Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I'm saying is that the National Review article tried to "unskew" data that Esposito used to derive an estimate of radicalized Muslims. I don't have to take either percentage. As I don't have the money to buy the data from Gallup myself (as neither did the National Review writer), I'm not obligated to "take" anyone's interpretation of that data. Frankly, my idea of who is radicalized and who is not is not based on Muslims answering a vague question about how "justified" 9/11 is. My idea of who is radicalized is based on who is taking up arms, or who is supporting those taking up arms, to engage in terrorist actions. Anyone with a brain who can reason can see that the United States foreign policy has not always been moral or ethical, and that when a country supports brutal dictatorships, that country will make enemies. It's not a radical perception. What is radical is being willing to harm innocents to further a political agenda. The Gallup poll didn't measure radicalization. It measured attitudes toward 9/11 globally. And Esposito tried to extrapolate radicalism from that data. He failed. And the National Review, in its attempt to debunk Esposito, simply added on more failure.
So, exactly what kind of data would you require? Maybe if anyone who thinks we should all die hold up their hands? Or is there some kind of ballot they could fill out, totally anonymous of course. Here's the problem, one that you yourself pointed out. You say that your idea of radicalized is based on who's taking up arms or supporting those that do to commit acts of terror. That's great if we KNEW who or where they were and if those that took up arms actually did it out in the open instead of slinking around. The other thing is if there weren't a significant amount of said radicals either admitted or closet wouldn't you think that there'd be more of an outcry from the rest of the supposed "good" ones?
Since you've given your answer for the first bit of info I'm curious as to what your opinion is of the second section?
And I think you'd be wise to debate someone else, because in our history of debate, I find you to be one of the more easily defeated
Quote:
The ONLY general risks and repercussions of judicial misconduct come in the risk that decisions can be overturned on appeal when judicial error is found, but there is no real avenue for the censure of judges,
While it is rare for a federal judge to be removed for judicial misconduct it happens all to regularly in state courts. As to the reason that federal judges are rarely impeached, it is for the reason that you sited above, they are appointed to the bench after a considerable vetting process, political flavor notwithstanding and have proven over considerable careers to have the judicial temperament fitting a federal judge.
Quote:
We have had federal judges literally say in open session, "I will not entertain constitutional issues in this courtroom",
A link to the case, and the context in which the statement was made if you don't mind.
Quote:
and other such examples of misconduct like telling juries how they must decide the cases before them based on narrow criteria defined by that judge, when the reality is, juries can decide guilty or innocent at their sole discretion, and for any reason they care to.
That is usually what a judge are charged to do, and such ruling come after pretrial hearings where the motions by attorney's representing both sides are allowed to present arguments pertaining to such impending rulings.
And I not sure sure why you deprecate the role of the appellant courts but that's your burden not ours.
Quote:
The right of Jury Nullification is the last line of defense against legal tyranny under the guise of justice. If a jury decides that the law itself is unfair, they have the right to find the defendant not guilty, effectively nullifying that law in that case. But you'll never hear a judge agree with the premise, even though it is a well established and prudent power held by the juror.
You really should acquaint yourself with Sparf v. United States, 156 US 51 - Supreme Court 1895
But I will say this for you, you right a mighty fine rant. Short on facts or substantiation but hey...mighty fine nonetheless.
You clearly have no experience working in courtrooms with judges and attorneys on a regular basis, and anyone who does have that experience knows from reading your posts about that subject that you have no first-hand experience, especially working with federal court judges. You also seem to be clueless about appeals in cases. Federal Court Judges, just as State Court Judges, have courtrooms full of attorneys keeping an "eye" on their rulings.......btw, WHY do you think there is an appellate court system?
I have personally seen attorneys "fuss" with judges. You're making such broad generalizations about these things!
I know ... you keep saying that .... clearly you are a broken record ... lots of blather, and no lather.
