Jeff Sessions: " Anglo-American heritage"

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Vociferous, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    What Sessions was lauding was Jim Crow, among other features of Anglo-American sheriff tradition.
    And that is exactly relevant, because Sessions was introducing his racially based immigration law enforcement policy along the southern border of the US - the Jim Crow states, plus a couple.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    He only mentioned enforcing existing immigration law. Nothing about the southern border. https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/...elivers-remarks-national-sheriffs-association
    Maybe you can find it in the actual speech:

    Nope, you must have a vivid imagination.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    Well ok then - must be he had no idea of those bad implications of what he was saying. Simple Alabama country boy, being all disrespected and that by other people's vivid memories imaginations - we need to cut him whatever slack is necessary to preserve his naive and amnesiac innocence. Out of human charity for the eedjits of this world.

    Since he has no idea what he's talking about, though, maybe we should find him a different job.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,517

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Enforcement: Click for heritage.

    I think we need to discuss your reading comprehension:

    You got that one wrong. You're the one who quoted Obama, why do you not know the context of what you quoted?

    The thing here is that you're not exactly reliable. We'll come back to that in a minute.

    After a while, what you avoid and refuse to address stands out. In this case, it is the note that↑:

    You keep requiring that "law" and "law enforcement" compare synonymously; they don't. You've been told this repeatedly. It's not semantics; you're just making an uninformed, ill-conceived, and, ultimately, traditionally white supremacist-American argument.

    When you fail to address the point directly but then try to argue around it, people notice.

    False attribution. Stop with the fallacies. Particularly: Your use of the word "because" is inappropriate; making believe is not proper argumentation.

    We come back to your ignorance about what you quoted; making believe is not proper argumentation.

    Making believe is not proper argumentation. No, really, where you pulled that one from is a mystery.

    The appropriate question would be, "When".

    You don't seem to comprehend the sentences you cite or respond to, which in turn is an important reason why your blithe insistence isn't reliable.

    Don't get me wrong, though: Yeah, people are aware that racism is really stupid, and also that when someone takes up its rhetoric the absolute failure to make any sense is inevitable.
     
  8. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    I already cited where habeas corpus came from, and I'll repeat it for you:
    William Blackstone cites the first recorded usage of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in 1305, during the reign of King Edward I. However, other writs were issued with the same effect as early as the reign of Henry II in the 12th century. Blackstone explained the basis of the writ, saying "[t]he king is at all times entitled to have an account, why the liberty of any of his subjects is restrained, wherever that restraint may be inflicted."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Origins_in_England
    If you can't refute that origin, quit trying to sound like you have.
    And the Obama context:
    Two days ago, every Member of this body received a letter, signed by 35 U.S. diplomats, many of whom served under Republican Presidents. They urged us to reconsider eliminating the rights of habeas corpus from this bill, saying:
    To deny habeas corpus to our detainees can be seen as a prescription for how the captured members of our own military, diplomatic, and NGO personnel stationed abroad may be treated. . . . The Congress has every duty to insure their protection, and to avoid anything which will be taken as a justification, even by the most disturbed minds, that arbitrary arrest is the acceptable norm of the day in the relations between nations, and that judicial inquiry is an antique, trivial and dispensable luxury.​
    The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future—our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the "great writ"—a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Floo...r_Barack_Obama_on_the_Habeas_Corpus_Amendment
    Clearly referencing the Anglo-American legal system in protecting habeas corpus, which he went on to ignore and evern temporarily suspend as president.
    http://realnewsrightnow.com/2016/10...-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-in-north-dakota/
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...re-habeas-corpus-rights-for-enemy-combatants/
    So if anyone's reading comprehension is in doubt, it's yours.
    Poisoning the well.
    Ahem!
    I can only assume you're intellectually dishonest to leave that quote out, of the very same post, only to claim your point wasn't addressed. Quit lying.
    Hey, I'll be the first to admit to having trouble parsing your rambling, partisan, and subjective irrelevancies.
    So you just think the Anglo-American legal system racist, regardless of origin?
    If you're tired of being misunderstood, you might try answering direct questions.
    The context of Obama's reference is cited about, and you've yet to refute it, other than with fallacies, like this repeated attempt poison the well.
    You're right. It was France's objection to going into Iraq, not Afghanistan, that led to Americans calling them "freedom fries."
    Following the September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda and the declaration of a "War on Terror" by President George W. Bush, an invasion of Iraq was proposed. During the United Nations Security Council deliberations, French Minister of Foreign Affairs Dominique de Villepin made it clear France would neither support nor participate in the invasion. This caused some Americans to accuse France of betrayal, reigniting prior anti-French sentiment in the United States.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries#French_war_opposition
    Well, since I've never heard them called frankfurters in the US, you'd have to enlighten me on when they may have been, and whatever that may have to do with the subject under discussion.
    Since you keep arguing things you either refuse to refute with anything but fallacies or have already been shown to be wrong, it seems it's your comprehension in doubt here.
    OTHERS HAVE SAID IT
    The same terminology might not have caused such a stir if invoked by someone else. In fact, it was hardly noticed when Barack Obama made several references to the “Anglo-American legal system” in relation to the habeas corpus rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, first as a senator and then as president.

