another nice job by Holder and the Obama Admin.



Alleged Al-Qaeda terrorist Ahmed Ghailani acquitted of all but one charge in embassy bombing trial (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/11/17/2010-11-17_alleged_alqaeda_operative_acquitted_of_all_but_ one_charge_in_terror_trial_.html)

the panel cleared Ghailani of more than 280 other counts, including the top charges of murder and murder conspiracy.

another nice job by Holder and the Obama Admin.


you mean 'another nice job by the jury'

this case was supposed to be a "test case" for future trials....

The first detainee from Guanatamo Bay to be tried in U.S. civilian court has been acquitted on all but one of the more than 280 charges he faced for his alleged role in the coordinated terror bombings of two U.S. embassies overseas.
A jury convicted Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani Wednesday on just one count of conspiracy for the 1998 al Qaeda car bomb attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania — attacks that killed 224. Prosecutors had alleged that Ghailani helped an al-Qaeda cell purchase a truck and components for explosives used in the suicide attack.
“This is Ahmed Ghailani. This is Al Qaeda. This is a terrorist. This is a killer,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Harry Chernoff said in closing arguments.On Wednesday, Ghailani was acquitted on all 276 murder and attempted murder accounts, as well as five other conspiracy charges.
After deliberating for five days, the jury returned with a guilty verdict on just one conspiracy count, a minor charge for “conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property with explosives.”



Attorney General Eric Holder, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee under questioning from Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat:

Kohl: Mr. Holder, last week you announced that the department will bring to Guantanamo [sic in transcript] detainees accused of planning the 9/11 attacks to trial in federal court in New York, as we've talked about this morning. On Friday you said that you'd not have authorized prosecution if you were not confident that the outcome would be successful. However, many critics have offered their own predictions about how such a trial might well play out.
One concern we have heard from critics of your decision is that the defendants could get off on legal technicalities, in which case these terrorists would walk free. Does this scenario have any merit? If not, why? And in the worst case scenario that the trial does not result in a conviction, what would be your next steps?

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. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.

Kohl: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I'm sure you must have talked about it.

Holder: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This--these are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result.

Holder needs to be fired.

failure is not an option

This upsets me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're forgetting the part about the guy having to serve 20 to life depending on the sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think people.....myself included....prefer he was hanging from the end of a rope

I think you're forgetting the part about the guy having to serve 20 to life depending on the sentence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are appealing the one charge that he was found guilty of...so I guess we'll see...

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured.. The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured.. The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

yeah, that's the first Blame Bush attempt I 've seen over this..Spence didn't even offer it up...

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. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.

so he got off?

I'm sure that the families of the 212 murdered feel that way, yes....

this was the test trial for future prosecutions...he "escaped" all but one of nearly 300 charges...and will appeal the one that he did not escape...not looking good for future trials...dumb decision by Holder and Obama

I thought the sentence could be 20 to life? If I had anything to do with the case, I'd be pissed at anyone whose actions led to some of the evidence not being allowed in court (civilian or military).

I thought the sentence could be 20 to life? If I had anything to do with the case, I'd be pissed at anyone whose actions led to some of the evidence not being allowed in court (civilian or military).

then you can thank the Clinton appointed judge for hamstringing the prosecution as well as Holder for giving a foreign terrorist access to our civilian legal system

So what would have been the difference if its was a military court - nothing. Much of the evidence would have still been thrown out. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. Blame Bush.

So what would have been the difference if its was a military court - nothing. Much of the evidence would have still been thrown out. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. Blame Bush.

I don't know about that...and I'm sure that this would not have happened..

"One news report suggests the verdict was a compromise to appease one juror who was holding out for an acquittal on all charges."

Review & Outlook: The Verdict on Holder - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550512803967230.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop)

The article never mentions the all important fact that that the tribunals act bars coerced evidence.

The article never mentions the all important fact that that the tribunals act bars coerced evidence.

you are the only one that I've seen mention it and/or suggest that the outcome would have been the same in a military proceeding...

