proceedings for Bush should not be far behind, at least a formal investigation into this
Hoooo boy, are you in for a flaming....
Posted on 05/10/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by david ford
My reply to this will have details.
i am sure you are right, but it is hard to try and have a discussion when instead of info, people put up cats. do you know of any other blogs where real dialogue occurs?
Ahhhh I am learning this now. Thanks, I am no troll, but do have a different opinion on the subject than the majority of FReepers. I should probably just bite my tongue on this matter alltogether. Thanks for the heads up.
a lesson learned for the day, i will admit to that
"... another claim is that she felt pain. can someone explain the science behind a woman feeling pain even though that part of her brain that responds to the electrical currents that the brain receives as pain, is not only gone, but replaced by spinal fluid?" You don't know what the hell you're talking about, newbie. Even the Hemlock Society ghoul, Cranford, in his diagnosis/deposition to Greer's court relates how she responded to pain! Go read up on this case, then get back to us.
Hey, that's that memo with the super secret private for your eyes only new security clearance.
You know what? Bush talked about Saddam Hussein during the 2000 presidential election. OMG!!! The sky is falling!!!
This is from the 3rd presidential debates between Bush and Gore:
>>>Bush: Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling, the sanctions are loosened. He's a man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction. We don't know because inspectors aren't in.<<<
OMG!! He saw Hussein as a threat, and decided to take care of him, especially after 9-11 and the threat terrorists armed with sophisticated weapons would be against us. Oh the horrors.
Don't worry, we'll go after Iran and NK in due time, the soomer the better. Guess what, he'll have plans for that one too!
I love it!
FR had a 15 minute blurb on pmsnbc today.Wow, really?! What was that about?
and you should read up more on science. in order to "feel pain", you must be aware of it! pain and reflex reactions are two different things, and with that part missing, reflexes work, but pain reception is gone. try again
"You die now!"
"I'm not gonna lie to you. This is gonna hurt, A LOT. And I'm going to enjoy it, A LOT."
"Oooohhhh. You don't look too good..."
Or.... you could do the research yourself and present the links to the "unbiased" remarks here instead of asking others to do it for you.
P.S. What's with the capitalization deficiency?
Bwahahahaha ... you assume she has no cerebral cortex then arrive at the specious conclusion that because of your assumption she could feel no pain ... yet she complained verbally when in pain. And one more fact for you to ponder, Newbie: the 1992/1993 video available on the net shows Terri swallowing repeatedly in quick succession and licking her lips from side to side purposefully, actions which a PVS patient and especially a cortex-void patient cannot do. Try again?
By Michael J. Gaynor
www.MichNews.com
May 9, 2005
One Holocaust was one too many.
So Jews rightly resolved: "Never again!"
One judicial murder was one too many.
So the Schindler family has resolved, for the sake of America's very soul and in Terri Schindler Schiavo's memory: "Never again!"
On Friday, May 6, 2005, Terri's loving parents and siblings appeared together on "Hannity & Colmes" to warn of the danger of unchecked judicial tyranny and to tell what Terri's premature death by starvation and malnutrition was really like.
And Terri's brother appeared briefly by telephone on EWTN's "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" with the same vital message.
And received an invitation from Mr. Arroyo to the Schindler family to appear on that program in the near future to talk at length about the travesty of justice that was the Schiavo case.
Death by starvation and dehydration was not what Terri wanted, as the horrid husband, Michael Schiavo, and the legally and morally blind Judge, George Greer, selfishly and stubbornly insisted.
It was not the peaceful event the Devil's advocate, George Felos, described. And Terri did not look as beautiful as she ever had been, as Felos diabolically declared.
Tragically, most of the media obfuscated the facts and tolerated the insistence of Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo that the truth about Terri's condition be kept from the public.
In the name of privacy, of course. Adolf Hitler did not show the German people what was happening in his concentration camps either.
The Schindler family is firmly resolved that the Schiavo case remain unique. No more sacrificial lambs.
No one else should be sentenced to death without an opportunity for a jury trial and executive clemency.
A mass murderer has those opportunities.
A disabled person deserves no less.
To be sure, Terri had process.
Thanks to her parents and siblings and those who learned what was going on and supported them.
But, Terri did not have DUE process.
A person cannot be convicted of treason without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Terri was sentenced to a cruel and unusual death based on "clear and convincing evidence" that was neither clear nor convincing.
Michael Schiavo suddenly claimed after collecting more than $1,000,000 because Terri had mysteriously become disabled and taking up with another woman whom he announced he intended to marry that Terri mentioned to him, his brother and his sister-in-law (but none of her blood relatives or friends unrelated to Michael Schiavo) that she did not want to be kept alive artificially.
Even is Terri really had said so, the receipt of food and water through a feeding tube was not then considered as being kept alive artificially.
