Mad Cow Scare

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

Of course, President Bush is to blame!

Howlin' Mad Howie

Oh yeah, and now Mr. Flexible Straight-Talk has reversed course (again) and is in complete agreement with the American public in thinking that Osama should get the death penalty. Whew! You've got to admit -- that stubborn streak of his in sticking to his guns on everything he says no matter how idiotic is hardly presidential material. Howie, take a clue from clinton and run a poll before you speak!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i agree logger...some politicians should check w/ others before they run their mouths, and HD is one of them.

i'm beginning to see a pattern here w/ the dems...

say it w/ me: "all bad things are bush's fault, all good things are someone else's fault".

has bush been blamed for the earthquake in iran yet? don't you all think that all that bombing of nearby iraq probably caused heretofore dormant faults in neighboring countries to activate and 'quake'?

ct

[Tiger Al 0]

Of course, President Bush is to blame!

Howlin' Mad Howie

Oh yeah, and now Mr. Flexible Straight-Talk has reversed course (again) and is in complete agreement with the American public in thinking that Osama should get the death penalty. Whew! You've got to admit -- that stubborn streak of his in sticking to his guns on everything he says no matter how idiotic is hardly presidential material. Howie, take a clue from clinton and run a poll before you speak!

You said Osama but did you mean Saddam??? I've never seen a Dean statement regarding the death penalty for bin Laden one way or the other, but Dean has always supported going into Afghanistan to get bin Laden.

[Donutboy 0]

I'm not a Dean supporter but there is one thing that puzzles me. If Dean is the man Republicans most want to face in 2004, as you ALL claim, why do you constantly attack him? It'd seem you'd want to try and keep him as the Democratic front-runner instead of trying to constantly bring him down. Maybe I'm missing something here.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Because he's the front runner now. If someone else rises to the top of the heap, he or she will then be the focus of most of the slams. Just prior to Clark tossing his hat into the ring, when all the buzz was about him, there was a lot of stuff being thrown around about him. Since he hasn't taken off like everyone thought he would, it's subsided a good bit.

Nature of the game, folks.

[Tiger Al 0]

I tend to call it...Fear the Dean!!!

[rexbo 104]

You said Osama but did you mean Saddam??? I've never seen a Dean statement regarding the death penalty for bin Laden one way or the other, but Dean has always supported going into Afghanistan to get bin Laden.

Then you haven't been visiting this board often enough or reading the news...

I posted this article the other day...

Dean not ready, to admit Osama's guilt!?

[Tiger Al 0]

You said Osama but did you mean Saddam??? I've never seen a Dean statement regarding the death penalty for bin Laden one way or the other, but Dean has always supported going into Afghanistan to get bin Laden.

Then you haven't been visiting this board often enough or reading the news...

I posted this article the other day...

Dean not ready, to admit Osama's guilt!?

I KNEW there was a reason I ignored this the first time around. I understand perfectly what he's saying. Non-issue!!!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I tend to call it...Fear the Dean!!!

You also tend to be wrong.

Mark my words, if Gephardt, Clark, or someone else gets some momentum from a better than expected showing in Iowa and starts cutting into Dean's lead in the polls elsewhere (or overtakes him), the negative buzz folks will drop Dean like a used tissue and direct their energies elsewhere.

It's no different than how the Dems handled things in 2000. They barely spent any energy going after McCain or the other Republican candidates because Bush was deemed to be the favorite for the nomination and was leading in the polls.

[rexbo 104]

I KNEW there was a reason I ignored this the first time around. I understand perfectly what he's saying. Non-issue!!!

Believing Osama deserves a jury trial, with innocent presumed until proven guilty in a court of law is not a non-issue, at least not for me. There are enemies of this country that do not have the same rights as you and I if we commit a crime. Osama is an enemy of this country, and does not hold the same rights as everyday American citizens. A man who wants to be President and Commander in Chief does not understand this, and this is the problem; the US will be in severe, horrible danger if this man is in charge of our Armed Forces.

