Something Fishy in the Oval Office?

[turtlespeed 226]

. . . Sounds kinda like a sand bag.

What could be in those reports that could be so sensative?

My guess would be that they knew of his activities and failed to act on them.

They are probably just trying to keep the illusion of innocence on the part of the administration.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[skyrider 0]

I just read the title and figured that it had to be about Michelle's panties!

[rushmc 23]

I read this just a while ago and I wondered (lawrocket and Andy may be able to answer this) if the information in the report is NOT used (or seen) by the prosecutor would the defense have a right to it?

Now, I don't know if they (the prosecution) does or not but I am just curious.

If the prosecutor DID have access to it then I think it is a no brainier for the defense to have access

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I wondered ... if the information in the report is NOT used (or seen) by the prosecutor would the defense have a right to it?

In general principle, Yes. The main issue (here) is not so much having access to whatever the prosecutor sees (although that's important, too), but that the report - regardless of whether or not the prosecutor has seen it - may contain information relevant to the case and beneficial to the defense.

There's really only one proper way to resolve this issue (or any other "pre-trial discovery" issue): have a neutral court review the report (under confidential seal) and decide whether or not the defense gets to see it.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

What could be in those reports that could be so sensative?

??

What could be sensitive about a review of intelligence gathering and handling activities?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I wondered ... if the information in the report is NOT used (or seen) by the prosecutor would the defense have a right to it?

In general principle, Yes. The main issue (here) is not so much having access to whatever the prosecutor sees (although that's important, too), but that the report - regardless of whether or not the prosecutor has seen it - may contain information relevant to the case and beneficial to the defense.

That makes sense

Now I have to wonder why the Obama admin would state that they had this info gathered?

What would be the point in making that public?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wondered ... if the information in the report is NOT used (or seen) by the prosecutor would the defense have a right to it?

In general principle, Yes. The main issue (here) is not so much having access to whatever the prosecutor sees (although that's important, too), but that the report - regardless of whether or not the prosecutor has seen it - may contain information relevant to the case and beneficial to the defense.

That makes sense

Now I have to wonder why the Obama admin would state that they had this info gathered?

What would be the point in making that public?

So when they aquit the guy because of reasonable doubt, then the admin can say - "Hey, it was too sensative, therefore national security trumps his murder trial."

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wondered ... if the information in the report is NOT used (or seen) by the prosecutor would the defense have a right to it?

In general principle, Yes. The main issue (here) is not so much having access to whatever the prosecutor sees (although that's important, too), but that the report - regardless of whether or not the prosecutor has seen it - may contain information relevant to the case and beneficial to the defense.

That makes sense

Now I have to wonder why the Obama admin would state that they had this info gathered?

What would be the point in making that public?

I really do not think this is a matter of who or what party the president is. I'd expect any president's administration to take the same position on this. Intelligence sources and methods are, obviously, extremely sensitive. And that's exactly why a neutral court has to decide this: to objectively determine whether it's a matter of intelligence security or just political embarrassment.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wondered ... if the information in the report is NOT used (or seen) by the prosecutor would the defense have a right to it?

In general principle, Yes. The main issue (here) is not so much having access to whatever the prosecutor sees (although that's important, too), but that the report - regardless of whether or not the prosecutor has seen it - may contain information relevant to the case and beneficial to the defense.

That makes sense

Now I have to wonder why the Obama admin would state that they had this info gathered?

What would be the point in making that public?

I really do not think this is a matter of who or what party the president is. I'd expect any president's administration to take the same position on this. Intelligence sources and methods are, obviously, extremely sensitive. And that's exactly why a neutral court has to decide this: to objectively determine whether it's a matter of intelligence security or just political embarrassment.

Either way, by making it public, they have tainted the outcome.

By them not allowing it and saying that it is not "reasonably available" and it the US GOVERNMENT saying this - I for one would call "Bullshit". I would DEFIUNATELY Have some cuase for further reflectiona and thought if I was on that jury.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So when they aquit the guy because of reasonable doubt, then the admin can say - "Hey, it was too sensative, therefore national security trumps his murder trial."

More likely, it will be: the report is not disclosed; the defendant, lacking the beneficial report, is convicted; defendant appeals; and the Justice and Defense Departments take the position that national security must trump a defendant's rights in a murder trial. Or as the Vulcans say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wondered ... if the information in the report is NOT used (or seen) by the prosecutor would the defense have a right to it?

In general principle, Yes. The main issue (here) is not so much having access to whatever the prosecutor sees (although that's important, too), but that the report - regardless of whether or not the prosecutor has seen it - may contain information relevant to the case and beneficial to the defense.

That makes sense

Now I have to wonder why the Obama admin would state that they had this info gathered?

What would be the point in making that public?

I really do not think this is a matter of who or what party the president is. I'd expect any president's administration to take the same position on this. Intelligence sources and methods are, obviously, extremely sensitive. And that's exactly why a neutral court has to decide this: to objectively determine whether it's a matter of intelligence security or just political embarrassment.

