ThinkFast: September 20, 2007
ThinkFast: September 20, 2007
Thousands of “people dressed in black, from college students to veterans of the civil rights movements,” will be in Louisiana today in support of six black teenagers known as the “Jena 6,” who were initially charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white classmate. More about the Jena 6 HERE.
Senate conservatives’ successful effort to obstruct the Webb amendment yesterday mark the “the eighth time this year” that “Senate Republicans…blocked a Democratic move to challenge U.S. policy in Iraq.”
71.1 percent: The increase last month in the numbers of Iraqis forced to abandon their homes, “the sharpest rise so far.”
Mary Matalin, a former Cheney aide, is working pay the legal bills of her old co-worker, “Scooter” Libby, who the President granted clemency to earlier this year. “Make no mistake, Scooter’s battle is not yet over,” Matalin wrote in a recent fundraising letter. He “still has hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding legal bills from his trial” that “need to be paid immediately.”
White House officials say that, after the attorney general confirmation, the nomination of Steven G. Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel “is their next priority this fall, though they have nine major slots at a depleted Justice Department to fill.” As acting OLC chief, Bradbury has been “advising President Bush on the extent of his terrorism-fighting powers,” but several Democratic senators have placed secret holds on his official nomination.
An anonymous senator has placed a hold on the nomination of Rosa Emilia Rodriguez-Velez as U.S. attorney in Puerto Rico. Critics charge “she is leading a politically motivated investigation into Puerto Rico’s Democratic governor” on possibly illegal campaign contributions he received in 2000.
Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL), “dogged by ethics questions surrounding his Nicaraguan investments and his wife’s finances, is set to announce his retirement in the near future, Republican sources said Wednesday.”
Osama bin Laden will reportedly release a new message soon declaring war on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. A banner posted on a militant website previewed the release: “Urgent, Al Qaeda declares war on the tyrant Pervez Musharraf and his apostate army, in the words of Osama bin Laden.”
And finally: Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani was “on the trans-Atlantic campaign trail…bragging about his international credentials. ‘I’m probably one of the four or five best known Americans in the world,’ Giuliani told a small group of reporters at a posh London hotel as onlookers gathered in the lobby to gawk at actor Dustin Hoffman, who was on a separate visit.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Mary Matalin is a co-conspirator in the Bush crime family and should be charged with war crimes for conspiring to start an illegal war under false pretenses.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:06 am“Make no mistake, Scooter’s battle is not yet over,†Matalin wrote in a recent fundraising letter.
Thank you, Mary. We’re all very worried about Scooter’s legal bills.
This should be in every American’s thoughts today. How can we help this honorable man, who helped Karl & Dick get rid of such a dangerous woman.
Never mind the fact that his & his superior’s actions are comparable to high treason.
Never mind the fact that what they were claiming to be true led us to invade a country.
Never mind the fact that that same country has now become a quagmire of violence, death and broken hearts & dreams.
Never mind the fact we have 20,000+ wounded and dead young Americans.
Never mind the fact we have lost all credibility and honor globally.
Never mind the fact that American taxpayers are supporting private mercenaries killing children and mothers.
Yes, Mary, we should all be very worried about Mr. Libby’s legal bills. That’s what’s most important today.
/sarcasm
September 20th, 2007 at 9:11 amWell, the case has been going on for months. This is TP’s first comment on the whole thing. It took a massive march in a small town to wake up this blog. TP has not even explained what the whole reason is for the march is. There is a link, but it is the first time in all of these months.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:15 amSenate conservatives’ successful effort to obstruct the Webb amendment yesterday mark the “the eighth time this year†that “Senate Republicans…blocked a Democratic move to challenge U.S. policy in Iraq.â€
And it is the eighth time that the Democrats have allowed the Republics to get away with it. The Democrats need to make the Republics filibuster bills. They need to force them to stand there and read the phone book for days to show the world how they are obstructing the will of the people.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:20 amBell, 16 at the time of the attack, is the only one of the “Jena Six” to be tried so far. He was convicted on an aggravated second-degree battery count that could have sent him to prison for 15 years, but the conviction was overturned last week when a state appeals court said he should not have been tried as an adult.
What this article fails to mention is that Bell is still in jail, although the conviction was overturned. There is blatant racism going on in this little town, and I for one am glad there is massive media attention focusing on this trial.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:21 amPretty disgusting what’s going on in Louisiana.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:27 amTennis shoes are considered a deadly weapon?
Is Boss Hog the Judge down there?
Racism rears it’s ugly head again…
September 20th, 2007 at 9:28 amSenate conservatives’ successful effort to obstruct the Webb amendment yesterday mark the “the eighth time this year†that “Senate Republicans…blocked a Democratic move to challenge U.S. policy in Iraq.â€
Makes you long for the days of the Nuclear Option. Remember that Sen. Reeid? Maybe that’s where the Dems should have really made a stand. Maybe tried a fillibuster or two. Then, the Republican majority would have done away with the fillibuster and would be having these bills landing on the President’s desk to veto. But that wuss Reid made an “agreement” to keep the nuclear option from being deployed. Wanna bet we see the nuclear option reappear the next time the Republicans gain control of the Senate.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:28 amThe rethugs again block an attempt by the dems to support the troops. Somehow the rethugs keep piling more and more combat exposure on the troops and get credit for “supporting the troops.” The dems attempt to give the troops some rest away from the constant threat of combat death and get branded by the rethugs as “hating the troops” and a compliant MSM repeating the the rethugs’ talking points without challenge. I simply can’t understand how these hateful rethugs and MSM can actually look in the mirror each day, especially those who could enlist, but, for example, are “serving by staying home and helping their father campaign for US President.” Why won’t the dems fight back instead of rolling over?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:30 amRudy never fails to amuse us, does he? Now he brags about his international cred because he is one of the “four or five best-known Americans in the world”. This is so ludicrous — where do I start?
1) Rudy, you’re not even close. There’s a long list of American entertainment figures who are far ahead of you in international recognizability. But maybe you meant “political figures”. Wrong again — by the time we put both Clintons, both Bushes, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, Al Gore, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, etc. on the list, you’re lucky to make the top ten. Maybe you meant “former mayors of New York”.
2) Being an internationally recognized figure (of any degree) is no substitute for REAL foreign policy experience, which is what the POTUS job requires. Are you really sure you’re ready for this gig, or are you running only because it will give you a really cool place to live for the next four years?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:31 amsix black teenagers known as the “Jena 6,†who were initially charged with attempted murder in the beating of a white classmate. More about the Jena 6 HERE.
Neither of those links mentions that the one kid who was getting all the extra charges has something like 5 priors, two of which were for assault. That could be why the judge is coming down on him.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:31 amFor those of you keeping track of who’s up for re-election in 2008 and how they voted, I have a list.
Summary — All Democrats up for re-election in 2008 voted for the Webb amendment. All Republicans up in 2008 voted against it, EXCEPT Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Hagel (R-NE), Smith (R-OR), and Sununu (R-NH). Those five Republicans voted for it.
In this list, parentheses around a Senator’s name indicates he/she will not be running for re-election.
