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.
A financial settlement does not stop the feds or even the state from pursuing Apraio if the government feels he was somehow responsible for the deaths by his policies or whatever. So yes there were some bad officers. If it was from the top down he would have been charged by the Obama Administration.
If you want to be upset with anyone it should be Obama's justice department who never charged Aripaio for all these horrible things you think he was responsible for.
Abu Ghraid. Horrible actions by the troops. Obama is the commander in chief. Should he have been sanctioned for what the troops did? It comes from the top down as you say. Buck stops here as they used to say.
It was a nothing burger as far as Joe being directly responsible for bad behavior of his men. Just like Obama.
Abu Ghraib?! That was BUSH! Seriously? That was not Obama, that was Bush!
It was found unconstitutional by a federal judge. One guy. Not the Supreme Court. And tell me that Obama's Justice Dept did not make sure they would get what they wanted. Don't be naive.
I was a resident of Arizona and at times in Maricopa County during the decade of all this. Arpaio did a good job. Tent city, pink prison clothes, old baloney sandwiches. But he questioned Obama's birth certificate and here we are today.
I agree with you, except to be clear, I was not found to be unconstitutional. That was an opinion of this judge only.
Obama's "Justice" Department was probably the most corrupt in American History. He politicized it, as he also politicized the IRS, and every department he touched.
He was also right to question Obama's birth certificate, as did many others (and by the way, it was not Trump that started the so-called "birther" movement, as many believe). Very little is known about Obama to this day. We know his mother was a communist, and we know his father was a communist (and a Muslim). His brother and his grandmother claim he was born in Kenya. This makes a difference, because there are some that disagree with the opinion that if one parent was a US Citizen that is good enough to claim to be a "natural born citizen." But I have done enough research on this question to know that there are many scholars (who are Constitutional Lawyers) who argue that the Framers did not consider the child of only one parent a "natural born citizen." What they were concerned with here was divided allegiances, and the influence of foreign law created by ties to a foreign country. This was because of their own English History, and they wanted to safeguard the new nation from any possibility of mixing foreign law with our laws.
So, it was perfectly right to question whether Obama should be classified as a "natural born citizen." The Framers understood a "natural born citizen" to be the child of two citizen parents.
There are a number of links in this thread. If that's not enough, a quick Google search ought to get up you to speed.
Sorry, either produce it, or you are not telling the truth...not gonna go through 66 pages...
Not doing a google search, because I want to be sure to respond tot the exact link you are talking about. This way, when you cannot produce anything about murder, I can laugh at ya.....
I agree with you, except to be clear, I was not found to be unconstitutional. That was an opinion of this judge only.
Obama's "Justice" Department was probably the most corrupt in American History. He politicized it, as he also politicized the IRS, and every department he touched.
He was also right to question Obama's birth certificate, as did many others (and by the way, it was not Trump that started the so-called "birther" movement, as many believe). Very little is known about Obama to this day. We know his mother was a communist, and we know his father was a communist (and a Muslim). His brother and his grandmother claim he was born in Kenya. This makes a difference, because there are some that disagree with the opinion that if one parent was a US Citizen that is good enough to claim to be a "natural born citizen." But I have done enough research on this question to know that there are many scholars (who are Constitutional Lawyers) who argue that the Framers did not consider the child of only one parent a "natural born citizen." What they were concerned with here was divided allegiances, and the influence of foreign law created by ties to a foreign country. This was because of their own English History, and they wanted to safeguard the new nation from any possibility of mixing foreign law with our laws.
So, it was perfectly right to question whether Obama should be classified as a "natural born citizen." The Framers understood a "natural born citizen" to be the child of two citizen parents.
Sorry, either produce it, or you are not telling the truth...not gonna go through 66 pages...
Not doing a google search, because I want to be sure to respond tot the exact link you are talking about. This way, when you cannot produce anything about murder, I can laugh at ya.....
Links like this?
"Thousands of lawsuits and legal claims alleging abuse have been filed against Arpaio’s department by inmates—or, in the case of deaths in detention, by their families. A federal investigation found that deputies had used stun guns on prisoners already strapped into a “restraint chair.” The family of one man who died after being forced into the restraint chair was awarded more than six million dollars as the result of a suit filed in federal court. The family of another man killed in the restraint chair got $8.25 million in a pre-trial settlement. (This deal was reached after the discovery of a surveillance video that showed fourteen guards beating, shocking, and suffocating the prisoner, and after the sheriff’s office was accused of discarding evidence, including the crushed larynx of the deceased.) To date, lawsuits brought against Arpaio’s office have cost Maricopa County taxpayers forty-three million dollars, according to some estimates."
I agree with you, except to be clear, I was not found to be unconstitutional. That was an opinion of this judge only.
Obama's "Justice" Department was probably the most corrupt in American History. He politicized it, as he also politicized the IRS, and every department he touched.
