Oh, the irony...Kerryites are desperate!

[sfecap]

In another thread here, a poster treated us to the following newsclip:


NEW YORK (AP) — Citing the First Amendment, a federal appeals court has ruled that a Vermont law cannot stop a nonprofit organization and the American Civil Liberties Union from publishing information about sexuality on the Internet.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling Wednesday that a law signed in 2000 by Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to curb Internet crimes against children was too broadly applied, threatening speech that is protected by the Constitution.

(more)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-08-28-vt-net-speech_x.htm

Apparently, this was meant to call attention to Gov. Howard Dean and the Vermont legislature's nefarious plan to srip us all of our Internet rights...(read the entire article and draw your conclusions...)

Let me see if I understand this....a Governor, who is also a physician, who has seen the incredible trauma associated with child sexual abuse up close, signs a piece of legislation that intended to make it harder for people to use the Internet to sexually exploit children...

What a very bad guy. He ought to be ashamed...imagine, wanting to prevent child sexual exploitation!

Ironically, Sen John Kerry, in 2003, had an opportunity to vote for S 151:

>>S 151 Enhance AMBER Alert bill

Vote to pass a bill that would make it a crime to pander or solicit child pornography. It would require the pandering to be connected to material that had been determined to be obscene. Prosecutors would be required to show that a suspect acted with intent. The bill's pandering provision would make it a crime to present material "or purported material" that conveys the idea that a minor is engaging in sexual behavior.<<

(Sen. Kerry, while supporting the bill, didn't vote. Perhaps he doesn't care about child sexual exploitation?)

Do Kerry supporters really think that it was a bad thing for Dean to sign legislation that would possibly help curtail sexual abuse/exploitation of children?

[killbotfactory]

1. Kerry has a 47% from the ACLU

And voted for the Communications Decency Act

http://archive.aclu.org/vote-guide/Kerry_J.html

That is quite ironic.

I'm not happy with the law Dean signed, either. I just don't think politicians understand the technology.

[Khephra]

2. I agree

I see vote after vote by politicians on technology issues that are just off base. I think part of the problem is that most of the people in office today are a bit behind on the tech curve.

Just in case you anti-Deanies are out there...yes, this is one item that makes me unhappy with Dean. One item. He's got a long way to build up an equivalent level of bad feelings with me to the same level of say...Kerry, Gephardt or Lieberman.

[Eloriel]

16. Oh, goodness, Kef, did you read the article?

It kept talking about "how the law was APPLIED," (as it ws against the ACLU, for heaven's sake), which is quite different from pinning a thoroughly unconstitutional law (as opposed to a merely misapplied law) on Dean.

Unless of course you're in favor of Child Porn, which I'm sure you're not. ;-)

We have lots of restrictions on free speech in this country. MANY. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you can't incite to riot; you can't engage in false advertising; you can't libel and slader people; you can't engage in conspiracy to commit a crime; and there are probably others as well. You can't threaten the President of the U.S. You can't engage in phone and internet harrassment.

I don't think this hurts Dean at all. He wasn't responsible for the misapplication, nor could he reasonably have expected it, IMO.

Edited to say: Here, look at this from the article:

The appeals court agreed that the law was unconstitutional when it was used against Web sites such as those operated by the ACLU and the Sexual Health Network.

It differed with the lower court, however, in saying that the law could be enforced otherwise.



IMO, this isn't even a Dean issue (or anti-Dean issue).

Eloriel

[JohnKleeb]

3. not so good but let me get his lifetime stuff

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 60 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 71 percent of the time.
nothing to be proud of,
Kucinich again not the best but it does prove a myth that he wouldnt be good on seperation of church and state
2002 On the votes that the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State considered to be the most important in 2002, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2001-2002 , Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 64 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State considered to be the most important in 2001, Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the American Civil Liberties Union considered to be the most important in 2000 , Representative Kucinich voted their preferred position 57 percent of the time.

[meegbear]

4. sounds like your desperate ...

I read the original post and I didn't think it was anti-dean. If anything, you're using it to be anti-Kerry.

Breathe.

[JohnKleeb]

5. hes been on Kerry a lot lately

That said the irony is a devout Kucinichitzen me defending Kerry but I do it anyways. Kerry is a lot better than a lot give him credit for.