REPUBLICANS UP IN 2008
Alexander, R-TN – Nay
(Allard), R-CO – Nay
Barrasso, R-WY – Nay
Chambliss, R-GA – Nay
Cochran, R-MS – Nay
Coleman, R-MN – Yea
Collins, R-ME – Yea
Cornyn, R-TX – Nay
(Craig), R-ID – Nay
Dole, R-NC – Nay
Domenici, R-NM – Nay
Enzi, R-WY – Nay
Graham, R-SC – Nay
(Hagel), R-NE – Yea
Inhofe, R-OK – Nay
McConnell, R-KY – Nay
Roberts, R-KS – Nay
Sessions, R-AL – Nay
Smith, R-OR – Yea
Stevens, R-AK – Nay
Sununu, R-NH – Yea
(Warner), R-VA – Nay
DEMOCRATS UP IN 2008
September 20th, 2007 at 9:33 amBaucus, D-MT – Yea
Biden, D-DE – Yea
Durbin, D-IL – Yea
Harkin, D-IA – Yea
Johnson, D-SD – Yea
Kerry, D-MA – Yea
Landrieu, D-LA – Yea
Lautenberg, D-NJ – Yea
Levin, D-MI – Yea
Pryor, D-AR – Yea
Reed, D-RI – Yea
Rockefeller, D-WV – Yea
RUDEE may be known outside the US, but that gives him no more experience in international relations than Paris Hilton.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:34 amShouldn’t El Jefe, Cheney, be helping to defray the cost of Scooter’s blocking the investigation by putting himself under the bus for Cheney? How would Mary Matalin be involved and Cheney is not? Why should she feel obligated to help Scooter? He, obviously, took the hit to stop this act of treason from going up the chain to his boss, and the top dog.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:34 am71.1 percent: The increase last month in the numbers of Iraqis forced to abandon their homes, “the sharpest rise so far.â€
So last month in Iraq there was a 71% increase in homeless people with (I would assume) negligible credit histories and low income.
Last month in the U.S. we had a 36% increase in home foreclosures of people with poor credit histories and low income.
Seems like if we get these people together we could solve two problems at once!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:35 amWhy won’t the dems fight back instead of rolling over?
-Comment by BearCountry
Question of the year, BearCountry.
Why? Does Pelosi have too many corporate masters?
Does Reid have any balls?
Will Leahy do anything but write letters?
Will Waxman ever get out of the hearings chambers to actually pursue an investigation?
Are Democrats just Republicans in Sheep’s clothing?
I’m holding my ‘Blue’ vote until I actually see some Congress Critters stand up to the Bushits.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:35 amPerhaps Mary’s words are quite cryptic and a new grand jury will be convened where Scooter can now be tried for treason? After all, it’s not double jeopardy since he was tried for perjury this time. New charge/new trial.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:36 amRegardless of his priors, he didn’t deserve what he got. A tennis shoe can’t reasonably be considered a dangerous weapon; that’s absurd, everyone I know is walking around with dangerous weapons on their feet?? Nike is selling dangerous weapons to kids?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 am(Warner), R-VA – Nay
Comment by missmolly — September 20, 2007 @ 9:33 am
Bummer – I’ll have to punish the next Republican nominee instead.
Still – at least I have one Senator who’s sane.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 amZimzone: Come join the growing number of Ex-Democrats who have decided that this gang of Dems are looking pretty complicit in this mess of ours. By becoming unaffiliated, a HUGE burden of anger and guilt by association is immediately lifted from one’s heart and shoulders. The “I’s” will have power now that our numbers have reached 35% and have eclipsed the GOP which stands at a paltry 27% and dropping. It’s the only way to wield some power over these democrats who are selling us down the river in every way.
When 70% of democrats find themselves “to the left” of the Democratic party, I’d say it’s time for a new party to spring up. These democrats to the “right of the majority of the party” are actually “pseudo republicans” or “soft-core repubs”.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:39 amJena Six:
This is MSM Bull$hit. Six people beat up one person – a truly fair fight by all accounts – and when it comes time to be held responsible for those actions, the excuse is “racism.” Sharpton and Jackson careers are built upon fueling the fire of racism and their involvement in this rally thoroughly discredits it. I can’t stand the fact that Jesse Jackson considers himself a Democrat.
Matalin:
Does anyone think Carville received one of those letters? Do you think maybe he proof read it for her before she sent it out?
Webb Amendment:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:39 amThe Republicans hate America and the Democrats are nothing more than enablers.
What’s really disgusting is the way the WH apparently has been using the Army as a front for the Blackwaters. We’ve been told over and over again that the military presence was essential to stabilizing Iraq and how vital that increase in troop strenght known as “the surge” **cough… cough** was to the cause.
What they haven’t been telling us is they have a private army accountable to no one but them over there too, the estimated 180,000 Blackwater mercs. That means TOTAL manpower in Iraq is somewhere around 340K, no? AND, they STILL can’t control the country.
“The surge” is a complete lie, as far as I’m concerned, and a huge failure. More dead and crippled American soldiers, more dead Iraqis, more BILLIONS squandered and the F-in’ Repukes just want to keep the soldiers over there longer and longer, until their Fuhrer gets to hand his personal pet disaster off to the next POTUS, w/ that greasy little smirk on his face.
The average Blackwater is probably making 4 times what the ave soldier is. Bet a merc doesn’t HAVE to stay over there 15 months at a time, or go back 3 or 4 times, no matter what. Why do the GOOPers do this to their own military? Because they can. Support the troops? Geez, I wanna puke. THE GOOP! One day closer to extinction!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:40 amI don’t condone beating other people up. However, in the case of the Jena 6, it’s virtually impossible to ignore the disparity of penalties issued for bad behavior on both sides. The blatant racism of hanging nooses on a tree where a black student dared to sit was dismissed as a “prank”, and a physical altercation resulting from the inflamed race conflict gets years in jail.
Nobody should get off scot-free in this case, but let’s make the punishment fit the crimes a little better, shall we?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:41 amI hate to say it but Hillary’s Republicanism is showing these days, too. After all, she was a dyed-in-the-wool Repuke for decades and her “roots” are rearing their ugly head with her war-mongerism and faux thumping of patriotism.
Can we really trust one who was so easily “fooled” by Bush in the lead up to the war?? When others like Feingold were “smarter” and were not fooled? I think not.
And she, above all, had 8 years of experience in the WH which made her privvy to inside info which some of the others did not have – certainly more “background” than the majority had – so this makes her “error in judgment” doubly horrible now.
And, other than blaming Bush for tricking her, has she really found it possible to humble herself totally and take responsibility for her falty vote??
September 20th, 2007 at 9:42 amReally? Because it sounds like a clear case of racism. The nooses were clearly hung with racist intentions. The black kids are being railroaded by the whites who hate them. It was a fight at a school.. Should they be charged with something? Sure, but the kid was fine after getting roughed up. If he died or was permanently injured, then maybe they should get a stiff sentence, but the kid survived.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:42 amScooter Libby’s financial woes evoke no sympathy from me. As for Matalin – she and Cheney are wealthy enough to bail out their scapegoat from their own petty cash fund.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:44 amNot only should Libby be in jail but I can think of a few others who should be there too.
Are you really sure you’re ready for this gig, or are you running only because it will give you a really cool place to live for the next four years?
Comment by missmolly — September 20, 2007 @ 9:31 am
After appearing in public as one of the Rockettes, Rudi ain’t never gonna be the next POTUS. I’d love to see Rudi try and explain that to the good folk of Kansas, or Iowa, or Arkansas…
September 20th, 2007 at 9:44 amZimzone: I’m with you – Scooter’s bills are the least of his worries. He should be worrying about being now tried for treason.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:44 amdim wit sez:
I urge you to familiarize yourself with the particulars of the situation before you pass judgment.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:46 am#20, Veritas,
Thanks.
