Actually, in both USA and in every other country it is precisely the job of judges to judge who is guilty or not.
Actually, in the USA, the suspect needs to be indicted by a Grand Jury for a specific offense and prosecuted before a judge and jury of his peers, with his full rights as a citizen in play... For the most part, a trial judge here sits mainly to preside over the adversarial trial and see to it that the niceties of the law are followed by both the prosecution and the defense. (It's an Anglo-Saxon thing.) The jury determines matters of fact, and guilt or innocence.
Was the U.S.S.R (e.g., Russia) wrong to pursue the destruction of Nazi Germany in WWII? Were the Allies wrong to do so? Should lawyers and accountants have drawn up tote-sheets to determine what was acceptable? Read General Sherman's words again, please. He understood. You don't. Learn from him. (You could read Clausewitz too. And others. But you won't. Bureaucrats only read memos... Oh, and politicians have their staff read white papers!) When war is declared, victory is the objective. If no just peace can be accepted by your adversary, victory is the only possible objective, with them vanquished. Hamas has as its objective the destruction of Israel. What terms might make Israel accept such an outcome? I'd say, defeat... Well, it's been tried — every now and then. You don't like how it turned out? Re-write history, like Orwell predicted.
You are a hyper-partisan QAnon Trumpite of the alt-facts gang. Is this specific enough? Need more details?
Yeah. One example or two... But you don't have them: For you, name-calling and hand-waving are sufficient!
Since you can't or won't be bothered to read and understand what I write, you rely on your absurd sufficiency, much like the four Colorado Supreme Court Justices recently: We know he's guilty, so we treat him so! (Might work in other countries; it's not supposed to in the U.S.)
A grossly misguided one, when war has been declared. You are not just naive, you are perversely so. Israel has been repeatedly attacked... It has attempted repeatedly to accept a "two-state" solution. But how, I ask you, does one accept a neighbor who openly calls for your destruction, and works tirelessly toward that end? You (perhaps snidely) ignore the Islamist nature of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, itself. I wouldn't be surprised...
I've been a Zionist since 1967. Admittedly, on little information — then. I've learned much, of history and geopolitics since. I remain a Zionist: I accept the nation of Israel as the home of the Jews. Zebulon Vance was an obscure American politician... Just because you find some of his published works' words useful for your ad hominems, I should give them credence? Your mentions of him are spurious. But that's what you do best!
I'm quite aware that Israel is a U.S. ally — for reasons that you will never understand. You're still too much under the influence of your Soviet education, a love-hate relationship that will forever hamper your intellect.
Despite the likelihood that CoV-2 was a lab experiment let loose and not a bio-weapon deployed, it was known quickly what its virulence was... And how to react, in the short term. Instead, a virtual panic ensued — for the benefit of the Bio-War Gamers?
the leading Republican presidential candidate Trump who is at the same time election head-fraudster and insurrection arch-conspirator. You always miss the point in every topic every single time.
You mean, I can't enter into the Bizarro-world inhabited by one ersi?
I'm a hypocrite? Your logic is lapsing: In what (try to be specific!) am I hypocritical? You mean your ad hominem fluffery has to be accepted, otherwise you lose your case? Yeah. I know. Logic ain't your strong suit.
Oh, well. I probably must: Gorsuch in Bostock played a word game with "sex" and "gender". and thus derived an interpretation of the law that Congress had repeatedly refused to accept. Your contention was, basically, that the age-old procedures of Common Law countenanced this ignored the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is not a Common Law court... You commended him for this. I derided him for it.
But -of course- because Gorsuch has been described as "Conservative" and something he said may support an ultra-liberal (for ersi, any anti Trump) stance, I must be a hypocrite! His typical as hominem! (He still uses and mis-uses Aristotle's logic — syllogisms, which are too complicated for him to understand. (W.V.O. Quine published an axiomatization of such... Again, of course, he remains unaware.[1] )
p.s., ersi: In the case cited Hassan was not born in the U.S. or any of its territories... The Constitution's enumeration of qualifications decided the case. Likewise, the 14th Amendment required Congress to pass legislation to enforce the pertinent portion of Section 3... They did: 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Oddly enough, Donald J. Trump has not been charged with such crime, let alone convicted! But four Colorado Supreme Court Justices -perhaps with the connivance of one of their inferior courts (that's not passing the buck, is it? )- decided, without due process, that he was guilty.
Folks in other countries may readily accept such shenanigans. Americans tend to get a little testy, when their basic rights are abrogated...
1 He could easily avoid his mistakes, if he'd learn some modern techniques... ↵
Since when is war against an enemy whose stated purpose is your destruction a "tit-for-tat" affair, one death at a time? Be that as it may, you don't "generously assume" anything — it's not in your nature! Israel's "ruthlessness" -as you term it- is a rational acceptance of the realities of war.[1] This war is not a Marquess of Queensberry boxing match: It is -for Israel- a war of survival. You of course don't care.
You'll likewise not care when Taiwan is "reunified"... (I don't recall you being upset at what happened when Great Britain ceded Hong Kong back to China...)
One wonders: How about Estonia?
1 "Know your enemy" being one of the most important tasks in conducting a successful campaign, Israel must react to what Hamas is. The whole world knows both the duplicity of which Hamas is capable and the utter disregard they have for Palestinians...let alone others↵
The methods and policies deployed in the West are the same as were already in use in Far East, that is less touching, more cleaning of hands, masks and vaccines. All these methods have a proven effect with very contagious air-borne viruses, but are far from fully reliable - because it's a very contagious air-borne virus and people don't follow best practices for various reasons.
The "methods and policies deployed" turned out to be between futile and ruinous... You missed that? Oh, I forgot: You follow the party line! Take another jab and mask up. Do what's good for you, and don't believe your own eyes — politicians are the best arbiters of science because their motives are pure!
A man-made pandemic could be pretty nasty, but covid helped us prepare for future pandemics.
...only if we take the right lessons from what was an abysmal response in most of the Western World: Determine the threat, mitigate by protecting the most vulnerable, and let actual science proceed — to give us the best understanding possible...
I fear the worst lessons were learned: Ignore or obfuscate the the origin of the threat, impose next to useless societal and economically ruinous strictures, and stifle scientific communication so that only that which supports the strictures is communicated...
Even in the worst case scenario, though: Humanity will likely survive. Natural selection hasn't been obviated — only outlawed!
A simple question: Does the state of Israel have the right to exist?
And another, from American history:
Quote
“You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.” ― William T. Sherman
Let me help you out by beginning with an analogous situation: When Fort Sumpter was fired upon, and some states seceded from the U.S., President Lincoln had as his overriding goal the preservation of the Union; secondarily (and consequently) the ending of chattel slavery. I'm sure he thought long and hard about the ramifications. But he achieved his main goal. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, his victory at arms was only to lead to a long struggle with — human nature.
Here in the U.S., racism is primarily seen as against Negros (black folk). In Europe, that too occurs. But it pales in comparison to how people there see the Jew! It's amazing the justifications people put forward to support their prejudices...
So you'all don't misunderstand me: I think Israel should -indeed, must- destroy Hamas. And I'd like to see my nation return to a policy of containment-plus regarding the Mullahs' Iran.
What Hamas did last week should have sparked a robust debate about -oh, I don't know- the rules of war, the role of Antisemitism, and the resurgence of the barbarian. I guess people have other things on their minds...
Europe (I assume most here are European) has other things on its mind. But its preoccupations will likely lead to a deepening of its morass. Immigration and assimilation are in constant conflict, and its policies are incoherent.
I'm sorry to say, such is very much the same in my nation; and our choices of leadership are severely constrained...
But — has no one here anything to say? No information to relay, no insights to offer, no spleen to vent?
Is Europe irrelevant? Is that recognition so prevalent that mum's the word?
Why, I'd ask, as an American, should I care about European matters?
I know it is very hard for you, but try to understand: This is not about you. It is about the country called USA. USA does its own thing without asking you.
Your attitude is quite understandable: You think no factions of the U.S. electorate have consequential effects on U.S. policy, let alone determinative effects... That's how all good Europeans think — or else you fear some faction of the electorate may actually succeed in retrieving the republic from the current mess. You might be wrong! ——————————————————— What I think most confuses your analyses of U.S. politics is your failure to recognize the impact of the American Left's Maoist bent; and how badly that will affect the polity.
By now Republicans have devolved into Trumpites whose plan is to dissolve Nato. This is not what I'd call a better chance.
As many in my country would ask, What is the purpose of NATO? Was it not to defend Europe from the Soviet Union?
With the Soviet Union dissolved, Europe might resume its fascination and repugnance with Russia... But Europe is somehow incapable of either treating honestly with Russia or defending itself from an aggressive (and irredentist) Russia? Hence NATO (i.e., the U.S.) must support (finance) the frustration of Russia's aims.
ersi, the United States has long preferred a neutrality regarding the perennial squabbles of Europe. (Those between the East and the West are of more recent origin, and compelling; but the ideology of Communism has so muddled the waters that what lies beneath the surface does not appear -clearly- to anyone.) Why, I'd ask, as an American, should I care about European matters?
As Ed Whelan noted in his most recent "Confirmation Tales" column:
Quote
If you ever wonder why a senator seems ill-prepared for a confirmation hearing, just remember that even a very talented teacher can do only so much for some students.
You presume that the U.S. is a pupil, to be taught — but most Americans (rightly) assume they've graduated to "free agent" status.
Europe can do what it wants. Russia can do what it wants. So, too, can China. But -while the Leftists decry it- the United States still says "Don't Tread on Me!"
