forgive Paul, he's a self-admitted minimal reader(but still lots of fun) and probably gets most of his info from Ed Schultz :rotf2: ...the evidence that was allowed was compelling ...apparently for all but one juror

Holder: "Many of those who have criticized the decision--and not all--but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.
They've not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good--in fact, if I didn't think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there."

Paul...do you know what the word "enhanced" means?

there's a pletherea of these if you simply do a little research...you can't be as incredibly arrogant as these people routinely are and then whine and blame others for pointing out blatant shortcomings or big disasters when things don't go the way that they so demonstratively said they would ....while glaring down their noses at those in a "position of ignorance"


Holder's terror trial catastrophe

Washington Post
By Marc Thiessen
Monday, October 11, 2010

If President Obama needed a clarifying moment to help him decide whether to try Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court, a federal judge's decision last week to bar the testimony of a key witness in the trial of Ahmed Ghailani should have provided it.

Ghailani's prosecution for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa was supposed to be a slam dunk, which Attorney General Eric Holder would then hold up as evidence that civilian courts could handle the prosecutions of other Guantanamo detainees with more complicated cases.

so what you are saying is that Holder the Brilliant either made his brash statements knowing that, as you stated "most" of the evidence, that believed obtained through torture or cohersion would be thrown out by the judge but that they would still have an "enhanced" prosecution opportunity in the civilian court...or he made those statements believing that evidence gained through supposed torture or cohersion would actually be allowed by the judge? a liberal Clinton appointee??? And did you think that the Obama admin. and Holder and his prosecutors would argue vociferously to include such testimony/evidence given their stance on the issue to date???

if all is well, then we should be hearing about the start of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial any day now...right?

Why do I have to defend Holder’s or anyone else's statement - I never brought up their statements in this thread (you have quote various people repeatedly as if I or someone else is their spokesman).

The only thing I said was that the problem was not the choice of the court and that any coerced evidence/testimony would be thrown out in both the civilian court or a military court.

maybe....maybe not


The Detainee Treatment Act, or “D.T.A.,” enacted on December 30, 2005, provides that no individual in
the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government shall be subject to cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined by reference to the Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of the nationality or location of the
individual. Therefore, the M.C.A. requires military judges in military commissions to treat allegedly
coerced statements differently, depending on whether the statement was made before or after December 30,
2005. See 10 U.S.C. § 948r(c), (d). For statements made on or after that date, the military judge may admitan allegedly coerced statement only if the judge determines that the statement is reliable and possessing
sufficient probative value, that the interests of justice would best be served by admitting the statement, and
that the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement did not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment prohibited by the D.T.A. If a party moves to suppress or object to the admission
of a proffered statement made before December 30, 2005, the military judge may admit the statement if the
judge determines that the statement is reliable and possessing sufficient probative value, and that the
interests of justice would best be served by admitting the statement. In evaluating whether the statement is
reliable and whether the admission of the statement is consistent with the interests of justice, the military
judge may consider all relevant circumstances, including the facts and circumstances surrounding the
alleged coercion, as well as whether other evidence tends to corroborate or bring into question the
reliability of the proffered statement

They should have gotten what they needed from him and dropped him off in the Atlantic with a row boat and then he could have been granted his freedom. If his comrades got a hold of one of us I guarantee they would not have been that kind.

Scott - so we're at maybe or maybe not?

Jack - Never said anything indicating what his sentence shoule be. Life in jail or hanging is fine with me. I don't want to what they would to do to be the standard on what we should do.

are we?

you are the one that indicated definitively that "any coerced evidence/testimony would be thrown out in both the civilian court or a military court."

the judge in the case didn't even go that far...I don't think that you can say that definitively but you have hung your hat on it :uhuh:

I should have used the :rollem: I thought the "?" would have indicated that.

It was in reference to your saying maybe, maybe not.

I still feel that much of the evidence would have been thrown out.

So your saying that none of the evidence would have been thrown out?

He was brought into custody in 2004 and held at GITMO until 2009. Is the date of the statements public knowledge?

I believe the DTA was to govern how detainees were treated, not how a Military Commission would interpret if evidence was admissible. I would think that if there was an indication that coercion was present, you'd still have to prove that it didn't influence the evidence being submitted.

To Detbutch's point above, it's a fair question to ask if the Federal Judge used a different rational to determine inadmissibility than a Military Tribunal would have. But I'm not sure they would...

Here's an interesting take on the subject.

Lawfare Military Commission Rules on Coerced Evidence

-spence

Was "most of the evidence" thrown out? Evidently Holder and his crew thought they had enough in spite of the loss of the "tainted" witness. And if they didn't, it was stupid on their part to have the trial. Stupid on their part, not Bush's.

