I was astounded to find out that Al Jazeera provided more fair and balanced reporting of the incident where a CIA agent killed to Pakistanis. Here's how Al Jazeera presented the events: "The events in question transpired on January 27. Davis was driving his car through a poor section of Lahore. He stopped at a crowded intersection. Two Pakistani men jumped off motorcycles and came towards him, with weapons drawn, according to American accounts of the incident. Davis opened fire with his Glock, killing them.
"He said he fired in self-defence, assuming they were trying to rob him. Pakistani authorities disputed this claim, saying the men were shot in the back and Davis got out of his car to take photographs of the bodies."
But Napolitano presented the incident as though Davis simply walked out into the street and shot two Pakistanis in the back. He just accepted the word of the Pakistani authorities at face value and convicted Davis, guilty as charged.
Then Napolitano brings on a woman from the antiwar.com website and allows her to equate the CIA and the Pakistani ISI – allowing her to label them both "thug agencies" with no objection.
So Napolitano takes the word of the ISI – the organization implicated in the deadly attacks at Mumbai – over the word of the American citizen who may have been working find the hard evidence tabout the ISI involvement.
I respect The Judge very much. He has some very good speakers. On the other hand some of them are just phoney and not worth the space. I would put Bachmann and Bolton high up in that league. There are some who adopt part of the freedom agenda not because they seek liberty but because they are mean spirited and cruel. They seek to make 'cuts' out of dislike and resentment of the poor. This is evident in their one-sided approach of cutting what the poor may receive but enriching the military.
I know there are honest seekers for liberty who do not have this mean spirited double standard but Bachmann is not amongst them
As a constitutionalist libertarian and a viewer who is both respectful to and an admirer of Judge Napolitano, let me propose a deal. If His Honor will refrain from resorting to the use of the needlessly gratuitous, flowery superlatives as the overture for the likes of neocons such as Bachmann, Beck, Bolton and others, I will not mind in the least if he provides principled, genuine libertarian icons the same humble introductions.
I don't understand the Judge's outrage at sharia law being followed in a muslim country. The crime of murder is against an individual, not the state. From a libertarian point of view the payment to the family of the victim makes perfect sense. Under the principles of common law the same arrangement was acceptable. Failure to comply with the order of payment made the offender an outlaw and any rights of the offender were then forfeit.
I do have a problem with the government using taxpayer dollars to make the payment. If the offender didn't have enough money to pay he should have had to work it off. The whole concept of crime against the state needs to be reexamined.
I do not disagree that much of sharia law is incosistent with individual freedom. In this case it doesn't seem to be. Much of it is based on the same monotheistic principles found in the old testament. It is possible to recognize the merits of parts of a system. Condemning the entire system does not make sense.
Bachmann & Bolton are not phonies. They make tremendously more sense and are on usually the correct side if issues, as compared to any traditional Democrat & administration official. The phonies are the Democrats in power & Obama who refuses to release his Long Form Birth Certificate, his passport information & his college records in order to be 100% he is qualified to be President of the USA. Despicable.
Right, I didn't get that either. I don't know if this is how it won't down there, but if the victims' family agreed to money compensation for the murders, that that's that, yes? To take the judge's example, if the bank robber a) returned the money to the people and b) paid out "punishment" money to the people (two eyes for an eye), then shouldn't that be just restitution?
Judge Napolitano. Im a small business owner and have been at the mercy of big banks. The problem is that the congress made banks untouchable. If a vendor wants to leave a bank because it charges too much for credit cards, a bank can black list the vendor, so no other banks will take that vendor. And on top of this, there is no legal way to bring the banks to justice for doing it. I am very much a libertarian, and I do realize what created the problems with the big banks was congress passing laws in regards to it. So I do not necessarily endorse this law, but I understand it. The issue is larger than it seems.
Can we put an end to the idea that the Tea Party is a libertarian movement, and that Michelle Bachmann is an advocate of "maximum individual liberty." She, like most of the Tea Party, is a social conservative. They only look like libertarians when discussing fiscal matters. Fiscal sanity is important, but it is nothing without freedom.
I agree with Rexi. We need to separate fiscal policies from the ideal of freedom in the US. In the end the Tea Party is using patriotism as a reasoning for any of their actions. I would suggest for Ms Bachmann to get in touch with the real problems people have right now like unemployment and the recession.
Many were interested with this because it talks about the society wherein every one is involved and they all have freedom to speak out or voice out what they have in mind. Thus, they might have different opinion to share but the most important thing is that they should respect each others thoughts or insight.
I agree with Rexi and Frank. People tend to look at issues on a very superficial level without seeing the big picture. It's amazing to see Bachmann railing against how bad the government is…while she and her husband have made a good living off of government for decades. Government healthcare is bad for you…but she have always had government healthcare. Is anybody paying attention?
I agree with you here, Steve. If we followed this type of retribution laws, I know we would have lower violent crime rates. At the very least it would cause people to think twice before starting down the path to crime, I'm not sure if it would stop already violent criminals.
Sharia claims old testament roots, however they have used a pick and chose method that has altered the original intent of old testament principles.
Jeff I don’t know if retribution law would work because people are basically rotten at the core, and if the don’t change from the inside out with a willing attitude, and I mean this is something that leaning on jesus to do I don’t think retribution law would do anything but cause people to try to be more clever when they commit their crimes.