A DISAGREEMENT WITH JOHN DOE

For the most part John Doe (Smash Mouth Politics), Doug Mataconis (The Liberty Papers), and I see eye-to-eye, but there are always exceptions.   In this instance, John Doe and Doug Mataconis are in agreement, but I have a differing view. Check out our discussions: 

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Constitution, VA-Blogs. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A DISAGREEMENT WITH JOHN DOE

  1. John Doe says:

    Tom, I read what you wrote on the Liberty Papers and I don’t disagree with a word of it. I think so long as we keep to the issue of saying how idiotic the notion is to try terrorists in the civil courts we are in 100% agreement. It is despicable that we grant terrorists more rights than our own military. If our military are accused of offenses they get a military tribunal, but that isn’t good enough for the terrorists.

    My only quibble is the narrow issue of blaming lawyers who were just representing their clients. That is misguided and counterproductive, IMHO.

    Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      John Doe – Thanks for the comment.

      The fact we grant terrorists more rights than our own military personnel is a fact we cannot bring up too often. It says alot about the priorities of some people. I appreciate you bringing that up.

      I guess I should quit while I am ahead. However, I am too often more curious than wise. How do you feel about ACLU lawyers? And lawyers who sue anglers just for fishing? :grin:

      Like

  2. John Doe says:

    I disagree with ACLU lawyers on most issues, but I would never seek to disqualify one from public service just for being ACLU lawyers. Rather, I oppose their individual erroneous positions. Heck, sometimes they are even correct on an issue. Now, if they say that they were ACLU lawyers because they supported terrorists rights to blow up buildings and not be punished by the law, then I would disqualify them based on their position on that issue. Not sure if I am making my point, so in a nutshell: Oppose the positions espoused personally by the lawyers, rather than previous clients represented.

    And it isn’t the lawyer who is nuts for suing somebody for fishing, it is the law that allows it that is nuts. Change the law!

    Like

  3. John Doe says:

    As usual, Ann Coulter has the final word on this topic.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35983

    Like

Comments are closed.