"So what would have been the difference if its was a military court - nothing."

wait..I apologize..Biden hailed the result and claimed that the outcome would have been the same..or worse in a military proceeding....Vice President Joe Biden is not only painting the single Ahmed Ghailani guilty verdict as a victory, but saying that the outcome of this first-of-its-kind trial is better than if Ghailani had been tried in a military tribunal.

Biden....."He's getting a longer sentence. He'll be in jail longer than if any other method were tried."

they are appealing the one charge that he was found guilty of...so I guess we'll see...

The judge in this case has stated that the conviction wasn't even close, and I think 4 other terrorists have already been sentenced to life in civilian trials on basically the same evidence.

-spence

you are the only one that I've seen mention it and/or suggest that the outcome would have been the same in a military proceeding...
Plenty of legal experts, including the Judge in the case have said exactly that.

While there is a reasonable argument to the merits of trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts, 95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security.

The proof is in the pudding.

Federal courts have a solid track record of trying and convicting (150 or so since 9/11) real terrorists. The result is a lot of life sentences. Say what you want about the most recent case...he's going to prison and may very well die there.

How many terrorism convictions have military tribunals brought? I believe the answer is a thunderous THREE with two of those cases bringing no more than a slap on a wrist.

As PaulS rightly observes, this debate is really about what you believe in.

Do you respect the Rule of Law and believe in the proven strength of the US Constitution? Or do you find secret detentions, torture and tribunals (that may not even meet international legal standards) to be an acceptable and ethically sound mode by which to operate?

Separate the politics from reality and the absurdity of threads like this is painfully clear.

-spence

Plenty of legal experts, including the Judge in the case have said exactly that. name one

-spence

....I've read a lot regarding this case that is contrary to what you claim... neither of you have provided anything to support your claims and I've seen very little from anyone to support what either of you suggest....the WH isn't even rolling with your contentions....talk about separated from reality and absurdity :uhuh:

maybe watching too much MSNBC?

....I've read a lot regarding this case that is contrary to what you claim... neither of you have provided anything to support your claims and I've seen very little from anyone to support what either of you suggest....the WH isn't even rolling with your contentions....talk about separated from reality and absurdity :uhuh:
Neither Holder or the Military Commission process was seeking the death penalty and it's quite likely he's going to spend life in prison. Is there something in between death and a life sentence that I'm missing?

Regardless, even the Judge says had the guy been acquitted on all counts he wouldn't have been set free.

Moreover, it is appropriate to emphasize that Ghailani remains subject to trial on the pending indictment, that he faces the possibility of life imprisonment if convicted, and that his status as an "enemy combatant" probably would permit his detention as something akin to a prisoner of war until hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda and the Taliban end even if he were found not guilty in this case.


United States v. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, S10 98 Crim. 1023 (LAK) (http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/CaseDecisionNY.jsp?id=1202472980095&pStyle=decision&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1)


or this...


Second, it really is not clear that prosecutors would have fared better in a military commission. There is a fairly pervasive myth that military commissions represent the tough option, while federal courts represent the soft, wussy option. You know the trope: Military commissions represent a war mentality (tough, manly, conservative), while federal courts represent a pre-9/11 law enforcement mentality (weak, emasculated, liberal). The gross underperformance of the military commissions over many years has not shaken the trope, nor has their quiet development towards greater due process norms. There is no particular reason to think that the government would have gotten in before a commission the key witness that the court in New York excluded. The simple reality is that one cost of interrogating Ghailani in the CIA’s high-value program over a long period of time is to make any subsequent trial difficult.


Lawfare The Politics of the Ghailani Verdict (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/11/the-politics-of-the-ghailani-verdict/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

or this...

This problem, moreover, would in no way be “solved” by trying suspects in military commissions. Military trials also preclude the use of involuntary confessions – as indeed must any system of justice that could even hope to be called fair.