[sfecap]

6. LOL. It was definatly anti Dean.

Reign 'em in!

They're gettin' rambunctious! :-)

[sangh0]

10. Very desperate

What's next? "Kerry doesn't wash his hands after he pees"?

[killbotfactory]

11. You heard it hear first! Kerry doesn't wash his hands after he pees!

Someone who practices such bad hygene has no business being president!

[GalleryGod]

7. Please-Have another Grape Kool Aid,Wouldja'?

Think Deano's really hot,Now?

Gary Hart January 15th-March 30th, 1984.

Now THAT was HOT!?
:loveya:

How'd THAT work out,for the HART-throbs??
:pals:

[GalleryGod]

8. Hart even won CALIFORNIA in June,1984-STILL lost Nom!

Strange thangs do happen in Dem Prez Politics,DADgummmmmit:crazy: !

[killbotfactory]

9. As long as Dean doesn't have any "monkey business" in his closet...

he should be fine.

[Eloriel]

17. Uh, didn't Hart bow OUT of the race?

I don't recall he got defeated, but I could be wrong.

Anyone?

Eloriel

[sandnsea]

12. S151, total trashing of Bill of Rights

I'm not saying anything about the Vermont law. But I know what S151 did.

· Eliminates the statute of limitations for child abductions and sex crimes.
· Denies pretrial release for child rapists or child abductors.
· Requires a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for twice-convicted child sex offenders.

Basic rights, all gone. Twenty, thirty years down the road, somebody has to try to put together a defense. Required to be jailed without a trial, totally against the Constitution. I can't imagine why anyone would have two child sexual offenses on them, but taking somebody's life out of the hands of the judge and putting mandates on sentences has already proven to be a bad way of administering justice.

I can understand why Kerry didn't vote on this thing, it was a bad bill. But Amber Alert was rightfully popular, so awaaay we go... John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and that's the only thing that's ever harmed our civil rights and he is mean and bad and evil. Got it.

[sfecap]

13. So let me get this straight...

You WANT child sex offenders/pedophiles (who have a recivitism rate in the 90 percentile) to NOT have a statue of limitations? (Think Catholic Priests, fathers who have raped their daughters...), be released into the general public before their trial, and be sentenced to a potential early release?

Have YOU ever been molested or have you had a child raped?

What the fuck are you thinking here?

There is NOTHING in that Bill that you cited that is unconstitutional, (although the Constitution didn't matter much to Kerry when he voted for the Patriot Act, did it?)

Now I've seen everything here, defense of child molestors. Unfuckingbelievable!!!!!

[sandnsea]

14. Hey, it's about Civil Rights

The Patriot Act, S151, all about Civil Rights. Either you care about it or you don't.

And actually, I want to protect the Civil Rights of anyone who has been accused and not convicted of a crime. Whether they're a Catholic Priest accused of a molestation that happened 30 years ago, or an Arab accused of terrorism today. All the same thing. Right to due process is right to due process.

[sfecap]

15. You obviously don't understand due process.

There are numerous crimes in which the accused is denied bail. That is NOT a violation of due process. It is not a Constitutional issue. Warrantless search and seizure is, being held without access to legal counsel is, and to have your phone tapped without a judge reviewing the request is. That's what Kerry voted for. That is a far cry from permitting child molesters the freedom to offend again.

To advocate relaxation or mitigation of laws that punish child molestors or keep them out of the populace is absolutely incredible. Pedophiles have an extremely high recivitism rate. Some state incarcerate them indefinately.

Please go explain your views to he parent of a child who has been raped, I'm sure they'd appreciate them.

[sangh0]

18. You know nothing about due process

There are numerous crimes in which the accused is denied bail.

AFAIK, there is no crime in which bail is automatically denied. I think even with "terrorist" crimes, bail is NOT automatically prohibited.

That is NOT a violation of due process.

Yes it is. It denies the accused his/right to bail if there is no risk of flight and there is no danger to the community. The nature of the crime should not lead to the automatic withdrawal of bail because the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and so therefore, denying them bail is a violation.

That is a far cry from permitting child molesters the freedom to offend again.

