Still Hating America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
D'Souza's recent "blame America" drivel is infantile nonsense better used as fire kindling or emergency toilet paper. But he's not supporting Iran's government.

He's closer to being an apologist for theocrats than anyone on the left whom I can think of.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what is with you guys and hypos? I. DON'T. ANSWER. HYPOS.

Your answer was unresponsive. I asked a fact wuestion, one that requires nothing more than a yes or no answer. Do you need me to re-phrase?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, that's still negligent. Whether the policy creates civil rights violations is a different issue.

What part isn't intentional? They didn't mean to grab the guy? They didn't mean to torture him? You haven't been a civilian for that long.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What part isn't intentional? They didn't mean to grab the guy? They didn't mean to torture him? You haven't been a civilian for that long.

And you clearly can't tell the common law from statutory constructions.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What part isn't intentional? They didn't mean to grab the guy? They didn't mean to torture him? You haven't been a civilian for that long.

hint: who grabbed people knowing they were innocent?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In order...

1. The Left will not condemn what Iran did, even though it condemns what the US does. That is the issue. You condemned Iran, but you're not The Left. You're a lawyer on a chat board who, though holding some of the Left's bona fides, would be seen be the most strident lefties as intolerably moderate.

Ty, Wonk, and I did. Doesn't that count?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, that's still negligent. Whether the policy creates civil rights violations is a different issue.

Uh.. no it isn't. The grabbing and the torturing are both intentional. Maybe it's not an intentional violation of the individual's rights, but neither the grabbing nor the torturing require specific intent.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Uh.. no it isn't. The grabbing and the torturing are both intentional. Maybe it's not an intentional violation of the individual's rights, but neither the grabbing nor the torturing require specific intent.

dimwit, the question was one of your hypo about the tortured guy at gitmo who, it turned out, wasn't guilty of anything. ty says that makes it so we can't complain when Iran intentionally grabs someone it knows didn't do anything.

sometimes D attorneys try to ardue the P's case for practice. read what I typed above and see if you can issue spot some differences.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
dimwit, the question was one of your hypo about the tortured guy at gitmo who, it turned out, wasn't guilty of anything. ty says that makes it so we can't complain when Iran intentionally grabs someone it knows didn't do anything.

sometimes D attorneys try to ardue the P's case for practice. read what I typed above and see if you can issue spot some differences.

Did the gitmo guy turn around, sport a mullet, declare he loves a bacon and mayo sandwich, and apologize for all the pain and suffering that Middle East causes - in the name of the prophet -over the rest of the globe?

And within 1500 minutes of capture?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Did the gitmo guy turn around, sport a mullet, declare he loves a bacon and mayo sandwich, and apologize for all the pain and suffering that Middle East causes - in the name of the prophet -over the rest of the globe?

And within 1500 minutes of capture?

I hasd no idea Mitt Romney was ever in Gitmo . . .


S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Anyhow, it should be interesting to see how the everyday Brit reacts. And if the soldiers will be pissed that (if) their countrymen don't seem to care about what happened to them.

I don't expect that to be a problem. I seems many everyday Brits are mad as hell.

S_A_M

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Your answer was unresponsive. I asked a fact wuestion, one that requires nothing more than a yes or no answer. Do you need me to re-phrase?

Well, the part about him attending law school could be hypothetical.

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
British members of the military say they were in waters that, it's agreed, are appropriate to be in and that Iranian forces attacked them, rounded them up and imprisoned them in Iran. I haven't heard the Iran President condemn the action of his troops. Is this not an act of war? Or do we give these nutjob countries more slack, since you know, Muslims are upset about Israel existing and such and we wouldn't want to rankle them further?

Don't blame me. I advocated nuking Tehran (among many other targets in the ME) on 9/12/01.

And if I were Blair, I would have nuked Tehran the day after those soldiers were captures.

Keep giving them an inch and if you survive the inevitable terrorst-delivered nuclear blasts you will be praying to Mecca on Wall Street five times a day.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hint: who grabbed people knowing they were innocent?

The existence of a statute providing for seizure and the doctrine of sovereign immunity are both relevant to questions of remedy and standing. Neither, however, have any bearing on whether or not the act was intentional. Indeed, invocation of sovereign immunity carries with it a tacit admission of intent, but with immunity for the act.

You're also mistaking the intent to seize and torture with the question of whether or not the seizure and torture was justified. If they grab someone, they do it intentionally. You can't arrest someone by mistake. You can be mistaken as to the identity or culpability of the person being arrested, but the arrest is still intentional.

Think bcak to the hypo in torts about the drunk driver who gets behind the wheel and kills someone. The drunk acts with intent (or reckless disregard) when he gets behind the wheel knowing he's drunk. He needn't have had to have the intent to hit and kill the victim.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
dimwit, the question was one of your hypo about the tortured guy at gitmo who, it turned out, wasn't guilty of anything. ty says that makes it so we can't complain when Iran intentionally grabs someone it knows didn't do anything.

Einstein, Ty was suggesting, correctly, that Iran and other state actors with whom we don't have the rosiest relationship may not see such fine distinctions. Indeed, they may actually think they have a justification for the grabbing and torture. You know. Like you think we do.