ACLU gets B-Slapped

[Guest Guest]

Are you suggesting that the courts would fail to follow the law simply because Bin Laden is involved?

If there was really some chance, other than in your fantasy world, that bin Laden would hire lawyers to represent him on constitutional questions in American courts, the government's solution would be simple and perfect: require the complainant to appear personally in court to vindicate his rights.

Now what, bonehead?

[Bryan]

If there was really some chance, other than in your fantasy world, that bin Laden would hire lawyers to represent him on constitutional questions in American courts, the government's solution would be simple and perfect: require the complainant to appear personally in court to vindicate his rights.

Now what, bonehead?

I guess you're figuring that Osama can't possibly find a jihadist willing to risk his life in order to take this important legal mission.

Thanks for implicitly admitting the gist of my earlier point, "Guest."

What's the legal basis for the requirement you mention above, by the way?

And what are the chances that you're yet another sock puppet in the same family as those others?

[Guest 2smart4u]

If there was really some chance, other than in your fantasy world, that bin Laden would hire lawyers to represent him on constitutional questions in American courts, the government's solution would be simple and perfect: require the complainant to appear personally in court to vindicate his rights.

Now what, bonehead?

What's wrong with this picture; an intellectually challenged Loony Lefty expounding on International

and Constitutional Law when his only exposure to the legal system was standing in front of a judge

being charged with a DUI ???

[Bryan]

You don't know who is involved or what the relationship is.

Sure I do. It's two stupid sock puppets trying to help each other out.

If you did . . . well no, you would still make stupid remarks, which you persist in doing.

Heh. Stupid isn't the razzing I'm giving you. Stupid is having sock puppets in the first place and having those identities take credit for the statements of their sock puppet buddies. That's you, Truth Fairy.

Osama bin Laden is not going to bring this kind of a case before an American court no matter what the standing requirement is.

Is that what he told you to say while you and he were plotting his legal strategy?

Of course not, little sock puppet. He has to wait until Twizzler completes the groundwork by having the courts revise their system for establishing standing.

Duh. Have you got a fist for brains or what?

[Bryan]

I hate to burst your bubble, on second thought no I don't . That wasn't my post. You apparently have a new fan. Semper Fi .

What bubble? I've always used blue to indicate sarcasm (it can help keep people like you from jumping to conclusions sometimes).

[Bryan]

Of course, you clearly know what the First Amendment means better than the dozens of federal judges who have ruled differently. How pompous can you be?

There's an easy way to find out. Read the First Amendment. Then see if the way I interpret it makes more sense than the way the dozens of federal judges have (supposedly) interpreted it. But don't entirely neglect the jurisprudence of the many judges who have interpreted it exactly the way I did (many of whom would have written their opinions prior to the 20th century).

Maybe while you're at it you can explain why modern judges are automatically less pompous than the judges of old.

[Bryan]

It's because we're all pissed at your dishonesty.

Yeah? You and who else?

Whatever helps you sleep at night, fool. The list of people who DON'T think you're full of crap would be a lot shorter than the list of people who do.

And you have the sock puppets to prove it?

Seriously, if you're going to level a charge of dishonesty shouldn't you at least try to come up with at least one example? It seems somehow ... dishonest to do otherwise, doesn't it?

[Bryan]

They'll never face the question because bin Laden will never call attention to his activities in that fashion.

And he's way too stupid to use a proxy. Right?

However, if he did and the law allowed him some advantage, the American legal system would promptly be altered to make sure he couldn't accomplish his ends, including carving out an exception for known terrorists.

So. You apparently do propose that the justice system should deliberately refrain from following the law in the case of terrorists. And whether you do or not, you appear to have conceded that Twizzler may have opened up the loophole that I pointed out.

For some reason, however, you didn't come clean and admit that your charge that I don't know the law was deflated in the process.

Probably because of your integrity (the lack thereof).

Your argument is childish, but typically Bryan - nothing to do with the real world, like sentient rocks and moons made of cheese.

Right. Because Bin Laden is way too stupid to use a proxy.

Maybe you should wake up to the real world and make the exception for known terrorists before implementing the idiotic Twizzler reform?

By the way, do you think American law enforcement might want to ask him a few questions about the whereabouts of his client?

Sure. Can you suggest why attorney-client privilege shouldn't apply in this case?

You don't think things through, do you? Your premise is just silly.

It was supposed to be, as I already pointed out to you (use of smiley to indicate jest). But at the same time it made my point, as you have subsequently been forced to allow.

Now you and Twizzler can go cry on each other's shoulders or whatever corresponds to shoulders on a sock puppet.

[Guest Truth Squad]

I guess you're figuring that Osama can't possibly find a jihadist willing to risk his life in order to take this important legal mission.

Thanks for implicitly admitting the gist of my earlier point, "Guest."

