Politics and Religion

Re: "some bad act."
dncphil 16 Reviews 1934 reads
posted

I love the way people can minimize things.  You write "Mr. Obama knows that if anyone he releases commits some bad act,......"

I have been dealing in crime for decades and "some misconduct," "some problems," or "some issues," usually means the defendant raped three kids before, beat his wife into a bloody pulp, robbed three stores at gunpoint and ran over and old lady making his escape, or something similar.

Come out and say it.  The "some bad act" that this person you are talking about would do would be to engage in terrorism.  

Yes, if Obama releases someone who does "some bad act," like, uh, maybe pop a dirty bomb in Times Square making 1,000 tourists from Podunk glow like fire flies, you can be sure the mean ole GOP will be on his ass in a former New York second.

If he can't take the heat he shouldn't be in the Oval Office.

Of course, people not as nasty as the GOP will say, "Gosh, we had Achmed and knew he was dangerous.  But thank God (sorry Charlie) that we let him go.  It is good tourist glow like thet. They save electricty, since we can read by them."

And, yes, people were on Dukakis for Willie Horton. Horton was in prison for life for MURDER. He should have been behind bars.  They let him out and he did "some bad act" like raping a woman and knifing her boyfriend.  I am sure the rape victim dislikes the term "some bad act."  

The buck stopped at the governor's office. Yeah, it was a disgrace.  

Look at this serial killer just killed 5 in South Carolina.  He has a rap sheet that is 25 pages long.

Wow, he got out and did "some bad act." No, he did 5 bad acts. He murdered 5 people.  

I read victim impact statements about the things my clients do and cry.  "Daddy used to take me to the ponies."  "My sister helped me sew my wedding dress."  "There is a tiredness in my heart." "I can't hang up Christmas lights because Sarah used to help."

Some bad act. Yes. He should dread that. He should do all he can to prevent people from doing "some bad act" when that is the act they will do.

think you are dangerous.

     No, this is not a passage from Kafka but the current position of the Obama administration in connection with alleged alien terrorists who have been ACQUITTED by a military commission of war crimes. According to DOD lawyer Jeh Johnson, officials would make this determination based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat….”

    This “standard” is so vague as to be no standard at all. Talk about spending the rest of your life in prison bc of something you said.

         Of course, the laws of war do permit indefinite detention of aliens to prevent them from committing war-like acts during the war but….no war has ever been declared. As far as I can tell, all we have is the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks [of Sept 11]." But the current “we don’t care that you were acquitted” detention policy is not linked to 9/11 planners/supporters.

    Obviously, it is just a matter of time before Supreme Court tells Mr. Obama, as it did Bush, that “you can’t do that.” But what is disappointing is that Mr. Obama is simply caving in to political pressure. Just as Willie Horton’s "furlough for the weekend" brought down Michael Dukakis, Mr. Obama knows that if anyone he releases commits some bad act, Mr. Obama will take the fall as the Republicans and even some Democrats will say, “you made us less safe.”





I had better go into hiding.

I love the way people can minimize things.  You write "Mr. Obama knows that if anyone he releases commits some bad act,......"

I have been dealing in crime for decades and "some misconduct," "some problems," or "some issues," usually means the defendant raped three kids before, beat his wife into a bloody pulp, robbed three stores at gunpoint and ran over and old lady making his escape, or something similar.

Come out and say it.  The "some bad act" that this person you are talking about would do would be to engage in terrorism.  

Yes, if Obama releases someone who does "some bad act," like, uh, maybe pop a dirty bomb in Times Square making 1,000 tourists from Podunk glow like fire flies, you can be sure the mean ole GOP will be on his ass in a former New York second.

If he can't take the heat he shouldn't be in the Oval Office.

Of course, people not as nasty as the GOP will say, "Gosh, we had Achmed and knew he was dangerous.  But thank God (sorry Charlie) that we let him go.  It is good tourist glow like thet. They save electricty, since we can read by them."

