| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Get Terror Trials Out of Civilian Court | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 29 2010, 03:53 PM (1,415 Views) | |
| Jeff | Jan 30 2010, 08:33 PM Post #51 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Actually, the issues are closely related. The total lack of analysis, consultation or feedback that went into the choice of location bodes poorly for the notion that Holder and company have really thought through and analyzed the process and implications of a civilian jury trial. These do not seem like well-prepared street-savvy lawyers who have war gamed the whole scenario and know what they are doing. They seem like overconfident buffoons caught in a self-referential information loop. The question the Dems have to ask themselves right now is 'do they feel lucky'? Are they really willing to bet the prospects of their entire party for a generation on the effectiveness of Holder's legal team at bat with 70% of the American public opposed? |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 31 2010, 04:27 AM Post #52 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You have managed to ignore the point that Mayor Bloomberg was originally in favor of holding the trials in New York. Is he insane too? Failing to recognize or even acknowledge the potential upsides to holding the trial in New York is ... what's the word you used? Oh, yeah ... insanity. That doesn't mean it's the best choice, under the circumstances. But there are certainly positive aspects to that choice. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Beacon Chris | Jan 31 2010, 05:33 AM Post #53 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Now the mayor of Newburgh wants to hold the trials in my backyard for the 200M bribe. Nice... http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQyMTYxMWViYzNjZDg0OTJlN2Y3NjIxNDAzYTgzNDg= Edited by Beacon Chris, Jan 31 2010, 05:45 AM.
|
| How you durrin? | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jan 31 2010, 05:36 AM Post #54 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Arguably the worst slogan ever to come out of government.
|
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Jan 31 2010, 07:26 AM Post #55 |
|
Senior Carp
|
The decision was sprung on him with three hours notice (as per the NYT article above, you still regard them as a legit source, right?), and I guess he chose not to directly attack a powerful and delusional national administration whose financial help he would need. Prudence being the better part of valor when in a senior and responsible position. Patterson said it was nuts from day one, since he is on the outs with the Obama admin anyway, and could speak the obvious truth right away. Once Bloomberg could marshal his contacts and evidence, he struck back properly and effectively. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 31 2010, 07:35 AM Post #56 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Again, it's wonderful that you manage to bathe in the warm glow of vitriol, but it's nowhere near as clearcut as you'd wish it to be. There are positives to holding the trial in New York, and I know rational New Yorkers ... even those who oppose the trials being held there, even New Yorkers who worked and still work in the financial district ... who are willing to acknowledge that. You've just gone hysterical on the issue, and have lost the capacity for rational thought. Fair enough, for you, like others, 9/11 was highly personal. But don't pretend that there's anything rational about your position, or anything insane about someone who sees both sides of the argument. The only insanity on the subject ... understandable insanity, but insanity nonetheless ... is yours. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | Jan 31 2010, 02:20 PM Post #57 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Quirt - The far left also has Obama's number on this one. You can't call for a civilian jury trial with the presumption of innocence, and then tell the world that KSM will be executed at the end of it. Civilian trials are not show trials in Stalinist Russia, remember? The whole strategy is incoherent from *any* angle. The FDL leftist objection is valid; jurys are a bulwark against governmental police power, and so the state does not get to tell us what the conclusion of a jury of peers will be. http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/31/gibbs-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-likely-to-be-executed-why-even-have-a-trial/ Gibbs: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Likely to be Executed — Why Even Have a Trial? By: Cynthia Kouril Sunday January 31, 2010 8:30 am More STUPID, STUPID, STUPID White House press spokesman Robert Gibbs just said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) would likely be executed after trial and conviction. WTF?!? Am I the only person left who still remembers a legal concept called presumption of innocence? Am I the only one who remembers that the whole point of a trial is that the outcome is not certain? Listen Gibbs, do NOT insult the prosecutors who are about to work their asses off trying to put together a winning criminal case. Do NOT insult the hardworking defense counsel who are going to put thousands of hours into making sure that KSM gets due process. Do NOT insult the excellent federal judges of SDNY by suggesting that any one of them would preside over a kangaroo court. Do NOT insult our entire criminal justice system. In a real trial, the outcome is not known before the trial occurs. Further, much of the information in the hands of the government which will be used at trial against KSM should currently be Grand Jury Material, subject to secrecy under Rule 6e. Which means that you, Robert Gibbs, cannot legally know exactly what that evidence might be. So, how could you possibly know if KSM is going to be convicted? How do you know that? You don’t. So stop shooting you mouth off and calling our system of justice and the dedicated professionals of both bench and bar in the Southern District of New York into disrepute. Listen, the White House needs to back off and let the professionals handle this trial. USAO SDNY and the judges of SDNY are pros at this. David Axelrod is not. Robert Gibbs is not. People who have no clue what they are talking about, need to back out of this loop, now. Let the AG, the US Attorney and the Chief Judge handle it. You guys go back to doing the stuff that you are good at. Edited by Jeff, Jan 31 2010, 02:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 31 2010, 02:39 PM Post #58 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It looks like The Obamateur Hour has been renewed for another season, even as ratings drop. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 31 2010, 02:41 PM Post #59 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
OK, now you've switched to issue #4 ... whether the President is allowed to declare his opinion on a suspect's guilt or innocence prior to the trial. If the prosecutor said, "We expect the defendant to be tried, convicted, and sentenced to the maximum punishment," there'd be nothing wrong with that. It happens every day. It's part of the prosecution's opening statement. Who do the DoJ prosecutors report to? The AG. And who does the AG report to again? There is nothing wrong with the prosecutorial arm expressing its belief in the defendant's guilt. Prosecutors are supposed to believe the defendant is guilty and that they'll win at trial, or else they shouldn't be having a trial at all. (Which goes back to yet another one of your muddled arguments.) So, back to the real issue ... if it's insanity to try KSM in NY, why are there New Yorkers ... New Yorkers who work in the financial district, and worked there at the time of 9/11 ... who would like to see KSM tried in NY? Or at least, thought it was a good idea before all the logistical problems were more clearly understood? Or maybe your hyperbole is misplaced, could that be it? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Free Rider | Jan 31 2010, 02:42 PM Post #60 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Edited by Free Rider, Jan 31 2010, 02:43 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 31 2010, 03:09 PM Post #61 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
What a bizarre argument. Simply because some of X think something is a good idea, and the upon further reflection some of X determined it really wasn't a good idea, then opposing it is insanity? Wow. Talk about misplaced hyperbole. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jan 31 2010, 03:10 PM Post #62 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
|
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 31 2010, 03:12 PM Post #63 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Even more misplaced hyperbole. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Feb 1 2010, 04:40 AM Post #64 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Except that is not what Eric Holder said. Eric Holder went out of his way to assure the American people that KSM would be convicted in order to deflect criticism about the possibility that he might be found not guilty. That is far beyond a mere expectation. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 05:06 AM Post #65 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
You've never heard a prosecutor say something like that? I sure have. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Feb 1 2010, 05:16 AM Post #66 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Really? Please cite. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 05:32 AM Post #67 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Cite to things I've heard, live? Really? |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Feb 1 2010, 05:36 AM Post #68 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Then I guess you are asking me to take your word for the fact that you have heard a prosecutor (let alone an Attorney General) say in effect, "Don't worry folks, there is no possibility that he will be found not guilty and released". |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 05:47 AM Post #69 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
When you talk about your bird, or places you've been, do I ask for citations? Either you trust my word, or you don't. That's completely up to you. As for what I've heard, I have never heard those exact words. I have heard prosecutors say "He will be convicted, and he will go to jail for the rest of his life." It's basically a statement of confidence in their case and in the justice of their position. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 05:54 AM Post #70 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
By the way, whether you believe me or not, you've yet to establish that there's anything wrong with the prosecutor saying such things. The prosecutor is supposed to believe that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or he shouldn't be bringing the case to court. If he believes it, why shouldn't he say he believes it, and why shouldn't he have confidence that he's going to be able to persuade a jury of his position? It in no way disadvantages the defendant. Everyone already knows the prosecutor believes the defendant is guilty. And, AGAIN, the prosecutors in the DoJ report, ultimately, to the President, who is thus part of the prosecuting arm, not part of the judicial branch deciding the case. The fact that you find it unexpected, or poor form, does not in any way say that such behavior is wrong or illegal or somehow prejudices the defendant's rights. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Feb 1 2010, 06:04 AM Post #71 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
It still seems to me there is a difference between stating a belief that a defendant will be found guilty and assuring the American public that they have nothing to fear because it is a certainty. Granted, the DoJ is not in a position to speak for the judiciary but it is a remarkable statement for the US AG to make especially when the stated purpose of prosecution in a civilian court is to assure the world that we have an abiding interest in fair trials for these guys. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Feb 1 2010, 06:06 AM Post #72 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
When I am talking about my bird or places I have been there is nothing at stake for you in believing what I say. I will take your word that you heard exactly what you say you have but asking me to do so in a debate is a bit much. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 06:37 AM Post #73 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Definitionally, there's a difference. The question is, does that difference have any significance? You have not made the case that it does.
Well, at least we agree on something.
Again, what this boils down to is your belief that it's poor form. What should he have said instead? "He'll get a fair trial, and a jury will decide whether he's innocent or guilty?" Yeah, that would have played well in Peoria and Queens. So, since you don't like his syntax, and we both know he couldn't have said the alternative that I've laid out above, what should he have said? I have very little doubt that, even if you come up with wording you like and the AG had said it, most conservatives would have attacked him for that, too. Either he expresses it with certainty ... in which case you attack him ... or he expresses some level less than complete certainty, in which case he gets attacked for bringing a criminal case when he isn't sure of the outcome. Congratulations, you've created a no-lose situation for conservatives. Whatever he does, you can attack him for it. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Feb 1 2010, 06:49 AM Post #74 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Actually, due to the fact that trying these guys in civilian courts is a really dumb idea to begin with, I don't know what he could have said that would "play in Peoria" and sound like we were conducting anything like a fair trial. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Feb 1 2010, 07:04 AM Post #75 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Dumb or not, I believe it's Constitutionally required. You can't lock people up forever without proving your case somehow. Any other reading shreds the language of the Constitution and makes a host of other "re-interpretations" of the plain language possible. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








4:59 PM Jul 10