And Pope John Paul the Great himself confirmed that just as it is gravely sinful to commit suicide, it is gravely sinful to withhold food and water when it can be provided via a feeding tube.
There was NO evidence that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death. In fact, the only independent testimony was by a friend of Terri who testified that Terri said, "Where there's life, there's hope."
That should have been dispositive.
But Judge Greer rejected it, claiming that since Karen Anne Quinlan died in the mid 1970s, the witness was confused.
Judge Greer was confused, to give him the benefit of the doubt. The independent witness was not only plausible, but convincing.
And Karen Anne Quinlan's death many years later is a matter of public record! But neither Judge Greer nor an appellate court would acknowledge that Judge Greer had wrongfully condemned Terri to a horrible death.
The judiciary alone starved and dehydrated Terri to death.
No prosecutor decided to prosecute Terri.
No grand jury indicted Terri.
No jury of Terri's peers decided Terri should be starved and dehydrated to death.
The Florida legislature and Governor acted to save Terri from judicial abuse, by passing and signing a law. But the judiciary wrongly ruled the law an unconstitutional infringement on judicial power.
And the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. Terri's God-given and unalienable right to life was not important enough to the Supremes.
Florida's Governor could not spare Terri's life, because she was not a convicted criminal.
Congressional subpoenas to protect Terri in connection with a Congressional investigation were disrespected by the judiciary. The United States Congress and the President passed and signed on an emergency basis a special law to have a Florida federal court conduct a de novo review.
But the Florida federal judge who drew the case opted to let Terri die instead of to keep her alive while he conducted that de novo review.
And the federal appellate judiciary shamefully permitted that.
Because a true de novo review unduly risked humiliating the United States Supreme Court as well as the Florida judiciary?
Terri Schiavo was one disabled woman. An infinitesimally small sacrifice to make to preserve the illusion that at least in the end the judiciary does the right thing in a country in which the judiciary created a constitutional "right' that has led to some 45,000,000 abortions.
The Schiavo case highlights the judiciary's gravest problem: the limited scope of judicial review.
Scores of judges did not "hear" the case. Only ONE judge (and a legally blind one) "heard" the case.
His fundamentally flawed factual determinations were upheld on appeal. NOT because the appellate judges necessarily would have made them if they had heard the case. But because those appellate judges (with a few insufficient exceptions) unduly deferred to Judge Greer as fact finder.
Theoretically because he was in a better position to judge the credibility of witnesses than an appellate judge (who reads transcripts instead of sees and hears testimony).
When the trial judge is legally blind, that legally blind trial judge should not be accorded deference blindly!
The appellate judges should have reviewed the trial record de novo. Even though that would have taken more time.
Congress directed de novo review for very good cause. But the Schiavo federal case went to a judge who preferred not to do it. Terri received punishment that was ex post facto as well as cruel and unusual.
The Florida statute passed after Terri's mysterious collapse sets forth two basic requirements before a person can be starved and dehydrated to death "lawfully":
1. That person must be in a persistent vegetative state; and 2. That person must have expressed a desire to die instead of to be kept alive by "artificial" means under the circumstances.
AFTER Terri collapsed, receiving food and water through a feeding tube was ADDED to the list of artificial means of keeping a person alive.
Amazingly, a judge ruled that Terri could lawfully be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because she was NOT a lawfully convicted criminal!
Saith that judge: The Fourteenth Amendment prohibition on a state depriving any person of life without due process of law really means any lawfully convicted criminal!
Is the law really that a person not even accused of a crime has LESS of a claim not to be treated cruelly and unusually than a lawfully convicted criminal?
OF COURSE NOT!
Remember the Ninth Amendment?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Surely the People retained the right to be treated as well as lawfully convicted criminals!
The United States Supreme Court ruled that barring former Confederates from practicing law in the federal courts after the Civil War was unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.
Even though the prohibition was not identified as punishment. In Griswold v. State of Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court declared "that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
When Planned Parenthood asked for a penumbra to stop criminal prosecution of the use of birth control, lo and behold, the United States Supreme Court discerned that penumbra.
When the Schindler family begged for judges to see the penumbra that was supposed to save Terri from being starved and dehydrated to death, the justices of the United States Supreme Court and 10 or the 12 federal appellate judges hearing their appeals were blind to it.
Like Judge Greer.
Now the Schindler family is pleading with all America to make sure that there be no more human sacrifices to judicial tyranny.
They deserve our full support.
You emit more stupid in just one post on FreeRepublic.com than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Are you sure your name isn't "Puke"?
About Laura Bush and "Milking a Horse". And how FR was taking up for her. I saw a thread on it earlier, but I didn't post in it a lost it.(you know how that goes) They had up the Site logo and web address, and quoted a Freeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.