Sentiment and the desire for revenge should never be allowed to override fact when it comes to the law.
This is really very simple and I'm not going to explain it more than once.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Sentiment and the desire for revenge should never be allowed to override fact when it comes to the law.
This is really very simple and I'm not going to explain it more than once.…
Article comments
26 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
Just like stealing a candy bar gets treated differently than stealing 50 billion from pension fund, so does the treatment of a murderer of 1 person or of 3000, or 12 million.
While I agree that they must get treated different for the scale of the crime, the intent of the crime matters as well - for the guy who killed one Jew just because the victim was a Jew killed for the same reason the Nazis did.
Don't get me wrong - I do understand your reasoning. However, when it comes to murder, the motive does matter and does have an impact on the outcome, whether that motive be revenge, a crime of passion, self-defense, a random act of violence, or ethnic hatred.
27 - Glenn Contrarian
And OA -
When it comes to torture, it's just like I've already said. Give me an hour to torture you and I will get you to gladly sign a confession that you planned, supported, and participated in 9/11...all of which would be totally false, of course.
Torture produces useless intel. That, sir, is why the WWII interrogators came out against the Bush administration, and that's why CIA interrogators (even an interrogator supervisor) came out against the torture tactics which not only produced useless intel but also provided a WONDERFUL recruiting tool for more terrorists.
That's also why torture is a war crime, and is a stain upon our national honor - and YES, our national honor means something to this retired sailor!
28 - Heloise
Cogent article Dave. And I noticed you made your argument about them without calling them terrorists, but criminals first and foremost. Of course terror is a criminal act. But the Hannitys and the Levins of the world hollar "terrorist" "torture" and "Gitmo" and that's all they know.
Levin claims to have a legal background but a bash democrats foreground thus his judgment is cloudy.
The 911 plotters are murderers first, aliens second, terrorists third but not soldiers and Osama bin Laden is not a country.
Rush Radio was hot on the case. Because one of the gang has already pleaded guilty and wants to be executed. Thus trying them is a moot point. Rush, Hannity and Levin have come up with every reason under the sun why the trial should not be held in NYC.
What are the alternatives? Hold them until they rot in their cells at Gitmo? I don't get it. Hold an army tribunal?
Anyway the AG is doing the right thing. I don't particularly like the new AG but at least he has balls.
So, I actually agree with you Dave. This must be the conservative side of Dave Nalle.
29 - Glenn Contrarian
Heloise -
This must be the conservative side of Dave Nalle.
So far, all the liberals on this topic have agreed with Dave, but not all the conservatives have agreed with him.
But you do realize of course why Rush Radio and all the other conservative pundits are howling mad about the terror trials taking place in NYC - it doesn't have a thing to do with justice or additional danger...but it has everything to do with opposing every little doggone thing that the Obama administration tries to do.
Can you think of anything that Obama or his administration has done or tried to do that the conservatives have supported? Neither can I.
30 - handyguy
Dave has often followed that same blind reflex -- opposing the administration whatever the issue -- especially if Eric Holder is involved.
I'm glad he resisted this time, whatever his reason.
31 - El Bicho
"That's more than two weeks before you wrote that comment."
Glad to see your bullshit detector went off also.
32 - Dave Nalle
Don't jump the gun, Heloise and Handy. Keep an eye out for my next article. In it I address the problem that is Eric Holder in this context more specifically.
Can you think of anything that Obama or his administration has done or tried to do that the conservatives have supported? Neither can I.
Can you think of anything conservative leaders have done which the left has supported?
Dave
33 - Dave Nalle
Glenn and EB. Once I wrote my article on the white house guest list I entirely stopped following the relatively trivial issue, so the first I heard that there was a problem with the names was when I saw Glenn had mentioned it today. And I still think having all those prominent names on there looks fishy.
Dave
34 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Can you think of anything conservative leaders have done which the left has supported?
Um, how about the invasion of Afghanistan? And TARP? And "No Child Left Behind" - which was "shepherded through the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy"? Or the Patriot Act? Or FISA? Or the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005?
And THEN there's this from 2008: "Less than 24 hours after introducing a controversial measure to expand President Bush's authority to spy on Americans, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on Friday voted to approve the administration- and Republican-supported bill, sending it to the Senate where it will likely be adopted.
Senator Barack Obama defended the new bill as a 'compromise' from last year's Protect America Act."
So do you get it yet, Dave? Who's been the 'just say no' party? The Democrats DID work with the Republicans...before AND after control of Congress changed in 2006. But what are the Republicans doing now? "Just say no"...no matter what the Democrats want to do, "Just say no".