    In 2009, for example, he said he hoped to close the detention center in Cuba in a way “that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, but doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

    Other Justice Department officials have spoken of it, too, without generating much attention. References to the subject can be found in case law and in Supreme Court decisions.
    WHAT IT MEANS
    Sessions was referring to the history of the American legal system, and more specifically to the origins of the modern day sheriff. “Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been seen as the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and amenable to the people,” Sessions said.

    The office traces its roots to Anglo-Saxon England, where sheriffs were elected and their departments structured similarly to the American sheriff of today.

    Responding to inquiries about Sessions’ comment, Justice Department spokesman Ian Prior said: “As most law students learn in the first week of their first year, Anglo-American law – also known as the common law – is a shared legal heritage between England and America. The sheriff is unique to that shared legal heritage.”
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ver-sessions-anglo-american-heritage-comments
    All else is subjective, partisan imagination.
     
  9. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Your guilt by association fallacy is wholly on you. It doesn't reflect poorly on Sessions any more than Obama referring to the "Anglo-American legal system" in defense of habeas corpus. You even had to imagine that "Sessions was introducing his racially based immigration law enforcement policy along the southern border" (which didn't happen) plus make unsupported claims about "the Jim Crow states, plus a couple" in a strained attempt to justify that fallacy. All indicate it's just your subjective, partisan interpretation.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    There's no association in play, let alone guilt by. Unless you're claiming Sessions is "associated with" his own mouth, and his mouth with his brain, so that he is perforce associated with the meaning of what he says.
    Of course it does. Why are you trying to compare such different things?
    It's happening now.
     
  11. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Nope, you're making Sessions guilty by association with his namesake, where and when he grew up, what president he serves under, etc..
    Not by the words that only echo the same meaning as Obama.
    There is no difference in Anglo-American heritage.
    You claimed (imagined) in happened in that same speech.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    Not true. I explained where he came by his bigotry by pointing to his biography, but the bigotry I was explaining was the stuff immediately visible - the "Anglo-American heritage" of sheriff work in the southern US.
    They don't. They are quite different in meaning - almost the opposite.
    You have to be joking.
    Between habeus corpus in the law of the nation and Jim Crow enforcement in the counties of the Confederacy? The differences are dramatic, multilevel, impossible to miss.
    And throughout this administration, and anywhere else Jeff Sessions is granted respect and employed in a position of authority.
     
  13. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Yep, where and when he grew up.
    Nor have you shown that he was specifying the "southern US", as you imagined in that same speech.
    Contrary to the opinions of lawyers, legal scholars, and even Supreme Court opinions.
    Again, you're making a guilt by association argument between "southern Jim Crow sheriffs" and sheriffs in general, that all share an Anglo-American heritage.
    Nope, you're just cherry-picking southern Jim Crow sheriffs.
    He sought to desegregate schools and to get the death penalty for a KKK member. Your paltry evidence of a few jokes and anecdotes doesn't trump his actual accomplishments. Unless of course you're a leftist.
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    He wasn't. He was including it.
    He would have to - that's the main area wherein his immigration law enforcement policies are going to involve sheriffs.
    Jeff Sessions claimed that sharing.
    No, I'm making an association between the Anglo-American heritage of sheriff's in the US, and Jeff's use of the term "Anglo-American heritage" when talking about being a sheriff in the US.
    The associating of the sheriff's themselves was accomplished by the sheriffs themselves, when they gathered together in a room to listen to Jeff Sessions refer to their Anglo-American sheriff heritage when introducing his immigration policy enforcement approach.
    The exact opposite - I'm refusing to separate them out.
    He had no real accomplishments in that line.
    And whether or not the racist meaning of his reference to Anglo-American sheriff heritage trumps his accomplishments does not change the racist meaning of his reference to Anglo-American sheriff heritage.
     
