OT-John Kerry

Peter Reilley wrote:


Then they're not very efficient at genocide. BTW, I'm no friend of Israel, I think you're way overstating your case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I
You do have a point. Until now they have engaged on only trial runs, Sabra and Shatila, so as to gage world opinion. Since the US did not complain very much and Bush called the man responsible, Sharon, "A man of peace", Israel rightfully assumes that they have the green light for more genocide.
Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. The demographics of the situation is a problem that they must deal with if they are to remain a Jewish (racist) state. Genocide is the only way of "adjusting" the demographic equation.
Israel could have peace by giving the Palestinians their rights but they don't seem inclined to go that way. Only genocide guarantees their ethnic purity.
Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:54:01 -0500, "Peter Reilley"

I wonder if Mossad reads your posts?
Gunner
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sabra
genocide.
"adjusting"
I am not saying anything that Mossad doesn't already know.
Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:46:46 -0500, "Peter Reilley"

Talk about living dangerously.
Shrug...its your freedom, and your life.
Ill have to ask Ari if they have a file on you.
Gunner Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Pete, the Palestinian terrorsists could have what they want if they would stop blowing up children indiscriminately too. eevery time the blow up a bus, they make the case for Israeli retaliation. Greg Sefton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He blew his case with the first post :o). Greg Sefton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:41:17 -0500, "Peter Reilley"

A friend of mine is a very black Jew. He went to Israel a couple years ago and had a very nice time. He is taking his Asian (Jewish) wife along this next year.
Btw..what race are Palestinians? I seemed to have missed that genotype in biology.
Gunner
Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote:

There really is no simple answer to this question, because "race" is a very complex issue, with many shades of grey. And many differing opinions, about origins of race, ethnicity, skin color, blood lines, cultural heritage, etc.
But since you are a man who desires and understands only black and white issues and answers, and has no room for subtle graduations, here is your answer.
Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies,
    Mediterranid race
        Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)

Along with a great deal of other subjects you missed.
Abrasha http://www.abrasha.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote:

Seems to me citizens of Israel were air lifted (rescue) from many African states, the past Soviet and Eastern Block, most of Europe have gone there themselves to to additional freedom.
Hum -
Martin
--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer snipped-for-privacy@pacbell.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:43:09 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"

Indeed. Which is why I asked about the claimed racism Petty the Anti-Semite kept spewing. I figured that Palestinians had to have been some genotype Id never heard of before.
Gunner
The two highest achievements of the human mind are the twin concepts of "loyalty" and "duty." Whenever these twin concepts fall into disrepute -- get out of there fast! You may possibly save yourself, but it is too late to save that society. It is doomed. " Lazarus Long
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete says>We should not

Or, much more likely, they will avoid the threat and not develop them or open up their programs and disarm.. Libya for example. Korea is reportedly much more cooperative now as well. Greg Sefton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

<snipped>
The CIA was certain. I was certain. The US gave him WMDs and it's blessing years ago.

And you live a naive life if you believe any official line.

You believe because you want to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Reilley wrote:

He certainly acted as though he did. The US has inspected a small percentage of the ammo dumps, who knows what they will find?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID 694
THE PARTISAN CONTROVERSY over the outing of Valerie Plame, the once-covert CIA analyst and wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, seems destined to go unresolved. Although the actions of two senior administration officials may be felonious, a city that lives on leaked information seems unlikely to produce the identity of either official involved in the leak. However, the real story in this affair is the medias overblown coverage and the Lefts hypocritical outrage.
The media regularly presents the two senior administration officials who exposed Plames CIA employment to Robert Novak in July as felons. However, as Jack Shafer has pointed out on Slate, its not clear any law has been broken. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the person disclosing the covert agents identity must have authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent and must intentionally disclose it. Whether this official had authorized or unauthorized knowledge of Ms. Plames status is not clear. If the officials knowledge was unauthorized, he/she apparently could not be prosecuted.
To complicate matters, Plame may not fall under the technical legal definition of a covert officer. <snip> Allegations have since surfaced that the same, nameless senior administration officials had tried to plant Plames name and occupation with a half-dozen other reporters without success, before unloading the story on Novak. Novak denies the charge. Perhaps more tellingly, since this story surfaced citing a third nameless senior administration official as its source no reporter has come forward to corroborate this charge. Does it seem plausible that the average glory-seeking, leftist reporter approached by top White House brass would remain silent, refusing to 1) accept the attendant publicity that would go with making a breakthrough story; and 2) indict the Bush Administration as a gang of liars? Much less that six reporters would remain silent for nearly four months? The thought strains credulity.
The Plame controversy actually had its genesis with the 16 words controversy. In early 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney had heard questions raised about reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger. He asked the CIA to look into the matter, and the Agency dispatched former Ambassador Joe Wilson to look into matters. Wilson carried out his tough interrogation over eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people at poolside, on occasion before inexplicably finding nothing. In July, the story broke that a fact-finding investigation on Nigers yellowcake had been undertaken and concluded that Saddam never tried to purchase uranium there. Wilson promptly confessed he was the diplomat who undertook this investigation. Thus was President Bushs State of the Union Address derided as lies by the Left on the basis of Wilsons African vacation!
Wilson was an odd choice, indeed. He has keynoted before the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), which opposed the Iraqi liberation, the sanctions against Saddam and even the no-fly zones protecting Saddams former victims. Wilson is also an adjunct fellow at the Saudi-funded Middle East Institute. His flaming leftist shilling has graced the pages of Nation, where he wrote, The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region. Finally, he gave the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law to Al Gores 2000 Presidential campaign. (Plame gave $1,000 herself.) Indeed, Wilson worked for Gore in the 1980s. In recent years, he has supported (and formally endorsed) Sen. John Kerry.
Bob Novak asked the predictable question: Why was Wilson, a career diplomat with no CIA background, no investigative experience and a political axe to grind against George W. Bush, sent on such a sensitive mission? (Perhaps Novak should have also asked why authorities accepted Wilsons incompetent trip as the final word, particularly when British intelligence still claims the story is accurate.)

