A civilian case that failed...almost

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 11:46am

While I'm glad to hear that the Underpants Bomber has started talking to investigators, he could stop at any time. After all, this very thing happened in the case of the Millennium Bomber. After pledging to cooperate, Ahmed Ressam clammed up after two years of ratting on his fellow rats, bollixing the trials against two other militant Islamists, and he also recanted all of his previous testimony.

Also, there are no assurances that Abdulmutallab will not face an idiot judge like John Coughenour.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered that Ahmed Ressam, a convicted terrorist arrested in December 1999 in Port Angeles with a car full of explosives, be sentenced again.

And this time, the court has ordered that U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who presided over Ressam's trial and his sentencing and re-sentencing, not be involved.

Ressam also will likely face a much longer sentence, given that the appeals court noted several times how much lighter his 22-year sentence was than what sentencing guildelines call for.

In a 2-1 decision, the court's majority said Coughenour's sentence -- 43 years below the low range of the federal sentencing guidelines -- was "both procedurally and substantively unreasonable."

It concluded: "The district judge's previously expressed views appear too entrenched to allow for the appearance of fairness on remand. For these reasons, we direct that the case be reassigned to a different judge for resentencing."

Judge Coughenour gave consideration to Ressam's defense attorney's claim that Ressam is a "quiet, solitary and devout man whose true character is manifest in his decision to cooperate." Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit concluded otherwise.

The district court’s finding that “Mr. Ressam’s life history and personal characteristics support favorable sentencing consideration” is clearly erroneous in view of the voluminous factual findings in the PSR indicating that Ressam has lead a life of crime dedicated to terrorist causes. Without addressing the Government’s arguments as to Ressam’s history and characteristics, the district court credited Dr. Grassian’s favorable report of Ressam and Ressam’s own characterization in his 2005 sentencing memorandum that “by naming and identifying scores of former associates, Mr. Ressam not only has imperiled his life, but also has decisively walked away from the illegality that led to his arrest.”

In finding that Ressam is “a quiet, solitary and devout man whose true character is manifest in his decision to cooperate,” the district court did not address any of the findings in the PSR which indicate that Ressam has an extensive criminal history. For example, in the summer of 1999, when Abu Doha informed Ressam that the other members of the Montreal cell would not be joining him to carry out the attack against the United States, Ressam decided to continue with the operation on his own, without the other members of his cell. Ressam targeted an airport, knowing that as a result, many civilians would die. Ressam attempted to rob a bank to obtain funds to carry out his mission and finance the attack in the United States. In the course of robbing the bank, Ressam planned to throw a live hand grenade at the police, and run, if he needed to do so in order to get away. These are only a few of the findings in the PSR that are in direct tension with the district court’s findings as to Ressam’s life history and personal characteristics, including the finding that Ressam is “a quiet, solitary and devout man whose true character is manifest in his decision to cooperate.”

For whatever reason, Coughenour's grip on reality reminds me of Dr. Rumack:

All right. I'm going to level with you. The most important thing now is that you should all be calm, because there's no reason to panic. Now, it is true that one of the flight crew has been taken ill...slightly ill. But the other two pilots are just fine and at the controls flying the plane. The weather in Chicago is clear as a bell, and there's no reason that we won't land on schedule, safe and sound and free to pursue a life of religious fulfillment.

Even the pansy-ass Ninth Circuit couldn't stomach the way Coughenour handled the sentencing process. Of course, back when Ressam was arrested and tried and convicted, we didn't have Gitmo and there was no system for trying Ressam in a military court. But we do now. For Abdulmutallab, we should send him to Gitmo or Durbanville Prison (or any other maximum security location) and prosecute him per the Military Commissions Act of 2009.

Fill in the blank

(#205854)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 3:21pm.

"While the suspect is currently talking to civilian authorities, he could stop at any time, and that is unacceptable. If we had him in military custody, he couldn't stop because if he did we would _________."

torture him like James Bond was tortured in 'Casino Royale'

(#205855)

Submitted by catchy on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 3:27pm.

tortue him like McCain was before he confessed to war crimes?

(#205863)

Submitted by brutusettu on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:08pm.

. . ..

Ridiculous

(#205951)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 9:23pm.

It was signed under duress, after he was a tortured. Such a "confession" under those conditions is as phony and retarded as a $3 bill.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

I could have put:

(#206163)

Submitted by brutusettu on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 9:21am.

