Sorry for the source, they broke the story - what can I do:

Obama Administration Denies Request for Fort Hood Report That Could Aid Suspect - FoxNews.com

Here is, perhaps, the best example of a trial which has a foreseeable outcome. What could this document POSSIBLY contain that would allow this man to be found not guilty? This would be an instance where the wheels of justice turn painfully slow.

It was conspiracy that stuck, the wonderfully amorphous catch-all statute, 18 USC s. 371

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...1----000-.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)

IIRC, my professor, a 4th Circuit judge joked about how one can almost always get a conviction under conspiracy.

how do you prove conspiracy? isn't that like trying to prove intention? what is my intention as i write these words? how do you know? can you prove your assumptions? i don't see how.

KirStang,

Thanks. I did know it was the conspiracy charge. I guess I've yet to hear how what the evidence was on that charge - especially since the evidence would be prior to the 1998 bombing. I'll see it eventually, I guess.

---------- Post added at 02:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 PM ----------

It's been a while, but I thought conspiracy meant two people discussing the "planning" of the commission of a crime. That's why it's so easy to convict, they don't really have to prove you were going to take the crime all the way. That's why you don't talk about "fantasy" crimes at the coffee shop. :)

*you* might not talk about fantasy crimes at the coffee shop, cimmaron...nyuk nyuk.

i would think that it's either really easy or almost impossible to convict of conspiracy just because evidence has to be a problem given that conspiracy does speak to intent.

this would likely be a threadjack tho. not sure. we'll see i suppose.

When have I condoned the prior administration's behavior? I haven't.

Why is someone critical of Obama necessarily pro-Bush?

Put the straw man away.

maybe it derived from this:

which was the whole of the op you put up.

then your last post, which repeated many of the criticisms being tossed about by the republicans.

so not really a straw man. a reasonable inference from information you provided.
if you didn't want that inference made, you perhaps should have paid more attention to what you wrote.

"Why is someone critical of Obama necessarily pro-Bush?"

I haven't said one word to laud the behavior of the prior administration.

It wasn't an implication on my part so much as an assumption on your part.

And, as I believe our president ought have had better insight as to the potential outcome, I stand by my position that we've been "fucked."

I'm sorry if my inflammatory language provoked a partisan reflex, but I would have said the same if it was a Republican administration who moved this case to a civil court.

What has fucked us up is Gitmo (where nearly half of those detained committed no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time and held for years with no redress -- Faces of Gitmo), CIA black prisons, enhanced interrogation techniques in defiance of US law and treaty obligations....

What has served us well is restoring and following the rule of law.

If anyone seriously shared the view that Bush broke laws and now Obama is restoring and following the rule of law why aren't they taking legal action against Bush? When will the reasoning presented above stop, it is no longer taken serious. It was possible to take serious when Obama took office and when Holder made his proclamation that what he thought occurred during the Bush years was actually torture and illegal but he did nothing. If he is not going to uphold the law as you see it , why aren't you calling for his resignation? It is not about the law, it is about bashing Bush - it is old. Then add in the class of Bush by being silent regarding the challenges of the current administration, the Bush bashing makes those doing it look small.

Obama's first act was an executive order to end enhanced interrogation and estraordinary rendition to countries with less than honorable legal systems of justice. An early commitment was to close Gitmo, which unfortunately, he could not do as a result of being blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

Bush created his own definitions of detainees and enhanced interrogation techniques to skirt the law. The Bush DoJ attorneys who wrote the questionable opinions were reprimanded by the Bush DoJ IG for inserting political interests into legal opinions that should have been solely on the points of law.

The question of prosecuting Bush remains. Many think the current DoJ should go forward.

I think it would tear the country apart and can live with the fact that Obama has overturned the worst of Bush's practices (while continuing other practices with which I disagree).

The greatest danger to the country is not terrorism, but extremists in positions of power who put their ideology and short term political interests above the law (and their followers, like you, my friend) who continue to justify their actions.

dc_dux,

At the risk of starting an argument, how do 60 democrats get blocked by republicans in the Senate?

