"... of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result may again fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists."
May?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३९ टिप्पण्या:
Obama is an idiot and just not up to the job. Please let's have an adult POTUS next time.
OJ Simpson was also acquitted in a civilian trial. Yes, my faith in the efficacy of civilian trials is disturbing.
Oh yes, civilian trials are the way to go in the war on Islamic terror. This proves it once and for all.
And if you disagree with me your a redneck, gun-clinging, bible-reading, racist Islamophobe.
I doubt this gets the press it deserves. It will be sold as a slam dunk... no problems here, move along. But the cat is out of the genie bottle bag* and 2012 voters, democrat, republican, and independent alike hopefully will not forget this latest bit of luck in the terrorism close-call category.
Never again a neophyte. I would take a completely corrupt yet competent president right now. And I LOATHE political corruption.
*to seriously remix my metaphors.
There's no fucking way you'll see see any more civil trials for Guantanamo detainees after this. The administration avoided a huge political and legal mess by a pretty narrow margin.
Not even Holder is stupid enough to press his luck here. KSM and his pals are going to be down there for a good while.
"I doubt this gets the press it deserves."
Care to tell us why you believe that?
OT..
Rockefeller says FCC Should Take FOXNEWS and MSNBC Off the Air...
The exclusion of real relevant evidence to punish the American Intelligence interrogators for not acting nice to terrorists and respecting all their constitutional protections that the SCOTUS has seen fit to create as procedural rights of US citizens accused of crime, means we have surrendered one more time. Thanks be to our Muslim-Kenyan Supreme Leader.
Well when you put your faith in lawyers.......
Because of the verdict. Ultimately guilty is guilty. Most people don't remember box-scores, rather, only who won and who lost. The fact that it was so insanely close (statistically 279 to 1) may resonate with those who bother to look into it, but the MSM are not known for pressing Obama on much of anything and certainly nothing as serious as his national security bonefides.
Oh, Rush will be on this bone for weeks but the MSM will spend minimal time exploring the nuances.
Sorry I broke with protocols but a US Senator just took a dump on the first amendment...or something ;)
you dont see that everyday.
OJ Simpson was also acquitted in a civilian trial. Yes, my faith in the efficacy of civilian trials is disturbing.
So let's scrap the WHOLE thing.
Aren't we all glad 9/11 didn't happen on Willie's watch?
Maguro said...
There's no fucking way you'll see see any more civil trials for Guantanamo detainees after this. The administration avoided a huge political and legal mess by a pretty narrow margin.
Not even Holder is stupid enough to press his luck here. KSM and his pals are going to be down there for a good while.
That's the problem, at least for them. They avoided nothing. If the election was a referendum on The Zero, this played it's part along with everything else.
As for Holder not being stupid enough, that's not the issue.
How much does he hate this country?
"Garage Mahal said....
So let's scrap the WHOLE thing."
You mean the Obama Administation and their fucked up Justice Department?
Why that the best thing you have said in a month of Sundays Buddy!
Cool!
More likely, "innocent is innocent", q.
"I doubt this gets the press it deserves."
It's been huge on NPR. And, the didn't use they "may" qualification. They were clear regarding the political and general problems for BHO's policy.
I was car-bound (w/o my 4G thing for the laptop) today. So, after hearing about this every thirty minutes on NPR, when I reconnected, I was surprised that the tubes weren't more into this story. I was shocked by the minimization on Drudge. And, my flipping in and out of Fox didn't pan out either. Weird?
Presumably the hyperventilation can still occur tomorrow.
Was the lawyer for the Justice Department one of the ones who formerly defended the terrorists?
You know lawyers change sides really quickly but you know that Obama's guys kinda feel for those poor oppressed terrorists.
So maybe he didn't try too hard.
You call this a profession?
Oh yea, and Obama is swell. He's half black you know, and that says something fabulous about us!
Bringing a trial some 12 years after the fact is hard enough.. not to mention all of the "rules of evidence" pretrial motions that probably slimmed down the prosecutions best evidence down to nothing..
They are lucky they got him on one.
WV: right - even word verification agrees we got lucky.
and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.
article has been edited
Nice catch Dac!
If this verdict had been announced in late October I think the GOP pickup would have come close to 100.
Evidence that the perp purchased explosives was excluded.
So let's scrap the WHOLE thing.
If thats what it takes to re-establish some common sense then yeah, lets roll.
"I was shocked by the minimization on Drudge. And, my flipping in and out of Fox didn't pan out either. Weird? "
Nobody is surprised, and criticizing Obama is getting to be just too easy to bother. There's no fun in it anymore without a challenge. He's like the Monty Python Black Knight, walking around with no arms telling us it's just a flesh wound. I suspect his reelection plan will be to capitalize on the pity we'll have for him.
Maguro said...
There's no fucking way you'll see see any more civil trials for Guantanamo detainees after this. The administration avoided a huge political and legal mess by a pretty narrow margin.
Not even Holder is stupid enough to press his luck here. KSM and his pals are going to be down there for a good while.
I'd love to say you are right, but you won't be simply because in this cadre of morons their ideology trumps all. They will slavishly follow that ideology to the hilt and KSM and his merry band of head cutters will get their day in court because Erkle says they should. Terrorists win.
Actually garage, I'll make this offer. Lets treat terrorists like the British did pirates back in the day. I mean the Royal Navy pretty much soley ended bigandage on the high seas.
Give me those rules and I'd end this bullshit inside of 2 years and that includes my tee times.
Makes me want to stay in touch with my jury of "peers".
You mean the Obama Administation and their fucked up Justice Department?
New material please. That was about as fresh as Tom Coughlin's boxer shorts.
Actually garage, I'll make this offer. Lets treat terrorists like the British did pirates back in the day.
How bout we just treat our prisoners like our predecessors did? The people that wrote our documents. Tyranny to them was getting locked up in a dungeon without due process. Grow a fucking pair and do it how they would do it. It's not that hard.
@ garage:
So you think we need some fresh meat in Justice too? Cool.
Plus, just saying that an argument isn't "fresh" is not actually an excuse for ignoring it. Otherwise the 'Left' would have had to collectively* sit on the sidelines for the 2004, 2006, 2008 elections..
*'cause I know how the left likes to do things collectively (wink).
I would do Eric Holder.
So you think we need some fresh meat in Justice too? Cool.
Yea! Obviously. We lead the world in our justice system, not follow. Try these cocksuckers and move on.
My understanding was that Bush's Military Tribunals certain "hearsay evidence" could be admitted at trial..
As if this was not all - here is the kicker..
Obama still has two more years to consider backtracking (go back and say Bush was right) or continue to sink his re-election prospects by following a kamikaze policy.
It almost makes you want to feel sorry for the guy.
Heckuva job Barry!
From the article-
"Judge Kaplan told the jurors they had demonstrated that “American justice can be rendered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people, people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours.”"
It is not surprising that Ann's Althouse Hillbillies are only interested in one thing-that this person is lynched whether he is guilty or not.
No need for evidence when you are a rabid mob.
Ann, you must be so proud.
The key is US citizen or not. The citizens get our privileges and immunities whether they deserve them or not. The non citizens get what they deserve only. What's so hard about that? The problem is that Obama wants to reward the Muslim terrorists for being superior beings or something...like all Muslims view themselves while the despise and murder us infidels. Obama loves Muslims, but not Americans. Like Roger Ailes says, Obama sees things differently from an American. Dinesh D'Souza pegged him right.
Denver - Yawn.
Care to predict whether there will be any more "successful" civil trials like this one?
Trad Guy- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Denver...You ignorant slut. The issue is that THERE WAS COMPLETE EVIDENCE, but it all got excluded to punish the police for treating him like a non-citizen. Wake up and get in the game.
Trad Guy, even Muslims have "unalienable Rights". Sorry about that.
I know, I know .. Lem you are politicizing national security..
Well had Obama carefully considered the ramifications of the change in policy other than Bush Done = Done Wrong he might not be in this predicament..
El se lo busco!
You know, maybe, just maybe...the evidence didn't support the accusations.
It might be the first time in our history we have indicted and tried an innocent person for a crime, but, after 200+ years as the world's paragon of absolute perfection in every way...maybe we made our very first mistake!
A wise man once said: "You are with us or you are against us."
Regardless of the verdict/sentence, he's going back to Gitmo. I'm thinking this is worth it.
Yes Trad Guy, they tortured a confession out of him that could not be corroborated.
So, I guess in your kangaroo court as long as we torture Muslims long enough to the point they confess then it will be alright.
It is sickening what many on the right have become in this country.