[Ranger12 46]

I'm not a Dean supporter but there is one thing that puzzles me. If Dean is the man Republicans most want to face in 2004, as you ALL claim, why do you constantly attack him? It'd seem you'd want to try and keep him as the Democratic front-runner instead of trying to constantly bring him down. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Because he makes it so easy! Also the fact that he is the frontrunner. Think about it Donutboy, it seems he is the only one you hear about anymore. The thing is, we don't even have to make up jokes about him, he does that for us. I don't care he gets the democratic nod, because none of them are going to beat Bush. That is not a biased opinion, that is an honest opinion. I have no fears or doubts about this election as I have had in the past elections. I think the democrats just keep shooting themselves in the foot with their desperation to win and how they are going at each other. The democratic party is not unified, it is divided and every man/woman for himself right now. Look at one their most prominent members-Hilary Clinton. She is the most self-serving of them all, but yet alot of democrats are talking about her for 2008. Why would they be doing that if they thought their party's nominee could win in 2004?

[Tiger Al 0]

Believing Osama deserves a jury trial, with innocent presumed until proven guilty in a court of law is not a non-issue, at least not for me.  There are enemies of this country that do not have the same rights as you and I if we commit a crime.  Osama is an enemy of this country, and does not hold the same rights as everyday American citizens.  A man who wants to be President and Commander in Chief does not understand this, and this is the problem; the US will be in severe, horrible danger if this man is in charge of our Armed Forces.

We're talking about a couple of things here. First, what Dean said is that as an American, an average Joe, he feels that bin Laden deserves to get the most severe punishment he can: Death...BUT, as a presidential candidate who believes he will one day be president, he does not have the luxury of openly expressing that opinion like you or I do. Bush seems to feel this way too as evidenced by his subdued reaction to Saddam's capture. I'm sure that in private he was high-fiving everyone, but publicly he can't do that. It would be improper.

I find it interesting that you'd think that by permitting a defendant to have due process under the law that that would endanger the US. This is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the constitution and observed everyday in America. By wanting to deny due process, it seems to me that you're saying that the American way is flawed.

[Guest AuNuma1]

Damn those vast right wing conspiracies :roll:

[rexbo 104]

This is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the constitution and observed everyday in America. By wanting to deny due process, it seems to me that you're saying that the American way is flawed.

The US Consititution only applies to American citizens and those living peacefully and legally within our borders; it does not apply to Osama, or Hitler or Saddam or anyone else that is an avowed enemy of the US and in the sights of the American military. If everyone had the right to due process, before every bomb was dropped, or gun was fired, then a jury trail would have to be held. There is a time and place for due process and there is a time to take the fight to the enemy. From Dean's statements, I don't think he has the guts or the experience or the balls to take the fight to the enemy.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I find it interesting that you'd think that by permitting a defendant to have due process under the law that that would endanger the US. This is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by the constitution and observed everyday in America. By wanting to deny due process, it seems to me that you're saying that the American way is flawed.

Most of us have no problem with permitting a defendent due process under law - IF THEY ARE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. That is the U.S. Constitution which guarantees that right to US CITIZENS, which he is NOT. He is an enemy of the State. Therefor, in my mind, he has NO rights whatsoever under our Consitution and judicial system.

And due process? What a laugh. Citizens of 33 countries (?? not sure of exact number) were killed on 9-11. Where in the world could he get an impartial jury? Who would legitimately represent him? And what court in the world is sufficient to adjudicate his crimes? The Hague? HA!! I only hope he will take Hitler's way out and kill himself as we close in, thereby doing the world a favor. That would include "death by soldier" - meaning standing up and letting some sniper take him out. Hopefully with a gut shot. In the sun. A LOOOOOOOONG way from a medical facility.

[Tiger Al 0]

The US Consititution only applies to American citizens and those living peacefully and legally within our borders; it does not apply to Osama, or Hitler or Saddam or anyone else that is an avowed enemy of the US and in the sights of the American military.

Maybe, maybe not, but since he comitted his crime in New York that may be where he's tried. If so, I'd think the laws of that state would apply. Maybe not.

However, when we helped set up the ICC in The Hague, don't you think we tried to color it with as much of our ideology as we could?

But, again I ask you, do you think that the constitutionally protected right to due process is a flawed protection of a flawed right or is it a pretty good idea?

If everyone had the right to due process, before every bomb was dropped, or gun was fired, then a jury trail would have to be held.

This makes no sense.

