Obama '08?

cicerone imposter wrote:

So now, you can be convicted of a crime on "intent?"

The answer is yes. There are numerous laws involving nothing more than conspiracies to do something unlawful - both in this country and most others.

If you think for a moment cicerone, you will appreciate that it would be very foolish to do otherwise.

Finally a president that does what he means and means what he says

Why is it so difficult for Oblama to say he was WRONG

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

So now, you can be convicted of a crime on "intent?"

The answer is yes. There are numerous laws involving nothing more than conspiracies to do something unlawful - both in this country and most others.

If you think for a moment cicerone, you will appreciate that it would be very foolish to do otherwise.

And who exactly is "policing" all those intents to do wrong?

One of the fundamental purposes of the criminal law is to prevent conduct that is harmful to society. Accordingly, the law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. However, the law does not punish all persons shown to harbor a criminal intent. Everyone occasionally thinks of committing a crime, but few actually carry the thought into action. Therefore, the law proceeds only against persons who engage in acts that sufficiently demonstrate their firm intention to commit a crime.

In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

..............."Accordingly, the law punishes conduct that >>>>>> >
threatens to produce the harm
<<<<<<<<as well as conduct that has actually produced it."

Inadequate Security and Political Progress in Iraq: Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge. Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military's hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families. It is also a consequence of the decision of many Sunnis to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq, and a lull in Shia militia activity. But the absence of genuine political accommodation in Iraq is a direct result of President Bush's failure to hold the Iraqi government accountable.

Strains on the Military: More than 1.75 million servicemen and women have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; more than 620,000 troops have completed multiple deployments. Military members have endured multiple deployments taxing both them and their families. Additionally, military equipment is wearing out at nine times the normal rate after years of constant use in Iraq's harsh environment. As Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said in March, "Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies."

Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

A New Strategy Needed: The Iraq war has lasted longer than World War I, World War II, and the Civil War. More than 4,000 Americans have died. More than 60,000 have been injured and wounded. The United States may spend $2.7 trillion on this war and its aftermath, yet we are less safe around the globe and more divided at home. With determined ingenuity and at great personal cost, American troops have found the right tactics to contain the violence in Iraq, but we still have the wrong strategy to press Iraqis to take responsibility at home, and restore America's security and standing in the world.

Barack Obama's Plan
Judgment You Can Trust
In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences." He is fully committed to ending the war in Iraq as president.

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 - more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Encouraging Political Accommodation
Barack Obama believes that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq's political differences, but the Bush Administration's blank check approach has failed to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.

Obama's plan offers the best prospect for lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by Obama's plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society?-in and out of government?-to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.

Surging Diplomacy
Barack Obama will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors?-including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction and development.

Preventing Humanitarian Crisis
Barack Obama believes that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis?-more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama would also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.

The Status-of-Forces-Agreement
Obama believes any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama also believes that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval?-yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

cicerone imposter wrote:

..............."Accordingly, the law punishes conduct that >>>>>> >
threatens to produce the harm
<<<<<<<<as well as conduct that has actually produced it."

This is the most elementary parsing of the law on intent:

"threatens to produce the harm"

and if you still can't grasp it perhaps you could get someone to read it back to you slowly. As to magic - read the link I posted explaining no magic is involved.

Terribly sorry to see you've had such a lapse in mental processes, Cicerone, and certainly I wish you a speedy recovery

Obama hasn't done half the **** that the lying right would have us believe.

kickycan wrote:

Obama hasn't done half the **** that the lying right would have us believe.

Obama hasn't done half the **** the left believes he has and he will never do most of the **** he has promised to do.

Obama hasn't done half the **** that the lying right would have us believe. And even the questionable stuff he has done is so minor only a complete moron would give a ****. He's thinking, evaluating, and making new assessments as things change. That is what good leaders do. His core ideas haven't changed, and that's what matters.

Of course phonies like Foxfyre and Okie won't ever admit that, and will instead take every chance they can to yell "flip-flopper!" or bitch about some minor issue as if it were worse than treason, or say, attacking a sovereign nation based on lies and horseshit. I guess if you're an old dried-up conservative partisan tw*t with an axe to grind, you see it differently. But that's just old politics. The dinosaur politics of lying and hate. That's what Obama is going to hopefully defeat this year. That win-at-all-costs brand of stupidity that has turned our government into two teams trying to destroy one another, instead of working together for compromise.

But you ultra-partisan tw*ts just keep on firing away. You're missing the mark by a mile, because you just don't get it. You are liars, and if things go the way they should, you will soon be obsolete.