DenverLibtard: It is not surprising that Ann's Althouse Hillbillies are only interested in one thing-that this person is lynched whether he is guilty or not.
No one said anything about lynching. You're projecting again.
See, this is why the Left will get us all killed - they only care about due process for illegal combatants because it lets them feel righteous on the chat boards.
When you stray from the herd is when you get picked off by wolves.
I saw that on Wild Kingdom.
Or maybe it was Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC.
Nice try Denver. I get it. The impulses you must feel; I mean.
You have been luxuriated into them quite unfairly by international standards; but I get it.
But really, where's your mob?
A mob is an actual thing.
A mob has pitchforks and hanging ropes...
You should be comforted that people who, in their earnest political-religious beliefs try to kill as many baddie USA civilians as possible will be afforded every legalistic escape from the culture they seek to destroy.
A wise man once said: "You are with us or you are against us."
I'd hate to follow that movement. But, I've always been one to stray from the herd.
I'm not sure that I trust the judgement of the American people. These juries may be a bad idea, even if all the evidence was allowed.
I mean, look at DWTS. Obviously [At least this seems to be obvious to some people who actually watch (unlike me) DWTS] Americans (or, at least DWTS voters) are not motivated by logic/merit.
Really, we'd all be better off if El Rushbo as was our dictator. Let him kill bad folks and sensibly tax the non-job creating folks. I'm sure we can trust him. He loves America.
Although, "El Rushbo" sounds Mexican. I hope they have satisfactory birth records in Cape Girardeau. Hey, that town sounds French--even worse than Mexican!!
Fen, not one of Ann's Hillbillies has raised the possibility that maybe there was no evidence that this guy was actually guilty.
They do not raise this possibility because they do not care whether he is guilty or not. They just want him to be punished because he is a Muslim.
Like i said, Ann must be so proud.
Libtard: I guess in your kangaroo court as long as we torture Muslims long enough to the point they confess then it will be alright
"the evidence showed that he helped to buy the Nissan Atlas truck that was used to carry the bomb, and gas tanks that were placed inside the truck to intensify the blast. He also stored an explosive detonator in an armoire he used, and his cellphone became the “operational phone” for the plotters before the attacks, prosecutors contended.
The attacks, orchestrated by Al Qaeda, killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injured thousands of others."
"May?"
Wow, Althouse gets results! Go to the NYT article, and now it says...
The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.
Libtard: not one of Ann's Hillbillies has raised the possibility that maybe there was no evidence
Thats because they can read.
I understand now why you call us Hillbillies - you're just intelligent enough to be insecure about your lack of.
You're the hillbilly. Learn to fricken read.
But, I've always been one to stray from the herd.
Thanks garage.. I know you wont let us starve ;)
God Damn America!
Obama's chickens are coming home to roost!!
I'm curious how he could be found guilty of conspiring to destroy government buildings but NOT found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. How does one blow up a government building without killing the people inside?
Juries are weird.
But he was so guilty that even the corrupt racist incompetent Obama Justice Department managed to get a conviction.
Imagine what someone who knows what they are doing or were real loyal Americans who really had their heart in it could have done.
q12345q6789 wrote
"You should be comforted that people who, in their earnest political-religious beliefs try to kill as many baddie USA civilians as possible will be afforded every legalistic escape from the culture they seek to destroy."
This man is not "people." Instead, he is an individual and should be judged as such.
The Althouse Hillbillies sure like their collective punishment though...
Garage: But, I've always been one to stray from the herd.
"Lets all be non-conformists!"
Garage in his Che shirt, feeling hip and cool.
Denver...The Muslims unalienable rights all got aliened the day they they they started blowing up innocent people all over the world. While you try to restrain any workable responses to these murdering, insane Muslims, they are arranging for Pakistani nuclear bombs to be delivered into NYC and DC. So what does a pre-emptive nuclear strike on them do for your delicate conscience?
Fen said:
"No one said anything about lynching. You're projecting again."
Libards are fans of lynching but only for Americans who are also rich Wall Street types, greedy capitalists and Republican lobbyists.
Eric Holder makes John Mitchell look like freakin Hammurabi, John Marshal and Matlock all rolled up into one.
2740
Google search results:
Number of hits althouse.blogspot.com with the keywords "fen", and/or libtard".
We won't discuss the ********* ****** **** that we were talking about earlier.
Denver is also I.E. Lee right?
Trad Guy there are a billion Muslims in this world. Only a minuscule percentage of them are interested in blowing up stuff. But maybe we should just put all Muslims in this country in internment camps? Would that make you happy Trad Guy?
@ Denver:
Really? Ok. I was using "People" as I would use "a person". that's pretty standard English usage in conversation (and certainly within a blog post).
But KUDOS! on not addressing my points and rather making some asinine aside instead.
Plus "Hillbillies" is 'effin gold man!
PS do you call Muslims "Ragheads"?
That would seem to be fair, No?
AJ,
You forgot the "electronic" variety. You know, Mr. "Golly, there are pubic hairs on my coke can."
"But maybe we should just put all Muslims in this country in internment camps?"
Well Obama is the most liberal president since FDR who was the only one to do something like that, but I don't think most real Americans would go for it.
But you can never put anything past a real liberal so I guess it is possible.
def. Althouse Hillbillies=intellectually stunted political reactionaries. Often of middle or upper class income. Not to be confused with the Beverly Hillbillies.
Eric Holder is either a misprint.. or DNC propaganda.
The AG's real name is Eric Loosem.
You heard it here first.
Thats funny Denver, because you're the one flailing here.
Don't be so insecure, you're not *that* stupid.
PB&J:
Coke can etc? don't get your point?
wv = hopsessu [Hop Sing's descendents go Union!]
"Regardless of the verdict/sentence, he's going back to Gitmo. I'm thinking this is worth it."
So...far from being disturbed--even horrified--that a man acquitted on all but one charge against him...all the most serious charges...might still be condemned to life in Gitmo, you applaud it.
How cheery will you feel when such practices start to bleed into our normal judicial proceedings, and everyday American citizens are acquitted but remanded to custody anyway? After all, Obama already claims the right to assassinate anyone in the world he wants to, on his own say so, including Americans. The TSA is already threatening civil legal actions against citizens who refuse to be groped or x-rayed and who leave the airports and skip their flights in order to refuse compliance.
Doesn't this scare the fuck out you?
I don't know enough to appraise whether this is a fair verdict or not, whether he was guilty of murder or not, and neither do any of you. The point is, he had his day in court, as any of us are entitled to have, and he--as we--is entitled to assume the punishment will fit the crime.
You're applauding lawlessness and tyranny, and before you know it, you'll find we have what you cheered for, and it'll be applicable to all of us, and you'll say, "How did this happen?"
(Perhaps this is not your meaning, and perhaps you merely are satisfied that, his having been convicted on one charge, if he serves one year or five or ten and is released you'll consider that justice has been done. Fair enough. But the sentiments here overall, and among many others, certainly fit my perception that frighteningly too many want this man and the other accused terrorists thrown into dungeons and forgotten, regardless of any legal findings of guilt or innocence, regardless of whether there are even any legal findings attempted at all.)
"Eric Loosem"
Good one Lem!
Anybody can take a terrorist... but in the end the whole idea is to hold them.. to hold the terrorist so as to keep them from doing terror again.
And I didnt even go to law school.
Denver...The Day After the Bin Laden's nukes have blown away NYC and DC, then we can discuss your idea for internment camps. Until then, they are our guests here. Obama's OK for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Bin Laden and Pakistan is the question that needs to be discussed.
The prosecution should have gone for a mistrial when that one juror asked to be excused.
Go Cook. The Enlightenment. Mmm. Kinda sexy.
Cookie:
Did you live in NYC on 911? Your empathy for scumbags like this astounds me.
I nominate Lem for the new word of the year prize. Eric Loosem should go viral and get used by Limbaugh by tomorrow, which will prove he reads Althouse.
Perhaps this is not your meaning, and perhaps you merely are satisfied that, his having been convicted on one charge, if he serves one year or five or ten and is released you'll consider that justice has been done. Fair enough.
Oh yeah...one or five ten years for killing 270 people with a truck bomb...all perfectly just outcomes in Cook's world.
Michael Vick served more than one year for killing some dogs. Get a grip, man.
@ Rob:
OK you're gonna get some blow-back. And here's mine.
This isn't an arrest on your street corner. This shit involves types of evidence and involvement that the judicial courts of the contemporary USA may/ may not be properly geared towards. The fact that you obliquely ignore all of the mitigation that would go on in a case like this speaks volumes.
