samclemens

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 12:04 PM) um... do you read any of my posts? I don't blame Bush for everything. But I sure as heck blame him and the Administration AND CONGRESS for this whole mess. It avoids due process. It essentially clears warrants, a judicial function. This should not occur outside FISA or some other purely judicial body. reas YAS's post. this court of review is composed of judicial members. you are justifiying your calling it a kangaroo court by using buzzwords that you havent justified. "avoids due process"? HOW?? and how does it clear warrants? its pretty hard to argue with someone who wont give the actual reasons for their arguement.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 10:47 AM) isn't this really about health care coverage? I'm not sure how it would increase the number of auto tort claims. when people arent required to have insurance, there will obviously be many more people that will neglect to pay for insurance. this means that when they get into a car accident and are suing or being sued, they will have to go out and look for their own lawyer for any auto tort claim. with required insurance, insurance companies and insurance lawyers haggle the entire thing out between themselves most of the time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 21, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) Does anyone other than me see a Constitutional problem in this "Court of Review"? Essentially, Congress and the Administration have created their own kangaroo court. It flies in the face of the checks and balances between the divisions of the federal government. then stop blaming bush for everything. there are democrats in congress as well as republicans, and they all vote on bills, including this one. and just what, pray tell, makes this legally and legislativly created court of review a "kangaroo court"?

bosox at #4? my ass!!

QUOTE(chisoxdavid @ Mar 20, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) If you wanna see a group of guys that really knows how to have fun, look up the Gang Bang Squad. i second that motion. bang bus also features some fun loving guys.

WCsox, i can see where you are coming from. you are not the only person who is disgusted with hollywood liberals. and everyone, he can call it like he sees it, whether you agree with it or not. personally, CA liberal b.s. stopped bothering me a long time ago. its facts of life. when i go and see a movie, i sit back and enjoy the damn thing and do my best to forget about politico s***e. i saw syriana and i thought it was OK, since the americans won (at least it was realistic). clooney loves to b****, but i havent heard him ever come up with a single constructive suggestion or solution- ever. i cant sit through movies that shamelessly play off anti-bush sentimate to sell tickets (the upcoming film "thank you for smoking" would be the next, i imagine). just another reason i hate michael moore. syriana honestly came a little close. i mean, for gods sake, someone could read anti-(fill in blank here) motives into "march of the penguins" if they tried hard enough. i mean, we live in a free society. if some people want to b**** and whine about how the US runs s*** on this earth, they have that right. just keep in mind, complainers with no solutions, that our nation is built on nation-building. we came, we conquered, we enslaved (in one form or another). native americans, fillipinos, germans, italians, japanese, you name it. its why we are the best today, and its why everyone hates us. if it werent for that conquering, exploitation, and whatever else have you, we would have the privilige of being citizens of such an great country. off topic, i know, but it was a fun diatribe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/ixportal.html

give em a break for gods sake. its hawk and dj, not the soxtalk admins. as i now cease to kiss admin ass, i expect large amounts of brownie points for that one.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 12:44 PM) Damn liberals...always wanting to expand the federal government for their own benefit... you forgot to make those letters green my friend. im no liberal.

this is great. labour appoints the first muslim life peer, and he promptly invites an arab with al qaeda ties over, and the bastard is allowed to enter the house of parliament. great message to send. go hard or go home blair, stop trying to please people that dont want to be pleased. http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006120839,00.html (i know, its the sun, but they do report real news sometimes, and i am convinced that this is one occasion. read the article and decide for yourself. correct me if i am wrong.)

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 08:49 PM) So, it seems that this guy also last year bounced a $111 check for a haircut. and for this reason, he should not have been appointed. WHO CARES??

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 05:13 PM) Dems 52 Reps 37 http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=1678 Sample size is only 800 and I don't know how reputable the polling company is. *errr, historic lead who is greenberg wuinlan rsoner

man, you guys are so right! what bush really should have done is to reanimate rachel carson and appoint her.

this would exponentially increase the number of auto tort claims in my state. as a lawyer, i therefore support this as it directly correlates to my livlihood.

