BF2S Forums new liberal hero to stand next to Cindy Sheehan

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Yes, along with all the good-natured christians who help the disenfranchised.

Honestly, I don't buy it. What motive would a little old lady have to intentionally help someone of ill-will?

Wait a minute!!............All you have done is scream how we are holding POW's in Gitmo without due process, now this bitch has had her due process and was found guilty, and you now call BULLSHIT!!?? GOD I hate liberals!!

your generalizations crack me up.  i'm socially pretty liberal, but fiscally i fall in with conservatives (unlike our president).  however, i totally agree that we can't hold public trials for the terrorists in gitmo, because then the terrorists on the outside will know of those prisoners are alive or dead.  as it stands, the terrorists on the outside can't be sure if someone is in gitmo or if they were killed in a raid, so they don't know exactly what information we might be able to gain from the prisoners.  however, those people should have closed trials conducted by military intelligence officials to determine whether or not they're actually guilty.  they need a defense lawyer to make sure they're treated humanely, but that lawyer should be someone from our military that won't leak any info.  all liberals don't freak out about gitmo and then call "bullshit" about this woman's case.  i said above, i think she deserves a harsher punishment, but you're making it out like she was purposefully aiding terrorists.  she didn't realize what she was doing according to the article you cited.

Masques wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

But we do know that they were involved in plots to attack New York and assassinate that Eqyptian.  She would've known that much and should've been more careful about releasing statements from them.  There's a good reason that we don't allow people involved in terroristic plots to speak to their families or friends...  Their families and friends are capable of carrying out the plans that the ones in prison can't.

Most family members and close associates of those involved in such activities are usually under surveillance. They're not likely to get far, especially with something complicated.

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

Wait a minute!!............All you have done is scream how we are holding POW's in Gitmo without due process, now this bitch has had her due process and was found guilty, and you now call BULLSHIT!!?? GOD I hate liberals!!

your generalizations crack me up.  i'm socially pretty liberal, but fiscally i fall in with conservatives (unlike our president).  however, i totally agree that we can't hold public trials for the terrorists in gitmo, because then the terrorists on the outside will know of those prisoners are alive or dead.  as it stands, the terrorists on the outside can't be sure if someone is in gitmo or if they were killed in a raid, so they don't know exactly what information we might be able to gain from the prisoners.  however, those people should have closed trials conducted by military intelligence officials to determine whether or not they're actually guilty.  they need a defense lawyer to make sure they're treated humanely, but that lawyer should be someone from our military that won't leak any info.  all liberals don't freak out about gitmo and then call "bullshit" about this woman's case.  i said above, i think she deserves a harsher punishment, but you're making it out like she was purposefully aiding terrorists.  she didn't realize what she was doing according to the article you cited.

She is an accomplished ATTORNEY!!......I will assume she knows the law, however, it is also no excuse. As she well knows, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Anyway, if I were going to jail, Isure as hell would be screaming innocence as well. Are you really surprised that she denies it??

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

She is an accomplished ATTORNEY!!......I will assume she knows the law, however, it is also no excuse. As she well knows, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Anyway, if I were going to jail, Isure as hell would be screaming innocence as well. Are you really surprised that she denies it??

This is quoted from the article:
n a letter to the judge, Stewart proclaimed: "I am not a traitor." She said she did not intentionally enter into any conspiracy to help a terrorist organization.

"The end of my career truly is like a sword in my side,"

As far as I can tell, she's not screaming "innocent."  She's just saying she didn't mean to conspire against America.  She made an honest mistake.  Now, that doesn't absolve her from punishment.  Like I said before, I think she should have a harsher sentence.  But that doesn't mean I think she's a traitor and needs to be killed.   She wasn't selling state secrets.

A drunk driver can claim a mistake, kill someone with their car, it is still vehicular homocide is it not?

Like I said before, she is an attorney, if she doesn't know the law, then that is her problem...OBVIOUSLY

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

This is quoted from the article:
n a letter to the judge, Stewart proclaimed: "I am not a traitor." She said she did not intentionally enter into any conspiracy to help a terrorist organization.