Like every guy at Gitmo is just a John who got got with a Hooker and that's it. What's the big deal?
I am a civil libertarian and even I know that there are some significant challenges facing our contemporary justice system that are unique to the 21st century version of terrorism and yet you guys continue to be trapped in, I dunno when, Like, "If the officer didn't see it, It didn't happen."...
Here comes Cook lumping terrorists and airplane flying Americans in the same pot.
That doesn't work anymore Bob.
The election of this past Nov says so.
AJ,
I should have written " high-tech " rather than "electronic," re lynching.
BTW, I just found that link via google, I have no idea if it is a sensible site, or not.
CBS News: "Ghailani also stored electric detonators - one and a half inch, aluminum coated, PETN charged blasting caps - in the armoire of his Dar es Salaam house. The FBI found one, along with clothing tainted with TNT residue.
"He doesn't realize he has left one detonator behind because he has so many of them," Chernoff said.
But our libtards think he's innocent.
Of course, the name Eric Holder makes no sense when he helped to let loose Marc Rich so ERIC LOOSEM it is!
Lem you may become famous!
Robert Cook The Child Molestor said: How cheery will you feel when such practices start to bleed into our normal judicial proceedings, and everyday American citizens are acquitted but remanded to custody anyway?
Hey dumbass, your side is the one that insisted we bring this into the normal justice system. *Now* you choose to be concerned about the precedent it sets?
Lem you may become famous!
Oh no.. You mean I'm the one we've been waiting for?
Oh no ;)
Fen takes off the gloves..
Here is the thing.. Of course I'm not happy with the outcome.. I dont think anybody is.
But its like Fen said just now to Cook.. We are just saying bluntly put I told you so.
This is war.. not your run of mill everyday criminal matter..
AJ,
Could you please refer to me as "pbyp."
Because: pbyp, that ain't no pb&j sandwich. [Quote starts at 1:20]
Poor Obama. He was Ferris Bueller during the campaign and now he's somebody in a Dostoevsky novel.
He deserves it. Bad ideas are bad ideas because they don't lead to desirable outcomes.
Obama & Ideas? 9 out of 10 commenters here have better ideas than Obama. And that includes the drunken commenters!
Lem said :
"Fen takes the gloves off"
I think he only needs to take one glove off to mash Cookie.
garage mahal said...
Actually garage, I'll make this offer. Lets treat terrorists like the British did pirates back in the day.
"How bout we just treat our prisoners like our predecessors did? The people that wrote our documents. Tyranny to them was getting locked up in a dungeon without due process..."
You don't know too much Revolutionary War history, do you Garage. Ben Franklin had his own son locked up in an unheated stone dungeon for two years without trial Richard Franklin was one of the 55% that survived that long in captivity - but his hair and all his teeth fell out from malnutrition.
The Signers of the Sacred Parchment also ordered Loyalists be arrested in REvolutionary-held areas = held in stockades -and their property seized without trial, then Loyalists were marched off and tossed across the Canadian border or stuffed on British ships to go to other parts of the Empire.
Oh yeah, Franklin - also a fan of burning enemy printing presses (as was John Adams), opening mail w/o warrant, and military tribunals.
I wonder who was that Law professor The Genius who recommended to vote this empty-suit from Harvard ... uummm...I'm still thinking ...
Isn't it a little stupid or "unpatriotic" to say that our justice system doesn't work? I think the finest thing this country can do is to put the putative terrorist/criminals on trial in a real justice environment.....or is that only available to wall street pops and soccer moms ..oh and that tv family? Sorry to be snarly. The lovely thing about the comments on this site is the wild diversity.
Yos - in her defence she said McCain lost her.. her Obama vote was a no vote for McCain.. or something.
You can read it for yourself.. if you want.
traditionalguy said...
The key is US citizen or not. The citizens get our privileges and immunities whether they deserve them or not
================
US citizenship means squat when the US citizen is on the enemy side. Just think of what Abraham Lincoln had to do to "US Citizens" to fight a war. FDR hammered enemy combatants that were also traitors by virtue of US citizenship. He sent two US citizens who came on Nazi subs as saboteurs to military tribuan, turning one into burnt wormfood in 60 days.
In WWII, saying you were a US citizen "born in the USA!" upon capture after fighting with the Nazis or Japs was an excellent way of getting shot on the spot.