I’m extremely upset with our Democratic ‘leadership’ thus far.
I’ve also watched Nader take away votes in the last 2 elections. I don’t blame him. Everyone has a right to run for office, but I still think Gore would have been POTUS if Nader hadn’t got that share of the vote.
I also believe a strong 3rd party would cure a lot of our political ills. That party would have to include strong revisions and changes to the current system that favors corporate citizenship over personal.
Do you see such a candidate out there? I don’t.
I am watching carefully for someone to emerge…
September 20th, 2007 at 9:46 amNot only should Libby be in jail but I can think of a few others who should be there too.
Comment by Marie — September 20, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Ya’d think that Duh-bya and Deadeye would personally come up w/ the bread, considering that Scooter took one for them. They certainly have the money. Hmmm… that is a GOOD question. I wonder how much George and Dick HAVE personally given to help poor Scooter in his time of woe?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:47 amI don’t understand why the Dems don’t let the Repugs carry on with their foolish, obstructionist behavior. Let the repugs filibuster, let them go on C-Span all day long and be recorded as not supporting “time off” for the troops. Let the public see them for the lying, conniving, self-serving, bootlicking sycophants they are.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:47 amThe Dems would be pleased to see their representatives fighting in the open for them, as much as we would be pleased to see the repugs being shown as jackasses.
Six people beat up one person – a truly fair fight by all accounts – and when it comes time to be held responsible for those actions, the excuse is “racism.â€
Comment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 9:39 am
I have to disagree with you here. First, the noose hanging, although not an act of violence, does represent a horrid past, as would a swastika or a reference to gas chambers for the Jews.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:49 amAnyone who has ever attended high school knows of fights among testosterone laden teens, which usually results in suspensions. These 6 committed a crime, there is now doubt, but they are juveniles for one, and two, the victim, though beat up, did not have permanent, serious injuries. There is no way these young 6 should be facing 15 years of hard time.
I do know this, had it been reversed (6 whites on 1 black who was not seriously injured), the Jena 6 would be facing expulsion, if that!
And what really, really irks me about the whole damn thing: Why is Bell still in jail? His conviction was overturned. Is he a flight risk, like O.J.?
Hell no!
now doubt
No doubt.
my bad.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:51 amWait a minute. So six teenagers of one race, beat unconscious, then proceed to kick (stomp) a single person of another race as he lies unconscious are the VICTIMS in this? We are to assume that since they are black, and it is a southern town that they have been wronged? To make violent attackers like this the poster child for civil rights just sets back race relations for everyone.
Maybe they were over-charged, but having seen a group of teenagers beat one person well past their being able to defend themselves (like one person can defend themself from six attackers)…I thought that they had to want to kill the victim. What was the goal…or possible consequences of “stomping†this victim. A violent attack is a violent attack. It should be condemned, not celebrated.
Are these violent perpetrators of this crime who we want to be the face of civil rights? If so, than the cause has lost at least one supporter it had, me. That’s not what I think civil rights is.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:52 amDoes the Carlyle Group own Blackwater?
Is Blackwater paying taxes, or are they conveniently sheltered offshore?
Just think what GHWB is knocking down these days. As everyone blames his Son, Daddy is getting Ginormously rich!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:52 amWhy won’t the dems fight back instead of rolling over?
Comment by BearCountry — September 20, 2007 @ 9:30 am
The Repubs are making it so the Dems could easily hit it out of the park. It’s frustrating to watch them standing at the plate, not even swinging. I get that their strategy is to run out the clock and focus on the 2008 elections, but each day that goes by with no action for what’s right makes the whole party look bad. At this rate, voters will be so disgusted with BOTH parties that everybody will stay home next November and play video games instead of heading to the polls.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:57 amTampaCT,
To put it in perspective, my daughter’s 16 year old friend was caught drunk driving (she is white). She was arrested, fined, kicked off the golf team, and lost her license.
She, luckily, did not kill anyone, but let’s face it, the intent was there. (Operating a vehicle while intoxicated is an intent, like it or not)
Should she have faced 15 years of prison?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:57 amShould she have been tried as an adult?
Why is she not as criminal as the Jena 6?
That’s not what I think civil rights is.
Comment by TampaCT — September 20, 2007 @ 9:52 am
Go up to the link TTM posted and go read the ENTIRE article. This is more complicated than you’re getting.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:57 amSo six teenagers of one race, beat unconscious, then proceed to kick (stomp) a single person of another race as he lies unconscious are the VICTIMS in this?
The kid may have been knocked out, but he was fine. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:58 amIf a student makes Columbine or terrorist-type threats at a school they are going to be taken seriously. However, if the threat is only against African Americans it is only treated as a prank. I do not believe the argument is that the fighters shouldn’t be punished, it’s that the school board and prosecuter clearly look at things through a white-tinted lens.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:03 amComment by TampaCT — September 20, 2007 @ 9:52 am
TampaCT, I also urge you to familiarize yourself with the particulars of the situation before you pass judgment.
When the black students staged an impromptu demonstration under the tree on which the nooses were hung, District Attorney Reed Walters paid them a little visit. Flanked by police officers, District Attorney Reed Walters warned black students that additional unrest would be treated as a criminal matter. According to multiple witnesses, Walters warned the black student protestors that, “I can make your lives disappear with a stroke of my pen.”
This is the same District Attorney Reed Walters that originally filed the charged of attempted murder, and who subsequently published a statement in which he said, “When you are convicted, I will seek the maximum penalty allowed by law.”
Certainly, physical violence cannot be excused, but in a situation where death threats are waved off as “pranks”, and the DA threatens to make you “disappear”, certainly, these can be considered extenuating circumstances.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:03 amThis is MSM Bull$hit. Six people beat up one person – a truly fair fight by all accounts – and when it comes time to be held responsible for those actions, the excuse is “racism.â€
Part of what the people are protesting is that the white students who hung nooses in trees to provoke the black students were not held accountable for their actions. The local police said “there is no law against hanging a noose in a tree”. Well, how about “inciting a riot”, because that’s what they did. What the white kids was a hate crime aimed at blacks.
I am not saying that the black students should not be held accountable for their participation in the beating, but I am saying that the police and a jury need to take a look at the extenuating circumstances and at the fact that the white students were allowed to get away scott free.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:04 amHang nooses from a tree is not an act of violence.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:06 amAnd I should also note neither Racism nor expressions of racism are illegal. It is shameful that I have to sit here and side with the neocons on this issue. The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression for all people whether they are white, black, Muslim, or racist. While I do condone racism, racism is not illegal and is a 1st Amendment right.
We read this site every day and criticize those who seek to take away our freedoms by trampling on the Constitution. I will turn my back on the 1st Amendment simply because I disagree with the comments being made.
If this was a case of six whites beating up one black, would there be cries of racism? Of course. And would Jesse and Sharpton be satisfied with criminal proceedings? Probably not – I can only imagine they would want Federal “hate crime” charges.
Whether inflammatory, racist, or disgusting, the hanging of a noose from a tree is a protected right and I will ALWAYS stand with the Constitution, whether popular or not.
I’d like to point out that NO ONE has vilified TampaCT here for his, or her, opinion. No one has labled Tampa a racist, or used any perjoratives. TampaCT is entitled to their opinion, and all we’ve done is offer more information or a counter opinion.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:07 amAnd, other than blaming Bush for tricking her, has she really found it possible to humble herself totally and take responsibility for her falty vote??
