ObamaRama 8

[Old Pio]

Re: ObamaRama 8

And again, who cares? This weird obsession of yours with the ACLU is irrelevant to the important issues. Their motives are about as useful as Judicial Watch's during a SCOTUS confirmation.

It's neither an obsession nor wierd. If anyone has an obsession with the ACLU it would be the president and his Attorney General (who had "no problem" with pardoning a federal fugitive--in return for 400K) who seem to do its bidding at every turn.

 

[umassfan49]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I don't know if any of you guys have seen this, but there is a pretty funny video that has been on Youtube where a kid is reviewing the new Copenhagen Wintergreen dip tobacco and mentions that Obama should be impeached because he wants to "ban flavored dips." This kid is a true redneck and although his opinions are a little out of the water and he is clearly disturbed, it is pretty comical.

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

It's neither an obsession nor wierd. If anyone has an obsession with the ACLU it would be the president and his Attorney General (who had "no problem" with pardoning a federal fugitive--in return for 400K) who seem to do its bidding at every turn.

Aside from what Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh told you, do you have any actual proof that the admin is being influenced by the ACLU on this issue? My guess is "no" and this is all stupid BS, but please if you have something feel free to post it. Seems to me putting someone on trial with the death penalty as a very real possibility isn't exactly doing them any favors....

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFRTfBcrPLc&feature=related

The Executive Director of the ACLU says he wants "justice" for the terrorists held at Gitmo. And one way of getting that, he believes, is by bringing prosecutions against Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcC6bTHosx0

There are others who have a greater claim to "justice" than the terrorist murderers at Gitmo. But the ACLU does not weep for them.

Any Federal Judge who lets the defense put on the kind of show you seem to think will happen would never have gotten onto the Federal Bench to begin with. Everything you're describing should be excluded by the Federal Rules of Evidence as irrelevant. This isn't an investigation into Gitmo, it's a murder trial. If they want to protest the conditions of their confinement, they'd need to bring a habeus action or a civil action against the U.S.

It's neither an obsession nor wierd. If anyone has an obsession with the ACLU it would be the president and his Attorney General (who had "no problem" with pardoning a federal fugitive--in return for 400K) who seem to do its bidding at every turn.

I wouldn't mind if pardons became commonplace once again. Up until the latter part of the 20th century, they were routinely and commonly granted by governors and presidents alike. I'm all for tough penalties for career criminals or heinous crimes, but the get tough on crime crowd is pretty much just the more civilized version of the lynch mob; perhaps the only thing guaranteed to get more votes than local pork projects are tougher criminal sentences.

 

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Any Federal Judge who lets the defense put on the kind of show you seem to think will happen would never have gotten onto the Federal Bench to begin with. Everything you're describing should be excluded by the Federal Rules of Evidence as irrelevant. This isn't an investigation into Gitmo, it's a murder trial. If they want to protest the conditions of their confinement, they'd need to bring a habeus action or a civil action against the U.S.

I tend to agree. As a general rule the federal bench in New York is full of very tough, no nonsense, judges. Sotomayor is a good example of that pedigree, and Rakoff is another one who's still on the local bench. I find it amusing, and a bit appalling, that those "God and Guns" types who had no problem with how the feds handled Timothy McVey or the Blind Sheik get their panties in a twist because some "fereners" are going to be tried in New York instead of Cuba.

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

It seems to me all of this stems from some people in the previous admin who were hell bent on re-writing all of the rules. New status for prisoners, no more Geneva convention standards, no limits on the President's ability to detain people, etc. I say there's no need for all that, the system in place can handle the situation. The funny thing is that had the previous admin stuck with the 200+ years of established law & justice in this country, these very same people whining their heads off wouldn't think twice about the Obama admin continuing the use the same method of prosecuting terrorists as the country always had done.

 

[Plante26]

Re: ObamaRama 8

It seems to me all of this stems from some people in the previous admin who were hell bent on re-writing all of the rules. New status for prisoners, no more Geneva convention standards, no limits on the President's ability to detain people, etc. I say there's no need for all that, the system in place can handle the situation. The funny thing is that had the previous admin stuck with the 200+ years of established law & justice in this country, these very same people whining their heads off wouldn't think twice about the Obama admin continuing the use the same method of prosecuting terrorists as the country always had done.

How can you prosecute a non-citizen in a court ruled by the U.S. Constitution? Enemy combatants are not read their Miranda rights on the battlefield, and I still have yet to hear the way around this issue. In a civilian trial, that alone should be enough to have the charges dismissed. And now Obama and Holder have said that KSM will not be released regardless of the outcome of the trial.....in addition to stating that he will be tried, convicted and put to death. Which will undoubtedly be used in a civilian trial as an argument against the presumption of innocence that must be afforded defendants under the laws governing the court in which KSM will be tried. Essentially, I see no way that KSM can be tried and convicted without completely gutting the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, Obama isn't a huge fan of the Constitution anyhow, so I doubt this will disturb he or Holder very much.

 

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Of course, Obama isn't a huge fan of the Constitution anyhow, so I doubt this will disturb he or Holder very much.

Oh I don't know, who said "It's just a god**** piece of paper!"?

1) George HW Bush
2) George W Bush
3) Dick (Mr. Draft Deferment) Cheney
4) Rush Limbaugh

 

[Plante26]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Oh I don't know, who said "It's just a god**** piece of paper!"?

1) George HW Bush
2) George W Bush
3) Dick (Mr. Draft Deferment) Cheney
4) Rush Limbaugh

Didn't realize I mentioned any of these people. How 'bout trying to refute the previous argument instead of crying "It's all Bush's fault!"?

 

[ScottM]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Didn't realize I mentioned any of these people. How 'bout trying to refute the previous argument instead of crying "It's all Bush's fault!"?

I hate to break it to you, but many of the current legal and Constitutional problems you whine about in your previous post were the result of the previous administration's attempts to circumvent existing law and create new rules solely for political expediency. And the correct Answer is #2. Although I presume it would be echoed by 3 and 4 as well.

 

[Plante26]

Re: ObamaRama 8

I hate to break it to you, but many of the current legal and Constitutional problems you whine about in your previous post were the result of the previous administration's attempts to circumvent existing law and create new rules solely for political expediency. And the correct Answer is #2. Although I presume it would be echoed by 3 and 4 as well.

Please explain which "existing law" in the U.S. applies to non-citizen enemy combatants committing acts of war against U.S. soldiers/citizens on foreign soil, because as far as I can see, there are none.

 

[unofan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Enemy combatants are not read their Miranda rights on the battlefield, and I still have yet to hear the way around this issue.

Miranda only really comes into play if they want to use his confession (or fruits derived therefrom). Assuming they have enough outside evidence, Miranda violations really don't matter. (and if the military has any type of doctrine similar to Miranda, then that may be good enough to pass constitutional muster and let in the confessions even if it isn't Miranda itself). And presumption of innocence only applies to the jury, as the trier of fact, as it relates to the burden of proof. The administration's declarations may be uncouth and may go towards bias/lack of investigating alternative suspects, but don't really count for much presuming they have a slam dunk case against him.

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

How can you prosecute a non-citizen in a court ruled by the U.S. Constitution? Enemy combatants are not read their Miranda rights on the battlefield, and I still have yet to hear the way around this issue. In a civilian trial, that alone should be enough to have the charges dismissed. And now Obama and Holder have said that KSM will not be released regardless of the outcome of the trial.....in addition to stating that he will be tried, convicted and put to death. Which will undoubtedly be used in a civilian trial as an argument against the presumption of innocence that must be afforded defendants under the laws governing the court in which KSM will be tried. Essentially, I see no way that KSM can be tried and convicted without completely gutting the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, Obama isn't a huge fan of the Constitution anyhow, so I doubt this will disturb he or Holder very much.

You prosecute him for the crimes he committed against the US citizens. Manuel Noreiga was prosecuted (albeit for drug crimes) and he was a non-citizen put on trial in the US federal court system, not a military tribunal. Not sure how absolute Miranda is, as in was KSM made aware of his rights without the "you have the right to remain silent..." formality. I would think Holder would have that in mind however.

Second, people can be convicted for different crimes. When the officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted of that charge, they were then prosecuted and convicted on violating his civil rights. Just because KSM can still be prosecuted on military charges doesn't preclude him from being convicted for any civil charges (say the murder of NY citizens in this case).

Lastly, Barack Obama's opinion isn't legally binding, any more than Nixon's was during the Charles Manson case. So he expects them to be convicted. It doesn't mean he'll be calling up jurors making threats if they don't (whoops, looks like I just came up with the lead in for the next Hannity show ).

 

[moe24]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Lastly, Barack Obama's opinion isn't legally binding

That's the real key here. It's up to the judicial branch (be it on the federal level, state, or local) to bring charges and hold trials, not the executive. Obama is free to offer his opinions, and heck prosecutors and judges are even free to listen to them, but in the end the buck stops at the Justice Department and not the White House when it comes to judicial matters.