In the Philippines, returning US troops and Filipino scouts placed the highest priority on finding and killing (1)The Imperial Navy Special Landing Forces that ravaged Manila (2) Any Jap fighter that was a US citizen or resident of the Phillipines before the war started.
In the Gulf War, we placed a higher priority on finding and killing a naturalized US citizen fighting for Saddam than other enemy that were not traitors.
Isn't it a little stupid or "unpatriotic" to say that our justice system doesn't work?
Oh no, that's the point - our justice system works just fine. We have said since day 1 that evidence gathered through enhanced interrogation should never find its way into our courtrooms. Hence the warning against moving jihadists into civilian courts.
CIA used stress to break this guy down. He was a key player in an East African cell that had already bombed 2 embassies, killing hundreds. We needed to break the cell before more people died. And we did.
I think the finest thing this country can do is to put the putative terrorist/criminals on trial in a real justice environment
It's war, dumb ass. It's not a criminal issue. Get it through your thick skull.
♫ All we are saying is give Bush ♫
Stop stop stop (says a loud voice)
.. excuse me.. sorry..
try these lyrics.. again..
♫ All we are saying.. is give JAG a chance ♫
♫ All we are saying.. is give JAG a chance ♫
Good ;)
I think the finest thing this country can do is to put the putative terrorist/criminals on trial in a real justice environment
Thats because you are not thinking it through. Evidence is gathered to stop terrorist attacks, not prosecute them.
So, your idealistic notion means innocents will be blown up because our lawyers don't want the chain of evidence to be corrupted before trial.
I hope its your family and not mine.
"Al Jihadist you have the right to remain silent"..
WTF?
Oh I am so utterly offended at the actions of this jury. HOW DARE THEY! Didn't they understand the wink-wink nod-nod that they were supposed to come back with a GUILTY verdict. Fucking traitors. They're all probably shit-chute-fucking gay Islamosympathizing socialist pigs. Obama should send 'em all to Gitmo and torture them and then let them back in the jury room so they can return the CORRECT verdict. Every single one of the jurors has committed an unpardonable act of treason.
Now Obama AND the Republicans AND America's whole War on Islam is going to be embarrassed, and that political cost is the worst of it. This should never had happened. We. Must. Stop. Releasing. People... and stop trying them in court, in military tribunals, or even trying to evaluate whether they are bona-fide terrorists or not. Just pick them up, torture them to get the information we need, and then kill 'em. Kill 'em whether they have anything to do with terrorism or not; that way we won't have to deal with the political cost of any of it. And do it in secrecy, for Christ's sake!
We started to go down this proper sadomasochistic road with Abu Ghraib but someone leaked some photos (that fucking traitor!) and so we had to turn back. We need to go back to routine sexual humiliation and torture and then turn it up to 11. Do it right this time and don't let any leak get out.
Anything less is just supporting the terrorists.
Mark Julius down as another Libtard who didn't bother to read the thread.
I tuned in to NPR as I drove home from work -- just past the top of the hour news headline segment, right when they're usually doing some high-minded discussion of the day's big story. (You listen to the second half of each hour for the human interest stuff.) From the first few sentences I heard it was clear they were discussing some travesty of justice, so I assumed it must be a panel discussion on the Gitmo verdicts. Instead, it turned out to be on the topic of Bristol's unearned advancement to the finals of DWTS.
Denver said...
From the article-
"Judge Kaplan told the jurors they had demonstrated that “American justice can be rendered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people, people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours.”"
It is not surprising that Ann's Althouse Hillbillies are only interested in one thing-that this person is lynched whether he is guilty or not.
No need for evidence when you are a rabid mob.
Ann, you must be so proud.
Show us on the doll where the TSA molester touched your pee-pee?
Denver said...
They do not raise this possibility because they do not care whether he is guilty or not. They just want him to be punished because he is a Muslim.
Like i said, Ann must be so proud.
I could care less if he is a muslim or not, notwithstanding that I generally detest them and their religion. It must be nice living in a contrived world, like yours, where everyone is an intolerant bigot, racist, homophobe, and you never get to say no to anyone therefore you never get to be the bad guy. Awww, that must be so nice. Oh look, I just saw a unicorn in your little world, shitting rainbows.
Now.. IF we "rabid mob" are wrong as the other side says we are..
