Bush then Obama still refuse to follow the law

[JackLuis]

"The U.S. is Now a Police State "

I's Official!
The Government can off you for being suspicious. No trial, no judge, no jury, just bang, bang, bang and the Government puts another notch in their gun.

 

[Boxlicker101]

"The U.S. is Now a Police State "

I's Official!
The Government can off you for being suspicious. No trial, no judge, no jury, just bang, bang, bang and the Government puts another notch in their gun.

They have always killed suspects without a trial. John Dillinger, for instance, was gunned down from ambush. He had been convicted of armed robbery years earlier, served his time and been released, and was a suspected of transporting a stolen car across a state line, but had never been convicted of any federal offense. Nevertheless, the FBI was waiting for him outside a movie theater in Chicago and rubbed him out.

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrows were much the same. She had never been convicted of anything, and he was wanted for a parole violation when US marshalls ambushed their car on a country road and gunned them down. There were others, but those were probably the two best known examples.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It's ten o'clock at night...there is a pounding on your front door...two seconds later it's kicked in as a dozen men dressed in black, faces covered, swarm in tackling you to the floor. You spouse is pulled from bed and dragged down the stairs and thrown to the ground to lie beside you. You children are woken and herded downstairs screaming and crying. A bright light is directed into your eyes...

"Are you Appleby?" a voice shouts out of the darkness.

"No," you tell them.

"Take them away," the voice says.

You're are dragged out of your house and thrown into the back of a black van. Black bags are placed over your heads.

* * *

"We got the wrong people, Chief."

"I don't care they were up to something. There was a list of sites on their computer associated with groups who support terrorist activities. We'll make a case don't worry. Ship them off to Gitmo, we'll sort it out later."

 

[rgraham666]

Most people were fine with this right up to the point that it was their pricks in the meat grinder.

 

[JackLuis]

Most people were fine with this right up to the point that it was their pricks in the meat grinder.

That is the reason for the rule of law, so there is no meat grinder to get your dick into.

If Obama is a lawyer, why can't he see this?

 

[rgraham666]

Because the law and ethics are often two different things.

 

[JackLuis]

Because the law and ethics are often two different things.

Are you saying that he is ignoring the founding principles, because he is too ethical?

Or, did you mean that he was just another political Hack out to make his fortune and retire to the rubber chicken, and book signing circuit?

 

[DeeZire]

I think it depends on the context. This article appears to be written by a person with an anti-government agenda. The article is based on this quote from an Obama administration official:

the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat.

In one scenario - a suicide bomber on a parade route, waiting for the President to pass - would you want a US government official to have to wait for a court order before stopping the suicide bomber from killing the president, and hundreds of other people? By the time that process was completed, it would be too late.

I'm sure the context of the quote would have helped to explain the parameters under which "killing an American citizen" would be acceptable, but the context is missing, which is typical of Right Wing Spin Machine propaganda. I'm sure that won't stop the haters around here from jumping on yet another dead end band wagon.

 

[Liar]

In one scenario - a suicide bomber on a parade route, waiting for the President to pass - would you want a US government official to have to wait for a court order before stopping the suicide bomber from killing the president, and hundreds of other people? By the time that process was completed, it would be too late.

Under what circumstances can cops use lethal force? That's killing Americasn citizens on the sole basis of them being an imminent threat, innit?

Question is really: what defines imminent? Your scenario sounds imminent enough to me.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Consider also the possibility of another 9/11 hijacking. A planeload of U.S. citizens is in a plane aiming to be flown into a packed colosseum watching the Super Bowl. The president orders the plane blown out of the air. That happens to be the current standing order on how to deal with hijacked aircraft. Now, from the stands, whose dick is in the meat grinder?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think it depends on the context. This article appears to be written by a person with an anti-government agenda. The article is based on this quote from an Obama administration official:

Quote:
the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat.

In one scenario - a suicide bomber on a parade route, waiting for the President to pass - would you want a US government official to have to wait for a court order before stopping the suicide bomber from killing the president, and hundreds of other people? By the time that process was completed, it would be too late.

I'm sure the context of the quote would have helped to explain the parameters under which "killing an American citizen" would be acceptable, but the context is missing, which is typical of Right Wing Spin Machine propaganda. I'm sure that won't stop the haters around here from jumping on yet another dead end band wagon.

The writer of the article has a strong anti-government agenda, but he mostly rails against the Bush administration. (regime) There are also some uncomplimentary comments that could be considered to be against Clinton and others.

