(Edited title) GW's rubber stamp.

[AZhitman]

Certainly is big guy. Think on it Ricky... The military should not be allowed to dispense life or death justice (except perhaps, in the time of war). Giving the military this live or die right, and allowing GW to to have any part in the process is pathetic. My gawd, a traditional jury trial is that much of a threat?

You're not comprehending.

You want to fault the Code, fine. It's been around for a long time, no one thought of it 'til now? It got passed somehow! By a Dem, no less.

But blaming this on the current CIC is ludicrous.

And the thread title remains sick and wrong.

[AZhitman]

My questions to you (or anyone who chooses to help you out here) remain:

You're advocating that someone as "dumb" as you make him out to be, go and effectively reverse the determinations of the Judicial Branch?

Which is it?

Someone has to have "the most exections" on his watch. Someone has to have the least. It's the nature of lists. What's the problem?

Was anyone denied due process? If so, the judiciary has failed. Not the Governor. Not the Prez. The judiciary.

And in the one military case you referenced, one instance does not a trend make.

Are you telling me Clinton / Bush Sr. / Ford / Reagan / Carter / Kennedy etc wouldn't have signed the execution orders of a military man as well? We'll never know, will we... 10 others got the death penalty since 1951 and were executed.

Leave Bennett out of this. He was hanged 47 years ago. You wanna dredge up the Salem Witch Trials too?

No one's missed your point. It's just not one that makes any sense.

I comprehend fully your thoughts on the death penalty. I can't say that I disagree wholeheartedly. But to critique in this particular instance is pure folly.

[heliochrome85]

i have to agree on greg's last point. the title, its a bit abrasive and taste-less. its beneath you.

[rn79870]

And the thread title remains sick and wrong.

In retrospect, maybe the thread title is inappropriate. Possibly the Texecutioner deserves a little more respect from me after all, he is the CIC.

From now on, I will try to show GW a little more respect. With that in mind I will edit the title.

[rn79870]

i have to agree on greg's last point. the title, its a bit abrasive and taste-less. its beneath you.

I've changed it for that very reason. However, I still believe putting someone to death without benefit of ALL the constitutional protections is the sole property of a deranged third world dictator. Edi Amen comes to mind, as does Pol Pot.

Seriously, we have little room to complain about civil rights violations with respect to any other government when ours does the same thing to members of it's own military. What's so difficult about giving them a fair, constitutional jury trial in peace time?

[AZhitman]

I've changed it for that very reason. However, I still believe putting someone to death without benefit of ALL the constitutional protections is the sole property of a deranged third world dictator. Edi Amen comes to mind, as does Pol Pot.

Seriously, we have little room to complain about civil rights violations with respect to any other government when ours does the same thing to members of it's own military. What's so difficult about giving them a fair, constitutional jury trial in peace time?

Bob, you're walking in telco-land.

No one disagrees with those points.

This is NOT a GWB issue. Not when the Code pre-dates him.

I do think it's a colossal stretch to draw a corollary between executing a conmvicted rapist/murderer, and the bloodbath regimes of Southeast Asia... But then again, we on the Right deal in logic rather than emotion.

[rn79870]

Okay Greg, let's water down the constitution for this one. What about the next issue and the one after that?

Ghandi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." He wasn't necessarily referring to the four legged kind either.

[wingFeather]

In as much as you've missed the entire point, I'm at a loss to help you out here. I'd suggest starting again, from the top.

You're not making sense. Take your meds and re-read my post.

[smockers83]

And the thread title remains sick and wrong.

i have to agree on greg's last point. the title, its a bit abrasive and taste-less. its beneath you.

Of course, when I said this 8 posts in on the first page, I was told not to participate if I didn't like it.

[smockers83]

Ghandi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." He wasn't necessarily referring to the four legged kind either.

Maybe he was in Australia at the time and talking about the k-roos?

[srellim234]

Unfortunately the state of politics in the U.S. is such today that Ghandi would be chastized for that statement as a "flip-flopper" . After all, the man did make and wear leather sandals (no pun intended).

It's incredible how petty and grasping at straws the Republicans and Democrats have become.

[rn79870]

Of course, when I said this 8 posts in on the first page, I was told not to participate if I didn't like it.

Actually, you were toldQuote »Feel free not to participate. [/quote]You were never told not to participate.

[96Qowner]

And you, with your head in the sand, hearing only what you want to hear and ignoring the rest are calling the kettle black. I'd appreciate it if you would take any critisms to the other forum where I'm free to express myself.

Yeah, and I'm not the moderator for this board. I imply that you're a blind partisan and you tell me I have my head in the sand, and that I should go to a different forum to criticize your moderating? What forum is that, and what exactly would you be free to express there?

