Justice, Law and Politics

Because of news embargoes, I cant refer to past news stories in setting this up:

* Clinton administration appoints Audrey Collins to US District Court in CA

* Bush Admin creates list of Terror Organizations to prevent them from fundraising in US

* Humanitarian Law Project - advocacy group sues
AP 11-21-06:

And now..
* Tamil Tigers kidnap school students preparing for exam

- It should be noted that ALSO on that docket was the PKK, a Kurdish group that is a real and present danger to US interests in Northeastern Iraq. They have no animus against the US, in fact fully support US occupation, but clearly are interested in undermining the government of Turkey by terrorist means.

So it must be asked; when the Federal Government applies such methods as they did, and display what has to be interpreted as 'even-handed' criteria.. that is, not just aiming at immediate US interests and enemies, but also applying that criteria to any group, even those who might be classified as 'friendly', employing terror methods.. then which would you rather have?

And what would you have them do?

 

It applies to those who wish to apply their own 'touchy-feely' aspirations to the LAW!

And I'm GLAD you caught that implication... because I see that point and raise you Janice Rogers Brown... who being of the opposite bent is reviled and hated by you libs to the point of not even being a viable candidate.

Detroit IS a hot-bed of Al-Quaeda in the US, use your head.

But we could debate that another time.... what do you think of her ruling?

IS the terror list apropos of being compared to McCarthyism?
- If so, how come Bush admin put PKK on that list?
- Or the Tigers, in which I cant see a 'dog in that fight'?

Address my main point.

The answer is, I think you'll be stumped..

 

The only FACT you present is that you agree... you cant justify it with reason or with example.

Exactly my point!

By the way... when that ruling is reversed, will you STILL agree that the system worked?

 

Another 'Hatter Don FACT'

Which points out that I frequently miss bookmarking my talking points:

Recently read an 'Issues' website on something and the end paragraph says it all:
I paraphrase:
'It is time this issue was elevated to the american people's emotional consciousness.."

I think that says it all... and it all points back to a seminal pivot point, Roe v Wade. On which the emotional level was stretched to the nth, on both sides, and a dispassionate view of the issue would have led to the court not hearing the case at all.