Al Qaeda Suspect cleared of all but 1 Count

[guido911]

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

I didn't think you seriously wanted me to answer such a condescending and inane question. Speaking as someone that has tried numerous cases to state and federal juries, it's not just about what you can prove. There are so many tangential factors beyond the evidence that could influence a verdict. Anything from the defendant's personal likability, the skill of the lawyers, errant evidentiary rulings,  trial strategy (look at my link to my recent response to Nate on this point) and on and on and on.

[nathanm]

This is really about Obama's administration complete misunderstanding of how to engage our enemies.

Well, Obama, Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon's misunderstanding (at the least). Terrorists have been treated as "regular joe" criminals under all of those Presidents, at least when it's been more convenient than a one off retaliation bombing. Bush the Junior was an outlier here.

[nathanm]

I didn't think you seriously wanted me to answer such a condescending and inane question. Speaking as someone that has tried numerous cases to state and federal juries, it's not just about what you can prove. There are so many tangential factors beyond the evidence that could influence a verdict. Anything from the defendant's personal likability, the skill of the lawyers, errant evidentiary rulings,  trial strategy (look at my link to my recent response to Nate on this point) and on and on and on.

I think you missed the in court part of my statement. To prove something in court requires admissible evidence. Obviously, jurors can do whatever they like regardless of the evidence, given that they have the power to render a verdict however they like, so long as the conviction can be sustained given the facts alleged as a matter of law. (or at least that's my understanding, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Guido,
You do realize that the American Bar Association voted "My Cousin Vinny" the #3 best legal movie of all time.  Right up there with "To Kill a Mockingbird".  And "12 Angry Men". 

But then, the ABA is just a bunch of lawyers, and you know how they are....

Trying cases in Federal court - one would then reasonably, I think, presume some familiarity with Federal law as relate to treaties.  Where the treaties we have signed, which are, by definition the "supreme law" of the land, along with the Constitution and CFR, et. al. would enter into the treatment of prisoners.  And no, there really IS no such thing as an "enemy combatant" under US law.  And you know it.

[guido911]

Guido,
You do realize that the American Bar Association voted "My Cousin Vinny" the #3 best legal movie of all time.  Right up there with "To Kill a Mockingbird".  And "12 Angry Men".  

But then, the ABA is just a bunch of lawyers, and you know how they are....

Trying cases in Federal court - one would then reasonably, I think, presume some familiarity with Federal law as relate to treaties.  Where the treaties we have signed, which are, by definition the "supreme law" of the land, along with the Constitution and CFR, et. al. would enter into the treatment of prisoners.  And no, there really IS no such thing as an "enemy combatant" under US law.  And you know it.

CFR is the "code of federal regulations, which is essentially rules/regs promulgated by federal agencies. I think you meant the United States Code. As for there being no such thing as"enemy combatants" under US law, here ya go:

Enemy Combatant

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): "Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war."

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President's determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

As for the ABA, I quit that group 11 years ago.

[heironymouspasparagus]

That is all just Bushyism jingoism, dogma, and "purchase the ruling you want from the court you own".

Here is the actual Third Geneva Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

One note in particular is interesting.  If it is undefined - the current legal state of "enemy combatants" - Art 5 would seem to apply, don't you think?  Granted, that would be rather inconvenient due to the fact that every time a "competent tribunal" rules, the Murdochian Revisionists scream and cry and whine and moan and groan.  And probably wet themselves just a little bit....

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Art 3.1.c would also seem to be of some interest, since that determination remains to be made.  But, hey, "When the President does it, then it's not illegal", right??  (Richard Nixon to David Frost)  Google the phrase for film clip.

[guido911]

That is all just Bushyism jingoism, dogma, and "purchase the ruling you want from the court you own".

Here is the actual Third Geneva Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

One note in particular is interesting.  If it is undefined - the current legal state of "enemy combatants" - Art 5 would seem to apply, don't you think?  Granted, that would be rather inconvenient due to the fact that every time a "competent tribunal" rules, the Murdochian Revisionists scream and cry and whine and moan and groan.  And probably wet themselves just a little bit....

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Art 3.1.c would also seem to be of some interest, since that determination remains to be made.  But, hey, "When the President does it, then it's not illegal", right??  (Richard Nixon to David Frost)  Google the phrase for film clip.

If you want me to take you seriously stop with the stupid.

[RecycleMichael]

I'm with stupid.

[Conan71]

That is all just Bushyism jingoism, dogma, and "purchase the ruling you want from the court you own".

Here is the actual Third Geneva Convention.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

One note in particular is interesting.  If it is undefined - the current legal state of "enemy combatants" - Art 5 would seem to apply, don't you think?  Granted, that would be rather inconvenient due to the fact that every time a "competent tribunal" rules, the Murdochian Revisionists scream and cry and whine and moan and groan.  And probably wet themselves just a little bit....

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Art 3.1.c would also seem to be of some interest, since that determination remains to be made.  But, hey, "When the President does it, then it's not illegal", right??  (Richard Nixon to David Frost)  Google the phrase for film clip.

Knock off the obsession with Murdoch and RWRE.  It's becoming apparent you have nothing intelligent to say.  Frame it in a logical discussion and more people would be willing to engage you.

[Red Arrow]

I'm with stupid.

Be careful, it may rub off on you.

[Gaspar]

Knock off the obsession with Murdoch and RWRE.  It's becoming apparent you have nothing intelligent to say.  Frame it in a logical discussion and more people would be willing to engage you.

He's becoming more familiar every day.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Exactly.  When you cannot address a point, pull out the insults.

No logical discussion about the actual Geneva convention YOU trotted out - albeit heavily influenced by revisionist editors.  I gave a link to the actual document.  Presumably the literate amongst us will be able to read what the revisionists were talking about.  Oh, wait - no they can't because it isn't in there!

I have zero - no, less than zero - concern about people "engaging me".  My main goal is to try to put a little reality out here so we are not just awash in the "whatever-you-want-to-call-it-since-using-the-Murdoch-term-seems-to-hit-such-a-sensitive-nerve-that-it-drives-one-to-insults-rather-than-EVER-answering-a-question-or-addressing-a-point".

Maybe I could start responding in kind?  Insults instead of commentary.  Naw,...it's more fun to put up some reality.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Red,
And that would be a shame - if reality would rub off on more people!  Tragic!

[Red Arrow]

Red,
And that would be a shame - if reality would rub off on more people!  Tragic!

Your reality, yes, tragic.

[Conan71]

Exactly.  When you cannot address a point, pull out the insults.

No logical discussion about the actual Geneva convention YOU trotted out - albeit heavily influenced by revisionist editors.  I gave a link to the actual document.  Presumably the literate amongst us will be able to read what the revisionists were talking about.  Oh, wait - no they can't because it isn't in there!

I have zero - no, less than zero - concern about people "engaging me".  My main goal is to try to put a little reality out here so we are not just awash in the "whatever-you-want-to-call-it-since-using-the-Murdoch-term-seems-to-hit-such-a-sensitive-nerve-that-it-drives-one-to-insults-rather-than-EVER-answering-a-question-or-addressing-a-point".

Maybe I could start responding in kind?  Insults instead of commentary.  Naw,...it's more fun to put up some reality.

I never brought up the Geneva Convention, you've got me confused with someone else.  You make no arguments other than Rupert Murdoch, Bushie, and the RWRE are the root of all that is bad.  It's an old act, try something new for a change instead of sounding like a complete dipshit every time you write a post.