Just asking for a little less knee-jerk, inflamatory partisanship from you, Bob, that's all. Trading idiotic accusations just isn't constructive. But, hey, it's your forum - no need to take suggestions from the likes of myself.

[smockers83]

Actually, you were told

You were never told not to participate.

Yes, not the point though. Kinda sounded like a big "FU, I don't care what you think about my title," in disguise, hence why I've stayed out. Now its like ohh, I'm sorry. But I'm glad its taken you since the SF water treatment plant to learn to have some sort of respect, even if you don't like the guy. I don't like the guy myself in many areas, but I can still serve him the respect as our nation's leader. This should go for everyone, including myself, on all of our leaders.

[rn79870]

That forum would be the mod forum. It's located at the top of the forums.

You just can't post without an insult can you? A sure sign of a losing position to me.

[rn79870]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that I had any respect for Bush. I simply meant to imply that I would be respectful towards him, which means, I'll not take every opportunity to point out his multitude of faults, errors and omissions. I'll be content to let history judge him.

And as an American, you have a right, no a duty, to point out poor leadership. It comes with elected office and It certainly isn't limited to this forum.

[Marenta]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that I had any respect for Bush. I simply meant to imply that I would be respectful towards him, which means, I'll not take every opportunity to point out his multitude of faults, errors and omissions. I'll be content to let history judge him.

And as an American, you have a right, no a duty, to point out poor leadership. It comes with elected office and It certainly isn't limited to this forum.

Whoa there. I'm sure you can name every president that was in office when there was a "rocky" situation in the nation, or when the nation was going through a crisis. Very few presidents have had to go through with Bush has. And, when I say very few, I mean VERY few. And I mean that as less than 5 out of the 40+ we've had. So, considering the fact that he may not be the brightest, or the best, or the the most equipped, or even the best looking at doing it.. he still got us through it. The United States of America, One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

Sorry, I had to take a jab at the Pledge. But, I love Old Glory, in all her forms and I would die for her and any of my countrymen, be they liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, legal, illegal, naturalized, legalized, gay, straight, Caucasian, or any other ethnicity; and I would do it under GWB any day. Because that is my RIGHT as an American, and you should be proud that you have that right to make that choice, too.

[Edit: Sorry, that last paragraph was really a tangent.]

[AZhitman]

Okay Greg, let's water down the constitution for this one. What about the next issue and the one after that?

Ghandi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." He wasn't necessarily referring to the four legged kind either.

It's clear that I'm not going to see anyone address the questions I raised.

All this talk of "watering down the Constitution" and Ghandi and every manner of distracting and dodging... the only thing being "watered down" here is the POINT, which has yet to be made.

And bringing in some quote by Ghandi carries no weight with me, sorry. I don't ascribe to his worldview nor his beliefs.

When you can (and you're usually really good at it) address the following questions, we'll be getting somewhere... otherwise, this all looks like lunatic ranting.

You're advocating that someone as "dumb" as you make him out to be, go and effectively reverse the determinations of the Judicial Branch?

Which is it?

Someone has to have "the most exections" on his watch. Someone has to have the least. It's the nature of lists. What's the problem?

Was anyone denied due process? If so, the judiciary has failed. Not the Governor. Not the Prez. The judiciary.

And in the one military case you referenced, one instance does not a trend make.

Are you telling me Clinton / Bush Sr. / Ford / Reagan / Carter / Kennedy etc wouldn't have signed the execution orders of a military man as well? We'll never know, will we... 10 others got the death penalty since 1951 and were executed.

Leave Bennett out of this. He was hanged 47 years ago. You wanna dredge up the Salem Witch Trials too?

It's a colossal stretch to draw a corollary between executing a convicted rapist/murderer, and the bloodbath regimes of Southeast Asia.

Lastly, and most importantly, what has GWB done in this instance to earn him such wrath? He "failed to hesitate" in signing the death warrant of a heinous murderer? Boo-freaking-hoo. I say he wasted time by not using a rubber stamp.

Sounds like your gripe is with the UCMJ, not the Prez.

[rn79870]

So, considering the fact that he may not be the brightest, or the best, or the the most equipped, or even the best looking at doing it.. he still got us through it. The United States of America, One Nation under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

If I post here for another 1000 years, I could never top that statement. You win the thread.

I've have a few Bushisms that reflects your thought........

"And I, unfortunately, have been to too many disasters as president."—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 17, 2008

And of course,

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

[Marenta]

You do have to consider that while we've had wars on our land, and we've fought for our land. And we were attacked at a distance...

