tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post5935279535253120107..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Friday Morning Ramble (March 19): The Prostitutes & ObamaCare EditionPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-84308569907749634512010-03-24T10:39:02.859+13:002010-03-24T10:39:02.859+13:00Classic comment on the $3.4 million hookers bill i...Classic comment on the $3.4 million hookers bill in the Herald.<br /><br />"Her assets have been frozen"<br /><br />GeorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80808895215755127522010-03-21T20:14:46.338+13:002010-03-21T20:14:46.338+13:00Kurt
Ah, that explains it.
LGMKurt<br /><br />Ah, that explains it.<br /><br />LGMLGMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-33100646943375632972010-03-21T12:38:35.576+13:002010-03-21T12:38:35.576+13:00Our anon looks like the signature of Redbaiter. He...Our anon looks like the signature of Redbaiter. He is coming here to post since David Farrar has banned him at kiwiblog for a few weeks or a month I think.Kurtnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-54091467180015967872010-03-21T10:18:53.092+13:002010-03-21T10:18:53.092+13:00Anon
Were you aware that Robert is a NZer?
LGMAnon<br /><br />Were you aware that Robert is a NZer?<br /><br />LGMLGMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58957861160828689552010-03-20T19:33:19.761+13:002010-03-20T19:33:19.761+13:00You probably aren't as exposed to the full fur...<i><br />You probably aren't as exposed to the full fury of the Left-wing assault, in NZ.</i><br /><br />you've really no idea about NZ have you?<br /><br />NZ's politics are such that <b>Obama would be seen as an evil hard-right fascist</b>.<br /><br />Every single party in NZ - including the NZ ACT and Libertarianz - is significantly to the <b>left of Obama</b>. One of the last remaining communist regiemes was voted out by a (by a centre-left party) last year - but no significant policies have changed.<br /><br />You've absolutely no idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-26840382280521862972010-03-20T11:06:28.548+13:002010-03-20T11:06:28.548+13:00Hornberger not only framed it in that context, he ...Hornberger not only framed it in that context, he didn't even have the bloody decency to NAME the 'conservative' that he is tarring.<br /><br />As best as I can figure he is talking about Andrew C. McCarthy. And that's all I can find, because after spending 10 minutes trawling the swamp of left-wing faux-outrage I have yet to find the article in which Mr McCarthy floats this trial balloon (because he is no longer associated with the NY prosecutors office). <br /><br />And I call it faux-outrage because I read not a squeak about the extra-judicial hellfire-missile assassinations that Obama is rightly - IMHO - authorizing. One would have thought that if trial by jury was your bottom line then extra-judicial execution should be beyond the pale! <br /><br />As near as I can figure, McCarthy was opining (if indeed the charge is real) on the practical means by which you would set up a hybrid military-tribunal system wherein the would-be terrorists would be have their cases heard according to some bare-bones grab-bag of rights that met some undefined international minimal standard of fair-play. Unfortunately he christened his theoretical creation with a name utilized by the Nazis and touched off the rant(s) that you referred to.<br /><br />And let me also stress, that McCarthy's idea doesn't impress me much anyway. Quite what a 'minimum international standard' would entail given the appallingly low standards of behavior that are permitted in countries not founded with the help of the English is unknown and is somewhat frightening to me.<br /><br />As an example: civilian Italian police are reputedly allowed to physically rough-up the folks that they are interrogated. I can refer you to the Noodle-food link discussing a lecture - given on the benefits of the 5th amendment - wherein this is discussed, if you wish.<br /><br />US Conservatives are a mixed bunch. There are those like Sarah Palin who appear to be in favor of jury nullification.<br /> <br />For example (from http://reason.com/archives/2008/09/10/a-decent-pick)<br /><br />"[Sarah] Palin was also one of just three governors in the country to issue a proclamation in support of "Jurors' Rights" day, an event sponsored by the Fully Informed Jury Association, which encourages the doctrine of jury nullification. Nullification is an idea abhorred by tough-on-crime conservatives."<br /><br />And then there are those like New Zealand National Party's Tony - let's revoke the presumption of innocence - Bile.<br /><br />I don't know how you would go about fairly grouping the two camps given their mixed premises. <br /><br />But I would be more careful in quoting left-leaning bloggers who are in full Obama defence mode and are apt to conflate the two in order to support their Conservative=Hitler straw-man diversionary - pay no attention to the mesiah in the White-House - arguments. <br /><br />You probably aren't as exposed to the full fury of the Left-wing assault, in NZ. But here in a Mid Western Ivory tower it is deafening and demoralizing.Robert Winefieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14112142786565843852010-03-20T09:14:22.532+13:002010-03-20T09:14:22.532+13:00@Robert: It's unfortunate that Hornberger fram...@Robert: It's unfortunate that Hornberger framed this discussion in that context, since I agree with you competely that battlefield combatants are not candidates for any kind of trial--and trying to make them makes a mockery of law, and of the war itself.Peter Cresswellhttp://pc.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-59361404376640392732010-03-20T07:52:22.004+13:002010-03-20T07:52:22.004+13:00"Conservatives hate trial by jury."
Def..."Conservatives hate trial by jury."<br /><br />Define conservative. Because in so far as the military tribunals to determine the fate of those captured on the battlefield in arms against the USA in a legally declared armed conflict against a state or entity that supports or propagates Islamo facist terrorism, you bet I'm against civilian trial by jury and all the other accouterments that accompany the US criminal legal system: <br /><br />(1) 'civilian rules of evidence.' Wherein you are allowed to challenge the means by which the evidence was collected. Doing so in the case of the Clinton era WTC trials led to the revelation that the CIA could track Bin Laden via his Sat-phone calls using the Echelon system (among others). Bin Laden has since stopped using cell and sat phones and we no longer know where the fucker is.<br /><br />(2) The 'right to face your accusor - even though he might be a CIA agent who has infiltrated Al Quaeda.'<br /><br />I could go on. The reason I have gone on this far is that the article that you linked to made the charge in the context of military tribunals conducted IN TIME OF WAR to determine the status of enemy combatants.<br /><br />And if thinking that -- trying arch terrorists hitherto interned at Guatanamo and bringing them to NY for a fully fledged jury trial in which the US gives away all of it's fucking techniques for tracking and capturing these bastards --makes me a Conservative in your eyes, then put me in a pin stripe blue tie and call me a tory.<br /><br />In the context of terrorists and pirates taken during wartime - criminal rules of jury trials do not apply. These fuckers aren't robbing a 7-11. They are trying to destroy the country, including the justice system which lies at its heart.<br /><br />How in the hell can you link to that discussion and pretend that terrorists and spies and saboteurs who are attempting to do over a sovereign nation are the same as a common criminal who is attempting to do over a handful of individual citizens? <br /><br />How can you accuse conservatives - or anyone else - of being against something when there is a sodding great contextual elephant in the room that you and the author of that steaming pile of electrons have both ignored?<br /><br />I agree with jury nullification. In the context of civilian criminal trials. <br /><br />I agree with the right to have your status determined in a speedy manner if you are taken prisoner on a battlefield. <br /><br />But the need for two systems of justice is obvious because the crimes (and I use that word to cover both peacetime infractions and wartime POW rules etc. because I lack the vocabulary to use the right terminology) are not equivalent either in their physical scope or their intent.<br /><br />And if realizing that these two situations are like oil and water makes me an enemy of freedom in your eyes, then the problem lies with you and not me. We are at war. <br /><br />That is why there are Predator drones assassinating Al Quaeda leaders with Hellfire missiles in Northern Pakistan as we speak. Or am I to assume that you believe that this contravenes their right to trial by jury and that they should be captured by Special Forces and brought to the High-Court in NYC to face trial by jury?<br /><br />Because if you agree with that author's thesis - and I must assume that you do because you linked to the damned thing, then you must be against the method by which the USA is prosecuting the war on the Afghan border. Or should I say illegitimate 'Police action?'Robert Winefieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-50410259209472957052010-03-19T16:28:52.673+13:002010-03-19T16:28:52.673+13:00On a Friday evening ramble, the Auckland Blues is ...On a Friday evening ramble, the Auckland Blues is going to demolish the Brumbies tonight at Eden Park. Yeeha! Go the Blues.Falafulu Fisinoreply@blogger.com