Biden's second term is irrelevant. Right now the most relevant event is that the House of Reps has no speaker. All aid to Ukraine needs to be approved by the House, but this procedure has broken down now.
Due to this, the momentum of Nato support to Ukraine can be expected to rapidly diminish. There is nothing to be said of EU's support for Ukraine. It was only kept up in the wake of USA's support for Ukraine, to not look too bad, so with USA's support gone, the EU will get back to its ordinary strategic partnership with Russia.
Sometimes it really sucks to be a Eastern European... But what you call "Biden's second term" is not irrelevant: Here in the States, the consensus is coalescing around the likelihood that Ukraine's компромат of Joe Biden will be meaningless, since the Democ-rats will abandon ship -to various non-extradition countries- and (sort-a) Republicans will have an extended chance to (sort-a) regroup — that is, see if they can reestablish the Republic.
Some people here are quite upset with (former) Speaker McCarthy. (He's from my state, and I know he's been a "professional" politician for his entire adult life — a bad sign! But he's been reliable and steadfast: And what he just did, refusing to run again for Speaker, shows that he quite understands the Democrats!) But I'm not. He put the conservatives in Congress on point! They now have to deliver...
Of course, ersi, you want the U.S. to supply Ukraine funds and weapons (because you know the EU is feckless...), and you have legitimate fears of Russian aggression. Your hope that NATO membership means what most people thought it meant may be naive.
All I can say is that you have a better chance with American republicans than American democrats. And an America continually weakened is not in your best interest.
A somewhat dated (but Europeans tend to be behind the curve...) interview with an American general: https://youtu.be/iMUAaWK79Vc]https://youtu.be/iMUAaWK79Vc
(I'm especially interested in hearing ersi's reaction...
You don't remember that you brought Epstein up yesterday? Add a note about deficient memory in your little notebook so you can remind yourself every day.
:sigh: I'd thought you'd take the point of Rep. Plaskett attacking Robert Kennedy, Jr. via guilt by association then being herself attacked, in the same manner. One could simply let it go as typical hypocrisy. But since it was you who revived this old thread I'd thought you wanted to continue the topic... But it turned out, you merely missed our arguments! :)
The shift to Guilt by Association can be made to fit:
One of the prominent points made against Kennedy is that he -by mentioning the results of a certain National Institutes of Health-funded study, was that he was an antisemite; because the study concluded that blacks and Caucasians were most affected by Covid-19, and Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews the least, QED.[1]
I, myself, don't fault Plaskett for seeking and accepting political donations from Epstein. (Many Democrats did... Going back at least as far as Bill Clinton's Presidency.) And I certainly wouldn't have expected her to appreciate either irony or hypocrisy — not since I've heard her speak, and try to read her own words! (Of course, you can quibble: She probably didn't write the statement she read into the record. :) I fault her for her perfidy: She both swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and to follow the rules of the House.
Was that due to an allegiance to a higher purpose? (I.e., Democratic Party talking points? Black Consciousness, suitably raised?) Or was it merely the result of racial characteristics over which she has no control? I'd argue it was allegiance.
Or maybe she has just been hanging out with the wrong sort of people... :)
(Feel free to go back to, say, this controversy. :)
1 It was also suggested that Kennedy's "dangerous" racist charge endangered Americans of Chinese descent. (Failing, of course, to mention that almost all incidents of such assaults were perpetrated by blacks! But that's -as they say- "another story". :)↵
When the association is close enough, then the implication of guilt is solid. For example when you work for a mafia boss, then that association by itself is guilt.
Absent a prohibition imposed on association as a condition of parole, working for a Mafia boss is not illegal... Your reasoning is deficient. But you know that, surely?!
But I do not expect a doofus who did not notice the worldwide televised insurrection to acknowledge any facts that are subtler, untelevised.
I'm well used to your expectations! You saw an insurrection, I saw a riot. I wasn't glued to the television, like some. But I will add that "worldwide televised" is an apt modification of the bald assertion. I'd add "scripted" — which was why the second impeachment of Trump fizzled: Pelosi and Bowser both rejected additional security; and to keep them (their reasons) safe from examination under oath the House prosecutors decided to forgo witnesses entirely. I'm sure some found the heavily produced docu-drama they screened compelling. But you can't cross-examine a "based on real events" production. (As you're likely unaware, I'll remind you: An impeachment trial offers all the usual rights to the defendant — whether you like it or not.) So, as evidence, it was akin to hearsay.
BTW: Your definition of "doofus" must perforce distill to "doesn't accept your half-baked logic". (Glad to see you enlarging your vocabulary! Sorry to see you apply your usual slipshod standards.)
It will be interesting to see the cases revolving around the "fake electors" trope play out. (Perhaps Jack Smith can return to the Hague? )
Oh, and politicians have their staff read white papers!)