"torturing will only lead to him admitting to be the literal Queen of Shiva's minion."

To which I doubt you would say: "Ridiculous: It's the Queen of Sheba, waterboarding would get actionable intelligence that's based giving intel about actual people...Without context comments can be misleading, I need clear cut context to know you misspelled 'Sheba' on purpose, you needed to put '[sic]' in there to show 2 fold reasons why you torture might not work."

As that "Sheba" bit is of the same essence as what I wrote, it just wouldn't be as concise a quip, doesn't pack quite the punch, and doesn't fit right in with the fiction inspired 007 quip before that where "torture worked" for the bad guys.

I doubt that even the most partisan or most anti-Vietnam or most anti-war person out there that lurks on this site thinks what McCain signed was because McCain gave reality based accounts of his "war crimes."

McCain ran for POTUS, and I'm I think there are less than a few people out here on this site, that don't know the gist of McCain's torture and confession or the general idea that people can admit to just about anything if you inflict enough pain. It's not nearly as esoteric as if one said his choice for VP was almost as bad as his flying skills, when he got hit by a friendly anti-tank missile. Context o his campaign handlers and the USS Forrestal fire be damned and that wouldn't have been on topic.

I thought and still think it should be taken as an obvious simile-like quip against the inactionable nature of torture based interrogations intel, but c'est la vie.

. . ..

That's exactly my larger point, which you helped make for me

(#205967)

Submitted by brutusettu on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 10:34pm.

Waiting a couple seconds/minutes/hours/or whatever after simulating drowning is in the same ball park, section, and row.

I don't know if you advocated water boarding. But it's simulating the exact effects of what it feels like to start drowning, with the "safety" that it can be done again and again and again. I don't really think it's wise to copy "techniques" designed, and still very good at, eliciting false confessions.

. . ..

FTR,

(#206014)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:22pm.

I'm against waterboarding and other techniques that violate international law and the Geneva Conventions. We signed a treaty that required us to treat prisoners and detainees humanely.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

The question is raised

(#206126)

Submitted by stinerman on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:22pm.

I'm against waterboarding and other techniques that violate international law and the Geneva Conventions. We signed a treaty that required us to treat prisoners and detainees humanely.

Are you against waterboarding et al. specifically because it violates international law and ratified treaties or do are you against it because it violates an ethical belief? Do note that I don't imply these choices to be mutually exclusive, but one must override the other in terms of importance in your mind.

To put it another way, if we never signed the Geneva Conventions and there were no treaties or legal impediments of any sort to torturing, would you support it?

I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says.
-- Antonin Scalia

Both

(#206151)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:37am.

I think it's highly probable that those international laws were passed because treating prisoners and detainees inhumanely is morally wrong. But beyond rule of law, there are philosophical, ethical and practical reasons for doing the right thing.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Yeah, BD would be described as a "pussy"

(#206015)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:23pm.

by mainstream conservatives on this issue.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

The fact remains, we are torturing these prisoners.

(#205961)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 10:00pm.

Obama said he'd stop it, but there's no evidence he has. Don't be so quick to exonerate McCain. Other men did not break, did not kowtow to their captors. John McCain was a well-heeled dud and would have made a horrible, horrible president.

Eh

(#206012)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:18pm.

There's no evidence that Obama has approved illegal interrogation techniques, so when you say "the fact remains," you're basically full of sh*t. What really remains is your speculation that the Obama administration is torturing detainees, based on not a whit of fact. Speculate away, but don't try to masquerade it as something else. It's an insult to the readers' intelligence.

McCain was tortured, and he signed a phony baloney confession that held exactly no meaning. As for whether McCain would be a "horrible, horrible president," I find such hypotheticals to be a completely pointless exercise. You and I can't know how he would perform in office, because he's not in that office.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Whether torture is currently in use is irrelevant

(#206224)

Submitted by stillnotking on Sun, 02/07/2010 - 8:28am.

The Obama administration has not disavowed the legal right to torture, and therefore will do so if it ever feels the need.

The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.

Don't get me wrong. CIA testified they tortured, ergo "fact"

(#206031)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 2:25pm.

We have the pictures. Those are facts.

We can't disprove from the negative. So yes, you're right, Obama hasn't approved any illegal interrogation techniques -- and here's where it gets tricky -- of which we know.

