Posted on 02/09/2006 4:20:05 PM PST by johnmecainrino
"Brinkema's doing this on his own."
"He" is a "She" ... guess you haven't followed this too closely ?
This particular judge is a "local" ~ she's always trying to let loose some vicious criminal or terrorist who is a threat to my neighborhood.
Makes me angry just to see her name~!
What case would be prejudged. The case that was already judged? Wouldn't that be post-judged or re-judged?
First we have to make some assumptions. There are two possible conditions: We are at war. We are not at war.
If we are not at war, all your legalisms, due process and, etc hold the day.
But, if we are at war, the preservation of our way of life is paramount. The need to preserve, freedom and liberty, has when neccessay, trumped judicial rights, in order to save the republic.
Well said hound.
My guess is she is a He-She like most libs.
You seem to have forgotten. The judicial system has already gotten into this case. Faris was convicted of a crime. You would be on much more solid legal ground if Faris were merely held as an enemy combatant.
Better headline-
"Clinton appointed judge threatens to let admitted terrorist walk."
Actually Faris should've been tried in a military tribunal as an enemy combatant out of uniform (that's an espionage agent) and if convicted, face a firing squad. The lawyer should be charged with aiding and abbetting an enemy of our country. We've become so civilized that we have lost our moral compass in these matters.
Is it now your position that the Bush Administration screwed up when it allowed the Faris case to go through the justice system? That's quite a different position than when you blamed the judicial system for asking the Bush Administration its opinion on this case.
What I really fear, though, is that you don't really care for any coherent policy toward terrorists.
My policy toward terrorists is very coherent and consistant...kill them.
Again, I assume that this means you oppose the Bush Administration's decision to prosecute Faris in the judicial system.
I guess I'm a little different from you. I support the Bush Administration's decision not to kill Faris without due process. (In fact, because of due process, Faris will likely live quite some time in prison.) I will issue a blanket statement that I think it is wrong for the US government to kill US citizens on US soil without due process unless that person is an imminent threat to the life of others. (I find a little support for my position in the 14th Amendment.) Reasonable people can disagree on whether the judicial system or military tribunals are appropriate for people like Faris, but summary executions without due process, I believe, are unreasonable.
I guess actively plotting the destruction of the brooklyn bridge would be considered by most folks using that bridge as "an imminent threat". And if the threat becomes reality, the unhappy folks on the bridge are just as dead whether Feris is a US citizen or not. Do you actually believe as a victim, you would derive comfort as you plunged into NY harbor or wherever from the knowledge that the guy responsible for sending you there was a US citizen?
Faris plead guilty and told the court what he had done. He was not convicted. I guess Faris is ready to add perjury to his list of crimes.
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.