quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

so any updates on this trial or has american add got us off onto the next sky is falling?

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

so any updates on this trial or has american add got us off onto the next sky is falling?

Ron

Actually, I heard on the radio (sorry no link at present) that there is a congressional effort to pass legislation barring the trial of terrorists in civilian courts. Someone may want to look that up.

I also wanted to point out an interesting dichotomy. The conservatives say that these terrorists should be treated as military prisoners not only because of what they did but why they did it. On the other hand, these same conservatives oppose hate crime legislation of the type that would make, say, ten drunken straight guys beating a gay man into a coma for being a fag, a federal offense because they say that it's the act, not the motivation that should be dealt with. I love flexibility.

quote:

And I love interesting but false dichotomies. Terrorists TELL you why they did it. Hate crimes are more often than not charged against people based on ASSUMPTIONS as to their motivation. That is the only objection that Ive heard anyone have to hate crime prosecutions.
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

And I love interesting but false dichotomies. Terrorists TELL you why they did it. Hate crimes are more often than not charged against people based on ASSUMPTIONS as to their motivation. That is the only objection that Ive heard anyone have to hate crime prosecutions.
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Of course. Just like that guy who beat up to a black guy after yelling for him to get out of his neighborhood and calling him a nigger explained "I use the term "nigger" as a friendly term. Who could tell?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

so any updates on this trial or has american add got us off onto the next sky is falling?

Ron

Actually, I heard on the radio (sorry no link at present) that there is a congressional effort to pass legislation barring the trial of terrorists in civilian courts. Someone may want to look that up.

I also wanted to point out an interesting dichotomy. The conservatives say that these terrorists should be treated as military prisoners not only because of what they did but why they did it. On the other hand, these same conservatives oppose hate crime legislation of the type that would make, say, ten drunken straight guys beating a gay man into a coma for being a fag, a federal offense because they say that it's the act, not the motivation that should be dealt with. I love flexibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

spinner strawman number 674

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

spinner strawman number 674

Not so. You seem to think that hate crimes are unprovable to the point where they should not be made a special category. I disagree. Hate crimes are usually rather provable for a number of reasons. Also, by using your logic, if a terrorist denies the act or doesn't give a reason for it, he should be treated differently by the law than if he does give his reasons.  Doesn't seem very logical to me.

Oh..and it's not "strawman", w. It's reduction to the absurd. Let's keep the tactics of debate somewhat clear.

quote:

Your clarity must be blurred from spinning so much. It was a strawman because it misrepresented what I said.

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Your clarity must be blurred from spinning so much. It was a strawman because it misrepresented what I said.

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

The please illuminate me. Did you not say, and I quote directly, "Terrorists TELL you why they did it. Hate crimes are more often than not charged against people based on ASSUMPTIONS as to their motivation."

I will not even suggest you believe that hate crimes don't exist. I will ask directly if it is your opinion that such hate crimes cannot be investigated as such and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt? I also ask directly if you believe only a confession of motivation can prove motivation? Please make your position clear on this matter.

quote:

Yes, and I said nothing about hate crime prosecution being objectionable when the motivation is stated, as in your strawman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

quote:

Yes, and I said nothing about hate crime prosecution being objectionable when the motivation is stated, as in your strawman.

Then why is it not an interesting dichotomy when some conservatives speak out on treating terrorists differently because of the motivation of their attacks while deriding the idea of hate crimes (specifically against homosexuals) on the same basis?

Or could it be that the motivation is not the key to their objections at all? Let's go to some quotes:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/29/hate-crimes-hysteria/

You know, maybe you're right. The idea of both terrorism and stopping hate crimes against gay people might well not be any deviation from these conservative's agendas. My mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Sigggh. Are you drinking today or something? Once again, they are not derided on the same basis.
Hate crime prosectution is derided when it is based on assumptions of motive, not statements of motive.