so much for the "slam dunk"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

so how was Scotts first post ("another nice job by Holder and the Obama admin.") "purposeful and substantiated" by the actual verdit?

Its purpose was to show how the Ghailani trial as a test case for trying the 9/11 conspirators in civil court with all the due process accrued to defendents there, and with the dangers of a random civilian jury, might not be such a good idea--the lone juror who didn't think the preponderance of evidence that WAS presented merited conviction and wanted to hold out for acquittal shows the danger of jury nullification in civil court

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.

Well, there it is. It has finally been judicially and legally established that Bush authorized torture. Up till now it has been accusation, argument, conjecture, no trial (neither civilian nor military) has been convened to establish the Bush torture, but, BAM, you have stated it unequivocally--BUSH AUTHRIZED TORTURE! case closed--PaulS says so.

Now, I don't recall judge Kaplan claiming that the "tainted" witness was excluded because of some Bush authorization. Because of some possible, probable, maybe, you know, one of those really definite terms or phrases, the prosecution had to prove that such really absolute coercion (or did he say Bush authorization--it seems that this stuff is being repeated, to no avail, and swimming about in my brain, like I'm being slowly water tortured and wearily worn down with repetition . . . Ah YES! I confess . . . Bush authorized the torture, abuse and illegal detention of Ghalaini! And yet . . . he was convicted on one count and could get 20 years to life. Let's see--Bush authorized the torture of Ghailani and he got 20 to life--Ah, Bush's strategy of authorizing the torture of Ghailani was successful! And I mentioned Bush's name 5 times in this paragraph. I AM obsessed with Bush--OOPS.

You mentioned him as much as I did so that is no more obsession on my part than yours.

Right. That has been established. We're both obsessed.

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?)

Not concerned. Just trying to understand. It's OK to be obsessed. Obsession can lead to great accomplishment. Or insanity. Yes those posts are obsessive. Be careful, you mention Obama a lot as well.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

Deep.

[PaulS]

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

No. Never was upset. Your Bob Jones Univ. comment is totally irrelevant to this thread. Just another jab at Bush . . . not, aparently, out of hate for him, nor because of an obsession to blame him, or because it makes you feel good to do so-- Maybe just a joke. OK, ha-ha.

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

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.