Posted on 02/10/2005 3:24:31 PM PST by TexasCowboy
Lawyers are too dumb to figure out they can't pass information against court and prison rules from their clients? Boy that is sooo hard to understand now isn't it?
Neither you nor the recipient of your fan letter seem to have a clue. Since when is it a vast increase in state power to jail people directly involved in a criminal conspiracy to attack the people of this nation?
Not only is Slim a false prophet but you are hallucinating wrt the nature of this forum. Or knowingly posting falsehoods which would make you a l....
I doubt if she serves time. Lawyers will get behind her whole heartedly.
You must be reading a different forum's posts since distrust of government is rampant here. Even when there is no reason to do so in a particular instance the distrust is OVERWHELMING.
OK.
What doi you say to a lawyer with an IQ of less than 50?
"Good morning, your honor."
Angie Harmon said it best on "L & O" once.
"I believe in evil, monsters, and things that go bump in the night. I think they should all rot in hell along with their lawyers."
You think like a PRE-9/11 person.
I don't care HOW MANY shyster mouthpieces this sends a chill through. They need a chill sent through them. But locking up yerrorists and those who enable them, (including commie lawyers), is more important and keeping this nation safe is paramount. No matter WHAT it takes.
Of course a looneytarian like you wouldn't see that. If and when al-Qa'eda blows up the levees and submerges Naw'lins maybe you'll get it.
Angie Harmon said it best on "L & O" once.
"I believe in evil, monsters, and things that go bump in the night. I think they should all rot in hell along with their lawyers."
You think like a PRE-9/11 person.
I don't care HOW MANY shyster mouthpieces this sends a chill through. They need a chill sent through them. But locking up yerrorists and those who enable them, (including commie lawyers), is more important and keeping this nation safe is paramount. No matter WHAT it takes.
Of course a looneytarian like you wouldn't see that. If and when al-Qa'eda blows up the levees and submerges Naw'lins maybe you'll get it.
P.S. I point out that I do NOT disagree with what happened this case, as I clearly stated, nor do I believe that this sets a bad precedent, as I also clearly stated. I was merely expressing some sympathy with someone who sees the potential for government evil in actions like this when circumstances might be different.
Government grows as societies become more complex and larger. There is nothing which can change that fact. Governments also grow because of the People's demands for more rights to be protected. Our government has not grown because of some nefarious plot by Leftists but because the People have WANTED it to grow and become more powerful.
The only thing that can change that is a change in the People themselves.
There is nothing wrong with the poster stating that the nation should be kept safe. What is the alternative? "This nation could be kept safe unless doing so would offend someone, make someone uncomfortable, actually throw people in jail, cause Europe not to like us, etc., etc."
Nevertheless the distrust of the government here is overwhelming as I said.
Thank you for your courteous reply, but I see we have very little common ground. I believe government grows because the few see it as the surest way to gain power over the many. I believe -- at least I hope -- that government has grown to its current level of intrusiveness and control despite the wishes of the people, not in reponse to those wishes.
The nation should be kept safe. I will quibble, however, with those who say "no matter WHAT it takes." Are you really comfortable with that proposition?
We are not talking about trivialities such as offending people or making France not like us, of course. We are talking about the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was put there, like just about everything else you find in that document to protect citizens against their government. All I'm saying is that I think we should tread cautiously when we discuss novel government actions that relate to constitutional guarantees.
As the article stated, there is no evidence that anyone was incited to violence based on the communications. With no real crime, they are left to prosecute a thought crime. While I might agree with the sentiment with respect to this case (as in ice the bitch and lose the key), the concern I have is for how innocent accused will have their lawyer/client relationship diminished as a result of this. Thus with respect to expansion of state power, it's a concern regarding the precedence and potential further expansions/fallout. True, this case on its own doesn't immediately reflect the issue. But sensitivity about such things doesn't just relate to the present. This is why gun owners have a problem with registration. The current act of registration wouldn't be egregious in itself, but lays the groundwork for further infringement.
As to the nature of the forum, I've seen thoughtful, reasoned critiques of the expansion of central government power under the Republican majority pulled from the forum, rather than debated. Those weren't hallucinations, but unfortunately I can't point to the history Little Brother has chosen to erase. I hope that clears up my former post.
No it is not an argument against doing something to claim that someone MIGHT misuse the Law some time in the future.
Should we NOT charge killers with murder and prosecute them because some day some one MIGHT charge and prosecute an innocent man for murder?
When OFFICERS OF THE COURT, such as lawyers, violate court orders and laws they should be charged and tried and, if found guilty, incarcerated. Particularly when they are doing so at the behest of one who murdered American citizens and tries to murder more.
Your view of the appropriateness of the law, if implemented, would mean there is NO law.
This sort of doublethink isn't conservative, it is statist. This is no different than socialists bitching about assault rifles as "only designed for killing" out of one side of their face, and then applauding when cops are paramilitarized with cosmetically challenged rifles so THEY aren't "outgunned". And screw the korean grocer as the public servants pull out from the riot zone.
My view is that the law and government were instituted and exist to protect individual rights. You can't have a healthy forrest without healthy trees. Our legal system is supposed to be predicated on the presumption of individual innocence to preclude a tendency toward predatory government and corruption. When I see the beast growing stronger and trying to slip its harness, it bothers me.
Officers of the court routinely violate the law with impunity. They even have a name for it: professional courtesy. Charges for civil rights violations under federal law are set aside more often than any other charge. The fox is guarding the chicken coop. A bad law is no law. Arbitrary law is no law. Laws which contradict other laws is no law. There ought to be a law against it ;-) Hmm, if we start with 10 simple commandments, that should be something at least one good man should be able to follow, ya think? Post it on the court house and school walls for everyone to see. I could just shut up and take that.
It is a popular misconception that there is some sinister cabal behind government growth but nothing could be further from the truth. It has grown for the most part in response to demands of the People for social programs, in response to real dangers which existed from deadly enemies, and as a result of vastly increased complexity incident to population growth.
To think that such growth could have occured without the approval of the majority of the electorate is just wishful thinking. Evidence of this approval is overwhelming as even the last election shows. Almost half the voters could not find it within themselves to vote for a man who actually wants to protect the nation and voted for a traitor who promises the same old socialistic crap.
Convincing the population is the greatest task conservatives face and if we just try and whistle past the graveyard there will be no way of slowing or reversing this growth.
There is nothing in this trial which is a violation of the sixth amendment nor was the Constitution drafted to protect the citizen from the government (well maybe from the State governments) only the BoR was supposed to do that though both Hamilton and Madison believed it to be unnecessary. But the Constitution itself was drafted to reduce the power of the states and increase that of the fedgov in order to form a more perfect Union.
Our Founders believed that the best guard against tyranny was representative government based on private property ownership. If that failed then there was no hope.
Presumably you believe amidst that farago of babble and insults there is a rational thought or a relevent one.
Apparently you believe there is no such thing as a criminal conspiracy. And that the government has no right to protect the nation. And who knows what else? It is impossible to say what all the nonsense about assault rifles trees korean grocers and the ten commandments is supposed to mean. Though you did forget to throw in Mom, baseball and apple pie.
There is nothing in the Constitution presuming innocence either but that false tatement won't bother you I'm sure.
I am sorry you have trouble with my analogies, I'll spare you any further. As to insults, you seem to prefer to trade in that currency, so it is not surprising that you found the slop rather than the pearls. I see no reason to continue wasting bandwidth on this, as it appears no real communication is occurring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.