John Adams Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 I suppose it's not entirely untrue to say "I hate black people", since I treat everyone like a downtrodden minority. I was thinking of taking one of my sister's constitutional law textbooks with me and ostentatiously reading it while I was waiting. Maybe offer up some commentary such as "Can you believe this Fifth Amendment bull ****? What a collection of !@#$ing stupid ideas..." Mention how you'll be a great juror because you can use your cell phone to google the law during breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Just emphasize your science education. They want easily swayed dummies on the jury if they can get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Funny, coming from a guy who wrote a book called The Four Pillars of Investing: Lessons for Building a Winning Portfolio Market risk is significantly minimized if you are selling books rather than buying stocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Mention how you'll be a great juror because you can use your cell phone to google the law during breaks. Court has free wi-fi. I'll bring my laptop. I wish I had a magic 8-ball to bring, too. "Do you think you could rule fair and impartially in this case?" "Hold on a minute, let me check..." - <shake><shake><shake> - "...'All signs point to yes.'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Since this is turning into a legal tangent, can anyone answer if there's adult supervision at DoJ? It's bad enough that you think that putting terrorists on trial in NYC without consulting the local officials, it's doubly worse to think that a terrorist should be treated as a criminal after a 50 minute interrogation. But can someone explain the logic of broadcasting to the world that the underwear bomber is cooperating and revealing secrets? Is that a smart thing to do, for what I keep hearing is an administration full of smart people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Market risk is significantly minimized if you are selling books rather than buying stocks. Gospel according to Trump? (in his case real estate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Market risk is significantly minimized if you are selling books rather than buying stocks. Who said anything about not buying stocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Since this is turning into a legal tangent, can anyone answer if there's adult supervision at DoJ? It's bad enough that you think that putting terrorists on trial in NYC without consulting the local officials, it's doubly worse to think that a terrorist should be treated as a criminal after a 50 minute interrogation. But can someone explain the logic of broadcasting to the world that the underwear bomber is cooperating and revealing secrets? Is that a smart thing to do, for what I keep hearing is an administration full of smart people? If a "terrorist" is captured on US soil by US law enforcement, or captured by foreign law enforcement and properly extradited to the US, he should be treated as a criminal with full protection under the Constution, peroid. That is no different in principle than the SCOTUS decision concerning corporations and campaign advertising - the Constution must be upheld first and foremost. As for the underwear bomber question...could be smart. Not enough information to judge. What if, for example, he's not cooperating, and someone decided "Well, let's just announce he is and see if that kicks over any rocks."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 If a "terrorist" is captured on US soil by US law enforcement, or captured by foreign law enforcement and properly extradited to the US, he should be treated as a criminal with full protection under the Constution, peroid. That is no different in principle than the SCOTUS decision concerning corporations and campaign advertising - the Constution must be upheld first and foremost. As for the underwear bomber question...could be smart. Not enough information to judge. What if, for example, he's not cooperating, and someone decided "Well, let's just announce he is and see if that kicks over any rocks."? Sometimes you're really right. I had the same initial reaction to the announcement of the underroo bomber's cooperation as GG. Then I thought what you said. Then back to GG. After 5 minutes, I switched the glasses and laughed as you drank the cup with the iocane powder. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 If a "terrorist" is captured on US soil by US law enforcement, or captured by foreign law enforcement and properly extradited to the US, he should be treated as a criminal with full protection under the Constution, peroid. That is no different in principle than the SCOTUS decision concerning corporations and campaign advertising - the Constution must be upheld first and foremost. As for the underwear bomber question...could be smart. Not enough information to judge. What if, for example, he's not cooperating, and someone decided "Well, let's just announce he is and see if that kicks over any rocks."? Wasn't he detained while the plane was still in the air and I can argue that when the plane landed, he should have been handed over to the military. And if he's not cooperating than it really reinforces the great idea to read the Miranda after 50 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Wasn't he detained while the plane was still in the air and I can argue that when the plane landed, he should have been handed over to the military. I honestly don't know. I would think (it would be my preference, at least) that once the plane enters US airspace, US law should apply, however. The whole discussion gets back to what I've been saying for years: where do you draw the line between domestic criminal law and extra-national matters of national security? Still, no one's defined that very well - the Bush administration tried to dodge it by holding anyone with an ambiguous status at places like Gitmo; the Obama administration is taking the opposite view that Constitutional protections apply to everyone in custody. Frankly, they're both wrong. And if he's not cooperating than it really reinforces the great idea to read the Miranda after 50 minutes. Primacy of constitutional protections. If he should be and is in the custody of law enforcement, I'm all for it. I'm not willing to trash the legal, Constitutional basis of the country for mere physical security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 If a "terrorist" is captured on US soil by US law enforcement, or captured by foreign law enforcement and properly extradited to the US, he should be treated as a criminal with full protection under the Constution, peroid. That is no different in principle than the SCOTUS decision concerning corporations and campaign advertising - the Constution must be upheld first and foremost. As for the underwear bomber question...could be smart. Not enough information to judge. What if, for example, he's not cooperating, and someone decided "Well, let's just announce he is and see if that kicks over any rocks."? They way I see it, Unlawful Enemy combatants shouldn't be afforded full protection under our constitution. I believe the Hamdan vs Rumsfeld ruling was an unfortunate one, and should have never of reversed the ruling of the appeals court. When it comes to protecting this country from future attacks from vile pieces of **** like the underoo bomber, we should use all methods available to us in extracting as much information possible. This 50 minute interrogation was a joke, and Holder should be held accountable for his incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Primacy of constitutional protections. If he should be and is in the custody of law enforcement, I'm all for it. I'm not willing to trash the legal, Constitutional basis of the country for mere physical security. That's obviously if you treat him as a criminal because he entered US territory. Yet if a foreign soldier or a spy did that, he wouldn't be subject to criminal statutes but military ones, right? So the distinction is that of a uniform and the code that civilized nations have adopted. So now not only is there the humanitarian concern about waging a humanitarian asymmetric war, but applying asymmetric legal standards because God's soldiers don't put on a uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 That's obviously if you treat him as a criminal because he entered US territory. Yet if a foreign soldier or a spy did that, he wouldn't be subject to criminal statutes but military ones, right? So the distinction is that of a uniform and the code that civilized nations have adopted. So now not only is there the humanitarian concern about waging a humanitarian asymmetric war, but applying asymmetric legal standards because God's soldiers don't put on a uniform. It's just a personal opinion, mind you, but...yes, basically. Constitutional rights should apply to any US citizen or anyone within the US national soverignty. Outside of it...I'd prefer the Geneva Convention be followed, but until international law catches up with transnational privately-sponsored terrorism it's not terribly practical. Fact is, we fight by rules and they don't. You can either fight by the rules, and they're protected...or throw out the rules, and they win anyway. B word of a problem, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Quick, sell everything!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Gospel according to Trump? (in his case real estate) If I hurry, I think I can still get a seat at his real estate seminar today at the Stamford Marriott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 If I hurry, I think I can still get a seat at his real estate seminar today at the Stamford Marriott. Can I borrow your notes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts