Jump to content

Congrats Obama, Lets Hope One Actualy Gets Off


Recommended Posts

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/1...ror_trial_.htmlLets see, guilty of conspiracy to blow up buildings with thousands of people in them, but not guilty of murder.So basically he was found guilty of demolition without a permit.
jfc. They don't sentence people to 20 years to life for demolition without a permit, you clown.
Link to post
Share on other sites
jfc. They don't sentence people to 20 years to life for demolition without a permit, you clown.
he got off pretty light considering he derserved a bullet behind the ear and yes i do mean that. is this another in a long list of poor moves by BHO and crew? The federal trial either didn't work out like he thought or being a muslim / Kenyan he was looking for this result. either way it is to close to call. my guess is you won't see anymore terrorists tried as civilians in the near future...
Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Article:The case underscores the challenges faced by prosecutors. Judge Lewis Kaplan barred a key witness from testifying because the man's name came to light while Ghailani was held at a CIA camp where suspects reportedly were tortured....He was captured in 2004 in Pakistan and held at a secret CIA camp overseas. In 2006, he was transferred to Guantanamo and held there until last year.So, essentially, this guy was acquitted on many charges (but still will probably be in jail for life) because the main evidence against him was inadmissible due to torture. Many people's reaction to this is anger because the guy was acquitted. Shouldn't people's reaction be anger at the CIA for torturing people and thus rendering evidence inadmissible? And if terrorist cases are prosecuted in civilian courts, won't this dramatically alter the CIA and other organization's policies toward torture for the better? That's at least what I take out of all this. If you can't find a terrorist guilty, then what justification do you have for locking him up for life? And if unjust practices hinder your ability to find terrorists guilty, then stop those practices, don't eliminate the rule barring unjust practices. Obama did what I think is the right thing here. It's of course an extraordinarily unpopular thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Article:The case underscores the challenges faced by prosecutors. Judge Lewis Kaplan barred a key witness from testifying because the man's name came to light while Ghailani was held at a CIA camp where suspects reportedly were tortured....He was captured in 2004 in Pakistan and held at a secret CIA camp overseas. In 2006, he was transferred to Guantanamo and held there until last year.So, essentially, this guy was acquitted on many charges (but still will probably be in jail for life) because the main evidence against him was inadmissible due to torture. Many people's reaction to this is anger because the guy was acquitted. Shouldn't people's reaction be anger at the CIA for torturing people and thus rendering evidence inadmissible? And if terrorist cases are prosecuted in civilian courts, won't this dramatically alter the CIA and other organization's policies toward torture for the better? That's at least what I take out of all this. If you can't find a terrorist guilty, then what justification do you have for locking him up for life? And if unjust practices hinder your ability to find terrorists guilty, then stop those practices, don't eliminate the rule barring unjust practices. Obama did what I think is the right thing here. It's of course an extraordinarily unpopular thing.
if you were discussing a regular citizen or even an unwanted illegal guest that happen to be here that is one thing and your position, IMO, may have some merit, that is not the case. these trials have never belonged in civilian court, nor should they have any of the rights granted to civilians. For Obama to present this as it being a civilian matter is just wrong and that is why it is unpopular.
Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Article:The case underscores the challenges faced by prosecutors. Judge Lewis Kaplan barred a key witness from testifying because the man's name came to light while Ghailani was held at a CIA camp where suspects reportedly were tortured....He was captured in 2004 in Pakistan and held at a secret CIA camp overseas. In 2006, he was transferred to Guantanamo and held there until last year.So, essentially, this guy was acquitted on many charges (but still will probably be in jail for life) because the main evidence against him was inadmissible due to torture. Many people's reaction to this is anger because the guy was acquitted. Shouldn't people's reaction be anger at the CIA for torturing people and thus rendering evidence inadmissible? And if terrorist cases are prosecuted in civilian courts, won't this dramatically alter the CIA and other organization's policies toward torture for the better? That's at least what I take out of all this. If you can't find a terrorist guilty, then what justification do you have for locking him up for life? And if unjust practices hinder your ability to find terrorists guilty, then stop those practices, don't eliminate the rule barring unjust practices. Obama did what I think is the right thing here. It's of course an extraordinarily unpopular thing.
If all hes guilty of is conspiring to destroya govt building, then he doesnt deserve life. Also torture isa matter of opinion,and shouldnt be the basis for disqualifying testimony. Suppose he was forced to listen to Michael Bolton music round the clock. Is that torture? Suppose under torture the location of Binladen is revealed, should we not go after him? And if we did would the justice dept demand his release cause of the way he was found?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shouldn't people's reaction be anger at the CIA for torturing people and thus rendering evidence inadmissible? And if terrorist cases are prosecuted in civilian courts, won't this dramatically alter the CIA and other organization's policies toward torture for the better?
If the choice is between having no evidence and having evidence elicited by torture, I don't see how they have hurt their case by performing torture.
Also torture isa matter of opinion,and shouldnt be the basis for disqualifying testimony.
It's not a "matter of opinion" more than anything else is. The reason it is inadmissible testimony is because it is unreliable. People say things during torture in order to make the torture stop.
Suppose under torture the location of Binladen is revealed, should we not go after him? And if we did would the justice dept demand his release cause of the way he was found?
That's a totally irrelevant question to what kind of testimony is admissible in a court of law.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If the choice is between having no evidence and having evidence elicited by torture, I don't see how they have hurt their case by performing torture.
The problem here isn't that the CIA acquired inadmissible testimony as a result of torture. The problem is the legal mechanisms that make such evidence inadmissible- that all torture is extrajudicial, regardless of how totally necessary it may be. The idea that evidence via torture is 'unreliable' is a pretty dumb position. Plenty of evidence obtained via torture is totally, 100% reliable. Arguably, most of it, save for the most hardened of hard-asses. So, if we find ourselves in the 'ticking time bomb' scenario and the choice is no evidence without torture or evidence with torture that may have a distant chance of being unreliable, I'm with the doctrine of necessity on this one. Start with a waterboard and work up to a straight razor, if that's what it takes. Obviously, giving the government license to torture is pretty scary, but I think we can safely presume they're going to do it anyway and that the result can be enormously useful in saving lives, so why not acknowledge this reality (albeit a painful one) and close the loophole for murdering shitheads to get off on an ideological technicality?The answer to this question is here:http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-01-22/opin...rture-terrorist
Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem here isn't that the CIA acquired inadmissible testimony as a result of torture. The problem is the legal mechanisms that make such evidence inadmissible- that all torture is extrajudicial, regardless of how totally necessary it may be. The idea that evidence via torture is 'unreliable' is a pretty dumb position. Plenty of evidence obtained via torture is totally, 100% reliable. Arguably, most of it, save for the most hardened of hard-asses. So, if we find ourselves in the 'ticking time bomb' scenario and the choice is no evidence without torture or evidence with torture that may have a distant chance of being unreliable, I'm with the doctrine of necessity on this one. Start with a waterboard and work up to a straight razor, if that's what it takes. Obviously, giving the government license to torture is pretty scary, but I think we can safely presume they're going to do it anyway and that the result can be enormously useful in saving lives, so why not acknowledge this reality (albeit a painful one) and close the loophole for murdering shitheads to get off on an ideological technicality?The answer to this question is here:http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-01-22/opin...rture-terrorist
But using the testimony in a court of law is totally different than using it to stop a ticking time bomb. In the time bomb situation you need information at all costs, and if the information is wrong you are no worse off than you were before. I'm not saying we shouldn't torture in that scenario. But in a court designed to protect the innocent, allowing testimony obtained under duress leads to a situation where we just torture people into confession in order to convict them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Also torture isa matter of opinion,and shouldnt be the basis for disqualifying testimony.
I'd love to read more of your thoughts about torture and how it is a matter of opinion. I need a good laugh.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones who think that torture is unreliable cause anyone would sat anything to stop the pain, dont know how torture interrogations work. Its not like in the movies where a big goon holds a flaming knife in front of a guys eye and says, Tell me what I want to know or lose an eye. most of the questions asked are either irelevant, or the answer is already known. If the person lies about things that are already known, pain is then inflicted. Eventually the subject gets the idea that the answers are already known, so he gets in the habit of answering truthfully to avoi the pain.Sometimes this goes on for days, before the vital questios are asked. Which is why it took over 200 sessions with the good sheik.2

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ones who think that torture is unreliable cause anyone would sat anything to stop the pain, dont know how torture interrogations work....
Oh, so they ask him questions and hurt him if he lies? Yeah, I guess I didn't understand how torture works. We should definitely allow that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, so they ask him questions and hurt him if he lies? Yeah, I guess I didn't understand how torture works. We should definitely allow that.
Yea its much better to let off a guy who will attempt to kill a thousand more innocents, than make him say Oww Wats funny about you bleeding hearts is if they ever win, it will be the bleeding heart pussies that are beheaded first.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea its much better to let off a guy who will attempt to kill a thousand more innocents, than make him say Oww Wats funny about you bleeding hearts is if they ever win, it will be the bleeding heart pussies that are beheaded first.
