Supreme Court rejects military trials [Archive]

shetline

06-29-2006, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by segovius
The Supreme Court has ruled against the Government, declaring it does not have the right to try prisoners under military jurisdiction at camps like Guantanamo.Nitpick: this sentence makes a whole lot more sense with a comma added. If the goverment had be declaring the above, I wouldn't want the SC ruling against the government making such a declaration. ;)

At any rate, who knows what difference it will make? The Bush administration seems to feel it can say "national security interest", and then do whatever it wants.

At least the Supreme Court is still willing to stand up for what's right when it feels its own power being taken away.

SDW2001

06-29-2006, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by shetline
Nitpick: this sentence makes a whole lot more sense with a comma added. If the goverment had be declaring the above, I wouldn't want the SC ruling against the government making such a declaration. ;)

At any rate, who knows what difference it will make? The Bush administration seems to feel it can say "national security interest", and then do whatever it wants.

At least the Supreme Court is still willing to stand up for what's right when it feels its own power being taken away.

Yes, at least. :no: Because I'm sure that was their motivation.

jimmac

06-29-2006, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, at least. :no: Because I'm sure that was their motivation.

Well I'm sure.;)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/29/scotus.tribunals/index.html

MaxParrish

07-01-2006, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]Yes, at least. :no: Because I'm sure that was their motivation. Actually you give too much credit to the court. I have few doubts about the motivation of the court - they believe that all juridical processes ought to be under their rule regardless of the Constitution, U.S. Treaties, or the law.

The Supreme Court is practiced in its lawless excercises of power - an aknowledgement by liberals exposed in their delight at the POLITICAL motives (stopping Bush)...the measure of their "unbiased" jurisprudence is in their politics.

hardeeharhar

07-01-2006, 12:30 AM

sammi jo

07-01-2006, 12:59 AM

An article in today's LA Times (Rosa Brooks) casts an interesting angle on this case: the Court held that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to the targets in the so-called "war on terrorism" namely "al Qa'ida" and others. This decision could render members of the Bush Administration subject to prosecution under the Federal War Crimes Act.

Under Federal criminal law, anyone who commits a war crime "shall be fined or imprisoned for life (or any number of years), and if death results to the victim(s), the defendant(s) shall also be subject to the death penalty". A "war crime" is defined as "any conduct that violates Article 3 of the Geneva Convention". In other words, those US officials responsible for the commission and/or authorization of torture and similiar atrocities in the so-called "war on terror", could face either lengthy terms in jail, or the death penalty.

Gene Clean

07-01-2006, 01:22 AM

addabox

07-01-2006, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Actually you give too much credit to the court. I have few doubts about the motivation of the court - they believe that all juridical processes ought to be under their rule regardless of the Constitution, U.S. Treaties, or the law.

The Supreme Court is practiced in its lawless excercises of power - an aknowledgement by liberals exposed in their delight at the POLITICAL motives (stopping Bush)...the measure of their "unbiased" jurisprudence is in their politics.

The Supreme Court decides that Bush is not a government unto himself and is actually bound by the constitution, law and international treaty.

And this represents a power grab by the court. Hmmm.......

How do we know this? Because liberals are heartened by the ruling, therefore the ruling can only be politically motivated.

Are they putting something in the water over in Wingnuttia lately? There seem to be a number of surprisingly, um, overtly crazy lines of thought wandering the threads.....

MaxParrish

07-01-2006, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Excuse me?

Functional interpretation of the constitution and US laws is SOLELY in the hands of the Judiciary, full stop.

No excuse me, legislation and treaty making is in the hands of Congress and the President. That the court has (once again) simply made a mockery of the plain text regarding the law (the Dec 30th deadline) and used "interpretation" to rewrite the application of the Conventions is not within court power.

Therefore, they are lawless. As such, they ought to be held accountable.

MaxParrish

07-01-2006, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
An article in today's LA Times (Rosa Brooks) casts an interesting angle on this case: the Court held that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to the targets in the so-called "war on terrorism" namely "al Qa'ida" and others. This decision could render members of the Bush Administration subject to prosecution under the Federal War Crimes Act.

