kallend 2,183 #1 August 16, 2007 www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601185.html?nav=ft_ Score one for the Constitution.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #2 August 16, 2007 Quotewww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601185.html?nav=ft_ Score one for the Constitution. Well, after 3 1/2 years of being held without charge he received his "due process". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #3 August 16, 2007 Bush: They’re finding out now that no conviction is coming! They’re just waking up! I know just what they’ll do! Their mouths will hang open a minute of two Then the whos down in Whoville will all cry BOO-HOO! That’s a noise That I simply MUST hear! Narrator: So he paused. And the Bush put his hand to his ear. And he did hear a sound rising over the snow. It started in low. Then it started to grow… Narrator: But the sound wasn’t sad! Why, this sound sounded happy! It couldn’t be so! But it WAS happy! He stared down at Whoville! The Bush popped his eyes! Then he shook! What he saw was a shocking surprise! That jury down in Who-ville, the tall and the small, Convicted that guy! Without any tribunals at all! Bush: They HAVEN’T stopped Justice from coming! IT CAME! Somehow or other, it came just the same! Narrator: And the Bush, with his Bush-feet ice-cold in the snow, Stood puzzling and puzzling: Bush: How could it be so? It came without torture! It came without wiretaps! It came without prisons that don't appear on the maps! Narrator: And he puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore. Then the Bush thought of something he hadn’t before! Bush: Maybe Justice doesn’t come from the end of a gun Maybe the constitution - perhaps - works in the long run! Narrator: And what happened then…? Well… in Who-ville they say That the Bush's perspective grew three sizes that day! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 August 16, 2007 Do you agree with the verdict? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #5 August 17, 2007 QuoteDo you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #6 August 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. I think he was basically convicted of hanging out with the wrong crowd. It's a far cry from what he was originally, supposedly, incarcerated for. I think it's great that they were able to give him the trial that he was due but I can't say that I'm a fan of how he was processed. It smacks of "hey, we finally got something to stick". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #7 August 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #8 August 17, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Do you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience. Oh, good grief. "I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #9 August 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience. I agree with the concept of trial by jury as being the fairest method available to us. Both Libby and Padilla received fair trials, I believe. I have no reason to challenge the juries' verdicts based on my own factual knowledge of either case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #10 August 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience. I agree with the concept of trial by jury as being the fairest method available to us. Both Libby and Padilla received fair trials, I believe. I have no reason to challenge the juries' verdicts based on my own factual knowledge of either case. While what you same say makes perfect sense, I can't help wondering why you choose to remain "above the fray" on this one, when you obviously willing to offer up opinions (with equally limited knowledge) on other topics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #11 August 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteDo you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience. I agree with the concept of trial by jury as being the fairest method available to us. Both Libby and Padilla received fair trials, I believe. I have no reason to challenge the juries' verdicts based on my own factual knowledge of either case. While what you same say makes perfect sense, I can't help wondering why you choose to remain "above the fray" on this one, when you obviously willing to offer up opinions (with equally limited knowledge) on other topics. Please provide a link to a post where I agreed or disagreed with the jury's verdict in the Libby case (as opposed to commenting that I thought he had a fair trial)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #12 August 17, 2007 Here's a fine example of you reserving judgement for Gonzalez. I'll see if I can find something as nonjudgemental about Libby. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2883989#2883989 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #13 August 17, 2007 Quote Here's a fine example of you reserving judgement for Gonzalez. I'll see if I can find something as nonjudgemental about Libby. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2883989#2883989 Ummm - you wrote: "Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience." So why suddenly switch to Gonzales? Convenience?Gonzales hasn't even been put on trial, so I can't have an opinion about that verdictMethinks you argue just for the sake of seeing your words on the screen.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #14 August 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteHere's a fine example of you reserving judgement for Gonzalez. I'll see if I can find something as nonjudgemental about Libby. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2883989#2883989 Ummm - you wrote: "Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience." So why suddenly switch to Gonzales? Convenience. Your right it was convenient. I went looking for posts of Libby and found you being very vocal about Gonzalez, which went to my previous point about you selectively reserving judgement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #15 August 17, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Here's a fine example of you reserving judgement for Gonzalez. I'll see if I can find something as nonjudgemental about Libby. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2883989#2883989 Ummm - you wrote: "Your posts about the Libby verdict give the impression this objective fair-minded position is one of convenience." So why suddenly switch to Gonzales? Convenience. Your right it was convenient. I went looking for posts of Libby and found you being very vocal about Gonzalez, which went to my previous point about you selectively reserving judgement. Gonzales is a slimeball, but I don't second guess juries, which IS the point of this thread..... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #16 August 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you agree with the verdict? I didn't hear the evidence so I have no basis for agreeing or disagreeing. I think he was basically convicted of hanging out with the wrong crowd. It's a far cry from what he was originally, supposedly, incarcerated for. I think it's great that they were able to give him the trial that he was due but I can't say that I'm a fan of how he was processed. It smacks of "hey, we finally got something to stick". Here's a good summary: The Real Verdict on Jose Padilla By Jenny S. Martinez Friday, August 17, 2007; Page A23 The conclusion of Jose Padilla's criminal trial in a federal court yesterday shows that waging the "war on terror" does not require giving up our constitutional values or substituting military rule for the rule of law. The jury's guilty verdict should be appealed, but the verdict on the Constitution is in: We should keep it. Padilla is a U.S. citizen who was arrested in Chicago in May 2002, pursuant to a warrant to testify before a grand jury. He was held in civilian custody in New York for a month, but on the eve of a hearing in federal court, President Bush declared Padilla an "enemy combatant." At that point, Padilla was whisked out of the civilian justice system and imprisoned in a South Carolina military brig. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft held a news conference to announce that the government had thwarted a plot by Padilla to set off a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Anyone who has seen a cop show in recent decades knows what rights people in America usually have when arrested: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Not Padilla. For nearly two years, Jose Padilla was denied all access to his lawyers, his family and the court system. The Bush administration claimed that he could be held without trial until the end of its "war on terror." Allowing Padilla to talk to a lawyer or know that a court was considering his case, the government argued, would threaten national security. Meanwhile, the government was working to create a relationship of complete "dependency" between Padilla and his interrogators, who were busy trying to torture a confession out of him. As court filings indicate, Padilla was allegedly subjected to sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme temperatures. Worse, he was held without human contact, without a clock or even natural light -- with no way to know how quickly or slowly time was passing. When he was removed from his cell to visit a dentist, goggles and earmuffs were placed on him. Psychologists have long reported that extreme sensory deprivation is one of the quickest ways to drive people mad -- and make them willing to confess to anything. The case challenging the constitutionality of Padilla's detention was in the federal courts for several years. It reached the Supreme Court in 2004, at which point the government finally allowed him to speak to a lawyer. But the high court did not review the merits; instead, it ruled on a technicality that the case should have been brought in South Carolina, not New York. Litigation continued and nearly reached the Supreme Court again in late 2005. By then, the administration had begun soft-pedaling the "dirty bomb" story, which it described as "loose talk" rather than an imminent plot. It put forward a new theory: Padilla was planning to blow up apartment buildings with natural gas. The government also argued that he could be detained as an "enemy combatant" because, it alleged, he had been in Afghanistan during the U.S. bombing campaign in late 2001. Two business days before the government's brief was due in the Supreme Court, the administration switched tactics again. Fearful that the court would rule that a U.S. citizen arrested in the United States could not constitutionally be detained forever without criminal trial, the government announced that Padilla would be tried in a federal court in Miami. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit noted, the government's actions made it appear that it was trying to evade Supreme Court review. The charges brought in Miami contained none of the allegations about the dirty-bomb plot, the apartment buildings or even Padilla's presence in Afghanistan in late 2001. Instead, the government alleged that Padilla had conspired in the 1990s to provide support to overseas jihadists in Bosnia and Chechnya. Commentators called even this weaker case notably thin, but Padilla was found guilty. Padilla's fate, pending appeal, remains unknown. Also unknown is whether the courts will ever definitively rule on the legality of the government's mistreatment of Padilla during his four years of military detention. But some things are certain: The trial showed that our federal courts are perfectly capable of dealing with terrorism cases. A federal judge presided over the five-month trial of Padilla and his co-defendants with great care for both the rights of the defendants and for national security. The Bush administration has claimed since Sept. 11 that the federal courts cannot be trusted with terrorism matters. It has argued that we should scrap our centuries-old constitutional protections and replace our system of checks and balances with one awarding the executive complete discretion to lock up whomever he wants, for however long he deems appropriate. The Founders rejected that kind of arbitrary and oppressive power. And the federal court in Florida has shown how weak the administration's case for abandoning the Constitution really is. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #17 August 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteYour right it was convenient. I went looking for posts of Libby and found you being very vocal about Gonzalez, which went to my previous point about you selectively reserving judgement. Gonzales is a slimeball, but I don't second guess juries So you're perfectly comfortable passing judgement in rather strong terms on persons's who have not actually been charged of any wrongdoing, but if they've been prosecuted, then it's hands off on disagreeing with the outcome??? This one's way on up there on the irony scale. LOL What to you think about all those charges against Delay getting tossed out?... That the system works? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #18 August 20, 2007 Quote What to you think about all those charges against Delay getting tossed out?... That the system works? All the charges tossed out? I think that is wishful thinking on your part. Judge Priest denied DeLay's motion to dismiss the charges of money laundering and conspiracy to engage in money laundering, and the prosecution is proceeding on those charges (to the best of my knowledge).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #19 August 20, 2007 Quote Quote What to you think about all those charges against Delay getting tossed out?... That the system works? All the charges tossed out? I think that is wishful thinking on your part. Judge Priest denied DeLay's motion to dismiss the charges of money laundering and conspiracy to engage in money laundering, and the prosecution is proceeding on those charges (to the best of my knowledge). Way to misunderstand my post, sport. Classic Kallend. I try this again. What to you think about all those charges against Delay that were tossed out?... That the system works? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #20 August 20, 2007 Quote Quote Quote What to you think about all those charges against Delay getting tossed out?... That the system works? All the charges tossed out? I think that is wishful thinking on your part. Judge Priest denied DeLay's motion to dismiss the charges of money laundering and conspiracy to engage in money laundering, and the prosecution is proceeding on those charges (to the best of my knowledge). Way to misunderstand my post, sport. Classic Kallend. I try this again. What to you think about all those charges against Delay that were tossed out?... That the system works? You only get one chance.PS I am a firm believer in due process. Due process excludes situations where the police torture confessions out of the accused, cases of prosecutorial misconduct, judges taking bribes, fake evidence from the crime lab, etc.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #21 August 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote What to you think about all those charges against Delay getting tossed out?... That the system works? All the charges tossed out? Way to misunderstand my post, sport. Classic Kallend. I try this again. What to you think about all those charges against Delay that were tossed out?... That the system works? You only get one chance. Another classic dodge by Kallend. Tell me perfesser, are you as intentionally evasive when your students ask you direct questions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #22 August 21, 2007 This started out as an interesting thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #23 August 21, 2007 Quote This started out as an interesting thread. We can thank Idrankwhat for being the one person who stayed on topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #24 August 21, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote What to you think about all those charges against Delay getting tossed out?... That the system works? All the charges tossed out? Way to misunderstand my post, sport. Classic Kallend. I try this again. What to you think about all those charges against Delay that were tossed out?... That the system works? You only get one chance. Another classic dodge by Kallend. Tell me perfesser, are you as intentionally evasive when your students ask you direct questions? Let's see - you asked a question to which I gave an accurate answer, and somehow it's now my fault that your question was poorly worded. Get a life.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,183 #25 August 21, 2007 QuoteThis started out as an interesting thread. Thread drift happens. You don't have to come here.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
