It appears that the definition of hate crime is one where the victim is targeted because of their membership in a protected group. If I'm a fraud but I only target members in my own ethnic group would I be open to these additional charges? Wouldn't any illegal activity that targeted a particular population be open to these charges? Do the federal grants provide unwanted incentive for financially strapped municipalities to find applications for this law?
Ken: Wow, that's a long post you link to. I'm getting ready for date night with the Mrs. so I'll have to pour through it later. Canadian law (or at least BC law) on this matter has been doing some drastic changes in the last year or so. I'll give you some links when I can get back to this.
I'm no fan of Mark Stein, but this hasn't been working out so well in your new found home (Canada). Most of the tribunals have been moving away from the Canadian version, with some Provinces reading the legislation very narrowly. I think it's a grand idea. It just doesn't seem to play well in reality. With the thin skull defense, it encourages over reaction and doesn't blend well with freedom of speech.
I know it's unlikely, but if we do a truth commission, but don't prosecute, can the internationals use the findings and evidence of the commission but take the prosecution up0n themselves?
Mark: since I believe that the actors are intransigent and lots of documents, emails destroyed, I'll go for the prosecution and count the whole truth beyond the realm of the possible.
"The “people” comment sounds very populist, never figured you for being in that camp. But of no matter."
I'm not sure that I'm populist.... could be. I'm socially very liberal but paleocon for the rest. I generally come from a constitutional understanding that balances power out between the Feds, the States, and the individual or people. We still have political powers and responsibilities quite apart from the elected government. If that makes me populist so be it, just don't confuse me with the Palin version.
I'm not in favor of Spain taking on our responsibilities. I thought it was part of our treaty that if the home country didn't prosecute, others got a kick at the can.
Jaybird: if Obama pardoned these "crimes" would the long result be to deliver them into the hands of international justice? Don't we have to prosecute or have others do it for us?
I'd go for a special prosecutor before a "truth commission". When the other branches of government are folding before the executive, the people must hold the line.
"I’m doing this versus is those who lack the wrong sort of confidence - who make of confidence not a virtue but a vice; who make a mockery of certainty, and create instead a sort of facade. "
Couldn't happen here.... Ultimately, that sort of mentality mixed with an absence of credibility is lethal.
Today we still have battles over the use of military dollars. Intelligence isn't unique in its inefficiencies and yet the military budget is larger by far than anyone else's.
Arguing that Bush didn't have the skills to competently and legally dispatch his duties is widely agreed upon.
"Oh Michael, that takes all the mystery and intrigue out of the project. We just don’t give it up on the first date around here "
That was funny.
I like that the writers and most of the commentators here are ideologically heterodox. It's a strength. It would be hard to place an accurate political label on anyone here.
Ed, you're just not convincing. Your arguments aren't pulling any weight. Perhaps, you need to find an enlightened place that can find logic in your arguments.
I think Dave is spot on with his troll assessment.
I re read The Penal Colony this morning. I can't sign on. Though I may allow for instances where the participants are convinced enough of the national interest that they sacrifice themselves to the process, I can't seriously, or honestly, entertain the notion that torture is an acceptable activity.
If, as you claim, most Americans in the twentieth century still believe this is a gray area, then we do in fact have a problem and need to deal with reality. We might want to rethink the efficacy of the whole enlightenment project. I don't know. The conclusion seems to call for a drastic rethinking of our institutions.
Of course marriage is about more than sex. It's really not about sex at all. It's about procreation and raising children which has nothing to do with bedrooms. Right?
You think that having government defining the content of my relationship is less intrusive than how I consummate it?
On “Not Knowing the Meaning of Words: Magic Negro Edition”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1MGtULY73Y
On “Hate Crimes”
The way I read this bill, neither hate nor violence is required. Any felony, including spam and libel, that targets a protected group would qualify.
"
Where do you read that?
"
It appears that the definition of hate crime is one where the victim is targeted because of their membership in a protected group. If I'm a fraud but I only target members in my own ethnic group would I be open to these additional charges? Wouldn't any illegal activity that targeted a particular population be open to these charges? Do the federal grants provide unwanted incentive for financially strapped municipalities to find applications for this law?
