|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 22, 2009 15:11:04 GMT -5
Both of you are ignoring the issue. This has nothing to do with "what happens if he gets acquitted?" We all know damn good and well what happens if he gets acquitted; He goes back in his hole forever. Which begs the question. Why bother with a trial? Okay, now that it's clear what you are trolling for - that's the most retarded question I've seen in a long time. Happy? We bother with a trial because we are a nation of laws. What would the law state about a man who was acquitted at trial, and how does that jibe with what we know (and DoJ has stated) would happen in that event? Are we then still a nation of laws, or are we just more Bush "make it up as we can?" What is happening right in front of your eyes is a man on trial, where the prosecution has stated that the verdict of the jury doesn't matter. Tell me, in great detail, exactly how that is *any* different than just locking them up in gitmo? He got a trial, but we ignore the law anyway, and lock him up again? You're the last dude I thought I'd see with his head that far in the sand. I may be ignoring your strawman, but you and Krauthammer are ignoring the facts of this case because you want to use it as another example of how Obama is a disappointment. This only shows that if you can't find one, you'll make one up. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 22, 2009 16:55:15 GMT -5
I think you're ignoring the fact that this has been a slam dunk case from the beginning, so your question is immaterial. Now, as far as other detainees go, Krauthonker, and you, might have something. Would like a word with you about "slam dunk cases." But lest just assume for a moment that his verdict is as done a deal as we suppose. That's one more reason to ask, why bother with a trial at all? 1. I am going to hope that whatever Federal prosecutor is assigned this case is more competent than the prosecutor(s) that tried O.J. 2. Are you saying he shouldn't be tried? What, exactly, is your point?
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 22, 2009 17:38:33 GMT -5
I really don't see the problem trying slam-dunks in court (that happens every day in courts across the country) but as long as that is the *only* sort of case that ever is allowed to see the inside of a civilian court room, then they are just conducting "show trials" for the sake of "Rule of Law" mythology PR and nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 22, 2009 18:05:23 GMT -5
Fair enough. That is a sensible observation. However, do you think there is a difference between the 9/11 suspects and other detainees picked up in Iraq or Afghanistan? Would you say they fall under military jurisdiction?
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 22, 2009 18:57:58 GMT -5
I don't understand why you keep asking the question. It's frankly a stupid one. You can believe someone is guilty and also believe they are entitled to be found so at trial. We give him a trial because that's how guilt is established as a fact rather than as a belief.
Here's a question for you.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 22, 2009 21:06:41 GMT -5
Fair enough. That is a sensible observation. However, do you think there is a difference between the 9/11 suspects and other detainees picked up in Iraq or Afghanistan? Would you say they fall under military jurisdiction? Iraq had a national army we fought and defeated (right off the bat). Those personnel are military and if we have any of them they should be POWs. Anyone else, is by definition a civilian and is therefore subject to civilian justice, either under whatever proxy puppet gov't & justice system we have set up in the countries we are occupying --or in our own country. Protocol I of the Geneva conventions (which we are supposed to abide by) "Articles 43 and 44 clarify the military status of members of guerrilla forces. Combatant and prisoner of war status is granted to members of dissident forces when under the command of a central authority. Such combatants cannot conceal their allegiance; they must be recognizable as combatants while preparing for or during an attack." And finally, "The U. S. Supreme Court agreed, and unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional,[/u] with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)." Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)is a supreme ct case from WWII where some Germans were put to death by military tribunal for attempted sabotage here in the US. The constitutional authority was confirmed to Roosevelt to convene and discharge prisoners through the tribunal system. However this was done in specific context of *declared war* and the objects of the action were representatives of a state power with which we were involved in declared war. Still, this is the decision which the Bush people used (and Obama admin continues to use) to justify the current state of affairs re; these prisoners/detainees whatever....
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 22, 2009 23:41:23 GMT -5
I've never seen deliberate obtuseness in volume before. This has nothing to do with what the verdict is. The jury could return a verdict of "sausage" and it doesn't change the argument.
NO MATTER WHAT THE JURY RETURNS, HE STILL STAYS IN PRISON.
How does that jibe with "we're a nation of laws?" What is the difference between that, and just locking his ass up forever because we can?