A Fair Trial, Without Torture's Taint - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/18/prosecuting-terrorists-in-federal-court/a-fair-trial-without-tortures-taint)

or this...

Moreover, there is no guarantee that a military commission, the preferred alternative of many critics, would have produced a tougher result. Such commissions are not apt to admit statements coerced through torture, so the star witness rejected by a federal judge probably would have been excluded by the military court as well. And in 2008, a military jury rejected the Bush administration's argument that Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was a hardened al-Qaeda operative, acquitted him of the most serious charges and sentenced him to a mere five months on top of time served.

Acquittal in terror case shows justice system's strength (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805834.html)

According to the Military Commissions Manual:

[304(a)(1)] No statement, obtained by the use of torture, or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. . . . whether or not under color of law, shall be admissible in a trial by military commission . . . .

Seems like the system, yet again, worked.

-spence

The judge in this case has stated that the conviction wasn't even close, and I think 4 other terrorists have already been sentenced to life in civilian trials on basically the same evidence.

-spence

wasn't even close?
Jury ends day without verdict in NY terror case
Deliberations at the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee hit a snag Monday when a juror told the judge she felt threatened by other jurors and asked him to be removed from the panel.

By TOM HAYS

Associated Press

Related

NEW YORK —
Deliberations at the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee hit a snag Monday when a juror told the judge she felt threatened by other jurors and asked him to be removed from the panel.

The note raised the specter of a hung jury because the juror said she was at odds with the rest of the panel as they try to settle on a verdict on terror charges against Ahmed Ghailani in federal court in Manhattan.

"My conclusion is not going to change," she wrote without indicating her position. "I feel (I am being) attacked for my conclusion."

wasn't even close?
Legally speaking on the indictment for which he was convicted, yes...

I guess we could remove the jury from the process if it would help make the conviction easier. We might as well just admit the evidence obtained under torture and/or coercion as well.

Hell, if the point of the exercise is to punish the man, we might as well just ship him off to an undisclosed location and rub him out.

The point is retribution and not justice...right?

-spence

yeah Spence this is great...did you read any of what you posted?

Acquittal in terror case shows justice system's strength
Thursday, November 18, 2010; 8:44 PM
THE STUNNING verdict in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee is an embarrassment for the Obama administration, but it should not deter officials from considering federal court prosecutions for others being held at the U.S. naval base.



" fairly pervasive myth that military commissions represent the tough option, while federal courts represent the soft, wussy option. You know the trope:" is this legal lingo?

and this guy sounds balance and fair and "separated from politics"

A Fair Trial, Without Torture's Taint
Updated November 19, 2010, 07:58 AM

David Cole is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and the author, most recently, of “The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable.”

Right-wing commentators, always eager to say “I told you so,” have jumped on the verdict in the criminal trial of Ahmed Ghailani as proof that we cannot try Al Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.


...............................

Andy McCarthy has been very good on this throughout...

Coercion Is Not Torture
November 19, 2010 12:05 P.M. By Andy McCarthy
I empathize with commentators on legal matters. There usually isn’t enough airtime or print-space to explain adequately complex issues. So commentators naturally take shortcuts. Often, the shortcuts do a real disservice. That is consistently happening in the Ghailani coverage, in which experts are conflating two very different things: coercion and torture.

The issue comes up because Ghailani’s confessions were not offered into evidence and a key witness identified during interrogation was not permitted to testify. Ghailani was subjected to enhanced interrogation tactics by the CIA in 2004. He repeated what he’d told the CIA to the FBI under the latter’s gentler questioning methods in 2007. Commentators are saying that the witness was barred and the confessions were not introduced because Ghailani was “tortured.”

This is not true. It is also a slanderous allegation, and I’m surprised to hear normally careful people throw it around so casually.

That’s undoubtedly why the Obama Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone over it, despite ceremoniously reopening torture investigations against the CIA. In any event, while we can stipulate that Ghailani was made very uncomfortable, there is no colorable evidence that he was “tortured” in the legal sense of that term


..............
and offers a compromise...something in here for everyone I think

How Should Terrorists Be Tried? - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253644/how-should-terrorists-be-tried-andrew-c-mccarthy)

You said name one, I named several. You can try to shoot the messenger, but the fact remains they all make a pretty consistent point.

What's interesting is that of all those indicted in the 1998 US Embassy bombing that are still alive and have been apprehended, two are being held in the UK fighting extradition, one is still in GITMO and all the rest have been successfully convicted in US Federal civilian courts.

Why are you trying to distract people from the answer to your own question?

-spence

Hang em high.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security.

and that is the only reason I posted here. Its a constant theme in the Repub. attacks.

King and McCain know better.

You said name one, I named several. You can try to shoot the messenger, but the fact remains they all make a pretty consistent point.

-spence

you didn't name anyone, I get ridiculed for cut and paste of far higher quality...you posted a WashPo editorial by ???....the ramblings of the oh, so objective David Cole, a random blog and the thoughts of the very defensive Judge in the case....the consistent point made is that this is a big screw up on the part of Holder and the Admin. :uhuh:

A Compromise Verdict, and No Winners - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253524/compromise-verdict-and-no-winners-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=1)

[QUOTE=spence;812186] 95 percent of the public debate is just political mud and fear mongering intended to paint Democrats as weak on national security...and perhaps at the very expense of our national security./QUOTE]

and that is the only reason I posted here. Its a constant theme in the Repub. attacks.

King and McCain know better.

absolutely...:uhuh:

11/18/2010 Democrat Senator Jim Webb said that the verdict proves “that those charged with crimes of war and those who have been determined to be dangerous law-of-war detainees do not belong in our courts, our prisons or our country. I again call on President Obama to use the new military commission system that is in place to try the terrorist detainees.” He points out that this new system balances robust procedural and substantive rights for the defendants, including prohibiting the introduction of evidence obtained through torture.

Maybe the attornies who helped try the case were some of those that Bush had hired from those crap law schools when he did his best to politicize the DOJ and some depts had 3/4 of the experiences attornies quit. You know those attornies who couldn't get in decent law schools.

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured..

What "illegal" detention affected this case? Judge Kaplan said that he could be detained even if he was found not guilty. Unlawful enemy combantants can be held until combat has ended. How was Ghailani abused? How was he tortured? He may have been coerced through "enhanced" interogation, but has torture been proven? Which C.I.A. agents have the Obama administration convicted for "outlaw" prisons or torture?

The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

It was judge Kaplan that decided the Ghailani confession was coerced, I don't know if a military tribunal would have concluded the same, but the judges decision barred the evidence from the civilian trial as well, so how does that make the point that "tainted" evidence would have excluded a military trial? The over 280 counts for which Ghailani was found not guilty didn't depend on that "tainted" evidence. Ghailani was indicted before the government even knew about the "key witness" that was excluded because of the so-called "tainted" evidence. Eric Holder felt he had enough evidence on those counts to slam dunk guilty verdicts. The military tribunal could also try Ghailani on other counts than that which depended on "tainted" evidence. And it would not have to depend on jurors of uncertain persuasion to find a verdict.

As far as blaming Bush for the civilian verdict, his choice of Attorney General, and his choice of which court to try, were not in play. Neither you nor I can know what the outcome would have been under Bush. This is Obama's game now. It's his team and his decisions.

Maybe the attornies who helped try the case were some of those that Bush had hired from those crap law schools when he did his best to politicize the DOJ and some depts had 3/4 of the experiences attornies quit. You know those attornies who couldn't get in decent law schools.

The judge, Kaplan, who presided over this case was appointed by Clinton.

The U.S. Attorney present for this case, Preet Bharara, was appointed by Obama.

The Jurors were N.Y. residents, not a bastion of Bush lovers, certainly not appointed by bush.

I get it. You hate Bush.

Actually I voted for Bush the first time but believe he quickly turned into the worse Pres. we had in modern times. I wouldn't say I hate him, I would just say he was a lousy Pres.

What makes you think that I approve of people in the Obama White House appying pressure to the DOJ not to investigate Yoo, bybee and the torture memos?

Hopefully, those grads of the fine Bob Jones University have gotten jobs by now.

Maybe the attornies who helped try the case were some of those that Bush had hired from those crap law schools when he did his best to politicize the DOJ and some depts had 3/4 of the experiences attornies quit. You know those attornies who couldn't get in decent law schools.

"maybe" would be the operative word...if it makes you feel better, keep :fishin:

you don't seem angry or unhinged :rotf2: some would suggest "full of hate"...but not me:love:


do you believe that the very brilliant Obama and Holder would trust such an important prosecution to Bush era lackeys and incompetents?

Actually I voted for Bush the first time but believe he quickly turned into the worse Pres. we had in modern times. I wouldn't say I hate him, I would just say he was a lousy Pres.

What makes you think that I approve of people in the Obama White House appying pressure to the DOJ not to investigate Yoo, bybee and the torture memos?

Hopefully, those grads of the fine Bob Jones University have gotten jobs by now.

Perhaps your willingness to fecklessly blame Bush for the verdict and throw in emotionally loaded but legally innaplicable notions such as illegal detention, torture, abuse, and then add a totally irrelevent and overblown jab about Bob Jones University grads, don't necessarily mean you hate him. Maybe it's justification for your belief that he is the worst Pres. in modern times. And none of your poking at Bush has to do with the supposed slam dunk of trying Ghailani in civilian rather than military court.

No, being angry or full of hate is when your constantly posting unflattering pictures of the Pres., have discussions concerning his wife, their diet, bring their kids into discussions, commenting on if he has a flag pin on his lapel, etc. - Go to the main page here, I'm sure there will be more than a few topics started one on those subjects.

No, being angry or full of hate is when your constantly posting unflattering pictures of the Pres., have discussions concerning his wife, their diet, bring their kids into discussions, commenting on if he has a flag pin on his lapel, etc. - Go to the main page here, I'm sure there will be more than a few topics started one on those subjects.

he just doesn't take a good picture...ever...does he?...and yes, Michelle should try a salad once in a while instead of yapping about what everyone else should be eating and discussing everyone else's diet...love the kids, they're cute:uhuh:

Perhaps your willingness to fecklessly blame Bush for the verdict and throw in emotionally loaded but legally innaplicable notions such as illegal detention, torture, abuse, and then add a totally irrelevent and overblown jab about Bob Jones University grads, don't necessarily mean you hate him. Maybe it's justification for your belief that he is the worst Pres. in modern times. And none of your poking at Bush has to do with the supposed slam dunk of trying Ghailani in civilian rather than military court.

Did you even read the thread? What was the first post here? It was fecklessly (frankly, I'm not sure what that means) blaming Obama and Holder. Who here said it was a slam dunk other than Scott? Once most of the evidence was ruled inadmissable, no trial would ever be a "slam dunk". If torture, abuse, etc. were not legally applicable, why was most of the evidence thrown out?

Did you even read the thread? What was the first post here? It was fecklessly (frankly, I'm not sure what that means) blaming Obama and Holder. Who here said it was a slam dunk other than Scott? Once most of the evidence was ruled inadmissable, no trial would ever be a "slam dunk". If torture, abuse, etc. were not legally applicable, why was most of the evidence thrown out?

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.

Who here said it was a slam dunk other than Scott? Once most of the evidence was ruled inadmissable, no trial would ever be a "slam dunk". If torture, abuse, etc. were not legally applicable, why was most of the evidence thrown out?

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.

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

The problem was not the choice of a court. The problem with this case was Bush’s authorizing the illegal detention, abuse and torture of detainees. Ghailani was held for five years in outlaw C.I.A. prisons and at Guantánamo and was abused and tortured.. The prosecution could not use his interrogation b/c of that and couldn't introduce testimony by another witness because interrogators learned his name from Ghailani’s coerced testimony. That tainted evidence would have been excluded in a military trial. The military tribunals act bars coerced evidence. He had a fair trial and now will prob. never see the outside of the prison.

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.

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

.

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?

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
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 (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/11/military-commission-rules-on-coerced-evidence/)

-spence

Did you even read the thread?

Yes, I even read the thread.

What was the first post here? It was fecklessly (frankly, I'm not sure what that means) blaming Obama and Holder.

Scott's post was not feckless. It was purposeful and substantiated by the actual verdict. Your contention that it was Bush's fault was unsubstantiated conjecture. It is not possible to substantiate that if the trial were done by Bush's choice of court the verdict would be the same.

Who here said it was a slam dunk other than Scott?

Several commentators have used the phrase slam dunk before the trial started.

Once most of the evidence was ruled inadmissable, no trial would ever be a "slam dunk". If torture, abuse, etc. were not legally applicable, why was most of the evidence thrown out?

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.

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.

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.


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 (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253577/one-more-ghailani-mr-president-stop-blaming-bush-andrew-c-mccarthy)

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. :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.

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:

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

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.: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

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.

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.

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

That's all you got? Pathetic.

" 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.

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: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: 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.

: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

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.

: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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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


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.

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

As crappy as Detroit is, it does have highlights. Hope all goes well.
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

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).

Thanks. Being a little boring isn't so bad. I bore myself sometimes. So, if I'm not totally boring, that's probably why you read some or a few of my posts? Or, maybe, sometimes you're so bored with everthing else that, oh, what the hell, let me check out detbuch's crap?

The "parsing" as you call it (not really parsing, but I know what you mean, so I won't nitpick)--the responding sentence by sentence is just easier to do than going off forum and crafting something that tries to coherently put together all the responses in a really long-winded essay. I'd think that reading brief responses would be short-winded, no?

BTW, you might note that your claiming that I see fit to comment on EVERY sentence is exactly the same kind of hyoperbole that Jim in CT committed when he said ALL Democrats instead of some. I often do sentence by sentence, as I'm doing, somewhat, here. But many times I don't. You made a big deal about Jim's exaggeration--can you now give him some slack and see that it was only, as he admitted, hyperbole, and not a big detraction from his argument?

If you find my posts "scintillating" then either don't read them or put me on your ignore list.

I said your posts scintillate with interesting comments. Why wouldn't I read them?

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.

Saying that I get it, you hate Bush, was not an isult, but a perception (if you disagree, fine) based on the context of your stubbornly wanting to blame him with unsubstantiated comments and throwing irrelevant jabs. To say that you hate someone is not an insult, certainly no more than saying someone is boring. And I didn't "claim" you were obsessed. I put a ? after it, which is to say, since you denied that you hate Bush, why did you insist stubbornly, without doubt, on blaming him?

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.

Am I required to comment on all off topic jabs before I can comment on your's? And, I'll agree with you that I shouldn't have "personalized" it by wondering if it was hate or obsession, but I just should have stuck strictly, without asides, to the argument that you couldn't substantiate that Bush had Ghaillani tortured, etc. Ergo, Bush cannot be "blamed" for the outcome of the trial or that the outcome would have been the same in military court.

Some people here don't post anything but jabs but when I mention Bush, you act as if I insulted the Pope.

The Pope gets insulted on a regular basis. I've got no dog in that hunt.

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.

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.

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

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.

My reference to ScottW (and another poster) being classy was their previous constantly posting things like calling all democrats idiots, democraps, etc.

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

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 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.

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.

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

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:

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:

. My reference to ScottW (and another poster) being classy was their previous constantly posting things like calling all democrats idiots, democraps, etc.

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.

Scott - No, I didn't say what you claimed I did.



posting things like calling all democrats idiots

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


-

you are obviously right...I quit :screwy:

you know what, I looked at it again and it could be all little ambigious. But what did you think the word etc. meant? Is there really a difference between calling ALL Dems. IDIOTS or MORONS. Isn't the intent the same?

But again, as I said it's hard to keep all your insults straight - especially from a 4 -5 month old tread.

Is there really a difference between calling ALL Dems. IDIOTS or MORONS.

I've done neither, but you are making a great case for yourself as posterboy for either category...:screwy:

you may have to go back 18-24 months to find some real dirt ....but I don't know....we all know how you are about reading admittedly......:bsod:

Is there really a difference between calling ALL Dems. IDIOTS or MORONS.



No...

I've done neither, but you are making a great case for yourself as posterboy for either category...:screwy:

you may have to go back 18-24 months to find some real dirt ....but I don't know....we all know how you are about reading admittedly......:bsod:

Are you saying that you've never responded to a post that concerns the Dems by saying something LIKE " ..... those Obamamorons..."? You know you have and that is why I called you classless.

You insult more people on this site than anyone else. An indication of the type of person that you are is that you insult JohnnyD a few posts above even though it appears that you know he has you on his ignore list - your a pathetic individual.

Are you saying that you've never responded to a post that concerns the Dems by saying something LIKE " ..... those Obamamorons..."? You know you have and that is why I called you classless.

You insult more people on this site than anyone else. An indication of the type of person that you are is that you insult JohnnyD a few posts above even though it appears that you know he has you on his ignore list - your a pathetic individual.

I'm saying I never said what you are claiming I said, you just keep changing the subject ....yes, I speak feeely knowing that I'm on JD's childish ignore list....

there are so many ironies in your posts...not the least of which is your contention that Detbuch's posts are boring... and of course, your repeated insults and pontification .....:uhuh: :biglaugh:

I'm saying I never said what you are claiming I said, you just keep changing the subject ....

How am I changing the subject? B/c I said that you have repeatedly called all dems either idiots or morons? Again are you making your statement on the basis that the insults was slightly different? I admitted I wasn't 100% sure. I can't remember all your insults b/c you make them in most threads. 4-5 months ago I started telling you that it was classless to repeatedly post in a thread that ALL dems are morons, idiots, or some very similar insult (I better add the word similar b/c that seems to be the key in this discussion). That is why you continue to use the word classless now - like a little 12 year old trying to get digs in (similar to how you comment on my reading things b/c I once said I don't read every link, cut and paste or post and also now your repeated use of the word pontifiate).

I've don't have a problem with you complaining about a single person's statement, its the insult of 50% of the voting public that I've commented on.

You make more insults than anyone else here - by far.

I guess its just a difference in how we see things. I see your knowing JohnnyD can't see your posts but insulting him as low. You see it as speaking freely.

How am I changing the subject? B/c I said that you have repeatedly called all dems either idiots or morons? once again...I have not Again are you making your statement on the basis that the insults was slightly different? I admitted I wasn't 100% sure. I can't remember all your insults b/c you make them in most threads. so, as usual you pontificate assertions with no actual facts 4-5 months ago I started telling you that it was classless to repeatedly post in a thread that ALL dems are morons did not, idiots did not, or some very similar insult (I better add the word similar b/c that seems to be the key in this discussion)no, all would be the key...your sticking point with Jim remember?. That is why you continue to use the word classless no...CLASSY now - like a little 12 year old trying to get digs in (similar to how you comment on my reading things b/c I once more than once said I don't read every link, cut and paste or post and also now your repeated use of the word pontifiate).yup

I've don't have a problem with you complaining about a single person's statement, its the insult of 50% of the voting public that I've commented on.

You make more insults than anyone else here - by far. prove it
I guess its just a difference in how we see things. I see your knowing JohnnyD can't see your posts but insulting him as low. You see it as speaking freely. no, just having a little fun

you have effectively solidified yourself as posterboy:uhuh:

btw....I said "I quit" a while ago because you'd been thoroughly discredited but you seem to have a twisted desire to always get in one last false assertion:smash: I guess you are just having a really bad thread....I won't put you on my ignore list...despite all of your insults...you are oddly amusing :jump1:

A quick search the following uses of the term "Obamamoron".