"Torture," "abuse," and "illegal detention" to be legally applicable have to have been legally adjudicated as such. Has there been a legal adjudication that Ghailani was tortured, abused, and illegally detained? Judge Kaplan disallowed the "tainted" witness on grounds that Ghailani may have been coerced to divulge information and that the prosecution did not prove that such coercion did not happen. The prosecution did not object and argue for inclusion of the testimony, as what may have happened in a military court, but, instead stipulated that coercion probably happened, and proceeded with what they thought was a highly winnable case. And, for the most part, they were right--with the exception of a single juror that, for whatever reason, could not see the merits of the preponderance of evidence and argumentatioin that was submitted. This, apparently, led to the compromise which avoided the embarassment of a hung jury. This may well not have happened in a military tribunal where the judges would be more attuned to the merits of the evidence.

But we'll never know. Personally, I don't have much of a bone to pick with the decision to have civilian rather than military trials. I think military trials are more appropriate for unlawful combatants. I think there is much to lose in terms of classified information. I don't think those who avow to kill or destroy us, when caught in the act, deserve the same constitutional rights of citizens who wish to preserve and protect this nation and its Constitution.

My response to you is purely a retort to your--obsession?--for blaming Bush.

so how was Scotts first post ("another nice job by Holder and the Obama admin.") "purposeful and substantiated" by the actual verdit? Most of the evidence was thrown out and Ghailani got a sentence that could be 20 to life. Bush authorized torture and the court threw out the evidence as a result of the authorization. You mentioned him as much as I did so that is no more obsession on my part than yours. If your so concerned with people being obsessed with Presidents, you should come around and watch people discuss what the Obamas had for lunch (or have you missed those posts?) Any time someone mentions a person and you don't approve of it, is it an "obsession"? Who cares that "several commentators" used the phrase slam dunk - they weren't on here.

Gosh, why do you say that I don't approve of it? I approve! I approve! It is wonderful that you are obsessed with blaming Bush. It makes you feel good, justified, moral, and the holder (not eric) of truth.

Actually, "slam dunk" has been used several times here, including by you.

you should read this Paul..I cite Andy McCarthy frequently because he led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others and is very inciteful, you are generalizing a lot regarding the "torture" evidence without many facts


One More on Ghailani: Mr. President, Stop Blaming Bush - By Andrew C. McCarthy - The Corner - National Review Online

Ok, I guess the commandment came down from the mountain. Glad you got all that out of my posts. :biglaugh: You must enjoy looking in the mirror:uhuh::rotf2: Its seems like your posts are much more the "holder of truth" than I've ever attempted mine to be.

Deep.

Are you still upset over my comment about Bob Jones Univ.?:biglaugh:

You must be fun at parties trying to parse every statement, syntax and tense. Don't have kids, it will drive them crazy.:biglaugh:

I have two sons. We have good times together. We have laughs, tears, arguments, and sometimes drive each other crazy . . . the normal stuff. We love each other.

Never liked parties. Some were fun, but in general, I would have rather been doing something else. Now, small family gatherings, or visits with friends are better than ever. For me, personally, I'd rather be outdoors, doing almost anything other than being at a so-called party--not that there's anything wrong with them.

As for "parsing" statements, syntax, and tense--if I have done so here, it may have been in humor. I do examine what is actually said. Is that a problem?

Is it a problem to point out that blaming Bush for the verdict in the Ghailani trial has no legal standing? Is it a problem to wonder why you do so, and continue to do so when your contention that he authorized torture, abuse, and illegal (outlaw as you also put it) detention is merely accusation (95 percent, as Spence might say political mud slinging--quality dirt), conjecture, and useless on legal merits in the determination of the verdict? Even you lamented that the Obama Admin. refuses to investigate "torture memos." So you know that these accusations have not been adjudicated to be true. And it has been pointed out here that the exclusion of the "tainted" witness could have been argued against by Holder's crew. Would it be a problem to point out that doing so in a court of law would have put the Obama Admin. in the peculiar position of having, outside the court, during a political campaign, made charges of such "illegal" interrogations, but then having to fight against those charges in actual litigation? It would have made those "unofficial" charges appear to be merely political ploys. And it would make it more difficult to use the enhanced interrogation techniques that they may be using now and in the future if they were exposed as "illegal". By stipulating that coercion may have happened (without naming exactly what that coercion was) allows the Admin. to maintain the illusion that "Bush tortured, etc." to help the dems politically and to still maintain enhanced interogation techniques. Which may also be the reason why they refuse to investigate so-called "torture memos."

Is it a problem to point out that you cannot KNOW that a military trial would have given the same result--that that is merely conjecture, and that there is strong argument that a different verdict would have resulted in a military tribunal? And that the "tainted" witness could well have been allowed in a military court (see the Andrew McCarthy link provided by ScottW)--AS WELL AS IN THE CIVILIAN COURT if Holder's crew had correctly argued for it? And even if the "tainted" witness had been allowed, there is no garanty that the kook witness would have changed her mind. WHICH IS ANOTHER ARGUMENT AGAINST CIVILIAN TRIALS OF UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS--JURY IGNORANCE, JURY NULLIFICATION.

more pontificating

So when you make statements that are irrelevant to a thread or that cannot be substantiated and are meant to be politically inflamatory--that's simple, downhome, common sense, moral righteousness?

If I point out, in detail, how your statements are irrelevant, unsubstantiated, stupidly stubborn in their insistent intent, that's pontificating?

You admittedly didn't understand the word feckless and incorrecty used it anyway. Now you, apparently don't understand the meaning of pontificate. You should stay away from the use of words outside the range of your limited vocabulary.

I understand pontificate and your posts come across as pontificating.

"Come across" is not a statement of certainty. It is an expression of personal taste or feeling. There is an old expression--their is no disputing taste. How things "come across" to you is not arguable. It is more an indication of how you see rather than what you see. Two people may see the same thing and have a different opinion of what they see, or hear, or read. What may "come across" as pompous to you may "be perceived" as simply true by someone else. Do phrases like "be perceived" seem like pontificating compared to "come across" to you? Do "statement of certainty" or "expression of personal taste" seem a bit uppity? OK, I can see your point, and can't argue with your personal tastes. More important, is my "pontificating" true or false? If by saying that I pontificate, you're implying that I'm not truthful or that I'm wrong, then prove it. Prove that what I've said in response to your posts is wrong. In the thread by Jim in CT re Bush tax cuts only for the rich you kept demanding that he provide a link or back up his assertion, and that he didn't have any credibility in any of his posts if he didn't do so. So if you're implying that my "pontificating" is an indication that what I've said RELATING TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD is wrong, then prove it. If you don't, or can't, then you do not have any credibility (and, as you put it to Jim in CT, you're lying).

If you're saying that I pontificate is just a little personal dig, that's no big deal and doesn't matter to me. That doesn't change the fact that you should, as you demanded of Jim in CT, back up you're assertions re Bush, or you have no credibility.

you should stop your whining, it's so unappealing.

That's all you got? Pathetic.

pretty much sums it up...hey..is that HYPOCRICY ?

let's ask the expert...Paul?...what say you?

ok, sorry I don't read most of your posts as I find your pontificating boring (which could be a reason that you don't like parties. I'm sure after a while you find yourselve in the corner with no one to talk to). I said you pontificate. That is my opinion. Jim made the asinine statement "that ALL Democrats.....". If he said "some", it wouldn't have been an issue. I asked him to back it up and he never did. See the difference?

:confused::confused: Not even close. It would probably be best if instead of not reading most of my posts, you just put me on the ignore list and read none of them.

Good point...one of the reasons I often push off responding is that I'd like to make a meaningful response...to what is most usually a thought provoking remark.

That being said, I'm now in Detroit and need to get to bed so I can get a work out in before our 8am start Tuesday morning.

-spence

The more I "get to know you," the better I like you. As crappy as Detroit is, it does have highlights. Hope all goes well.

I have no interest in putting anyone on the ignore list. I guess I'd do that if I got mad enough but I haven't seen a post yet that gets me that upset.

The reason I suggest you put me on the ignore list had nothing to do with your anger. It's that I bore you. Why should you submit yourself to boredom? Just read posts, like yours, that scintillate with interesting comments. And I can't blame you for not responding to what I actually referred to when I asked you to prove what I said was wrong. M#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g through boring, pontificating statements makes it hard to focus and can lead one's mind to stray. Certainly, your pronouncements on Bush's guilt, like a Popes message to his flock, need no proof, and your injection of off-topic Bush jabs, and your certainty on how I would fair at a party, could never be mistaken as pontificating. After all, you generally don't use big words. And, in contrast to what you said about ScottW, your posts in this thread have amply demonstrated that you're one of classiest guys on this forum. What was it, again, that you said about mirrors? Perhaps,except for ocasionally asking them who is the fairest one of all, and getting ready to go out, you should avoid them.