I am not full of sh*t. My mortgage gets paid by applying facts to rulesets. But I'll take your slag in the spirit it's offered: that of someone to whom the rules of logic are a complete effing mystery.

Therefore, the fact remains. Obama says he's not in the torture business, Obama says he's going to close down Gitmo, Obama says a whole lot of things. And so do you, BD. Doesn't mean any of them are true or false. Show me the evidence, Counselor. While all this torture was going on, I seem to recall some reticence about the legitimacy of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and the secret prisons and the actionable evidence surrounding those nightmares. Don't expect me to change my opinion because nothing's surfaced lately. We're still in the dark, so spare me any cheap blatting on that rusty trumpet of yours about who's full of merde

A phony baloney confession is a fact, too. It's what we call an Artifact in AI, something tangible, something you can persist on a file system. Something you as a lawyer would contest. You can quarrel about it at trial, but the grand jury's going to see it. Something about indicting a ham sandwich.

But that's not what you said

(#206060)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 4:10pm.

You said "we are torturing prisoners," so you are directly accusing Obama of violating international law as well as domestic law (the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005). It's a completely unfounded statement. It's a faith-based comment. Full of sh*it, as it were. Had you said that we used illegal interrogation techniques four or five years ago, I probably wouldn't have even hit the "reply" button.

I don't disagree that McCain confessed to war crimes. I took issue when bru failed to add a shred of context.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

The burden of proof is on you

(#206127)

Submitted by HankP on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:23pm.

since it's true that we have tortured, unless there's complete transparency in the handling of suspects (and the history of who did what and who ordered what) the only logical conclusion is that the torture is continuing.

I blame it all on the Internet

Back asswards, as usual

(#206146)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:30am.

If a person says "we are torturing", the onus is on the person who made the claim to back it up, not on me to disprove it.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Onus? He said onus.

(#206158)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 7:16am.

I would not for all the world and its pomps accuse you of lying. Yet consider: why do men lie and to whom do they lie? How long would my marriage last if I routinely lied to my wife? It might last my whole life, provided my wife understood I'd always lie in a pinch. She might even come to understand the truth in my lying responses: ol' Blaise will always give me the business when there's trouble afoot, so if he says this time he's not lying, well then that proves he is lying.

The Pilgrim to Jerusalem. At a fork in the road stand two brothers: one will always lie, the other will tell the truth, and the Pilgrim does not know which one is the liar. One fork leads to Hell, the other to Jerusalem. The Pilgrim may ask but one question of one brother to find his way to Jerusalem.

The answer is well-known: "Which road will your brother say goes to Jerusalem". The Pilgrim then takes the other road.

And that's exactly where we're at with this government.

We are running extrajudicial prisons and we are torturing people in them. We have behaved abominably in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Since when did Law matter? It's manifest we don't care about the Law, for we have broken it and failed to prosecute anyone for these policies.

That's not true: we had a little eyewash applied with Lynndie England and her lumpen boyfriend Graner.

Therefore, "we torture" is the sadly inevitable and only conclusion reachable. Torture continues to be a matter of government policy: were it not, we would see prosecutions.

You may say "the onus is on you", but reputations don't work that way. Those who are caught out in lies do not have the luxury of goodwill on their side: they are liars and they remain liars until the proof comes in.

Nice speech, but irrelevant

(#206358)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:15pm.

You made this claim: "... we are torturing people in them."

It's very simple, Blaise: Where is the evidence that we are doing so?

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

As Des notes below, we do have the evidence for torture.

(#206407)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 1:52pm.

We do not see the prosecutions for those crimes. Since there are no prosecutions, we may correctly assert the DoJ does not consider them crimes. Therefore, we must assume torture continues.

The evidence is as follows:

(#206398)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 1:21pm.

We know we did until a year and change ago, and it's still not illegal, based on the lack of prosecutions.

The Stanford Prison Experiment should serve as a guide. In any prison situation, torture should be assumed in the absence of enforcement.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

This isn't a courtroom

(#206155)

Submitted by HankP on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 4:52am.

Given the history and the evidence, why would any rational person take the government's word that they've stopped? Given the fact that the current admin specifically hasn't gone after war criminals like John Yoo and Dick Cheney, why would anyone with more than two brain cells assume that they've stopped?