They never had 60...unless you count pro-war independent Joe Lieberman? And yes, a few other Democrats were opposed.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

Beyond that, ace's argument that Bush didnt break the law by circumventing US laws and treaty obligations regarding treatment of detainees with highly questionable (among the legal community) and politically tainted legal opinions from his DoJ because he hasnt been prosecuted is simply bullshit.

Another example of compromising core beliefs. Reminds me of the saying - "if you won't stand for something, you will fall for anything." If I actually believed what you say you believe, I would not stop until justice was done. However, most reasonable people understand that "we" did not cross the line during the Bush administration, and that known terrorists responsible for killing thousands of innocent American deserve to pay a price for their actions either on the battle field or in a military trial. And that under no circumstance should they be allowed the opportunity of being legitimized or set free by a not guilty verdict for the deaths they are responsible for.

I get it, ace.

You believe your sense of justice is greater than the Constitution and the rule of law.

---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Here's a saying for you, ace:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- Ben Franklin

No. I am opinionated but I am open to learning and growth. When I see something that challenges my beliefs, I challenge it - if that something has the strength of conviction and does not wither upon scrutiny - I can be convinced. On the issue of Bush and torture, I don't believe Obama, Holder, any liberal with the power to do something about it, or you, because when challenged you folks too easily compromise your beliefs. I do not see a violation of the rule of law or the Constitution and you can't or won't make your case in a meaningful way.

ace...I know when I am banging my head against the wall and know its time to quit.

When you are an self-acknowledged ideologue who only sees things in black and white and views compromise for the better good as a sign of weakness, there is no reason for further discussion.

news flash will. we got rid of that system about 50 years ago.
now, all we do is let two guys tell us the evidence, then have a judge tell us we must rule according to the law as that judge explains it to us. we're not allowed to judge the law or it's use.

Really? So, say I walk up to a news reporter who is in the middle of a live newscast and blow his brains out on national TV, then I'm not guilty until I go thru a court trial? The evidence speaks for itself. Same as for KSM who claims to have masterminded 9/11 or the shoe bomber who was caught red handed by several people on the flight he was trying to blow up.

And yeah, in cases like KSM or the shoe bomber, I am serious about the pointlessness of a trial. There's no doubt the guy did it. Why pretend otherwise?

However you describe yourself, people like you will investigate the hell out of a guy like Libby and convict him for getting some trivial facts wrong under oath - but when you think the integrity of the Constitution, the rule of law, the very nature of a civil society has been circumvented at the highest level and that there was illegal torture, there is nothing!

I can't see trying 'enemy combatants' in a military tribunal. The military court system is set up to utilize military laws and procedures, yet are totally inefficient for a civilian/non military defendant. It's a classic case of the government wanting their cake and eating it too.

I didnt convict Libby. He was tried through the justice system and found guilty. I would have accepted any decision in which the rule of law is upheld.

keep tossing out those red herrings, ace. Thats what uncompromising extremists do. :thumbsup:

Change the name Libby to Clinton.. still like that post?

because if you allow exceptions for one case, you open the door for any others that the government (or apathetic people) wish to pursue. pretty soon, you may end up with no trials at all, just summary executions a la judge dredd.

Just because we fucked up in our methods of obtaining evidence in a manner that is correlative with our own standards doesn't mean we get to abandon those standards for our own safety. Perhaps conservatives who support willy-nilly justice that ebbs and flows according to the severity of their own abuses are the ones who have the most to learn from this event. Maybe?

dc_dux,

At the risk of starting an argument, it is factually incorrect to state the Republicans blocked the closing of Gitmo. Correct?

Correct.

Not a chance in hell that you ought to be able to be released on bail, but yes, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That applies to the Chuck Mansons of the world, as well.

It is a check and balance on our system of justice. A second opinion that due process was followed and that "obvious" guilt is indeed guilty.

How many Gitmo detainees have that level of evidence against them? 3? Maybe 4? And for those cases, we have a short trial in which they plead guilty and then go on to sentencing. What about the innocent people, dogzilla? What about the fact that Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to then-secretary of state Colin Powell, has stated that most Guantanamo detainees are innocent?

