[jdonn]

Either Winston is completely wrong, or the defense lawyers were incompetent idiots who tried to use a non-defense. I don't know which it is.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on May 31 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

Either Winston is completely wrong, or the defense lawyers were incompetent idiots who tried to use a non-defense. I don't know which it is.

I agree totally with your and/or approach to logic. We all are aware that the reporters for the New York Times are infallible, attorneys never introduce biased, leading testimony in trials, and judges never instruct jurors on the law. Therefore, your conclusion once again is dead-on accurate.

Edited: LoL. I have a hard time with your logical consistency? What is the evidence for this either/or conclusion being the only possible outcomes?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on May 31 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 31 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

Either Winston is completely wrong, or the defense lawyers were incompetent idiots who tried to use a non-defense. I don't know which it is.

I agree totally with your and/or approach to logic. We all are aware that the reporters for the New York Times are infallible, attorneys never introduce biased, leading testimony in trials, and judges never instruct jurors on the law. Therefore, your conclusion once again is dead-on accurate.

Actually you're quite right. The reporters lied to us should have been my third option, I carelessly forgot. However I will naively assume the judge is not to blame.

You know I wasn't trying to sarcastically imply you must be wrong. The defense (or media) could easily be idiots or liars, I don't discount that. My comment was completely genuine in that I considered both possibilities quite possible, and your reply really quite rude.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on May 31 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 31 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 31 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

Either Winston is completely wrong, or the defense lawyers were incompetent idiots who tried to use a non-defense. I don't know which it is.

I agree totally with your and/or approach to logic. We all are aware that the reporters for the New York Times are infallible, attorneys never introduce biased, leading testimony in trials, and judges never instruct jurors on the law. Therefore, your conclusion once again is dead-on accurate.

Actually you're quite right. The reporters lied to us should have been my third option, I carelessly forgot. However I will naively assume the judge is not to blame.

You know I wasn't trying to sarcastically imply you must be wrong. The defense (or media) could easily be idiots or liars, I don't discount that. My comment was completely genuine in that I considered both possibilities quite possible, and your reply really quite rude.

You made a direct correlation between my viewpoint and the intelligence of the defense attorneys - when one has nothing to do with the other.

For all you know, I could be an idiot AND the defense attorneys could be idiots, too.

[jdonn]

I don't think you know what the cord "correlation" means.

[mike777]

Winston continues to raise excellent issues regarding treating the War on Terror as a War or a criminal matter. This thread may be the best so far.


"Somehow, this legal victory in the war on terror doesn't make me feel the least bit safer."

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jun 1 2009, 12:21 AM, said:

I don't think you know what the cord "correlation" means.

Sure I do. Correlation grows in the sea next to islands but only when there is some kind of connection between the two.

[Al_U_Card]

The movements of ice-dancing pairs correlate well.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on May 31 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

Me? I guess I am either naive or stupid - I happen to believe that increasing the educational levels and social welfare programs of Palestinians would go a long way toward deescalating the hostilities.

I believe the fear is that a Hamas-supported educational system will be biased, and not result in your hoped-for long-term effect. As the article said, they're believed to "help spread its ideology and recruit supporters." It's not just the 3 R's.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on May 31 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

The jury was not asked to make a decision concerning support of terrorism - the law is already clear that Hamas is deemed a terrorist organization - and that is the entire point of contention with that post that I have now, have had before, and once again have restated.

How relevant is the defense's point that Hamas was NOT deemed a terrorist organization at the time that the Foundation was supporting it? Does the conviction imply that even though they weren't officially on the terrorist list at the time, the Foundation presumably knew that they were terrorists and should not have supported them?

[helene_t]

barmar, on Jun 2 2009, 06:29 AM, said:

I believe the fear is that a Hamas-supported educational system will be biased, and not result in your hoped-for long-term effect.  As the article said, they're believed to "help spread its ideology and recruit supporters."  It's not just the 3 R's.

It probably will be biased. But is there a law against supporting biased school? I suppose it is allowed (probably even tax deductible) to support religious schools that spread the ideology of abortion-clinic-bombers and are used by abortion-clinic-bombers to recruit supporters. Now if such a school not only spread the ideology but actively promoted terrorists, I would expect those running the school to face charges. But would everyone who had donated money to such a school risk 15 years in jail?

[mike777]

"charges ranging from supporting a terrorist organisation "



1) When one hears terrorist organization one thinks of an EVIL mass killing organization similiar to Hilter,Mao and Stalin. Of course they built schools and hospitals.


2) OTOH hand one hears RESISTANCE movement where flying killer robots controlled by a network of machines in the sky are trying to terminate the movement composed of women and teenagers, all by a cruel empire.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I believe the fear is that a Hamas-supported educational system will be biased, and not result in your hoped-for long-term effect. As the article said, they're believed to "help spread its ideology and recruit supporters." It's not just the 3 R's

I wonder how closely any of us (myself included) reads the news these days and challenges the findings of the reporters.

What does believed to "help spread ideology and recruit supporters" mean when used in connection with Hamas? Believed, as in believed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Who is doing the believing - the CIA...? the Pentagon....Israel?

We should all be challenging our news reporting to do better than this repetition of vague accusations from no mentionable source.

[mike777]

"We should all be challenging our news reporting to do better than this repetition of vague accusations from no mentionable source. "

As we watch them go bankrupt and etc.......'Chicago used to have 2 morning and 2 evening newspapers...now it has zero profitable ones. So much for those who hate the news to be profitable.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Jun 2 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

barmar, on Jun 2 2009, 06:29 AM, said:

I believe the fear is that a Hamas-supported educational system will be biased, and not result in your hoped-for long-term effect.  As the article said, they're believed to "help spread its ideology and recruit supporters."  It's not just the 3 R's.

It probably will be biased. But is there a law against supporting biased school? I suppose it is allowed (probably even tax deductible) to support religious schools that spread the ideology of abortion-clinic-bombers and are used by abortion-clinic-bombers to recruit supporters. Now if such a school not only spread the ideology but actively promoted terrorists, I would expect those running the school to face charges. But would everyone who had donated money to such a school risk 15 years in jail?

If there's a law against supporting schools that teach abortion-clinic-bombing, like the law against supporting terrorist organizations, yes.

Whether such laws are GOOD laws is a different issue. It could be argued that these laws violate the 1st Amendment. On the other hand, the counterargument could be that they fall under the "shouting fire in a theatre" exception.

[helene_t]

barmar, on Jun 4 2009, 06:52 AM, said:

If there's a law against supporting schools that teach abortion-clinic-bombing, like the law against supporting terrorist organizations, yes.

My point is that abortion clinic bombers are terrorists so the analogy is apt, assuming that they were convicted because the schools facilitated terrorism.

In other words, I don't think the argument that the schools promoted Hamas ideology and provided a network from which terrorists can be recruited, is sufficient to make it a crime to support the schools. Now the argument that the schools are "controlled" by Hamas might be, depending on what "controlled" means. If the schools are branches of Hamas, then I suppose supporting them counts as supporting a terrorist organization, even if the schools themselves were not involved in terrorism.

[mike777]

Money is fungible. It is difficult if not impossible to follow which money goes to Stalins schools or Stalins killing machine or if you prefer which money goes to educate kids of the resistance or to young fighters in the resistance trying to overthrow an evil empire.

When it comes to Hamas it is very difficult to seperate innocent civilians who support Hamas from the noninnocent branch of Hamas.

For example it can be difficult to seperate innocent Americans who support the war in Afghanistan from those that are not innocent.

The Brits had a terrible time only bombing guilty Germans and not innocent Germans in WWII.