I was just in court 8 days ago on a civil matter as the plaintiff, Pro Se. The defense attorney tried to bully and bluff me with a hefty counter suit, trying to convince me to walk away. Long story short, the complaint inadvertently did not include a significant element which the defense used against us, but the Judge declared the hearing a preliminary hearing and instructed us to file an amended complaint which is due next week. The corporate defense attorney slumped ... and as the judge left the courtroom, the attorney (after whispers between he and his client) handed me his card, and said "we might be able to reach a settlement". Now, I'm no legal expert, nor would I suggest such a thing. But I do know a thing or two about a thing or two, and I don't lose very often, no matter what it involves, court cases or debates with self anointed genius keyboard commandos.
The 1950's was the most free and prosperous time this country has ever experienced, it's been downhill ever since. They are rewriting history to make it out to be one of the worst of times. doublespeak
Actually I think it was in Victorian times after Pres. Andrew Jackson shut down the central bank Bank of America and before President Wilson allowed the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.
But if you are looking at post Federal Reserve times, the 1950s were probably pretty good. I was in 1st grade when JFK was murdered. I think from then on we started to head downhill at a faster rate than we were before.
I know that 1967 was the last time one dollar bought a dollar's worth of stuff and our currency had been losing purchasing power way before then. In the late 1800s it bought about $3 worth of stuff if I recall correctly. Now if we are lucky we get about 5 cents worth.
I know ... you keep saying that .... clearly you are a broken record ... lots of blather, and no lather.
I was just in court 8 days ago on a civil matter as the plaintiff, Pro Se. The defense attorney tried to bully and bluff me with a hefty counter suit, trying to convince me to walk away. Long story short, the complaint inadvertently did not include a significant element which the defense used against us, but the Judge declared the hearing a preliminary hearing and instructed us to file an amended complaint which is due next week. The corporate defense attorney slumped ... and as the judge left the courtroom, the attorney (after whispers between he and his client) handed me his card, and said "we might be able to reach a settlement". Now, I'm no legal expert, nor would I suggest such a thing. But I do know a thing or two about a thing or two, and I don't lose very often, no matter what it involves, court cases or debates with self anointed genius keyboard commandos.
Civil cases are different from criminal cases. Attys tend to specialize in one or the other.
While it is rare for a federal judge to be removed for judicial misconduct it happens all to regularly in state courts. As to the reason that federal judges are rarely impeached, it is for the reason that you sited above, they are appointed to the bench after a considerable vetting process, political flavor notwithstanding and have proven over considerable careers to have the judicial temperament fitting a federal judge.
A link to the case, and the context in which the statement was made if you don't mind.
That is usually what a judge are charged to do, and such ruling come after pretrial hearings where the motions by attorney's representing both sides are allowed to present arguments pertaining to such impending rulings.
And I not sure sure why you deprecate the role of the appellant courts but that's your burden not ours.
You really should acquaint yourself with Sparf v. United States, 156 US 51 - Supreme Court 1895
But I will say this for you, you right a mighty fine rant. Short on facts or substantiation but hey...mighty fine nonetheless.
How many so called experts on law do we need here? And what does this have to do with the suspect?
If you're hanging onto the idea that an appeals court would take care of any prejudicial ruling or shenanigans, not very likely. In order to be granted an appeal, you have to show that you have NEW evidence that is relevant. Not an easy hurdle, even then it can be denied. Innocence Project has had this experience.
Death penalty cases are handled differently, they are afforded numerous appeals.
I wonder if we will see wrongful death civil lawsuits.
How many federal judges does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, he holds the bulb still and the world revolves around him.
The reality is, any such "cooperation" is a pipe dream born of a complete misunderstanding of geopolitics and the long historically established pattern of governments using terrorism to foment internal strife in other countries perceived to be enemies through the use of such terrorism, created and funded by it's covert intelligence assets. Russia, and the former Soviet block are equally guilty of that as anyone, yet, a careful accounting of such tactics would show that the United States and Israel have honed this to a fine art form, while the general population of both countries remain totally clueless to the dark underbelly of these unadvertised operations.
And as sad as it makes me to say so, our government in the USA may be the most egregious perpetrators of such covert destabilizing operations, in conjunction with elements of the international banking cartel, who systematically have overthrown countless democratically elected governments in central America, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, and the Middle East. The even sadder reality is, at no time in the history of the United States has our conduct of such unacceptable behavior come close to the levels we've seen since the turn of the century, all of it under the pretext of the "War on Terror" for which September 11, 2001 was utilized to justify such preemptive acts of aggression around the world.
The major difference between what we see today, versus what was routine practice from WW II forward is that these covert destabilizing actions were isolated and used against foreign targets to advance foreign policy initiatives. A fundamental shift in that philosophy was taking shape in the early 1990's, to which this new direction was outlined in the 1998 publication "Project for A New American Century" (PNAC), which discusses this shift from using US Military dominance for strictly defensive purposes, to more aggressive, preemptive strategies to establish full spectrum, global dominance in light of the collapse of the Soviet Union. In that PNAC document, it specifically discusses the slow and difficult process of facilitating a shift in public acceptance of such a dramatic change in US posture, without some type of catalyzing event, such as a "New Pearl Harbor" to help accomplish that shift more rapidly. Three years later, that very event occurred on September 11. 2001.
Since that time, we have witnessed a rapid acceleration in the dismantling of old ideologies that were the fundamental psychology and ideological heart of America, shifting from the defenders of freedom, to the aggressors, engaging in unprovoked military action, invasion, and occupation of other nations both directly, and through more covert means which we've seen take place in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, virtually encircling the primary target, Iran.
This new militant foreign policy posture has also been married to the very transparent and obvious shift in domestic policy, and the use of terrorism and fear of terrorism to bypass and ignore civil liberties and constitutional prohibitions that protect the public from tyrannical government. These constitutional protections are now out the window entirely, as any reference to such is now pure rhetoric, as proven by such Orwellian type legislative actions such as the "Patriot Act" and the "National Defense Authorization Act", which renders those constitutional protections null and void, for all practical purposes.
This psychological shift of public perception couldn't be more overt as demonstrated by the open debates which have justified the value of such thoroughly un-American concepts as torture, indefinite detention, direct violations of pose comitatus, and even direct championing of political assassinations by decree of the President. The psychological conditioning of the public has unbelievably ingrained an attitude of thinking lawless government is not only acceptable, but is as it has always been, while nothing could be further from the truth.
If one had the ability to travel back in time, you would not have to go very far at all ... say the 1970's to prove this shift has indeed occurred. If you were to announce in the 1970's to the general public that in the year 2001, federal agents would be strip searching citizens as a condition of travel in the nation's airports; if you were to tell them that laws have been established to arrest American citizens without warrant or charge, and deny them the fundamental rights of due process and habeas corpus; if you were to tell them that the President has an assassination list, which includes American Citizens with laws allowing them to be murdered by simple decree that they are enemies of the state; if you were to tell them that the President can unilaterally decide to engage in foreign conflict without so much as consulting with congress, you'd be laughed at and labeled a lunatic. However, today, in 2013, simply pointing out these truths, with the insinuation that they are wrong and unacceptable, is labeled a mental disorder. Such political malcontents are labeled "truthers" and "birthers" and "Conspiracy Theorists" and "Deniers" by an element of the public that no longer possesses the capacity for rational thought. These people are metal zombies who believe that up=down, torture=good, war=peace, and tyrannical authoritarianism is as American as baseball and apple pie. And, to even attempt to reason with these mind controlled nitwits is as useless as arguing with an intoxicated drunkard, as no spoken word stands any chance of sobering them up.
The good news is, these types, however significant and startling their numbers might be, are still a significant minority. That they have been convinced that they represent populist consensus is just another of the illusions they operate under, created by a controlled media who only broadcasts the desired messages. The "silent majority" is better defined as the majority whose voices go unheard through mainstream channels, but their existence is undeniable, when every time one of our political hack traitors even mentions the term "gun control" spawns another huge spike in firearms sales.
