Comments on: Judge Called Mukasey "Tyrant" At Speech
Wash. Supreme Court Justice Admits Outburst Shortly Before Attorney General Collapsed
Add a Comment See all 142 Comments
- ....
Think Japanese internment
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by impeach___w at 03:51 PM : Nov 26, 2008
The thing is, I agree with you "for the most part". Your analogy of Japanese internment is very close to right (Japanese internment included whole families on a larger scale). I am glad BOTH sides of the argument have agreed it should be closed. However, there are three other points here:
1. There really are bad guys at GITMO. We need a way to sort them and nullify the power of the bad ones. A public court cannot hear many of the accusations because it would further endanger us and maybe even families of the accused. A military court suffers cries of discrimination.
2. Bush and company have imprisoned people on our behalf, not for personal gain. When it began, the majority of us agreed with the actions. Lets not be what Jefferson called "Sunshine soldiers". Lets help find a reasonable way out of this without compromising our national security.
3. How do we proceed in the future? Terrorists will plan to attack again, perhaps will succeed. Clinton chose too moderate reponse that emboldened them. Bush has been too militant. How do we determine an honorable and safe manner in the future? - Reply to this comment
- I Forgot to add that the framers and the surpreme court consider you constituional rights to be "God Given" meaning they can not be taken away by anyone- ever, Except in some cases if your a convicted felon.
- Reply to this comment
- I won''t be giving up my right to bear, the Surpreme Court said so. They however did not say which arms you have a right to bear. We know rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Will we be stuck with registered single shots someday? You lost your right to privacy- NSA letters, corruption of FISA, clearly unconstitutional and illegal, Hapeus Corpus, indefinate detainement under material witness, illegal combatant etc. There are many more But the main "right" you lost was a legitimate governmet under the constitution. What you gained was a perverted one with an administration that picked and choose the lines it agreed gave broad definition to the ones it didn''t agree with and gave itself wartime powers that were never intended to be used in this way. Think Japanese internment
It seems Bush like FDR has taught us all a lesson, might makes right. The AG agrees. No one is going to protect your rights unless you know you what rights you have and are able to protect them yourselves (as the constitution states, with Arms) That 2nd Amendment right is what keeps Government honest. - Reply to this comment
- We''''re not supposed to find a middle ground with you, you''''re suppose to understand that you are more isolated in the world than you want to think. And this country can''''t AFFORD to find any "middle ground" with right-wing conservatives anymore. NO *** WAY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by prometheus41 at 03:00 PM : Nov 26, 2008
Thanks for your open minded understanding and compassion. May you bless the United States of America. - Reply to this comment
- If you are a red blooded american, you would understand that nothing is worth "giving up "some" of our freedoms" NOTHING! And especially not safety. Bush took the oath to protect the constitution not the scared people. He refers to the one thing that gives him power, that makes us a country, that he swore to protect, as "just a GOD D-A-M-N-E-D piece of paper"!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by impeach___w at 03:13 PM : Nov 26, 2008
OH yes, I am definitely a red blooded American. But I do not totally agree with you because we havent agreed on what freedoms are in question and I know we always give up "some". For example, I object to paying income taxes (property taxes would tax the rich without hurting the rest), but the 16th amendment makes it part of our daily life. I see many who object to GITMO would also restrict our freedom to bear arms to make us "safer" (seems selective interpretation to me). I face search and seizure every time I board a commercial aircraft.
Lets be fair and open minded. Protect our liberties and those who protect our rights to them. - Reply to this comment
- I do recall that shortly after 9/11 Bush and others told us we would be giving up "some" of our freedoms in return for safety. We warily bought into it. Bush has delivered on the safety. Only we can decide if it was worth the trade -Posted by machineguy
If you are a red blooded american, you would understand that nothing is worth "giving up "some" of our freedoms" NOTHING! And especially not safety. Bush took the oath to protect the constitution not the scared people. He refers to the one thing that gives him power, that makes us a country, that he swore to protect, as "just a GOD D-A-M-N-E-D piece of paper"! - Reply to this comment
- I am not sure how I feel about our countries use of Gitmo. I do recall that shortly after 9/11 Bush and others told us we would be giving up "some" of our freedoms in return for safety. We warily bought into it. Bush has delivered on the safety. Only we can decide if it was worth the trade. But now that we feel safe, we choose to ridicule and insult the people many of us supported when we were afraid. I dont agree with that because it will deter some future leader from actions that may be necessary to protect us.
- Reply to this comment
- I can''''t believe anybody could be missing the point of just how successful of a demonstration of free speech this was by Sanders.
All he did was achieve a momentary outburst ... , having no expectation or desire to cause Mukasey physical harm or to collapse, but the end result is that the AP publishes this story, and most everybody reading it was probably first wondering at least (1) why Sanders said this, and what Mukasey was saying (2) why this might have caused Mukasey some stress.
I...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by prometheus41 at 02:50 PM : Nov 26, 2008
I didnt miss the success of his outburst. Lets give him credit for that and be happy for the outcome.
But, I also didnt miss his attempt to avoid attribution until he saw how successful he had been. Obviously, he spoke up, then ran, then pretended ignorance. I dont see that as standing up for his opinion. I also see this as a risky way to excercise our rights. Most often it gathers ridicule for a cause, not support. It was successful, but I think HE was arguing that the end does not justify the means. - Reply to this comment
To think, an activist judge is a conservative and can think independently. I thought I would never see the day.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
Posted by patrik1974 at 02:26 PM : Nov 26, 2008
There are many more of us than CBS or the NY Times would have you believe.