And, yes, people were on Dukakis for Willie Horton. Horton was in prison for life for MURDER. He should have been behind bars.  They let him out and he did "some bad act" like raping a woman and knifing her boyfriend.  I am sure the rape victim dislikes the term "some bad act."  

The buck stopped at the governor's office. Yeah, it was a disgrace.  

Look at this serial killer just killed 5 in South Carolina.  He has a rap sheet that is 25 pages long.

Wow, he got out and did "some bad act." No, he did 5 bad acts. He murdered 5 people.  

I read victim impact statements about the things my clients do and cry.  "Daddy used to take me to the ponies."  "My sister helped me sew my wedding dress."  "There is a tiredness in my heart." "I can't hang up Christmas lights because Sarah used to help."

Some bad act. Yes. He should dread that. He should do all he can to prevent people from doing "some bad act" when that is the act they will do.

released AFTER BEING CONVICTED or else whom all evidence shows did commit a criminal act.

       Did you read my post? Mr. Obama claims he can indefinitely detain someone WHO HAS BEEN ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES – in other words, for all practical purposes (we all understand that sometimes the guilty are acquitted), he never did any “bad act” at all. They just think he might in  the future.


       And there would no third party review bc there is nothing to review – the detainee cannot prove that he would not cause harm in the future any more than Obama can prove he would cause harm in the future.

"He should do all he can to prevent people from doing "some bad act" when that is the act they will do."


     I cannot believe that you would seriously attempt to defend this policy. If so, I may have to get Honest Abe on your case again.

 


-- Modified on 7/8/2009 6:29:02 PM

Many of those "bad acts" I discussed are for acts that were not convictions.

Starting with Evidence Code section 1101 allows for evidence of other "bad acts" that did not result in convictions.

Those were people who did "some bad things" with no prior convictions.

The guy in S. Carolina with his rap sheet that I mentioned. Rap sheets contain arrests, even if not convictions. My guess is of his 25 page wrap sheet, probably 20 pages are for non-convictions.

Even an acquittal does not mean the person is "innocent." It just means the state couldn't prove the case.  

As a result, you can have someone you thing is probably guilty, like 75% sure, but not that "abiding conviction," so he gets acquitted.

Acquitted does not correlate in any legal sense to not having done the act.  That is innocence.  (Some jurisdictions allow a finding of "innocence," but that is not what you are talking about.

Again, acquittal does not mean he is innocent. (Think OJ or Michael Jackson or Robert Blake.)

my post to cover convictions or cases where all available evidence indicated guilt. No one disputes that (and I'm even going to let slide your admissibility of bad acts point, even though we both know that description is a bit inaccurate).

But, as you also well know, acquittal of the guilty is the rare exception to the rule. And in the detainee context, these are aquittals not by the OJ jury but by a milatery commission. Fooling those milatery guys that you are not a terrorsit is a pretty tough sell, don't you think?

-- Modified on 7/8/2009 10:26:28 PM

My description of admissibility of past bad acts and frequency is not inaccurate.  I know of many cases with huge lists of prior bad acts.  If I were to list my current cases and the number of convictions in one column and list the prior bad acts that went with no conviction in another column, the second would easily be 10 times as long.

I just read the details of a capital case.  The defendant raped and killed a young girl.  8 prior acts (rapes, kidnaps, child molests) admitted in guilt phase as evidence of intent and common plan.  Then there were 6 other victims in penalty phase.  A total of 14 victims of prior sex offenses before he landed on Death Row.

Also, you say that acquittals of guilty people are rare.

That is not true.  There are far more acquittals of guilty than convictions of innoecent.  In 30 years of criminal law, I think I have seen maybe five innocent people convicted.

Think of it this way:  The system is designed to let more guilty go free than convict the innocent.  That is the old adage, "better to let....

Every time the exclusionary rule is applied it suppresses evidence of guilt.  (I am not arguing pro or con for that rule.  This is the result. You can decide if you like it, but that is the effect.)

