our prison system is so bad

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

It is not. I converse with others from his culture on a daily basis, who are easy to understand and quite lucid in their speech. It is not a cultural phenomenon or some failing on your part; quite the opposite in fact.

Yes--but what do you converse about? How much salt to put in the omlettes? That you drive on the right? That a word such as "incorrect" (a bark) serves to answer someone's post? That's it's raining outside?

Bees "converse" in like manner to that. As do ducks.

What about subtleties of thought? What about ideas stretched to the uttermost elasticity of profundity? What about figures of speech.

3 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
It is not. I converse with others from his culture on a daily basis, who are easy to understand and quite lucid in their speech. It is not a cultural phenomenon or some failing on your part; quite the opposite in fact.

Yes--but what do you converse about? How much salt to put in the omlettes? That you drive on the right? That a word such as "incorrect" (a bark) serves to answer someone's post? That's it's raining outside?

Bees "converse" in like manner to that. As do ducks.

What about subtleties of thought? What about ideas stretched to the uttermost elasticity of profundity? What about figures of speech.

Christ, is that what you think you are doing? Showing subtleties?

You're screwing up on a daily basis, if that's what you are going for. Seriously.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

What about subtleties of thought? What about ideas stretched to the uttermost elasticity of profundity? What about figures of speech.

Are you desperately searching for a definition of satire, Spendi? Those three sentences come awfully close. Congrats. You're getting warmer.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Hardly a definition Andy. Just a low form of its practice.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM--Parados is a left winger who hates the USA. He hates the USA because he feels the powers that be have neglected him. Him---with such brain power and great ideas.

What Parados does not know is that his problem is that he is not black. Obama's crew from Chicago is loaded with black people( at very high salaries, of course.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM--Parados is a left winger who hates the USA. He hates the USA because he feels the powers that be have neglected him. Him---with such brain power and great ideas.

What Parados does not know is that his problem is that he is not black. Obama's crew from Chicago is loaded with black people( at very high salaries, of course.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I love watching Cyclo cross swords with spendius.

Of course spendius is armed with a razor sharp sword while poor Cyclo is weilding a limp, plastic, Tyco version of the Starwars light saber.

Cyclo is like character in any number of action films who with a stupid mien regards the separation of his upper and lower body thanks to a slashing and very sharp blade: “That idiot,” he mumbles, “how could he imagine he can hurt me?”

But that is why I love to watch the duel.

0 Replies

Well all ye traveling liberals, have at it!

Is our prison system a cesspool of racist injustice and brutality, or is it the cutting edge of penal security?

How rich that those who but a few months ago would argue that American prisons are nothing more than a graduate academy for criminals are now, thanks to their Obamadoration, trying to tell us our native penitentiaries can hold 900 rabid Jihadists without any ill effect.

If Obama intends to transfer the 900 or so homicidal maniacs to a super max facility where they will spend 23 hours a day in solitary confinement and one hour in solitary exercise for the rest of their lives, then I will agree that our penal system can handle them.

But what are the chances this sort of rigid confinement will be maintained?

And if it is not, what will be the impact of these maniacs (some of whom are no doubt possessed of charismatic leadership skills) entering the general prison population and hooking up with an already powerful force of Black Muslim prisoners?

They may never leave their super-max imprisonment but might they send forth waves of American jihadists? (Witness those caught trying to bomb synagogues in NY).

Can't kill them, can't keep them in Gitmo, can't send them back to their native lands...can we keep them is solitary confinement for the next 50 0r 60 years; until they die?

They're human beings after all, and they've not been convicted in a criminal court of anything!

This is how the world ends, this is how the world ends...not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a plaintive argument that destruction is simply misunderstood, and (in any case) who are we to claim that we should not be destroyed.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

They had plotted and killed Americans citizens on American soil in an act of illegal warfare and I have zero moral problem with giving them a nice “military trial” and then killing/executing them.