This explains why Homeland Security and other federal agencies have purchased 1.8 Billion rounds of hollow point ammunition, 20,000 drone aircraft, and thousands of armored police vehicles. Who poses the big threat to which such a stockpiling of weapons and ammunition seems a necessary move? Canada? Mexico? These preparations are the overt signs of an anticipated war with the American public, though no measures can be taken at this stage to ensure the safety of these despots who are attempting to enslave the nation. They are destined to fail .. are failing miserably as we speak, which explains the massive acceleration of such operations like we've just witnessed in the virtual marshall law imposed in Boston under the absurd pretext of searching for a 19 year old kid, who along with his brother got mixed up in this deadly game of domestic terrorism and inside jobs. They had to be convicted in the court of public opinion, then silenced to maintain the lie.
That's where we are, right here and right now. Battle lines are forming ... preparations are under way, and the "stuff" is situated very close to the fan, unless these despots are forced to back down in the face of large scale civil disobedience by a silent majority who must soon become vocal and loud.
With all that has transpired, we STILL don't know who set the bomb off. All we know is that those 2 kids were there walking along seeming to mind their business like most everyone else there that came to watch.
How many so called experts on law do we need here? And what does this have to do with the suspect?
If you're hanging onto the idea that an appeals court would take care of any prejudicial ruling or shenanigans, not very likely. In order to be granted an appeal, you have to show that you have NEW evidence that is relevant. Not an easy hurdle, even then it can be denied. Innocence Project has had this experience.
Death penalty cases are handled differently, they are afforded numerous appeals.
I wonder if we will see wrongful death civil lawsuits.
How many federal judges does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, he holds the bulb still and the world revolves around him.
Actually, the very first appeal taken after a trial is called the direct appeal, which involves claims about Judicial error ONLY....meaning errors in rulings, if that claim is preserved by an objection made during the trial. So claims that the Judge made mistakes in rulings during the trial are indeed "accepted" as the basis for appeal.
The newly discovered evidence issue you're talking about is something which is one basis (or claim) for appeal at the collateral appeal level in death penalty cases. A "newly discovered evidence" claim is something which is usually filed after the defendant has exhausted all his/her other appeals. In fact, that claim is the only way to get the case back in the system after all other claims have been denied. And there is a time limit on the time you are allowed to "discover" this new evidence...you have to prove your due diligence in re investigating the issue at the proper time frames, and that the evidence could not have been discovered within the ordinary time frame for investigating the case and filing the initial appeal. This is NOT a requirement for all appeals. In d.p. cases there is what's called a Brady violation, (Brady v. Maryland) which means if the state withheld evidence which would have benefited the defense from the defense during discovery and the trial, when that evidence is found during the collateral appeal it is used as a Brady claim in the appeal. If the Court agrees, then the defendant gets a new trial. The other issue which is the basis for claims on appeal is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel...IAC....which comes from Strickland v. Washington.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 04-25-2013 at 10:26 PM..
Actually, the very first appeal taken after a trial is called the direct appeal, which involves claims about Judicial error ONLY....meaning errors in rulings, if that claim is preserved by an objection made during the trial. So claims that the Judge made mistakes in rulings during the trial are indeed "accepted" as the basis for appeal.
The newly discovered evidence issue you're talking about is something which is one basis (or claim) for appeal at the collateral appeal level in death penalty cases. A "newly discovered evidence" claim is something which is usually filed after the defendant has exhausted all his/her other appeals. In fact, that claim is the only way to get the case back in the system after all other claims have been denied. This is NOT a requirement for all appeals. In d.p. cases there is what's called a Brady violation, (Brady v. Maryland) which means if the state withheld evidence which would have benefited the defense from the defense during discovery and the trial, when that evidence is found during the collateral appeal it is used as a Brady claim in the appeal. If the Court agrees, then the defendant gets a new trial. The other issue which is the basis for claims on appeal is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel...IAC....which comes from Strickland v. Washington.
Okay
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the problem, one that you yourself pointed out. You say that your idea of radicalized is based on who's taking up arms or supporting those that do to commit acts of terror. That's great if we KNEW who or where they were and if those that took up arms actually did it out in the open instead of slinking around. The other thing is if there weren't a significant amount of said radicals either admitted or closet wouldn't you think that there'd be more of an outcry from the rest of the supposed "good" ones?