Comment by Veritas
No, and this is why I will find it very difficult to vote for her. I will if I have to, but I will hold my nose while I do it.
I am hoping and praying that Al Gore will see the light and realize how much his country needs him right now. Gore is the only person I think would be guaranteed the White House. There are a lot of Republics out there who would vote for Gore today.
Gore/Kucinich 2008!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:07 amdimwit, you’re entitled to your opinion (1st amendment!!) and so am I and I think you’re wrong.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:08 amGood discussions, folks.
Isn’t it great to not see Mr. Pee’s psychobabble daily?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:09 amDiane Rehm is doing a show on the Jena 6 live right now:
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/07/09/20.php#13726
If there’s anyone who can do a good and unbiased show on this topic, it’s Diane Rehm.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:09 amdim wit sez:
It’s a clear and obvious threat of violence, which is a criminal act.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:10 amCAIRO, Egypt – Osama bin Laden will release a new message soon declaring war on Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, al-Qaida announced Thursday.
I wonder what color his beard will be in this one…
September 20th, 2007 at 10:11 amThe 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression for all people whether they are white, black, Muslim, or racist. While I do condone racism, racism is not illegal and is a 1st Amendment right.
The first amendment does not allow you to shout “fire” in a crowded room. That’s pretty much what the white students did.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:12 amWhether inflammatory, racist, or disgusting, the hanging of a noose from a tree is a protected right and I will ALWAYS stand with the Constitution,
Comment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 10:06 am
The issue is not about the noose, per se. It’s about misjustice of the 6.
The noose initiated the events, but what unfolded is definitely racist.
Juveniles facing 15 years?
Not being allowed to leave jail after your conviction was overturned?
Bullhickey, I say!
I, as a caucasion, would gladly walk with Sharpton (with whom I disagree with many a times) and Jackson.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:12 am#
Diane Rehm is doing a show on the Jena 6 live right now:
http://wamu.org/ programs/ dr/ 07/ 09/ 20.php#13726
If there’s anyone who can do a good and unbiased show on this topic, it’s Diane Rehm.
Add Karma Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by toasterhead — September 20, 2007 @ 10:09 am
So true.. Diane Rehm does a damn good show.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:12 amSo that result of repeatedly kicking an unconscious person wasn’t a brain injury, or death. Heaven forbid that the victim survived…so its not serious.
These are the types of cases exploited by people who want to divide not unite so as to energize their base regardless of what it does to the country as a whole. The “leaders†in this case are doing just what we criticize the republicans for…they are attempting to be divisive so as to gain strength within a smaller circle.
I’ve seen someone laying on the ground being kicked, I do think that a tennis shoe can be a dangerous weapon.
I also don’t want someone who could do that circulating, socializing, being amongst other children. And the last thing I want is for a group of violent bullies to made into heroes because some think that they are be punished too severely…regardless of what the punishment was, what they did was reprehensible and white or black or green violent thugs should not be celebrated.
There is so much racism still in this world we have to be able to find a better case to rally around…and it this is the most egregious aspect of racism in this country…well, I just don’t believe it is.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:13 amComment by CaptainMantastic — September 20, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Sorry, but that comes across as an incoherent rant. Gotta go, folks. The day job awaits (PST here…). Please take the time to show Mantastic here some progressive kindness and gently help him untangle his own jumbled thoughts.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:17 amComment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I agree with you that first amendment rights should be protected, and I would protest anybody going to jail for the nooses — even though I personally find that behavior repugnant. I think discipline for that stunt lies with the school system instead of the legal system. Of course, the school DID issue short suspensions, but some race relations classes for all involved might have been more meaningful (and might have done more to reduce the escalation of violence) than giving the perps a three-day vacation.
I also would object to the Jena 6 receiving no punishment for beating up another student (especially six against one — that’s not fair, no matter how you slice it).
What I do object to is the D.A.s zeal to prosecute the Jena 6 to the fullest extent of the law and seek the absolute maximum penalty for them, as if there were no extenuating circumstances surrounding this case.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:17 amHow long will it take for you to understand that this war is not one that you can choose to have; it has been declared on us? How long will it take for you to understand that if you abandon the middle east in an attempt to appease jihadists, they will only bring their war to you; to the streets of you and your family? How long until you understand that you’re efforts to oppose the efforts in Iraq are not making the world safer and more peaceful; but further enabling jihadists to spread their intolerant beliefs and tyrannical law.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — September 20, 2007 @ 10:11 am
It’s going to take a long, long time. I’d say an asymptote approaching infinity. Because none of your “revelations” are true.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:18 amTampaCT: I’ve seen someone laying on the ground being kicked, I do think that a tennis shoe can be a dangerous weapon.
So can a foot, so can a phone, so can a scotch-tape despenser, so can a potted plant. When does it end? Is everything a dangerous weapon?
If these kids get sent to prison, they’ll come out harder than ever, and will be more of a burden on society. If they get a reasonable punishment, they could continue their lives and contribute to society one day. You said it yourself, they’re children right now. Nobody is saying they’re heroes, and I don’t see them as being celebrated.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:19 amTampaCT,
September 20th, 2007 at 10:20 amI have two questions for you:
Is the 15 year sentence justified for these juveniles.
In my example above, is the 16 year old drunk driver sentence to lenient?
DRxJ sez:
Conviction overturned, yet defendant remains in jail
and
Nooses were hung from trees by the victim
NOT TRUE! The defendants are repeat offenders. They deserve serious jail time. Yes, a tennis shoe is a deadly weapon if worn by a homicidal person intent on kicking the life out of you. The victim was seriously hurt and unable to defend himself against six young men.
The nooses occurred a long time prior to the beating, and the victim was NOT associated with those that hung the nooses. To associate his beating with the noose-hangers is silly and demeans the victim’s pain and suffering.
Shame on you for using this senseless beating for political purposes. Smacks of the Duke “rape” crisis…
September 20th, 2007 at 10:25 amThe victim was seriously hurt and unable to defend himself against six young men.
Comment by JT — September 20, 2007 @ 10:25 am
But yet not seriously hurt enough to prevent him from attending a school function later that evening.
That’s not attempted murder.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:27 amJT
September 20th, 2007 at 10:27 amactually, I think Bell’s criminal record was clean before the beating. Don’t have a link to it, but I remember seeing it on an evening news program.
Ike Skelton
You’re right. Let the beaters go free. If we put them in jail (where they belong), then they only become “harder” criminals. Of course, you forget that if we let them go free, we tell them and the rest of the world that you can savagely kick the sense out of people with a deadly weapon (you better believe a shoe can be deadly if used with homicidal intent) and get away with it! I’m sure they will learn their lesson and not do it again…
The politics of appeasement destroys us all…
September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 amShame on you for using this senseless beating for political purposes. Smacks of the Duke “rape†crisis…
You’re absolutely right.. Students being railroaded by a prosecutor. This time they’re black.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 amdim wit sez:
Hang nooses from a tree is not an act of violence.
It’s a clear and obvious threat of violence, which is a criminal act.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 20, 2007 @ 10:10 am
I disagree. It is exactly this mentality which allowed Bush to invade Iraq.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:28 amDRxJ
By your logic, if someone intends to kill you by firing a gun at you and misses, the fact that it caused you no bodily harm means no attempted murder occurred.
