PDA

View Full Version : kudos to oklahoma for launching a preemptive strike



david gibson
11-03-2010, 02:02 PM
http://www.newsok.com/article/feed/208677

Franco
11-03-2010, 02:27 PM
Oklahoma better watchout, they might end up with a shortage of covenient store workers;-)

Great move on thier part and sure to keep the Muslim population at a minimum in their state.

cotts135
11-03-2010, 03:26 PM
Definitely one of the most stupid things I have seen in awhile. This is just another politician taking advantage of the ignorant and injecting fear into people with some sensibilities in order to get a name for themselves.
Do you really think there is any possibility of Sharia law being the law of this land?

BonMallari
11-03-2010, 03:50 PM
Definitely one of the most stupid things I have seen in awhile. This is just another politician taking advantage of the ignorant and injecting fear into people with some sensibilities in order to get a name for themselves.
Do you really think there is any possibility of Sharia law being the law of this land?


when you have SCOTUS like Ginsburg citing international law as a precedent in determining cases, I think it was a step in the right direction...look at this scenario, what if a defendant wished to be prosecuted under sharia law instead of US law and then later claims his rights were violated..what then

Hew
11-03-2010, 04:00 PM
Definitely one of the most stupid things I have seen in awhile. This is just another politician taking advantage of the ignorant and injecting fear into people with some sensibilities in order to get a name for themselves. LOL. How is it that you democrats are always so much smarter than the rest of us rubes and hayseeds?

Do you really think there is any possibility of Sharia law being the law of this land? The measure wasn't just about Sharia law but international law. The use of international law by Supreme Court justices (usually the left-leaning ones) has been a frequent topic of discussion over the past few years; including Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings. I'm sure you already knew that, though.



Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) asked Ms. Kagan on the second day of the hearings, “Should judges look to foreign law for ‘good ideas?’ ”

Ms. Kagan responded, “I am in favor of good ideas wherever we can get them.”

Senator Grassley later asked, “If you were confirmed, would you rely on or cite international foreign law when deciding cases?”

Ms. Kagan’s response: “It depends. There are some cases in which the citation of foreign law or international law might be appropriate.”

The nerve of those stupid Okie rubes to not want their state leaning on international laws like Elena Kagan.


...............

starjack
11-03-2010, 04:13 PM
Definitely one of the most stupid things I have seen in awhile. This is just another politician taking advantage of the ignorant and injecting fear into people with some sensibilities in order to get a name for themselves.
Do you really think there is any possibility of Sharia law being the law of this land?

yes i do. So stop it now before its to late.

david gibson
11-03-2010, 04:15 PM
all it takes is one muslim father committing an honor killing because his daughter became too "western" while living, egads - here in a western country. he gets a liberal lawyer and a liberal judge and voila - 10 yrs probation because it was within his islamic religious right.

dont laugh - the crime above actually happened - the man ran his own daughter over in his car - the punishment was fictional - the point is muslims here are taking sharia law into their own hands and with all the liberal leanings we see every day its easy to see the camels nose is close to the bottom of the tent.

camel prod zapping regards

gman0046
11-03-2010, 05:41 PM
Anyone see the video on the internet showing an 8 year old having his arm crushed by a car for stealing bread? Google it to view. What a great and benevolent religion the muslims have.

Buzz
11-03-2010, 05:51 PM
More fear mongering.

I'd hate to live in a world where there are boogie men in every shadow.

gman0046
11-03-2010, 06:08 PM
Buzz, maybe thats why you left Shat City (Detroit) for S.D.

david gibson
11-03-2010, 08:20 PM
More fear mongering.

I'd hate to live in a world where there are boogie men in every shadow.

you r-e-a-l-l-y g-o-t-t-a-b-e-j-o-k-i-n-g


but i know you aren't. sad. liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

Hew
11-03-2010, 11:28 PM
More fear mongering.

I'd hate to live in a world where there are boogie men in every shadow.
LMAO. Says the guy whose tuck-in ritual at night includes shining a light under his bed to see if anyone from Fox News is hiding.

I would have thought that the ass-whuppin' your side took yesterday might have humbled and chagrined ya'll a bit. Instead you guys come out swingin' with how stupid the electorate is. Funny, you didn't think they were so stupid two years ago. But ya'll keep going with the condescension strategery....it worked so well yesterday. :p

david gibson
11-04-2010, 04:28 AM
LMAO. Says the guy whose tuck-in ritual at night includes shining a light under his bed to see if anyone from Fox News is hiding.