Under Federal criminal law, anyone who commits a war crime "shall be fined or imprisoned for life (or any number of years), and if death results to the victim(s), the defendant(s) shall also be subject to the death penalty". A "war crime" is defined as "any conduct that violates Article 3 of the Geneva Convention". In other words, those US officials responsible for the commission and/or authorization of torture and similiar atrocities in the so-called "war on terror", could face either lengthy terms in jail, or the death penalty. Does that delight you,that some fellow waterboarding a mass killer will get years in Prison. Does that thrill your sick soul?

MaxParrish

07-01-2006, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by addabox
[B]The Supreme Court decides that Bush is not a government unto himself and is actually bound by the constitution, law and international treaty. No they didn't, they decided what they wanted and had one of thier semi-annual bizaro logic ephiphanies that overturn 50 years of understanding - hav'nt you noticed their fits of mystical revelation (Kelo, capial punishement, Rasual, Hamdi)...

And this represents a power grab by the court. Hmmm....... Just one more in a long line of lawless acts by a rogue majority.

How do we know this? Because liberals are heartened by the ruling, therefore the ruling can only be politically motivated. Check around adda, what are the headlines? What are the comments? Almost invariably the liberals are, first and foremost, giddy over Bush being slapped, seems obvious what their motives are. To late to retreat into lofty intellectualism - caught naked.

sammi jo

07-01-2006, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Does that delight you,that some fellow waterboarding a mass killer will get years in Prison. Does that thrill your sick soul?

IRRELEVANT. The vast majority of those people in Guantanamo Bay and any other of the Bush Administration's concentration camps are more than likely innocent. The case for holding these people is so weak or non-existent that they can't even fabricate evidence or manufacture trumped-up charges to try these people in their kangaroo tribunals. Thats why these people are being held in legal limbo-land.

What mass killing are you talking about anyway? if you mean the atrocities conducted by Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime, then you only need to look as far as (SH's) primary ally during the period 1980-1991, the years when he committed his worst atrocities, namely, on Reagan/Bush Sr's watches, and with their not-so-tacit approval. The US even supplied Saddam Hussein with the cropdusting helicopters and gas that were *allegedly* used in the attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988. The other mass killing you can only be referring to started on March 20, 2003, on the authority of President (Bush) Cheney. 100,000 civilians were dead by August 2004, and now probably double that.

And if you are talking about the mass murders commited on 9-11... Turn that rock over and a bunch of very ugly worms are plainly visible. But lets not go there right now... its the wrong thread.

For war crimes, life in jail is the only just punishment.

MaxParrish

07-01-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
IRRELEVANT. The vast majority of those people in Guantanamo Bay and any other of the Bush Administration's concentration camps are more than likely innocent. The case for holding these people is so weak or non-existent that they can't even fabricate evidence or manufacture trumped-up charges to try these people in their kangaroo tribunals. Thats why these people are being held in legal limbo-land.

What mass killing are you talking about anyway? if you mean the atrocities conducted by Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime, then you only need to look as far as (SH's) primary ally during the period 1980-1991, the years when he committed his worst atrocities, namely, on Reagan/Bush Sr's watches, and with their not-so-tacit approval. The US even supplied Saddam Hussein with the cropdusting helicopters and gas that were *allegedly* used in the attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988. The other mass killing you can only be referring to started on March 20, 2003, on the authority of President (Bush) Cheney. 100,000 civilians were dead by August 2004, and now probably double that.

And if you are talking about the mass murders commited on 9-11... Turn that rock over and a bunch of very ugly worms are plainly visible. But lets not go there right now... its the wrong thread.

For war crimes, life in jail is the only just punishment.

Yep it does seem to delight your soul.

hardeeharhar

07-01-2006, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
No excuse me, legislation and treaty making is in the hands of Congress and the President. That the court has (once again) simply made a mockery of the plain text regarding the law (the Dec 30th deadline) and used "interpretation" to rewrite the application of the Conventions is not within court power.

Therefore, they are lawless. As such, they ought to be held accountable.

Actually, it is up to the Supreme Court to consider all executive actions in the context of legislation, treaties, and the constitution. That is the judicial prerogative, but don't let reality get you down.

