Secret trials for terrorists, says US judge

No, of course not. One can be saved and have a distorted worldview. This is part of your problem I think. You read into things. Don't ...

Actually I didn't.

I don't plan to pick and choose that. I am not a politician.

Again, you are guilty of reading into things. I don't think it was "fine and dandy." I think there was legitimate good faith cause at the time. I think it was poorly managed.

Make a case and let's consider it. I don't think there is a one size fits all.

 

I never said it was. But it is a side issue now.

This may be the silliest thing you have said yet, and that’s not easy to do.

Again, silly. The judge was making a generic statement, not a legal pronouncement and even you should know the difference.

Not under our system of government. As much as you claim the constitution, you don’t seem to understand how it works.
[quote[I see plain English. The Sixth amendment of the Constitution states:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
If you do not understand that "In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a PUBLIC trial", as a constitutional absolute and you believe that in some criminal prosecutions the accused should not receive a public trial, what is there to argue? Perhaps, it means something different in the original Greek?[/quote]The Supreme has said that like the first amendment, that is not an absolute guarantee. I am not sure I agree with them, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

I think part of the problem here is that you compound the problem by adding an unwillingness to think properly with an unwillingness to read closely. It doesn’t help the conversation.

Here’s the bottom line. I am not sure I agree with Posner, but I see his reasoning, and others have before.

 

You are attempting to run from your statement but you did. You stated:

"You acknowledge that Ron Paul advocated not going into Iraq to defend the lives being butchered by Saddam Hussein and he now advocates pulling out and letting terrorists kill many more unhindered. Those are documented facts that show a lack of respect for life."

You stated that Congressman Paul does not respect life. But you claim that you do. Therefore, you are claiming to be morally superior.

But I have news for you, Pastor Larry, you are not morally superior to Congressman Paul, nor to me.

 

That is not a claim to moral superiority. You simply misunderstood. It was a statement of fact that Ron Paul is not demonstrating a consistent pro life position. That's all.

Really? And how do you know? And are you claiming to be morally superior to me? How would you possibly be able to evaluate moral superiority of two people whom you don't know, and one about whom you are not objective?

 

We are all sinners. No one is morally superior to another person.

 

I'll let you guys fight.

I know me - I am surely morally inferior to any one of you posting here, so if that is the basis I need to back out of the discussion.

 

An intersting discussion but I wonder what bearing the Preamble to the Constitution has on the discussion. Does "We the people..." apply to non-citizens held outside the country? Does it apply to non-citizens held inside the country?

 

So...should the two rare US citizens currently charged as "enemy combatants" instead be charged as traitors?

What about non-citizens? Does the Geneva Convention allow them to challenge their incarceration in US courts? Does Geneva apply to enemies not in uniform? I thought any "soldier" caught without a uniform during battle could be shot immediately as a spy. However, I am probably showing my ignorance on this issue. I watched too much TV when I was young.

 

No, you simply don't read closely. You did this the other day didn't you? And then when I pointed it out, you apologized for misreading. What I said was that Ron Paul is not consistently prolife. I did not say he was not prolife. I think my arguments are difficult for you because you don't read that closely.

Not nearly as tired as your unwillingness to read and note these things that I am actually saying. You made a bad argument that contained a number of fallacies and expected it to be taken seriously. It was a silly thing to say.

There is nothing immature about pointing out the inadequacy of an argument to address a particular issue.

I didn't have a trial, so how can you call me a terrorist? I think that makes you a hypocrite.

On a serious note, under our system of law, the statement of a judge at a convention does not lead to a legal decision. If someone is called a terrorist, it does not mean that they have been declared such. You are reaching to try to make a point and you don't have to .

But under our system of law, the Supreme Court determines what is constitutional and what is not.

I used one, intentionally and lightheartedly. I used no others. Pointing out that an argument is weak or silly is not an ad hominem.

I am not sure that's his reasoning at all.

Consider this: Person A is arrested because he has plans for an imminent terror attack against a major metropolitan target. He can't be held without trial. But to make the case at trial requires the public divulging of a legal system of surveillance under which 12 other groups planning terror are currently being surveiled. If word of the surveilance gets out, it will tip off the other groups and drive them underground, changing their methods and ruining years of surveillance work. Having a private trial would enable the person held to be tried as well as to enable the surveillance to continue.

What would you do: Try the person publicly and ruin the chance to get 12 other groups, or let him go knowing that he has plans to commit an act of terrorism that will kill people?

 

And your statement is totally false. Congressman Paul is consistently pro-life. No one has presented any plausible evidence to the contrary.

 

Unfortunately, Rufus, I am afraid that is how some people think.

 

So you lied the other way when you apologized for missing the word "consistent"? Man, we can't trust you at all, if that is true. Listen, the point is that being "prolife" is not something you can be only when it is politically expedient.

Then why haven't you demonstrated those rather than making silly arguments? I am perfectly willing to have a conversation on this. I am not convinced either way. My inclination is to lean against private trials for anything. But I understand the other side.

No you weren't and no you didn't.

Can be, but I am not sure you are correct in your argument.

Authority for calling a person that. There is a common use of it that we use everyday and then there is a legal declaration. This was the former; the latter is what you are talking about.

I agree that there are grave problems in the system and that we should be impeaching judges for their disregard of the Constitution.

It wasn't intended to be. It was a lighthearted injection into a conversation that has gotten way too serious.

And in so doing you would jeopardize the lives of perhaps thousands because the 12 would find out how the US surveils them and would change their tactics to avoid it, continuing on with their plans of destruction. I think that is wrong.

This is a case of the classical ethical dilemma. You are driving a train headed towards a blown up bridge. By throwing a switch you can switch tracks but you will kill a man standing on it. If you don't throw the switch, you will plunge off the tracks and kill everyone on board.

Here, the case is with court cases. Do you "throw the switch" and "kill" the terrorist with a secret trial, or do you plunge straight ahead and kill more to avoid a secret trial.

When we consider the value of life, that is a harder decision to make. The constitution is not infallible and should not be considered such.

 

I have. I have presented evidence that he was opposed to saving thousands from the brutal murders under Saddam Hussein, and is now in favor of pulling out the troops so that thousands can be subjected to more terrorism and violence. That is not consistently prolife.

Here's the rub, Ken: What you should say is, "You are right. He's not. And that's not necessarily wrong because we can't be the world's policeman."

I actually agree with that argument. I am not consistently prolife because I don't think we should use force in Darfur or Sudan right now. But you didn't make that argument. You have tried to avoid the meaning of the word "consistent." I am more consistently prolife than Paul at present, but not entirely consistent. But at least I own my position. I don't try to avoid it.

The thing is that you tried to shade an argument when you didn't have to. This is where a person should just own what they believe and accept what comes along with it.

Ron Paul is prolife when it comes to American unborn babies. That is commendable. We need people like him who will do something about it.