Jim, with my help, backed it up with direct quotes from all MAJOR democrat leaders from Kerry to Pelosi that said exactly what Jim stated. You just wanted to nit-pick since you had no other point to make.

Your right I do find you a little boring and don't generally read most of your posts (nor do I read many of the other long winded, parsing type of posts but most people don't see fit to comment on every sentence someone writes like you do). If you find my posts "scintillating" then either don't read them or put me on your ignore list. I made one statement on Bush in about 3 months and you claim I “hate” him and then I'm "obsessed". If you disagree fine, except you start with the “hate” insults, say I'm obsessed, moral, the holder of truth, etc. Claiming that is a "Bush jab" is fine, but I haven't seen you get so upset with most of the posts here that are off topic jabs. Frankly, the Bob Jones Univ. was more of a jab. So you take a somewhat low level heated argument and personalized it.

Some people here don't post anything but jabs but when I mention Bush, you act as if I insulted the Pope. My reference to ScottW (and another poster) being classy was their previous constantly posting things like calling all democrats idiots, democraps, etc. Frankly, I have seen much less of it. Scott still does his best to insult people but he has toned it down quite a bit – read his posts (even in this thread) where he constantly will make a statement, post a copy of something and then throw an insult in. The other person has toned it down much more. If I insult anyone here, it’s directly to them and not to all people who have a certain belief/feeling. So yes, there is a difference


He never said all "Major" leaders in his original posts. That's not nit-picking, it makes a world of difference.

It's an interesting area I've been to many times over the years. Good memories of Red Wings games and dinners at one of my favorite eateries (The Rhino) which I believe is now closed.

I'm in Livonia which isn't all that bad, or that special. Will be good to be back home Thursday evening.

-spence

I see all of the posts that you mention. Some are meant to be funny. Some, I whince at. I'm generally not into the insult thing. But if I'm insulted enough I might give back. For the most part, the kind of posts you talk about are not worth the rile. Let it go. You mentioned in this thread that the only reason you posted was because of the constant theme of the Repub attacks. Is that what upset you to the point of irrelevantly inserting Bush into the discussion? Just sort of turning the tables--silly tit for silly tat? I get that. But you also said here, in another context, that you don't want what others do to be the standard of what we do.

That it's become a pissing match between you and me is also irrelevant to the thread and, by now, probably boring everybody else.

Yeah, the Red Wings have been good for a long time and have a long, great history, being part of the original six. They're about the only thing Detroit can brag about now. Yup, the Rhino is closed. It was a fatality of development, if I recall correctly. Too bad--it was a unique touch of the old Detroit riverfront architecture blended into a classy urban restaurant. I knew the owner who recently died. He was one of the leaders in the church that I used to attend. A lot has died in Detroit. If it can survive its government is the answer and provider, anti-business, black victim mentality, there is enough infrastructure for the private movers and shakers like Ilitch (who owns the Red Wings and Tigers) to transform, with friendly tax structures and elimination of the horrible crime problem, the old city into a thriving Midwestern hub. Dream on. Ironically, re the crime problem, the large influx of illegal latinos is refurbishing what had become the dilapidated core city. This may be slowly changing from a rather impotent black power city to one where Central Americans are the bottom up energy. It's a strange new mix here where you have the strongly Catholic latinos of Southwest Detroit separated from the large Islamic community of East Dearborn by an old Cemetary.

I never called "all" democrats idiots.....not even "major" democrats...or "all democraps", for that matter....I love that...democraps...gotta remember that one :rotf2:

you are losing credabiity by the post.......ooops....was that insulting?...or just nit picking?

I think it was ObamaMorons- right, was that the insult and not idiot? Sorry, its tough to keep all your attempted insults straight.

Thus one of the reasons why he popped the cherry on my ignore list. The first person ever. If you do the same, you'll find that putting just one or two people on there culls out a large majority of the Rush-type nonsense.

you wrote that I called "all democrats idiots"..... your exact words....

.....now are you going to hold yourself to the same high standard that you aggressively demand of others ?...or have no credability?



..... "it makes a world of difference"

I'm on JD's ignore list because he's a self-absorbed blowhard(politically speaking) that loves to run off at the yap and savage others but hates to have his duplicity and the intellectual shortcomngs of his arguments pointed out...:uhuh::grins:

Scott - No, I didn't say what you claimed I did. I've highlighted what I said "ie - posting things LIKE calling all .....". So if you want to hang your hat on the difference b/t moron and idiot, go right ahead. And if it makes you feel good, I did apologize. As I said earlier, its hard to keep all your insults straight - especially from a 4 month old thread.