"
Ken: Wow, that's a long post you link to. I'm getting ready for date night with the Mrs. so I'll have to pour through it later. Canadian law (or at least BC law) on this matter has been doing some drastic changes in the last year or so. I'll give you some links when I can get back to this.
"
I'm no fan of Mark Stein, but this hasn't been working out so well in your new found home (Canada). Most of the tribunals have been moving away from the Canadian version, with some Provinces reading the legislation very narrowly. I think it's a grand idea. It just doesn't seem to play well in reality. With the thin skull defense, it encourages over reaction and doesn't blend well with freedom of speech.
On “Taking Leave of Our Senses”
I know it's unlikely, but if we do a truth commission, but don't prosecute, can the internationals use the findings and evidence of the commission but take the prosecution up0n themselves?
"
Mark: since I believe that the actors are intransigent and lots of documents, emails destroyed, I'll go for the prosecution and count the whole truth beyond the realm of the possible.
"
"The “people” comment sounds very populist, never figured you for being in that camp. But of no matter."
I'm not sure that I'm populist.... could be. I'm socially very liberal but paleocon for the rest. I generally come from a constitutional understanding that balances power out between the Feds, the States, and the individual or people. We still have political powers and responsibilities quite apart from the elected government. If that makes me populist so be it, just don't confuse me with the Palin version.
"
I'm not in favor of Spain taking on our responsibilities. I thought it was part of our treaty that if the home country didn't prosecute, others got a kick at the can.
"
Jaybird: if Obama pardoned these "crimes" would the long result be to deliver them into the hands of international justice? Don't we have to prosecute or have others do it for us?
"
You make good points Mark. Wouldn't a "truth commission" imply broad immunity? Would a standard grand jury be a better option?
"
How is Mexico at prosecuting its political crimes? I seem to recall having to drive with a wad of pesos just for the police tax.
"
"Which brings in the question: What kind of precedent do we want to set?"
That is the pertinent question here.
"
It would be the DOJ wouldn't it? Obama will not appoint a SP unless he believes it to be politically necessary.... where the people come in.
"Could some court appoint a SP?"
Foreign courts?
"
I'd go for a special prosecutor before a "truth commission". When the other branches of government are folding before the executive, the people must hold the line.
On “a quote for saturday”
"I’m doing this versus is those who lack the wrong sort of confidence - who make of confidence not a virtue but a vice; who make a mockery of certainty, and create instead a sort of facade. "
Couldn't happen here.... Ultimately, that sort of mentality mixed with an absence of credibility is lethal.
On “stating the obvious”
Today we still have battles over the use of military dollars. Intelligence isn't unique in its inefficiencies and yet the military budget is larger by far than anyone else's.
Arguing that Bush didn't have the skills to competently and legally dispatch his duties is widely agreed upon.
On “left conservatism revisited”
Gentlemen, losing the postings bar on the side makes keeping up with any conversation more than one page old very difficult.
On “Glenn Beck and the Red Knight”
Count me in with Jaybird for this one.
A note on the other side. Tom Metzger would be a precedent.
On “left conservatism revisited”
"Oh Michael, that takes all the mystery and intrigue out of the project. We just don’t give it up on the first date around here "
That was funny.
I like that the writers and most of the commentators here are ideologically heterodox. It's a strength. It would be hard to place an accurate political label on anyone here.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
Ed, you're just not convincing. Your arguments aren't pulling any weight. Perhaps, you need to find an enlightened place that can find logic in your arguments.
I think Dave is spot on with his troll assessment.
On “Taking the Wrong Approach”
I re read The Penal Colony this morning. I can't sign on. Though I may allow for instances where the participants are convinced enough of the national interest that they sacrifice themselves to the process, I can't seriously, or honestly, entertain the notion that torture is an acceptable activity.
If, as you claim, most Americans in the twentieth century still believe this is a gray area, then we do in fact have a problem and need to deal with reality. We might want to rethink the efficacy of the whole enlightenment project. I don't know. The conclusion seems to call for a drastic rethinking of our institutions.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
A legend in your own mind.
Of course marriage is about more than sex. It's really not about sex at all. It's about procreation and raising children which has nothing to do with bedrooms. Right?
You think that having government defining the content of my relationship is less intrusive than how I consummate it?
"
Everyone has the interest of keeping the government out of the bedroom. As far as religion, it's always a case of rights for me but not for thee.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.