"The end of my career truly is like a sword in my side,"

As far as I can tell, she's not screaming "innocent."  She's just saying she didn't mean to conspire against America.  She made an honest mistake.  Now, that doesn't absolve her from punishment.  Like I said before, I think she should have a harsher sentence.  But that doesn't mean I think she's a traitor and needs to be killed.   She wasn't selling state secrets.

A drunk driver can claim a mistake, kill someone with their car, it is still vehicular homocide is it not?

Like I said before, she is an attorney, if she doesn't know the law, then that is her problem...OBVIOUSLY

I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable for breaking the law.  I'm just saying she didn't commit high treason.  Her intent was not to harm her country.  You said in the first post that she should be shot.  That's insane.

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

A drunk driver can claim a mistake, kill someone with their car, it is still vehicular homocide is it not?

Like I said before, she is an attorney, if she doesn't know the law, then that is her problem...OBVIOUSLY

I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable for breaking the law.  I'm just saying she didn't commit high treason.  Her intent was not to harm her country.  You said in the first post that she should be shot.  That's insane.

Her actions might have very well cause the deaths of hundreds if not thousands. Her client was a terrorist. and she was passing information for him.  If she shouldn't be shot for treason thn she should be locked up for life.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable for breaking the law.  I'm just saying she didn't commit high treason.  Her intent was not to harm her country.  You said in the first post that she should be shot.  That's insane.

I agree.  The death penalty is a bit much for this.  The CEOs of Enron did far more harm to America than this woman, and none of them got the death penalty.

Gunna disagree now, passing information to terrorists is far greater harm then the CEO's greed. However, those assholes should also be locked up for life for all the lives they ruined as well.

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I agree.  The death penalty is a bit much for this.  The CEOs of Enron did far more harm to America than this woman, and none of them got the death penalty.

Gunna disagree now, passing information to terrorists is far greater harm then the CEO's greed. However, those assholes should also be locked up for life for all the lives they ruined as well.

You're comparing apples and oranges.  The infomation the stupid lawyer passed wasn't dangerous information, otherwise the judge wouldn't've been so lenient.  The greed of those CEO's fucked up the pension plans of thousands of workers that were loyal to their companies.  They ruined lives.  This lawyer just did something stupid.  (and no, I don't think the Enron brass deserves the death penalty.)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

I'm not saying she shouldn't be held accountable for breaking the law.  I'm just saying she didn't commit high treason.  Her intent was not to harm her country.  You said in the first post that she should be shot.  That's insane.

Her actions might have very well cause the deaths of hundreds if not thousands. Her client was a terrorist. and she was passing information for him.  If she shouldn't be shot for treason thn she should be locked up for life.

I see where you're coming from, but without proof of such conjecture, that's stretching sentencing a bit far.  I think we certainly agree that what she did was stupid, but it's unconfirmed that her actions actually resulted in anyone's death.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Her actions might have very well cause the deaths of hundreds if not thousands. Her client was a terrorist. and she was passing information for him.  If she shouldn't be shot for treason thn she should be locked up for life.

I see where you're coming from, but without proof of such conjecture, that's stretching sentencing a bit far.  I think we certainly agree that what she did was stupid, but it's unconfirmed that her actions actually resulted in anyone's death.

Since when does treason NEED to result in someone's death to qualify for treason?

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I see where you're coming from, but without proof of such conjecture, that's stretching sentencing a bit far.  I think we certainly agree that what she did was stupid, but it's unconfirmed that her actions actually resulted in anyone's death.

Since when does treason NEED to result in someone's death to qualify for treason?

Treason definitely needs the intent to harm your country behind it.  You can't accidentally commit treason.  It is a willful act.

lowing wrote:

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

Since when does treason NEED to result in someone's death to qualify for treason?

Treason definitely needs the intent to harm your country behind it.  You can't accidentally commit treason.  It is a willful act.

selling information doesn't kill anyone, yet it is still treason