  15. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Faulty generalization.
    Nor did he mention anything about immigration, aside from sanctuary cities trying to thwart long-existing law.
    So now the sheriffs are guilt by association with Sessions, which somehow retroactively makes Sessions comment racist for being applied to said sheriffs.
    Reverse causation and circular reasoning. A twofer.
    Then you just move from a cherry-picking fallacy to a faulty generalization, i.e. painting the whole by a minority.
    What you consider "real" is highly suspect.
    Again, no racist meaning to "Anglo-American heritage" as it is a simple statement of historical fact, and same thing referenced by Obama, many lawyers and legal scholars, and the Supreme Court.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    No generalization is present, faulty or otherwise.
    Why would he? Stuff everybody takes for granted doesn't need mentioning.
    Gibberish. Guilt is irrelevant, the sheriffs are not being associated with Sessions, Sessions comment is not being "applied" to anyone, and it's Sessions who is being labeled racist. You couldn't be more confused if you tried.
    First you got the cherry picking concept completely backwards. Now you are inventing generalizations for some reason. What's wrong with simply recognizing a simple situation? You've got a life long racial bigot invoking a tradition of racist law enforcement to introduce his racist law enforcement policies. This isn't rocket science.
    It is a simple reference to - among other things - the historical facts and continuing tradition of hardcore racial bigotry in US law enforcement by sheriffs.
    To repeat that nonsense so many times doesn't make it true, it makes you a deluded victim of the goofiest propaganda bs in existence.
    It is not the same thing. It is not the same kind of thing. It is very obviously and visibly and flagrantly a much different thing.
    Habeus corpus is not a racist principle in US law. US sheriffs have frequently and traditionally been racist enforcers of US law. Both those statements are true at the same time, without the slightest contradiction.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,517
    [1/2]

    Like your botched attempts to invoke fallacy, we see an example of why people doubt your integrity.

    Your revised position is what it is, but that does not change the fact of your continued requirement that "law" and "law enforcement" be treated synonymously. You've been pointed to the statement, and we'll do it again, and while fallback statements are what they are, the incoherent statement that "that Anglo-American heritage is comparable, and its law enforcement operates under its law" is, to the one, a revision, and, to the other, does nothing to affect the requirement, still maintained in argument↑, that "law" and "law enforcement" be regarded synonymously.

    So, are you ready?

    Vociferous↑: [to Iceaura] So Obama was lauding the same thing?

    Tiassa↑: We've been through this. Did you think to just wait a while and try again?

    Vociferous↑: No one ever said law and law enforcement were the exact same things (which seemed to be the straw man you were arguing), only that they shared the same Anglo-American heritage referred to by both Sessions and Obama.

    Tiassa↑: To reiterate↑ ... [excerpt post #71] ... You skipped↑ out↑ that part.

    Vociferous↑: Do you think Obama was criticizing that Anglo-American heritage or lauding it?
    If criticizing, you'll have to walk me through some citations to support that.
    If lauding, it's exactly what Sessions was doing.

    Tiassa↑: The two discussions have nothing to do with one another unless, perhaps, we delve into the "Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement" and its observable disdain for habeas corpus and other fundamental rights derived through our Anglo-American and other-American heritage of law reaching back to the roots of democracy.

    Vociferous↑: Since it seems like you really don't know, habeas corpus comes from English law. Obama rightly said that habeas corpus came from our Anglo-American law. He was lauding that heritage.

    Tiassa↑: After a while, what you avoid and refuse to address stands out. In this case, it is the note that:

    You keep requiring that "law" and "law enforcement" compare synonymously; they don't. You've been told this repeatedly. It's not semantics; you're just making an uninformed, ill-conceived, and, ultimately, traditionally white supremacist-American argument.

    When you fail to address the point directly but then try to argue around it, people notice.