QUOTE(V for Venereal @ Mar 17, 2006 -> 12:54 AM) What is it with Islam and violence? I don't get it. careful! you dont want to offend the pc police liberals here. just between you and me, there is an odd correlation between the two, isnt there.

i always liked the dutch.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) Makes one wonder what we've been doing the last three years, huh? fighting to get the UN to get their dicks out of thier asses. no, wait, you are both right. the UN and its rampant and blatent corruption has absolutely nothing to do with the difficulties in confronting iran. its entirely bush's fault. just like every other foreign policy problem in contemporary society. it makes me wonder what kind of message that walking labia jimmy carter sent to iran way back when. that most certainly has a direct correlation to whats happening in iran today. the frickin iranian prez is one of the bastards that stormed our embassy, and carter allowed him to walk because carter negotiated like a b****. now hes the god damn president of iran and hes also our number one problem. thanks, jimmy!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 08:24 PM) So, the American Research Group polled on this issue, and found Americans actually favoring Censure for Bush on this issue by a narrow margin within the 95% confidence Interval margin of error. Interestingly, in polling just independents, more independents support impeachment of this president than support censure. the poll you quote is so bulls***ty i just s*** my pants and puked at the same time.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 16, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) her dad is her manager. as well as her pimp. seriously, isnt that bastard supposed to be a minister? and he also pimps out his other daughter ashley. both her and jessica are shameless because of their father.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 08:59 PM) Saying Saddam is a murderous bastard really isn't that republican--it's sort of a bi-partisan declaration. . . this isnt about calling saddam something we all know he is. its about the legitimacy of the trial of saddam and the evidence against him. and i personally know many liberals (i do live in MI) who persistantly question both those aspects of the proceedings against saddam. sorry you dont think this is worth bringing up. i do.

this case will probably be thrown out, but its not frivilous.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) Seriously, who are the supposed doubters on this board? I don't think I've seen anyone here post anything about Saddam not being guilty of these things. im not calling anyone out by any means. its just an interesting topic, and i cant help but put a bit of a republican slant on everything i say.

well the conspiracy to kill milosovic has been exposed. heart failure...the most deadly poison of them all. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4799880.stm