Do they mean to tell us that the Justice Department with its array of LAWYERS (officers of the court - meaning they cannot make shit up) from two politically divergent administration at its disposal and not only the eyes of our media, the eyes of the world looking on - they managed to get the wrong guy?
Eric Holder wants to prosecute - or is prosecuting innocent people?
How does that work?
He is spending millions of tax payer dollars and Nobody and I mean Nobody notices for years that Al Jihadist is innocent until a jury comes along and what the Justice Department could not find in over a decade they (the jurors) find in a month or two.. Al Jihadist is innocent.
How does that work?
-----------------------------
We let the other side of this argument have it both ways.
The Jihadists are not innocent enough not to have a trial at all, but they are not guilty enough to have a military trial at Gitmo.
I'm trying to understand the logic so I can put it out of its misery once and for all.
The leftists here are so amusing to me. When O.J. Simpson walked free, does that mean he did not kill two people?
Morons and knaves. All of you.
I nominate Lem for the new word of the year prize.
Wow tradguy.. thanks.
(i cant believe i almost missed that ;)
The Holder/Loosem reference is (as most of you probably remember) from a Seinfeld episode.. Reservation
I can't believe that the leftards on here haven't enacted their shibboleths yet. Because they love to use the word shibboleth to show us how smart they think they are.
I do not feel the need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before killing or locking away people involved in acts of war.
You people who do should think about the implications of what you are saying for war.
As I have said in these threads on previous occasions, Nuremberg was a terrible, terrible precedent because there will forever be shallow lefties who think it's great to try our war enemies in civilian courts instead of just killing them.
Here's a heart warming story. I see a pattern developing.
"When O.J. Simpson walked free, does that mean he did not kill two people?"
No. It means he had his day in court and the jury found in his favor.
This is what our system is designed to do, to protect individuals against the force and weight of the state pressing its might against our necks.
It's imperfect, and guilty people are acquitted and innocent people are found guilty, but at least we have a means in place to argue for our innocence and against our guilt.
I hold with the view that it is better that 100 guilty parties go free and one innocent party be sent unjustly to prison.
If any of your asses were facing prison time for criminal accusations against you, you would want just as rigorous standards applied in your proceedings.
"The key is US citizen or not. The citizens get our privileges and immunities whether they deserve them or not."
No.
Our due process applies to "the people" who appear before it, not "citizens."
Rather than our system providing special privileges to defendants, according to their status, it prohibits the state from practices that void or infringe upon the rights of the individual.
It does not establish what we get but what the government can't do.
I believe our jury pool believes that a "fair" trial means a fifty percent chance of getting off regardless of the evidence.
"I'd hate to follow that movement. But, I've always been one to stray from the herd."
Being a herd is what gets us killed. We need to be a pack to win this thing. And trying these predators in a civilian court is herd mentality.
""I'd hate to follow that movement. But, I've always been one to stray from the herd."
Being a herd is what gets us killed. We need to be a pack to win this thing. And trying these predators in a civilian court is herd mentality."
The strength of the wolf is the pack.
I remember back to the publicized "State Trials" in the Soviet Union where a tribunal was convened, jury or not was selected but usually not, the State presented the case in private, the defendant had a state appointed and approved counsel and much of the evidence was not permitted a challenge. The defendant conviction rate was significant.
Well it appears that the right win on this blog is nostalgic for the good old days.
Of course some chuckleheads failed to read the entire article wherein he was found guilty of one count that lands him 20 years to life...but that isn't the story you want out there.
Mr. House,
It was evident from the start that he was not going free. What this turned into was a show trial put on by this administration, that did nothing but cost a lot of money.
The silver lining is now maybe Barry gets it (not that I'd bet the ranch on that). What's he to do now? Leave the detainees in Gitmo and face the wrath of his base in 2012, or risk more of these trials and face the wrath of the rest of us? I'm guessing he goes with the former, 'cause his base will, in the end, pull the lever for him no matter what.
Of course some chuckleheads failed to read the entire article wherein he was found guilty of one count that lands him 20 years to life...but that isn't the story you want out there.
We chuckleheads are trying to figure out how he can be guilty of conspiracy, but innocent of all the other charges. Perhaps you could explain that to us.
I assume the lefties here are against the efforts of the Innocence Project. We don't want to question a trial outcome.