Are they now? Why did they send Wilson, a political hack, to Nigeria?

That's part of the risk. Getting wasted by the politicians.

You finally got something right.
The Moslems and other third worlders get their main impression of the US from CNN and the sleazy films out of Hollywood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:42:35 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
SNIP

SNIP
Hell, even Saddam thought he had more WMD's than he did. His scientists were so terrified of failing to deliver the weapons he demanded that they told him they had developed them.
They fled the country when it was obvious Saddam would discover the lies. I don't recall the title but one of his top nuclear boys wrote a book about the scam.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who gets to decide whether its a "fact" instead of merely an "accusation"?
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hmmm, Jeff, I thought you were a lawyer?
You should know the answer to that question very well.
The jury gets to decide who they wish to believe. And I do believe, unless I am mistaken, that the jury plans to render their verdict in November.
Now, as a sitting member of the jury, I am listening to the arguments of both sides. Doing my best to be fair. And as instructed, keeping it in my mind that I should do my best to set aside preconceptions, biases, and stereotypes; personal likes and dislikes. And form my opinion, as best I can, based on the evidence presented to me.
Not being God, nor possessed of psychic powers, and having not actually been a witness to the events being laid out to me by the defense and prosecution. I am well aware of the fact that I don't KNOW the absolute truth. That, in fact, the only thing I KNOW ... is what is being presented to me as evidence.
Further, I am well aware that both the defense and the prosecution are in fact ... HIGHLY BIASED ... and fully intend to do everything in their power to make me see things each of their ways. And that they will elaborate, exaggerate, spin, cajole, coax, etc. And in fact both will point to the very same facts ... and weave entirely different stories and conclusions from them.
So much so, that while both are talking about the very same person, facts, and incidences ... one could almost swear they were talking about two completely separate people and events.
Not being an utter fool and idiot, I am wearing my mud waders because I am well aware that for the next however long it takes for both sides to present their cases, I'm gonna have to be wading thru a LOT of utter BS, piled higher and deeper as things go along, and try to pluck out those bits and pieces ... out of the mountains of BS presented by the lawyers on each side ... which I find to be believeable ... TO ME.
Because this is what it boils down to. I already know the prosecution and defense are biased as hell, each giving me their best song and dance and one sided story.
So it's up to me to decide what _I_ believe. And I will attempt to be as fair and open minded as possible, unlike the prosecution and the defense.
Now, I will say this, Jeff.
That so far, as the prosecutor, you are somewhat failing to very credible to me.
First off, while I do no watch TV much, I did turn it on to watch the speech given by Bush where he outlined his reasons for going after the Al Qaeda, and specifically his reasons for going into Iraq.
I do remember, and I can look up the exact words of that speech for myself, that his point about the WMDs, was ONLY one of numerous reasons he gave. And I do remember he stated, "We have reason to believe ...".
I also listened as he gave examples of those reasons. CIA reports, testimony by exiled Iraqis, reports from the UN, evidence and reports from the previous administration, and the ABSOLUTE evidence and knowledge that Saddam had in fact used such weapons in the past against thousands of people.
(As a side note, Jeff, I can -personally- verify that he did in fact use then against utterly helpless folks, to include innocent old men, old women, children, etc. We had been watching this in the past I was was present when recon aircraft returned and photoes of scenes were developed. They were NOT scenes of chemicals weapons used against soldiers. The scenes I looked at showed a village, with dead victims of every age and gender, farmers, goat herders, etc.)
But I was paying attention, I did not miss the fact that his point was we had reasons to "believe". And I'm quite aware of what "reasonable belief" means. So that part, I do believe. That he was convinced he had "reasonable belief". You remember that from your law studies, correct? I hope so, as I do remember it from my law studies. My teacher talked long about the subject.
I also remember, and all the rhetoric and one sided finger pointing does not make me forget, that Bush gave a whole bunch of other reasons for going into Iraq. All of which you, Mr Prosecutor, seem to sweep aside and discount. But I have not forgotten them.
Next, a point that hurts your credibility with this juror. And I'm only one of many, and have no idea what the others are thinking.
To bolster your arguments, you keep pointing to other 'witnesses' who agree with the views you wish me to believe.
Trust me, I've been paying attention. And have been checking.
Strange, isn't it. Seemingly every time I check out one of your witnesses and what he or she says. I can find another witness, independent of yours, who relates a somewhat different story.
Hmmm. Who to believe, who to believe? This makes my head hurt. I was not actually there, so how can I know the absolute truth of the matter?
Well, fact is I can't. So I have to give some weight to the credibility of said witnesses.
Which brings up a problem. So far, Mr Prosecutor, when I check on your witnesses, I keep finding out that they're each and every one RABID anti-Bush folks. Filled with vitriol and hate. Running anti-Bush web sites, with ENDLESS postings and articles on the web flinging accusation, hate filled speech, resorting to name calling at every excuse, etc. Making it impossible to doubt one thing ... that they hate Bush and everything and anything associated with him. They find fault with him when he does those things with which they disagree, and even find fault with him when he does those things that the people concerns previously said they wanted a president to do. It makes no difference what he does. Seemingly his mere existance is an affront and offense to them. And no matter what he does, they name call and take offense to it.
In case you wonder, Jeff, I looked up the reporter who was in charge of that NYT article about the Miami-Dade incident. She has anti-Bush spew littered all over the net. Which is her right. But which does nothing to convince me that much of what she says can be taken at face value or without a large dose of salt. In short, to me, she lacks more than a little as a credible source of information. (The name is Dana Canedy if you did not note it.)
When, Mr Prosecutor, are you gonna present before me, a simple juror, witnesses with at least something that might pass for being at least moderately unbiased opinion and testimony?
So, you see my problem?
I want meat ... substance. Hate filled, one sided vindictive by those who obviously hate Bush as a person and every word he says and every single thing he does and make no secret of it, I've had more than enough of. Getting rather sick of it, as a matter of fact. It just clouds and obfuscates the issues and is not at all helpful to me in making up my mind.
If this were a real trial and court, and I were a juror, you'd be losing me Mr Prosecutor.
I already know you think him guilty and hate and despise . Knew that in the beginning. You need not keep beating me over the head with the fact by trotting out witness after witness who also seem to feel the same. I want MEAT, substance, fact ... preferrably from credible, at least somewhat unbiased witnesses.
On the other side, I have some meat and substance. Meat and substance not easily dismissed or disregarded.
1) I KNOW Saddam and his people have used WMD in the past.
2) I KNOW he showed a perfect willingness to invade other countries.
3) I KNOW the mass graves with 10s and hundreds of thousands of bodies his folks killed have been found and uncovered.
4) I KNOW he refused to be completely open about whether or not he had WMD.
5) I KNOW because he himself made no secret of it, that he gave money to the families of those who'd do suicide bomb attacks against innocent civilians in Israel. And possibly, tho I don't know this, to those who attacked other civilians elsewhere. I can only draw the conclusion that if he was willing, and even bragged about doing the one, it's not hard for me to believe he might well do the other.
6) I KNOW he tortured and killed people who opposed him, even if they were non-violent in their opposition. There is lots of testimony to that effect, and evidence. And beyond that, I know an Iraqi family who now live in Minnesota who fled Iraq for that very reason.
7) I KNOW that Saddam supporters seem to have no hesitation to DELIBERATELY target and attack innocent civilians to further their cause.
8) I KNOW that thousands of Kuwaiti people were killed by Saddams troops when he invaded that country ... when they'd not been at war with him or threatened to physically harm him.
9) I KNOW that Bush made the attempt, just like most folks asked him to do, for something like a year to get the UN to TAKE ACTION, action dictated by their own rules and resolutions, and they would not.
10) I KNOW that part of the argument against Bush and Blair were reports and articles written by the BBC ... and I KNOW that they've now confessed that they lied.
11) I KNOW that Bush's speech gave MANY more reasons for the invasion other than simply the WMDs. That was only one argument, and in my mind, not even a major one. I know the limitations of WMDs, being ex-military and being one who was a teacher who trainned others in those capabilities AND limitations and how to cope with them. And I know that there are MANY other ways to kill folks. If you're a hate filled dictator. Witness the fact of how many folks around the world there are who over the years have been killed or injured by quite ordinary bombs. Innocent civilians ... DELIBERATELY targeted by the likes of Saddam.
12) I KNOW what it feels like to be targeted by those who hate you and are willing to use whatever means, with utter disregard for the collateral killing, maiming or injuring of innocents. I know about people who are willing to use violence to further their ends and beliefs with no regard for any innocents being hurt. I have personally, Jeff, been involved in searching for bombs planted by such folks. Not that I'm a bomb expert. But I was trained to spot the possibles, and then call for those who did have the training. I'm well aware of how one sweats as one does the search. And wonders how it is, and what sort of mind it is that is willing to kill WHOMEVER, it does not matter, to make their political point. I can only imagine that hate must so fill a soul that the person responsible have convinced self that the end justifies the means.
As a note, I killed such a perp once. I'm sure he had his reasons, that in his mind he felt justified. Too bad. I won, he lost. And I feel no regrets. He was in the act of trying to kill innocent people who were sleeping to make his political point. I have no mercy to spare for him.
Shall I go on, Mr Prosecutor?
Do not give me more hate filled speech because yah don't like Bush. I already know that and have more than my fill of it. Give me meat, give me substance to go on.
Something besides the fact that he had "reasonable belief" which turned out to be wrong. That's not lying, Jeff. That's being mistaken.
And a LOT of people were mistaken. Clinton believed he had em, the UN believed. So on and so forth.
Last point. When THIS juror makes his decisions and casts his vote, the Iraqi war will be only one part of the overall picture upon which I make that decision. And not even that big of a part.
Personally, while mistakes were made, in the balance, I think the invasion had more merit than otherwise.
What world opinion is ... I could care less. The "world" needs to get their own house in order before finger pointing. In the meantime I'm concerned that we get our house squared away.
1) I'm concerned with the issue of the illegals. I want the borders SHUT DOWN. Except for LEGAL entry. I have no problem with Mexicans coming here for work, as long as we can identify em, check criminal history, etc. And there is the problem with the estimated 8,000,000 (or more) already here. What do we do about them. Realistically, I don't see that it's feasible to hunt em all down. So what do we do. I am looking at the proposals to see what proposal seems both workable and realistic.
2) I am concerned about the economy. Which is showing signs of picking up. And no, Jeff, I do not rely solely on the published speeches by the White House to judge that. Actually I DO investigate this sort of thing. Checking numerous sources. Including talking to my customers. End result, I do believe it's picking up. Yesterday I was talking to a customer of mine who happens to be an outfit who're headhunters for IT folk. Head of that company said things were picking up there. Etc. I will note, the recession was starting even before Bush. No, I do not blame it on Clinton. There are a bunch of factors involved.
3) I am concerned about taxes. Getting pretty damned tired of government at every level asking for more and more money. And friggin SQUANDERING it, wasting it. It makes no difference how much money yah give em. They can always think of good excuses to say they need more. Well, I operate on a budget, and I expect the governments to do the same. They'd better learn how. And they'd better learn how to tell special interest groups to go to hell. It's MY MONEY, and I'm getting damned tired of funding everybodies' special little project. In MInnesota, the latest, largest group of unemployed ... has been government workers. And that, IMHO, is a GOOD thing. We need government, but it's way too large, too intrusive, and too wasteful.
3) I am concerned about the costs of health care. And direct government controls are NOT the answer. Not the right one anyway. We already know by past experience that monopolies just cause prices to go higher. And that bureaucrats do one thing best of all. Create more bureaucrats. They also create more and more endless paperwork. Which lawyers love, but ordinary folks don't. Lawyers love it because the more rules, the more interpretations are needed. Thus, more lawyers are needed. Lawyers are much the same as bureaucrats. What lawyers do best ... is NOT the seeking of justice and fairness. At that, they're iffy at best. But they do truly excel at figuring out ways to generate and breed the need for more and more lawyers. If the Bar had it's way, one would need to seek a lawyer to dig a hole suitable to plant a tree in your own yard.
4) I am concerned about education. Because our schools ... suck. And are monopolized by the self seeking, self interested Teachers Associations and Unions. Which have NO interest, not really, in better education. Their primary interest is in lining their own pockets. I'm not talking about the regular teacher in the classroom. Most of those I've met are honest, earnest folks doing the best they can with a system gone haywire. And I personally, am against spending one more dime until we have an honest, REAL ... not pencil whipped, measure of teachers' individual performance, a school district's performance, etc. If I am to give more money, I want MEASUREABLE performance results. Til then, they can go to hell.
Etc.
Get my point, Jeff?
Give me meat, substance. Not rhetoric, not finger pointing, not blame laying. Wanna convince me of something, gotta give me more than just the stuff I've been getting.
It's like the fellow on the issure of Ft Gordon. What a bunch of BS. No one was hiding numbers of wounded. Did what he claimed happen as concerns military folks having to stay in substandard housing? Probably. I don't know about Ft Gordon, do know of other incidences. And the major problem was that the military system had been cut back so much that we are short on proper, adequate facilities for dealing with the number of folks we're dealing with now. I am a friggin member of several Vet organizations and personally know several of the folks in the VA system in the Twin Cities and in St Cloud. This has been a problem for some time. And DID NOT originate with Bush. In fact, his people as well as some of the highest staff officers in the DOD have been scrambling to fix the problem. As best they can, within budget restraints. A budget controlled by Congress, BTW, no the President. i.e. At another Fort where at first it wasn't noticed by those of high enough rank to actually do something about it, a bunch of reservists, were in an extended wait status. But once the issue was voiced and the right ear heard it, orders were passed down. And a new building intended for other purposes in a matter of a couple weeks was reoutfitted and redesignated into a clinic.
I will repeat ... the military cutbacks, and the demand to do them, originated well before Bush came into office.
Enough. I am done. And quite tired of all this. You need not respond, Jeff. Can if you wish. But I may not answer, may just let you have the last word. I have a lot of other, more productive tasks to take care of.
But know this, my decision in November is NOT gonna be single issue. It's not gonna be based solely on story about WMDs. That's BS. It's gonna be based on a whole number of issues.
And the folks I listen to better be listening up to me, and I think a lot of Americans. We want meat and substance. Not the BS of Bush haters. Give us something to work with here. Definite plans ... with the numbers to support the idea that they may be workable. Facts, not rhetoric and opinion. We're getting awful tired of the name calling and accusations which don't even stand up under scrutiny or in a court.
Gotta run, gotta teach a class in a couple hours, a sideline job.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a trained lawyer you should know that there is a principle that the law should be equally applied. (I am not a lawyer.) In other words you cannot bring the full weight of the law against a person when the law is not generally enforced just because you don't like him.
You gave a long list of things that you know and some of those things are indeed crimes. Many are of your accusations are quite correct. Others are not crimes at all. Giving money to the families of people who died in their struggle against Israeli oppression is not a crime, it is admirable We give money to US soldier's families that have died. It is normal to help the family of fallen soldiers.
All of the crimes and non-crimes that you list are commonly committed by many others around the world. There is little clamor from the accused (Bush) to go in and "fix" those problems. Indeed the noise about these crimes from the accused seems correlate with the friendliness of the criminal. This leads to my suspicion of the unjust application of the law.
So you see my problem, fellow juror. You feel that it is justified to punish in the most extreme manor someone that is no worse than a lot of other guys out there. Your long list of the crimes includes things that are not crimes at all but rather things that you don't like. They have violated laws that are rarely enforced. Is your disdain for this guy coloring your judgement?
Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:15:20 -0500, "Peter Reilley"

Well, to start with, I am not a lawyer. The fellow to whom I was replying is.
I do have more than the average person's understanding of the law, tho I am far from a lawyer. Simply because events in life lead me to studying _some_ law. At one time, I thought I might want to be a cop. I'm Navy, but the Navy had sent me thru the Air Force's law enforcement academy. As part of my duties in the Navy involved law enforcement and security. So I got out of the service at one point and went through a police academy in a major city. And was a cop for just short of 3 years. I wasn't cut out to be a cop. Acknowledged that fact to myself, and went back into the Navy.
Later, starting while still in the Navy, and continuing for a while after I got out, I took other college level law courses. In international law, business law, and property law. Had a realtors license, and at one time even considered going back to school and becoming a business/property lawyer. As an engineer, working for a major corp with part of my duties involving negotiating and making contracts for services we hired, property we owned and others we leased or rented (I did get legal assistance from one of our corporate lawyers when I needed it) I got interested in contract law and the like. But in the end decided to not attempt the switch. While I found it interresting, and handy to know, it was not something I wished to do full time. Basically, at heart, I'm a tools and gadgets and technology guy who is happiest when designing something, making something, or fixing something. Such, I can get passionate about, and really enjoy.
Anyway, I've also had the opportunity to sit in court more than a few times. As a witness, an accuser, a defendent, and 3 times so far, as a juror. I say so far as I just got notice a couple weeks ago I'm being put on the "prospective juror" list, again. This time should be different tho, if I'm actually called. I'm going into the pool for a federal court.