I totally agree with your party point

but why is it known that this report was even done?

By any admin?

I dont get it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

but why is it known that this report was even done?

As best as I can tell (and extrapolate) from the article: the fact that the president ordered a post-incident intelligence review was easily discerned within the military and both sides' legal teams; it was requested as part of a general pre-trial defense request for discovery; the request was denied in a letter by the national intelligence agency to the chief prosecutor; and that letter was leaked to a FoxNews reporter by someone who had access to it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

but why is it known that this report was even done?

As best as I can tell (and extrapolate) from the article: the fact that the president ordered a post-incident intelligence review was easily discerned within the military and both sides' legal teams; it was requested as part of a general pre-trial defense request for discovery; the request was denied in a letter by the national intelligence agency to the chief prosecutor; and that letter was leaked to a FoxNews reporter by someone who had access to it.

I had not seen the "leaked" report

Makes more sense now

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I had not seen the "leaked" report

"Leaked" is my word. The article says "a letter obtained by Fox News", from which I conclude that it most probably was leaked.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I had not seen the "leaked" report

"Leaked" is my word. The article says "a letter obtained by Fox News", from which I conclude that it most probably was leaked.

Fair enough
I understood your point and again I say thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

...What could be in those reports that could be so sensative?

My guess would be that they knew of his activities and failed to act on them.

They are probably just trying to keep the illusion of innocence on the part of the administration.

What they don't want released is "Sources and Methods".

How well are US intel groups able to pick out e-mails and phone calls that the bad guys are making from the immense amount of traffic out there?

Who is telling the US what is going on?

Even if those exact details aren't in the report, stuff in the reports could reveal some of that stuff to the "bad guys."

The linked report indicates that the report contains information from a wide variety of agencies.

Getting all of them to remove all potentially "revealing" info would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

And I have to wonder what the defense hopes to find in them.
I find it hard to believe that there would be any mitigating information in any report.

He was apprehended after being shot while commiting the crime (he was just about to shoot a wounded and defenseless cop IIRC).

It's pretty clear that he committed the crimes he is charged with.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It's pretty clear that he committed the crimes he is charged with.

Obviously, re: the physical acts. The defense will center upon Hassan's state of mind: mental illness; maybe under control of others, etc., etc. If those "others" are mentioned in the intelligence report, I can see why it's relevant to the defense. And if some of the sources of that info include stuff like surveillance techniques and devices and/or people under cover, etc. - sources and methods - I can see why the intelligence community would want to preserve its secrecy.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

It's pretty clear that he committed the crimes he is charged with.

Obviously, re: the physical acts. The defense will center upon Hassan's state of mind: mental illness; maybe under control of others, etc., etc. If those "others" are mentioned in the intelligence report, I can see why it's relevant to the defense. And if some of the sources of that info include stuff like surveillance techniques and devices and/or people under cover, etc. - sources and methods - I can see why the intelligence community would want to preserve its secrecy.

My main question is if they knew or not wether he was a threat, and then did nothing.

I remember reading about a case where the defendant was either aquited or pleaded way down because the LEOS were watching him do illegal things and could have/should have stopped him before he commited a more heinous crime.

Was he observed to have mental stability problems?
Were his communications monitored legally or illegally?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 2]

Interesting questions. May or may not be relevant to the case or the defense. Again, that's why I think a neutral judge has to referee this issue, and logically that has to include the judge reviewing the report.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Interesting questions. May or may not be relevant to the case or the defense. Again, that's why I think a neutral judge has to referee this issue, and logically that has to include the judge reviewing the report.

Crap man
the process is not simple to begin with
Now add gov intel and it get really ugly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[juanesky 0]

As long as the defendants gets a huge towel, and a man dress, with a copy of the quran, it will be ok. Now, I would add a conviniently pork charged nutrition for the rest of his days, and a serial rapist as a roomate.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

It's pretty clear that he committed the crimes he is charged with.

Obviously, re: the physical acts. The defense will center upon Hassan's state of mind: mental illness; maybe under control of others, etc., etc. If those "others" are mentioned in the intelligence report, I can see why it's relevant to the defense. And if some of the sources of that info include stuff like surveillance techniques and devices and/or people under cover, etc. - sources and methods - I can see why the intelligence community would want to preserve its secrecy.

What do you think Hassan's lawyers could do with that sort of information? (honest question)

I know that "not guilty by reason of insanity" is a lot less common than the movies/TV lead us to believe.

If Hassan contacted Al-Alwaki first, how much could they claim Hassan was "controlled". And couldn't the defense get those communications from Hassan's end too?

Or do you see it more as a "fishing expedition" to see what they can find? Which is part of their job defending him. I do understand that he is entitled to the best defense possible, regardless of the crimes he is accused of (that's what our system is based on).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

I just read the title and figured that it had to be about Michelle's panties!

You are not very smart.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I just read the title and figured that it had to be about Michelle's panties!

You are not very smart.

Neither are you.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

Both of you cut it out.