Indeed, the very instruction of reasonable doubt is basically, in simple terms, "If you think he did it, and even if you are pretty damn sure, you can't convict unless you are positive."

That means that only those cases where guilt is really clear are going to end up in a conviction, and that is BEFORE the appeals start overturning convictions.  (The prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal, so every appeal is from an conviction.)

Likewise, the burden on the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence has no equal burden on the defense to disclose evidence of guilt.

Going on, there are restrictions on the prosecutors that are far more onerous and numerous than those on the defense.

That is just a few rules of the top of my head.  There are dozens of others that lead to a tipping of the scales so that the guilty are much more likely to get off.

Now, I am not debating the merits of those rules.  But that is there effect.

As a result, the odds of a guilty terrorist getting off are 1,000 times greater than an innocent being convicted.

Hey, why do you think Obama is afraid?  He isn't afraid of an innocent getting free and going home.  He is afraid of a guilty getting free and rejoining the fray.

Even military tribunals have similar standards of evidence and burden of proof.  It is a tougher sell to convict than acquit.

1. “My description of admissibility of past bad acts and frequency is not inaccurate.”

        Well actually, the general rule in all evidence codes is that, excluding sex cases, evidence of prior bad acts is NOT admissible to prove the defendant’s character to show he acted in conformance therwith. Bad act evidence can only come in to prove some collateral issue, such as motive, intent or plan where the collateral issue is disputed.

    Prior bad acts never comes in to prove the defendant committed the crime for which he is charged and the defendant is entitled to an instruction to this effect.

      So that is why I was faulting your point on bad acts evidence.

2. “Also, you say that acquittals of guilty people are rare.

That is not true.”  

      Well, may we look at the facts rather than your personal experience?

“American state prosecutors win 85 percent of their felony cases and 90 percent of their misdemeanors. Federal prosecutors win 90 percent.”

Convictions versus Conviction Rates: The Prosecutor’s
Choice (forthcoming, American Law and Economics Review) May 19, 2009

       So we know that only 10% ( a few more in state felony cases) of criminal defendants are acquitted. Now obviously no one can tell us how many of that 10% actually were guilty but if we assume quite arbitrarily a 50% error rate then 5% of all criminal defendants acquitted are actually guilty.

      But rather than quibble as to whether 5% is “rare,” let’s just say the number of guilty defendants acquitted is a very small percentage indeed.


3. “Indeed, the very instruction of reasonable doubt is basically, in simple terms, "If you think he did it, and even if you are pretty damn sure, you can't convict unless you are positive."

     Um, no, my friend. –no judge would give that instruction. And in fact the California instruction expressly tells the jury they need not eliminate all possible doubt:

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you
with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt."

     4. I do agree with you that there are  “more acquittals of guilty than convictions of innoecent.”  What that number is I could not tell you. But you certainly have not provided any factual basis for this assertion “ As a result, the odds of a guilty terrorist getting off are 1,000 times greater than an innocent being convicted.”


      But please, haven't I been beaten up enough? Not a single person on the board would agree with me that imprisoning detainees found not guilty is outrageous.


1.  It is not really accurate to say prior acts don’t come in to prove the defendant did it.  It is being used to show a collateral fact, as you correctly note.  However, that fact (intent, plan, or motive, etc) is a fact from which guilt for the charged crime can inferred.  Thus, the second inference that is being urged is that the defendant did that crime.  Showing that he had the plan makes it more likely that he did the charged crime.

As you note, sex acts are the exception, but they aren’t being used to show that he did it. They are being used to show propensity, from which you can draw the secondary inference that he did it.  (You limited it to sex acts. I am guessing you know that domestic violence is also included in that exception, but you just temporarily forgot that.)

OF COURSE THIS IS IRRELEVANT. The fact of the matter is all of these are bad acts, most of which the defendant got away with in the past. In other words, he did it. Just didn’t get convicted.  It’s what I was saying – “some bad act” like rape or child molest.

2. The fact that most cases end in convictions is irrelevant because those statistics probably relate to cases that went to verdict.  That doesn’t count cases that were dismissed before verdict.  (If the statistic is conviction versus acquittal this means that it had to go to verdict, because that omits the third situation of dismissed without conviction or acquittal.)

Also, there are a huge number of non-prosecuted cases.  Someone just tried to scam me with a forged money order via e-bay.  I took it to the police station. They didn’t even want to take a report.  I had another item for which I got a money order. I called the bank, and they said they get 20 calls a day on that one type of money order.  The cops aren’t even interested in it.  That is how many are even prosecuted.

3. OF COURSE NO JUDGE WOULD GIVE THE REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION THAT I MENTIONED.  I said it was “in simple terms….” That means I was paraphrasing.  My paraphrasing didn’t say you have to eliminate all possible doubt.  Just that you had to be positive.   However, even accepting your criticism they still can’t convict if they think he did it but are only 75% sure.  It has to be MORE than preponderance, it has to be MORE than clear and convincing.  

4. Your knowledge of 1108 has me a little curious.  Are you defense?

are not included in the statistics? If there is a dismissal before verdict, the case would not go into the win column, would it?

This study gives the percentage of wins for prosecutors:

“American state prosecutors win 85 percent of their felony cases and 90 percent of their misdemeanors. Federal prosecutors win 90 percent.”

So clearly, the rare case where a judgment of acquittal is granted at the close of the state's case [and yes these are truly rare as any prosecutor who allows this to happen more than once is likely to be moved to traffic court] or some other pre-verdict dismissal occurs are included in the statistics.

And we can't count non-prosecuted cases either -our question presupposes a prosecution. So while inclusion of these cases would definitely reverse the numbers, the judge has sustained my objection to your attempt to wiggle away from the statistics.




You write, "This study gives the percentage of wins for prosecutors: 'American state prosecutors win 85 percent of their felony cases ....."

Does the study say what the universe is from which the 85% is drawn. If we don't know that then your guess is as good as mine as to whether dismissals before verdicts are not included.


I find it very hard to imagine a study based on cases that include those that don't reach a verdict, simply because from what I know those cases are often not reported.  I don't even know where you could find that information in California.

Also, when you say 85% win, does this include plea bargains where there is no time served?  How do you count that?  That can be counted as a prosecution win because it ended in a conviction.  However, if the defendant isn't getting time for a criminal conviction, you can count it as a defense win, even if "statistically" it is classified as something else.  Ihad a case with an oral cop on a minor as a prior, where the D got felony probation and walked out of the court house.  That is counted as a conviction.  


If the universe is only cases that reach verdicts, your 85% is meaningless.  Also, does it include cases where the D.A. declines to prosecute because of weaknesses in the case.  That is hardly proof of "innocence," yet the defendant is getting off.

Finally, you write that "our discussion presupposes a prosecution...." Why? I never thought it was limited to that class. My original concern was people who get off and the danger they may represent.  I don't see why that is limited to prosecutions.  


And when you do, remember this is a right that is not available to those detainees acquitted but still detained.

Knowing the quality of many judges, this does not shock me.

And I repeat what I said. If he releases someone who is "acquitted," and that guy takes out Grand Central station, people will not be happy that he was "acquitted" before nuking NYC.

Timbow1130 reads

So Obama cannot be doing it because  he feels deep in his heart that he   is Commander in chief and it is his duty to best  protect the American people ?

-- Modified on 7/8/2009 5:34:39 PM

at least in part - but that does not change the fact that his policy keeps people in jail indefinitely WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES on the absurd AND UNPROVABLE rationale that they "may" commit some harmful act in the future.

      Obviously I was ranting -and speculating - when I said he caved in to political pressure. But he sure has been backing up a lot since he announced he would close Gitmo.