Forcing us to resort to torture and then defending it with false dichotomies is their winning. That's the purpose of terrorism: breaking down peaceful societies through highly exaggerated fear.For example, you think Muslim countries taking over the US and beheading people is a scenario plausible enough for it to be worth mentioning.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea its much better to let off a guy who will attempt to kill a thousand more innocents, than make him say Oww
If you can't see the flaw in this statement, you haven't thought very hard.Instead of "random faceless terrorist", substitute "your favorite sister", or "your dad", or "your son".And say the police are looking for a serial killer.And your relative gets stopped.Do you now support torturing your relative until they confess, even if they say they are innocent and you believe it?If they finally do confess to stop the pain, should they get the death penalty?Does this scenario describe a society in which you'd enjoy living?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Torture works when done by professionals.Why do you think the US military changed its policy during vietnam from 'don't say anything ever or you are a traitor' to 'hold out as long as possible because you will break'?It just some nanny state Hollywood liberal garbage that torture doesn't work.Arguing we should or shouldn't is the only argument, because torture will work if we choose to use it.We don't have to torture though, we can just give the person to most of the countries that we are allies with and they will torture them for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea its much better to let off a guy who will attempt to kill a thousand more innocents, than make him say Oww Wats funny about you bleeding hearts is if they ever win, it will be the bleeding heart pussies that are beheaded first.
Ignorant and wrong, quite a combo. If "they" won, they would execute the threats first not the pussies. Even when you are trying to insult people solely, you still manage to be wrong. Impressive.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem here isn't that the CIA acquired inadmissible testimony as a result of torture. The problem is the legal mechanisms that make such evidence inadmissible- that all torture is extrajudicial, regardless of how totally necessary it may be. The idea that evidence via torture is 'unreliable' is a pretty dumb position. Plenty of evidence obtained via torture is totally, 100% reliable. Arguably, most of it, save for the most hardened of hard-asses. So, if we find ourselves in the 'ticking time bomb' scenario and the choice is no evidence without torture or evidence with torture that may have a distant chance of being unreliable, I'm with the doctrine of necessity on this one. Start with a waterboard and work up to a straight razor, if that's what it takes. Obviously, giving the government license to torture is pretty scary, but I think we can safely presume they're going to do it anyway and that the result can be enormously useful in saving lives, so why not acknowledge this reality (albeit a painful one) and close the loophole for murdering shitheads to get off on an ideological technicality?The answer to this question is here:http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-01-22/opin...rture-terrorist
"The “head in a vise” scene is taken from an anecdote in the book “Casino” unrelated to the main story, describing mob enforcer Tony Spilotro’s interrogation of a low-level gangster named Billy McCarthy, who had committed the unauthorized murder on the Scalvo Brothers, a pair of high-ranking mobsters within Spilotro’s crime organization. Trying to get McCarthy to give up the identity of the man who helped him kill the Scalvos, Spilotro first beat McCarthy, then stabbed him in the testicles with an icepick, before finally shoving his head in a vise and crunching it to five inches wide; McCarthy didn’t give up the name of his partner, Jimmy Miraglia, until Spilotro tightened the vise in such a way that one of Billy’s eyes popped out. Amazingly, McCarthy survived the head-crushing long enough for Spilotro to kill him by dousing him in lighter fluid and setting him ablaze. Spilotro would remark later in life, “Billy McCarthy was the toughest guy I ever met.” (Jimmy Miraglia was subsequently shot dead and put in the trunk of his own car along with Billy’s corpse)."Whatever it takes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Torture works when done by professionals.Why do you think the US military changed its policy during vietnam from 'don't say anything ever or you are a traitor' to 'hold out as long as possible because you will break'?It just some nanny state Hollywood liberal garbage that torture doesn't work.Arguing we should or shouldn't is the only argument, because torture will work if we choose to use it.We don't have to torture though, we can just give the person to most of the countries that we are allies with and they will torture them for us.
So you'd be OK with it if some foreign government decided your daughter was a criminal, and tortured her until she confessed? After all, if that country didn't do it, they could just ship her to a country that will. And the US can't complain, because we do it, too.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"He will face, and we will seek, the maximum sentence of life without parole when he is sentenced in January," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said.
So, in what sense could he be punished further than life without parole? Had he been found guilty of all 280+ charges, would the death penalty have been on the table? How is this a loss for the US? He was found guilty and he's hopefully going to jail forever. If this were a military trial, would the death penalty be on the table? Mind you, if this guy was deeply involved in the terroristic deaths of 224 people, I think he deserves the death penalty, but life without parole is a pretty solid punishment too.Lastly, does this trial preclude him facing a military tribunal for the same crimes? In other words, does double jeopardy still apply to a second, military trial?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lastly, does this trial preclude him facing a military tribunal for the same crimes? In other words, does double jeopardy still apply to a second, military trial?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure you can be tried state and federal for the same crime and not trigger double jeopardy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...