What's the legal basis for the requirement you mention above, by the way?

And what are the chances that you're yet another sock puppet in the same family as those others?

You are a complete imbecile. All another jihadist will accomplish is to draw attention to bin Laden's activities, increase the likelihood that the next president - who may actually want to find him - will find him, and end up in the same prison bin Laden would go to if he showed up.

The point was obvious a long time ago. Bryan, you are perhaps the most consummate ass I've ever encountered.

[Guest Truth Squad]

And he's way too stupid to use a proxy. Right?

So. You apparently do propose that the justice system should deliberately refrain from following the law in the case of terrorists. And whether you do or not, you appear to have conceded that Twizzler may have opened up the loophole that I pointed out.

For some reason, however, you didn't come clean and admit that your charge that I don't know the law was deflated in the process.

Probably because of your integrity (the lack thereof).

Right. Because Bin Laden is way too stupid to use a proxy.

Maybe you should wake up to the real world and make the exception for known terrorists before implementing the idiotic Twizzler reform?

Sure. Can you suggest why attorney-client privilege shouldn't apply in this case?

It was supposed to be, as I already pointed out to you (use of smiley to indicate jest). But at the same time it made my point, as you have subsequently been forced to allow.

Now you and Twizzler can go cry on each other's shoulders or whatever corresponds to shoulders on a sock puppet.

No Congress, no President and no court will allow the American legal system to be manipulated by terrorists. That reality may burst your bubble, if you had one, but it is the fact.

[Guest Guest]

Yeah? You and who else?

Everyone who talks to you, nimrod. How many people do you have answering your posts to tell you they agree, huh? Go ahead, list them.

[Guest Guest]

What's wrong with this picture; an intellectually challenged Loony Lefty expounding on International

and Constitutional Law when his only exposure to the legal system was standing in front of a judge

being charged with a DUI ???

GREAT !!! LMFAO !!!

[Guest Keith]

What bubble? I've always used blue to indicate sarcasm (it can help keep people like you from jumping to conclusions sometimes).

Really? Maybe your posts should include some sort of color chart to indicate your desired level of sarcasm so that we all may truly understand where you are coming from. You see Bryan, I can't read your mind nor do I profess to have the correct answer to every conceivable problem like you do. Please promise all of us mere mortal that you will use your powers for good and not evil. The sacrastic part is in blue just in case you could'nt figure it out.

[Bryan]

Everyone who talks to you, nimrod.

Heh. You dodged the question.

How many people do you have answering your posts to tell you they agree, huh? Go ahead, list them.

How many people do I have answering my posts in disagreement? Go ahead, list them.

[Bryan]

Really?

Yes, really.

Maybe your posts should include some sort of color chart to indicate your desired level of sarcasm so that we all may truly understand where you are coming from.

I don't think people are that stupid. But I suppose there are exceptions.

You see Bryan, I can't read your mind nor do I profess to have the correct answer to every conceivable problem like you do.

Great to see you haven't lost the ability to make things up. Why the lies, Keith?

[Guest a proud american]

Heh. You dodged the question.

How many people do I have answering my posts in disagreement? Go ahead, list them.

There are too many to list which would indicate most. But to be honest with you, when posting a response, instead of using web sites try using ask.com and researching the material first. Then if you find that you're right you can direct them to the particular information you are discussing. There is nothing wrong with using web sites per say, but they tend to be slanted in one direction or the other.

One example. Someone stated on the web site that Clinton had done the same thing as Bush with regards to wire tapping americans phone calls. I went to ask.com and typed in wire tap abuses under the Clinton Administration. What I found was that in each instance, he had a legal warrant obtained by the FISA Court. Another poster commented that the Supreme Court had ruled against the athiest Veteran who was suing to have the Mt. Soledad Cross removed.

Two things. He didn't know the size of the cross and I went to the Supreme Court web site and went back as far as 2000. This case wasn't even on the docket to be heard, so the Court has never ruled on its legality. Now Justice Kennedy did issue a stay pending the transfer of the land to the Federal Government back in 2005 A stay is not a decision.

If you do these things, then people may tend to take you more seriously.

[Bryan]

There are too many to list which would indicate most.

Would it? Do you have a handle on the number of sock puppets used here are KOTW? How many visitors really go by "Guest" and how often does "Guest" go by some other name or names?

But to be honest with you, when posting a response, instead of using web sites try using ask.com and researching the material first.

What argument of mine would have been improved by using Ask.com? Be specific.

Then if you find that you're right you can direct them to the particular information you are discussing. There is nothing wrong with using web sites per say, but they tend to be slanted in one direction or the other.

That's exactly why I tend to use information from Web sites likely to be given credence by my opponents. In the current case, however, you're just not going to find analysis of a dopey plan recommended by Twizzler. And the debate was handled via the systematic destruction of the arguments put forward by Twizzler and his sock-puppet pal Truth Fairy. Links aren't needed where logic will suffice.

