Breaking News: Liberal Conspiracy publishes decent articleMarch 22, 2012 Tim WorstallCivil Liberty19 CommentsSo, reader poll. Do we hang or shoot the bastards that came up with this? . previousBravo, BravonextInteresting about the spirit and letter of the law on abortion 19 thoughts on “Breaking News: Liberal Conspiracy publishes decent article” Surreptitious Evil March 22, 2012 at 1:27 pm Hemp is a lot more expensive than bullets. Just saying. diogenes March 22, 2012 at 1:53 pm it takes a strange sort of mind to invent a system where the advocate is not allowed to consult with his client. Not even the Stalin show-trials were that weird. Gene Berman March 22, 2012 at 2:11 pm SE: I guess you’re suggesting that you shoot ’em and keep the hemp for smoking? Or, maybe, doing the shooting of ’em while smoking the hemp? I’m not exactly straight on what you’re suggesting; maybe you could clear it up? Gene Berman March 22, 2012 at 2:30 pm It seems there’s a similar plot afoot here in the U.S.–as recently exemplified by the drone-killing in Yemen or somewhere of the guy who was supposed to be a confidant of the Ft. Hood jihadist shooter/Army psychiatrist. To the objections raised about “fair and speedy trial” guaranteed by the Constitution, Obamists are trying to insist that careful consideration of each matter by the President and upper-level advisors is a fulfillment of that requirement. Of course, they’re not going to get away with that. Nothing whatever of any issue is more likely to guarantee Obama’s lopsided defeat in the next election; I could even see impeachment charges leveled against him on grounds of such clear betrayal of constitutional principles (against which his most potent defense would have to be relaiance on the “free speech” guarantees of the self-same document. There’s not a single other issue more likely to illustrate Jefferson’s observance that “the tree of liberty requires occasional watering with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (or very similar words to the same effect). I don’t know how much of either (hemp or guns) you’ve got stashed over there but, over here, Admiral Yamamoto had it sized up just about right. Surreptitious Evil March 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm I don’t know how much of either (hemp or guns) you’ve got stashed over there Quite a lot at the Royal Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth. Note for the deranged. Don’t follow Gene’s suggestion and smoke rope making hemp. C sativa sativa and C sativa indicia are closely related – and the former will still get you a druggie’s conviction in the increasingly absurdly named “Land of the Free”. But it won’t get you high. ukliberty March 22, 2012 at 3:16 pm Hang them then shoot them, just to be sure. bilbaoboy March 22, 2012 at 6:35 pm Anyone for quartering afterwards just to make sure? Rob March 22, 2012 at 10:41 pm You can change the government in a general election, but you can’t change the State. Still, I’m sure the Lib Dems in government are all over this. SimonF March 22, 2012 at 11:20 pm Time to start a fund for wooden stakes as well, can’t take any chances with this one. Clovis Sangrail March 22, 2012 at 11:57 pm I suspect that you should strangle the key individual with the laces of his Hush Puppies. This would save on both hemp and bullets. [For overseas readers I should point out that our glorious and bonhomous Minister for Justice is addicted to cigars, jazz, beer and a certain brand of suede shoes] So Much For Subtlety March 23, 2012 at 12:26 am diogenes – “it takes a strange sort of mind to invent a system where the advocate is not allowed to consult with his client. Not even the Stalin show-trials were that weird.” Why is that strange? It is the norm for European style justice systems. Since Napoleon they have got better at giving suspects lawyers, but they have had a long tradition of detaining people for questioning for a few days before allowing them a lawyer. Not sure that allowing people a lawyer is necessarily a good idea anyway. The American system since Miranda has become less about justice and more about gaming the system. If we want the truth to emerge – that is, trials should be about the facts and not a venue for clever lawyers to play silly games – allowing people to talk to a lawyer right away may not be the best idea. And yes, Stalinist trials were weirder than that. Of course they were denied lawyers. And then their lawyers would denounce them mid-trial. blokeinfrance March 23, 2012 at 12:36 am The future’s already here! After the catastrophically botched operation to arrest the Toulouse murderer (10 days NOT to find a recidivist crim already on a US blacklist who used his own scooter; martyrdom achieved, etc) Sarko is proposing to make it a crime to even view an internet page in memory of the murderer. Governed by imbeciles, policed by trigger-happy thugs… Welcome to the “construction d’Europe!” DocBud March 23, 2012 at 1:15 am That’s right, SMFS, leaving suspects alone with plod for a few days will ensure the truth comes out. So Much For Subtlety March 23, 2012 at 3:08 am DocBud – “That’s right, SMFS, leaving suspects alone with plod for a few days will ensure the truth comes out.” By and large I think it would. At least if it didn’t people would have a chance at trial to challenge whatever it is the Plod is supposed to have done. Besides, this is how it works now. Those that are smart enough or have been through the system often enough to know how it works clam up and demand a lawyer. That is why the right to silence was removed. The police essentially get the morons who waive the right to a lawyer (who will immediately tell them to shut up) and so speak to the police for a few days. The question you have to ask is whether we are better off letting the recidivists and middle classes off because they know enough to shut up while only punishing the stupid dregs of the underclass. I tend to think not. Matthew L March 23, 2012 at 3:27 am Maybe the answer is to have a lawyer on retainer at police stations, and not allow an interview without one. It’s not true that lawyers automatically insist on “say nothing”, if their client is actually innocent there’s an advantage in cooperating with the police. The lawyer is there to ensure that the cooperation can’t be twisted into an unjust accusation. Regarding the original question – hanging, for sure. It’s less messy so the culprits can be displayed in public for longer. So Much For Subtlety March 23, 2012 at 3:34 am Matthew L – “Maybe the answer is to have a lawyer on retainer at police stations, and not allow an interview without one.’ In what way is that a solution? We simply wouldn’t convict anyone. “It’s not true that lawyers automatically insist on “say nothing”, if their client is actually innocent there’s an advantage in cooperating with the police. The lawyer is there to ensure that the cooperation can’t be twisted into an unjust accusation.” I agree it is not true that they automatically say so. Only if their client is guilty. They are also there to ensure that co-operation cannot be twisted into an entirely justified accusation. Very few innocent people are wrongfully convicted. An enormous number of guilty people get away with it. Time and time again. Gene Berman March 23, 2012 at 5:38 am SMFS Conviction rates here in the US are fairly high across a broad range of criminal behavior but whenever I come across an opinion like yours (which is, as I said, similar to mine) I’m reminded that, when DNA evidence began to be used in court, many already in prison for a vartiety of crimes were able, through appeals for such testing, to get their convictions thrown out. In one state (Illinois), which had the death penalty, they had to free about a third of the men that had been on death row for years (and, subsequently, the death penalty was abolished in that state. Matthew L March 23, 2012 at 5:56 am SMFS: I would rather a thousand scumbags go free than one innocent man rot in gaol. Don’t forget the massive imbalance in power between the State and the accused. ukliberty March 23, 2012 at 11:31 am Matthew L – “Maybe the answer is to have a lawyer on retainer at police stations, and not allow an interview without one.’ In what way is that a solution? We simply wouldn’t convict anyone. Idiot. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.