The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality

I was surprised someone didn't post this sooner.

I'm torn on the issue personally.

I 100% hate it from the due process angle for sure.

But at the same time, a human life is a human life. If we're fine kiling foreign citizens tied to terrorism with no trial in drone strikes, is it not hypocritical to get upset about it when they happen to be a US citizen?

I get the legal issue with constitutional rights and all that. But isn't the moral issue the bigger deal here? Not just whether the person being assassinated is legally a citizen of the country carrying out the association?

Just my 2 cents. I hate patriotism/country loyalty personally. A person is a person, and I don't like these drone strikes regardless of whether the target is a citizen or not. They should be making efforts to take people alive and put them on trial. And we shouldn't only be getting upset about it when the target is a US citizen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was surprised someone didn't post this sooner.

I'm torn on the issue personally.

I 100% hate it from the due process angle for sure.

But at the same time, a human life is a human life. If we're fine kiling foreign citizens tied to terrorism with no trial in drone strikes, is it not hypocritical to get upset about it when they happen to be a US citizen?

I get the legal issue with constitutional rights and all that. But isn't the moral issue the bigger deal here? Not just whether the person being assassinated is legally a citizen of the country carrying out the association?

Just my 2 cents. I have patriotism/country loyalty personally. A person is a person, and I don't like these drone strikes regardless of whether the target is a citizen or not. They should be making efforts to take people alive and put them on trial. And we shouldn't only be getting upset about it when the target is a US citizen.[/QUOTE]

I disagreed with the bin Laden killing for precisely these reasons.

Constitutionally speaking, persons are protected, not just US citizens. The whole War On Terror is a farce.

Expressing outrage at the murder of a U.S. citizen by fiat is based more on tact than philosophy.
 
Right. The debate is legal versus ethical considerations.

It's odd, in my opinion, to exalt a human life because of national origin (or to similarly condemn or be indifferent because of national origin).

On the other hand, this is the logical next step for those who embraced neoconservative policies of preemptive war and foregoing picky things like laws in order to accomplish our goals. This is the same line of thinking that got us private military tribunals, waterboarding, and guantanamo bay - the same line of thinking that had the public *outraged* that we might dare try terrorists in US criminal courts. We can't be outraged by that and also outraged by this and remain consistent.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Right. The debate is legal versus ethical considerations.

It's odd, in my opinion, to exalt a human life because of national origin (or to similarly condemn or be indifferent because of national origin).

On the other hand, this is the logical next step for those who embraced neoconservative policies of preemptive war and foregoing picky things like laws in order to accomplish our goals. This is the same line of thinking that got us private military tribunals, waterboarding, and guantanamo bay - the same line of thinking that had the public *outraged* that we might dare try terrorists in US criminal courts. We can't be outraged by that and also outraged by this and remain consistent.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

Increasing the number of House reps by something like 4000 and returning the election of Senators to state assembly would both increase Congressional representation and restore at least a modicum of balance of power between the Executive/Legislative branches (why would Vermont vote to go to war?), as well as introduce numerous other parties into the equation.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I disagreed with the bin Laden killing for precisely these reasons.
[/QUOTE]

That I had less issues with as the sent in a team and at least had the chance to take him alive if he didn't resist.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was surprised someone didn't post this sooner.

I'm torn on the issue personally.

I 100% hate it from the due process angle for sure.

But at the same time, a human life is a human life. If we're fine kiling foreign citizens tied to terrorism with no trial in drone strikes, is it not hypocritical to get upset about it when they happen to be a US citizen?

I get the legal issue with constitutional rights and all that. But isn't the moral issue the bigger deal here? Not just whether the person being assassinated is legally a citizen of the country carrying out the association?

Just my 2 cents. I hate patriotism/country loyalty personally. A person is a person, and I don't like these drone strikes regardless of whether the target is a citizen or not. They should be making efforts to take people alive and put them on trial. And we shouldn't only be getting upset about it when the target is a US citizen.[/QUOTE]

This summarizes my thoughts on it perfectly. At the end of the day, he was probably a bad dude, and they killed him. Not losing sleep over that, but still to feign disgust at the loss of life only because the guy was an American citizen seems disingenious and hypocritical.
 
[quote name='berzirk']This summarizes my thoughts on it perfectly. At the end of the day, he was probably a bad dude, and they killed him. Not losing sleep over that, but still to feign disgust at the loss of life only because the guy was an American citizen seems disingenious and hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

I agree. However, look at it from an incremental perspective:

Using the disgust of killing U.S. citizens is a means to an end (stopping the War On Terror, and more broadly, the expansion of military overreach in the executive branch). Unfortunately, at this point, the average guy is more willing to accept that killing U.S. citizens is immoral than he is some brown skinned Moslem heathen. Planting this seed, along with a sample of the 5th and 6th Amendments (which make no distinction of citizenship - using "accused" and "persons" instead), may help change their perspective.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I agree. However, look at it from an incremental perspective:

Using the disgust of killing U.S. citizens is a means to an end (stopping the War On Terror, and more broadly, the expansion of military overreach in the executive branch). Unfortunately, at this point, the average guy is more willing to accept that killing U.S. citizens is immoral than he is some brown skinned Moslem heathen. Planting this seed, along with a sample of the 5th and 6th Amendments (which make no distinction of citizenship - using "accused" and "persons" instead), may help change their perspective.[/QUOTE]

You're giving the average American far too much credit.

The people ok with the war no terror, the patriot act and all that are the absurd jingoistic patriots who think the US rules and the rest of the world sucks.

Not going to change the perspective of the "America--fuck Yeah!" types.
 
just to play devil's advocate (if you honestly didn't think this has been going on since at least the Kennedy years you're fooling yourself), was this guy really "still a citizen"?

This is what I meant by Putin being the greatestthing ever for the US. We'll have an actual adversary that is worthwhile and identifiable. This will (hopefully) relieve us of this ambiguous "war on concept" thing and back onto the proper track of "war against place" which is something that the people can get behind. It's true and honest patriotism as opposed to some vague notion that people with a different invisible friend are somehow bad. I bet you a new sealed game that NASA would be back up and running with full funding in a month if Putin came out and said "Russians on the moon within 5 years", even if he was lying through his teeth Obama (or god forbid someone else before 2017) would have no choice but to throw people at the moon, even if it meant building a giant ass slingshot.
Plus, we might get a dozen or so more Anna Chapmans which would be just fine.

Seriously, fuck these desert wandering luddites and their fear of a prophet's graven image. The US needs a real enemy or it will continue to kill itself from the inside. Shit, the war on terror isn't even a war. It's babysitting at the cost of trillions per year in dollars and thousands in terms of lives.
 
[quote name='nasum']just to play devil's advocate (if you honestly didn't think this has been going on since at least the Kennedy years you're fooling yourself), was this guy really "still a citizen"?

This is what I meant by Putin being the greatestthing ever for the US. We'll have an actual adversary that is worthwhile and identifiable. This will (hopefully) relieve us of this ambiguous "war on concept" thing and back onto the proper track of "war against place" which is something that the people can get behind. It's true and honest patriotism as opposed to some vague notion that people with a different invisible friend are somehow bad. I bet you a new sealed game that NASA would be back up and running with full funding in a month if Putin came out and said "Russians on the moon within 5 years", even if he was lying through his teeth Obama (or god forbid someone else before 2017) would have no choice but to throw people at the moon, even if it meant building a giant ass slingshot.
Plus, we might get a dozen or so more Anna Chapmans which would be just fine.

Seriously, fuck these desert wandering luddites and their fear of a prophet's graven image. The US needs a real enemy or it will continue to kill itself from the inside. Shit, the war on terror isn't even a war. It's babysitting at the cost of trillions per year in dollars and thousands in terms of lives.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe instead of spending $1,500,000,000,000 on trying to kill people and set up a puppet government abroad, we could take some of that money to improve the situation at home. JMHO.
 
where's the fun in that?!
again, you fail to look at things in the big picture! War is good for the economy because it bumps up manufacturing and all that jazz.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Or maybe instead of spending $1,500,000,000,000 on trying to kill people and set up a puppet government abroad, we could take some of that money to improve the situation at home. JMHO.[/QUOTE]

Communist!
 
[quote name='nasum']where's the fun in that?!
again, you fail to look at things in the big picture! War is good for the economy because it bumps up manufacturing and all that jazz.[/QUOTE]
War is never good for the economy, period.
 
Anyone see the panel on Real Time w/ Bill Maher on Friday?

Loved Salman Rushdie saying 'there is a such thing as treason'...yeah there's a such thing as 'the Constitution' which lays out the process for treason.

Ah well, I guess 'the Constitution' isn't a suicide pact eh? They're terrists who want to kill us and Obama will save us from them! He's been so successful in the war on terror! Doing what Bush did!
 
[quote name='IRHari']Anyone see the panel on Real Time w/ Bill Maher on Friday?

Loved Salman Rushdie saying 'there is a such thing as treason'...yeah there's a such thing as 'the Constitution' which lays out the process for treason.

Ah well, I guess 'the Constitution' isn't a suicide pact eh? They're terrists who want to kill us and Obama will save us from them! He's been so successful in the war on terror! Doing what Bush did![/QUOTE]
I saw it kinda had to cringe through that particular exchange. When Rushdie was talking about "joining the enemy...[and] fight against their own country," what does that really mean? Call me an ideologue, but there's more than one way to impose violence on someone or a group than blowing them up. I mean people can't even hint about the class warfare from the oligarchs for the last 30 years without being labelled a goddamn commie. I mean isn't a group that seeks to subvert government and disenfranchise the vast majority of the population also a form of treason?

Yes, al-Awlaki is a criminal that organized militant action against civilians and should be punished. As a citizen, he has some rights and should not have been summarily executed because he was able to radicalize some people into blowing other people up. Being tried in a court of law is one of the backbones of our society despite its perversion.

edit: Since a lot of us watch Real Time, maybe we should have a thread on it? I'll start one this weekend and see how it goes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']I saw it kinda had to cringe through that particular exchange. When Rushdie was talking about "joining the enemy...[and] fight against their own country," what does that really mean? Call me an ideologue, but there's more than one way to impose violence on someone or a group than blowing them up. I mean people can't even hint about the class warfare from the oligarchs for the last 30 years without being labelled a goddamn commie. I mean isn't a group that seeks to subvert government and disenfranchise the vast majority of the population also a form of treason?

Yes, al-Awlaki is a criminal that organized militant action against civilians and should be punished. As a citizen, he has some rights and should not have been summarily executed because he was able to radicalize some people into blowing other people up. Being tried in a court of law is one of the backbones of our society despite its perversion.

edit: Since a lot of us watch Real Time, maybe we should have a thread on it? I'll start one this weekend and see how it goes.[/QUOTE]
I saw that too. I was a bit surprised, but I got to wondering about whether other traitors have been executed without trial. I get the feeling it's happened before.
 
[quote name='Clak']I saw that too. I was a bit surprised, but I got to wondering about whether other traitors have been executed without trial. I get the feeling it's happened before.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't doubt that your feeling is correct. If we've convicted and murdererd innocent people on deathrow, it's not a far stretch to assume that we haven't executed "the guilty" without due process.

On that note, I'm not surprised that Paul has spoken out against this, but I can't help but think that it's more a factor of self-interest as a conspiracy wing-nut than concern for some group that's interested in social justice.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I wouldn't doubt that your feeling is correct. If we've convicted and murdererd innocent people on deathrow, it's not a far stretch to assume that we haven't executed "the guilty" without due process.

On that note, I'm not surprised that Paul has spoken out against this, but I can't help but think that it's more a factor of self-interest as a conspiracy wing-nut than concern for some group that's interested in social justice.[/QUOTE]
It's just that outrage over stuff like this always seems a little...convenient to me. As in, where was the outrage when this happened before? If it was a first then I'd shut up about it, but can anyone say that in the history of the U.S. every traitor has been given a trial?

It just annoys me that people sometimes react with such shocked outrage over things like this, when it likely isn't the first time it's happened.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's just that outrage over stuff like this always seems a little...convenient to me. As in, where was the outrage when this happened before? If it was a first then I'd shut up about it, but can anyone say that in the history of the U.S. every traitor has been given a trial?

It just annoys me that people sometimes react with such shocked outrage over things like this, when it likely isn't the first time it's happened.[/QUOTE]
I agree. The problem is that even when there IS a trial, it's mostly for show and a kangaroo court. Although, I can't help but think about the positive side of media involvement. Especially in regards to giving coverage to the most recent execution and others showing the perversion of our justice system.
 
Okay, I have a general question for everybody who thinks this is a problem. Why is he a US citizen? When U.S citizens join other countries armed forces or vice versa they lose the citizenship to originating country. Why is he still a US citizen because he choose to join an unofficial army that is an enemy of the US?
 
[quote name='Clak']I saw that too. I was a bit surprised, but I got to wondering about whether other traitors have been executed without trial. I get the feeling it's happened before.[/QUOTE]

Lee Harvey Oswald?

In opposition to the OP, there's a Somali couple in MN on trial for sending aid to al-Shabab. That would basically be a treason charge and they're going through the whole due-process bit. But you know, if it happens the wrong way once for this one guy that means that the US government is engaged in illegal assasinatino of political enemies on an hourly basis. They've got one guy on payroll that scares Chuck Norris but there's no internet joke about it because people fear him that much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere'] they lose the citizenship to originating country.[/QUOTE]

No they don't, you can join the IDF and still be both an Israeli and US citizen (both countries allow for duel citizenship).
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Okay, I have a general question for everybody who thinks this is a problem. Why is he a US citizen? When U.S citizens join other countries armed forces or vice versa they lose the citizenship to originating country. Why is he still a US citizen because he choose to join an unofficial army that is an enemy of the US?[/QUOTE]

IIRC, you can join another countries military. But you cannot accept a commission i.e. become an officer.
 
with only a slight intent to derail, the woman in the Somali trial a mentioned earlier refused to rise for the judge as a matter of religious principle (despite rising for the judge when she became a naturalized citizen) and was given 5 days in jail for every time she wouldn't stand. The next court date was after two nights in jail and now she's decided that standing is just fine. Of course she's now saying that she was forced to strip before trading in her hijab for the orange jumpsuit and wasn't allowed to wear the head dress thingy.

fucking pain in the ass.
 
[quote name='nasum']with only a slight intent to derail, the woman in the Somali trial a mentioned earlier refused to rise for the judge as a matter of religious principle (despite rising for the judge when she became a naturalized citizen) and was given 5 days in jail for every time she wouldn't stand. The next court date was after two nights in jail and now she's decided that standing is just fine. Of course she's now saying that she was forced to strip before trading in her hijab for the orange jumpsuit and wasn't allowed to wear the head dress thingy.

fucking pain in the ass.[/QUOTE]
Source? I don't remember you bringing this up recently.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Source? I don't remember you bringing this up recently.[/QUOTE]


Yah, I don't think he posted it-maybe a different forum or thread, but his conclusion that she's a pain in the ass by choosing to not stand when the judge enters (which is such stupid-ass tradition and pointless formality) is one that I have trouble coming to. Then if she was given nights in jail and after having her religious rights effectively revoked decided to do it to prevent more jail, as an American I'd be ashamed of the judge. Then to compound it by saying she was forbidden from wearing her religious head dress would make me think the ACLU should be 3 feet up the judges ass the next time he stands up.

Hopefully there's a lot more to the story that makes her out to be a whining, needy pain in the ass, because your summary is making our system sound like the one that is full of shit.

Edit: Found the story I assume he is referring to: http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_19029436
 
post # 25 in this thread is recent.

And yes, that story is the same.

In today's paper there are a couple of scholars and clerics from around town saying that she isn't offending the prohet by standing for the judge and that she is, in fact, just being a pain in the ass.

http://www.startribune.com/local/131141943.html
is the update from today now that she's decided to quit being a pain in the ass.

No word on any intervention from the ACLU, probably because they realize that she's being a pain in the ass.
Not standing for a judge has nothing to do with her religious freedom anyways. Taking your shoes off when entering a Japanese home is also a stupid-ass tradition and a pointless formality, but you still do it when you're in Japan so as to not be a pain in the ass. When you go over to your friend's house who doesn't smoke, you don't smoke in their house because that's their rule and you don't want to be a pain in the ass.
 
[quote name='nasum']post # 25 in this thread is recent.

And yes, that story is the same.

In today's paper there are a couple of scholars and clerics from around town saying that she isn't offending the prohet by standing for the judge and that she is, in fact, just being a pain in the ass.

http://www.startribune.com/local/131141943.html
is the update from today now that she's decided to quit being a pain in the ass.

No word on any intervention from the ACLU, probably because they realize that she's being a pain in the ass.
Not standing for a judge has nothing to do with her religious freedom anyways. Taking your shoes off when entering a Japanese home is also a stupid-ass tradition and a pointless formality, but you still do it when you're in Japan so as to not be a pain in the ass. When you go over to your friend's house who doesn't smoke, you don't smoke in their house because that's their rule and you don't want to be a pain in the ass.[/QUOTE]

There are varying Islamic views actually. There are hadiths that say it is inproper to stand-up when someone enters the room or greets you, as that shows them too much reverence. So, it's great that some people disagree with that, but there is absolutely a religious basis that can be used to justify it if one wished.

If this woman is an American citizen (which your earlier post says she is) then she isn't a guest, she's a tenant. The judge's quotes in the article made him out to be a dick IMO. But more importantly, she's not voluntarily going in to a Japanese household, or a friend's non-smoking abode. She is being required to appear to defend herself against allegations that she asserts as false. HUUUUUGE difference.

But I can see your point. Enforcement of our Constitutional rights should always be discarded when the risk of being a pain in the ass is present. Apparently the forefathers missed one.
 
