Al Qaeda Suspect cleared of all but 1 Count

[guido911]

Both much better movies.

Merriam-Webster

Agreed. I watched Wall Street a few weeks back and an episode of House on an airplane. I guess that allows me to lecture you bankers/investors and doctors about your job field.

[RecycleMichael]

I have in-laws who are out-laws. Don't lecture me on the law.

[guido911]

I have in-laws who are out-laws. Don't lecture me on the law.

You sir are on fire today. +1

[nathanm]

I just love how folks with ZERO, much less formal, legal training and experience lecture me on what the law is. Seriously, people (I call them "Cliff Clavins") read a news article or listen to some talking head and suddenly they are authorities on the subject. It's like "Guido, Jeffrey Toobin said this or that about the verdict so it must be true". It's so damned hilarious.

I find it difficult to understand how you got "nathanm is telling me what the law is" out of my post. Perhaps you could explain?

[guido911]

I find it difficult to understand how you got "nathanm is telling me what the law is" out of my post. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh I don't know, perhaps it was this:

Guido, it's all about what you can prove in court. At least they got him on one count. I don't want to live in a country where we decide it's OK to toss some people in jail without trial or with a lessened standard of evidence. Next thing you know, they could be using that lower standard for other crimes.

Do you have short term memory issues? I say that because I saw someone with that medical condition on Doogie Houser.

[Hoss]

Oh I don't know, perhaps it was this:

Do you have short term memory issues? I say that because I saw someone with that medical condition on Doogie Houser.

Haha, that's funny.

[custosnox]

I just love how folks with ZERO, much less formal, legal training and experience lecture me on what the law is. Seriously, people (I call them "Cliff Clavins") read a news article or listen to some talking head and suddenly they are authorities on the subject. It's like "Guido, Jeffrey Toobin said this or that about the verdict so it must be true". It's so damned hilarious.

So let me get this straight, in order to understand things like innocent until proven guilty, nor the whole "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" thing unless they have formal training?  Or to realize that a slippery slope exists?  Or are you saying it's not about what you can prove in court?  Please, get over yourself.

[we vs us]

It's not a very surprising outcome.  For years during the Bush Administration (well before Obama came along), lots of reasonable folks (lawyers and such!) were protesting the use of torture and/or coercion because it effectively taints any evidence that might be used at trial.  This is true in trials that don't involve terrorists at all; a goodly lot of Chicago cops, for instance, went up the river for torturing suspects, and afterward a raft of convictions were tossed out because of tainted confessions.  You don't have to be a lawyer to read about and understand why that might be true. 

[Conan71]

It's not a very surprising outcome.  For years during the Bush Administration (well before Obama came along), lots of reasonable folks (lawyers and such!) were protesting the use of torture and/or coercion because it effectively taints any evidence that might be used at trial.  This is true in trials that don't involve terrorists at all; a goodly lot of Chicago cops, for instance, went up the river for torturing suspects, and afterward a raft of convictions were tossed out because of tainted confessions.  You don't have to be a lawyer to read about and understand why that might be true. 

Certainly you can't be suggesting this has only been an issue during the Bush years.  Rendition and torture has gone on as long as there's been law enforcement and warfare. 

[we vs us]

Certainly you can't be suggesting this has only been an issue during the Bush years.  Rendition and torture has gone on as long as there's been law enforcement and warfare. 

Yes, but the major difference was that Bush II made it an official instrument of policy.  Up till now we may have nodded and whispered about what the CIA did in Nicaragua (for instance) but Bush made it part of the legal framework of the war on terror.  That was absolutely new and different from an historical perspective. 

My point was that people with actual law degrees were objecting to it years ago, on the grounds that it would produce exactly the kind of result we just saw.  It shouldn't be surprising to anyone -- Guido included -- that we're seeing so many counts tossed out because of tainted evidence.  The Bush II legal framework practically guaranteed it.   

[guido911]

So let me get this straight, in order to understand things like innocent until proven guilty, nor the whole "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" thing unless they have formal training?  Or to realize that a slippery slope exists?  Or are you saying it's not about what you can prove in court?  Please, get over yourself.

In my business I use a research product called Westlaw (it's a little similar to Lexis-Nexus).  The "Notes of Decisions", which provides a brief synopsis of a specific legal concept just for the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause contains more than 10,000 case citations and countless cross references interpreting: its meaning, its application, who is affected, and etc. Words have meaning, but not the same meaning in different contexts--and I have on numerous occasions knocked out know-it-all pro se plaintiffs and their bs cases because they thought they knew what due process means.

So, yes, to understand what "due process of law", and those other technical and complex legal terms of art, means you need formal education. Otherwise, its nice that you know the words and those rights exist, but do not tell me you "understand it". Hell, I do not fully understand it. Most certainly, lay persons telling me that "it's all about what you can prove in court" is stupid and insulting.

And Clavin, you get over it.

[nathanm]

Do you have short term memory issues? I say that because I saw someone with that medical condition on Doogie Houser.