And I can't believe I just agreed with Rover on something.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Miranda only really comes into play if they want to use his confession (or fruits derived therefrom).

Or anything his lawyers can argue is even tangentially related to anything he's mentioned while in custody. Even if they found corroborating evidence independently, the fact that he said it without a Miranda warning is problematic for that whole chain of evidence (I think - I am not a lawyer).

I still think the biggest problem with this trial is that Obama said they're staying in custody no matter what. If that's not a show trial/kangaroo court, then I don't know what is. Gary Powers had a better chance of being set free at his trial...

 

[MinnFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Carl Levin wants to have the rich pay for any Afghanistan troop increases.

That'll really get the economy moving

Pretty sure the military protects us all. Shouldn't we all have some skin in the game?

On a side note, small business owners are looking at the following coming up:

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts ... +5%
Pelosi healthcare tax ... +5.4%
Eliminating the earnings cap for Social Security taxes ... +?%
Surtax to pay for the war in Afghanistan ... +?%
Tax on high-value health insurance policies ... +?%

Why would they ever make capital investments or hire more people for their business? They are going to sock their money away to ride through the upcoming tax increases.

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Or anything his lawyers can argue is even tangentially related to anything he's mentioned while in custody. Even if they found corroborating evidence independently, the fact that he said it without a Miranda warning is problematic for that whole chain of evidence (I think - I am not a lawyer).

I still think the biggest problem with this trial is that Obama said they're staying in custody no matter what. If that's not a show trial/kangaroo court, then I don't know what is. Gary Powers had a better chance of being set free at his trial...

For the first point, I would imagine they have enough evidence of his crimes pre-Gitmo to send him up. That was a big problem with setting up a military tribunal IIRC as what was done while in military custody would be a big issue. Prosecuting him with evidence gathered before that point and I'm not sure what legal defense there is to stand on.

To the second point, again I'll say nothing's stopping the government from prosecuting him for a whole host of crimes, this civil court action just being a part of that. Now if he's given a death sentence that problem takes care of itself, but I don't see the legal issues with saying he still faces criminal sanction regardless of the outcome of this specific trial. Its like prosecuting a death row inmate for assaulting a guard. You go ahead with it because if anything happens to the 1st conviction he doesn't get a free pass for any subsequent trials.

 

[Rover]

Re: ObamaRama 8

On a side note, small business owners are looking at the following coming up:

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts ... +5%
Pelosi healthcare tax ... +5.4%
Eliminating the earnings cap for Social Security taxes ... +?%
Surtax to pay for the war in Afghanistan ... +?%
Tax on high-value health insurance policies ... +?%

Why would they ever make capital investments or hire more people for their business? They are going to sock their money away to ride through the upcoming tax increases.

Wow, Limbaugh had a lot of talking points on his show this morning.

 

[Plante26]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Miranda only really comes into play if they want to use his confession (or fruits derived therefrom). Assuming they have enough outside evidence, Miranda violations really don't matter. (and if the military has any type of doctrine similar to Miranda, then that may be good enough to pass constitutional muster and let in the confessions even if it isn't Miranda itself). And presumption of innocence only applies to the jury, as the trier of fact, as it relates to the burden of proof. The administration's declarations may be uncouth and may go towards bias/lack of investigating alternative suspects, but don't really count for much presuming they have a slam dunk case against him.

Well, coupled with the Obama Administration admitting that KSM was tortured (waterboarded), they might have to defend against pretty strong coerced confession argument. Granted, there may be other evidence, but the defense will most likely be painting our military as the enemy.....and given public sentiment following the demonization of our intelligence personnel, it is not far-fetched to think that there may be a 'not guilty' verdict. Also, the military doesn't have the equivalent of Miranda rights--which is a moot point, given that anyone tried in civilian court is afforded all of the rights in the Constitution--including Miranda.

The part I just don't get is that KSM had already plead guilty in the military courts, which makes this Holder-directed NYC trial reek of political showboating.....which will undoubtedly be used as propaganda by our enemies. Guantanamo will most likely look like bathroom wall scribblings compared what Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions will propagandize with regards to the media frenzy that will descend on these trials.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: ObamaRama 8

Wow, Limbaugh had a lot of talking points on his show this morning.

I guess you're still waiting for Obama's teleprompter to tell you the appropriate rebuttal.