Because that child is scarred for life.

Whether someone is sentenced for death or not, actually death might very well be the quick way out. It is well known that when a child abuser is sent to prison, he is automatically a marked man. To the general prison population, there is no lower form of life than a child abuser.

And a man who has merely maimed or blinded a child is not marked out when in prison?

But how is the crime of raping a child more serious than maiming it permanently, so serious that the former merits death but the latter doesn't? You say the former 'scars a child for life' meaning mentally or emotionally. The latter scars them physically, and emotionally.

Over here we segregate all child sex offenders, even those who haven't actually raped their victim.

Must say, you are very considerate, LR, in saving a man from a life of being marked out in prison by having him executed. Think of the worries you save him by putting him to death at the earliest opportunity.

"Think of the worries you save him by putting him to death at the earliest opportunity."

Don't forget the potential bonus of a smuggled video of the man actually dying. There are quite a few in the US who seem to relish the thought of someone (anyone) being punished. If put on Pay per View, it might outdraw Ultimate Fighting, and even rival Jerry Springer.

More insubordination from the courts...

'A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law...' Judge Rejects Bush’s View on Wiretaps

Don't they realise who's king?

I work away from home, make regular phone calls to talk to my wife. Out of a 20 minute phone call, I figure any eaves-dropping by the government, maybe 30 seconds, they get bored & move on. If monitoring a phone calls helps the government save lives, I'm all for it.

(Almost?) nobody is against the monitoring of calls by government to save lives.

The point is that there was a system set up under which the US government is supposed to act. This system barely restrained the government at all - permission for taps could be granted retroactively, after the fact, and was almost never withheld.

What Bush did was go outside the established FISA system - pushing the envelope of presidential power apparently for the sake of pushing the envelope of presidential power, and not in order to save lives.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

What Bush did was go outside the established FISA system - pushing the envelope of presidential power apparently for the sake of pushing the envelope of presidential power, and not in order to save lives.

And how did he do that???

LR, if you paid attention to what was happening, you'd know that it is an accepted fact that bush and company went outside the FISA system, despite the fact that retroactive warrants were standard. (I remember reading that, of the few thousand cases in which bu did follow the law, only requests were denied.) The administrations claim that FISA hampered the pursuit of terrorists by handcuffing our intelligence agencies was a bald lie, and even most right-wing news media have admitted it.

I just checked, and the definition of "discussion' doesn't include any refusal to admit known facts.

DG-Contrary to what you think, I pay attention to what's happening. I've been seeing accusuations in this reguard for months. But no real meat to what the Bush Administration has been accused of.

It would seem if there was anything worth while, the Democrat Congress that was elected two years ago would have promptly proceeded with impeachment. Yet when tried it never gets anywhere. And there is no doubt Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have loved the opportunity to knock off George W. Bush.