I very much doubt the quote is accurate, unless it was taken out of context. No government official would ever use the term "murder" in that way, although they might refer to killing or use some euphemism.

The police and other government agencies have killed thousands of persons without trial. I mentioned three well-know examples, but there are many more suspects who refused to surrender, or were not given a chance to do so or were seen as a threat to the police. That is not meant as a complaint, because most such killings were justified. You will note, I said "most" not "all."

 

[JackLuis]

The writer of the article has a strong anti-government agenda, -- but there are many more suspects who refused to surrender, or were not given a chance to do so or were seen as a threat to the police. That is not meant as a complaint, because most such killings were justified. You will note, I said "most" not "all."

Is it an anti-government position that our Government follow the fucking law?

A government that makes up it's own rules is merely a Mob.

I'm not against killing, if it is justified, Dillinger shot at the cops, Bonnie didn't get off a round as far as I know, after all the posse had at least two BAR's and several Remington autoloaders. Justifiably so in that case.

But arresting and holding anyone without just cause is evil. Bush &Co got sold a lot of loose bodies by the Warlords. Seven years for being in Afghanistan without a protector is a little stiff.

The woman in the article was abducted, imprisoned and held in spite of the Government not having a reason to hold her, except embarrassment?

If the Government is right, let them prove it, and legal procedure is the way to do that. If the Government can't make a prima faca case in 72 hours, then fuck'em.

Following the law is what the Government is supposed to do, isn't it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Is it an anti-government position that our Government follow the fucking law?

A government that makes up it's own rules is merely a Mob.

I'm not against killing, if it is justified, Dillinger shot at the cops, Bonnie didn't get off a round as far as I know, after all the posse had at least two BAR's and several Remington autoloaders. Justifiably so in that case.

But arresting and holding anyone without just cause is evil. Bush &Co got sold a lot of loose bodies by the Warlords. Seven years for being in Afghanistan without a protector is a little stiff.

The woman in the article was abducted, imprisoned and held in spite of the Government not having a reason to hold her, except embarrassment?

If the Government is right, let them prove it, and legal procedure is the way to do that. If the Government can't make a prima faca case in 72 hours, then fuck'em.

Following the law is what the Government is supposed to do, isn't it?

Knowing their agenda, do you really believe completely and unequivocably everything the writers said in that article? I spotted untruths about the Black Panthers, but that is a subject I know some things about.

 

[R. Richard]

From Wiki:
Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Brandeis alumna.[2] She is accused of being an al-Qaeda member, and in February 2010 was convicted of assaulting with a deadly weapon and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents who were seeking to interrogate her while she was in custody.[2]

She disappeared in March 2003, following the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, alleged chief planner of the September 11 attacks and the uncle of her second husband, and the issuance by the FBI of a global "wanted for questioning" alert for her. In 2004 U.N. investigators identified her as an alleged al-Qaeda figure. The FBI listed her in May 2004 as being one of the seven "most wanted" al-Qaeda fugitives, and said she was a "terrorist facilitator".

She resurfaced when she was arrested July 17, 2008, by the Afghanistan National Police. The following day, when U.S. military personnel arrived at the Afghan facility meeting-room where she was being held, she allegedly came out from behind a curtain, picked up an M-4 assault rifle at the feet of one of the soldiers, and fired at least two shots at them, missing them. An officer returned fire, hitting her in the torso, and she was subdued.

Siddiqui was charged with attempted murder, armed assault, using and carrying a firearm, and assault on U.S. officers and employees.[3][2] She was convicted on February 3, 2010, in a Manhattan court of all charges but premeditated attempted murder, and faces a minimum sentence of 30 years in prison on the firearm charge, and could also get up to 20 years for attempted murder and up to 8 years on the remaining counts when she is sentenced on May 6, 2010.

 

[Boxlicker101]

From Wiki:
Aafia Siddiqui (born March 2, 1972, in Karachi, Pakistan) is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Brandeis alumna.[2] She is accused of being an al-Qaeda member, and in February 2010 was convicted of assaulting with a deadly weapon and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents who were seeking to interrogate her while she was in custody.[2]

She disappeared in March 2003, following the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, alleged chief planner of the September 11 attacks and the uncle of her second husband, and the issuance by the FBI of a global "wanted for questioning" alert for her. In 2004 U.N. investigators identified her as an alleged al-Qaeda figure. The FBI listed her in May 2004 as being one of the seven "most wanted" al-Qaeda fugitives, and said she was a "terrorist facilitator".

