so much for the "slam dunk"

[scottw]

[QUOTE=PaulS;812265]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

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


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

[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]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[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?

[PaulS]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[PaulS]

I should have used the 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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

-spence

[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.

[PaulS]

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.

[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.

[scottw]

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? 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

[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.

[PaulS]

more pontificating

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

I understand pontificate and your posts come across as pontificating.