He was also right to question Obama's birth certificate, as did many others (and by the way, it was not Trump that started the so-called "birther" movement, as many believe). Very little is known about Obama to this day. We know his mother was a communist, and we know his father was a communist (and a Muslim). His brother and his grandmother claim he was born in Kenya. This makes a difference, because there are some that disagree with the opinion that if one parent was a US Citizen that is good enough to claim to be a "natural born citizen." But I have done enough research on this question to know that there are many scholars (who are Constitutional Lawyers) who argue that the Framers did not consider the child of only one parent a "natural born citizen." What they were concerned with here was divided allegiances, and the influence of foreign law created by ties to a foreign country. This was because of their own English History, and they wanted to safeguard the new nation from any possibility of mixing foreign law with our laws.
So, it was perfectly right to question whether Obama should be classified as a "natural born citizen." The Framers understood a "natural born citizen" to be the child of two citizen parents.
Any child is considered a citizen if his mother is a citizen and lived in the US at least 5 yrs before the childs birth, no matter where they are born. McCain was born in Panama. Ted Cruz in Canada. Mitt Romney's father George was born in Mexico but ran for POTUS. All are/were eligible to be POTUS. Citizenship through the father is a little trickier and not automatic. Obamas mother was a US citizen born in Kansas. Sort of seals the deal, that.
What the Framers might have intended but didn't spell out clearly in the Constitution is irrelevant. The US has since then decided on what constitutes a natural born citizen, and Obama was born under those laws, and not under speculation about what the Framers actually intended.
Last edited by wallflash; 08-27-2017 at 03:49 PM..
Putin's plot to destabilize the US by helping to get the worst possible president into office seems to be working even better than he anticipated.
As much as I loathe Trump, I wouldn't go there. The worst one actually lost. She couldn't even beat a guy that kept shooting himself in the foot with talk of sexually assaulting women and all the other idiocy. Hell, she couldn't even hold on to solid Democratic strongholds that NO Dem should ever lose.
She was pitiful. First, beat out by a junior no name senator from Illinois in 2008, then beat out by a buffoon in 2016.
The only shining moments about a Trump presidency is
A) HC is not POTUS, and
B) Trump will appoint conservatie judges and justices.
Even though I could not bring myself to vote for the guy, that will be enough success for 4 yrs.
"Thousands of lawsuits and legal claims alleging abuse have been filed against Arpaio’s department by inmates—or, in the case of deaths in detention, by their families. A federal investigation found that deputies had used stun guns on prisoners already strapped into a “restraint chair.” The family of one man who died after being forced into the restraint chair was awarded more than six million dollars as the result of a suit filed in federal court. The family of another man killed in the restraint chair got $8.25 million in a pre-trial settlement. (This deal was reached after the discovery of a surveillance video that showed fourteen guards beating, shocking, and suffocating the prisoner, and after the sheriff’s office was accused of discarding evidence, including the crushed larynx of the deceased.) To date, lawsuits brought against Arpaio’s office have cost Maricopa County taxpayers forty-three million dollars, according to some estimates."
Arpaio detained legal citizens based on suspicion. He put women and juveniles in chain gangs. People DIED in what he called his "concentration camps".
I don't think Arpaio himself personally detained anyone. What an odd statement you made.
Again Obama's justice department did not pursue criminal charges against Arapaio. Why, when some of you are so certain he was responsible? Apparently even the out of control Obama justice dept did not think so.
Some of his staff behaved badly. I agree. If Arpaio instituted a widespread system of killing inmates he would have been charged with it.
Convicted criminals only were housed in Tent City. Not people awaiting trial. Jail is not fun. Best to avoid it by not doing bad things. Not very sympathetic to people who do bad things. Remember for everyone in there, there a victim or multiple victims. How about being sympathetic to them. A tough jail leads to people not wanting to return there and less victims. Numbers prove that.
I lived there when this was going on. Arpaio was always on the local news and local talk radio. The purpose for the tough jail was not just to punish the bad guys but send a message to others who might want to commit a crime, don't do it. You will regret being houses outside in the heat. And it worked.
He was deadly serious about one thing: using his power to retaliate against anybody who criticized him. Infamously, after a critical report on him had appeared in the Phoenix New-Times, Arpaio had his deputies stage late-night raids on the homes of the paper’s publishers, arresting them in front of their families. When the county Board of Supervisors cut Arpaio’s budget, Arpaio and the county attorney conspired to indict board members on dozens of bogus felony charges as an “anti-corruption initiative.” An official who later reviewed the cases against the officials concluded that the “record is littered with behavior so egregious that a reasonable person’s sense of fairness, honesty and integrity would be offended.” The scheme was so transparent that the county attorney ended up getting disbarred over it (and the board members ended up—in a familiar pattern—having to be paid multi-million dollar settlements)
Quote:
It really does seem as if people do not quite appreciate just how evil Joe Arpaio truly is. If they did, this pardon would not just be ill-advised, it would be toxic. There would be no controversy. As it is, however, Arpaio remains “controversial”: some say he’s a bigot, some say he’s a righteous vigilante. But what people need to say is the truth, which is that Joe Arpaio is not only a bigot, but a vicious sadist who abused his power more than perhaps anyone else to hold public office in the United States during the 21st century.
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.
Beyond nonsense...
