http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terro … index.html
2 and half years for treason...........she should be shot.
2 and half years for treason...........she should be shot.
Last edited by lowing (2006-10-16 17:24:36)
This is just crazy. It really saddens me to see people who fancy themselves "civil rights activists" aid terrorists. It gives a bad name to all those who stand up for the "little guy."
It's never good to stand up for the little guy that wants to blow you up....
It's never good to stand up for the little guy that wants to blow you up....
I hate it when you make sense, it totally disarms me.............stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is just crazy. It really saddens me to see people who fancy themselves "civil rights activists" aid terrorists. It gives a bad name to all those who stand up for the "little guy."
It's never good to stand up for the little guy that wants to blow you up....
Yes, along with all the good-natured christians who help the disenfranchised.lowing wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html
2 and half years for treason...........she should be shot.
Honestly, I don't buy it. What motive would a little old lady have to intentionally help someone of ill-will?
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.lowing wrote:
I hate it when you make sense, it totally disarms me.............stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is just crazy. It really saddens me to see people who fancy themselves "civil rights activists" aid terrorists. It gives a bad name to all those who stand up for the "little guy."
It's never good to stand up for the little guy that wants to blow you up....
LOL... I'm not sure why you say that, but if it's because I'm socially liberal, no worries man.
Being liberal in some respect doesn't make you sympathetic to terrorists. If anything, true liberals should find terrorism more repulsive than social conservatives when the cause itself is ultraconservative.
What really confounds me is how some liberals can possibly relate to Islamism. In the Middle Eastern world, liberals and reformists are pro-Western and anti-Islamist. Why can't this be more true in the First World?
Being liberal in some respect doesn't make you sympathetic to terrorists. If anything, true liberals should find terrorism more repulsive than social conservatives when the cause itself is ultraconservative.
What really confounds me is how some liberals can possibly relate to Islamism. In the Middle Eastern world, liberals and reformists are pro-Western and anti-Islamist. Why can't this be more true in the First World?
I understand what you're saying, but it scares me to think that she would receive such a warm reception for aiding terrorists.rawls2 wrote:
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.lowing wrote:
I hate it when you make sense, it totally disarms me.............stop it.Turquoise wrote:
This is just crazy. It really saddens me to see people who fancy themselves "civil rights activists" aid terrorists. It gives a bad name to all those who stand up for the "little guy."
It's never good to stand up for the little guy that wants to blow you up....
Word, lock n load. America doesn't have the stomach to properly defend herself against traitors like she used to. Instead we give them a light sentence because they did some good. News flash: the good of the past doesn't outweigh treason! Wake up judge!
I am not surprised 1 bit.Turquoise wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but it scares me to think that she would receive such a warm reception for aiding terrorists.rawls2 wrote:
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.lowing wrote:
I hate it when you make sense, it totally disarms me.............stop it.
Um, SHE is the guilty and she aided terrorists who want to kill us. She is a poor excuse for an American and is NOT what make this country great. *loads rifle*rawls2 wrote:
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2006-10-16 17:45:58)
Under FDR she might well have been shot for treason.
Today...she'll get a book deal.
Go Bush
Today...she'll get a book deal.
Go Bush
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!!jonsimon wrote:
Yes, along with all the good-natured christians who help the disenfranchised.lowing wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html
2 and half years for treason...........she should be shot.
Honestly, I don't buy it. What motive would a little old lady have to intentionally help someone of ill-will?
Don't misunderstand, put her on the firing line and I'd pull the trigger before they said go. I was just using this as an example as why we are the cowboys wearing white.Stingray24 wrote:
Um, SHE is the guilty and she aided terrorists who want to kill us. She is a poor excuse for an American and is NOT what make this country great. *loads rifle*rawls2 wrote:
Well gentlemen, I hate to break it to you but people like her is what make this country the greatest. As retarded as it sounds, defending the guilty is part of are justice system and thats what sets us apart from the Axis of Evil.
......rides into the sunset.......
She released a statement by her client to the press...which the gov't has decided is "providing material support to terrorists"...I'm generally in favor of harsh punishment of terrorism perpetrators, but this isn't exactly selling nuclear secrets to the DPRK. Which is why the sentence is only 2.5 years and not life (or death).
"NEW YORK (AP) -- A firebrand civil rights lawyer who has defended Black Panthers and anti-war radicals was sentenced Monday to nearly 2½ years in prison for helping an imprisoned terrorist sheik communicate with his followers on the outside."Masques wrote:
She released a statement by her client to the press...which the gov't has decided is "providing material support to terrorists"...I'm generally in favor of harsh punishment of terrorism perpetrators, but this isn't exactly selling nuclear secrets to the DPRK. Which is why the sentence is only 2.5 years and not life (or death).
not hardly.
liberal hero? lowing, honestly, sometimes I get the impression that you're on drugs or severly alcoholic.
well, according to the article, she didn't realize she was aiding terrorists. i definitely think her sentence should've been heavier, but i don't think she should be killed for accidental treason. don't get me wrong, i fully believe real traitors, like the american al-quada guy, should definitely be executed. but apparently this woman didn't realize she was providing material aid to the terroists.
