Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federale's Immigrant Of The Day: Rene Orozco

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Federale's Immigrant Of The Day: Rene Orozco

    Another one bites the dust.

  • #2
    Another one bites the dust.

    Comment


    • #3
      another "bolsa de mierda"...hey Fredy, why don't you invite this cerveza-swiller to live with you?

      Comment


      • #4
        The story goes in part, thus:

        "... Metro said it identified several people who allege Orozco accepted money from them to assist with “citizenship and criminal defense issues” and then failed to deliver any assistance.

        The majority of those who lodged complaints are undocumented or are facing other citizenship issues, police said. ... Police said the investigation is ongoing. ..."
        (emphasis added)

        I can't resist the temptation to repeat that line: "The majority of those who lodged complaints are undocumented..." Nothing, there's just that silly ring to it.

        I'm not in anyway meaning to cuddle anyone engaging in any form of criminal conduct. No. I mean, no way. If this man's really guilty of the offenses as alleged, then count me in to want to have him serve his time and kicked out of here for good.

        But, hey, we're a nation of laws, remember? The defendant, regardless of personal circumstances, is afforded the doctrine to be presumed innocent until proven guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt.' (See Taylor v. Kentucky).

        And it applies to all, not selectively, even if one's name happens to be distinctly sounding of that of a certain group. Or even otherwise. No more, no less.

        Comment


        • #5
          Correct RN. That's what America stands for. Justice for all, not when it's convenient not to as Bush attempted to do with the Gitmo lot by trying to side-step the Constitution (and failed).
          "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

          Comment


          • #6
            What? Sort of how Roosevelt sidestepped the Constitution with the German terrorist and war criminal cases?

            Comment


            • #7
              You mean FDR. But G.W. Bush also did so many times. Just as how Lincoln and Wilson did during their terms. But only when the national interests warranted it. The Founding Fathers knew this when they formulated the American system. When confronted with major crisis such as one with an unfamiliar nature, the populace expect their President to take charge, to assume stern leadership, and do whatever is necessary.

              This is spelled out in Federalist No. 70, quote-unquote: that the essential nature of the chief executive is his "energy," which "is a leading [element] in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is no less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy."

              Did I answer your question? Ok, good, next...

              Comment


              • #8
                So, you are saying the trials of the German sabateurs and terrorists were illegal and unconstitutional?

                And the post war Nuremburg and other war crimes trials were also unconstitutional?

                Do you own it you Nazi sympathizer?

                Comment


                • #9
                  You want me to, yet I didn't say that, and that's off topic.

                  Nuremberg and the rest as illegal trials? The trials violated which laws to make them illegal? Unconstitutional subverting whose constitution? May not be so, but controversial. Why? The indictments were based on ex post facto laws and not in deference to tu quoque defense. Nothing but 'victor's justice' meted out.

                  Anyway, all in all war is the most futile of human inventions where at the end there are neither victors nor vanquished - but all bottomline non-winners. It's the most barbaric way to settle disputes, whoever wages it or whether it be in defiance or in retaliation, in a supposedly civilized world.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    OK, we now have it on record that RN disagrees with the Supreme Court on Ex Parte Quirin and the Nuremburg Decision.

                    I guess that makes RN a Nazi sympathizer since the SC has spoken on those issues to the detriment of the Nazis.

                    And, no, the trial and execution of the German and German American sabateurs was not an ex post facto law.

                    So RN, did six million really die? Are you also denying the Holocaust?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Why did I call it off topic in the first place? That's because one, I was referring to the Nuremberg Trials in Germany before the International Military Tribunals (1945 - 1946), and two, you twisted it to refer to Ex parte Quirin case (1942) on US soil, whereas the key phrase is "trials in the post war era."

                      Obviously, you wanted me to bait into saying what you want me to say and what you wanted me to accept. But this would disappoint you because you're so transparent and I'll make you fail on both counts.

                      I maintain my original stand that this is off topic, and that all wars are an exercise in futility, and that it would take a little more than your GOP-inclined way of debating to score your first solitary point with me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You said military trials of terrorists and American terrorists was unconstitutional. FDR tried American citizens by military tribunal for sabatoge. You just didn't like getting called out for the idiot you are.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          That's what you're only good at when confronted head-on in a logical debate. To name-call and be a hardcore nonsense GOP as you are.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by federale86:
                            You said military trials of terrorists and American terrorists was unconstitutional. FDR tried American citizens by military tribunal for sabatoge. You just didn't like getting called out for the idiot you are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                            Where did I say so? Show me where please, jokash.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And it applies to all, not selectively, even if one's name happens to be distinctly sounding of that of a certain group. Or even otherwise. No more, no less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                              When you say "selectively" you are refering to Bush and military tribunals.

                              Ex Parte Quirin refers to the authority of the United States to try enemy combatants for war crimes regardless of citizenship and the decisions cannot be reviewed by either the SC or a Article III court.

                              Ex Parte Quirin.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X