MaxParrish

07-01-2006, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, it is up to the Supreme Court to consider all executive actions in the context of legislation, treaties, and the constitution. That is the judicial prerogative, but don't let reality get you down. Nope, the Supreme Court was not created, under separation of powers, "to consider all executive actions" - it is not a regulatory agency intended to 'monitor' other branches. (Perhaps we might call your view the "Supreme Nanny").

The Court is one of three CO-EQUAL branches that has unique duties to look at the law and apply it in cases. It is not intended to make policy, create moral justice, manage war, or any other function exclusively reserved to the other branches. These powers are not blended, shared, or crossed. The House and Senate represent the people, and like the President, are elected to create a government of, for, and by the people (aka democracy in a Republican form) and to write and enforce the law.

Naturally, being a scientist and all, you are not familiar with my areas of expertise: political science and economics. You hold the view of those "not in the community" who can't possibly know our goings on. So you've fallen into a popular myth - the Supreme Court as Philosopher Kings who superseded the law and the people.

It's this myth that feeds the Court's current lawlessness - and that is always to be regretted.

hardeeharhar

07-01-2006, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Nope, the Supreme Court was not created, under separation of powers, "to consider all executive actions" - it is not a regulatory agency intended to 'monitor' other branches. (Perhaps we might call your view the "Supreme Nanny").

I didn't imply it monitors other branches. I implied the actions of the executive fall within the purview of the Supreme Court... And the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section1) seems to back me up...

BRussell

07-01-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Does that delight you,that some fellow waterboarding a mass killer will get years in Prison. Does that thrill your sick soul? I'd say your soul is sick if it doesn't thrill you.

sammi jo

07-01-2006, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
[B]Yep it does seem to delight your soul.

Whatever delights my soul has little to do with politics and power.

It's sad that in your obvious state of denial, you have allowed yourself to sink as low as appeasing war criminals, and approving the encroachment of fascism/totalitarianism in the US.

Whatever.

:rolleyes:

Gilsch

07-01-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
Does that delight you,that some fellow waterboarding a mass killer will get years in Prison. Does that thrill your sick soul?

Sorry, but the vast majority of your posts don't deserve more than this. :lol:

occam whisker

07-01-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by segovius
The Supreme Court has ruled against the Government declaring it does not have the right to try prisoners under military jurisdiction at camps like Guantanamo.

Essentially it is a ruling that the practice violates the Geneva Convention. Which most sane people already knew.

What does this actually mean in practice - other than an increase in rendition flights - can anyone explain coherently what the ramifications might be?

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5129904.stm)

It means, that two branches of our government, the liberal press, the Marxist academia, and a large percentage of the opposition party, are ok with idea of conferring US constitutional protections to foreign enemies; they are ok with the idea of granting foreign enemies access to US civilian courts; they are ok with the idea of extending protections found in the Geneva Convention to an enemy that is specifically excluded from those protections.

It means, that on these terms our government might ultimately fail to win the war against jihadi supremacists and their war tactics.

It means, that in this new environment, independent citizens and organizations will now be forced to take independent action to act on their own behalf and defend themselves without restraint, and without risking anything more than the jihadist enemy-- an enemy that has no civility, recognizes no law, and is not bound to any agreement.

hardeeharhar

07-01-2006, 06:40 PM

Heh.

That's rich.

Moe, you have outdone yourself...

Harald

07-02-2006, 01:03 PM

"Marxist academia."

You do sound like a right-wing German in 1932 you know that?

audiopollution

07-02-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Heh.

That's rich.

Moe, you have outdone yourself...

Occam's not Moe.

Mika, DMZ, or Scott, possibly.

hardeeharhar

07-02-2006, 01:16 PM

Hmm...

Interesting...

occam whisker

07-02-2006, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Harald
\"Marxist academia.\"

You do sound like a right-wing German in 1932 you know that?

You know it’s true. It\'s very easy to recognize their arguments for what they are-- extensions of Marxist thought.

hardeeharhar

07-02-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by occam whisker
You know it’s true. It\'s very easy to recognize their arguments for what they are-- extensions of Marxist thought.

Oh NOES... Marx....

Never has a single philosopher been so reviled...

MaxParrish

07-03-2006, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I didn't imply it monitors other branches. I implied the actions of the executive fall within the purview of the Supreme Court... And the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section1) seems to back me up... Perhaps there is no real disgreement here, so to clarfy:

The Supreme Court is the highest court in American law. It is the final appleliate court, and for certain classes of cases, the only court. None the less, it does not deal with any specific branchs actions, it deals with civil suits and criminal cases brought up to it through appeals.

In the case of Hamdan, he filed a writ of habeas corpus and stated that he could not be tried by a military tribunal. The Bush administration had planned on using tribunals to adjudicate claims of innocence and to convict certain persons of crimes. This court found invalid reasons to kick it back down to a lower level, and invalidate the tribunals without Congress's involvment and adherence to the Geneva Accords, Article 3.

The court was wrong-headed and obviously motivated by personal political outcomes.

In additon, I do not share the delight of Russel and Sammi Jo at the possible prosecution of everyday soliders who were (at the time) thinking certain forms of cohersion was legal, and doing in good faith to obtain information on behalf of us, and against Al Qaeda terrorists and murders.

But some people hate either a) the US or b) Bush so much, they cross the line. Even if one thought American policy on detetion was wrong, to feel so little for our soliders bespeaks a very very sick person.

Harald

07-03-2006, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by occam whisker
You know it’s true. It\'s very easy to recognize their arguments for what they are-- extensions of Marxist thought.

Well at least you admit it, although the admission means nothing because you clearly don't understand the reference (which is why your country is in the shit, but that's another thread).

You see, certain forces in 1932 Germany accused the academics and anyone that differed from their thought processes of wild, crazy things. Of being un-German, hating the upcoming Chancellor, of Marxism.

Even though they weren't Marxist. At all. Just doing research. Just promoting a manner of being that demanded thinking, testing assupmtions and examining possiliblites. Some wanted faith, unthinking acceptance.

These people -- cunts every one -- called academics stupid, moronic, untrue things, including Marxists.

That's the historical reference you missed. HTH (short for 'hope that helps').

segovius

07-03-2006, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Harald
[B]These people -- cunts every one -- called academics stupid, moronic, untrue things, including Marxists.

And further down the path when this ground was laid, the same people started killing them.

This always happens in totalitarian regimes because the main threat to them is free-thought and information (hundreds of academics have been assassinated in Iraq for example by fundies) and it always starts with sheep spreading the meme.

Marxists, Jews, Freemasons.....doesn't matter. If the disease is allowed to run unchecked then the same people doing the labeling will in time progress to support of the 'purging'.

addabox

07-03-2006, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
......In additon, I do not share the delight of Russel and Sammi Jo at the possible prosecution of everyday soliders who were (at the time) thinking certain forms of cohersion was legal, and doing in good faith to obtain information on behalf of us, and against Al Qaeda terrorists and murders.

You mean torture. Your mincing little "certain forms of coercion" doesn't keep it off you.

But some people hate either a) the US or b) Bush so much, they cross the line. Even if one thought American policy on detetion was wrong, to feel so little for our soliders bespeaks a very very sick person.

I hate America because I despise our becoming a torture state and the idea of putting away people indefinitely without charges or trail.

You know what? Fuck your love of ruthlessness, of power, of indiscriminate punishment.

By time you and your buddies are through with waving the flag this country will no longer be recognizable as anything worth fighting and dying for.

Communists, "crime", terrorists, drugs.... there is always another threat that simply demands that we set aside our delicate sensibilities around freedom and due process and justice and civil liberties, another reason to ratchet up the surveillance and expedite the punishment and move somebody else off the "protected" list.

Hey look-- drive by murders! You are much more likely to get shot in a drive by than get blown up by terrorists. So what are we fucking around with this "American legal system" for? I mean, if it's about extreme measures in response to extreme danger. That's what it's all about, right? The horror of Americans being killed?

And if there is domestic violence that is 10 or 20 or 1000 times more likely than terrorism to kill you, well, then, shit, you gotta figure we should just start leveling entire neighborhoods and sticking anybody who looks sketchy in holes for the next good long while, and fuck all that "trial" noise.

And then when anyone talks about legality you can start braying about how you, for one, are not going to stand by while murderers roam the streets, and how unfortunate it is that murderer lovers want to hug and kiss murderers. And remember-- the operative definition of "murderer" is: whoever the police catch. So it's a win win!

Because if there is one thing that the American hating right has taught us is that the foundational principles of our country are the first things need to be jettisoned as soon as we perceive a threat. And baby, there is always a threat.

Oh, and your little "feel so little for our soldiers" jive? Fuck off.

MaxParrish

07-03-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by addabox
You mean torture. Your mincing little "certain forms of coercion" doesn't keep it off you.

I hate America because I despise our becoming a torture state and the idea of putting away people indefinitely without charges or trail.

You know what? Fuck your love of ruthlessness, of power, of indiscriminate punishment.... Given how steamed you are I am not there is a point in replying, but for the record:

If my real buddies were in control you would no long recognize it; we'd have to do some really heavy duty house-cleaning.

True, politicans always invent another threat to prove their worth, to save the populace from some hobgoblin. And every hobgoblin, domestic and foriegn, has eroded our freedom - however, some of these threats are real. Misunderstood, handled impulsively, mangled by politics...but real.

I don't believe in setting aside liberties for my (our?) fellow countrymen. I have no problem with minimizing the "rights" of aliens caught on the field of battle...I have no problem with erroring on the side of caution.

Terrorism is not much of a threat in the U.S., because we have done the 'extreme' measures of lawfully stepping up enforcement. If there has been a loss in liberty to our citizens, it has to be miniscule, but it has worked.

And the only ones that need to be put away in domestic detention camps are illegals caught in the United States.
And "I for one, and not going to stand by" while illegals roam the streets, who are far more likely to be murderers, rapists, etc. than citizens.

Because if there is one thing that the American [political system] has taught us is that the foundational principles of our country are the first things need to be jettisoned as soon as we perceive a threat. And baby, there is always a threat. With a minor edit, could not agree more.

Oh, and your little "feel so little for our soldiers" jive? Fuck off. [/B] No comment.

hardeeharhar

07-03-2006, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
This court found invalid reasons to kick it back down to a lower level, and invalidate the tribunals without Congress's involvment and adherence to the Geneva Accords, Article 3.

The court was wrong-headed and obviously motivated by personal political outcomes.

All of this isn't for you or really anyone to say. They have the constitutional authority to do exactly what they did; if you don't agree with it, write your congressmen to introduce legislation that explicitly gives the Bush administration the authority to suspend civil liberties. The instant such a bill hits the floor of Congress, I leave.

MaxParrish

07-03-2006, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
All of this isn't for you or really anyone to say. They have the constitutional authority to do exactly what they did; if you don't agree with it, write your congressmen to introduce legislation that explicitly gives the Bush administration the authority to suspend civil liberties. The instant such a bill hits the floor of Congress, I leave. Quite the contrary, in a Republic a member of the social compact has the duty "to say" what is of concern to him/her. That the branches have nominal authority is not in dispute, but what they do with that authority, and if they abuse it, is.

The Courts need to held accountable to the people, they are not Demigods, nor mullahs whose function is to only permit circumscribed policy making (as it is in Iran).

One need not accept that a law written by Congress, needs to be constantly circumscribed by a lawless court that refuses to read plain text. So at some point, the Courts ought to be ignored. After all, the other two branches have their own constitutional rights and are equally responsible for protecting them, even against the Supreme Court.

hardeeharhar

07-03-2006, 11:15 AM

You seem convinced that the three branches of the US government are equal in power.

History and politics has shown time and again that this is simply not the case.

Secondly, the supreme court isn't answerable to the people because it was set up that way. It shouldn't be, not now not ever.

A calm influence on the judicial actions of a people cannot be directly responsible to the people.

MaxParrish

07-03-2006, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
[B]You seem convinced that the three branches of the US government are equal in power. If you mean that the President and Congress tolerate their abuse and that makes them powerful, I agree. However, it is true that as a practical matter, they are not equal.

Presidents (e.g. Jackson and Lincoln) have ignored the Courts when they tried to circumstribe executive authority (Jackson said someting to the effect regarding a decision that went against him: "Alright, now let them enforce it".
Secondly, the supreme court isn't answerable to the people because it was set up that way. It shouldn't be, not now not ever. To the contrary ALL branches are directly or indirectly answerable the people AND it was set up that way. In fact, it was setup so that the Judiciary would be the weakest branch (who through the years accreated more and more power). Orginally it was thought that the Court would merely be handling the application of the law in private suits and the like.

In any case, the Declaration of Independence is a good guide to the intentions of the founders; to create a government that would serve the ends of liberty, and that when it no longer did so the people could replace it. There is no mention of Mandarians and DemiGods running the nation.

No doubt the judiciary has an important role, and no doubt it should be an equal branch. However, it needs to be held to account when it slides into tyranny. Unlke the robe worshippers, I don't get upset when I hear Congres talk about doing a little "budget" adjustment to send their own message - tit for tat. Naturally I'd rather the Courts fess up and suggest an amendment to provide vetos over their absolute power.

But they don't see anything wrong in being 5 lawyers that can run a nation - absolute power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

jimmac

07-03-2006, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by MaxParrish
If you mean that the President and Congress tolerate their abuse and that makes them powerful, I agree. However, it is true that as a practical matter, they are not equal.

Presidents (e.g. Jackson and Lincoln) have ignored the Courts when they tried to circumstribe executive authority (Jackson said someting to the effect regarding a decision that went against him: "Alright, now let them enforce it".
To the contrary ALL branches are directly or indirectly answerable the people AND it was set up that way. In fact, it was setup so that the Judiciary would be the weakest branch (who through the years accreated more and more power). Orginally it was thought that the Court would merely be handling the application of the law in private suits and the like.

In any case, the Declaration of Independence is a good guide to the intentions of the founders; to create a government that would serve the ends of liberty, and that when it no longer did so the people could replace it. There is no mention of Mandarians and DemiGods running the nation.

No doubt the judiciary has an important role, and no doubt it should be an equal branch. However, it needs to be held to account when it slides into tyranny. Unlke the robe worshippers, I don't get upset when I hear Congres talk about doing a little "budget" adjustment to send their own message - tit for tat. Naturally I'd rather the Courts fess up and suggest an amendment to provide vetos over their absolute power.

But they don't see anything wrong in being 5 lawyers that can run a nation - absolute power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Max, The abuse of power is completely on Bush's side.

The man is power hungry.

In the end it will lessen the republican's chances in Nov. and hopefully their chances in the next presidental election. Not that I hate republicans but the the way things work now needs to be replaced. Since I don't have much faith in a 3rd party making this time this is the next best thing.

jimmac

07-03-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by audiopollution
Occam's not Moe.

Mika, DMZ, or Scott, possibly.

No Moe is grabowski.

jimmac

07-03-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by audiopollution
Occam's not Moe.

Mika, DMZ, or Scott, possibly.

Maybe Scott.

segovius

07-03-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Maybe Scott.

Scott couldn't spell and although this Whisker character also faces challenges in that area he is not quite as abysmal - the ground to have made up between Scott's banning and this new manifestation is just too great even with private professional coaching.

Also Whiskers has a marked propensity for random Googling and regurgitating - Scott just spouted without feeling the need to back it up - the psychological profile is quite different.

Grabowski again has a human side believe it or not and can be approached almost reasonably given the correct stimulus so one would have to rule him out.

I would say we are looking for a suspect who is not currently posting under their original name, who has obsessions with jihadis and 'taqiya' (although misunderstood to the point of ridicule). DMZ shared this peculiarity but it could equally have been gleaned from any random bog-standard winger blog or racist hate-site where it is pretty common coin.

It is also worth considering our old friend MarcUK who has a taste for this sort of thing I believe. In this case I would laugh uproariously as it would be his most successful attempt to date and a master-stroke of utter genius to pull off. He is the one person who could do the convincing acting job but really I fear that Mr Whisker is not capable of such artistry and in all probability - sadly and chillingly - he is exactly what he appears to be: with all the horrific ramifications that entails for the current state of 'civilization' and general standards of being.

God have mercy on our souls.

occam whisker

07-03-2006, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Scott couldn\'t spell and although this Whisker character also faces challenges in that area he is not quite as abysmal - the ground to have made up between Scott\'s banning and this new manifestation is just too great even with private professional coaching.

Also Whiskers has a marked propensity for random Googling and regurgitating - Scott just spouted without feeling the need to back it up - the psychological profile is quite different.

Grabowski again has a human side believe it or not and can be approached almost reasonably given the correct stimulus so one would have to rule him out.

I would say we are looking for a suspect who is not currently posting under their original name, who has obsessions with jihadis and \'taqiya\' (although misunderstood to the point of ridicule). DMZ shared this peculiarity but it could equally have been gleaned from any random bog-standard winger blog or racist hate-site where it is pretty common coin.

It is also worth considering our old friend MarcUK who has a taste for this sort of thing I believe. In this case I would laugh uproariously as it would be his most successful attempt to date and a master-stroke of utter genius to pull off. He is the one person who could do the convincing acting job but really I fear that Mr Whisker is not capable of such artistry and in all probability - sadly and chillingly - he is exactly what he appears to be: with all the horrific ramifications that entails for the current state of \'civilization\' and general standards of being.

God have mercy on our souls.

Rabbits don\'t ask for God\'s mercy.

hardeeharhar

07-03-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by occam whisker
Rabbits don't ask for God's mercy.

I like you. You're funny.

occam whisker

07-03-2006, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I like you. You\'re funny.

Just don\'t call me Jester. That\'s reserved for, well, our furred friend Jester.

:)

jimmac

07-03-2006, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Scott couldn't spell and although this Whisker character also faces challenges in that area he is not quite as abysmal - the ground to have made up between Scott's banning and this new manifestation is just too great even with private professional coaching.

Also Whiskers has a marked propensity for random Googling and regurgitating - Scott just spouted without feeling the need to back it up - the psychological profile is quite different.

Grabowski again has a human side believe it or not and can be approached almost reasonably given the correct stimulus so one would have to rule him out.

I would say we are looking for a suspect who is not currently posting under their original name, who has obsessions with jihadis and 'taqiya' (although misunderstood to the point of ridicule). DMZ shared this peculiarity but it could equally have been gleaned from any random bog-standard winger blog or racist hate-site where it is pretty common coin.

It is also worth considering our old friend MarcUK who has a taste for this sort of thing I believe. In this case I would laugh uproariously as it would be his most successful attempt to date and a master-stroke of utter genius to pull off. He is the one person who could do the convincing acting job but really I fear that Mr Whisker is not capable of such artistry and in all probability - sadly and chillingly - he is exactly what he appears to be: with all the horrific ramifications that entails for the current state of 'civilization' and general standards of being.

God have mercy on our souls.

Nah! He's someone from before.

He sounds too friendly to be Applenut ( AKA " Bronxsite " ).

addabox

07-03-2006, 04:34 PM

It is also worth considering our old friend MarcUK who has a tast

Holy shit jimmac must be on to something he's been struck down mid revelation!

jimmac

07-03-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
[QUOTE]Originally posted by segovius
[B]Scott couldn't spell and although this Whisker character also faces challenges in that area he is not quite as abysmal - the ground to have made up between Scott's banning and this new manifestation is just too great even with private professional coaching.

Also Whiskers has a marked propensity for random Googling and regurgitating - Scott just spouted without feeling the need to back it up - the psychological profile is quite different.

Grabowski again has a human side believe it or not and can be approached almost reasonably given the correct stimulus so one would have to rule him out.

I would say we are looking for a suspect who is not currently posting under their original name, who has obsessions with jihadis and 'taqiya' (although misunderstood to the point of ridicule). DMZ shared this peculiarity but it could equally have been gleaned from any random bog-standard winger blog or racist hate-site where it is pretty common coin.

It is also worth considering our old friend MarcUK who has a tast

" Grabowski again has a human side believe it or not and can be approached almost reasonably given the correct stimulus so one would have to rule him out. "

He's already admitted he's Moe. This guy has a totally different style.