    Vociferous↑: Ahem!

    No, I'm saying that Anglo-American heritage is comparable, and its law enforcement operates under its law.

    What subjective nonsense you repeat, without support, is irrelevant. You have yet to make your case that Anglo-American law enforcement is somehow especially racist compared to Anglo-American law.

    I can only assume you're intellectually dishonest to leave that quote out, of the very same post, only to claim your point wasn't addressed. Quit lying.

    We start this summary where we do, your response to Iceaura at #111, because it requires "law" and "law enforcement" to be the same thing; and you can object, if you want, but that's part of the point, it's a late objection. Consider #115, in which you argue, "No one ever said law and law enforcement were the exact same things …"; my response in #117 is to reiterate #71, but as reminder of and retort to #11:

    Vociferous↑: "Anglo-American heritage of law" is a reference to English common law. But someone else you know also used the same expression.
    Senator Obama in 2006 …

    Your late argument in #120, "No, I'm saying that Anglo-American heritage is comparable, and its law enforcement operates under its law", is what it is. It is also different from what you wrote in #11, which has been pointed out to you, and remains at the heart of your failure to comprehend the issues you address. Such as your PBS link, by which you settle against your own rhetoric in #11. And in its own context #11 is a fascinating post: No, not guilt by association; Jeff Sessions is a known racist. Many politicians have used that term, but you're requiring a synonimity that just doesn't exist. And reinforcing that requirement and mistake. There is also the fallacy about personal assumptions; this is also evident in the part about skydiving.

    You were wrong about everything in that post. What is evident to others, Vociferous, is why you are wrong. You don't have an actual thesis, just a feeling; note your topic post. Who is outraged? By what? It does not escape notice that nobody here really was. I mean, come on, Jeff Sessions "dog-whistling" white supremacists? My initial point, at #7↑ above, about luxury and offense remains.

    Which is why people were answering as they were. It does, in fact, read as if you weren't getting some manner of fight you were after the first ten responses.

    Please understand, it's pretty clear you don't quite comprehend what you're dealing with; it's as if you're imitating people and behaviors that otherwise defy your grasp, like the failed invocations of fallacy and apparent ignorance of American history; there comes a point in your failure to comprehend your own sources, and to some degree your own posts, that really does make people wonder not so much what you're on about, but why. Go back and look at #115, "No one ever said law and law enforcement were the exact same things"; and then look at #11, "But someone else you know also used the same expression". We might return to #7, which addresses outrage and double-standards and American history. Your post at #11 responds to Spidergoat by wrongly invoking "guilt by association"; answers Arfa Brane by ignoring basic questions of function; replies to me with a word game; retorts to Iceaura with something about raison d'être, except it wrongly invokes "personal assumptions"; and dismisses Billvon, and pretty much everyone else, with an awkward point about special use, environment, and culture, which is largely what you insist on ignoring about what people were and are telling you. Jeff Sessions' words occur in no more of a contextual vacuum than ritual skydiving anal jokes, nor Barack Obama defending habeas corpus in a time of high racist dudgeon.

    And part of the problem is your pretense: Argument by reaction, without any ostensibe effective thesis, is a risky posture. The effect, in this case, verges on slapstick and the question of how offensive you actually manage to make yourself in any given moment is to the beholder.

    But you skipped out↑ on an opportunity to explain↑ your assignation of synonymous value, and, really everything else people tried to tell you; it was remark upon this outcome↑ that elicited a response, which, in turn, was to botch up↑ an invocation of fallacy. And we see, as the discussion returns to↑ consider your post at #11 in light of your ongoing evasion and truculence, that your only real response is to change the subject↑. The sequence of #36↑, 41↑, and 46↑ lead back to your incorrect assertion of sameness in #11, which you respond to by reiterating the change of subject↑.

    [(cont.)]
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,517
    [2/2]

    And↑ again↑, which leads us back to #71, in which it is pointed out that your revised argument, the changed subject, is already covered, such that your pretense in #58, "if you can't admit ... [then] I can't take you seriously" was false; your subsequent, puffed-up pretense↑ in response has nothing to it but puffery.

    As I said at the time↑, whether you're just a lazy troll or actually, genuinely so ignorant, people aren't going to rush to write your stupid theses for you.