Bush actually unified this country (for a relative time) because some jerk-off bungholes in some ****ing sandy ****hole mountain in Afghanistan hijacked some planes and threw them into some ****ing buildings on our own ****ing soil and blew up our own ****ing civilians.. and they ****ing killed our own god damned children and husbands and wives and brothers and sisters and fathers and mothers.

Sit and think for a second. Where were you when you heard the news? What were you doing? I remember what I was doing. I remember listening to my CO tell me that the Pentagon was burning and that the World Trade Center buildings had collapsed. And, I remember running outside without my hat on just so I can get to the TVs in the recreation center so that I could watch as the 2nd building collapsed on CNN. I knew we were at war from that moment on. The world had changed. We were no longer naive and ignorant America, we had grown up.

[rn79870]

It's clear that I'm not going to see anyone address the questions I raised.

All this talk of "watering down the Constitution" and Ghandi and every manner of distracting and dodging... the only thing being "watered down" here is the POINT, which has yet to be made.

Watered down was a poor choice of words. I should have used seriously diluted. As in trial by jury- shot to heck, voir dire- missing, 12 jurors- absent, convening authority choosing the “jury” – oh yeah, that’s fair. I could go on but those are serious constitutional guaranties that shouldn’t be missing in capital cases (at least, not in peace time.)

And bringing in some quote by Ghandi carries no weight with me, sorry. I don't ascribe to his worldview nor his beliefs.

Hari Krishna?

When you can (and you're usually really good at it) address the following questions, we'll be getting somewhere... otherwise, this all looks like lunatic ranting.

I’m going to try.

You're advocating that someone as "dumb" as you make him out to be, go and effectively reverse the determinations of the Judicial Branch?

No, I was hoping he’d at least take the obligation seriously enough to spend the appropriate amount of time reviewing, researching and deliberating before getting his rubber stamp out. See next answer for more on this façade of an attempt.

Which is it?

Well, my way of course…

Someone has to have "the most executions" on his watch. Someone has to have the least. It's the nature of lists. What's the problem?

True, someone has to have the most. But when that person spends (by his own staffs admission) about 30 minutes reviewing the case, somebody is getting screwed out of a necessary safeguard.

Was anyone denied due process? If so, the judiciary has failed. Not the Governor. Not the Prez. The judiciary.

If you believe that allowing the party calling the action also choosing as few as 5 other people to be the jury isn’t inherently wrong, then I guess not. I find it troubling. I imagine his choices reflect his view point. At least in a Criminal case the defendant is allowed to voir dire a juror to find prejudice, and then excuse that juror.

And in the one military case you referenced, one instance does not a trend make.

True, it only starts a trend. People need to speak out before there is #2, then #3.

Are you telling me Clinton / Bush Sr. / Ford / Reagan / Carter / Kennedy etc wouldn't have signed the execution orders of a military man as well? We'll never know, will we... 10 others got the death penalty since 1951 and were executed.

Yes, that’s how it looks. In fact, you can add Nixon, Kennedy and Eisenhower to that list while you’re at it. It’s plain as can be in that they didn’t sign one, not even one.

Leave Bennett out of this. He was hanged 47 years ago. You wanna dredge up the Salem Witch Trials too?

He’s dead, I can’t help him except to point out how weak justice is under the UCMJ. No one died but Bennett in that case.

It's a colossal stretch to draw a corollary between executing a convicted rapist/murderer, and the bloodbath regimes of Southeast Asia.

Is it? Why because of the relative numbers involved? Aren’t we leaning more towards a society of evil when we do that then towards a modern society, like, even Canada?

Lastly, and most importantly, what has GWB done in this instance to earn him such wrath? He "failed to hesitate" in signing the death warrant of a heinous murderer? Boo-freaking-hoo. I say he wasted time by not using a rubber stamp

One? 154 by last count. Did they deserve it? Maybe. But still, he probably doesn’t remember the circumstances, let alone the names of any 5 of them. I’d think a moral obligation that deep would not rest easily on a mans soul. I’d have remembered every one of them If I had done it.

Sounds like your gripe is with the UCMJ, not the Prez.

Why can’t it be both? The UCMJ for being constitutionally defective (I understand they are under no obligation to conform) and the Prez for probably taking more time shopping for a new pair of shoes than he did rubber stamping 154 execution orders.

[ishkabibble]

Is there any way to "ignore" a user on this forum?

Yep, I figured out how to do it and posted a "how to" thread many months ago. You're almost on my ignore list for posting so many trollish one-liners, BTW.

[ishkabibble]

Suggesting that Bush enjoys sending people to their death is pretty baseless, IMO. I don't see it as any more complex than some people believing in the death penalty, and some not.