Your logic stinks.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:29 amtoasterhead
The comment was toward toasterhead’s post, not DRxJ.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:30 amIn the spirit of Hill’reh proposing a feasible means of providing health insurance to every person in America, I will offer up a proposal which will redistribute wealth from corporations / financial institutions to a greater number of individuals / families:
As it was 35 or more years ago, reduce the longest term morgage loan from 30 years down to 20 years gradually by reducing the 30 year term 6 months per year over the next 20 years. This gradual reduction will minimize the impact to home prices, while increasing the amount of principal paid against the loan. Individuals will have more equity in their homes, increasing the rate of savings, or they can borrow against it in an emergency.
I believe that the increase of mortgage terms from 20 years to 30 years drove the need for dual incomes in families more than any other economic policy change ever. Gradually reversing this policy will reduce the need for dual incomes, as well as increasing the savings rate in America. When a home only has a single wage earner, the spouse will be able to spend more time involved in neighborhood, school and/or community activities, as it was a few decades ago.
No other economic policy change could improve the quality of life in America as this one.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:30 amIke Skelton
You’re right. Let the beaters go free. If we put them in jail (where they belong), then they only become “harder†criminals. Of course, you forget that if we let them go free, we tell them and the rest of the world that you can savagely kick the sense out of people with a deadly weapon (you better believe a shoe can be deadly if used with homicidal intent) and get away with it! I’m sure they will learn their lesson and not do it again…
The politics of appeasement destroys us all…
I didn’t say let them go, if you’d read my prior posts you’d know that.
I’ll ask again.. Is a foot, a phone, a scotch-tape dispenser, a potted plant a dangerous weapon? If so, when does it end? Is everything a dangerous weapon?
Are you certain these boys wanted to kill the guy they beat up? I bet they could have killed him if they wanted to.
Do you fully understand this issue? It sounds like you’ve got some of it, but not all of it.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:31 amThe nooses occurred a long time prior to the beating…
Substantiation, please…
Shame on you for using this senseless beating for political purposes.
How are we using this for political purposes? We’re just discussing it. Assigning blame where it doesn’t exist, by any chance?
Comment by JT — September 20, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I think we’re gittin’ a preview of the new Fall Troll line here. I git the feelin’ this one ain’t a casual poster. Sumpin’ a little off in the language and intent. Too big of a hurry to blame…
September 20th, 2007 at 10:31 amdim wit.
I have 1 question for you.
If a man makes contact with a 10 year old girl via the internet, and sets up a meeting place to have sex, is he a criminal, if no sexual touching or intercourse took place?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:32 am(If that’s too extreme, try this: If a student makes threats and comments to friends similar to Columbine or Virginia Tech, is he still a criminal if he never follows through?)
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — September 20, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Wrong thread again, Jason.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:33 amdim wit sez:
How the hell does that follow? Explain your reasoning.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:33 amOn the other hand, the same justice system that “rightfully” convicted the kid has also already overturned the conviction. Go figure.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:35 amif someone intends to kill you by firing a gun at you and misses, the fact that it caused you no bodily harm means no attempted murder occurred.
Your logic stinks.
Comment by JT — September 20, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Ahhh, but here is your flaw, JT.
Where and what was the intent? High school and college fights happen all the time. Are they all murder intent?
What about the girl who decided to drive while intoxicated. We all know drunk driving kills. Surely she did also. Wasn’t her intent to kill?
By the way, I did use deodorant this morning, not sure about the stink thing!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:36 amViolence solves nothing.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:38 amBy your logic, if someone intends to kill you by firing a gun at you and misses, the fact that it caused you no bodily harm means no attempted murder occurred.
Your logic stinks.
Comment by JT — September 20, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Well, by the Bush Doctrine, the Jena 6 had every right to kill the white student as a “preemptive strike” against a possible future attacker. It doesn’t really matter that the white student wasn’t the one who hung the nooses.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:39 amEveryone,
September 20th, 2007 at 10:39 amas a side note, I am at work
I’m not trying to run from this issue, but I’ve got other shit to do (usually I do not become so involved in these discussions)
I will do my best to answer any criticisms
I will do my best to answer any criticisms
Comment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 10:39 am
dim wit, we are discussing, not criticizing.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:41 am(Unless you count JT’s odorous reference)
The politics of appeasement destroys us all…
Comment by JT — September 20, 2007 @ 10:28 am
According to the article linked above, white students who beat ONE black at a party were charged w/ no crimes at all.
Your’re right… the politics of appeasement destroy us all. Nice attempt to link this to Chamberlain and Hitler, BTW.
The New and Improved Fall 2007 Troll Line!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:41 amdim wit sez:
Understood, DW. Same here. Real Life has a way of intruding… ^_^
September 20th, 2007 at 10:43 amDRxJ
Any item that can cause serious harm and is used with intent to cause such serious harm can be a deadly weapon. So, to address your issue, and as any first year law student quickly learns, a stapler could conceivably be a deadly weapon if used by a person with the intent to cause serious bodly harm. The fact that a tennis shoe was worn by a homicidal person who, with FIVE other homicidal persons, was kicking a person on the ground senseless gives rise to a presumption of intent to cause serious bodily harm.
Now, on to your intent issue: Can you with a straight face argue that a person, along with FIVE other persons, was only kicking the victim “in jest” as blood flowed from his body and he struggled (unsuccessfully) to defend himself? Seriously-you cannot deny that the intent to cause serious bodily harm (which can equate with attempted homicide) was in fact going on here.
So, what we have here are SIX young men using their shoes (yes, deadly weapons because they intended to cause such harm) to kick a defenseless person while he laid on the ground, bleeding.
I think Sharpton, as he did with Tawana Brawley and other scenarios which eroded his credibility, is “propping” the wrong sort of people here. Does anybody listen to Bill Cosby?… Shame, shame, shame.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:47 amTry closing a few of the Windows, Jason.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:47 amIt will be less confusing for you.
The Republic of Stupidity
I’ve learned, along with the other posters here, that you post unsubstantiated and vitriolic attacks on others who don’t agree with your thought process. Until you can substantiate your posts, or otherwise engage in respectful dialogue, buzz off.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:49 amJT,
You keep calling them ‘homicidal’… Where is the evidence that says they were trying to kill this kid? 6 on 1, I bet they could have killed him if they had wanted to. The fact that he wasn’t seriously hurt suggests they were either extremely weak, or they didn’t want to kill him. I’m sure they wanted to beat him up, and cause some damage, but kill him?
What if they hadn’t been wearing shoes, would they then have not been using dangerous weapons?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:51 amJT
Bodily harm and murder are two different intents. You’ve just moved the goal post. Congrats.
I never EVER said the 6 should not be punished. I’ve said over, and over, their punishment is too severe for juveniles.
Why do you avoid the example I provide with the drunk driver. Should she not be tried to the fullest extent of the law, regarding intent to inflict bodily harm, with 15 years hard time? After all, a vehicle driven by an impaired person is a weapon
September 20th, 2007 at 10:52 amRegarding what dim wit and TripMaster Monkey said,
September 20th, 2007 at 10:54 amI am also at work, and will do my best to discuss.
Fundamentals of our economy are strong by Preznut Bush, today.
Fundamentals? Building Blocks?
September 20th, 2007 at 10:59 amWTF is wrong with him???
DRxJ
The reason why I didn’t address your drunk driver issue is because there is no intent. Let me explain:
A drunk driver does not necessarily have intent to cause bodily harm when she drives drunk. If she does cause harm, then that’s a different issue. But, there is not assault with a deadlly weapon b/c in order to have assault, you need intent. Being drunk while driving, without more, does not mean you have an intent to cause harm with a deadly weapon. It means you are stupid, but I digress.
Here, we are talking about are SIX young men kicking a guy while he laid on the ground (he’s lucky the fight was broken up, or perhaps he would have been killed–we’ll never know). In this situation, there IS intent to cause serious bodily harm. The use of their feet is relevant only insomuch as it is the means by which they caused harm.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:04 amHow the hell does that follow? Explain your reasoning.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 20, 2007 @ 10:33 am
—
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03
“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
And you said:
It’s a clear and obvious threat of violence, which is a criminal act.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 20, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Sounds familiar to me.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:06 am“Osama bin Laden will reportedly release a new message soon declaring war on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. A banner posted on a militant website previewed the release: “Urgent, Al Qaeda declares war on the tyrant Pervez Musharraf and his apostate army, in the words of Osama bin Laden.â€
Interesting how OBL just kind of pops up at convenient times. Since there is now some serious discussion about whether or not to cross into Pakistan to try to destroy Al Qaeda training camps on the northern border, as well as concerns about Musharref’s reliabliity as an ally…suddenly OBL declares war on him. Of course, this means we will HAVE to continue to support the Pakistani dictatorship, right? Is that a rat I smell?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:07 amThe use of their feet is relevant only insomuch as it is the means by which they caused harm.
Comment by JT — September 20, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Then, by your logic, all fights around the country (bar room brawls, fraternity parties, domestic disputes, …etc.) are intent on doing bodily harm. All should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, even if committed by juveniles.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:07 amGotcha.
Okay, I gotta run (a guys luncheon at Hooters with the approval of the wives. Heh)
I stand clearly that this is a racist issue, that the proposed punishment is too severe, that the juvenile still held in jail after his conviction was overturned is wrong.
I am glad, though, that TP allowed pertinent discussions rather than the recent rash of troll $hit that have clogged these threads.
dim with and JT, I think you for your time and insight. Hopefully we can further this discussion later.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:13 amEnjoy, all
Until you can substantiate your posts, or otherwise engage in respectful dialogue, buzz off.
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by JT — September 20, 2007 @ 10:49 am
And just out of curiosity, what was “unsubstaniated and vitriolic” in what I said? All I did was offer a counter to your comments. If you read the entire article, you will see a group of white students did beat one black.
And YOU used the word ‘appeasement”. I’m sorry, but it impossible to NOT make that connection w/ that word. If you don’t like having that pointed out, hey, too bad. I’m still wondering how you felt justified in using that word when discussing the situation in Jena.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:15 amNo one really wants Musharraf’s job.
On the one hand, he hosts US efforts, on the other hand he has Talibani and Al Queda thugs storming through his tribal regions. On the west side of the Indus River he has Iranians, on the east side he has Punjabi.
All carefully balanced in the middle of WW3, and host to nuclear weapons.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:15 amSounds familiar to me.
Comment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 11:06 am
dim wit, all you’re doing is quoting WH talking points. You cannot claim this PROVES Saddam’s intent.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:18 amdim wit sez:
The difference, of course, being that the threat from Iraq was completely fabricated, and entirely beyond the capability of Iraq to make reality, while the threat from the white kids was very real, and they certainly had the capability to act on the threat.
Don’t you think that’s an important difference?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am“… they certainly had the capability to act on the threat.”
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 20, 2007 @ 11:19 am
And they did. they beat up one balck student at a party and were not charged w/ anything.
Good for the goose…
September 20th, 2007 at 11:27 amBilbobaggins and others have hit the nail on the head when it comes the GOP’s obstructionism — LET THE REPUBLICANS ACTUALLY FILLIBUSTER!!
I’m so sick and damn tired of the Dems letting the Rethugs issue idle threats and make the Senate a de-facto 60-vote-to-get-anything-done chamber. It’s stupid. Stop it. Force their hand and put them on record.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:38 amComment by DRxJ — September 20, 2007 @ 10:32 am
certain threats are criminal. I will agree to that.
However, what you appear to be condoning is vigilante justice. Is it right for a group of people to be waiting for the person who solicited the sex and to beat him up? Or should that person be arrested and prosecuted?
Furthermore, in this case, the noose was hung from the tree on Sept 1, 2006 and the attack did not occur until Dec 4 2006. This was an act of revenge, not defense from an apparent “threat”
September 20th, 2007 at 11:38 amThis was an act of revenge, not defense from an apparent “threatâ€
Recommend | Report Abuse
Comment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 11:38 am
Act of revenge? How? What were the circumstances leading up to that moment?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amI wonder if these teens got a little “Nifonged” huh?
#61 DRxJ
Comparing driving drunk and beating up someone with your buddies is like Hillary comparing health insurance to auto insurance… not even a comparison.
I mean if that’s the case…
you are telling me that the drunk 16 year old girl had intent with her imparied judgment… does that mean we need to reconsider her “intent” when she went up stairs with a boy during the party she was attending?
Nonetheless, being a black male, yes my rock gut says i would want to beat the crap out of someone hanging a noose on a tree, equally evoking if i saw someone burning our flag. But why do we deem it necessary to be baited into 200 years of what to day is now “B.S.”…
Why do we through the chum in the water… when you no the Great BLACK Sharks are going to come for the feeding till you can’t recognize anything anymore.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:40 amNo one is condoning “vigilante justice” here. Almost everyone has said a violent crime s/b punished. All they are really saying is ake sure the punishment is fair and not excessive, FOR CRYIN’ OUT LOUD!
September 20th, 2007 at 11:41 amdim wit sez:
If you had read the link I has originally urged you to read, you would have seen that the noose incident was just the first in a long series of offenses, which included, coincidentally enough, a group of white students ganging up on and assaulting a black student.
When the white students do it: no charges filed.
When the black students do it: attempted murder charges are filed.
Remember, these decisions were made by the DA who threatened the students with the statement “I can make your lives disappear with a stroke of my pen.â€
Still don’t think there’s inequality at work here?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:49 amRoS
September 20th, 2007 at 11:52 amAren’t YOU condoning vigilante justice?
Didn’t you just suggest they should get away with beating the kid?
I mean, you stated, “what’s good for the goose” is good for the gander, right?
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 20, 2007 @ 11:18 am
and
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 20, 2007 @ 11:19 am
You only prove my point. How can you say what the intent of hanging the noose was? Being kids and being stupid it was more likely an attempt to offend than it was an actual threat to kill anyone caught sitting under their tree.
You use the same arguement Bush uses.
Bush: Saddam has WMD. He used them on the Kurds. The threat is real.
TripMaster: The white kids have nooses. They “had the capability to act on the threat.” The threat is real.
You simply perceive this as being a different arguement, but in reality it is identical.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:55 amI mean, you stated, “what’s good for the goose†is good for the gander, right?
Comment by Wilco — September 20, 2007 @ 11:52 am
NOOOOPE! The black students were charged for beating the white student, while a group of white students were not charged for a similar attack. If the black students get charged, the whites should too, and according to the article, they were not.
Charge one group, charge the other. Equal treatment.
What’s good for the goose…
September 20th, 2007 at 11:56 amYou simply perceive this as being a different arguement, but in reality it is identical.
Comment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Saddam had been disarmed and Saddam had nothing to do w/ 9/11.
I said nothing about the hanging of the noose, BTW. I did comment on your use of WH talking points to justify the invasion of Iraq, and I do not believe you have justified it in your post.
The WMD that Saddam once did have and use? Got ‘em, in part, from the US! Imagine that! What’s that word I’m looking for? Accomplice?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pmAccessory? Aiding and abetting?
So I have questions before I go further. (The filter system here won’t let me view news sites, which explains why I can get on fox.com but not cnn.com or msnbc.com)
September 20th, 2007 at 12:03 pmWhat does the attack by the white kids have to do with this? Or is that just peripheral? Was the white victim one of those attackers?
Was the white victim one of those who hung the noose?
Is he not a victim either way? Do we know why the one kid was charged with attempted murder? And I mean the prosecution’s reason.
If the kid was involved in previous potential crimes, does he deserve to be severely assaulted months later because of it?
Should the kids who assaulted him get any special consideration because of it?
Should the kids who assaulted him get any special consideration because of it?
Comment by Wilco — September 20, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Those are the real questions. This is more complicated than most of the posters let on. W/out knowing all of this, it’s hard to have an informed opinion of this.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:06 pm“White House officials say that, after the attorney general confirmation, the nomination of Steven G. Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel “is their next priority this fall, though they have nine major slots at a depleted Justice Department to fill.†As acting OLC chief, Bradbury has been “advising President Bush on the extent of his terrorism-fighting powers,†but several Democratic senators have placed secret holds on his official nomination. ”
I remember seeing Bradbury testify before Congress a couple of years ago. I’m not sure what the topic was, but I will never forget Bradbury’s response to a question about whether or not the President was right to have done something (NSA spying maybe?) At any rate, his response was “The President is ALWAYS right.” Blew me away.
In Jack Goldsmith’s book, “The Terror Presidency,” he states: The OLC is the frontline institution responsible for ensuring that the executive branch charged with executing the law is itself bound by law. They are to provide detached, apolitcal legal advice. He also states: “Because an OLC ruling that a proposed course of action is lawful made it practically impossible for anyone who relied on the advice to be prosecuted, it could effectively blunt most legal objections.”
Now we should be able to understand why Bradbury’s appointment as head of the OLC is this administration’s “next priority,” despite having MAJOR vacancies in the Justice Department.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:11 pm“a group of white students ganging up on and assaulting a black student.”
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 20, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Specifically, what fight are you referencing here?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pmSpecifically, what fight are you referencing here?
Comment by dim wit — September 20, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
If you read the entire article TMM linked to, it’s mentioned. It’s there, in the article. you’ll find it.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 20, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
I think you are misinterpreting my point.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:22 pmWhat I’m saying is your argument is as invalid as Bush’s.
I’m saying you’re both wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six
I have not followed this case at all but from the little I read on Wiki (for you disbelieving conservative types, it is all foot noted) it seems that this is much deeper than simply 6 kids beating one unconscious, which is very serious indeed regardless of what has been occurring around that incident. However there are many more mitigating circumstances. Things such as the black kids getting beaten at the party, or the black kids being threatened by the boy with the shotgun, or the DA telling the students he can end their life with his pen… There is much much more here than some in this thread are willing to admit.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:23 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — September 20, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Please re-post it. I was reading the Democracy Now link TripMaster posted.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:25 pmdim wit sez:
What complete and utter horseshit`. I explained the flaw in this argument up in post #100. Apparently, you didn’t bother to read that, either.
Or are you trying to make the claim that the noose incident, the gun incident, the first beating, etc., did not happen, and were merely fabricated by the blacks as an excuse to beat up a white kid?
You, realize, don’t you, that your entire argument hinges on your acceptance of Chimpy’s claims that Saddam had WMD, and had the capability to deploy them against Americans. Is that really what you’re saying?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:28 pmSo, Severus, how much deeper?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pmWhat did the white victim have to do with previous crimes?
Were his attackers involved in the previous events?
If not, so what?
If so, why is that mitigating when the attack happened months later?
I haven’t heard that the victim was previously an attacker or that he set up the nooses. And on the news today they interviewed some official (don’t ask me who) who said the events weren’t related.
So why is it so many people think that maybe the attack was excusable?
You don’t get to beat the crap out of someone because they have the same skin color as some other people who hurt some guy you know.
That is ridiculous.
It is in the same link, dim wit. Just keep reading, all the way down into the transcript part.
How am I wrong like Bush? All I did was point out your use of WH talking points. They cannot be used as proof of Saddam’s intent at that time.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:32 pmWilco sez:
Tell that to the black student who got beat up by several white students back in October…who subsequently got off scot free.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pmNo other economic policy change could improve the quality of life in America as this one.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — September 20, 2007 @ 10:30 am
wrong.
going back to pre-reagan taxes is what it will take…
listen to thom hartmann…
…
tros – it IS an open thread…
September 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm.
Today’s exercise in painful irony.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5grVHa0ROcaG__RPe5bz8oLinALWg
And the Pope tells Condi to take a hike.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22447527-23109,00.html
September 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pmTMM, what kind of comment is that?
September 20th, 2007 at 12:45 pmAre you suggesting that kid has the right to beat the crap out of those guys?
That is what’s known in the legal community as a “separate crime”
Was it that kid who beat up the white guy?
I’ve heard no such thing.
Should people be upset a group of white guys got away with beating up a lblack guy. Sure!
Does it lessen the victimhood of the white assault victim?
Because that’s what you seem to be saying, in refuting my statement.
That, maybe the kid had it coming b/c some white guys attacked a black guy and got away with it.
Again, show me that the white victim was involved in that assault.
Otherwise, what does it have to with THIS assault? Nothing.
It only has to do with the charges stemming FROM the assault, not the assault itself. Separate the issues because the issues are separate!
Wilco sez:
Did I suggest that? Please point out where I did.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pmhuh…
September 20th, 2007 at 12:53 pmhintler didn’t even try to post at the
“econ101″ thread…
.
Then I’m not understanding you.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:55 pmI make the argument that the group who attacked the white kid without any direct provocation was wrong, and you reply that I need to tell that to the kid who a group of white kids attacked a long time prior to that?
Why refute my argument unless you don’t agree with it?
So please explain your point, then, so I can understand where you’re coming from.
Did the white victim in any way have the assault coming? Did his attackers have the right to attack someone?
If no, why are you arguing with me, why should I “tell it” to the black guy who was attacked? If he thinks the white guy had it coming for no other reason than being white, not having been one of the guys who attacked him, then I’d be happy to tell it to his face. Bring him on. That kind of thinking isn’t going to help him in life.
Wilco sez:
I thought I had made my point a while back, but I’ll recap for you, Wilco.
You made the statement that “You don’t get to beat the crap out of someone because they have the same skin color as some other people who hurt some guy you know.”.
Apparently, if you’re the right color, you do get to do just that. Apparently, if you’re the right color, you get to beat the crap out of someone for no other reason than that they have the wrong color skin.
I’m not saying that that’s your position, because it obviously isn’t. I’m just pointing out that recent events have proven your blanket assertion false.
I hope that that makes things a bit clearer.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:03 pmTHE FACTS
September 20th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThese boys were provoked. What they did was wrong. No one deserves to be assaulted (even if they are teenage racist pricks). The DA is not fairly administering justice and should loose his job. The school board should be reprimanded for their deplorable handling of the events leading up to the arrest of these six boys for murder(WTF?!?!). Louisiana is a backward ass state and is chock full of inequality if you happen to be black.