Now if we hand them over to a civil court that operate under rules not design for this situation there is a good chance that some of the KNOWN killers of the 911 plot will walk free and that outcome is not either moral or a logical one.

A talking head on CNN yesterday and of course some of you “gentlemen” feel that this is just the price we need to paid for out system of justice however it is way too high a price in my opinion and a completely unneeded one to be paid.

Having such men once more walking around the Middle East will turn us into a laughing stock of the world and rightly so.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I'm surprised anyone is in jail if you think KNOWN killers of the 911 plot are going to be set free. Evidence is all it takes to convict a criminal Bill..

It's CRIMINAL courts you guys. Civil courts are the courts used for civil matters like suing Dick Cheney. No CIVIL court has ever convicted anyone of a crime. The civil courts did however cause OJ to have to pay monetary damages for the wrongful death of Nicolle Simpson.

2 Replies

@parados,

Civil court as in non-military court system my friend as in the civil justice system as in not the military justice system. Lord how very silly can you get!

Yes as the talking head said on CNN it is very possible because the evidence was not gather "correctly" that those terrorists could walk and that is just the price we should need to pay for our justice system.

Being cute on terms is not going to change the above likely outcome and I hope all your fools who think this the correct way to go will be happy with the likely outcome ,

2 Replies

@parados,

Parados terms can have more then one meaning see below how the term civil justice system is used. Of course I have no idea if you was just being smart here or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

Military Commissions Act
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the United States Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which contains a definitions for lawful and unlawful enemy combatants. The Military Commissions Act mandated that Guantanamo captives were no longer entitled to access the US civil justice system, so all outstanding habeas corpus petitions were stayed.[7]

[edit] Boumediene v. Bush
On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives' habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of "enemy combatant".

[edit] Following the Supreme Court's Boumediene v. Bush ruling
On February 20, 2009, the Barack Obama Administration sided with the Bush Administration's interpretation of law when they argued to bar access to civil courts sought by enemy combatants held at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.[8]. On March 13, 2009 the Obama administration announced plans to phase out the term "enemy combatant" [2].

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I was not aware that any of the prisoners at Gitmo has any direct links to the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States. They haven't been accused of these crimes either in military or in civilian courts. In fact, most of them haven't been accused of anything except being Muslim. They are, essentially, POWs, prisoners of war, taken when the first US ground troops hit Afghanistan. A few have been added since then but many of those are obviously innocent of any crime more serious than latent stupidity. And, btw, we're not supposed to refer to them as 'prisoners.' They are 'detainees.' Laughing

2 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

You might wish to google it as some of them indeed do as in plotting the deed.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Isn't it nice that you rely on "talking heads" for your legal advice.

Quote:

"Civil" cases are the cases in court that aren’t about breaking a criminal law (called a violation of criminal law).

There are a lot of different kinds of cases in Civil Court. We have separate sections for the main kinds of civil cases:

Quote:

Civil courts (not to be confused with the civil-law legal system) deal with “private” controversies, particularly disputes that arise between individuals or between private businesses or institutions

I am not being "cute". I was only telling you the PROPER term so we can perhaps communicate.

First of all, military tribunals IF conducted properly have the same safeguards as criminal courts. The problem is that the Bush administration tried to remove those safeguards from the tribunals they were setting up.
Military tribunals should; allow the accused to know what the crime is, should allow them to create a defense including court appointed lawyers, should allow for the cross examination of witnesses by the defense, should provide protection from self incrimination, should not allow hearsay evidence. It was military judges that threw out some of the cases because of the way the judicial system was being manipulated to turn the trials into kangaroo courts.

Under the Geneva code, anyone tried by a military tribunal would have the same system of justice that is used for US soldiers tried under that system.

Will I be happy that some guilty might be let go? No, but that is the price of living in a FREE society. I accept that price.