From Dean's statements, I don't think he has the guts or the experience or the balls to take the fight to the enemy.

Dean has the same qualifications as Bush did when he took office.

[rexbo 104]

But, again I ask you, do you think that the constitutionally protected right to due process is a flawed protection of a flawed right or is it a pretty good idea?

Of course I believe it is a good idea; if you rob a bank, or murder your pregnant wife. It has to do with fundamental rights, and when you can lose them. For American citizens and legal imigrants, you cannot lose your rights until you have been found guilty in a court of law, and punishment in the form of losing certain rights is administered against you. But, if you lead a world wide terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands with the goal of overthrowing Western civilization you do not have the same rights as say Scott Peterson. This is where I disagree fundamentally with Dean, his statement seems to give Osama the same legal rights that you and I have as American citizens, or any other world citizen living in a free society. Osama's status is an enemy combatant, not an alleged criminal.

Due process is the fundamental principle of a just society, and need I remind you, it is something the people in Iraq finally have now.

Dean has the same qualifications as Bush did when he took office.

My criticism of Dean is not based on his resume 'qualifications', it is his personal stands, statements and beliefs. I have heard nothing from him that makes me believe he will fight and defeat the terrorists that are trying to kill us.

[Tiger Al 0]

Of course I believe it is a good idea; if you rob a bank, or murder your pregnant wife.  It has to do with fundamental rights, and when you can lose them.  For American citizens and legal imigrants, you cannot lose your rights until you have been found guilty in a court of law, and punishment in the form of losing certain rights is administered against you.  But, if you lead a world wide terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands with the goal of overthrowing Western civilization you do not have the same rights as say Scott Peterson.  This is where I disagree fundamentally with Dean, his statement seems to give Osama the same legal rights that you and I have as American citizens, or any other world citizen living in a free society.  Osama's status is an enemy combatant, not an alleged criminal.

Due process is the fundamental principle of a just society, and need I remind you, it is something the people in Iraq finally have now.

My criticism of Dean is not based on his resume 'qualifications', it is his personal stands, statements and beliefs.  I have heard nothing from him that makes me believe he will fight and defeat the terrorists that are trying to kill us.

Whether he's called an enemy combatant, POW or just plain defendant in a criminal trial he still has rights, one of which is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which is what Dean was saying. Unless you're implying that if and when he's caught he won't/shouldn't be brought to trial. I think the American people would like to see him found guilty of a whole range of crimes and then punished, probably by death.

Word right now is that enemy combatants, if charged with a crime, will be tried by a military commission that afford the accused many legal protections.

Some have questioned whether these military commissions will uphold the right to a fair trial. The unequivocal answer is yes. As it seems that the extensive safeguards we have taken to protect the right to a fair trial in the case of military commissions are not well known, let me outline them for you.

The military commissions will be impartial. They will provide full and fair trials. Any guilty findings in a military commission will follow the established standard of all United States courts - guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally there are other legal protections for the accused, including:

-- The presumption of innocence;

-- Representation by defense counsel, at no cost to the accused;

-- The death penalty can only be imposed by unanimous decision of a 7-member panel;

-- Review by an impartial, 3-member panel (possibly including civilians who are temporarily commissioned);

-- The accused is not required to testify, and no adverse inference may be drawn from a refusal to testify;

-- The accused may present evidence in his defense and may cross-examine witnesses presented by the prosecution;

-- Proceedings will be open to the public "to the maximum extent practicable" (but they can be closed to protect national security and other interests);

-- At all times, including in any closed proceedings, the accused will be represented by counsel;

-- The prosecution will provide the accused with access to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce at trial and with access to evidence known to the prosecution that is inconsistent with the alleged guilt of the accused; and,

-- The review panel has the authority to return the case for further proceedings if a majority of its members have a definite and firm conviction that a material error of law occurred.

LINK

Too many people in post-9/11 America seem to want to lose sight of what America stands for and what makes it great. The measure of our greatness doesn't come by how we act in times of prosperity, it comes when our ideals and principles emerge intact during times of crisis. America is a country founded on the rule of law, not blind emotion. Without the rule of law to protect the inalienable rights of man, America is just another two-bit country that is really no better than those we claim to be liberating.