TMM,
September 20th, 2007 at 1:24 pmI read your post #100.
Its a shit argument on your part.
Your cohort RoS notes:
“The WMD that Saddam once did have and use? Got ‘em, in part, from the US!”
Iraq had WMD at one time and used them. RoS agrees with this. Do you deny Saddam used WMD on the Kurds?
Bush used that fear to justify the invasion of Iraq, noting that Iraw still had these weapons and would use them.
You use the same argument to justify the actions of the Jena 6. You’re stating the Jena 6 were taking a pre-emptive action against the white kid because they were threatened, but this simply is not the case.
In response to inequality you are correct.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:33 pmThe fight you reference is as follows:
Fair barn party incident
On Friday, December 1, there was a private party, attended mostly by whites, at the Fair Barn. Five black youths, including 16-year-old Robert Bailey, attempted to enter the party at about 11 p.m. According to U.S. Attorney Washington, they were told by a woman that they were not allowed inside without an invitation. The five youths persisted, stating that some friends were already in attendance at the party. A white man, who was not a student,[8] then jumped in front of the woman and instigated a fight. After the fight was broken up, the woman told both the white man and five black youths to leave the party. Once outside, the black students were involved in another fight with a group of white men, who also were not students.[8] Police were then called to investigate. Several months later, Justin Sloan, a white male, was charged with battery for his role in the fight and was put on probation. Bailey later stated that one of the white men had broken a beer bottle over his head,[4] though there are no official records of medical treatment being given.[8]
—
The black kids were not invited and told to leave. They did not. This fight was instigated and is not the same as 6 people jumping 1 (from behind) and beating that person.
You do realize there are different degrees of crimes, don’t you?
Battery is a term used by the common law jurisdictions, which involves an injury or other contact upon the person of another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm.
Attempted Murder is committed when the defendant does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the crime of murder and, at the time of these acts, the person has a specific intention to kill.
dim wit sez:
I can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. This is beyond stupid.
No, dim wit, I don’t dispute that Saddam had chemical weapons. I don’t dispute that he used them on the Kurds. And I don’t dispute that the U.S. supplied Saddam with these weapons.
HOWEVER, Saddam was required to destroy these (and all other) WMDs after the Gulf War, which he did. Weapons inspectors all reported that Saddam had indeed followed through on his obligation.
So, tell me, just exactly how the hell do you make the jump from “Saddam gassed the Kurds” to “Saddam was a threat to the U.S.”?
The threat Iraq posed to the U.S. was entirely fictional, and even if they had wished us harm, they would have been completely unable to do so.
In short, there is absolutely no comparison between the Jena 6, which were both genuinely threatened and physically assaulted, and the U.S., which was never genuinely threatened by Iraq, and could not have been harmed by them in any event. It is, to use your pithy parlance, a ’shit argument’.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:38 pmJust called Tom Corburn’s ofice ,I asked did he have the hold staffer said yes hold on , then I was told by machine to leave a message.
Just got back from a rally and protest march for The Jena Six in Philadelphia, PA.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pmIt was quite a turnout at least 500 or more people showed up wearing BLACK. We marched down Board St.
Cars were beeping and honking. It was really impowering.
FREE THE JENA SIX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TMM,
September 20th, 2007 at 2:33 pmFor whatever reason, I don’t think you understand my point and I simply don’t have the ability to explain it anymore simply. I, in fact, agree with most of what you have to say in your last comment which is why I disagree with your comment #50.
I do feel we probably have much more in common than we do in difference and feel we should probably just agree to disagree as I don’t see either of us winning the other over.
Please accept this as my last comment concerning this topic. Should you choose to respond, I will read your comment, but will not respond to it.
-dim wit-
And you have proof these boys were “provoked”? And this proof is an excuse for six people to beat up on one person? And further do you have proof that the boy who was beaten was in your words a “teenage racist pricks”?
September 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pmIs there nothing about which Rudy won’t exaggerate to a ridiculous degree? I’m betting at the very least Angelina, Brad and their four kids are better known Americans in the world than he is.
————–
And finally: Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani was “on the trans-Atlantic campaign trail…bragging about his international credentials. ‘I’m probably one of the four or five best known Americans in the world,’ Giuliani told a small group of reporters at a posh London hotel as onlookers gathered in the lobby to gawk at actor Dustin Hoffman, who was on a separate visit.â€
September 20th, 2007 at 2:58 pm“Racial tensions remained elevated throughout the fall. On Monday, December 4 2006, a white student who allegedly had been racially taunting black students in support of the students who hung the nooses got into a fight with black students.”
September 20th, 2007 at 3:03 pmYes, Dr Know, I think it fair to say they were provoked. I did not say this was an excuse to beat someone. If, after reading numerous published reports about what was going on in Jena in the fall of 06′, you cannot bring yourself to admit that these CHILDREN are at the center of a serious miscarriage of justice, then your are seriously deluded.
Here’s what a little google can do for you:
(http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7170510)
So it seems that the easy to digest story of white racisism gets a bit cloudier the closer you look at it. But why spoil a parade right?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pmDrKnow,
September 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pmWell, your quote from a Fox sports columnist has certainly set me straight. It is obvious now that justice in Jena is colorblind. The prosecutor is doing a stellar job, and should be commended for focusing his efforts on these vicious wannabe killers. 4 months of racial tension, several dismissed violent encounters, and preemptive threats by the prosecutor and his posse of police clearly have no bearing on this sterling example of American justice.
(do i even need to note my sarcasm?)
Oh for the love of……
One more time.
It is NOT about vigilante justice.
It is about fairness.
These are juveniles who are being tried as adults, with the possibility of serving the maximum sentence of 15 years, for a school yard fight.
Should they be punished? YES
Should they be tried as adults? NO
If you answered yes to the above question, then shouldn’t all teen-agers be tried as adults (hence my 16 year old drunk driving example)
I am weighing in on the justice aspect of this case, not the blind racism.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pmLet’s face it, folks, had these been 5 affluent white boys beating up on a black boy, there is no way in hell of the possibility of 15 years imprisonment. They would have been convicted in a juvenile court and more than likely, handed mandatory probation. End of Story!!!
It’s about fairness. It’s about the same justice for blacks as is for whites. It’s about the same justice for poor as is for rich.
It’s about equality for all, which is still lacking in this great country.
I’m sorry, did someone give you the impression that the justice system in this country was perfect? Yes, bad things happen, injustice happens and innocent people sometimes get screwed. Welcome to modern civilization.
Now, while you’re wrapping yourself in such rightous indignation maybe you could spare some of that sympathy for the kid that got his ass beat. You remember him right? The one you called a “teenage racist prick?”
September 20th, 2007 at 4:17 pmGive me a break. If true, as reported, that the kid was throwing around racial epitaphs, than I stand by my description. I’m not wrapping myself in anything. After reading a fair bit about this, from credible sources and w/ an open mind, I do not see how anyone can come to any conclusion other than that the prosecution of these boys is biased and that Jena has a fairly serious racial divide.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:47 pmWhat do you mean, “if true”. You slander a beating victim and then you don’t even know if the source of your slander is true? So much for an open mind.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:51 pmReading something in print does not make it true. Reading the same thing from multiple accounts makes it likely to be true. Question for you DrKnow. Do you feel that the prosecution of these boys has been fair and just?
September 20th, 2007 at 5:01 pmPost your multiple accounts.
As for your dodge/question, no. Now, tell me how you intend to give the beating victim some justice.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:06 pm