What I find most amazing is you stating "The evidence speaks for itself." Well no, dogzilla, it doesn't. The evidence is classified or nonexistant, and we won't even know why these people were kidnapped until they're tried on the evidence. You're arguing against the evidence; you're saying "don't worry about the evidence speaking for itself. I know they're guilty."
KSM admitted guilt, yes. Was that before or after he was tortured? If it was coerced, should that admission be admissible in court? Would you admit to something you didn't do if tortured?
I can't make it much more clear than this: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not representative of the detainees in Gitmo. There's a mountain of evidence against the Christmas bomber, most of it quite public. What evidence do you have that similarly condemns every single man in Gitmo?

I posted in the past that I actually changed political parties (Republican to Libertarian) in part due to the way Republicans handled the Clinton matter. It was a joke and an embarrassment the way it was handled.

---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

True. However the red herrings are like bait - I am waiting to see if I can find something you feel so strongly about that you wont compromise.

By the way, I can't wait for the Bush tax cuts compromise, the compromise that won't really be a compromise for us uncompromising extremists.:thumbsup:

Did not know that, thanks for clarifying.

Then I would create something totally new, just for the Gitmo terrorists that we know are guilty.

---------- Post added at 11:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------


The concept of evidence in war is beyond me. Like I said we can never agree from what follows from the question of are we at war or not.

{added} I am going on a vacation and my wife is telling me to get off of the f,ing computer, leave your freinds (yea right, she just doesn't know) alone, and pack. To all those I offended this week, I apologize. FYI, my wife loves this show call the "Dog Whisperer" and I found out why a while ago, those who watch will understand. I am like the dog who gets singularly focused and increasingly wound up - the dog whisperer on the show does some kinda magic with the dog to get it to snap out of it - my wife is like a Ace whisperer. If Cesar was here, he would tell you guys that you are doing everything wrong. Have a great Thanksgiving.

The only reasonable alternative, then, would be something outside the jurisdiction of America. Would you suggest an international court?

Well how very convenient for you. Therefore you don't have to discuss the far-reaching implications of ignoring established principles of jurisprudence in order to circumvent our own abuses of the system. How very, very convenient. Therefore, you don't have to actually say that you support abuses of the system.

---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

haha. yeah.

It's easy to have this attitude as an American. If I didn't have sympathy for people I've never met, I could very well feel this way, too.


When I see images like this one, knowing that these men have never even been tried and convicted, I get this thing called moral outrage. The sense of justice I was partially born with and partially developed because of my environment is triggered by the thought of innocent, usually poor and Arab people being kidnapped, taken to another part of the planet, imprisoned for who knows how long, and are likely abused and even tortured. Even if I did believe we were at war with these people Spoiler: we're not actually at war with anyone, I'd still find myself horrified at the idea of innocent people being treated this way. I'd imagine a similar feeling of horror is what gave birth to the ethical theories behind our justice system.

but... but... the sense of necessity that I attribute to my nation's military's moral ambivalence during wartime makes me feel vital and feeds a personal sense of urgency that makes my life seem more interesting. It's, like, life or death, man. And if we don't torture and convict people to send messages to other people who might dislike us for, among other things, our casual wartime disregard for human rights, then we're all going to get killed by terrorists and then they will laugh at us, but maybe not in that order.

...

We are not at war. But we are in military conflict with extra-national non-identified combatants, in which said actions have been upheld by the SCOTUS in cases such as Padilla v. Rumsfeld. More over noting the case that war has not been declared by congress, miltary action has been, thus opening the door to tribunals.

Even in court cases as late as 2008 where the SCOTUS ruled against the Bush administration, they still didn't challenge the legality of Gitmo or the President's right to deem suspects combatants, merely that they have a right to challenge the status and a right to file for habeaus corpus.

The convicted received 20 years to life - that's a minimum of 20 years in prison (no parole), and possibly the rest of his life in prison. I fail to see how this conviction somehow demonstrates American 'weakness'.

ace, I find your line of reasoning beyond disturbing. You said something to the effect that acquitting a "known guilty" person presents an unbearable risk. But what do you mean when you say "known guilty"? Known to whom? To you? How would you go about defining the set of cases in which the guilt of the accused is "well-known" enough to determine the outcome of a trial before it begins? Could it possibly be defined in a way that can be determined more or less objectively?

It's faster and more correct to call them either alleged insurgents or criminals, depending on what they're charged with.
That question wasn't before the court. They have yet to rule on this issue.