 masbury says: "government argues is required under U.S. law because the beneficiaries of the lawyers' services are foreign terrorists" - of course, these being "fair" trials, we wouldn't assume they were "terrorists," before their conviction, now would we? Justice means nothing in this political theater. The Fourth Reich is getting desperate Your surprised? Tomorrow they will be dancing in the WH as they kill the 4th Amendment! Should we be sending money to terrorists? We aren't assuming those on trial are terrorists, we are saying that those who are getting the money for representing them are using the money to fund terrorism. Musch different. How do you work that exactly? It is not like defending someone in court is cheap. You got any proof of that or is that just a baseless assumption, without foundation or merit? SS, who said anything about sending money to terrorists? And who said anything about using defense lawyer salaries to fund terrorism? C'mon, friend, what's up with these comments? ACLU director Anthony Romero on Tuesday accused the Bush administration of "obstruction of justice" by delaying approval of the license, which the government argues is required under U.S. law because the beneficiaries of the lawyers' services are foreign terrorists. So says the Bush administration. But if they haven't found guilty of anything their not terrorist yet, only people accused of those crimes. That is circular logic of the worse kind. I apologize, I jumped ahead to another argument. The reason they have to be licensed is to make sure that the money is NOT being used to fund terrorists. I apologize, I jumped ahead to another argument. The reason they have to be licensed is to make sure that the money is NOT being used to fund terrorists.So Sillysam, prove I'm not a male. Same silly illogical stupidly, Sillysam Righthand you ware making less sense than usual. The lawyers that they are wanting to pay may have connections to terrorists. IT has already happened once and the lawyer in question was found to be passing classified information back to a terrorist organization. She spent 3 years in the slammer. I hope this makes it a little more clear. I sometimes forget that we argue points from such different perspectives that it is necessary to fill in some logic that would be naturally stipulated by folks who are on the same side of the aisle. OK, so where's the license? I don't know if your facts are right or wrong, but they don't address the ACLU's charge that the government is delaying for the purpose of obstructing justice. How strange that the gov't should say they must have it to do business, and then won't provide it! That it's just a scheme to keep defenders away from detainees seems highly plausible to me - for defenders will find out what really happened to these guys. And if the government's nose is clean, good defense is no threat to their cases. The lawyers that they are wanting to pay may have connections to terrorists.So you'd like to have the lawyers on trail first? Which silly system is that then? No, it didn't "make it a little more clear". I'm reasonable sure that you once knew what you intended with I sometimes forget that we argue points from such different perspectives that it is necessary to fill in some logic that would be naturally stipulated by folks who are on the same side of the aisle.but I'm back to guessing what you intended, Sillysam. I'm still confounded by your I apologize, I jumped ahead to another argument. The reason they have to be licensed is to make sure that... Are you suggesting that the money given as salary would be given by the lawyer to terrorist??? If you could seriously contend such a silly notion, why would it effect their clients? Or are you keeping any of the normal rules of a real democracy now? You say ... the lawyer in question was found to be passing classified information back to a terrorist organizationWe were talking about funds . Suddenly you switch to "classified information". Is this confusion your usual silliness or is it a sinister motive to twist the truth? Are you now guilty of the same tricks as your masters? You know, detention without trial, trail without defence, hidden evidence, hand-picked defence [b]... |
View the Top Clips from July 8, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
