Posted on 05/28/2007 9:39:59 PM PDT by TBP
Are you really as dense as you pretend to be, or do you just have about the same relationship with teh truth that the Klintoons do?
You write, “So a Muslim zealot raping or beheading a Christian girl is not hate crime but just like any other ordinary rape or murder and nothing more?” To which I responded, “Stop trying to put words in my mouth. That is an act of terrorism. Besides, if you commit murder, as in your example, you’re going to be punished very harshly, whether or not we decide to deem it a ‘hate crime.’”
So what do you do? You twist my words again, first denying that your question was “trying to put words in my mouth” when in fact you present it as some sort of logical extension of what I said, even though you know very well that I said nothing of the kind. It’s sad that you have to resort to such tactics. I thought the Indian Embassy and RAW trained their operatives better than that.
Being part of a terrorist organization or a terrorist campaign is a separate offense. If someone is doing what tehy’re doing as part of a terrorist organization, then charge that offense too and punish the person for it. Otherwise, you get a Scooter Libby-type situation, where he is being punished for an act that he didn’t commit rather than the one for which he was convicted (wrongly, IMO.)
But “hate crime” laws claim that they can impute motivation in every instance, which we clearly can’t. And they seek to punih based not on the act, but on what the person is believed to be thinking when committing the act. Do you not see the danger of such a power in the hands of, say, a Klintoon regime? We know that they are totalitarians at heart and have zero tolerance for the rights of their political opponents. Never give your friends a power you wouldn’t let your enemies have.
And as oyu know, I was using the Byrd case as an example of how silly the “hate crimes” people can be and how they politicize the agenda. Here were defendants who were already receiving the maximum — death — and the “hate crimes” lobby was furious because the case was not prosecuted as a hate crime. Well, as I said, what more did they want? We should dig them up and kill them again?
Whether you deem it a hate crime or not, the victim is just as dead.
But they got what they wanted out of it — a campaign ad. That is all these people really care about anyway.
And since you write that “some murders are pardonable” I’d like to ask you when and which ones? Please expound on when you think murder is OK, or at least tolerable. Is it when your firends are killign minorities? That’s OK with you? The Indian police officer who murdered a three-year-old boy, claiming he was a terrorist, has never been punished. But I guess that is because “some murders are pardonable” in your world.
But we’re not talking about murder in this case, or anythign close to it. We are talking about an assault by one kid on another kid. While I believe he should be punished as strongly as the law allows, to deem it a hate crime and prosecute it as such is simply to punish the thought behind the crime instea of (or in addition to) the crime itself. Free societies can’t be in the business of punishing thought.
The good news, however, is seeing these bad lwas turned on a Muslim kid. Since the liberals are so in love with the jihadists, perhaps that is what it will take to awaken them to the ridiculousness and unfairness of ‘thought police” laws. It was the Klintoon impeachment, after all, that finally awakened the libs to the evils of teh Independent Counsel law.
Are you really as dense as you pretend to be, or do you just have about the same relationship with teh truth that the Klintoons do?
You write, “So a Muslim zealot raping or beheading a Christian girl is not hate crime but just like any other ordinary rape or murder and nothing more?” To which I responded, “Stop trying to put words in my mouth. That is an act of terrorism. Besides, if you commit murder, as in your example, you’re going to be punished very harshly, whether or not we decide to deem it a ‘hate crime.’”
So what do you do? You twist my words again, first denying that your question was “trying to put words in my mouth” when in fact you present it as some sort of logical extension of what I said, even though you know very well that I said nothing of the kind. It’s sad that you have to resort to such tactics. I thought the Indian Embassy and RAW trained their operatives better than that.
Being part of a terrorist organization or a terrorist campaign is a separate offense. If someone is doing what tehy’re doing as part of a terrorist organization, then charge that offense too and punish the person for it. Otherwise, you get a Scooter Libby-type situation, where he is being punished for an act that he didn’t commit rather than the one for which he was convicted (wrongly, IMO.)
But “hate crime” laws claim that they can impute motivation in every instance, which we clearly can’t. And they seek to punih based not on the act, but on what the person is believed to be thinking when committing the act. Do you not see the danger of such a power in the hands of, say, a Klintoon regime? We know that they are totalitarians at heart and have zero tolerance for the rights of their political opponents. Never give your friends a power you wouldn’t let your enemies have.
And as oyu know, I was using the Byrd case as an example of how silly the “hate crimes” people can be and how they politicize the agenda. Here were defendants who were already receiving the maximum — death — and the “hate crimes” lobby was furious because the case was not prosecuted as a hate crime. Well, as I said, what more did they want? We should dig them up and kill them again?
Whether you deem it a hate crime or not, the victim is just as dead.
But they got what they wanted out of it — a campaign ad. That is all these people really care about anyway.
And since you write that “some murders are pardonable” I’d like to ask you when and which ones? Please expound on when you think murder is OK, or at least tolerable. Is it when your firends are killign minorities? That’s OK with you? The Indian police officer who murdered a three-year-old boy, claiming he was a terrorist, has never been punished. But I guess that is because “some murders are pardonable” in your world.
But we’re not talking about murder in this case, or anythign close to it. We are talking about an assault by one kid on another kid. While I believe he should be punished as strongly as the law allows, to deem it a hate crime and prosecute it as such is simply to punish the thought behind the crime instea of (or in addition to) the crime itself. Free societies can’t be in the business of punishing thought.
The good news, however, is seeing these bad lwas turned on a Muslim kid. Since the liberals are so in love with the jihadists, perhaps that is what it will take to awaken them to the ridiculousness and unfairness of “thought police” laws. It was the Klintoon impeachment, after all, that finally awakened the libs to the evils of teh Independent Counsel law.
Not at all. I stand by what I said. These race-baiters use “hate crime” laws to suppress anyone they don’t like.
Given your views on the repression in India, I can see why you’d think that is a “straw man.” You’re prefectly fine with that kind of suppression.
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.