“I supposed a dedicated Obamoron would suggest that Bo is actually engaged in "shared sacrafice" because he was willing to "share" his private jet with the Presidential Dog Walker”


“they are going to need to order doctors and insurance companies to provide free counseling to the Obamarons for their imminent suicidal depression, after the realization finally sets in for these people who have been duped, first by the New Deal, Great Society, Al Gore/Global Warming...and then Barry Obama/Hope and Change...and the realization that all of the goodies the dems have been selling them in return for votes all of these years was a ponzi scheme crock and all that they've come to rely on is bankrupt and can no longer sustain them ..these poor demented souls are going to need a lot of therapy.... ”


And then I called you on your use of obamamoron, you directed it at me –the prior 2 were some of your many, many general insults.

“C'MON....coming from you??? one of the least informed people here ...that means absolutely nothing...beyond the admission that you are infact...an "Obamoron" you can't stand the fact that I force you to look at the truth... ”

I have no interest at counting the number of insults on this board but if you don't realize that you have many, many, many times more than anyone else, you just have no common sense.

Scott, as I said, I think you’re a sad individual.

A quick search the following uses of the term "Obamamoron".

“I supposed a dedicated Obamoron would suggest that Bo is actually engaged in "shared sacrafice" because he was willing to "share" his private jet with the Presidential Dog Walker” that was a good one :rotf2:


“they are going to need to order doctors and insurance companies to provide free counseling to the Obamarons for their imminent suicidal depression, after the realization finally sets in for these people who have been duped, first by the New Deal, Great Society, Al Gore/Global Warming...and then Barry Obama/Hope and Change...and the realization that all of the goodies the dems have been selling them in return for votes all of these years was a ponzi scheme crock and all that they've come to rely on is bankrupt and can no longer sustain them ..these poor demented souls are going to need a lot of therapy.... ” all true...and...yes, there was a story the other day that 20 percent of our population sufferers from some mental illness, probably brought on by Obamamania and the huge let down


And then I called you on your use of obamamoron, you directed it at me –the prior 2 were some of your many, many general insults. did you know that Jimmy just called JD ignorant?

“C'MON....coming from you??? one of the least informed people here ...that means absolutely nothing...beyond the admission that you are infact...an "Obamoron" you can't stand the fact that I force you to look at the truth... ” there's a problem?

I have no interest at counting the number of insults on this board but if you don't realize that you have many, many, many times more than anyone else, you just have no common sense. that was so weak, you still haven't supported your contention that I called "ALL Democrats" either...funny how in one thread it makes "all the difference in the world"...and credability is at stake... in another..ehhh....not so much...that's not hypocricy is it?

Scott, as I said, I think you’re a sad individual.

you're cute....like the little ant and the rubber tree plant...

You refered to all dems. as Obamamorons in those posts and I'm sure there were many, many more posts. I showed you a tiny sample. Frankly, I can care less if you want to ignore them.

I wonder if anyone has more people than you on their ignore list?

But hey if I don't post again, you can have another thread where you were the last poster and you think you won (don't forget to add a few laughing emicons (especially the rolling on the floor one) to go with a snide comment).

You refered to all dems. as Obamamorons in those posts did not

a dedicated Obamoron
free counseling to the Obamarons
that you are infact...an "Obamoron"..funny, nothing about all democrats

and I'm starting to question your sanity, do you assume that all democrats voted for Obama?
and I'm sure there were many, many more posts. prove it I showed you a tiny sample. Frankly, I can care less if you want to ignore them.

I wonder if anyone has more people than you on their ignore list? just two that I'm aware of and could give a rats a$$

But hey if I don't post again, you can have another thread where you were the last poster and you think you won (don't forget to add a few laughing emicons (especially the rolling on the floor one) to go with a snide comment).

:rotf2: it's not about winning...at this point I feel like I'm doing a great service to one who is delusional and needs a great deal of help, I'm here for ya buddy