From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

George J. Sherwood wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>
>
>
>>Gosh no ours out mired right now in a "Cash for Titles"
scandal. However
>>nothing is "proven" & yet oddly our pols seem to think that the
>>appearance of corrpution is serious even where this is only smoke & no
>>fire yet proven.
>>
>
> As here, as I said before why do you think he is gone?
>


Same reason why the UK police are asking quesiton of labour politicians.

>
>>Are you in favour of Padilla being banged up w/o charge, term or any of
>>the other things the English at least fought for? How about seizing
>>people off the streets of Italy or Germany? You seem to think that is OK
>>even without proof being put in front of a court.
>
>
> You said I was in favor of torture, I am not and have never said such a
> thing.  You have seen that Padilla was banged up?  I haven't.  Padilla got
> his day in court and was found guilty.  I don't know any of the details of
> the seizing, what really happened and under what rules.
>

Huh? I thought you had laws along ye olde enlishe law such as "You
arrest someone & you have a period of time in which to charge them or
let them go. If you charge them then they leave the jurisdiction of their
accusers & are placed into the jurisdiction of an independant 3'rd
party often called a "judiciary"". You know std stuff wot
evolved from a meeting up on Runnymede.

So remind me, from the moment someone said "oy Padilla stop right
there" till someone said "these are the charges your honour"
 what was the timeframe?



>
>>
>>>>In fact the executive banging up pols for an indeterminate term w/o
>>>>trial, proof or due process is something many would welcome
but on the
>>>>off chance you think that's a bit harsh (& possibly
even against the
>>>>legal & moral traditions of your country) then
extending due process etc
>>>>to accused terrorists would be second best.
>>>
>>>Terrorist are being treated IAW with the accords that apply to them.
>>
>>
>>Chuckle & So are pols such as Mr Delay. He lived via unproven
>>allegations & now he's ying by them. Persoanally I'd love to see the
>>charges proven in a court & then a damn great prison sentence n a high
>>security pen.
>
>
> If he is found guilty, then I hope so also.  I had a tremendous amount of
> respect for Duke Cunnignham, but I am happy to see him sit in jail for
> along term.
>

Oh I hope he's waterboarded. After all he's kewl with it & according to this:

""According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves
to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before
caving in. "

it'll be quick & thus efficient & thus save the taxpayer a bundle
& I thought he was in favour of keeping the cost of government down....

>
>
>>Pols set the rules for the rest of us. Thus they have to aspire to a
>>higher std than the rest of us. Heck Clinton was crippled by unfounded
>>allegations & a small affair with a woman. I take it you objected just
>>as much then even though this is much more serious.
>
>
> As is usually, it wasn't the affair that got Clinton in trouble.  It is
> perjury.
>

Shrug. All pols, perjure it's their job. You have to promise everything to
everyone while knowing that's impossible.

Like I said above, he's stated how he's kewl with waterboarding &
physical stress as a way of obtaining info & how he's in favour of
lowering the cost of gov etc so heck saying no to being strapped down by
some burly civilian gov employees would be perjury as well right?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5