Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
10 comments:
Obviously you don't have to be crazy. Just liberal.
I didn't know that 'following the letter of the law instead of persecuting people based on political rhetoric and emotional biases' was the same as 'liberal'.
But I'll take it.
Seriosuly though, they overturned 1 of the 9 counts he was convicted on, and sent him back for re-sentencing. He probably won't get any kind of reduced sentence. It sounds like one of the nine charges had some problems with it. Personally I'm relieved to see that even in emoptionally charged cases like this, some courts are willing to follow the letter of the law. It means that if I insult someone at the superarket who turns out to be a cop or judge, I at least still have a chance of getting a fair trial.
Read page 3 of the actual report of the judges. They do not the jury was properly aware of the wording on one of his counts. The count by the way is "carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony, and making false statements on a customs declaration. Both of which he did by bringing explosives into this country through canada and lying about it. But nooooooooo - the judges feel the jury should be more aware of the proper language. WHAT? He is a terrorist - he wanted to blow up people - we stopped him - he is lucky he is not looking at life in prison. Thanks again SAN FRAN 9th Circuit - always there for the terrorists.
Yeah, that's an EXTREMELY good reason to be angry at the prosecutor who failed to fully brief the jury on the wording of the charge, putting the case against this horrible criminal in jeopardy.
From what I can tell Ahmed Ressam is not a citizen. Given his intent to kill US citizens combined with the fact that he is not a citizen I’m simply not that interested in ensuring his 'due process' as you call it. Had he been a citizen, then this issue of ‘due process’ is of critical importance and I would share your outrage.
Since this is the 9th circuit I strongly suspect most of the judge’s work on the pretense that all humans deserve fair treatment and thus this guy deserves the rights of a US citizen. Its most likely this ruling was more a statement aimed at the bush administration then seeing that this guy gets ‘due process’. My particular feelings is that my justice system insures my rights. Those not in our justice system do not get my rights. It’s the whole point of being a citizen of a nation.
On the whole, I think we should treat non-citizens fairly and hell for the most part they should be treated as if they are citizens. But if you’re not a citizen, and you enter my country with the intent to blow me up, you get no rights. Absolutely None. The proper response would have been to refuse to hear the case and if possible acknowledge the procedural error while arguing that it’s not important enough in the case of a non-citizen terrorist caught trying to kill US citizens. This sends the right message to non-citizen terrorists regarding the US Justice system position on killing its own citizens.
Yeah, I totally disagree. For someone who opposes all forms of gun control because we need to protect ourselves against the government, you're very eager to give the government carte blanche in these types of matters.
I'd agree that we don't need to be as careful whe nprosecuting non-citizens for this type of extreme offense; however, I want that different set of standards codified and followed scrupulously, just like the satandards for citizens are. I'm never ok with telling the government (or at least the parts of the government with the guns) 'yeah, go ahead, do whatever you want'.
Carte blanche only for the burreacrats in charge of spending your tax money.
I easily distingusish between citizen and non-citizen. CAN'T!!!!...GET!!!!....TRACTION!!!!....ON THIS SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!.
Presumably you would be against the ruling if its the case that a codified set of rules was followed but the judges ruled that another set of codified rules, namely the same ones that are applied to citizens, must be used instead.
I get to vote agains the politicians spending my tax money. I'm pretty sure that judges are appointed.
And yes, I would be against a judge mis-applying a set of standards clearly designed for one group onto another- that wouldn't be following the law.
Then I suppose you were as outraged as I was when the Supreme Court ruled that enemy combatants are to be granted habeus corups even though federal legislation was passed creating a different set of laws to try those captured in the war on terror.
The following is taken from the linked passage.
In July 2004, he was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism,[6] and the Bush administration made arrangements to try him before a military commission authorized under Military Commission Order No. 1 of March 21, 2002. Hamdan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the military commission convened to try him was illegal and lacked the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice.
No response. Gotcha yet again.
Post a Comment