Justice, Law and Politics

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by pettyfog, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    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?
     
    #1
  2. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Not sure what the point was of this slug. Are we calling into question her decision because (a) she's a woman, (b) she's based in CA, or (c) she was appointed by the Clinton Administration?

    The reason I'm asking is because I remember that it was Detroit that you called the terrorist hotbed when a [female] federal judge from that area ruled against the administration.

    Just trying to get my equations straight:

    Federal judges appointed by Clinton = terrorist sympathizers?
    Female federal judges = terrorist sympathizers?
    Californians and Michiganders = terrorist sympathizers?
    Anyone who disagrees with Bush Administration = terrorist sympathizers?

    Help me out here, 'fog.
     
    #2
  3. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    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..
     
    #3
  4. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    I agree 100% with her ruling and her ratiionale. I also agree with David Cole's McCarthyism equation.

    This is an example of the system working. Enjoy that fact whether or not you agree with the substance.
     
    #4
  5. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    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?
     
    #5
  6. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    here's a fact. The president and the administration cannot be allowed to create an "enemy's list." Why? During the two months prior to the recent election, the president, the vice-president, Tony Snow, and the Faux News Acolytes -- not to mention various commentators and bloggers -- made it clear that Democratic elected representatives, the mainstram media, people who voted Democrat, and pretty much anyone who disagreed with the Iraq war or torture or vacating the Bill of Rights were giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. This, of course, made them terrorists themselves.

    When an administration repeately -- and by repeatedly I mean EVERY DAY -- classifies as traitors anyone who disagrees with their policies or their handling of them, that administration is the LAST group of people who should have this unfettered power.
     
    #6
  7. pettyfog

    pettyfog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    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.
     
    #7
Similar Threads: Justice Politics
Forum Title Date
Miscellaneous Ted Stevens just wont go away/ Justice out of control Apr 8, 2009
Miscellaneous Justice slowly grinds Oct 4, 2008
Miscellaneous Karmic Justice Anyone? Dec 29, 2007
Miscellaneous Justice Roberts: Genius! Jun 29, 2012
Miscellaneous Politics, yeeeech Jun 6, 2010

Share This Page