so much for the "slam dunk"

[PaulS]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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 ...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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.