35 - The Obnoxious American
"...Give me an hour to torture you and I will get you to gladly sign a confession that you planned, supported, and participated in 9/11...all of which would be totally false, of course.
Torture produces useless intel...."
Leaving aside that I don't beleive what we did to KSM rises to the level of actual torture (and we can debate that all day), I absolutely disagree with this comment and in fact events have proven this to be false.
We DID gain much useful intel from KSM in our "sessions" with him. Is it admissable in a court of law? No. Is it actionable by people fighting the war on terror? Yes. The whole argument is a ruse. Even with what we did to KSM, we still have the moral high ground (that we didn't behead the guy on youtube, that you and I are actually debating this, etc) and anyone who claims otherwise is in anti American fantasy land.
"That's also why torture is a war crime, and is a stain upon our national honor - and YES, our national honor means something to this retired sailor!"
Well first off thank you for your service which allowed me to grow up and live in a land that is free.
That said, I don't buy this national stain and honor stuff. You have honor yes, lots of it. But as a nation, we've done what we needed to to win wars. WWII: Japs in internment camps, dropping nukes, even torture. There just wasn't a liberal media with a 24/7 cycle exposing outrage at every turn.
36 - The Obnoxious American
"Who's been the 'just say no' party? The Democrats DID work with the Republicans...before AND after control of Congress changed in 2006. But what are the Republicans doing now? "Just say no"...no matter what the Democrats want to do, "Just say no"."
So one sided and unfair. Stupid discussion. Both sides are incredibly partisan, hard for anyone of us to say which one more so.
BUT
Obama ran as a candidate who would unify us, be post partisan and change the poisonous ways of Washington. This is how he billed himself, and that means he set the expectation that he would do this. Blaming the other party for being "the party of no" isn't post partisan and Obama has completely failed in this regard.
Worth also mentioning that the GOP has not been the party of no. They have plenty of alternatives if the congressional majority leadership were willing to give it some consideration. Thus far, in terms of just about every bill passed since Obama came into office, the Dems have not been willing. This is an easily observable, easily verifiable fact.
37 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
I provided SEVERAL examples of how the Democrats (including Obama) worked WITH the Republicans during the Bush administration. The Democrats even allowed ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE amendments by Republicans to the House health-care reform bill...and got a whopping ONE vote from the Republicans.
When it comes to the Republicans' 'alternatives', do you really know what they offered? Their proposal on health care would have allowed the HMO's to continue denying coverage due to 'preexisting conditions', and would have cost the American taxpayers MORE, according to the non-partisan CBO. Sorta reminds us of the Republicans' proposal for the budget this last Spring...you remember it, don't you, OA? The budget proposal that included NO NUMBERS?
You gave me claims and rhetoric, OA...but rhetoric without verifiable fact to back it up is EMPTY rhetoric.
I gave you VERIFIABLE FACTS. Give me verifiable facts and I'll pay attention. If you don't, then you're simply posting empty rhetoric.
38 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
You're doing the same. Look at this sentence:
"Their proposal on health care would have allowed the HMO's to continue denying coverage due to 'preexisting conditions', "
Insurance is otherwise known as risk management. When you say to insurers that they must provide uniform coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, it is no longer based on a risk calculation, and thus is no longer "insurance." It becomes a benefit. Add in a public option and now these "insurers" who can't use risk based calculations to determine price and forced to provide a standard set of services are competing with government who can undercut private insurance price as they have unlimited income in terms of taxes, can put off costs as debt, and have no need to turn a profit. Why would insurers or anyone who favors a private sector approach agree to this?
We can debate the merits of insurance vs government mandated benefits. But the fact that you failed to represent this important part of the discussion and dismissed those opposed as just being the party of no shows your own empty rhetoric, and this is the same approach taken by our president who was supposed to be different.
39 - The Obnoxious American
"Don't get me wrong - I do understand your reasoning. However, when it comes to murder, the motive does matter and does have an impact on the outcome, whether that motive be revenge, a crime of passion, self-defense, a random act of violence, or ethnic hatred."
I wanted to respond to this. I guess what offends me about the shepard bill is that we're treating different kinds of hate as if one were worse than the other. This was my underlying point, but not sure I communicated it correctly. Hate is hate, whether it's because of my skin, religion or due to my cutting someone off on the highway. The punishment for crimes committed as a result, assuming the crime is equal, should be the same.