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 22, 2009 23:44:29 GMT -5
1. I am going to hope that whatever Federal prosecutor is assigned this case is more competent than the prosecutor(s) that tried O.J. 2. Are you saying he shouldn't be tried? What, exactly, is your point? My point is that he should be tried. But if, at the end of that event, he is cleared by the jury (however slam dunk that may be) the outcome for him (staying in prison forever) is the end result, then it's not a trial at all. The price of democracy and rule of law is that there is a risk that scumbags like KSM *might* just walk free. And now it's up to a jury, and a whole lot of judges to decide that. If we decide he's not going to be free no matter what a jury says, then we are no better than Bush.
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 23, 2009 0:49:56 GMT -5
The political price of a trial is reassuring people who've made up their minds that they have nothing to worry about. That's sad, but its purely a result of the obstructionist bomb throwing from the right.
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 23, 2009 2:02:04 GMT -5
1. I am going to hope that whatever Federal prosecutor is assigned this case is more competent than the prosecutor(s) that tried O.J. 2. Are you saying he shouldn't be tried? What, exactly, is your point? My point is that he should be tried. But if, at the end of that event, he is cleared by the jury (however slam dunk that may be) the outcome for him (staying in prison forever) is the end result, then it's not a trial at all. The price of democracy and rule of law is that there is a risk that scumbags like KSM *might* just walk free. And now it's up to a jury, and a whole lot of judges to decide that. If we decide he's not going to be free no matter what a jury says, then we are no better than Bush. You sound like a rightwiner, much as it pains me to say so. Your whole point hinges on him being aquited (sp?) and still being detained. That's pure bs speculation, Jerome. He's already admitted his guilt, so far as I'm aware. This case is a slam dunk. KK's point is far more interesting. We have detainees in custody that fall under the protocols of the Geneva convention that aren't being tried as they should. KSM isn't one of them, nor are the other 9/11 conspirator suspects. You're barking up the wrong tree. EDIT: As a potential law student this is particularly important for you. Unless you want to be an ambulance chaser. I love you man, but really......
|
|
|
Post by arozanski on Nov 23, 2009 7:24:14 GMT -5
I see what Jerome is saying, though - his point doesn't seem to hang on any particular verdict being rendered. It is the notion of imprisonment, regardless of verdict, being imposed before a trial even occurs.
I have to say, I don't like it either. Our system of justice is supposed to be based on the notion that everyone gets a fair trial, and may re-gain their freedom should that trial go in their favor. I know it doesn't always work that way, but I think we have (had?) a pretty good record of doing what's right. If we go down the path of deciding sentence before establishing guilt, we have lost the way that so many fought and died for.
|
|
|
Post by grumpytoo on Nov 23, 2009 11:13:09 GMT -5
I seem to recall reading that if he were found innocent he would then be arrested and put into jail on other charges. Legal and not outside normal procedure. What those other charges were was not brought up as I recall. Could be grand theft of an airplane? Who knows?
--chris
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 23, 2009 11:56:48 GMT -5
I see what Jerome is saying, though - his point doesn't seem to hang on any particular verdict being rendered. It is the notion of imprisonment, regardless of verdict, being imposed before a trial even occurs. I have to say, I don't like it either. Our system of justice is supposed to be based on the notion that everyone gets a fair trial, and may re-gain their freedom should that trial go in their favor. I know it doesn't always work that way, but I think we have (had?) a pretty good record of doing what's right. If we go down the path of deciding sentence before establishing guilt, we have lost the way that so many fought and died for. Precisely. What we've got in this case is pure Sheriff Cobb. "We'll give you a fair trial, followed by a 1st class hanging."
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 23, 2009 11:58:57 GMT -5
I seem to recall reading that if he were found innocent he would then be arrested and put into jail on other charges. Legal and not outside normal procedure. What those other charges were was not brought up as I recall. Could be grand theft of an airplane? Who knows? --chris If there is a case to be made on those charges, then they should be brought to the table now. "We're gonna keep trying him until he's guilty of something" is no better, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by grumpytoo on Nov 23, 2009 13:15:00 GMT -5
The strategy may be not to have to many charges that would just confuse and get in the way of the primary charges. For a jury trial I would think it best to have a few strong charges that carry penelties than a huge number opf lesser charges that you are then required to address while watering down the impact of the major charges. I think you may be getting ahead of the game.
--chris
|
|