|
Post by justicex84 on Sept 26, 2010 8:41:58 GMT -6
You all know the head of Reprieve Clive Stafford Smith, what do you think of him? He is a very great anti and he wants to close down guantanamo bay. If you see this website news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4458032.stmWho else from America can debate with him in this debate? I believe Joshua Marquis can do a good job, who else? Any lawyers ?
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 26, 2010 8:45:54 GMT -6
They have these debates set up all the time. However, it's usually 2 against 1, with a vocal anti audience. The attys at crime and consequences do them all the time.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 26, 2010 8:48:39 GMT -6
P.S.: They'll never close Git'mo.
|
|
|
Post by justicex84 on Sept 26, 2010 9:05:36 GMT -6
P.S.: They'll never close Git'mo. What I mean is other than Joshua Marquis, who from America can speak against Clive Stafford Smith who lies a lot to protect criminals?
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 26, 2010 9:25:08 GMT -6
I'm not sure what you mean. If you are looking for someone to rebut what Stafford said in the BBC, it's not going to happen unless the BBC allows it which they are not. There are a number of attys who write op-ed pieces and appear in debates -- Kent Scheidegger, Bill Otis, Paul Cassell, are just a few of them.
Also, half the time when some one rebuts anti nonsense in comments to articles, their comments get deleted.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Sept 26, 2010 18:35:19 GMT -6
P.S.: They'll never close Git'mo. What I mean is other than Joshua Marquis, who from America can speak against Clive Stafford Smith who lies a lot to protect criminals? What do you mean by that?
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Sept 26, 2010 21:56:45 GMT -6
And I quote Mr Smith " It (the death penalty) does nothing for the victims. We drag them through appeals and stays and it ruins their lives ."
I have to comment . How does the death penalty ruin victims lives ? The victim is murdered , therefore ,no longer alive . The one who ruined the victims life is the one who ended their life . JMO
|
|
|
Post by justicex84 on Sept 27, 2010 0:44:03 GMT -6
What I mean is other than Joshua Marquis, who from America can speak against Clive Stafford Smith who lies a lot to protect criminals? What do you mean by that? I mean that Clive Stafford Smith who always critcize America of the death penalty and make lies of the justice system in USA. Which pro death penalty person can argue against him in a debate? Joshua marquis or?
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Sept 27, 2010 11:59:08 GMT -6
P.S.: They'll never close Git'mo. have you noticed that the second Obama didn't close gitmo, the media has stopped even mentioning it's name. you'd think it was closed
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 27, 2010 12:34:48 GMT -6
P.S.: They'll never close Git'mo. have you noticed that the second Obama didn't close gitmo, the media has stopped even mentioning it's name. you'd think it was closed They don't mention it because this administration blatantly abuses the prisoners: goo.gl/rDiU
|
|
|
Post by socasack on Sept 27, 2010 12:46:36 GMT -6
have you noticed that the second Obama didn't close gitmo, the media has stopped even mentioning it's name. you'd think it was closed They don't mention it because this administration blatantly abuses the prisoners: goo.gl/rDiU This is SO sad - only 1 ice-cream per day? Damn. Pretty soon they'll only be able to play "foot-ball" for 4-5 hours a day! Very cruel!
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Sept 27, 2010 12:52:02 GMT -6
have you noticed that the second Obama didn't close gitmo, the media has stopped even mentioning it's name. you'd think it was closed They don't mention it because this administration blatantly abuses the prisoners: goo.gl/rDiU I used to say; torture was fine as long as the right guys are being tortured. now, I guess this administration believes that torture is fine as long as the right guys are doing the torture
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Sept 27, 2010 13:18:50 GMT -6
What do you mean by that? I mean that Clive Stafford Smith who always critcize America of the death penalty and make lies of the justice system in USA. Which pro death penalty person can argue against him in a debate? Joshua marquis or? If you are going to accuse him of "making lies" then you had better "make proof."
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 27, 2010 16:44:44 GMT -6
They don't mention it because this administration blatantly abuses the prisoners: goo.gl/rDiU This is SO sad - only 1 ice-cream per day? Damn. Pretty soon they'll only be able to play "foot-ball" for 4-5 hours a day! Very cruel! Worse, they will ban Harry Potter books. Arabic translations of the Harry Potterbook series are one of the most popular items requested from the library for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 17:47:06 GMT -6
I mean that Clive Stafford Smith who always critcize America of the death penalty and make lies of the justice system in USA. Which pro death penalty person can argue against him in a debate? Joshua marquis or? If you are going to accuse him of "making lies" then you had better "make proof." Sorry, you can't say that lies that antis do justify the means to an end and then demand others to provide proof. Kind of hypocritcal don't you think? Btw, it is a lie. That is his concern for the well being of the victim or I think he meant the MVS. Sorry once again to disappoint you but going thru all the appeals etc is just fine if once and for the MVS never have to think about the POS again in this life time. MANY MIGHT NOT WANT TO HEAR IT OR ACCEPT IT BUT THIS IS WHAT MANY MANY MVSs think. I am not saying all MVSs but I would say about 99%.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Sept 27, 2010 19:45:08 GMT -6
If you are going to accuse him of "making lies" then you had better "make proof." Sorry, you can't say that lies that antis do justify the means to an end and then demand others to provide proof. Kind of hypocritcal don't you think? Btw, it is a lie. That is his concern for the well being of the victim or I think he meant the MVS. Sorry once again to disappoint you but going thru all the appeals etc is just fine if once and for the MVS never have to think about the POS again in this life time. MANY MIGHT NOT WANT TO HEAR IT OR ACCEPT IT BUT THIS IS WHAT MANY MANY MVSs think. I am not saying all MVSs but I would say about 99%. 1) Don't call me a hypocrite, you know better. 2) I might well lie to prevent an execution, it does not follow that CSS would.Abolitionists are not a homogenous group. If this fellow is going to make that accusation I think it is fair he backs it up. 3) It's not a lie it's an opinion with which you have every right to disagree. 4) er, that's it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 20:24:38 GMT -6
Sorry, you can't say that lies that antis do justify the means to an end and then demand others to provide proof. Kind of hypocritcal don't you think? Btw, it is a lie. That is his concern for the well being of the victim or I think he meant the MVS. Sorry once again to disappoint you but going thru all the appeals etc is just fine if once and for the MVS never have to think about the POS again in this life time. MANY MIGHT NOT WANT TO HEAR IT OR ACCEPT IT BUT THIS IS WHAT MANY MANY MVSs think. I am not saying all MVSs but I would say about 99%. 1) Don't call me a hypocrite, you know better. 2) I might well lie to prevent an execution, it does not follow that CSS would.Abolitionists are not a homogenous group. If this fellow is going to make that accusation I think it is fair he backs it up. 3) It's not a lie it's an opinion with which you have every right to disagree. 4) er, that's it. 1. Why would I know better?? Because you say so. Brums, I'm only reapeating things that you have said. I am not saying that you are a bad person but you have already said that you would lie to prevent an execution I would say you are on the side of the murderer no matter what. 2. You would lie to prevent an execution and yet I bet you would go ballistic if a prosecutor let a lie go by to get a conviction of someone he knows is guilty. Then I think it is fair for antis prove every last bit of evidence they use to try to get POS off of DR. Fair is fair. 3. Well, what did this dipshyt base his opinion on? Exactly what he wanted to. He didn't ask every MVS that had the murderer of their loved one on DR. Therefore he based his opinion on nothing. He took some propoganda from journey of dopes or mvffr or some other radical group and went with it. As far as justice backing it up. This might just be his opinion. See how things work out.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Sept 27, 2010 20:41:49 GMT -6
1) Don't call me a hypocrite, you know better. 2) I might well lie to prevent an execution, it does not follow that CSS would.Abolitionists are not a homogenous group. If this fellow is going to make that accusation I think it is fair he backs it up. 3) It's not a lie it's an opinion with which you have every right to disagree. 4) er, that's it. 1. Why would I know better?? Because you say so. Brums, I'm only reapeating things that you have said. I am not saying that you are a bad person but you have already said that you would lie to prevent an execution I would say you are on the side of the murderer no matter what. 2. You would lie to prevent an execution and yet I bet you would go ballistic if a prosecutor let a lie go by to get a conviction of someone he knows is guilty. Then I think it is fair for antis prove every last bit of evidence they use to try to get POS off of DR. Fair is fair. 3. Well, what did this dipshyt base his opinion on? Exactly what he wanted to. He didn't ask every MVS that had the murderer of their loved one on DR. Therefore he based his opinion on nothing. He took some propoganda from journey of dopes or mvffr or some other radical group and went with it. As far as justice backing it up. This might just be his opinion. See how things work out. All I did was ask the poster why he thought CSS was a liar. As for "on the side of the murderer no matter what" that's plain offensive. Against the DP no matter what, yes. Actually, think what you like, not my concern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 21:09:55 GMT -6
1. Why would I know better?? Because you say so. Brums, I'm only reapeating things that you have said. I am not saying that you are a bad person but you have already said that you would lie to prevent an execution I would say you are on the side of the murderer no matter what. 2. You would lie to prevent an execution and yet I bet you would go ballistic if a prosecutor let a lie go by to get a conviction of someone he knows is guilty. Then I think it is fair for antis prove every last bit of evidence they use to try to get POS off of DR. Fair is fair. 3. Well, what did this dipshyt base his opinion on? Exactly what he wanted to. He didn't ask every MVS that had the murderer of their loved one on DR. Therefore he based his opinion on nothing. He took some propoganda from journey of dopes or mvffr or some other radical group and went with it. As far as justice backing it up. This might just be his opinion. See how things work out. All I did was ask the poster why he thought CSS was a liar. As for "on the side of the murderer no matter what" that's plain offensive. Against the DP no matter what, yes. Actually, think what you like, not my concern. Against the DP is on the side of the murderer, at the very least by default if nothing else. It is the same side of that particular coin.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Sept 27, 2010 21:17:29 GMT -6
All I did was ask the poster why he thought CSS was a liar. As for "on the side of the murderer no matter what" that's plain offensive. Against the DP no matter what, yes. Actually, think what you like, not my concern. Against the DP is on the side of the murderer, at the very least by default if nothing else. It is the same side of that particular coin. That is grossly simplistic and, I would have thought, very hurtful to the countless antis whose lives have been touched by murder. My Dad would hit the roof if someone said that he was on the side of my uncle's killer because he happens not to support execution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 21:17:46 GMT -6
If you are going to accuse him of "making lies" then you had better "make proof." Sorry, you can't say that lies that antis do justify the means to an end and then demand others to provide proof. Kind of hypocritcal don't you think? Btw, it is a lie. That is his concern for the well being of the victim or I think he meant the MVS. Sorry once again to disappoint you but going thru all the appeals etc is just fine if once and for the MVS never have to think about the POS again in this life time. MANY MIGHT NOT WANT TO HEAR IT OR ACCEPT IT BUT THIS IS WHAT MANY MANY MVSs think. I am not saying all MVSs but I would say about 99%. I agree that it must be a lie that he is speaking out of concern for victims or for MVS. He couldn't possibly mean the real victims; he isn't even concerned enough to get that straight. They are not even here to go through the appeals. And he couldn't possibly have spoken to very many survivors about the subject either. I've been talking to other MVS for the last 9 and 1/2 years, and the vast majority I've known would want the relief of knowing the murderer was executed, if it were at all possible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2010 21:23:10 GMT -6
If someone wants the murderer to live regardless of the penalty prescribed by law judge and jury, then they want what the murderer wants. In that particular argument, even if in no other way at all, they are on the same side of the argument as the murderer. That is just fact. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. To be willing to lie for them, so they could escape the DP, that is going way beyond that, Ben. Against the DP is on the side of the murderer, at the very least by default if nothing else. It is the same side of that particular coin. That is grossly simplistic and, I would have thought, very hurtful to the countless antis whose lives have been touched by murder. My Dad would hit the roof if someone said that he was on the side of my uncle's killer because he happens not to support execution.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Sept 27, 2010 23:45:24 GMT -6
If someone wants the murderer to live regardless of the penalty prescribed by law judge and jury, then they want what the murderer wants. In that particular argument, even if in no other way at all, they are on the same side of the argument as the murderer. That is just fact. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. To be willing to lie for them, so they could escape the DP, that is going way beyond that, Ben. That is grossly simplistic and, I would have thought, very hurtful to the countless antis whose lives have been touched by murder. My Dad would hit the roof if someone said that he was on the side of my uncle's killer because he happens not to support execution. To clarify the "lie". This comes from my saying I would lie if asked about my views on the DP and I was to serve on a jury. Not, just to be clear, about evidence or anything like that. It still doesn't put me on anybody's side- save that of my own conscience. Here's the rationale. There are people here who would vote for the DP whether they thought the crime satisfied the capital requirements or not. They believe in the DP for all murders even though they are voting as per their beliefs rather than to satisfy the law. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I don't make arguments comparing capital punishment, and by extension pros, to murder. I do wish people would cut it out the other way round. It is possible to be disgusted by a human being and still not believe it is right to kill them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 5:54:31 GMT -6
If someone wants the murderer to live regardless of the penalty prescribed by law judge and jury, then they want what the murderer wants. In that particular argument, even if in no other way at all, they are on the same side of the argument as the murderer. That is just fact. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. To be willing to lie for them, so they could escape the DP, that is going way beyond that, Ben. To clarify the "lie". This comes from my saying I would lie if asked about my views on the DP and I was to serve on a jury. Not, just to be clear, about evidence or anything like that. It still doesn't put me on anybody's side- save that of my own conscience. Here's the rationale. There are people here who would vote for the DP whether they thought the crime satisfied the capital requirements or not. They believe in the DP for all murders even though they are voting as per their beliefs rather than to satisfy the law. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I don't make arguments comparing capital punishment, and by extension pros, to murder. I do wish people would cut it out the other way round. It is possible to be disgusted by a human being and still not believe it is right to kill them. That last paragraph tells me you are reading much more into it than I actually said, or meant. And, just for the record, I would do my best to follow the law, regardless. Just because I believe all deserve it, doesn't mean that is the law that is supposed to be applied in all cases. As if either you or I would ever be confronted with the reality. You are in the UK, and I would never be allowed on any jury.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Sept 28, 2010 8:02:28 GMT -6
If someone wants the murderer to live regardless of the penalty prescribed by law judge and jury, then they want what the murderer wants. In that particular argument, even if in no other way at all, they are on the same side of the argument as the murderer. That is just fact. I'm sorry if it makes you uncomfortable. I think most of us (not the nutjobs, of course) are simply on the side of what they believe is right - just like you.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 28, 2010 8:27:57 GMT -6
Sorry, you can't say that lies that antis do justify the means to an end and then demand others to provide proof. Kind of hypocritcal don't you think? Btw, it is a lie. That is his concern for the well being of the victim or I think he meant the MVS. Sorry once again to disappoint you but going thru all the appeals etc is just fine if once and for the MVS never have to think about the POS again in this life time. MANY MIGHT NOT WANT TO HEAR IT OR ACCEPT IT BUT THIS IS WHAT MANY MANY MVSs think. I am not saying all MVSs but I would say about 99%. 1) Don't call me a hypocrite, you know better. 2) I might well lie to prevent an execution, it does not follow that CSS would.Abolitionists are not a homogenous group. If this fellow is going to make that accusation I think it is fair he backs it up. 3) It's not a lie it's an opinion with which you have every right to disagree. 4) er, that's it. Well one thing is sure. We now have proof that you would lie. You just said so. ;D
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Sept 28, 2010 8:29:34 GMT -6
So, because antis are on the side of what they believe is right, they are entitled to lie and misrepresent the guilt of thugs? How incredibly narcissistic!
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 28, 2010 8:54:05 GMT -6
To clarify the "lie". This comes from my saying I would lie if asked about my views on the DP and I was to serve on a jury. Not, just to be clear, about evidence or anything like that. It still doesn't put me on anybody's side- save that of my own conscience. Here's the rationale. There are people here who would vote for the DP whether they thought the crime satisfied the capital requirements or not. They believe in the DP for all murders even though they are voting as per their beliefs rather than to satisfy the law. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That's a good argument. The law forces people to lie. As such the law is illegitimate.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 28, 2010 8:55:10 GMT -6
Well one thing is sure. We now have proof that you would lie. You just said so. ;D Any pro would do the same, so the criticism is unjustified.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Sept 28, 2010 9:34:24 GMT -6
So, because antis are on the side of what they believe is right, they are entitled to lie and misrepresent the guilt of thugs? How incredibly narcissistic! I wouldn't lie and I wouldn't encourage anyone to do this. My post was not intended to explain Brumsong's stance but to make clear that an opposition to the DP does not mean support for the murderer. I wouldn't mind too much if the convict got cancer or a heart attack. I just don't want people to do it.
|
|