Are you happy with a government that can lock people up forever without any criminal charges simply because someone accused them of a possible act? Are you willing to accept the price of living in a society like that?

2 Replies

@parados,

You still going down that nonsense path after I post the information concerning supreme court rulings and laws that used the terms "civil justice system" and "civil courts" to mean the whole of the civil justice system not a part of it?

You are making yourself look like a fool but please go ahead if you care to.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

http://www.antiwar.com/worthington/?articleid=12907

The 16 Prisoners Charged in Gitmo's Military Commissions

8. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). Reportedly the third most important figure in al-Qaeda after Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, KSM, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2003, and the four men described below are among the 14 "high-value detainees" transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006 after being held for years in secret prisons run by the CIA. KSM confessed in his military tribunal in Guantánamo last year (convened to confirm that he was an "enemy combatant" who could be tried by military commission) that he was "responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z." He is one of three "high-value detainees" whom CIA director Michael Hayden admitted had been subjected to waterboarding (a torture technique that involves controlled drowning) while held in a secret prison run by the CIA.

9. Ramzi bin al-Shibh. A Yemeni and reportedly a friend of the 9/11 hijackers who helped coordinate the attacks with KSM after he was unable to enter the United States to train as a pilot for the operation, as he originally planned, bin al-Shibh was captured in Pakistan in September 2002. After being held in secret CIA custody for four years, he refused to take part in his tribunal at Guantánamo, and if he speaks at his arraignment it will be his first publicly available statement since his capture.

11. Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, he is a nephew of KSM and was captured in Pakistan with Walid bin Attash (see below) in April 2003. In his tribunal at Guantánamo last year, he admitted transferring money on behalf of some of the 9/11 hijackers, but insisted that he was a legitimate businessman who regularly transferred money for Arabs, without knowing what it would be used for.

0 Replies

@parados,

Will I be happy that some guilty might be let go? No, but that is the price of living in a FREE society. I accept that price.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of myself and the thousands of men women and children who was going on with their lawfull business/lives when they was kill/murder I do not accept such a price and I question if the majority of my fellow citizens would/will accept such a price.

Parados it is too bad we do not have a magic wand where we could place you and people like you in the planes and in the buildings on 911 to die in the place of those victims.

As a footnote your comment was the same as the talking head on CNN.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

It's nice that you know the future Bill.

Perhaps you can tell us who will commit crimes and we can lock them all up before they do it.

Releasing someone doesn't mean they will commit a crime. Claiming you KNOW they will commit one doesn't make you prescient. It only makes you scared.

I am willing to take the risk that they MIGHT attack a plane, and I am willing to be on the plane if they do it because that is the RISK I am willing to take.
You however Bill want freedom without risk. You won't get it my friend. I would personally rather die a free man at the hands of a lunatic than rot in jail because someone doesn't like my politics. I would have to say more people rot in jail at the hands of governments doing what you propose than have died at the hands of lunatics that you are trying to protect us from.

Quote:

Parados it is too bad we do not have a magic wand where we could place you and people like you in the planes and in the buildings on 911 to die in the place of those victims.

There is a small problem with that wish BillRM.. NO ONE involved in those attacks was in US hands and released. You are making **** up because you don't have an argument it seems. Yeah, the world could end tomorrow but torturing people or holding them indefinitely won't stop it nor would it have stopped 9/11.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You still going down that nonsense path after I post the information concerning supreme court rulings and laws that used the terms "civil justice system" and "civil courts" to mean the whole of the civil justice system not a part of it?

You are making yourself look like a fool but please go ahead if you care to.

The actual ruling is here BillRM

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1195.ZS.html

You will notice that the ruling NEVER uses the term "civil courts."

Wikipedia misused the term. I wouldn't trust them as a source. Your claim that the USSC ruling used the term is unsupported. They used the term civil justice system which I pointed out is NOT the same thing as the civil courts.

1 Reply

our prison system is so bad

Quick Links

My Account

able2know