In order for us to set the example for the rest of the world to follow, that means we have to BE the example, even when it's difficult. That means when Saddam is tried it must be as fair and impartial as it can be. That means that when bin Laden is tried it must be as fair and impartial as it can be. These are imperatives to the "American Way" that must be upheld if we're to convince other countries that our form of government is the paradigm to which they should aspire. That won't work if we say one thing and then do another, even in international matters.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

... I only hope he will take Hitler's way out and kill himself as we close in, thereby doing the world a favor. That would include "death by soldier" - meaning standing up and letting some sniper take him out. Hopefully with a gut shot. In the sun. A LOOOOOOOONG way from a medical facility.

Dang, Jenny! An admirable thought, btw.

I don't care how he meets his end, with or without a trial. The world has no need for him or his minions or their uncivilized beliefs that it's perfectly proper for young people of their faith to strap bombs to themselves & blow up 'infidels' or fly airliners into buildlings or whatever. Please. The sooner his sorry carcass is vaporized by (American) high explosives, the better off the world will be. My choice -- MOAB.

[Donutboy 0]

I tend to call it...Fear the Dean!!!

You also tend to be wrong.

Mark my words, if Gephardt, Clark, or someone else gets some momentum from a better than expected showing in Iowa and starts cutting into Dean's lead in the polls elsewhere (or overtakes him), the negative buzz folks will drop Dean like a used tissue and direct their energies elsewhere.

It's no different than how the Dems handled things in 2000. They barely spent any energy going after McCain or the other Republican candidates because Bush was deemed to be the favorite for the nomination and was leading in the polls.

Actually, I was a fan of John McCain's in 2000 and still am today. McCain is a leader, not a politician. If the election in 2000 had been between Al Gore and John McCain, I'd have voted for McCain. I voted for Gore in 2000 because I considered him the lesser of two evils. I never was enthused about him and I'm still not today. I still support Senator McCain and think he'd make a great Republican president in the mold of Richard Nixon, except without the scandals.

[Donutboy 0]

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials. So I'm sure that is the correct sentiment of most Americans, but I do think if you're running for president, or if you are president, it's best to say that the full range of penalties should be available. But it's not so great to prejudge the judicial system."

In defense of Dean.....

I read the original article and never saw where Dean said he didn't favor the death penalty for bin Laden. What I read was that he thinks we should afford him the same justice we afford everyone, a fair trial, before setting sentence on him. He also stated that we should consider the entire range of punishments available if he is found guilty, which would include the death penalty. Not once did he say that we should give him a lesser sentence than death.

[rexbo 104]

What I read was that he thinks we should afford him the same justice we afford everyone, a fair trial, before setting sentence on him.

This is where everyone is missing my point, I mean the liberals. Even Donutboy in his statement above. You cannot say we will give him "...a fair trial, before setting sentence on him." That is a contradiction, you cannot assume you are even going to sentence him, otherwise it wasn't fair. If you are going to give someone a 'fair trial' that means you can only go into it with a PRESUMPTION of innocence, and a set of jurors that are not BIASED in anyway. That is IMPOSSIBLE with Osama. He cannot get, nor does he deserve a fair, impartial jury trial like you and I would get for robbing a bank.

I am not saying he shouldn't be put before a court of law somewhere before he is sentenced, but let's drop the charade that he is going to get a 'fair trial' and that he goes into it with all the the same rights that an American citizen does when they face a criminal trial, as Dean was implying.

BTW, what does this have to do with the Mad Cow Scare, I think we have hijacked another thread...

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

BTW, what does this have to do with the Mad Cow Scare, I think we have hijacked another thread...

My initial post contained two topics: Howie's take on the Mad Cow Scare & his reversal of his previous position on OBL where he wouldn't advocate the death penalty. Since I started the thread, I'm going to claim any more discussion of what happens to OBL to be a a non-hijack event (aka NHE.)

Btw, I read an article about OBL soon after SH was captured. They said he won't be taken alive like SH. He apparently has the support of local tribesmen on the Afghan/Pakistan border. Also, it seems that his entourage has started the habit of sowing mines around wherever his temporary hangout is. Sorry, I don't have a link. It's just something I remember reading but didn't bother to bookmark.