    And what is remarkable about your self-righteous retort↑ is that your complaint (#78), "When I asked if you could even admit the two shared a common heritage, you just ignored it", points to post #47, which, if we look to #71, occurs after I have already acknowledged the shared heritage, e.g., #30. Do you get it, yet? Everyone sees you screwing up this way, botching and crashing and embarrassing yourself over and over and over again, and at some point it does occur to wonder↑ at the difference 'twixt Skitt and will, and it is true there comes a point at which people no longer care why you fail.

    So think about that, for a moment: When you take your moment to laugh in #78—"And then you wonder why I can't take you seriously. Hahaha!"—you're actually botching up, yet again, and getting caught in a two-count lie: (1) Ignoring the address in the immediate response at #49↑; (2) ignoring reference to that response in #71.

    And, yet, after all that, you return to your insupportable demand↑ for synonymity 'twixt "law" and "law enforcement", just blithely returning to the point: "So Obama was lauding the same thing?"

    All of that scrambling and twisting and failing and generally embarrassing yourself, and for what? Nothing. It wasn't for a damn thing, because in the end you aren't addressing any useful or arguable thesis, and not only did you work your way back to square zero—(Hint: Rubber-glue↑ ought to be hard to botch, but it is possible, as you have shown, by lying.)—yet facing your own words↑, all you could manage was clumsily changing the subject↑; your question about Obama in #118 only reiterates that you do not understand what you are on about, but the context of the U.S. Senator who happens to be black appealing to an ostensibly proud Anglo-American heritage in law, in order to forestall a white supremacist foray against habeas corups is neither criticizing nor lauding, except in appealing to merits claimed according to Anglo-American heritage of law regardless of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement; indeed, the time since Obama's statements are such as to reiterate that even the Anglo-American heritage of law, which is supposed to be proud in the case of habeas corpus, is insufficient for white supremacism, and even and especially Barack Hussein Obama knew that true the day he uttered those remarks; the American heritage of law enforcement is presently infamous.

    Oh, hey, speaking of insufficient: So, yeah, I even asked↑, "You're the one who quoted it; do you not know whence it comes?" and you managed to botch the answer↑: "I know where habeas corpus comes from," speaks nothing to the context of Obama's words. But in that same post, #120, you offer yet another version of your changed subject: "No, I'm saying that Anglo-American heritage is comparable, and its law enforcement operates under its law." And you keep failing to grasp the simple point: "Since it seems like you really don't know, habeas corpus comes from English law". Yes, and perhaps it feels good to put on the pretense, but you are in that moment screwing up again—unless, of course, you're just trolling—and repeating your failure to comprehend the context of Obama's words. You know, like I explained↑ in my response: "You're the one who quoted Obama, why do you not know the context of what you quoted?" Your response↑, "I already cited where habeas corpus came from, and I'll repeat it for you", is just another utter failure; you have no idea what you're on about, else you would have started making an actual point somewhere along the line. And, again, botching "poisoning the well" isn't the sort of thing that reinforces confidence in what you are telling people.

    No, really, consider:

    The problem here is that you're staking your petulant self-righteouness on a fallacy; see #120: "Hahaha! So because our legal heritage happens to come from a predominately white country, you naively think it's somehow inherently racist?" As I said in #124, false attribution; the word "because" is problematic, and you are projecting a fallacy of your own construction onto another as a windmill for tilting.

    And again we see your demand for synonymous value; the law can be as good and kind as we can make it, and that will mean nothing if the law enforcement is corrupt. Your muddling of law and the enforcement thereof under a rubric of a legal system only reminds that the American legal system is corrupted not because its heritage includes Ancient Rome and Greece, Enlightened France, or British tradition; the legal system falters when the people enforcing the laws are corrupt. You continute to undermine yourself, even finishing #125 with a PBS citation that pretty much wrecks the sameness demanded in #11↑, dodged and avoided repeatedly, and then revisited in, coincidentally, #111.

    There is a lot about being an American that goes into what you would treat so simply; the absence of context and nuance is one thing, and compounded with a lack of any consistent thesis that leaves you constantly reeling and reacting and revising, as well as a strange inability to understand your own hooks and barbs, the sum of your performance throughout this thread has pretty much been a waste of your time and everyone else's.

    And there is also this:

    Was I too subtle↑?