That's ok. *pats traitor on the head* It was only a little treason. We'll let ya slide.Masques wrote:
She released a statement by her client to the press...which the gov't has decided is "providing material support to terrorists"...I'm generally in favor of harsh punishment of terrorism perpetrators, but this isn't exactly selling nuclear secrets to the DPRK. Which is why the sentence is only 2.5 years and not life (or death).
I said I don't believe she has any motive, and thus is likely not guilty of intentionally commiting any crime. I never complained about her sentence, I just said I can't personally convict her without seeing the trial. Way to jump the gun.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!!jonsimon wrote:
Yes, along with all the good-natured christians who help the disenfranchised.lowing wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html
2 and half years for treason...........she should be shot.
Honestly, I don't buy it. What motive would a little old lady have to intentionally help someone of ill-will?
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.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!!jonsimon wrote:
Yes, along with all the good-natured christians who help the disenfranchised.lowing wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html
2 and half years for treason...........she should be shot.
Honestly, I don't buy it. What motive would a little old lady have to intentionally help someone of ill-will?
If this is actually true, then it's a tough call. The part that bothers me is how she doesn't seem disturbed in the slightest by her actions. I'd personally be ashamed of myself even if I "accidentally" aided terrorists.kilgoretrout wrote:
well, according to the article, she didn't realize she was aiding terrorists. i definitely think her sentence should've been heavier, but i don't think she should be killed for accidental treason. don't get me wrong, i fully believe real traitors, like the american al-quada guy, should definitely be executed. but apparently this woman didn't realize she was providing material aid to the terroists.
You make it sound like it's cut and dry. They might not even seem like terrorists to her. It's not like she was transporting explosives or arms. They might have just been poor men who wanted to speak with their family or friends. From here we honestly cannot tell, and thus, cannot derive our own actions in her position.Turquoise wrote:
If this is actually true, then it's a tough call. The part that bothers me is how she doesn't seem disturbed in the slightest by her actions. I'd personally be ashamed of myself even if I "accidentally" aided terrorists.kilgoretrout wrote:
well, according to the article, she didn't realize she was aiding terrorists. i definitely think her sentence should've been heavier, but i don't think she should be killed for accidental treason. don't get me wrong, i fully believe real traitors, like the american al-quada guy, should definitely be executed. but apparently this woman didn't realize she was providing material aid to the terroists.
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.jonsimon wrote:
You make it sound like it's cut and dry. They might not even seem like terrorists to her. It's not like she was transporting explosives or arms. They might have just been poor men who wanted to speak with their family or friends. From here we honestly cannot tell, and thus, cannot derive our own actions in her position.Turquoise wrote:
If this is actually true, then it's a tough call. The part that bothers me is how she doesn't seem disturbed in the slightest by her actions. I'd personally be ashamed of myself even if I "accidentally" aided terrorists.kilgoretrout wrote:
well, according to the article, she didn't realize she was aiding terrorists. i definitely think her sentence should've been heavier, but i don't think she should be killed for accidental treason. don't get me wrong, i fully believe real traitors, like the american al-quada guy, should definitely be executed. but apparently this woman didn't realize she was providing material aid to the terroists.
Do you have a substantive reply? Or are you going to muster some kind of critical response from that shriveled brain rattling around in your head?Stingray24 wrote:
That's ok. *pats traitor on the head* It was only a little treason. We'll let ya slide.Masques wrote:
She released a statement by her client to the press...which the gov't has decided is "providing material support to terrorists"...I'm generally in favor of harsh punishment of terrorism perpetrators, but this isn't exactly selling nuclear secrets to the DPRK. Which is why the sentence is only 2.5 years and not life (or death).
All links mention that she passed messages between the Sheikh and his group but don't mention if the messages had any sort of operational benefit (which would likely be closer to the definition of treasonous behaviour). I'm saying that the gov't didn't have enough to make a conviction of treason, because her offense seems to have been violating a DoJ restriction. She should have definitely been disbared (if not for anything other than defying protocol), but
The reason I'm arguing that this is not treason is that under the rather expansive definitions that seem to be operable in this thread, the military personnel ordered to defend terror suspects at GITMO and elsewhere and those that have leaked gov't information could have possibly engaged in treasonous behaviour.
Fair enough... Facts are certainly better than conjecture....jonsimon wrote:
You make it sound like it's cut and dry. They might not even seem like terrorists to her. It's not like she was transporting explosives or arms. They might have just been poor men who wanted to speak with their family or friends. From here we honestly cannot tell, and thus, cannot derive our own actions in her position.Turquoise wrote:
If this is actually true, then it's a tough call. The part that bothers me is how she doesn't seem disturbed in the slightest by her actions. I'd personally be ashamed of myself even if I "accidentally" aided terrorists.kilgoretrout wrote:
well, according to the article, she didn't realize she was aiding terrorists. i definitely think her sentence should've been heavier, but i don't think she should be killed for accidental treason. don't get me wrong, i fully believe real traitors, like the american al-quada guy, should definitely be executed. but apparently this woman didn't realize she was providing material aid to the terroists.