the [british and American] embassies.’” So how did Obama treat the Christmas Day bomber al-Qaeda sent us? The way his mentor, Franklin Roosevelt, treated the German saboteurs who landed on our shores? No — Abdulmutallab was “lawyered up,” read his Miranda rights, and encouraged to talk through his lawyer, like any common criminal. Some say that approach — like calling him “the underwear bomber” — reduces a terrorist’s stature. That’s fine for the playground (as if the terrorists were seeking simply to join the community of nations). This is the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Well feel free to argue it,maybe you will restore some of my faith in it. No better system of justice has ever been devised, much less put into actual use. And per world history, a consistent system of justice without multiple different "preferred" vs. "pre-judged" classes is an important requirement for the long-term and thorough prosperity of a nation. Ta-da! You're welcome. Whatever your opinion of Obama, he has most certainly been waging bona fide war -- and calling for its escalation in key areas, even over the objections of prominent Republicans -- since before he was even elected. If he isn't using the term "war" enough for your liking, perhaps your expectations were set at an artificially high level by a previous administration that used the term "war" more times per day than the average human being blinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 No better system of justice has ever been devised, much less put into actual use. And per world history, a consistent system of justice without multiple different "preferred" vs. "pre-judged" classes is an important requirement for the long-term and thorough prosperity of a nation.Ta-da! You're welcome. Whatever your opinion of Obama, he has most certainly been waging bona fide war -- and calling for its escalation in key areas, even over the objections of prominent Republicans -- since before he was even elected. If he isn't using the term "war" enough for your liking, perhaps your expectations were set at an artificially high level by a previous administration that used the term "war" more times per day than the average human being blinks. Just because it is better than the others does not merit it much faith. Certainly not in dealing with terrorists and the related issues. As far as O? I've rated his war moves fairly high and endorsed them(once he finally made them;)) I do feel he makes mistakes in dealing with terrorism,hopefully he won't learn the hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.