    • It is true, we did intern German-Americans during WWII, but not nearly as many, and they were harder to find despite their numbers, and for obvious reasons. Still, if anyone remembers "freedom fries", that's also how Mitt Romney got into the queerest of news cycles when saying he liked tube steak. No, really, we didn't want to say "frankfurter" or "hamburger", so we said, "tube steak" and "liberty steak".​

    World War II. See, when Mitt Romney did this weird bit about "tube steak", the phrase had long been adopted, used, abused, and relegated to specialty by gay men, so ... right. Something about faces and palms, but that's a queer joke in and of itself. Suffice to say, his weirdness about processed potted meats is just ... really ... I mean, it's one joke after another.

    But, yes, "tube steak" is a word for frankfurters, which we renamed during WWII.

    Meanwhile, it's not quite trivia about Miranda v. Arizona and Dickerson v. U.S. but the parts about Anglican heritage from Justice White in the former and Chief Justice Rehnquist in the latter, are intriguing, but rather quite nuanced, because it's one thing to recall the application of Amendment XIV and voluntariness doctrine as such beginning in the 1880s, but we can also find a benchmark involving sheriffs specifically—you know, just to be particular, instead of city police (Miranda) or feds (Dickerson)—in a 1936 case, Brown v. Mississippi, which involves beating confessions out of black men; the case extended voluntariness doctrine under the Fourteenth to state cases. So, yeah, you can see at least some of what that Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement brings.

    We can get to those, later. I don't feel like writing the citations right now.

    [fin]
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/crime/article209265049.html
    An example of the issues behind Jeff Sessions's speech to the gathering of sheriffs. Cooperation and involvement with ICE is a major issue, and a racially loaded one.
    In the primary election, which was held last Tuesday, Birkbeiner won - so there will be a new sheriff in Durham County.
     
  20. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    You're either lying or don't understand what a faulty generalization is.
    Bare assertion.
    Projecting.
    Bare assertions.
    Ignoring the "among other things" is cherry-picking.
    Habeas corpus isn't a synonym for our Anglo-American legal heritage.
    You haven't even shown that a majority of sheriff have been racist, nor supported any of your claims about "frequently and traditionally."
     
  21. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Tiassa:

    When you conveniently fail to quote this:
    And then say this:
    It's pretty clear that you're either dishonest, projecting, or just plain incoherent.
    Your continued straw man:
    Only seems to affirm either your lack of comprehension or dishonesty.
    What's clear is that leftists have a mythology about people on the right that they like to propagate to people who will accept it without question because it affirms their biases.
    You seem to enjoy making blanket accusations, like lying or error, with links to whole posts instead of specific quotes. Neat way to avoid people even knowing if your claims are valid, much less what you're actually referring to.
    Not only did Senator Obama's (and later reiterated in his presidential campaign) remarks hardly reflect directly on law enforcement (especially sheriffs), as it hinged on the government classification as "terrorist" and the subsequent detention of "combatants", it had nothing at all to do with "white supremacism." https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Floo...r_Barack_Obama_on_the_Habeas_Corpus_Amendment
    And whether he was lauding it or not, it was obviously hollow:
    These NDAA provisions (which have been re-approved by Congress and signed by President Obama every year since 2012) override habeas corpus―the essence of our justice system. ...
    Under Section 1021, however, anyone who has committed a “belligerent act,” can be detained indefinitely, without charges or trial, as a “suspected terrorist.” This is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and our Bill or Rights.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ossible-to-arrest_us_57c9b648e4b06c750dd9cd6f


    President Barack Obama will exercise his executive powers on Monday when he signs an executive order issuing a temporary suspension of habeas corpus in Morton County, North Dakota, where protesters aligned with the Standing Rock Indian reservation are preventing construction of a crucial portion of the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
    “Your voices have been heard,” President Obama declared during an address to demonstrators. “However, I don’t think the answer is to continue stonewalling the inevitable.” The president, who previously expressed support for the demonstrations, called the pipeline an important and “necessary” part of American infrastructure, saying, “This is something that will enhance and strengthen our nation for generations to come.”
    http://realnewsrightnow.com/2016/10...-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-in-north-dakota/


    After the Supreme Court ruled under Bush that Guantanamo detainees have rights under habeas corpus, the Obama administration in 2009 fought to avoid having the same rule applied to military prisons around the world.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/11...ump-will-have-terrifying-powers-thanks-obama/

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...re-habeas-corpus-rights-for-enemy-combatants/
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,900
    There was no generalization in view.
    Correct bare assertion of the commonplace.
    No, that's not what "projection" means.
    With considerable evidence presented, even counting only this thread.
    I obviously didn't ignore them - I referred to them.
    And it would not be cherrypicking if I had. That's not what that term means, or how it's used.

