 | | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Yeah, really. It's hard to imagine how they could possibly know that the sister knows anything useful. I mean, do they have video footage of her seeing her sister do things? Not likely... Also, I believe in the right to remain silent -- to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
(...) I didn't get from the article what the specific and direct role played by Ashcroft was. Is he only guilty for setting a cavalier tone within the federal law enforcement machine, or was it something more clear cut? Chris (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Ashcroft named as top defendant in civil suit
|
|
I found this interesting: (URL) see how far it gets. I expect he'll be removed from the suit, after all, can't have our government officials held personally liable for what they do, now can we? (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Really? Do you generally think that aiding criminals should have no penalty? There may be issues surrounding this that I haven't thought through, but on first blush, it doesn't seem like a bad general policy to me. I would certainly intervene (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) Like what? Am I missing a bigger trend? (...) Um...what could be more damning than video footage? What on Earth _would_ you consider reasonable evidence? I haven't heard anything inappropriate about the handling of this case from the article (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) He didn't say your opinion was infelicitous. He said it was rooted in ignorance. (...) It's arguable that he was the most powerful, but even that said, there were many many awfully powerful forces aligned against him. He wasn't even supported (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Except for having our chief executive having been appointed by the Supreme Court. IOW, while every executive before has been elected (whether fairly or not) this one has actually _not_ been properly elected. With a minority (and no plurality) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I'm not going to look back through all the notes you've written in response a note that I've written to find it, but I'm pretty sure that you responded that you would seek to change the law from within "the system" rather than breaking it, if (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
|
(...) to choose to make your point. I followed the link and found this paragraph: "Police have been searching for Gorman Toogood since September 13, when a surveillance camera in a department store parking lot videotaped her apparently slapping and (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
|
(...) It would probablly benefit the Iraqi people a great deal. Personally I would have expected the United Nations to get rid of Sadam 2 years ago when he had about 12,000 Kurds (an ethnic miniority in Iraq) murdered in gas chambers. (...) Oh sure (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