[rn79870]

I don't mean that he enjoys it as much as I feel he takes it far too lightly.To me, it's about as serious a matter as any human can face, and it needs to be handled that way. Cercainly it deserves more than <30 minuted of his time to arive at that decision.

[ishkabibble]

It probably just depends on how clearly defined your measuring stick is. By the time it gets to his level, nearly all of the facts surrounding the case have been determined.

Plus, as we've been told, he's just a really good decider.

[rn79870]

Plus, as we've been told, he's just a really good decider.

I forgot he did tell us that..."My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it's decision maker." --George W. Bush, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

[AZhitman]

It probably just depends on how clearly defined your measuring stick is. By the time it gets to his level, nearly all of the facts surrounding the case have been determined.

Plus, as we've been told, he's just a really good decider.

Exactly as I'd have put it.

Here, look at it this way.... A candidate (BO, for instance) tells us that in areas where he's not real knowledgeable (they all have a few), he surrounds himself with "experts". Right? OK. So, by the time an issue gets to his desk, it's been hashed out. Advisors advise, the prez listens.

Advisors might tell him, "We need to bomb this facility in Asscrackistan". He doesn't know everything there is to know about Asscrackistan, or the facility, or the names of the people inside - But he signs the order, presses the red button, salutes his advisor, and a building gets vaporized...

Say 200 people die in that bombing.

How is this different?

Oh, and ish, the word is "decidification", as in "We apply lots and lots of decidification to these issues before any actifying begins."

[AZhitman]

Suggesting that Bush enjoys sending people to their death is pretty baseless, IMO. I don't see it as any more complex than some people believing in the death penalty, and some not.

And with the endorsement of my position by not one, but TWO flaming libbies, I rest my case. Ta-da.

[AZhitman]

1) Watered down was a poor choice of words. I should have used seriously diluted. As in trial by jury- shot to heck, voir dire- missing, 12 jurors- absent, convening authority choosing the “jury” – oh yeah, that’s fair. I could go on but those are serious constitutional guaranties that shouldn’t be missing in capital cases (at least, not in peace time.)

2) Hari Krishna?

3) No, I was hoping he’d at least take the obligation seriously enough to spend the appropriate amount of time reviewing, researching and deliberating before getting his rubber stamp out. See next answer for more on this façade of an attempt.

4) True, someone has to have the most. But when that person spends (by his own staffs admission) about 30 minutes reviewing the case, somebody is getting screwed out of a necessary safeguard.

5) If you believe that allowing the party calling the action also choosing as few as 5 other people to be the jury isn’t inherently wrong, then I guess not. I find it troubling. I imagine his choices reflect his view point. At least in a Criminal case the defendant is allowed to voir dire a juror to find prejudice, and then excuse that juror.

6) True, it only starts a trend. People need to speak out before there is #2, then #3.

7) Yes, that’s how it looks. In fact, you can add Nixon, Kennedy and Eisenhower to that list while you’re at it. It’s plain as can be in that they didn’t sign one, not even one.

8) He’s dead, I can’t help him except to point out how weak justice is under the UCMJ. No one died but Bennett in that case.

9) Is it? Why because of the relative numbers involved? Aren’t we leaning more towards a society of evil when we do that then towards a modern society, like, even Canada?

10) One? 154 by last count. Did they deserve it? Maybe. But still, he probably doesn’t remember the circumstances, let alone the names of any 5 of them. I’d think a moral obligation that deep would not rest easily on a mans soul. I’d have remembered every one of them If I had done it.

11) Why can’t it be both? The UCMJ for being constitutionally defective (I understand they are under no obligation to conform) and the Prez for probably taking more time shopping for a new pair of shoes than he did rubber stamping 154 execution orders.

1) Again, your beef should be with the Dem who approved the UCMJ. Not the subsequent CIC's who operated under it.

2) Nope. But humans > animals in my mind. Not down with reincarnation either. Dig the stylin haircut tho.

3) Appropriate amount of time is relative. See my post above. If he spent 6 weeks holed up in his room in a fetal position agonizing over what to do with this assclown, he's wasting time. The legal authority had spoken.

4) See #3.

5) I find it troubling that there's apparently a flaw in the UCMJ. Let's not put that on GWB.

6) See #5. Where have you been all this time? Get crackin'.

7) Then who did? There have been executions since then, so who OK'ed them then? Who?

8) Fair enough. Still ancient history.

Crap, gotta scoot - Will finish lobbing grenades later.

Hugs & kisses.

[Marenta]

His case went through all the appeals it could, until the Supreme Court denied to hear it.

So, if you have a beef, take it up with them. They're the ones that decided to stop the buck and declare that his case was final as per the UCMJ, not Bush.