Incorrect, happens all the time. Incorrect only in the first part. Not in the last part. You are correct about the "just because you don't like him". Generally speaking, and there are exceptions, neither judges nor juries are gonna look at your case favorably if they believe you've prosecuting someone simply due to personal dislike. You can lose a case fast that way. Sometimes, even if the guy is guilty. Juries just DON'T LIKE it when a case appears to be one focused on personal dislike, hatred, etc.
In any event, we have all sorts of laws, and all sorts of situations where those laws are not enforced in one case, but enforced in another. Many reasons for this. Not all of them "conspiracies of the priviledged." More often, it's simply because when the perp is finally called upon his acts and confronted, he stops doing whatever. Many a cop on the street has settled a problem simply by confronting an offender, giving him or her a verbal dressing down and a warning, then let the person go. And the person corrected his or her behavior. End of problem. No formal charges, no court, no judge required. Works more often than you might think.
In other cases, sometimes folks simply don't report the offender, for any one of a number of reasons. They tolerate the offense.
Could be that the ones who know, are reliant on the offender for income and support. In other cases it's fear of the offender. In still other cases, the ones who know about the offense, don't agree with the law. So never report the offense. It goes on and on as concerns reasons.
Other laws are ones where violations tend to be generally ignored UNLESS the violation is of such magnitude, or so outlandish in nature, that it stands out as a situation where reasonable people would not ignore it.
i.e. Speeding in a motor vehicle. Ignored all the time everywhere. Cops see it all the time and let it go. BUT ... have the violator not only speeding, but compounding the fact by driving in a careless and dangerous fashion, and you may well have a cop ... quite rightly ... ignoring a dozen other speeders doing the same speed, and singling out the moron who's engaging in excessive lane changing, tail gating, and cutting too close in front of others.
There are many other examples.

Bullshit. Good thing you're not a lawyer. You'd be real embarassed standing in front of a jury who recognizes common sense as versus BS.
We, in the US, provide life insurance for our servicemen and women, just as my employer has a life insurance policy on me. In case I should die in the line of my work. My wife gets the money. FWIW, I'm retired active duty military. And I've got news for you. That life insurance policy for servicemembers who die in the line of duty is a PALTRY, small amount. Most of the civilians I know have larger policies than that, by far.
Second. We do not pay off just because one of our soldiers killed someone, performed a suicide attack, etc. If he or she dies on active duty, even if he or she is a clerk typist, the life insurance policy is paid. Same as with any life insurance policy held by any civilian.
Third. If we find that a member of our military has DELIBERATELY targeted innocent civilians when it could be avoided ... we don't pay on his life insurance. Trust me. We'll put him on trial and try our best to put him in prison.
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But long history, and international legal agreements, every since we've had such things, acknowledges that there is a difference between a soldier accidentally killing a civilian in battle ... or having no choice but to take the chances of killing some innocent civilians if the enemy is hiding behind such and NOT killing the enemy despite the chances of civilian casualties means the likelihood of even higher casualties later ... as versus deliberately targeting innocent civilians with the express purpose of targeting civilians.
That last part can be done, the deliberate targeting of civilians, only in specific circumstances. i.e. It is commonly recognized that the governing group of an enemy, who do the organizing, give direction to the soldiers, etc ... aren't, really, "innocent" civilians. Thus a military force is not tried for attacking, for instance, the equivalent of our Congress, or a governor, etc. Also, exception is normally made in the case of a necessity to attack factories making bombs or other war machinery.
The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily business, setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.

You've already indicated both a misunderstanding of the law, and a definite bias to your thinking.
First off, while we may well dislike and disagree with what many people in the world do. Fact is, we don't have the resources, the will, nor an interest in attacking everyone with whom we disagree.
If YOU don't like what country X is doing to their people, And ... if ... you want something done to stop it. YOU get off your ass, go there, and volunteer to fight against the oppressors. Or shut the hell up, because you're just all mouth and don't even believe what you're saying or you are a coward. Take your pick.
We, as a country, can not reform the world, alone. And have no intentions of doing so. We try to offer encouragement, a nudge in what we think is the right direction. Etc. But we don't plan now or ever to try to control the whole planet. Whatever for? The vast majority of US citizens know next to nothing about what things are really like in other countries. And frankly don't care. Not because they're evil. Simply because they have their own lives, interests, persuits, families, and so forth. And if there is something somewhere else they really want, they go check out the stores to find one where they can buy whatever it is. They don't plan invasions to get it. Why the HELL do yah want to go invade a place, when in almost every case if you offer them a reasonable amount for whatever, they'll sell it to you? Remember? We ARE supposedly rich as a nation. Relatively, I suppose that's true enough. It's true enough so that you'd have to hunt really hard, except in some newsgroup where the whackos hang out, to find an American who has ever had any thought in his or her life about wanting the US to control the world. They don't want it. They want left alone, that's what they want.
I'm 55 years old, and have literally been around the world. And have been all over the US. Wanna know something? Before we invaded Afghanistan, most Americans if asked couldn't have found Afghanistan on a map. Knew nothing about it. Didn't particularly wish to know anything about it either. Average Minnesotan I know has plenty to do to keep himself or herself busy. Got a job, or is going to school. Or both. Got a family. Got a home to take care of. Friends to visit, TV to watch. A wife or hubby to try to seduce into bed. Wanna egt em excited about something? It isn't politics or what's occuring over in some place they've never been and will likely never see, that hasn't got anything that they know about they might want. Wanna get em riled up? Have the tree huggers and PITA talk about restricting or stopping their fishing and hunting rights. That's when Minnesotans went to the polls and passed a State constitutional amendment to guarantee and protect such rights. That's something they listened up to and paid attention to. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the average Minnesotan would not only have not been able to say where the place was, he or she would've not known anything about the place, much less that there were atrocious human rights violations being committed there. Or in Cambodia. Or in Africa. Etc.
Of the few who did know, every one I heard speak of it was saddened and wished it'd stop. But wasn't inclined to want to send OUR people to go die for strangers.
Now, whether you realize it or not, there was a fundamental change when those folks saw the Twin Towers come falling down.
Whereas before only a VERY few meddling busy bodies, and some VERY few well intended but possibly misguided people ever wanted us to get involved and interfere in what is really other people's business. And that's the way most Americans I know thought of these things. MOST sortta figured it was the UN's problem. And if the UN wasn't doing anything, must mean they thought no one else ought to interfere.
However, with the fall of those Twin Towers, things changed. One of the things that changed was folks started wondering ... just what the HELL is the UN doing? The answer was fairly obvious.
Talking, lining their pockets, talking, lining their pockets, talking lining their pockets, and talking and lining their pockets.
If you don't know, most US people aren't exactly what you'd call real patient.
Before, if they even thought about it, just assumed the UN was actually some sort of effective organization, with real rules that were enforced. Probably a bunch of lying politicians like all other lying politicians, almost certainly skimming more money off the top than they were passing on the countries they bragged they helped. But what else do yah expect of professional politicians, diplomats, statesmen, and lawyers? That's normal.
But when Americans saw Americans dying like that, and not even soldiers ... who voluntarily accept their risks and duties ... they weren't in a patient mood any more.
Bush, whether or not he may or may not have been inclined to dislike Saddam personally, does have a duty to the country.
Fact was, if he'd not taken some sort of definite, REAL action ... the vast majority of the American public would have been inclined to fry him. And if anyone else other than Bush had been in office, the public would have felt just the same. Any President would have felt very real pressure to take action.
Not UN action. REAL action. Make something happen to change things.
Congress felt the same pressure. Or are you one of those suckers who believe the political rhetoric and outright lies told by several of them now, that elections are coming up? Originally, Congress passed the resolutions to allow Bush to take the upper hand and do what he felt he must. And they KNEW ... every last one of them that he might well invade. He never, not once, was reticent about that fact. He proclaimed from the first moment, that if that's what he felt he needed to do, he'd do it. End of subject.
And when Congress passed that resolution, those that voted 'for' clamored to immediately get in front of cameras and mikes and let the public know that, "Yeah, damn right ! I voted for it. We'll do what we need to do to clamp down on terrorists ... and those who aid them." Even some of those who now claim ... being the outright, bold liars they are ... that ... ummm ... well, I didn't really mean what I said before. I thought we were just talking. I didn't think we'd really do something like we did.
Those guys are either utter LIARS, or utter IDIOTS ... and in either case will never get a vote from me.
So Bush did the UN thing trying to gain their cooperation. They did nothing. As usual. It's what they do best. That, and running if anything gets too tough or dangerous. We as a country only have a few friends and allies with the fortitude, conviction, and courage to stand fast with us when things get tough ... and it isn't the UN. Hell, the UN won't even go in to deliver medical supplies and food if they think it's too dangerous. Wanna know who does do such things in such circumstances? Tends to be the very same folk who stand by us in war.
If you haven't figured it out yet, I've no use for the UN. Not only are they useless, thieves, and liars. You'd have to hunt far and wide to find so many personal cowards in one place. I'm talking about the heads of the UN. Not the earnest field worker trying to help people.
Anyway Bush tried, the UN lied and said they'd try to do something that'd work. Even while key members had no such intention since they were on Saddam's paroll. People like good old Jacques, Shroeder, and the Ruskie. Who claimed "good intentions" when in reality they were accepting the pay-off to turn a blind eye to what Saddam was doing and to interfere with us getting what we wanted, which was UN _action_, not more talk.
So for how long did Bush try to do the UN thing? A year? And got nothing.
Okay, there is NOT any real legal restriction against our taking action ourselves if we feel it's a case of self protection. That's already established. I'd said that on this newsgroup months ago. Folks told me I was full of it. Just a few days ago Koki, the head of the UN if you don't know, was on TV and he admitted the same thing I'd said. UN rules allow any member nation to do what they feel they must in self defense. UN rules are also "voluntary compliance" agreements. Not LAW as we know that term in the U.S.
Now I'm no lover of Koki. I've criticized him before. He's ineffective as a leader who can get things done. But, he's not stupid or anything. Probably a very bright, well educated fellow. He damn well knows that there is NO SUCH THING AS LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE THE FORCE WITH WHICH TO ENFORCE IT.
It's impossible. A law is not a law unless someone has the force to exert, and the will to use it, to enforce the law. This was true 5000 years ago. It's still true. And will never change. It can't. Not possible. Just because yah write something on a piece of paper, that does not in and of itself make sure one and all actually follows whatever rule you just wrote down. Some will. The folks who agree with you. The rest are gonna tell yah to stick it up your ass and go and do what they wanna do regardless of what you think of it. And you can yell "But you're violating the law !" until you're blue in the face, or until one of those you're yelling at turns around and smacks you upside the head to shut you up ... but just saying the words, just writing down on paper ... doesn't make it law. ONLY ... the ability and willingness to enforce the law, by physical force if necessary, makes something law.
Without the willingness and ability to use force to enforce the rule, it not law.
In any event, I'm not sure I'd have done things the same way Bush did. Take out Saddam or try to? Yep, you betcha. But I think I'd have first done some air strikes that'd have been the mother of all air strikes. I'd have been inclined to do something besides direct invasion first. Such as target and blow the holy crap out of everything that even looked like an Iraqi soldier, tank, missle launcher, barracks, base, the friggin officers' clubs, sank every military ship or canoe. Then I'd have concentrated EVERY palace he owned and would have reduced it to dust.
THEN, I'd have placed a phone call to the fellow or one of his representatives and I'd have asked, "Want to talk with us real reasonable now? Do we get to send in people and see if you're lying to us or not about the WMDs and the terrorist training camps, etc? Or do we have to get serious here and really start trying to hurt you?"
Chuckle, probably good reason I'll never be a commander in chief or a general or admiral. The above was my first inclination. But even as I typed it I realized it would not have worked. Saddam and many of those who supported him the most, probable aren't even sane. They were living in a friggin La-La land of fantasy, Witness the fact his own folks didn't think he was sane any more and hid things from him, routinely told him what he wanted to hear rather than reality, and so forth. Undoubtedly Saddam would have challenged us to come on in, just like he did to the very end, thinking his Army was gonna stand up and die for a friggin crazy man. Most of em had sense enough to know he was perfectly willing for THEM to die, so he could be a more glorious figure in history. Most of them had it figured out that he didn't give a rip about them or their familes. The only thing Saddam really cared about was ... Saddam. Hell, he once expressed the opinion that he thought it was perfectly acceptable for 20 million of his folks to die, if needed, to bolster his power, image, and prominence in the world.