She resurfaced when she was arrested July 17, 2008, by the Afghanistan National Police. The following day, when U.S. military personnel arrived at the Afghan facility meeting-room where she was being held, she allegedly came out from behind a curtain, picked up an M-4 assault rifle at the feet of one of the soldiers, and fired at least two shots at them, missing them. An officer returned fire, hitting her in the torso, and she was subdued.

Siddiqui was charged with attempted murder, armed assault, using and carrying a firearm, and assault on U.S. officers and employees.[3][2] She was convicted on February 3, 2010, in a Manhattan court of all charges but premeditated attempted murder, and faces a minimum sentence of 30 years in prison on the firearm charge, and could also get up to 20 years for attempted murder and up to 8 years on the remaining counts when she is sentenced on May 6, 2010.

There are considerable differences between Wiki and what it says in the article. The former is not always accurate but, after seeing untruths and apparent omissions in the article, I would be inclined to believe Wiki before I believed the writer of the article.

 

[R. Richard]

From the New York Daily News:
'Lady Al Qaeda' Aafia Siddiqui convicted of attempted murder
BY Alison Gendar
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Originally Published:Wednesday, February 3rd 2010, 2:28 PM
Updated: Wednesday, February 3rd 2010, 4:10 PM

"This is a verdict coming from Israel not America," Aafia Siddiqui exclaimed after hearing the conviction. Related NewsArticles

"She lied and lied and lied": Prosecutors brand 'Lady Al Qaeda' a liar in closing argumentsThe woman dubbed "Lady Al Qaeda" was convicted Wednesday of shooting at Americans in Afghanistan, and she reacted with yet another bizarre rant.

"This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America," Aafia Siddiqui exclaimed, raising one hand and pointing up before being led out of the Manhattan courtroom.

"That's where the anger belongs. I can testify to this. And I have proof."

The defense said it hopes to appeal the conviction on the grounds that Siddiqui, 37, was too crazy to stand trial.

The federal jury of eight women and four men deliberated two days before finding the MIT-trained neuroscientist guilty on all counts.

Siddiqui faces life in prison when she's sentenced May 6 for attempted murder, weapons possession and other crimes.

Siddiqui was arrested in 2008 after being caught in Afghanistan with 2 pounds of poisonous chemicals, bomb-making instructions and a list of New York landmarks.

She grabbed a rifle at an Afghan police station and started shooting at the Americans sent to grill her. She was shot by the soldier whose weapon she swiped.

She was not charged with terrorism, and Judge Richard Berman barred any mention of the chemicals or Siddiqui's supposed ties to Al Qaeda.

During the trial, she disrupted the proceedings several times with strange outbursts - including claims she could broker peace with the Taliban.

Siddiqui overruled her defense team and took the stand, insisting she had never touched the rifle - despite witness accounts to the contrary.

The defense argued there was no forensic proof that Siddiqui fired the gun: no bullets, shell casing or damage in the room.

"Juries do make mistakes. Juries do go wrong," said Elaine Sharp, one of Siddiqui's lawyers. "In my opinion, this verdict is based on fear, not on fact."

Sharp said when she told Siddiqui the verdict, she asked that a message be sent to her supporters at home in Pakistan to refrain from violent demonstrations.

The lawyer claimed Siddiqui's anti-Israeli comments were the paranoid rantings of a women held in solitary confinement for 18 months.

Another defense lawyer, Linda Moreno, said there were numerous grounds for appeal, including Siddiqui's mental health.

In 2004, the FBI described Siddiqui as an Al Qaeda "facilitator" willing to use her education against America.

"Today, a jury has brought Aafia Siddiqui to justice in a court of law for trying to murder American military and law enforcement officers, as well as their Afghan colleagues," said U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

 

[JackLuis]

All that proved is that all papers spin the truth.

I don't know if they had a case to grab her in the first place.
Second, letting her live after the fire fight, was silly.

Eighteen months in solitary? Before the trial?

What part of speedy justice is that?

The Government is slow and stupid. If they had wanted to charge her, they should have done it in a lawful manner. They should execute her in a lawful manner. They should not have years to dream up a case and fan the flames of public opinion so that there is no way to get a fair trial.

I don't know for sure what the truth is in this case, and I doubt it came out in the trial