[quote name='nasum']post # 25 in this thread is recent.

And yes, that story is the same.

In today's paper there are a couple of scholars and clerics from around town saying that she isn't offending the prohet by standing for the judge and that she is, in fact, just being a pain in the ass.

http://www.startribune.com/local/131141943.html
is the update from today now that she's decided to quit being a pain in the ass.

No word on any intervention from the ACLU, probably because they realize that she's being a pain in the ass.
Not standing for a judge has nothing to do with her religious freedom anyways. Taking your shoes off when entering a Japanese home is also a stupid-ass tradition and a pointless formality, but you still do it when you're in Japan so as to not be a pain in the ass. When you go over to your friend's house who doesn't smoke, you don't smoke in their house because that's their rule and you don't want to be a pain in the ass.[/QUOTE]
Tbh, that was pretty easy to miss considering that particular part of your post never gained any traction.

Using religion as cover in this particular instance as a form of protest is a little deceitful, but I think any charge of contempt of court applied to anyone in general is ridiculous to begin with. As an atheist, I'd prefer that she just come out and say that she objects to these charges and that this is a form of protest, but not everyone is able to articulate it in that way, so she went with what she knew.

Also, tracking dirt around someone's home because you don't feel like taking off your shoes and smoking in a non-smoker friend's home is pretty different from not standing up for a judge entering a courtroom.

I don't know you live, but I don't like getting rocks, mud, sand, snow, etc on my floors and/or carpets and I don't think that a lingering smell of stale ashtrays is very pleasant...and I used to smoke cigars, which are way worse than cigarettes in regards to lingering stains and odors.
 
so in the event that I show up in court on some charge, I'm free to do whatever the Flying Spaghetti Monster deems appropriate as it relates to my faith?

Bullshit.

"If this woman is an American citizen (which your earlier post says she is) then she isn't a guest, she's a tenant"
She's not a tenant in the courtroom. Dislike authority in any presentation as much as you like, there is a reason for tradition and decorum.

So there's your bullshit #2.

Now prepare for Bullshit #3

Her codefendants stood just fine and recognized the office/position without fear for their salvation. Mainly because they're not pains in the ass...

"Also, tracking dirt around someone's home because you don't feel like taking off your shoes and smoking in a non-smoker friend's home is pretty different from not standing up for a judge entering a courtroom.

I don't know you live, but I don't like getting rocks, mud, sand, snow, etc on my floors and/or carpets and I don't think that a lingering smell of stale ashtrays is very pleasant...and I used to smoke cigars, which are way worse than cigarettes in regards to lingering stains and odors. "

And your point is that you don't do that to other people because that would make you a pain in the ass? Yeah, I KNOW!

It's not at all different. Standing for the judge is the rule in that house. Not smoking and taking off your shoes is the rule in mine as it would seem to be in yours. So I won't do those things in your house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']so in the event that I show up in court on some charge, I'm free to do whatever the Flying Spaghetti Monster deems appropriate as it relates to my faith?

Bullshit.

"If this woman is an American citizen (which your earlier post says she is) then she isn't a guest, she's a tenant"
She's not a tenant in the courtroom. Dislike authority in any presentation as much as you like, there is a reason for tradition and decorum.

So there's your bullshit #2.

Now prepare for Bullshit #3

Her codefendants stood just fine and recognized the office/position without fear for their salvation. Mainly because they're not pains in the ass...

"Also, tracking dirt around someone's home because you don't feel like taking off your shoes and smoking in a non-smoker friend's home is pretty different from not standing up for a judge entering a courtroom.

I don't know you live, but I don't like getting rocks, mud, sand, snow, etc on my floors and/or carpets and I don't think that a lingering smell of stale ashtrays is very pleasant...and I used to smoke cigars, which are way worse than cigarettes in regards to lingering stains and odors. "

And your point is that you don't do that to other people because that would make you a pain in the ass? Yeah, I KNOW!

It's not at all different. Standing for the judge is the rule in that house. Not smoking and taking off your shoes is the rule in mine as it would seem to be in yours. So I won't do those things in your house.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you have an opinion that happens to be factually wrong, but that's no reason to call bullshit on the truth. There are varying views on whether or not it's allowed to stand up to acknowledge someone when they enter a room. That's just a fact. Some say it's disliked, some say it's forbidden. The co-defendents decided that they were OK with it, that's wonderful. They avoided nights in jail. To be threatened with that because a defendant doesn't want to stand seems ridiculous and unnecessary.

Your analogy has now had holes shot through it by two people. Shall we invite more?