One example. Someone stated on the web site that Clinton had done the same thing as Bush with regards to wire tapping americans phone calls. I went to ask.com and typed in wire tap abuses under the Clinton Administration. What I found was that in each instance, he had a legal warrant obtained by the FISA Court.

Maybe you should double-check what you think the other person wrote. The Clinton administration offered the same argument as the Bush administration on warrantless wiretaps. Perhaps they always had a warrant (feel free to link the resources you found through Ask.com), but if so that makes one wonder why they argued for greater executive power to conduct warrantless wiretaps.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

Another poster commented that the Supreme Court had ruled against the athiest Veteran who was suing to have the Mt. Soledad Cross removed.

Two things. He didn't know the size of the cross and I went to the Supreme Court web site and went back as far as 2000. This case wasn't even on the docket to be heard, so the Court has never ruled on its legality. Now Justice Kennedy did issue a stay pending the transfer of the land to the Federal Government back in 2005 A stay is not a decision.

If you do these things, then people may tend to take you more seriously.

I don't know of anyone at KOTW who does a better job than I do supporting his arguments with appropriate supporting citations.

Perhaps you should have researched my use of citations instead of coming up with a couple off the top of your head involving the arguments of others. I'd have taken you more seriously that way.

[Guest Kearny Senior]

There are too many to list which would indicate most. But to be honest with you, when posting a response, instead of using web sites try using ask.com and researching the material first. Then if you find that you're right you can direct them to the particular information you are discussing. There is nothing wrong with using web sites per say, but they tend to be slanted in one direction or the other.

One example. Someone stated on the web site that Clinton had done the same thing as Bush with regards to wire tapping americans phone calls. I went to ask.com and typed in wire tap abuses under the Clinton Administration. What I found was that in each instance, he had a legal warrant obtained by the FISA Court. Another poster commented that the Supreme Court had ruled against the athiest Veteran who was suing to have the Mt. Soledad Cross removed.

Two things. He didn't know the size of the cross and I went to the Supreme Court web site and went back as far as 2000. This case wasn't even on the docket to be heard, so the Court has never ruled on its legality. Now Justice Kennedy did issue a stay pending the transfer of the land to the Federal Government back in 2005 A stay is not a decision.

If you do these things, then people may tend to take you more seriously.

Borrrrrrrrrrrrring.

[Guest Keith]

Yes, really.

I don't think people are that stupid. But I suppose there are exceptions.

Great to see you haven't lost the ability to make things up. Why the lies, Keith?

Lies? What "lies" specifically?

[Bryan]

Lies? What "lies" specifically?

"... profess to have the correct answer to every conceivable problem like you do."

[Guest a proud american]

"... profess to have the correct answer to every conceivable problem like you do."

Bryan, I believe that it was you who made the statement that Clinton had also Illegally used wire taps. I looked it up and found that in each instance any domestic spying was done with the approval of the FISA Court. I could go back and read all of your blogs and start from there but that would be too time consuming so lets just say that most of your blather is found through web sites and blogs and mine is done using actual facts that can be verified without the use of blogs like the National Review who write stories to fit their readership.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Bryan, I believe that it was you who made the statement that Clinton had also Illegally used wire taps. I looked it up and found that in each instance any domestic spying was done with the approval of the FISA Court. I could go back and read all of your blogs and start from there but that would be too time consuming so lets just say that most of your blather is found through web sites and blogs and mine is done using actual facts that can be verified without the use of blogs like the National Review who write stories to fit their readership.

And of course your information doesn't come from Loony Left bloggers, I'm sure.

[Bryan]

Bryan, I believe that it was you who made the statement that Clinton had also Illegally used wire taps.

You have a faulty memory.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=77866

Now, why couldn't you do that with Ask.com? Took me just seconds.

In the drug-trafficking operation, the N.S.A. has been helping the Drug Enforcement Administration in collecting the phone records showing patterns of calls between the United States, Latin America and other drug-producing regions. The program dates to the 1990s, according to several government officials, but it appears to have expanded in recent years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washingt...nted=2&_r=1

(those wacky right-wing bloggers! why don't I just use Ask.com?)

I looked it up and found that in each instance any domestic spying was done with the approval of the FISA Court.

... and you conveniently forgot to share your source material.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=78433

Maybe you should ask Ask.com how to paste in URLs.

I could go back and read all of your blogs and start from there but that would be too time consuming

Why not use Ask.com? I've heard it's really grrrreat.

so lets just say that most of your blather is found through web sites and blogs and mine is done using actual facts that can be verified without the use of blogs like the National Review who write stories to fit their readership.

... except you conveniently fail to list the URLs you're using to support your claims. Anyway, I thought you liked that New York Times blog.