Posted on 05/07/2006 6:17:09 AM PDT by xjcsa
bttt
Thanks for the ping! Steyn coins at least one new word per article, and "Oprahfonic" justice system is winner!
You forgot the pork entrails.
We better re-read it and NOT forget it.
"On the afternoon of Sept. 11, as the Pentagon still burned, Donald Rumsfeld told the president, "This is not a criminal action. This is war.
That's still the distinction that matters. By contrast, after the 2005 London bombings, Boris Johnson, the Conservative member of Parliament, wrote a piece headlined "Just Don't Call It War." Johnson objected to the language of "war, whether military or cultural . . . Last week's bombs were placed not by martyrs nor by soldiers, but by criminals."
Sorry, but that's the way to lose. A narrowly focused "criminal" approach means entrusting the whole business to the state bureaucracy. The obvious problem with that is that it's mostly reactive: blow somewhere up, we'll seal it off, and detectives will investigate it as a crime scene, and we'll arrest someone, and give him legal representation, and five years later when the bombing's faded into memory we'll bring him to trial, and maybe conviction, and appeal of the conviction, and all the rest."
In the meantime thousands, millions can die, because in criminal prosecution you only try them AFTER they already committed their horrendous acts.
I have served on many juries in many different states. I've moved around a lot, and I always get picked for juries, for some reason.
From my experience, I can tell you that the most important thing to have on a jury is a natural leader. Most female people are so Opraphied they can't think rationally, and juries often tend to be heavily female. Blacks on the jury often have very negative attitudes towards the entire judicial system; Hispanics vary, but the women among them are often charismatics who believe that "God says we shouldn't judge anybody." I once heard a judge tell a jury that they weren't sentencing someone to Hell; they were just deciding whether or not he had done the crime.
This is the important thing. Most juries do not impose the sentence and are only there to decide whether the accused is guilty (that is, has committed the crime) or not. If you are going to be a leader on a jury, you have to focus on the basic issue: did he do it or not?
All of the juries I have served on have reached a verdict, generally but not always finding the defendant guilty of the main charge, often finding him not guilty on other charges - which are backup charges that are harder to prove - but it only happened because there was somebody on the jury who could list the charges, list the evidence, explain the charges and ask the judge for clarification if necessary, and focus on the primary question.
Jurors go into a case thinking that it is their duty to say whether the person is a "good" person or a "bad" person and to determine the punishment. It is up to them to decide only whether the person did the crime, and in most cases, the penalty phase is outside of their scope.
"Maybe he's suggesting we model "terror justice" after Franco's military tribunals which followed the Spanish Civil War? What?"
You need to read up on military tribunals and US history.
I don't believe I do.
But, Franco's military tribunals were far more efficient than Lincoln's or FDR's. Less time between the bench and the firing squad (or garrote). :-)
I suspect he might wish to do something very close to that. Steyn could easily make the case for doing so, and incisively so.
But, there are thorns on that bramble bush, I think.
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was held for three years as an "enemy combatant" in a military prison before charges were finally brought against him. To my mind, the justification was sound enough. The government wanted whatever information he could provide about an imminently ongoing conspiracy to do terrorism within the country. Bringing charges would have entitled him to a lawyer, and any mediocre lawyer would tell him, "keep your mouth shut."
Still, he is an American citizen and he, like John Walker Lindh, were entitled to their rights as American citizens. For me, that's a presumption of fact.
Moussaoui, on the other hand, is not an American citizen. Because he never hid his ill intent toward us, I would feel no sympathy for the deliberate omission of respecting his civil rights. Quite the opposite.
What I would like to see from Steyn, and I suppose from the rest of us, including me, is some clarity about distinctions. I.e., who exactly would be subject to these military tribunals or their substitute forms? If it is me, potentially, I'm absolutely against them. If the "persons of interest" are non-citizens, I'm a bit more open to it -- with some cause for alarm still attached.
You are correct, this is NOT a war.
Concerning the 9/11 sneak attack, 15 of the 19 enemy soldiers came from SAUDI ARABIA.
The other 4 enemy soldiers came from EGYPT.
If this were a real WAR, we would have put the shock and awe first to Saudi Arabia, then Egypt....not IRAQ!!!
The Republicrat/Demican ELITES think the whole of America is too stupid to recognize real war...unfortunately, they are right/
" The disturbing thing about our present judicial system is the dearth of jurors with analytical thinking skills."
I am not disturbed or the least bit surprised...the real issue is the dearth of Americans with analytical thinking skills. Perhaps it is a result of the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM focusing on feel good, self-esteem building, multi-cultural diversity is our strength rather than mathematics, science, formal logic and REAL AMERICAN HISTORY!
Home school your precious loved ones unless you want them to also lack "analytical thinking skills."
Once Jihad Jihnny Lindh was not only spared from summary execution as a traitor, but was referred to as a "confused young man" or somesuch by our President, it's hard to make the case that anyone else should be executed.
Both Lindh and Moussaoui violated basic laws of war and have no rights under the Geneva Convention.
Since we're not interested in properly punishing terrorists or traitors (i.e. summary executions), there is no reason for anyone out there to play by the normal rules of war. We're still not serious about fighting terrorism.
"Concerning the 9/11 sneak attack, 15 of the 19 enemy soldiers came from SAUDI ARABIA.
The other 4 enemy soldiers came from EGYPT."
===
BUT THOSE COUNTRIES DID NOT SEND THEM.
Iran and Iraq are the state sponsors of terrorism.
Correction:
"Iran and Iraq WERE the state sponsors of terrorism."
Iraq isn't anymore, but Iran still is.
I just love Mark Steyn.
You are right, Mecca and Medina (both in Saudi) sent them!
Besides, link me up with the FACTs on your statement.
Thanks for posting it.
You mean you don't believe that Iraq (under Saddam) and Iran ARE sponsoring terrorism? There are huge amounts of info on that out there.
You mock others' analytical thinking and yet you are unaware that we are at war and that Al Qaeda was originally formed to overthrow the Saudi government.
Rave on.
There are huge amounts of info on that out there
Then you should have no problem linking me up with the FACTS, right?
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.