    There are usage manuals for the English language, and good dictionaries provide such information as well - you have posted a series of illiteracies associated with the terms of reason and argument (ad hominem, generalization, cherry picking, projection, etc). These are typical of the auto-didact, someone who has derived the meanings of such words from muddled or corrupt contexts (such as wingnut propaganda, in your case).
    Neither is law enforcement by sheriffs.
    But they still aren't the same thing, or the same kind of thing.
    That Anglo-American racism has been frequently and traditionally observed in US law enforcement by sheriffs is a blue sky claim without any need of support.
     
  23. Vociferous Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    While we are unable to ascertain Sessions’s motives for the change he made to his prepared speech (there were many other places he diverged, as well), we can say that it is factual that Sessions made the statement that “the office of Sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement” and that “Anglo-American” is a way to reference to the common law legal heritage the United States sheriff’s system shares with Europe.
    https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/02/12/sessions-sheriffs-anglo-american-heritage/


    The same terminology might not have caused such a stir if invoked by someone else. In fact, it was hardly noticed when Barack Obama made several references to the “Anglo-American legal system” in relation to the habeas corpus rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, first as a senator and then as president.
    ...
    Other Justice Department officials have spoken of it, too, without generating much attention. References to the subject can be found in case law and in Supreme Court decisions.

    Sessions was referring to the history of the American legal system, and more specifically to the origins of the modern day sheriff. “Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been seen as the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and amenable to the people,” Sessions said.

    The office traces its roots to Anglo-Saxon England, where sheriffs were elected and their departments structured similarly to the American sheriff of today.
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ver-sessions-anglo-american-heritage-comments


    In a legal context, Anglo-American is used as an adjective meaning “reflecting the combined traditions of English and American jurisprudence,” and is frequently used in legal writing, since English common law is the basis of the laws of the United States (except for Louisiana, which has laws based on the Napoleonic Code of France). Indeed, sheriffs existed in England prior to the Norman Conquest in 1066. The term is even sometimes used in Supreme Court decisions.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/new...iffs-part-of-anglo-american-heritage-20180212


    For people with room-temperature IQs, this was the damning proof they had been waiting for. Sessions either outed himself as a racist by using the term “Anglo-American” or was cynically appealing to racists and white supremacists who keep their dental fillings tuned to the frequency he was broadcasting on.

    As it happens, the American legal system is directly descended from the English common law. The Scrapbook is old enough to remember being taught in junior high that the book young Abe Lincoln stayed up late reading by candlelight was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. This was not mere self-improvement; it was an indispensable part of his legal education—on the American frontier. And Sessions is indisputably correct that the office of sheriff is part of this inheritance as well.
    ...
    Oddly enough, when another prominent and well-known politician referred to habeas corpus as a “writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years” there was no such outrage. We can safely assume that former constitutional law professor Barack Obama knows how to use the phrase correctly—he did so multiple times, out loud, over the course of his political career—and no one said boo. And when Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall referred to our “Anglo-American heritage” in the concurring opinion of Thompson v. Oklahoma, an important death penalty case, we can safely assume this was not a racist dog whistle.
    https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-scrapbook/an-anglo-american-outrage


    References to the Anglo-American law system are also common in case law. A variation of the term has been used in several written decisions by both liberal and conservative judges: Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in a concurring opinion on a 2008 Guantanamo Bay detainment case, for example, noted “a basic fact of Anglo-American constitutional history” regarding habeas corpus jurisdiction. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy cited the country’s “Anglo-American legal tradition” in a 2011 case about constitutional freedom of petition.

    The term was used during former president Barack Obama’s administration, too, by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Bill Baer in a 2016 speech in Beijing. During his remarks, he referenced Justice Kennedy’s 1999 visit to Beijing
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...heres-what-that-means/?utm_term=.e64b7afcd634
     

Share This Page