Mmmhmm. So people are convicted on the basis of things not proven in court? (leaving out plea bargains, of course, which by their very nature short circuit that) Speaking of which, I don't recall specifics, but some years back didn't the Supreme Court hear a case regarding sentencing enhancements for things not proven in court? I forget how they ruled, but that might be another exception to the general rule I was speaking of that got you upset, seemingly far out of proportion to my statement.

You're the one who seemed to think that it was some sort of travesty that the guy only got convicted on one count. We all are sometimes in need of a reminder of the guiding principles of our criminal justice system. Usually when we feel like justice wasn't really done.

P.S. I have also used WestLaw. At the time, I thought it was a lot more user-friendly for us laypeople than Lexis, but that's been 10 years ago now.

[guido911]

Mmmhmm. So people are convicted on the basis of things not proven in court? (leaving out plea bargains, of course, which by their very nature short circuit that) Speaking of which, I don't recall specifics, but some years back didn't the Supreme Court hear a case regarding sentencing enhancements for things not proven in court? I forget how they ruled, but that might be another exception to the general rule I was speaking of that got you upset, seemingly far out of proportion to my statement.

You're the one who seemed to think that it was some sort of travesty that the guy only got convicted on one count. We all are sometimes in need of a reminder of the guiding principles of our criminal justice system. Usually when we feel like justice wasn't really done.

P.S. I have also used WestLaw. At the time, I thought it was a lot more user-friendly for us laypeople than Lexis, but that's been 10 years ago now.

First, this guy was charged with 285 felony counts involving the murder of nearly 225 people (including 12 Americans) and the best we can get from our "failure is not an option" Holder DOJ is one conspiracy conviction. Damned right its a freakin travesty.

Second, tell me again why these bastards caught in battle in other countries have any business in our federal courts? In case you didn't get the memo, we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and many of these f*ckstains were taken prisoner over there. Giving them a trial with the same rights as you are I get is incredulous. Oh, and don't give me the "we are a sophisticated, not uncivilized, country" and "we need to show the world" crap. This is really about Obama's administration complete misunderstanding of how to engage our enemies.

Third, the majority of the spooners running to Obama's defense on this matter, those that share the DOJ's "pleased" position, focus on the exclusion of one witness at the trial. What people forget is that this prick confessed to his role in the bombings.

Ahmed Ghailani has confessed to bombing the U.S. embassy in Tanzania twelve years ago. As he explained to the FBI in a series of 2007 interviews, he bought the TNT used in the explosion. He even identified the man from whom he purchased it — a man who was subsequently located, who corroborated Ghailani's confession, and who has been cooperating with American and Tanzanian authorities ever since. Ghailani also helped buy the truck and other components used to carry out the suicide attack.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/248886/embassy-bombing-trial-jeopardy-andrew-c-mccarthy

Of course, his confession was never presented to the jury:

The jury won't be hearing about Ghailani's confession. It has been reported that, because he was a highly sought and highly placed al-Qaeda operative, Ghailani was subjected to harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA after being captured in Pakistan in 2004. To be sure, no jury should be permitted to hear a coerced confession. That is not because an alien terrorist held outside the U.S. in wartime has Fifth Amendment rights; it is because a proceeding in which a person is forced to be a witness against himself does not meet rudimentary standards of justice. Nevertheless, we are not referring here to what Ghailani may have told the CIA under duress; we are talking about the confession he gave the FBI three years later. The FBI does not use the CIA's controversial tactics.[/quote] Emphasis added

Still want to talk about justice? I think we should be talking about the DOJ and Holder's incompetence. BTW, has anyone seen this guy lately?

[custosnox]

In my business I use a research product called Westlaw (it's a little similar to Lexis-Nexus).  The "Notes of Decisions", which provides a brief synopsis of a specific legal concept just for the Fourteenth Amendment "due process" clause contains more than 10,000 case citations and countless cross references interpreting: its meaning, its application, who is affected, and etc. Words have meaning, but not the same meaning in different contexts--and I have on numerous occasions knocked out know-it-all pro se plaintiffs and their bs cases because they thought they knew what due process means.

So, yes, to understand what "due process of law", and those other technical and complex legal terms of art, means you need formal education. Otherwise, its nice that you know the words and those rights exist, but do not tell me you "understand it". Hell, I do not fully understand it. Most certainly, lay persons telling me that "it's all about what you can prove in court" is stupid and insulting.

And Clavin, you get over it.

kinda funny, I've taken on an educated attorney as a pro se or two in my time and did a pretty handy job agains them, so I guess it's really more about who is doing the fight then.  So you can keep toutin your holier than thou horn, but it plays a little off key.  Besides all of that, even though the terms have been murkied in court over time does not mean that the basic idea behind them changes, and that idea is that all shall be tried according the the law regardless of race, creed or religion.  This idea does not sway to fit the desire of the moment simply because people want it to.  It is a shame that people such as yourself have fought so hard to crate such a catastrophe of the courts that you have to spend so many years in school just to run around in circles to avoid the idea.  

Also, you never answered my question, are you saying it's not about what you can prove in the court of law.

[custosnox]

And a quick sidenote, I argue the point on proposition that as a nation we have duty to ourselves to hold true to these ideas.  But I do not agree that foriegn prisoners of war should neccessarily be given the same rights and freedoms as US citizens.