Your belief in government is touching, but unsupported by experience.

I blame it all on the Internet

Apparently, this isn't a court of common sense, either

(#206352)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 12:10pm.

Your view of history appears to be frozen in amber, circa 2004. Consider what has taken place since then. There is a Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, there is a new administration that has expressly repudiated enhanced interrogation techniques, and there is a new CIA director who repudiated same. This isn't about taking the government's word or that I "assume that they've stopped," this is about a Forvm member accusing the current president of being a war criminal, without a single shred of evidence. Common sense still dictates that if you make a Big Accusation, then you should be responsible for supplying Big Backup to support such a thing.

What you and Blaise are doing is condemning the child for the sins of the father, which is both ridiculous and illogical. It would be like Blaise saying I am a current dKos member because I have a track record of being one five years ago, even though Markos banned me after I ridiculed him.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Were this a courtroom, he'd attack witness credibility

(#206159)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 7:30am.

If only these crimes were taken to the courts, then perhaps we might get a few crumbs of evidence on the exhibit table. A few photographs of the torture chambers, a few videotapes, as we did with the Serbs and the Nazis and Franco and Argentina and the French in Algeria. If we are to have these wretched Military Tribunals, then let the stage be also set for another Nuremberg Trial for the US regime, let the charges be read out, as they were to Milosevic.

This will never happen. Justice for me but not for thee seems to be the order of the day.

We are, because we have not been proven not to be torturing.

(#206120)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 10:26pm.

End of story, dude. It's called a Track Record. You have been handed your hat, logically and metaphorically. Now do have the common decency to step off your High Horse, Your Majesty, I weary of my arguments being called things which involve extended ascii in the bowdlerized rendering thereof.

Illogical

(#206149)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:32am.

No one has demonstrated that we have used illegal interrogation techniques since 2004. Either admit that you're full of sh*t or back up your contention that we are torturing. Either option is fine by me.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

um, moderators?

(#206179)

Submitted by nilsey on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 2:05pm.

is calling other commenters "full of shit" going to be fine from here on out?

Member of the Forvm Five

Um, no.

(#206202)

Submitted by mmghosh on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 8:41pm.

Although, speaking anatomically we are actually full of it. Or at least our abdomens are.

BD, please.

Illogical?

(#206152)

Submitted by brutusettu on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:43am.

Is torturing by proxy, considered "we?"

--
"The gov't said it, and I believe it, and that settles it for me"

. . ..

If there is evidence that...

(#206153)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:50am.

...that we are demanding others to torture detainees for our benefit, then by all means, support the claim.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

What constitutes "demanding"

(#206154)

Submitted by brutusettu on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 4:04am.

Would putting a bunny in a cage with near starving greyhound, "demanding" for the greyhound to feed?
Would it be safe to say the handler for all intensive purposes "killed" the bunny?

Rendition Case Under Bush Gets Obama Backing
Italy Rules in Rendition Case

Were the preceding links on topic and evidence?

. . ..

Do you read your own links?

(#206347)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:57am.

The first link: "While President Barack Obama has promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and revoke other Bush antiterror policies, he is moving more cautiously on renditions. The practice dates back at least to the Clinton administration, and Obama officials have signaled they will continue the policy while seeking assurances that suspects aren't tortured."

The second link: "The issue of rendition has been difficult for the Obama administration because the president decided to continue the practice of transferring detainees to other countries for interrogation. When taking the helm of the CIA in February, Director Leon Panetta said the agency would continue to use rendition, but would seek assurances that the detainee wouldn't be tortured -- which has been the standing U.S. policy."

If there additional questions about the practice, you can always Ask Dr. Rendition. In any case, current law and policy does not support Blaise's contention that we are torturing, either directly or by proxy.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Context? Why?

(#206075)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 5:32pm.

I didn't think anyone here was in danger of being confused by bru's comment, or needed any context, because when ordinary decent people see the words "torture" and "confession" together, they instantly and automatically assume the confession is meaningless. I'm surprised you think visitors reading this site wouldn't make the same assumption.

Without context,

(#206145)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:27am.

comments can be misleading. McCain confessed to war crimes, but there is no evidence that actually committed any war crimes. Plus, such a confession is essentially meaningless under the conditions he experienced. Without adding such context, in my opinion, the comment is ridiculous.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Who or what was McCain bombing when he was shot down

(#206312)

Submitted by nyoos junkey on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 8:31am.