So if I nailed a black guy to a cross and lit him on fire then I should get a much harsher punishment than if I happened to use the N word while killing him. Agreed on that. But I shouldn't get less of a punishment for nailing a white guy to a cross and lighitng him up than a black guy. Unfortunately, this is the flaw with hate crimes bills and why I am against.
And as an aside I've heard that Sheppard wasn't even killed for being gay that there were drugs involved, etc. All of which makes the bill even more silly in my view. You break the law, then you should be punished for it and one victim shouldn't expect the state to prosecute more becase he or she happens to be a minority.
40 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
And as an aside I've heard that Sheppard wasn't even killed for being gay that there were drugs involved, etc.
"I've heard". Yeah, why believe facts and sworn testimony when you've got RUMOR!
But - just on the off chance that you're that rare conservative who thinks that facts should determine belief, rather than demanding that belief should determine facts - here's the SWORN TESTIMONY of the killers' GIRLFRIENDS.
During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the pair’s then-girlfriends) testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man. McKinney and Henderson then went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard as their target. McKinney alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home. After befriending him, they took him to a remote area of Laramie where they robbed him, beat him severely (media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his smashed skull), and tied him to a fence with a rope from McKinney’s truck. Shepard begged for his life. Both girlfriends also testified that neither McKinney nor Henderson was under the influence of drugs at the time. The beating was so severe that the only areas on Shepard’s face that were not covered in blood were those where his tears had washed the blood stains away.
Base your opinions on FACT, OA - not rumor...but FACT.
41 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
And as an aside I've heard that Sheppard wasn't even killed for being gay that there were drugs involved, etc.
"I've heard". Yeah, why believe facts and sworn testimony when you've got RUMOR!
But - just on the off chance that you're that rare conservative who thinks that facts should determine belief, rather than demanding that belief should determine facts - here's the SWORN TESTIMONY of the killers' GIRLFRIENDS.
During the trial, Chastity Pasley and Kristen Price (the pair’s then-girlfriends) testified under oath that Henderson and McKinney both plotted beforehand to rob a gay man. McKinney and Henderson then went to the Fireside Lounge and selected Shepard as their target. McKinney alleged that Shepard asked them for a ride home. After befriending him, they took him to a remote area of Laramie where they robbed him, beat him severely (media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol whipping and his smashed skull), and tied him to a fence with a rope from McKinney’s truck. Shepard begged for his life. Both girlfriends also testified that neither McKinney nor Henderson was under the influence of drugs at the time. The beating was so severe that the only areas on Shepard’s face that were not covered in blood were those where his tears had washed the blood stains away.
Base your opinions on FACT, OA - not rumor...but FACT.
42 - Cannonshop
Wow, topic drift...
Okay, My .02 theoretical devalued dollar...
Dave's right. Elevating Khalid Sheik Muhammed to the level of legitimacy accorded by treatment as a Combatant is indeeed, the wrong thing to do.
Unfortunately, IIRC, New York State doesn't (and won't) execute his excreble ass.
On the topic-drift now...
Does it matter WHY they murdered Matthew Shepard? I think it's enough that they beat, tortured, and murdered him, their bigotry just goes to proving motive, you don't punish for motive, you punish for ACTIONS in a Free Society. when you worry more about a perpetrator's motives and mindset, than you do about their actions (I'm speaking purely in the 'we caught the son of a bitch' sense now) you're edging onto the slippery slope of Thought Crimes.
They murdered him, while committing other felonies. 'Why' has little to no bearing on that after-the-fact. Worry about 'why' when devising ways to PREVENT a repeat of the event by someone else.
As for Professor William Ayers, he's managed to walk thanks to his daddy's money, begin-middle-end. He himself stated "Guilty as hell, Free as a bird" after the case was thrown out because the Effa-Bee-Eye stepped on their dicks with how they built the case.
As for "Liberals" and I use the word loosely, approving of a "Conservative" (yeah, right) policy?
Under Nixon:
EPA (The Act, and the agency thus spawned)
Jerry Ford:
55mph National Speed Limit.
Bush 1 (1988 to 1992)
"assault weapons ban". (Import ban)
S&L Bailout.
Bush 2 (Not really a Conservative, just a christian)
Glenn,you can't reasonably claim Af'stan as being approved by the Left-the protestors were OUT as soon as the boots were aboard the transports. They only "approved" after they had Iraq to whine about. (Funny enough, going back through history, the Left opposed american involvement in WW2 up to about the point where Hitler invaded the Soviet Union-then they suddenly decided National Socialism was worthy of opposition.)
TARP.
43 - Timothy birdnow
This is myopic and ignorant of history on a collosal scale. I had to rebut it at my own website to fit.