salon.com contacts DFU over FR's role in murder of Nick Berg by Islamofascist Terrorist b*st*rds

email from salon.com reporter | 5-12-04 | dfu

[F16Fighter]

"What is that supposed to mean? Is that the best you can do? Gee, I guess I'll vote for Bush now!"

A) Go back to playing Mario Bros.

B) After you're finished, sit down and eat your peanut butter and jelly sandwich

C) I doubt you're old enough to "vote" for high school class president

[George Smiley]

What is your point?

What is yours?

I was referring to the first definition in the law dictionary, not the last one.

(After all, we're not on the high seas- or in the midst of an asset forfeiture proceeding.)

BARRATRY - The practice of instituting groundless judicial proceedings - a crime in a number of jurisdictions.

In old law French barat, baraterie, signifying robbery, deceit, fraud. In modern usage it may be defined as the habitual moving, exciting and maintaining suits and quarrels, either at law or otherwise.

A man cannot be indicted as a common barrator in respect of any number of false and groundless actions brought in his own right, nor for a single act in right of another; for that would not make him a common barrator.

Barratry, in this sense, is different from maintenance and champerty.

An attorney cannot be indicted for this crime merely for maintaining another in a groundless action.

BARRATOR - One who has been guilty of the offence of barratry. BARRATRY - Maritime Law, Crimes. A fraudulent act of the master or mariners, committed contrary to their duty as such, to the prejudice of the owners of the ship.

The act of Congress of April 30, 1790, s.8, punishes with death as piracy, 'any captain or mariner of any ship or other vessel who shall piratically and feloniously run away with such ship or vessel, or any goods or merchandize to the value of fifty dollars; or yield up such ship or vessel to any pirate or if any such seamen shall lay violent hands upon his commander, thereby to binder or prevent his fighting in defence of his ship or goods committed to his trust, or shall make a revolt in the said ship.'

[hosepipe]

In defense of Salon:
Its the best place to get your comb-over re-combed after a good brain wash.

[antaresequity]

But that does not make killing right. It's still wrong, and that burden of killing someone would be on my shoulders for the rest of my life.

Because something is not 'made right', does not mean its wrong. To do nothing and allow yourself to be killed is absolutely wrong. Nobody can argue otherwise.

Reconcile your weakness by understanding that to do nothing is wrong, and to do something [kill], is neither right or wrong, it just is.

Death is a fact of life...for all of us, and in many instances is a matter of choice by our actions[smoking cigarettes, eating habits, driving recklessly, doing nothing in the face of mortal danger, or perpetrating a crime that may result in ones death].

[doug from upland]

re: Hey, that's really hateful, man.
it was the Freepers that contacted the feds.
the feds then suspected the son.
the son was imprisoned, then released.
then he was killed.

What is wrong with you? You are making up a foolish story. It's as if we have a direct hotline to John Ashcroft. News for you, genius. We don't. No FReeper contacted the feds, got the feds to suspect the son, so that the son was imprisoned, released, and killed. Until the last few days, no one here knew the name Nick Berg or Michael Berg. Michael proudly signed onto the ANSWER site and publicly identified himself and his company. ANSWER publicly displayed the names of those who endorsed their anti-American nonsense. It was cut and pasted and posted on FR. There were probably 10 pages of names, only a few of which were noticed. I contacted the Coast Guard to warn them of an active duty member who could have posed a danger to his comrades. Jameel had no business being part of what he hated when others' lives could depend on him. There was no way in hell he was going to jeopardize the life of my son-in-law or others who were serving their country. That's it.

re: why is there so much hatred here for people that feel differently about these issues?

I ask again, what is wrong with you? You speak of hatred and then dare to send me the following FReepmail --

Nick Berg
From curious123344 | 05/13/2004 8:27:32 AM PDT read

I just want want to congratulate you on contributing to Berg's death.
Hatred breeds hatred!
Hope the images haunt you forever.

=============================================

It is time for you to take back the ridiculous conspiracy statement that is a total lie and to apologize to me for your FReepmail. I'm waiting.

[antaresequity]

Read it again.

More moral relativism by the left. Why am I not surprised.

[doug from upland]

Still waiting for your apology.

[anniegetyourgun]

Profoundly false? You are clearly a very uninformed individual. That doesn't surprise me.

Now, leave me alone, punk.

[Petronski]

If you like that, you'll love this:

Seems our resident malinformed iconoclast, johngalt, made a very similar supposition right here on this very thread:

Seems our boys caught an ANSWER fella and dropped him off in rival territory alla the LAPD circa Darryl Gates.

Strange days, indeed.

That's post 247, in case you're curious.

[5by5]

My post was a parody of the logic used to assign guilt to the FR, man.

At one point did I question Berg Sr.'s right to associate with ANSWER? Why is it any less hateful to suggest that FR's unintended consequences "caused" the muder but Berg Sr's could not?

It's kinda funny that you accuse everyone on FR of labeling opponents in the same breath that you label us all.

[RottiBiz]

These lefties never cease to amaze!

[CougarGA7]

Quite the double standard you live by there.

[doug from upland]

The Admin Moderator finally took out the garbage. Thanks. Our new "curious" friend is slithering back under a rock.

[CougarGA7]

Too bad curious got pulled, I was just getting warmed up to start piling on.

I've been out of the loop the last few days but the one thing that strikes me as odd as I get caught up on what's been going on in the world lately is the logic behind the argument.

Isn't blaming FR for Berg's death the same as blaming Ronald McDonald if you get a bad cheeseburger?

[anniegetyourgun]

Good....riddance....

[js1138]

Attempting to reduce the rationale for the Iraq war to a single item is intellectually dishonest.

There are a host of reasons why Saddam had to go. He openly financed suicide bombers in Israel, he launched Scuds against Israel when Israel when Israel when it was a noncombatant. (Israel, by the way is an ally of ours).

He cavorted with terrorists and had prior knowledge of the 911 strike. He had the means and motive to assist in the training of hijackers, even if we have no proof that he did so.

He had an anthrax program, and we have found the cultures for a number of bio-warfare agents. He had and used chemical warfare agents against Iran and against his own citizens.

He turned a U.N. humanitarian program into a worldwide system of graft and corruption. Among other things, he demonstrated that the U.N. cannot be trusted with even the simplest missions. (Kosovo also demonstrates this, but that was Clinton's war, so it gets a pass in the press.)

Saddam was a megalomaniac with the fourth largest army in the world. He lent credibility to the notion that the United States is a paper tiger. Among other useful things, his defeat demonstrates what the American military can do when it's in a good mood. The world will not want to see what it can do when it's in a bad mood.

Iraq is now and will for some time, be the least awful Muslim country to live in. If it degenerates into chaos, it will be due to the left in this country that cannot stand to see Bush achieve anything. The left was quite content to see Clinton bomb Serbia and send troops to Haiti, but can't stand to see a Republican take steps to defeat an enemy psychopath.