[edit] - found it on a link from he JM wiki:

the Yen Phu thermal power plant in central Hanoi[101][102] that previously had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids due to the possibility of collateral damage

Marginal I suppose - civilian infrastructure most likely. Anyway, what comes away with you after reading the account of his time in Vietnam is his personal bravery and the horror he endured. TANG it was not.

Protocol I Addional

(#206323)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:23am.

Although it was signed ten years after McCain's bombing run, Article 52 is relevant. So is this:

The negotiators of the 1977 Additional Protocols recognized these concerns, and the relevance of capacity to harm made its way into the principles relating to attacks on property. Additional Protocol I classifies as “military objectives” any “objects [that] by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to [the] military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Such objects are lawful targets of attack, even though they may have a predominantly civilian use,61 so long as they are not “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” Accordingly, the United States military currently takes the position that civilian economic facilities such as power plants, telecommunications systems, and rail yards that “indirectly but effectively support and sustain the enemy’s war-fighting capability” are not entitled to immunity from attack.63 It is not difficult to find historical instances of automobile assembly plants being converted into military truck and tank factories, or civilian seagoing vessels being commandeered for military use.

So is this:

President Johnson approved an attack on the power plant, which was close to the heart of the city, on the condition that the plant would be attacked only by highly accurate “smart bombs” to limit collateral damage.

In typical fashion, the Air Force had effective radar jamming equipment (but no "smart bombs") and the Navy planes had the right bombs and wrong radar-jamming equipment, which contributed to McCain's and others' low success rate.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

SInce you're being deliberately obtuse

(#206182)

Submitted by stinerman on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:44pm.

I'll spell it out for you.

Yes. McCain's confession is BS. Why? Because he was coerced into giving it. No reasonable person would believe that because of McCain's statement, he is guilty of any war crimes. None of us are charging such a thing.

The point, which I'm sure you understand, is that ostensibly reasonable people do give credence to coerced statements of many swarthier non-Christians.

Either all statements procured by torture are useless or they aren't. Your conservative kinsmen want to have it both ways. Torture is an evil, barbaric act that produces false confessions when it is done to an upstanding American soldier like Lt. Cmdr. McCain, but it is an invaluable tool that saves American lives when it is invited upon radical Jihadists such as Maher Arar.

We agree, then

(#206316)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:06am.

McCain's confession was BS. Is it possible that you're under the misimpression that I approve of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques?

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

No but

(#206320)

Submitted by eeyn524 on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:49am.

you seem to

(a) be under the impression that some readers might think that confessions obtained by torture are valid (otherwise no reason for you to jump in and point out what the rest of us thought was not just obvious, but 2x4 to the head obvious), and

(b) at the same time, be very worried that those same
pro-torture readers might get the wrong opinion of John McCain.

We agree, then

(#206315)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 10:00am.

McCain's confession was BS. Is it possible that you're under the misimpression that I approve of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques?

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Yes.

(#206331)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:35am.

I am under the interpretation that you approve of them,* since you seem to approve of the information gathered from them to continue the war crimes perpetrated in Guantanamo, and you have supported candidates in the past who have enthusiastically tortured many innocents.

*or are at least essentially indifferent to them

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Which comment is ridiculous?

(#206148)

Submitted by brutusettu on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 3:41am.

. . ..

Well, there does need to be context

(#206122)

Submitted by stinerman on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 11:11pm.

If someone with an Arabic name confesses under duress, we call that actionable intelligence.

If a WASP like McCain confesses, we immediately discard it.

There is blatant hypocrisy run amok if conservatives really believe that torture produces results. If so, McCain is a war criminal. There are no two ways about it.

Of course they don't believe it.

(#206136)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Sat, 02/06/2010 - 12:03am.

Even thought KSM was waterboarded over a hundred times, he still never copped to an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. If the Admin had believed that torture produced real information, they'd have taken that very seriously.

Again, conservatives view people who believe things with deep suspicions. Values get in the way of loyalty, and loyalty is the fundamental human trait.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

We can't know how he'd perform in office.

(#206017)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:28pm.

And yet making that guess is every voter's job.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

Actually, McCain was easy.

(#206021)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:40pm.

The man wasn't healthy enough for the job.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Indeed

(#206019)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:36pm.