I would have thought that the ass-whuppin' your side took yesterday might have humbled and chagrined ya'll a bit. Instead you guys come out swingin' with how stupid the electorate is. Funny, you didn't think they were so stupid two years ago. But ya'll keep going with the condescension strategery....it worked so well yesterday. :p

classic!!!!!!

cotts135
11-04-2010, 05:59 AM
Is there any scenario involving muslims that some of you here on this board are not afraid of. It seems that no matter what the situation is when it concerns muslims, the rest of us need to be very afraid no matter how unlikely or outlandish it is. Some of you get so worked up over some of these things that I think it is time for you to take a step back take a deep breath and realize that when we become fearful and change the way we do things the terrorists win. That's there aim and goal. There terrorizing some when things like this happen.
Sharia law is just not going to happen in this country.

YardleyLabs
11-04-2010, 07:03 AM
The should just have easily included Biblical law, since that like Sharia law and Talmudic law are illegal already under the first amendment. International law is another story. Under the terms of the US Constitution, international treaties ratified by the US have the full force of law and bind every state. That includes, for example, the Geneva Convention. It does not include the International Court since the US never ratified that treaty. The relevance of other legal systems has always been limited. However, it has been used in some cases, including the Supreme Court, where relevant to assessing common law principles (which have their origins in English and Norman law, and in evaluating legal standards that are defined relative to accepted standards of behavior (e.g. in the definition of "cruel and unusual" punishment under the 8th amendment).

road kill
11-04-2010, 07:13 AM
Is there any scenario involving muslims that some of you here on this board are not afraid of. It seems that no matter what the situation is when it concerns muslims, the rest of us need to be very afraid no matter how unlikely or outlandish it is. Some of you get so worked up over some of these things that I think it is time for you to take a step back take a deep breath and realize that when we become fearful and change the way we do things the terrorists win. That's there aim and goal. There terrorizing some when things like this happen.
Sharia law is just not going to happen in this country.


Is there any scenario with Muslims that concern you?




RK

YardleyLabs
11-04-2010, 07:30 AM
Is there any scenario with Muslims that concern you?




RK
Personally, I am afraid of ever living in a country where religion is granted a preferred status. That included Italy and France when Catholocism was the official state religion, Israel, where the highest court is a religious one, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and all other theocracies.

I find nothing preferable among religions -- one is as bad as the next. However, some religious people are clearly more "fundamentalist" in their beliefs than others, and fundamentalists make me especially fearful when they are in positions of government power or behind the wheels of cars.. I don't want my life in the hands of someone who thinks that death might offer a better reward than life.:rolleyes:

road kill
11-04-2010, 07:51 AM
Originally Posted by road kill
Is there any scenario with Muslims that concern you?




RK




Personally, I am afraid of ever living in a country where religion is granted a preferred status. That included Italy and France when Catholocism was the official state religion, Israel, where the highest court is a religious one, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and all other theocracies.

I find nothing preferable among religions -- one is as bad as the next. However, some religious people are clearly more "fundamentalist" in their beliefs than others, and fundamentalists make me especially fearful when they are in positions of government power or behind the wheels of cars.. I don't want my life in the hands of someone who thinks that death might offer a better reward than life.:rolleyes:

I am just curious, how does that address the question asked?



RK

david gibson
11-04-2010, 08:47 AM
Is there any scenario involving muslims that some of you here on this board are not afraid of. It seems that no matter what the situation is when it concerns muslims, the rest of us need to be very afraid no matter how unlikely or outlandish it is. Some of you get so worked up over some of these things that I think it is time for you to take a step back take a deep breath and realize that when we become fearful and change the way we do things the terrorists win. That's there aim and goal. There terrorizing some when things like this happen.
Sharia law is just not going to happen in this country.

oh no? think again - although i agree that full sharia law is unlikely, the presence of so many muslims who do practice it is having an effect on the justice system. OK is just trying to ensure that shouting "allah akbar" before you commit a crime doesnt automatically allow you to get a lighter sentence. in the case below, the justice system bent over to ensure it didnt look like christians were executing a muslim - afterall, we dont want to offend a muslim in that manner do we? so its already had an effect on some of us.

sharia law here? not likely in full, but legal considerations of leniency for killing under its guise? already happening my friend. again - kudos to OK for nipping it in the bud.