This blog is a great discussion of the saddam trial:http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/index.asp the best part is further down where he discusses the "smoking gun" evidence against saddam. for people who still consider this trial and/or the evidence against saddam to be illegitimate, read up: "Is the Execution Order the Prosecution’s “Smoking Gun” Against Saddam? Yes – by Kevin Jon Heller During the February 28 trial session, the Chief Prosecutor, Jafaar al-Moussawi, presented a presidential order allegedly signed by Saddam Hussein approving the execution of the 148 Dujail villagers whose deaths are the centerpiece of the case against Saddam and his co-defendants. Earlier, Al-Moussawi has presented a document signed by Awad al-Bandar, the former Chief Justice of the Iraqi Revolutionary Court, announcing that the villagers had been sentenced to death and listing them by name. There is no question that the execution order is critical to the prosecution’s case, because it provides the first documentary link between Saddam and the executions. But is it the proverbial “smoking gun”? edit: that smile in the middle was inadvertant from code citation At the outset, it is important to note that we do not know the precise charges that have been brought against Saddam – the Iraqi High Tribunal (“IHT”) has not made his indictment public. Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that he has been charged, inter alia, with the crime against humanity of “Willful Murder,” a violation of Article 12(1)(A) of the IHT Statute. It is that crime I will focus on here. According to the IHT’s Elements of Crimes, which “shall assist” the IHT in interpreting Articles 11, 12, and 13 (i), Willful Murder has three elements: 1. The perpetrator willfully killed one or more persons; 2. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population; and 3. The perpetrator knew that conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Although Saddam did not personally kill the villagers, Article 15(2)(B) of the IHT Statute provides that a person who orders the commission of a crime is no less criminally responsible for it than the actual perpetrators. The real question, then, is whether the execution order satisfies the elements of Willful Murder under Article 12(1)(A). Given the evidence that has been presented at trial thus far, it seems clear that it does. The first element is satisfied, because the order led directly to “one or more persons” – 148, in fact – being killed. “Willful” here is synonymous with “intentional” (ii) and simply reflects the IHT Statute’s general requirement that the defendant must have “meant… to cause a particular consequence” when he committed the act in question (iii). Saddam obviously intended for the condemned villagers to be killed, so there is no question that he acted intentionally for purposes of Article 12(1)(A). The second element is also satisfied. “The widespread nature of the attack can be derived in particular from the number of the victims” (iv). 148 executions most likely qualify as a “widespread” attack under this standard; although no international court has ever specified a minimum number of victims, the International Law Commission’s commentary to the relevant provision speaks only of a “multiplicity” of victims (v). Moreover, even in the unlikely event that the IHT were to hold that 148 executions are not sufficient to satisfy the “widespread” requirement, the executions would still clearly qualify as a “systematic” attack. In the context of crimes against humanity, “systematic” simply refers to “the organized nature of the acts of violence and the improbability of their random occurrence” (vi). It is difficult to imagine a more organized, less random series of acts than Saddam’s brutal reprisal against the Dujail villagers following the attempt on his life. Finally, the third element is easily satisfied. Saddam personally ordered the executions; insofar as they qualify as a widespread or systematic attack, therefore, he clearly knew and intended his conduct to be part of that attack. The second and third elements of Willful Murder, of course, require the attack be directed “against a civilian population.” Saddam has argued that the villagers were executed because they had participated in the attack on his life – actions that would arguably have deprived the villagers of their civilian status (vii). Nevertheless, it should not be difficult for the prosecution to show that most of the executed villagers did not take part in the assassination attempt; after all, the doomed group contained at least 10 minors, including a child who was 11 years old. The distinction is critical, because the presence of a small number of combatants among an otherwise non-combatant population does not deprive that population of its civilian status (viii). Saddam has also argued – more centrally to his defense – that the death sentences were lawfully imposed by the Iraqi Revolutionary Court and that, as the President of Iraq, he had every right to order them carried out. That argument seems to have impressed various observers of the trial; a representative of Human Rights Watch, for example, commented: “What we saw today was not Saddam admitting guilt, but admitting to the fact that he acted in accordance with his official duties and powers.” With all due respect to Human Right Watch, that simply isn’t accurate. Although Paragraph 223 of the Iraqi Penal Code of 1969 prescribes death for murdering the President of Iraq, Paragraph 31(1) expressly provides that the punishment for attempting a felony punishable by death is not death but life imprisonment. As a result, Saddam did not have the authority to order the executions even if they were involved in the assassination attempt – the order was nothing more than an ultra vires act neither legitimated nor justified by his authority as President of Iraq. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the ultra vires nature of the execution order. If Saddam could not lawfully have ordered the villagers to be executed, the execution order is, in fact, the prosecution’s “smoking gun.” It does not matter whether Saddam properly referred the villagers’ cases to the Iraqi Revolutionary Court. It does not even matter whether, as al-Moussawi contends, the death sentences were imposed after “imaginary” trials. By signing the execution order, Saddam essentially admitted that he committed Willful Murder as that charge is defined by the Article 12(1)(A) of the IHT Statute – and most likely signed his own execution order, as well." edit: that smiley is inadvertent from code citation

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 8, 2006 -> 10:48 PM) No actually I am arguing: I can not make a good argument on the evidence unless I actually can see the evidence myself. How anyone in here can claim anything is beyond me. But in my experience I doubt that any criminal charges will come from it. That is just my gut feeling. you have substantially backtracked from your initial position of staunch bonds-apologist. just to confirm, are you seriously saying that you doubt bonds took steroids?? please, man!