Experience you can believe in

[Skarp]

Experience you can really believe in:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f90bca10-1679 ... ck_check=1

[lvtwft]

Here is your top 5 Republicans as of 2009...At least what one publication considers top 5...

1.Mitt Romney

2.Jeb Bush

3.Mike Huckabee

4.Charlie Crist/Tim Pawlenty/Mark Sanford (I think Sanford all ready sunk his ship before he had a chance)

5.Sarah Palin


Another one pics top 12 Republicans that can beat O(Jan 25th 2010).

1.Mitt Romney

2.Sarah Palin

3.Tim Pawlenty

4.John Thune

5.Haley Barbour

6.Mike Pence

7.Newt Gingrich

8.Mike Huckabee

9.Ron Paul

10.Gary Johnson

11.Rick Santorum

12.George Pataki

Whom you think is capable of beating O?

[Skarp]

Any...or none of the above:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32837.html

[nohesitation]

The Jon Stewart v. Newt Ginggrich interview brings up an interesting point and a problem we have in dealing with terrorist on US soil. As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) the FBI treats domestic terrorist and foreign terrorist differently. With domestic terrorist they gathering evidence that the miranda rights would support, making it easer to prosecute. When the FBI labels them foreign terrorist they use methods of evidence gathering that miranda rights would not support. That’s why the FBI can’t share information within either own department because the foreign methods of evidence gathering could violate miranda rights. If any evidence gathered by the FBI on say the “underwear bomber” was done using foreign terrorist methods, reading the “underwear bomber” his miranda was a mistake.

[Skarp]

The Jon Stewart v. Newt Ginggrich interview brings up an interesting point and a problem we have in dealing with terrorist on US soil. As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) the FBI treats domestic terrorist and foreign terrorist differently. With domestic terrorist they gathering evidence that the miranda rights would support, making it easer to prosecute. When the FBI labels them foreign terrorist they use methods of evidence gathering that miranda rights would not support. That’s why the FBI can’t share information within either own department because the foreign methods of evidence gathering could violate miranda rights. If any evidence gathered by the FBI on say the “underwear bomber” was done using foreign terrorist methods, reading the “underwear bomber” his miranda was a mistake.

I'm not sure I understand your question re the FBI gathering evidence "supported" by Miranda rights. The Miranda warning is given merely to inform persons of their right not to self-incriminate. It has nothing to do with other types of evidence that might be gathered, or the potential admissibility of same.

American citizens are protected by very rigorous evidentiary, procedural, and presumptive rules designed to check potential abuses of government, and ensure that nobody is imprisoned without adequate justification. These rules give criminals a definite advantage, in that government has to play by the rules whereas criminals do not. But we view that trade-off as necessary to protect individual liberty against governmental tyranny. It is NOT an acceptable trade-off with respect to foreign enemy combatants, who are not parties to our social contract, and whose liberty we are therefore not bound to safeguard.

We already stupidly give terrorists the advantage of getting to choose when, where, and how much to fight. Allowing them the strong protections of our legal system as well is just asinine.

[nohesitation]

I'm not sure I understand your question re the FBI gathering evidence "supported" by Miranda rights. The Miranda warning is given merely to inform persons of their right not to self-incriminate. It has nothing to do with other types of evidence that might be gathered, or the potential admissibility of same.

American citizens are protected by very rigorous evidentiary, procedural, and presumptive rules designed to check potential abuses of government, and ensure that nobody is imprisoned without adequate justification. These rules give criminals a definite advantage, in that government has to play by the rules whereas criminals do not. But we view that trade-off as necessary to protect individual liberty against governmental tyranny. It is NOT an acceptable trade-off with respect to foreign enemy combatants, who are not parties to our social contract, and whose liberty we are therefore not bound to safeguard.

We already stupidly give terrorists the advantage of getting to choose when, where, and how much to fight. Allowing them the strong protections of our legal system as well is just asinine.

It has everything to do with the evidence gathered. I am not a lawyer so I don’t get all the legal jargon. The FBI uses the term “domestic terrorism” to define terrorism of indigenous groups to the US and “international terrorism” to terrorist groups based abroad. Evidence gathered under the wing of “international terrorism” falls under the protection of national security. Criminal investigators hit the “intelligence wall”. This wall is built to protect criminal investigations from being tainted with evidence collected through inadmissible means, and to prevent the exposure of classified information, sources, and methods in public trials.

[Skarp]

It has everything to do with the evidence gathered. I am not a lawyer so I don’t get all the legal jargon. The FBI uses the term “domestic terrorism” to define terrorism of indigenous groups to the US and “international terrorism” to terrorist groups based abroad. Evidence gathered under the wing of “international terrorism” falls under the protection of national security. Criminal investigators hit the “intelligence wall”. This wall is built to protect criminal investigations from being tainted with evidence collected through inadmissible means, and to prevent the exposure of classified information, sources, and methods in public trials.

Oh, I see. Yes, there is an issue with respect to classified information being exposed in public trials, although that has nothing to do with the Miranda warning. Basically, an accused in the U.S. justice system has a right to question any witness and see any evidence used against him, as well as require that said evidence was gathered in a legally permissible way. Which means that in a civil trial the government might be forced to forego a conviction rather than reveal secret information, such as the identity of spies, information gathering techniques, etc.

So the intelligence tools that we use to protect ourselves from foreign enemies can't practically be used to convict them in U.S. courts. Like any insane idea, this makes perfect sense to liberals.

[nohesitation]

It has everything to do with the evidence gathered. I am not a lawyer so I don’t get all the legal jargon. The FBI uses the term “domestic terrorism” to define terrorism of indigenous groups to the US and “international terrorism” to terrorist groups based abroad. Evidence gathered under the wing of “international terrorism” falls under the protection of national security. Criminal investigators hit the “intelligence wall”. This wall is built to protect criminal investigations from being tainted with evidence collected through inadmissible means, and to prevent the exposure of classified information, sources, and methods in public trials.

Oh, I see. Yes, there is an issue with respect to classified information being exposed in public trials, although that has nothing to do with the Miranda warning. Basically, an accused in the U.S. justice system has a right to question any witness and see any evidence used against him, as well as require that said evidence was gathered in a legally permissible way. Which means that in a civil trial the government might be forced to forego a conviction rather than reveal secret information, such as the identity of spies, information gathering techniques, etc.

So the intelligence tools that we use to protect ourselves from foreign enemies can't practically be used to convict them in U.S. courts. Like any insane idea, this makes perfect sense to liberals.

I the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab or the “underwear bomber”, at what point is the decision made to prosecute in a civil court or just make them a detainee?
I thought reading them the Miranda rights started this civil process.

We all want to see these terrorist prosecuted. A good solution could be in forming a new court system that still protects the interest of national security, I don’t know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/opinion/11katyal.html

[weekend4trvl]

At the end of the day, I don't care if he selected an assortment of farm animals to serve on his cabinet. I care about the output of government. And the output of the Obama government should have us all wishing we were represented by farm animals...

As an aside, labels are only intellectually lazy if they are inaccurate or unhelpful. That's like saying--in fact it is saying--that using names is intellectually lazy. It's an absurdity. You name things so that you can identify them...and thus scrutinize or talk about them with some degree of precision.

I find it interesting that you never see conservatives shying away from the conservative label. They embrace it, and happily defend their association with it on the merits. But identify someone a liberal, and watch the hackles go up...because the last thing liberals want to have to do is engage in a principled defense of their own political philosophy...

your just softening us up before we see the list of republican hopefuls in 2012. O's going to have a very good 2010.

[weekend4trvl]

Wellpoint/Bluecross announce 39% rate increase on health insurance after turning a 2.7 billion dollar 4th quarter profit in 2009. For some it's a 24% increase next month. Thanks republicans... some fools will never learn.