Another politically driven prosecution headed for failure?

[Jonathan]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

And by "originalist" you have what in mind? Thomas? Scalia? Original Intent? Original Meaning?

[Chris]

The crimes were committed in IRAQ. An IRAQ court should have tried the Blackwater scum!

[ET]

[Sandy]

Don't know if the Stevens case resembles this one. His misconduct was blatant, obvious and public, only technicalities have prevented his prosecution. And I'm not sure I trust the source of information on this one.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Thomas and Scalia represent different philosophies/theories under the broad Originalism umbrella.

Just wondering what kind of "originalist" Jonathan had in mind or how he personally defines the term.

[Jonathan]

[Jonathan]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

OK.

So you meant Clarence Thomas and NOT Antonin Scalia.

Scalia is a textualist and is not concerned with original intent.

And originalist is a rather broad term - a term that represents multiple theories. Your comment suggests that there are two options: Original Intent and those who would "take those original words and redefine them in a current context."

Scalia is just one example that proves that there are other options and other ways of reading and interpreting the Constitution.

It's also worth remembering that Hugo Black adhered to a theory of Original Intent. That theory can cut both ways in practice.

[Jonathan]

[Sandy]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Let's not downplay the differences between the judicial philosophies of Thomas and Scalia.

The differences are indeed real. As you note, Original Intent and Original Meaning are two separate theories. Do they share some similarities? Sure. However, while the average political conservative likes to talk about Original Intent, Antonin Scalia does not.

The "secret meaning" bit was a slap at Original Intent folks like Thomas. Scalia is known for slapping people around in his speeches including Thomas himself according to Jeffrey Tobin.

[Jonathan]

[Chris]

What do you know! Justice! Finally!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... c=al_alert

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Chris:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... c=al_alert

Sandy: "Conviction on the facts of the case, under a Reagan appointed judge, hard to call that politically motivated. Putting security personnel, rather than military personnel, from a private contractor whose primary motivation is to reap as much profit as possible and is willing to cut corners on training, is the problem here. These guys were placed in a war zone and weren't properly trained or briefed on the reality of the situation, and as a result, things got out of hand. Of course, they will wind up paying the price while the contractor they worked for counts their profits all the way to the bank, but it is becoming increasingly clear that there is only one reliable American value, and that''s earning money by profiteering off of others."

Ed: So why don't you move to Canada? Or do you really have a workable solution to the problem?[/quote]

Keith: "Workable solution is to close Blackwater or whatever they are called now. Confiscate all their wealth and compensate the victim's families. Look into crimes by Erik Prince and others and imprison them if convicted. If you doubt any wrongdoing read "Blackwater" by Jeremy Scahill."
Ed: Keith, what make you think that I or any one here doubts "any wrongdoing" by Blackwater's mercenaries?

My question to Sandy and those of you who agree with his over simplified, and over stated statement that "it is becoming increasingly clear that there is only one reliable American value, and that''s earning money by profiteering off of others." suggest that rather than informatory rhetoric, reasoned solutions are more productive. Your suggestions are a start but as the old saying goes "The Devil is in the details".

It seems, some here confuse the terms, profiteering and making a profit.
And seem to forget that In the parable of the talents Jesus advocated in favor of profit making.

[Sandy]

[Haruo]

The Roman Empire as I recall privatized the IRS... of course, it's a hazy recollection, I was pretty young...

[Dave Roberts]

I have to agree with Sandy on his first response. The privatizing of government services, especially those traditional military functions fulfilled by Blackwater and others takes the whole process out of the DOD chain of command and responsibility. Rather than asking American taxpayers to ante up for the costs of protection and the normal function of soldiers, we sent people who were often ex-military who might have washed out of the military or not have been invited to re-enlist. The DOD didn't want them, but the administration and Congress saw it as an easy way. Now it is coming back to haunt America. Extending military protections to private contractors is legally murky no matter how you approach the Constitution. I don't think the founding fathers every considered the US employing private armies, regulated militias were expected but not private mercenary armies.

[Chris]

"Blackwater" has {again} changed its name. This time, it is ACADEMI.