But again, she is not visiting by choice, she is being told she must be there. If she was told in order to visit her friend Khadija, she must stand anytime someone enters the room, she could choose not to go. The requirement of attendance is the crux of the issue. She doesn't have an option that allows her non-intrusive right to practice her religion.

Edit: and while it's obvious your problem is with the religion more than the action, if your spaghetti monster told you you should lay down on the table while the judge enters, I'd be entirely on your side. If it was disruptive, like throwing spaghetti, shooting off fireworks, or singing Barry Manilow songs, then I would disprove of it. She's not asking for the call to prayer to be announced over loudspeaker, she's saying her religion says she shouldn't stand.
 
If you can't see that being a dick to your friend is different than protesting the legal proceeding of which you are being accused of a crime in a system that has consistantly been proven to be outright unfair to whatever group you're a member of, the problem isn't me. Not to mention the power dynamic of the actors involved.

There are scales of magnitude here. We're not debating the difference between calling a bottle of pepsi, soda or pop.
 
actually no, my problem is with the inaction. You're not standing for the person that is the judge, you are standing for the judge and the position. Not doing so on the (dubious at best) grounds of it disrespecting your faith is BS.

Now, if it's like dohdough is saying and it's a protest against the mockery of the system, she can claim that in testimony on the record and make a statement as opposed to sitting down and being a pain in the ass on the grounds of "freedom of choice in spooky invisible friends".

Also, you make a good point, she has to be there because she sent money to Al-Shabab, knowingly in fact. Now, had she not done that, she could sit down as much as she'd like and no one would care! Oh yeah, forgot that personal responsibility is taboo in these parts.
 
So do you stand when a doctor, priest, rabbi, public servant, or other esteemed individuals enter a room? I don't. I'll stand to shake hands, but if I'm not being personally addressed, I stay seated. Why should a judge be granted the ability to require those in the courtroom to stand? Applying some sort of magical powers to a guy just cause he's a judge is the very idea that is used to argue AGAINST standing up for someone when they enter the room, as a muslim. It's adorable that you're proud of being non-religious, but your bias is what is causing you to have a problem with this. I don't care what a person does when the judge enters the room, so long as it doesn't cause a disruption to the courtroom. Not standing is far from a disruption to a courtroom.

If she were to follow your astounding legal advice and make a statement against the system during the trial, it would be done in front of the jurors and could affect the outcome of the case. She did it with no jurors in the room. Jesus Christ, Matlock is in no danger of you taking over his job.

You said: Also, you make a good point, she has to be there because she sent money to Al-Shabab, knowingly in fact. Now, had she not done that, she could sit down as much as she'd like and no one would care! Oh yeah, forgot that personal responsibility is taboo in these parts.

--That's the part that she's contesting. If she knowingly did it, then she should be punished accordingly. She seems to be claiming her innocence, unless I'm mistaken. You are the one that has already declared her guilty. Again, apparently our Constitution needs to be fixed once more, by inserting the "if nasum from CAG says you're guilty, then you are-no trial" clause.
 
often times when the doctor/priest/rabbi/public servant/other esteemed individual enters the room, THERE ISN'T A BALIF THAT SAYS ALL RISE you fuckwit.

I may have missed a paragraph, but where did it say that no jurors were present? Usually the judge is the last to enter the room so I assume that the jurors were already there.

RE: Claiming her innocence, there are three local papers as well as a few different tv news outlets that have covered the story. I'll have to find the one where it is stated that she knowingly contributed. Local opinion (mind you this is the same local opinion that elected Keith Ellison so it isn't "just anti-muslim America fuck Yeah sentiment) is that this whole trial is a sham and the lady is grandstanding in an attempt to get her case thrown out or get the ACLU (or similar organization) involved to muddle things to the point of a mistrial because she knows she doesn't have a prayer (pun only slightly intended) to get out of this through a trial.

And with pudding being the place of proof and all that, she rose for the judge that swore her in as a naturalized citizen! Did she have some sudden revelation that made standing before a judge bad? Nah, she's being a pain in the ass.

My adorable non-religious stance aside, again, I don't care what faith she chooses. My beef with the whole thing is that she's using a religious argument to get out of doing something that everyone does, despite going through the process to be a naturalized citizen. In any of this diatribe of mine have I once mentioned anything about her useless faith? No! I have, time and time again, stated that she's being a pain in the ass. And a duplicitous one at that. To think that a person that will be so watched in a trial such as this would get harassed at a jail is absurd! Every person in that jail knows that this person gets kid gloves, because if she doesn't there will be hell to pay. I mean seriously, take a small break from your contrarian stance and think this one through for 18 seconds. Would anyone (in this "fear for job stability economy") even think of laying a foul hand upon her personage? HIGHLY unlikely.