The point is: what's the truth, not who won the trial. Verdict does not equal truth, and you guys understand that perfectly when you want to, so get off your high hobby horse.
HDHouse: I remember back to the publicized "State Trials" in the Soviet Union ...it appears that the right win on this blog is nostalgic for the good old days.
Thats a bold rewrite of history.
Its the Obama DOJ that promised these terrorists would remain incarcerated even if they were proven innocent in a civillian court.
Show trial.
"It is a mystery how the jury could find that these facts failed to add up to a guilty verdict on all of the murder counts. How can a terrorist be guilty of conspiring to blow up two buildings, but then be found not guilty of the ensuing deaths?"
Taken from this excellent article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ghailani-verdict-miscarriage-justice_518140.html
The Holder Justice Department is a corrupt, incompetent bunch of leftists.
HD House: Yes, a 20 year sentence is justice served on this poor fellow. He may have to wait three or four years before he would be eligible for parole. But wait, HD, I believe the president plans to keep this guy in Gitmo, perhaps forever. So what, then, was the purpose of this excellent justice? By the way, I thought that gitmo was going to be closed. Can he go to Havana after being paroled? I am confused.
Funny - ha ha - how the NYT uses the word "acquitted" in the headline and the 1st sentence despite the fact he was convicted.
"I assume the lefties here are against the efforts of the Innocence Project. We don't want to question a trial outcome.
The point is: what's the truth, not who won the trial. Verdict does not equal truth, and you guys understand that perfectly when you want to, so get off your high hobby horse."
The intent of our Constitutional system and the due process it guarantees (if not always delivers) is to protect the individual against the power of the state, not the reverse, and not to offer parity between the individual and the state. A judge may vacate a jury verdict of guilty if he feels it unwarranted or unjust based on evidence at trial, but he may not vacate an acquittal and impose his own verdict of guilty.
Questioning the outcome of trials is appropriate and called for if a guilty verdict is questionable on the facts or procedures, but an acquittal should not be revisited or rescinded or the defendant retried even if the verdict is apparently incorrect.
"The intent of our Constitutional system and the due process it guarantees (if not always delivers) is to protect the individual against the power of the state, not the reverse, and not to offer parity between the individual and the state."
Point accepted, but this is exactly why a civilian trial is inappropriate. You don't get the benefit of the constitutional protections provided the citizens of the nation you are waging war against. We have civil, criminal and military division in law for a reason.
Seven Machos wrote:
The leftists here are so amusing to me. When O.J. Simpson walked free, does that mean he did not kill two people?
Even the concept of innocent until proven guilty is misunderstood. Do prosecutors assume that those they are prosecuting are innoncent of their crimes? Then why are they prosecuting them. Do police assume that those they arrest for crimes are innocent? Then why are they arresting them?
"Even the concept of innocent until proven guilty is misunderstood. Do prosecutors assume that those they are prosecuting are innoncent of their crimes? Then why are they prosecuting them. Do police assume that those they arrest for crimes are innocent? Then why are they arresting them?"
It seems you are the one who misunderstands the concept.
The state arrests those it believes or asserts to be guilty, based on whatever evidence may apply in each case. It is the state's position that the defendant is guilty, and this they will endeavor to prove at trial.
Those charged with deciding guilt under the law--the jurors or judges, as the case may be--must assume for purposes of the law that the defendant is innocent unless and until the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt (or whatever standard may apply in the circumstance) to the jurors or judges that the defendant is, in fact, guilty.
I have served on numerous juries, and while I have read horror stories of miscarriages of justice due to jury incompetence or malfeasance, in my experience the jurors take this responsibility extremely seriously and consider all questions and evidence very carefully. I even joined in a vote to acquit a suspect in a second degree robbery case who I, and all the jurors, felt might very well be guilty. However, the evidence presented by the prosecution and the testimony given by their witnesses did not suffice to convince us beyond a reasonable doubt, and we acquitted him of the primary charge. We did convict on a lesser charge of receipt/possession of stolen property.
Even though I felt he might have been guilty of the greater charge, I never once regretted or second-guessed my vote; the jury at large obviously felt the same, as we did not require much time or argument to reach consensus: on first hand vote vote, 9 of 12 jurors voted to acquit on the primary charge.
This requires that jurors put aside personal biases or preconceptions and consider only the evidence presented,and it requires that they respect the law sufficiently to render their verdict according to the standard of proof required.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा