|
Post by RickZ on Oct 1, 2005 15:24:48 GMT -6
chazz, since you are critical of Saddam being given the DP (which he has righteously earned), but you still think he needs to be "punished," the question remains: What sort of lesser "punishment" than the DP would be applicable for a mass murderer who ran his country like a mafia family, not only murdering way more than the 5,000 posted above, but allowed his sons to rape at will while Saddam stole millions to build comfy palaces all over the country and thereby allowed his own people to starve because of his own greed? Instead of criticizing the DP in this case, what is your recommended/desired form of punishment this mass murderer should receive?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 4, 2005 7:36:27 GMT -6
Well, the Soviets acknowledged her participation, as does the NSA. In 1995, the National Security Agency publicly released documents from the VENONA project, an effort to decrypt intercepted communications between Soviet agents and the KGB. A 1944 cable from New York to Moscow makes it clear that the Rosenbergs were engaged in espionage, though the importance of their effort is not clear, particularly considering that the Soviets were also receiving information on the Atomic bomb from Klaus Fuchs and Donald Maclean. In his posthumous memoirs, published in 1990, Nikita Khrushchev praised the pair for their "very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb." Absolutely correct, Jospeh. The declassified Venona Files put to rest any claims of innocence for these two atomic traitors.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 4, 2005 8:41:57 GMT -6
He should be spared because if not it would make snoop dog very sad Can't we just call him Snoopie, like Tookie (his cause celebre), and be done with it?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 30, 2005 7:02:41 GMT -6
I am by no means unthankful for the US entering WW2 and liberating Europe. That was not what I was referring to. I only stated that there is a difference between fighting oversees and having your cities bombed to pieces. It´s just a matter of fact. Obviously the study of American history is beneath you; facts are a messy business. While American cities were not bombed from the air "to pieces," as the airplane still had to be invented (by Americans, no less), the Union artillery in our Civil War did a number on such cities as Richmond (VA), Atlanta (GA), Vicksburg (MS), and Chattanooga (TN), to name a few. Also, in our war for independence from Great Britain, many cities were torched by the lobsterbacks, including Norfolk (VA), New York City, and towns along the Southern New England coastline. While I concede aerial bombardment is quite destructive, to make the claim that America does not know destruction on its own soil is absurd. These are historical reasons why we try to bring the fight to the enemy where the enemy lives. The only way to win a war, as exemplified by Sherman's March to the Sea, is to destroy the infrastructure that supports an enemy's will to continue the fight. It a lesson that many here remember, but many more seem to forget. For those outside this country, as evidenced by your post, it is a completely unknown, or deliberately ignored, lesson.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 29, 2005 5:22:51 GMT -6
Thanks for the insightful posts, Journey73.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 27, 2005 5:27:45 GMT -6
Here is a column from The San Francisco Chronicle, the content of which is, in and of itself, unusual, considering the city. www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/06/EDGC3FII9H1.DTL No clemency for 'Tookie' Debra J. Saunders Sunday, November 6, 2005 THERE MUST be a guidebook in the country's death rows about how to dodge the lethal-injection needle: In Texas, you find God and plead mercy; in the Bay Area and other havens for people who think they are enlightened liberals, you find a publisher. --SNIP-- Some background on this Nobel Prize wannabe: In 1979, Williams shot in the back, twice, Albert Owens, a 26-year-old, white, 7-Eleven clerk, during a robbery. Shortly after, he robbed a motel and slaughtered three members of an immigrant family, the Yangs. Williams' lawyers presented an alibi defense that crumbled. Physical evidence supported the prosecution. A jury found Williams guilty and a court sentenced him to death. His crimes tend to be glossed over -- as happened in "Redemption," a Fox TV movie that bought into the reformed Tookie line. The biopic told the story of Williams' jailhouse conversion, which led him to co-author a line of children's books, "Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence." As proof, supporters point to what Williams calls "The Apology," posted on a Tookie Web site. The problem is, the apology is not for killing four innocent people -- one white and three Asian -- but for being a co-founder of the violent Crips gang, which has ruined "the lives of so many young people, especially young black men who have hurt other young black men." --SNIP-- And this is interesting: Williams' lawyers have argued that he had suffered from organic brain damage, either when he killed Owens and the Yangs or during his trial, which made him unable to defend himself. It's hard to understand how a brain-damaged man could co-write all those books. The whole "redemption" line is a joke. As Williams' former prosecutor Robert Martin once told me, redemption requires an admission of guilt, facing up to what you did and expressing remorse. Williams has done none of the above, yet newspaper editorial pages (including The Chronicle's) and various do-gooders (including some Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals judges) have been pushing for the governor to grant Tookie clemency. That would turn the whole concept of clemency on its ear. Let me stipulate: While I support the death penalty, I can respect those who oppose it. But I can't respect those who lionize the most violent thugs as if they are prize sages. My advice to the anti-execution crowd -- and I have no doubt it will be ignored -- is to find some poor schlub who killed in a panic and doesn't belong on death row, and seek clemency for that person. Don't put a cold-blooded killer on a pedestal. Don't denounce a government killing as barbaric while you laud a cold-blooded thug. And don't ask for clemency for a killer who won't fess up to his crimes. Williams' co-author, Barbara Becnel, told the Los Angeles Times, "What Stan presents is hope that they, too, can change. He is worth far more to society alive than dead." Wrong. He is worth more to society dead. The message from the Tookie-philes is that you can kill innocent people and be a star. An execution says you can kill innocent people and pay the price.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 16, 2005 5:47:54 GMT -6
Quite the pair of buds huh? Helping each other out like that, each one getting his very own death penalty... One down, one to go. LOL! The two them will make a lovely pair of doorstops. Maybe it's time we came up with "101 Uses For An Executed Inmate."
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 15, 2005 8:12:33 GMT -6
And how does what you posted refute the fact that she took her medications and to say otherwise is a lie? Rick, you want your pound of flesh, go get it. I can't stop you. However, she did not receive a fair trial and there has been continuous misstatements of fact as to this case on this forum. I'm saying I disagree with you on the case, not whether she took her medication or not. The fact pattern I see is that 5 little children were deliberately drowned in a bathtub. Andrea did the dirty deeds. All I ask is who is responsible for those murders? If not Andrea, who? If not her husband, who? I agree that the little children are dead, but their deaths were not accidental, but deliberate murder. I just don't think any murder should be "got away with." Especially as the murders were a direct result of a fifth, medically ill-advised, pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 15, 2005 7:45:14 GMT -6
You and others keep stating/implying that Yates refused to take her medications. That is a lie. And no, you do not have compassion for those with serious mental illness. I disagree with you on this case, Blakely. The issue everyone seems to be dancing around, without ever really addressing, is: Do the mentally ill have the right to procreate just because they can? Even against the medical advice of mental health professionals? If Andrea's depression was severe after her fourth child, and apparently more so after her fifth, is not someone responsible for the irresponsibility of her getting pregnant that last time? And if Andrea is to be held blameless in her murdering her five children because of said mental illness, then what of her husband? He was the one who had a hand, so to speak, in his wife's fifth pregnancy, and ignored medical advice, even to the point of leaving his depressed wife home alone with their five children as he went back to work. These murders did not happen in a void; there were plenty of warning signs. Who would you hold responsible for the heinous murders of the five little Yates children if not Andrea herself? Those little children were murdered, and someone should be held accountable for those crimes in whatever way the law allows.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 10, 2005 15:26:36 GMT -6
Why bother to resurrect this executed pick-axe murderer? She's dead, and is now quite rightly worm food. Go worms!
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 4, 2005 4:46:54 GMT -6
Can anyone tell me seriously why this man's life is worth saving. What an evil SOB! He isnt worth saving, its societys decency that is. By killing in cold blood we lower ourselves almost to their levels. I do not think you understand the phrase "in cold blood." Some sense of justice you have there. And just what standards do you hold dear? From what I've read, absolutely nothing, but I cold be wrong. You might like dogs.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 22, 2006 5:26:39 GMT -6
That may be true, but it also sounds like the prosecutor is a little lazy. Prosecutors should make it a priority to get murderers handed down the harshest sentence possible. Caldwell, Idaho, is a small town, with a population of less than 30,000. In smaller jurisdictions, cost, unfortunately, comes into play with long drawn-out trials, including those where the death penalty is sought.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 29, 2005 10:36:34 GMT -6
Char really needs to set up a new category of karma just for you, little moron: Cr*p post.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 28, 2005 11:04:35 GMT -6
Murders in USA states that have CP is now 69% higher than in states that do not have CP and the gap is getting wider. Just where did you get that number, and when was that "study" written? It's hard to believe when we have jurisdictions like New York City, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Boston, and Chicago (moratorium) with high murder rates, but no DP. When you lump in places like Philapelphia (PA) and Memphis (TN), cities in states that have the DP but do not use it, your percentage becomes increasingly fantastical.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 12, 2005 10:07:23 GMT -6
Oh, she already has and refuses to admit it.. I DID NOT SAY THAT SPACE TRAVEL SHOULD BE STOPPED, READ WHAT I DID WRITE OR ARE YOU BOTH AS THICK AS THICK RICK.Do I really need to parse your statement? "If we thought that astonaughts [sic] were more than likely to be killed, then of course it should be banned." Again, you're willing to ban (of course) "if we thought" death would more than likely occur. That is, you'd deny human curiousity if the risk of death is more than likely to occur from such curiousity, it seems no matter the endeavor. I guess you really do not comprehend what you wrote.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 12, 2005 9:33:06 GMT -6
If we thought that astonaughts were more than likely to be killed, then of course it should be banned. Sea travel across the oceans was once very dangerous, full of risk of injury or death. Traveling across the oceans was not banned. Space exploration should never be banned, no matter the human risks. Got that, Mizz Luddite?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 12, 2005 9:00:49 GMT -6
If you had a brain you would be dangerous. Please read this carefully, unless it is too much for your tiny mind to understand. In case you do not know the Luddite Campaign was about mechanisation in England in the textile industry between 1861 and 1866 if my memory is correct. Half a century off there, bright one. But I'm a Yank, what's your excuse? And 'Luddite' has come to mean someone who literally throws a monkey wrench into technology thereby destroying that technology. Truthfully, I do not know, nor care to comprehend, what you think, you are wrong so often. Then you are not for space exploration, as space exploration has inherent risks, of which you obviously disapprove. That you would ban it because of said risks means you are supportive of stopping the machinery of space exploration technology, of shutting it down. That makes you a Luddite. Wear the appellation proudly. Thanks, but no. And I hated the movie, too.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 12, 2005 8:08:08 GMT -6
If we thought that astonaughts were more than likely to be killed, then of course it should be banned. Great. A space exploration Luddite.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 9, 2005 7:29:53 GMT -6
No - let's assume he's completely innocent - 100%. What are the ramifications? I mean, there's a chance an innocent person has been executed, or will be - insert any name you want. Does it matter? Given your hypothetical, what would matter is that one of the other two was the murderer, and will enter back into society. Plus, their 'confessions' led to an execution, an execution for which they should also be charged with capital murder.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 9, 2005 7:33:41 GMT -6
You said it yourself... it's not like he was completely innocent. It's also not like he was completely guilty either. No one convicted in our criminal justice system is completely guilty, either. Just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 8, 2005 14:30:20 GMT -6
How innocent was Richard Cartwright?
As innocent as the driven slush. (Apologies to Talulah Bankhead.)
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 16, 2005 8:00:34 GMT -6
The United Nations Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty prohibit the execution of anyone whose guilt is not based on “clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts”. Serious miscarriages of justice in capital cases have already occurred in the USA. Since 1973, 121 people have been released from US death rows on the grounds of innocence. Others have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts about their guilt. Shouldn't them executors that executed Frances Newton be ashamed they did that. Now they in serious trouble with Amnesty International which operates well *also* in the U.S.A no need to be mentally retarded for that The Bavarian Quoting the eUNuchs is not going to prove anything. Our law is based upon "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," not based on “clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts”. The eUNuchs live in an alternative universe, where alternative explanations are as ripe as the conspiracy theories relayed on Coast-to-Coast radio, which is why the Oil-For-Food Scam was allowed to thrive. The eUNuchs wouldn't recognize a fact unless it was already in their bank account, and even that fact would be debated.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 14, 2005 7:29:44 GMT -6
Rick, the hate that these people have for Bush is to vast that they make up scenarios in which he STILL somehow loses the election. Saying that he will be "thrown out" of the white house after his term expire as a matter of constitutional mandate is better than recognizing that the man won twice and is leaving pursuant to the law. It's actually funny to watch. BDS: A world-wide epidemic of the delusional.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 14, 2005 6:44:33 GMT -6
Well some people over here might get horny when George W. is thrown out of the White House in 3 years or so… "Thrown out of the White House in three years or so"? Guess you've never actually studied our Government, nor actually read our consitution. No surprise there. The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term." www.termlimits.org/Current_Info/22nd-Amendment-text.html
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 12, 2005 17:24:18 GMT -6
I must ask something that ive wanted to know Does anyone know why they bandage up the inmates hands during the executions?? Its puzzled me for awhile so just gotta ask now. To be honest, I've never heard of this. At least when it comes to American executions.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Sept 4, 2005 7:54:26 GMT -6
Thanks for the post, bryan. What is so sad is that he has soooo mny fan sites, he is a magnet for half witted lonely female cranks who hero woship him. there nothing so strange as folks, as they say in Yorkshire While I'm sure there are women who see Ramirez as the ultimate bad boy to control and reform, many of both sexes use Ramirez to satisfy their fascination with, and touch, evil, even if only in a vicariously safe manner through just written correspondence. Sick, sick people. Of both sexes.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Aug 11, 2005 5:02:17 GMT -6
Not enough to kill your wife though. Maybe not enough for you to kill YOUR wife, but enough for Scott to kill his. And that was the point of a trial: Scott did it, and here's how. The defense could not punch holes in this circumstantial case. (Fishing license and going fishing 90 miles from home to the particular spot where the bodies turned up, while the fishhooks were still in the original packaging back at the house?) The defense not being able to punch plausible holes in the evidence speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Aug 11, 2005 3:55:54 GMT -6
I'm with you. Am not convinced of his guilt. His movements during the time of the crime, may be considered strange; but that does not constitute guilt. . . . Don't think I'll ever be convinced, until he confesses on the gurney, and in California, that will be 20 years. If it was only one piece of circumstantial evidence, I'd agree with you that there would be questions. For example, Peterson buying a two day fishing license around the time of the disappearance. But think of circumstantial evidence being a brushstroke. It is numerous brushstrokes in a circumstanital case that makes the whole, that brings a picture into view. Why did he buy concrete to make an anchor for his boat? (Who makes an anchor? And why out of concrete?) Why was more concrete used from the bag he purchased than would be required to make an anchor? Why did Peterson claim to have used up the amount in discrepancy to plug a patch onto his driveway? Why was the patch too small to make the story plausible? On top of that, why was the concrete in the patch different in composition from the concrete in the bag? (Molecular analysis is a b*tch, ain't it Scott?) It's lots of little things, the totality of the discrepancies in his actions, that add up to only one picture: That for whatever reason(s), fear of parenthood, tired of being married, caught fooling around, not wanting to pay alimony and child support, whatever it was, he murdered Laci and their unborn child with planning aforethought. With his level of conceit, he thought he could get away with murder. The jury saw to it that he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 21, 2005 15:56:28 GMT -6
"Austrian Mayor Tries to Woo Schwarzenegger" I don't know about the Austrian mayor, but I really don't think Schwarzenegger is gay. Nevertheless, that mayor is free to woo away at his pleasure. What does the word "woo" exactly mean? Here you go, Paul. dictionary.reference.com/search?q=woowoo v. wooed, woo·ing, woos v. tr. To seek the affection of with intent to romance.To seek to achieve; try to gain. To tempt or invite. To entreat, solicit, or importune. v. intr. To court a woman.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 21, 2005 12:21:50 GMT -6
"Austrian Mayor Tries to Woo Schwarzenegger"
I don't know about the Austrian mayor, but I really don't think Schwarzenegger is gay. Nevertheless, that mayor is free to woo away at his pleasure.
|
|