But hey, it's easier for you to lump me in with the "them filthy moozlimbs!!!" crowd because then you don;t have to look at it from the perspective of the "some one is being a pain in the ass and needs that to be addressed" lens and realize that *individuals* belonging to any group can indeed be a pain in the ass and need to be scolded for that, regardless of that group's status.

To clarify that point, have I made any mention in sour form of those (filthy moozlimb!!!@!!!! or otherwise) that decided to stand? Indeed I have not. Why have I not done that despite my (apparent to you but quite obviously non-existent) anti-muslim stance? Because they're not being a pain in the ass.
 
They say please stand for our national anthem at games. The difference is if you choose not to, some Yankee fan will throw beer on you, not put you in jail for 5 days. So anytime a person with a suit tells you to do something, you do it? Dazzling.

I don't know if she's guilty or not (apparently you do, I would suggest getting in contact with local authorities immediately so you can help them win the case), that's not the point I've argued. I've said she must think she isn't or she wouldn't have pled not guilty. Then for you to tell me that you know for a fact the religious basis that she is claiming is fabricated according to a couple of local guys in the paper is a great opinion, but factually incorrect. There are people who completely agree with her stance, (assuming she's doing it for religious reasons and not grandstanding).

I think I accused you of being anti-religion, not anti-Islam with your make believe this and that and spaghetti monster gibberish. If I did explicitly call you anti-Islam, my apologies.

Your conclusion that she isn't standing to be a pain in the ass, and (if I'm understanding your post correctly) she is saying that she's being prevented from wearing her head scarf, then that's a major civil rights issue. She might be an asshole-I don't know, but how is her refusal to stand being a pain in the ass?

I don't know where you are going with kid glove treatment at jail. You mean prison guards, other prisoners? Regardless, this lady hasn't exactly proven herself to be a violent criminal, she's accused of funnelling money to a group declared terrorist by the US. Another prisoner could whoop her ass in prison. That would have nothing to do with the case, so I don't understand what you're trying to assert.

Anyway, in general, I think to say she is acting according to a school of thought in her faith in a non-distracting, non-instrusive way and that equates being a pain in the ass is a major exaggeration.
 
[quote name='berzirk']They say please stand for our national anthem at games. The difference is if you choose not to, some Yankee fan will throw beer on you, not put you in jail for 5 days. So anytime a person with a suit tells you to do something, you do it? Dazzling.

I don't know if she's guilty or not (apparently you do, I would suggest getting in contact with local authorities immediately so you can help them win the case), that's not the point I've argued. I've said she must think she isn't or she wouldn't have pled not guilty. Then for you to tell me that you know for a fact the religious basis that she is claiming is fabricated according to a couple of local guys in the paper is a great opinion, but factually incorrect. There are people who completely agree with her stance, (assuming she's doing it for religious reasons and not grandstanding).

I think I accused you of being anti-religion, not anti-Islam with your make believe this and that and spaghetti monster gibberish. If I did explicitly call you anti-Islam, my apologies.

Your conclusion that she isn't standing to be a pain in the ass, and (if I'm understanding your post correctly) she is saying that she's being prevented from wearing her head scarf, then that's a major civil rights issue. She might be an asshole-I don't know, but how is her refusal to stand being a pain in the ass?

I don't know where you are going with kid glove treatment at jail. You mean prison guards, other prisoners? Regardless, this lady hasn't exactly proven herself to be a violent criminal, she's accused of funnelling money to a group declared terrorist by the US. Another prisoner could whoop her ass in prison. That would have nothing to do with the case, so I don't understand what you're trying to assert.

Anyway, in general, I think to say she is acting according to a school of thought in her faith in a non-distracting, non-instrusive way and that equates being a pain in the ass is a major exaggeration.[/QUOTE]

No matter where you are in in the world, you are expected to show respect for the law. Standing, sitting, and answering questions on cue, these are all staples of any legal proceeding around the world.

It's silly to think that a free-for-all court proceeding, wherein lawyers, defendents, and plantiffs decide which rules they will and will not follow, would work. You're thinking of the WWE.
 
berzirk:
Yes, I always do what I'm told, good doggie gets his biscuit afterall. Way to go use a completely illogical path to leap from A to Q. Really, bravo!
Put it this way, if a MOD here at CAG said "hey dial it back a bit or this is the result", do you acquiesce or continue despite your protest to get the resulting punishment? It's kind of a duh situation.
Also, the article wasn't "just a couple of local dudes" saying that it's ok to stand, it was scholars of the faith in question.
She can wear her scarf and outfit in the court but she had it removed while in jail.