Independent thought is a mark of a true conservative. Further, we are usually much more tolerant than many liberals. It seems both viewpoints have been characterized by the extremes amoung them. I know most of my liberal friends arent gay abortion salesmen, but it seems many of the liberals I speak to think conservatives are bible thumping gun runners. Sad because we need to meet in the middle and lead our country.
Posted by machineguy at 02:35 PM : Nov 26, 2008
Actually I think it would be fair to all involved if you make a fit for yourselves in a larger free world before you ask anybody to find middle ground with you. What you consider independent and accessible is far right and unapproachable in every other industrialized nation.
We''re not supposed to find a middle ground with you, you''re suppose to understand that you are more isolated in the world than you want to think. And this country can''t AFFORD to find any "middle ground" with right-wing conservatives anymore. NO *** WAY.- Reply to this comment
- CASE CLOSED:
The Chinese did it with the Melamine in the Metamucil. - Reply to this comment
- Is Death to Tyrants! considered hate speech or a Threat? What if you say it in Latin?
- Reply to this comment
- Mukasey''s speech was disrupted by Mukasey himself shortly after this Sander''s brief disruption where he excused himself. I agree that he probably should have waited until the Question and Answer session, but we likely wouldn''t be reading about it now would we?
I submit Mukasey stifled his own right to free speech when he took the nap.
At that point, Everyone should have fought for the microphone and contiued the bashing until he was removed from the building.
That is the difference between interupting free speech and a non-interuption but in poor taste.
Sanders could have said something like You deserve the death sentence! - Reply to this comment
- Posted by machineguy at 02:18 PM : Nov 26, 2008
I can''t believe anybody could be missing the point of just how successful of a demonstration of free speech this was by Sanders.
All he did was achieve a momentary outburst with the words, "Tyrant! You''re a Tyrant", having no expectation or desire to cause Mukasey physical harm or to collapse, but the end result is that the AP publishes this story, and most everybody reading it was probably first wondering at least (1) why Sanders said this, and what Mukasey was saying (2) why this might have caused Mukasey some stress.
I can''t imagine a more effective rebuttal (political if not semantic) and way of reaching a larger audience with it. This is like a Republican wet dream. - Reply to this comment
- To think, an activist judge is a conservative and can think independently. I thought I would never see the day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by patrik1974 at 02:26 PM : Nov 26, 2008
There are many more of us than CBS or the NY Times would have you believe.
Independent thought is a mark of a true conservative. Further, we are usually much more tolerant than many liberals. It seems both viewpoints have been characterized by the extremes amoung them. I know most of my liberal friends arent gay abortion salesmen, but it seems many of the liberals I speak to think conservatives are bible thumping gun runners. Sad because we need to meet in the middle and lead our country. - Reply to this comment
- To think, an activist judge is a conservative and can think independently. I thought I would never see the day.
- Reply to this comment
- I don''''t think you understand what is meant by free speech and why we have the protection.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by prometheus41 at 02:06 PM : Nov 26, 2008
You are absolutely wrong. I DO understand about free speach. Further, I agree with MOST of your statement above.
But:
1. I do not believe it furthers anyones goals when they use that right to disrupt the right of others.
2. It wastes our precious right when we charge our speach with emotional and exagerated words (hate, fascism, etc.)instead of precision and persuasion.
3. It threatens all of our rights when we choose to use any one of them to bully others.
Finally, I dont agree with our countries circumventing the rights of others under our constitution (eg Gitmo). But I am also aware that I have limited information and will not "hate anyone", just criticise them. - Reply to this comment
- Ahh shucks I guess not,
dburfears was able to do it at 01:58 PM !
Why can''t I? - Reply to this comment
- Posted by prometheus41 at 01:13 PM : Nov 26, 2008
Its not free speach when you interrupt anothers right to be hear (free speach). Its not free speach when you persist in talking to your partner at a movie theater.
Free speach is finding your own venue or one that is intended to be shared (like this one) and persenting your own ideas. Even then, there are limits to what can be said without retribution (slander, incite to riot, etc).
Lets not ruin our precious right to free speach by mis-applying the concept. Protect it by protecting how it is used.
Posted by machineguy at 01:43 PM : Nov 26, 2008
I don''t think you understand what is meant by free speech and why we have the protection.
It is meant primarily to be a vehicle for a minority to protect itself from a majority. Certainly even to a minimalist it is meant to allow effective protest of government policy and agenda.
It''s most sacred use and location is when another''s objectionable speech, claims or conclusions would otherwise be met with silence.
It''s considered a valuable tool for dissent in the British House of Commons. And Mukasey isn''t some school girl giving a talk about her family''s summer vacation, he''s using an active White House official using a public forum to defend objectionable government policy.
Christ. It''s amazing that this country can even survive the heavy weight of fascism, when all that''s propping up our liberty is arrogant self-interpretations of when it''s OK to speak your mind. - Reply to this comment
- *** Cheney- Hey you can say *** here without being censered, Everyone give thanks!
- Reply to this comment
- Apparently judges like Alexander prefer to see free speech by judges reserved to the court room, where contempt of court charges can be applied to any that disagree with the judge''''''''s free speech. Talk about a tyrant.
Posted by prometheus41 at 01:13 PM : Nov 26, 2008
So are you saying all judges are tyrants then? - Reply to this comment