Wrong.
By your reasoning, if the cops come across 5 guys who just murdered a bunch of folks, but only have the manpower and resources at hand to catch one, for now. That since the others are gonna get away with it, they should let the one they got go, so he can go kill some more.
Am I safe to assume that under your reasoning, that since somebody in the Congo is now killing someone else. And we're not tracking him down. Then if someone else comes to your home and kills your loved ones ... we should let him go?
We have not the power, nor the resources, nor the inclination to police the world, sir. For that matter, it's not even our responsibility. And if we tried, same folks would curse as for doing so as those who curse us for not doing so,
So our only alternative. Is to ignore those who hate us, as they'll hate us no matter what we do. Hate is hate. It is not logical nor reasonable.
In the case of Saddam, for a whole host of reasons, we as a country, and it's WE ... not Bush ... remember that all those Congressmen gave him their support, at first until they figured out the could make political gain by reversing themselves and trying to backstab him ... we as a country decided he did pose a danger to US. We decided that as he was so willing to kill off his own folks in horrid fashion. And since it was known that he'd take war to other countries any time he felt he could get away with it. (remember Kuwaitt?) Since he was KNOWN to have possessed .... and MORE importantly .... he was known to USE WMDs. And since we had some evidence, evidence so good that even the UN and Clinton believed it, that he might have more but was hiding it. And since he'd not allow unrestricted searches to take place to verify whether he did or did not have em. Since we knew he publically called, many times, for folks to kill the evil US people. Since we knew he supported some terrorists, thus it was not unlikely he might support others, and we had intelligence info saying that in fact he did, or at least key officials in his government did. And since we knew from past experience, it's all history if you read it, that Saddam would attack others quickly, violently, and without mercy any time he felt like he might get away with it. We warned, "Do this, to show us your good intentions and that you mean us no harm.", and when he refused, we ACTED.
Now, you might disagree with this. That's your right ... to disagree. Simply disagreement doesn't mean you are in fact correct. Many of us think you are not.
As it turns out, some of our intelligence was faulty. Some of it was accurate.
It would seem that he either did not have the large stock piles of WMDs, or managed to get them shipped off elsewhere. <Shrug> So what? We NOW know he's not got them. And know that he was trying to keep an active WMD development program in action. Hiding a lab here, a lab there, small samples of this and that here and there. His own scientists say that he was still trying to develop the knowledge to make the stuff ... for later. Why did we worry about Saddam's WMDs more than someone else's? Who else has a recent history of being so friggin willing to use em that he tested a batch out on a whole town of folks in his own country? Who else has them that seemed like such a crazy, wild assed, loved to do it mass murderer? Hell, even his own neighbors and fellow Muslims were scared of him.

Nope.
I don't worry about the person who have a history of being a decent, law abiding citizen who has a gun, either. Or a whole basement full of guns.
I do worry about the known murders who have guns, however.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

This juror feels that this case is selective enforcement. You feel differently. You have expressed special disdain for the guy. I don't like Saddam either but he is in the same class as Sharon. One gets invaded and the other gets showered with money and arms. The special treatment seems more than random.

Others
in
We
help the

The Palestinian fighters were killed in the line of duty. Their families deserve to be supported.
As to innocent Israelis; when Israeli children are killed it is a tragedy and I condemn such attacks. Israeli adults are not innocent. Israel is a democracy for them. They cannot claim innocence of their government's crimes. They vote for the same criminals time and time again. There is not a single Israeli political party, left or right, that advocates giving the Palestinians their rights. It is truly a broken system, it must be reformed or replaced. Apartheid South Africa found peace by way of equal rights and Israel can too.
How do you overthrow such a system? I cannot think of any other way given the resources that the Palestinians have and the nature of the enemy that they face.

(Bush) to

from the

leads
After 9/11 the US went into a blind rage and invaded Afghanistan. First to get Al Quaida because they were the people responsible for 9/11. We had no fight with the Taiban as we were first told. That soon changed and the Tailbone became our target. We killed a lot of people but gained little satisfaction. The targets that we wanted, bin Laden and Omar escaped. We began looking for another target.

Saddam was a bad guy, we agree, but was he going to invade any neighbor after what happened with the first gulf war? Even if he was truly insane, was he making preparations to invade a neighbor again?

guy
You seem to be making the case of going after anyone that might commit a crime. You take the accusation that he might have weapons as sufficient evidence that we need to act. Your line of reasoning will lead to many such preemptive strikes.
You may argue that preemptive strikes make us safer but the opposite is true. Once preemptive strikes become the normal method of diplomatic discourse we will be the worse off. The notion of preemptive strikes will be used by everyone. We will be the likely target. We can hardly complain as we legitimized that reasoning.
While we may be the last standing world power, we do not have the power to invade everyone. We do not even have the power to invade everyone in the Middle East even though that is where our government seems to be taking us.
Live and let live seems to be a better policy.
Pete.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.