NO it's not. This law punishes those who have not been found guilty in a court of law, or IOW, this law punishes the innocent.

To advocate relaxation or mitigation of laws that punish child molestors or keep them out of the populace is absolutely incredible. Pedophiles have an extremely high recivitism rate. Some state incarcerate them indefinately.

Which is why we imprison them AFTER the trial, not BEFORE. But you're not the only one who is confused by this concept. So is Dean.

Please go explain your views to he parent of a child who has been raped, I'm sure they'd appreciate them.

Please go explain your views to someone who has been falsely accused of child rape, I'm sure they'd appreciate them.

[sfecap]

22. I did not say "automatically" denied bail...

Nor am I confused.

Read it again. I said there are many instances in which bail is denied. Perhaps I should have added after an arraignment in front of a judge. (To even clarify THAT further...it's after an arraignment AND a bail hearing.)

The denial of bail is not, nor has it ever been, unconstitutional. If an accused individual poses a potential risk of flight or risk to the community, after a hearing, bail may be denied.

Child molestors present an unusually high risk to the community. Their offend/reoffend rate is extraordinarily high. The State has an obligation to remove them from the community pending trial, if the evidence is sufficent to bind them over.

It is unfortunate that people have had their lives ruined by overzealous prosecutors in molestation cases. The Los Angeles case a few years ago is an egregious example. However, that case should NEVER have gone to trial based on the evidence presented in pre trial. The system isn't perfect. That does not mean that we should ever relax laws that protect our children from predatory scum like child molesters.

[sandnsea]

20. Again, Civil Rights are for everybody

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Holding people without bail as a matter of law without judicial review is a violation of due process.

"to be confronted with the witnesses against him" This is actually also violated in S151, only the age and general location of the child is admitted, no names. I understand this, so I didn't include it, but it is a violation of the Constitution. Coupled with lifetime imprisonment and no statute of limitations, it's pretty much accuse somebody and they're locked up for life.

People's rights will be violated with this law, innocent people will be locked up because of how difficult it will be to defend yourself on 30 year old charges, or even 10 year old charges.

I have no problem with locking up pedophiles for life. I have a huge problem with it under S151. And Kerry and Edwards, and I think every other candidate (well, except Bush), has expressed outrage over the Patriot Act and how it is being implemented by John Ashcroft. It's really a nonissue. It's going to be reviewed and changed. It's just a trumped up excuse to be against someone with no real logic to it at all.

[sfecap]

21. They certainly are.

But you apparently don't understand criminal law. NO ONE is held without bail without judicial review. In criminal cases there are bail hearings in front of a judge. (Except in some cases under the Patriot Act....)

Not giving victims names publicly has withstood SC scrutiny and in NOT a violation of one's rights under Constitutional law. In EVERY criminal case in which a victim is alive, the accused confronts the accuser, either in open court or through the indictment and arraignment process. It just may not be public in some cases. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires PUBLIC trials.

You use the term "due process" inappropriately. You obviously don't understand the legal concept.

[sandnsea]

23. It's not what the law says

I kind of wanted to let this go, but that is just not what the law says. Anybody arrested on a child sexual assault charge will be held without bail. That's what the law says. Period.

And it's also not the names given publicly, it's NO names, not to the defendant either. Just the general claim of abuse.

You don't understand the law. It turned everything you think you know about due process and civil rights on its head.

[Eloriel]

19. Careful, sandnsea

You sound dangerously close to tipping your hand there.

I don't THINK you want to be on the side of child molesters. And you are on the verge of sounding like you support them.

Eloriel

[Sterling]

24. I am sure thats a joke.

I like Dean but I also like the bill of rights and concept of innocent until proven guilty.

I can still vote for Dean and admit this is not a good bill.

I am sure that people who are concerned here are not motivated by a desire to rape children.

[sandnsea]

25. oh boy oh boy

I've been trying to decide for a while whether to put you on ignore. You just made the decision for me. Thanks.

[TahitiNut]

26. "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

I don't know how that's so difficult to understand. An accusation does not equal a conviction. Were there no lessons learned in East Wenatchee? :shrug:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

29. However, I would like to point out...

that sandnsea also has a problem with someone who is convicted FOR A SECOND TIME of child molestation being given a mandatory life sentence.

That is of course "proven guilty"... Twice.

I agree with most of what sandnsea has said, but his first post did have a questionable sentence in it, and I don't think he meant it the way it sounded, but the fact remains, arguing that someone who is convicted of a SECOND child molestation offense is being denied his rights due to mandatory sentencing is a little bit close to saying 'it's not that bad'.

[TahitiNut]

31. I'd disagree with the "mandatory" as well.

Does that mean I'd not increase the sentencing guidelines for second offenses? Nope. What it means is that I don't believe the legitimate functions of a trial court, including discretion and leniency, ought to be preempted by legislatures. Judges can be removed from office. It ought to be done more often, IMHO, rather than neurotically pretend it's a one-size-fits-all system that doesn't require some respect (and adjustment) for individual human beings and their innate uniqueness.

All in all (without reading it myself), S151 sounds like very bad law. And it doesn't have a freaking thing to do with being "soft on (any) crime". :puke:

If anyone wants an example where a mere accusation of sexual abuse of children went absolutely insane -- a contemporary Salem -- research the East Wenatchee "sex trials" or the McMartin PreSchool. It sounds to me like S151 would only change these horrible injustices into greater atrocities. :shrug:

(See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/other.html )

Also see http://christianparty.net/wenatcheewitchhunt.htm

The true depth of the depraved condition of our justice system is incomprehensible and reprehensible. <...> That so many judges, jurors, lawyers, prosecutors, defense attornies, doctors, and other professionals could be duped by a 13 year old girl, or could believe such outlandish fairy tales from a witness of *any* age, makes it embarassing just to be an American. That all convictions in this case haven't been vacated, that the true victims haven't been compensated, and that the true criminals haven't yet been buried under the nation's prisons, must make Thomas Jefferson turn over in his grave.

For more thought provocation, read http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Library/Antisexuality.html

[Devils Advocate NZ]

32. So you don't agree with any minimum sentences...

Ok, I can understand that, although I think leaving it solely up to a judge to decide how bad a crime is is rather undemocratic. To me, mandatory minimums set by legislation is like the people having a say in sentencing. They are saying that (in the case in point) child molestation is so bad that a repeat offender should not be given another chance to ruin a child's life.

With no mandatory minimum, a judge could (remember this is an extreme hypothetical) think to himself "hey, I like kids too, this guy hasn't done anything THAT bad, I will just give him a couple of years."

If you don't think judges bring their own biases into their judgements, consider the 10 Commandments case in Alabama. Judge Moore specifically broke the law, then specifically refused to comply with a court order to rectify the situation. What if he had been a pedophile and had another pedophile before him? Should he, as a judge, be given the right to decide for himself?

Mandatory minimums represent society's judgement that some crimes require at least a miminum amount of punishment and that no judge should be allowed to countermand that.

[TahitiNut]

33. A platoon of strawmen.

To call mandatory life without parole a "minimum" is an abuse of language. Nowhere have I opined that I favor "leaving ot solely up to a judge" or that I disagree with sentencing guidelines and legislated extenuating factors. At the same time, I'm all too well aware of how zealotry in prosecution and "plea bargains" can be miscarriages of justice. Many sentencing guideline provisions depend upon a jury's findings, not a judge's whims. (I believe I used the term "trial court" and did so deliberately.) Nowhere did I say I "don't think judges bring their own biases into their judgements." What I did say is that the public's ability to remove judges from the bench is too infrequently exercised.

You speak of "society's judgement" and refer to acts of politicians. :eyes: I'll call it prejudice -- arriving at an a priori judgement without either learning or heeding the particulars. The delusion that "one size fits all" should be easily dispelled with enough direct exposure to the "justice" system.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

34. There is a harsher penalty that could have been imposed...

but in this case the word "minimum" is being used to describe the least punishment to be given, and thus is NOT an abuse of language, no matter how repugnant you may feel it is.

So what exactly is a "sentencing guideline"? Can such guidelines say for instance if the jury finds that the person is guilty and has done it before a minimum sentence shall be applied? If not, then what is the difference between a guideline and no guideline at all? If it is in the jury or judges power to ignore the guideline, then what is the point?

Hell, why don't we just say that the judge and jury can decide any amount of punishment from immediate release all the way up to death for EVERY crime, and let the court decide how harsh a punishment should be?

Do you agree with MAXIMUM sentences? Do you agree that society can decide that a crime should be punished no more harshly than a predefined level? What if the crime is, for whetever reason, more abhorrent than the maximum makes account for?

If you agree with maximum sentences, then the argument you make for that maximum is just as valid when applied as an argument for a minimum. Maximums ensure that judges and juries do not sentence people more harshly than society feels is just, in the same way that minimums ensure that the sentence is not less than society feels is just.

Remember justice goes both ways - what is just for the victim as well as what is just for the perpetrator.

As for whether legislated minimums are reflections of society, you have to take into account that if society feels a punishment is too harsh, or not harsh enough, they will elect representatives that will reflect their views and change the minimums and maximums to suit. That is what representative democracy is all about.

As to them being a priori judgments, of course they are - that is the whole point. They are society's way of saying some things deserve a certain amount of punishment regardless of the particulars of the case.

For example, I don't care if the perpetrator is poor or abused or was drunk or on drugs, the act of molesting a child deserves a harsh punishment. Doing so for a second time shows that the original punishment was not enough to stop this person from offending and thus to protect other children (who inevitably will be abused by this person) they need to be seperated from society permanently.

Tell me, what mitigating factors do you think would make a case of child molestation less serious than any other? If there are none, then surely there should be a minimum for ALL cases?

Finally, what is the minimum amount of punishment that should be given to child molestors? Is there any combination of factors that would cause you to say the person should be set free on probation for instance?

Do you think it would be justice that a child molestor should serve less time in prison than a shoplifter becuase there was a group of extenuating circumstances that made this particular case of child molestation less serious than another case involving shoplifting?

If not, then you are not really against minimums, just against the harshness of this particular minimum.

[TahitiNut]

35. Well, you're merely adding sophistries and amphiboly ...

... to a growing platoon of stawmen. You bring nothing novel or insightful. It appears to me you're merely wallowing in tiresomely fallacious argumentation rather than seeking a broader or more in-depth comprehension of another perspective. In each reply, you've ignored what I've addressed and trotted out hackneyed, pretentious rhetoric. For example, where I use the term 'government' in an objective fashion (i.e. in reference to legislative and judicial functions), you resort to the overly expansive term 'society'. That's just sophomoric hot air. As are the repeated attempts to reframe what you pretend to see I mean or think. (Perhaps your thinking could be of higher quality if you spent less time pretending to do that of others? :shrug: ) I apologize for helping waste our time when our objectives in 'discussion' seem to be so widely differing. :hi:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

36. Ask a simple question... get a bullshit evasive answer.

Here, let me make it easier:

Do you support maximum sentences?

If so, what is the difference between maximum and minimum sentences?

Is that too hard to answer?

You can try to insult me as much as you want, but unless you can put up an actual argument as to WHY minimum sentences shouldn't be mandated, you are still failing to prove your point.

I am not trying to pretend I know what you are thinking, I am anticipating possible arguments that you may make and presenting a counter argument in order to save time. We could go through this one question and argument at a time if you want (like above) but that merely drags out this argument uneccesarily in the current medium.

If you disagree with any of those counter arguments, you are more than free to present your argument. But you haven't. You wasted an entire post for no good reason other to say "I am right and you don't know what you're talking about". Prove it!

You talk about my refering to "society". Well, society is the word used to describe an entire grouping of people - not just the government or the courts, but ALL people, which is what I was talking about - ALL people having a say in what is or is not tolerated, and how breaches of that tolerance should be punished.

You can call it sophomoric if you want, but that does NOTHING to further your argument. What are legislative and judicial functions if not the expression of society's will? We have a legislature to define laws, and a judiciary to enforce them, but the laws themselves are the rules by which society operates. You just can't seperate them out.

Finally, your last sentence read to me as a "surrender". It is like you are saying - I havn't got an argument as to why I believe what I do, so I shall just beg to differ. Fine, if that is what you want, but don't try and pretend it is because you are more knowledgable or have presented a better argument. You aren't, and you haven't.