But the point was that Blaise keeps calling things "facts" when they're really just speculations or guesses of hypothetical situations. It seems to be a problem that several liberals have around here, failing to distinguish between fact and speculation, such as the person who said it was a "fact" that Padilla was tortured, when in actuality it is a belief.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Agreed: Blaise has a tendentious style when he gets worked up.

(#206022)

Submitted by Jordan on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:45pm.

Your final sentence above was a bit tendentious as well, though. We can't know, but of course we can speculate -- we have to.

Thank you! Vote Republican!

That's just a pussy retarded comment.

(#205959)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 9:49pm.

Isn't the evidence against the detainees currently in Gitmo mostly based around "evidence" gathered through torture? As is the case around Padilla?

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Some of the evidence...

(#206011)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:09pm.

...was obtained through use of illegal interrogation techniques, but with McCain, the issue was about McCain confessing to war crimes under physical duress. I've seen no evidence that the detainees made confessions or pled guilty under those conditions, but it is true that interrogators obtained an unknown amount of evidence illegally. The MCA of 2009 excludes statements obtained through torture.

As for Padilla, allegations were made, and whether or not they are true will depend on the evidence presented in his civil case against Yoo.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

No, that's not the case.

(#206013)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 1:21pm.

Whether or not they are true has already been established. We just don't know it, and are unlikely to.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

You make a point

(#205916)

Submitted by stinerman on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 7:45pm.

We've got a confessed war criminal in our Senate and the Republicans nominated him for President.

It is safe to say people who frequent this blog voted for a war criminal.

Twice.

(#205928)

Submitted by Desidiosus on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 8:19pm.

Cheney also essentially confessed to war crimes.

"A milk cow with 310 million tits" -- Alan Simpson, Barack Obama's co-chair on deficit reduction, describing Social Security.

Heh. In a pinch, these Law 'n Order Repubs wuss out.

(#205825)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 12:55pm.

All you Military Justice fans are cordially invited to put a sock in it the next time you want to rattle on about Conservative Principles and the Founding Fathers and the Constatooshum and suchlike. Confronted with crimes, you don't even believe your own rhetoric.

???

(#205881)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 4:44pm.

What part of the Military Commissions Act of 2009 is not law-and-order?

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Grade A hokum, gennemens. MCA

(#205940)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 8:59pm.

First, absolute suspension of habeas corpus, that's a starter.

It's a get out of jail free card for torturers. Yes, yes, (waves hand dismissively) we all know about how torturers aren't really torturers and ticking time bombs and other such ginned-up boojums. It stinks to high heaven, that we torture and now MCA gives retroactive immunity to these bastards.

It's an abrogation of the Judicial leg of the three legged stool we call a republic. The Executive gets to run an extrajudicial judicial system, where everyone in the courtroom except the defendant is his goddamn employee. Booya.

Secret prisons, torture, Jesus H Christ to think I'd live to see the day. Nunc dimittis.

You're behind the times

(#205949)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 9:20pm.

The Military Commissions Act of 2009 does not suspend habeas corpus. Look it up and see for yourself.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy

Um, I don't agree. Make your case for habeas

(#205958)

Submitted by BlaiseP on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 9:48pm.

under MCA 2009. It's not there. Madison's government of devils seems to have found ways to circumvent his excellent systems.

Thank God the military is throwing these cases out as they get them. But that's only because they've not devils.

The 2009 version struck out 950j(b),

(#206007)

Submitted by Bird Dog on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 12:44pm.

which was the offending paragrah that the USSC found unconstitutional. An analysis:

Well, here's the punchline: The MCA 2009 rewrites 10 U.S.C. § 950, and leaves what was 10 U.S.C. § 950j(b) out altogether. Not only that, but the MCA 2009 reincorporates what had been 10 U.S.C. § 950j(a) word-for-word as new 10 U.S.C. 950i, suggesting that Congress did not simply forget this provision altogether.

Why does this matter? Because as a result, there is no longer a statutory bar to a Guantanamo detainee mounting a pre-trial challenge to the jurisdiction of a military commission. As a result, any defendant with such a claim may now go directly to the D.C. district court (or, as in bin al Shibh, pursue mandamus relief in the D.C. Circuit), rather than waiting for proceedings in the military commission to run their (slow and unpredictable) course.

"I think BDog would make this place interesting." --catchy