this is the proverbial camels nose under the tent:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/22/arizona-father-who-murdered-daughter-in-honor-killing-will-not-face-death-penalty-so-that-there-is-no-appearance-that-a-christian-is-seeking-to-execute-a-muslim/

dnf777
11-04-2010, 08:51 AM
...or behind the wheels of cars.. I don't want my life in the hands of someone who thinks that death might offer a better reward than life.:rolleyes:

Just like Carrie Underwood's "Jesus take the wheel" song. I sang, Jesus, please make it a one-vehicle accident, then take her license away. One less dingbat to worry about when I'm driving on the same road!!!:shock:

david gibson
11-04-2010, 08:56 AM
Just like Carrie Underwood's "Jesus take the wheel" song. I sang, Jesus, please make it a one-vehicle accident, then take her license away. One less dingbat to worry about when I'm driving on the same road!!!:shock:

scratching my head at the relevance of this to the topic, but it does carry the class typical of your posts.

Ken Bora
11-04-2010, 08:56 AM
Oklahoma better watchout, they might end up with a shortage of covenient store workers;-)

Great move on thier part and sure to keep the Muslim population at a minimum in their state.
This Oklahoma approach may actually draw more Muslims than drive away, I feel.
If folk here in the comfort of the states fear Sheri law, imagine those poor folk under its thumb every day.
If I was a newly arriving legally entering Muslim immigrant with caning scars and memories of sisters stoned to death.
I would be saying to myself, “Self, I’m gonna go to Oklahoma!”




.

dnf777
11-04-2010, 09:00 AM
scratching my head at the relevance of this to the topic, but it does carry the class typical of your posts.

HEY YOU DANG WOODCHUCK, QUIT CHUCKIN' MY WOOD!!!

(I'm hoping if I can keep him scratching, we'll be spared some of the paranoid delusional posts ;-))

BrianW
11-04-2010, 09:39 AM
Do you really think there is any possibility of Sharia law being the law of this land?t

The measure wasn't just about Sharia law but international law.
Exactly, What if it already is?

The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 18,2010, cited as support for its opinion, an international treaty that has not been adopted in the U.S.
The issue is raising alarms for those who have been fighting the trend toward adopting "international" standards for American jurisprudence rather than relying on a strict application of the Constitution.

The Graham v. Florida decision dealt with whether young people can be sentenced to life prison terms if they haven't killed the victims of their crimes. The issue arose in the case of Terrance Graham, implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. He now is 23 and is in a Florida prison – for life.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, said such life sentences are not allowed.
"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a non-homicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Kennedy's majority opinion said. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."
Wrote Kennedy:
We also note, as petitioner and his amici emphasize, that Article 37(a) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U. N. T. S. 3 (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990), ratified by every nation except the United States and Somalia, prohibits the imposition of 'life imprisonment without possibility of release . . . for offenses committed by persons below eighteen years of age.'Kennedy's opinion continued:
The court has treated the laws and practices of other nations and international agreements, as relevant to the Eighth Amendment, not because those norms are binding or controlling but because the judgment of the world's nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency demonstrates that the court's rationale has respected reasoning to support it.
Citing an international treaty (and an unratified one at that!) in a SCOTUS decision, pretty much makes it the effective law of the land, if not the actual, wouldn't you say?
International law has its place in deciding truly international cases – but a case involving juvenile offenders in Florida is a domestic case through and through. It was plainly gratuitous for the majority to employ international law in this context and a dangerous precedent.
Where does the line get drawn now, in respect to which of "world's nations 'judgements" is recognized or not?

Now let's add newly appointed Justice Kagan to the Court -
With Kagan’s direction, Harvard’s Islamic Legal Studies Program developed a mission statement dedicated “to promote a deep appreciation of Islamic law as one of the world’s major legal systems.” That mission statement guided her actions and those whom she directed as Dean. Under Kagan’s direction, her chief staff at the Islamic Legal Studies Program aggressively expanded non-critical studies of Shariah law – fulfilling her mission.
In December, 2006, Kagan hired Noah Feldman, as a star faculty member at Harvard Law School. On March 16, 2008, Feldman published his controversial article “Why Shariah” , which promoted “Islamists” - the Muslim Brotherhood – as a progressi democratic party, and promoted Shariah as a model not just for Muslim-majority countries but for all: “In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world…” :rolleyes: On September 16, 2008, Kagan whole-heartedly endorsed Feldman’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood and Shariah by honoring him with the endowed Bemis Chair in International Law.