[sangh0]

37. More sophistry

If you any interest in a reasonable discussion, your post would take into account the fact that the Constitution (you remember that, don't you) prohibits punishments that are not commensurate with the crime. IOW, the Constitution places limits on criminal punishment. If you have a problem with maximum sentences, then you have a problem with the Constitution, a problem I would characterize as one of ignorance.

what is the difference between maximum and minimum sentences?

Simple. One is Consitutionally required, while the other is not. Obviously, The Framers (you remember them, don't you) thought one was important enough to put into the Constitution.

But you must know better than them.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

38. What the hell are you on about?

Are you suggesting I am against maximum sentences? If so, you could not be more wrong, and it calls into question whether or not you even read my posts!

So are you saying that a lack of constitutional requirement means that it is unconstitutional to create minimum sentences?

I mean I understand that there is a constitutional requirement that there be upper limits to punishments, but is there a constitutional requirement that there be NO lower limit?

In fact, depending on the exact wording, you could say that there is a constitutional requirement for minimum sentences too - in other words it may prohibit punishments that are too light. I would have to see the exact wording, but "prohibits punishments that are not commensurate with the crime" certainly means that to me.

It seems you jumped into this sub-thread merely to attack me, without even reading my arguments. I know we have tangled in recent threads, but please at least READ my posts before you attack them and me in such a ridiculous fashion.

[sangh0]

39. This

Are you suggesting I am against maximum sentences?

No I'm not, which explains why I said nothing about your opinion of maximum sentences

So are you saying that a lack of constitutional requirement means that it is unconstitutional to create minimum sentences?

No I'm not, which explains why I did not say that. You asked for the difference between minimums and maximums, so I pointed out that the Constitution places maximums on sentences with it's requirement that punishments be commensurate with the crime.

In fact, depending on the exact wording, you could say that there is a constitutional requirement for minimum sentences too

Not true. The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment" which has been interpreted, by SCOTUS, to mean that excessive sentences are prohibited. The Constitution says nothing about prohibiting lenient sentences.

I have read your posts in this thread, and it seems to me that your argument, asserting an equivalency between minimums and maximums, is flawed because it does not take into account the principle that are embodied in our Constitution, which places protections for the innocent far above the need to protect citizens from crime.

And just to make sure I'm clear on this, I'll re-phrase my point:

There is a great difference between mandatory minimum sentences and mandatory maximum sentences. One is embodied in the Constitution, and one is not.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

40. The INNOCENT???

I have read your posts in this thread, and it seems to me that your argument, asserting an equivalency between minimums and maximums, is flawed because it does not take into account the principle that are embodied in our Constitution, which places protections for the innocent far above the need to protect citizens from crime.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't sentences handed out to the GUILTY?

So how does reducing the sentences for the GUILTY protect the INNOCENT?

If you are talking about wrongfully convicted people, then the length of the sentence is irrelevant - after all a single day spent in prison when the person is innocent IS WRONG. Add to that the fact that there are APPEALS processes which are designed to ensure the innocent are not convicted wrongfully, and your argument makes NO sense.

If you are complaining about the number of INNOCENT people who are imprisoned, then you should be campaigning to have changes to the way people are found guilty, not how they are punished once they are found guilty.

Yet, you try to make out that I don't know what I am talking about! Bah!

[Dookus]

28. Eloriel...

that's over the top.

I haven't heard anybody here "support" child molestors.

It *IS* possible to support the Bill of Rights as it applies to ALL accused (terrorists, child molestors, rapists, thieves, embezzlers, etc.) without supporting those crimes.

[Sweetpea]

27. Whatever you think the Kerryites are trying to do.....

The Bushites are going to do times 1000.....It is good to take a hard look at the position of our leaders so that we can support them through this battle.

[dsc]

30. On the issue of bail and the constitution

I read this thread way out of order due to having been linked here. So I would have to go hunting for the specific post and don't feel like doing so. It was stated a couple of times on here that automaticly denying bail for certain crimes is uncostitutional. That just isn't true. Ohio passed a Constitutional amendment doing exactly that for capital crimes and other murders. I voted against the thing but it passed anyway and was upheld in both federal district (Cleveland) and circuit (Cincy) courts. I am not saying I agree with the bill but on this one specific thing that poster is just plain wrong.