At first glance, it looks like a tough, uphill slog for two local Somali women accused of handling financing for al-Shabab fighters. The AP’s Amy Forliti reports: “One of two Minnesota women accused of funneling money to a terrorist group in Somalia allegedly told potential donors to ignore charities and focus on ‘the jihad’ and helped finance local Somali men's travel to their war-torn homeland to fight, prosecutors alleged in court filings. The details hint at evidence the government claims it has against Amina Farah Ali, who is scheduled to stand trial Monday on multiple terror charges. Prosecutors said Ali, 35, and her co-defendant, 64-year-old Hawo Mohamed Hassan, were part of a ‘deadly pipeline’ that routed money and fighters from the U.S. to Somalia. The women, both U.S. citizens of Somali descent, were among 20 people charged in Minnesota's long-running federal investigations into recruiting and financing for al-Shabab

from http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/...g_tells_legless_legislator_sit_down_n_shut_up
and more
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/04/ap/business/main20115635.shtml
Amina Ali says her veil and clothing were forcibly removed after she refused to disrobe in the Sherburne County Jail.

Ali says jail officials stepped on her and twisted her arms. She says she asked for medical attention and none was given.

Thomas Volk, spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service in Minnesota, said female sheriff's deputies were called on to handle the situation. Volk said Ali then complied. He said no force was used.

So she claims abuse but provides no evidence (stepped on and arms twisted? that'll leave a mark) and aside from from saying that it happened hasn't pursued any avenue of legal action based on her claims.

Face it dude, she's a pain in the ass. You can play the "we're the bad guy" card all you want, but this lady is a pain in the ass.
 
[quote name='camoor']No matter where you are in in the world, you are expected to show respect for the law. Standing, sitting, and answering questions on cue, these are all staples of any legal proceeding around the world.

It's silly to think that a free-for-all court proceeding, wherein lawyers, defendents, and plantiffs decide which rules they will and will not follow, would work. You're thinking of the WWE.[/QUOTE]

This. Standing for the judge's entrance isn't showing respect to that individual person, it's showing respect to their job and the judicial system as a whole.
 
Hey, she might be guilty as sin, I don't know. If she is, I hope she gets the appropriate punishment. To your CAG analogy, that's finally one that works. I'm here by choice. If a mod told me scale it back or you're banned, I can make the choice to do it without nights in jail. Now you're getting it!

I still fail to see how one lady refusing to stand up when the judge enters the room turns it into a Tables, Ladders, and Chairs cage match.

And with the story about her having to take off her hijab, man, you're piling on stuff to make me feel even stronger that she's being abused. You say since she doesn't have marks it didn't happen? I've trained in jiu jitsu-for an hour and a half someone is practicing arm bars and other joint manipulation. It doesn't leave a mark. It can hurt like hell if you don't tap at the right time, but it's not like a bruise and a welt starts to form. Anyhoo, neither one of us were there, but if some male prison guard was forcibly removing her headscarf and it caused a problem until a female guard came along...uh...doesn't that speak even louder in defense of the violation of the right to practice her religion?

OK, so the article quoted a couple of local scholars. Not sure where they studied or how credible a majority of people would find them, again, that's not the point. The point is that if a person wants to make a case for not standing to acknowledge someone entering the room, there is a very real religious justification that many Muslims believe to be the correct way of thought. There are varying opinions, but what I had always read and been told was that it's improper to stand when a person enters the room to greet you. She might be doing it just to be a nuisance to the judge, but if she is doing it in accordance with her faith, then I hardly see why a judge would sentence her to 5 days in jail for each time she refused to stand. That's seems overly harsh and ridiculous.
 
jeez, maybe they wanted her to take off the headgear for her own safety? Some of the pther people in jail may have taken a shot at her and could have used it to choke her or something?! Imagine the outcry if such a transgression were to happen.

Two sides pal. You call it religious harrassment, I call it sitting in jail and that's just what happens there. They'll take your little cross on your neck chain too so that you can't use it as a weapon or have it used against you in such a way too. But those are christians or catholics so the ACLU doesn't care about them right?

Oh yeah, forgot we're the great opressors so nothing we do can be for good right?

Well, this person knowingly and willingly gave money to an organization labeled as a terrorist group, ergo she did that by choice and her choices have landed her in the courtroom. Then again, that's that responsibility sillyness so I suppose I can just give up on going down that road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top