Anyone care to wager on how open Kagan will be to shariah "considerations" when, not if, it comes before the Court?;-)

M&K's Retrievers
11-04-2010, 10:20 AM
....

(I'm hoping if I can keep him scratching, we'll be spared some of the paranoid delusional posts ;-))

And who is going to save us from you?:cool:

Franco
11-04-2010, 10:31 AM
Is there any scenario involving muslims that some of you here on this board are not afraid of. It seems that no matter what the situation is when it concerns muslims, the rest of us need to be very afraid no matter how unlikely or outlandish it is. Some of you get so worked up over some of these things that I think it is time for you to take a step back take a deep breath and realize that when we become fearful and change the way we do things the terrorists win. That's there aim and goal. There terrorizing some when things like this happen.
Sharia law is just not going to happen in this country.

No fear, just don't like thier culture! Call me prejudice but, they can take thier culture back to the hell holes they came from. They flee thier dirty little backwards countries and come over here and try and tell us how we need to live.

Screw 'em!

YardleyLabs
11-04-2010, 10:33 AM
Exactly, What if it already is?

The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 18,2010, cited as support for its opinion, an international treaty that has not been adopted in the U.S.
The issue is raising alarms for those who have been fighting the trend toward adopting "international" standards for American jurisprudence rather than relying on a strict application of the Constitution.

The Graham v. Florida decision dealt with whether young people can be sentenced to life prison terms if they haven't killed the victims of their crimes. The issue arose in the case of Terrance Graham, implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. He now is 23 and is in a Florida prison – for life.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, said such life sentences are not allowed.
"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a non-homicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Kennedy's majority opinion said. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."
Wrote Kennedy:....
As I noted in my earlier post, the 8th Amendment presents a particular situation because it takes its meaning specifically from established norms and mores, not from an absolute standard of behavior. The language says "cruel and unusual", both of which can only be determined with a reference point. Thus, Texas may consider it to be usual and OK to execute retarded people, and there may have been a time when that was the norm throughout the country. However, if almost all other states pass laws that make this illegal, than Texas policies could be found to be unconstitutional based on the 8th amendment exclusion. Kennedy's comments were used basically as an indication that a practice accepted in certain parts of America, is considered abhorrent by all but two countries in the world. This is relevant only because it might shed light on what is cruel and unusual, but is not determinative. At the time the Constitution was written, precedential cases from English common law were used routinely in reaching legal judgments. Our founding fathers did not find that to be objectionable.

david gibson
11-04-2010, 10:44 AM
No fear, just don't like thier culture! Call me prejudice but, they can take thier culture back to the hell holes they came from. They flee thier dirty little backwards countries and come over here and try and tell us how we need to live.

Screw 'em!

no fear or paranoia here either. just facts. give them an inch and they'll take more.

"Faleh Almaleki murdered his daughter. He admits he killed her. But his attorney so skillfully played the race/religion card, prosecutors are afraid a death sentence would be labeled as a move prompted by Islamophobia, rather than justice.

Would a non-Muslim who ran down his daughter in a car be spared the death penalty?"

catch-22 regards

Julie R.
11-04-2010, 10:49 AM
Exactly, What if it already is?

The U.S. Supreme Court, on May 18,2010, cited as support for its opinion, an international treaty that has not been adopted in the U.S.
The issue is raising alarms for those who have been fighting the trend toward adopting "international" standards for American jurisprudence rather than relying on a strict application of the Constitution.



Good post Brian; I know it alarmed me when I read about that. To state another example of how international law isn't always best for us in this country, consider the benign-sounding CITES treaty the U.S. is a party to. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Sounds good, right? Save the whales and ban baby seal clubbing, don't allow trade in ivory poached from rare African elephants, etc. Only problem is, some species considered endangered when that treaty was ratified many decades ago have rebounded into nuisance status. Like the ever-multiplying populations of those big lizards our southern friends have to contend with. For many years after they became a nuisance, it was almost impossible to get alligator hunting permits; because international delisting of a once-endangered species that becomes a nuisance can take years and the CITES treaty effectively bans hunting them until that happens.

Raymond Little
11-04-2010, 11:48 AM
No fear, just don't like thier culture! Call me prejudice but, they can take thier culture back to the hell holes they came from. They flee thier dirty little backwards countries and come over here and try and tell us how we need to live.

Screw 'em!

Franco, they are no different than the Kalifornians invading our state.;)