OK, so they haven't been convicted of something, but in your heart of hearts do you want them on the street, in your neighborhood, dating your sister?  Probaby not, the fact remains that most of these folks are committed to doing us harm, they want to kill folks who don't think the same or believe the same as they do.  Is it right?  maybe not, but the liberal approach of let's all just hug and be friends doesn't work.  These folks understand nothing but violence and respond to very little other than violence.  Maybe the best answer is turn them all into Soylent Green to help feed all the starving folks in Africa

fundamental justice, ethics, and humanity into the trash bin on the theory that imprisoning forever anyone ever accused is bound to make us safer.

So if this is where you are coming from, I certainly cannot disagree with you.

Here's Mo hanging loose in Afghanistan cooking some tasty treats over a dung fire and wearing his laundry on his head when all of a sudden, in swoop the special forces and grab him.

They leave me alone with him in a room for a while and go to sleep. (Plausible deniability) I find out that Mo has been busy building bombs that blew up my best friend. But I'm an American and supposed to be the good guy, so I don't waste his ass while he's "trying to escape," and instead dutifully turn him over for a trip to Gitmo.

Down at Gitmo they give him some serious sleep deprivation while forcing him to listen to Britney Spears while they ask him about where he was getting the materials for his bombs; but they get nothing verifiable because operations have moved on. They can't prove a thing beyond a reasonable doubt, so he is acquitted.

So the fact that he is acquitted doesn't mean a darned thing.

For proof, just look at what has become of several rehabed former Gitmo detainees. Want to know what they have done? They have killed American soldiers -- our friends, family and neighbors. AFTER being released from Gitmo because, using criminal rules, they were "not guilty."

So Americans are very properly quite concerned about how these people are treated, and into whose care/custody they are released. If past is prologue, we can expect some innocent dead Americans on our hands if we turn them loose.

I realize there are some very sticky cases here -- such as some Muslim minorities from China that, if we give them back to China, will be executed for their views.

However, our government should have thought long and hard about the nature of China before giving them "most favored nation" trading status and then allowing them to buy hundreds of billions of dollars of our debt -- so that they could singlehandedly destroy our economy overnight if we stray too far.

Remember back when Google and Yahoo toed the line and handed over some Chinese folks whose big crime had been to type "democracy" into a search engine? Why do you think they did that? Money. They wanted access to the Chinese market, and were willing to let innocent people die to make it happen.

Well, guess what? We made a helluva mess and some people are going to die no matter what. Obama's job is just to make sure that none of them are innocent Americans.

You basically are saying that, bc some bad guys are guilty and will indeed commit future bad acts, that justifies a policy that permits lifetime detention of ALL guys initially accused of terrorism, including those whom we have no evidence have ever committed any terrorist act.

      So the 14 year old kid mistakenly imprisoned in Gitmo for 7 years, and the detainee tortured by al Qaeda but imprisoned by Bush anyway, both of whom were released last month on habeas corpus, should be reimprisoned if some Dick Cheney clone thinks they "might" be dangerous in the future?

    Are you really that callous about running the lives of the accused just to eliminate the possibility that one might pose a real threat? If you are going to take this position, at least be sure you understand the “evidence” that led to the initial charge against the 229 remaining in Gitmo and the process they have received to date.

    That is not a policy – that is welcome to the American Gulag.
Come on John – I was expecting a better argument from you.

    But the good news is - you now have qualified for the Nancy Grace show -"if accused, they must be guilty."


Basically yes the aproach was upheld in 1993 by the Washington State Supreme Court.  Now that applied to sex offenders but the premis is the same

Chengster, the Washington statute that allows for indefinite detention of sex offenders does so only AFTER the state has proven in a full fledged trial that the detainee is a sexually violent offender:


The burden is on the State to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the detainee is a sexually violent
predator. RCW 71.09.060(1). If so, then he or she shall be
committed to a facility "for control, care, and treatment" until
"safe to be at large". RCW 71.09.060(1).

PERSONAL RESTRAINT OF YOUNG, 122 Wn.2d 1 (1993)
857 P.2d 989


        The Obama policy permits indefinite detention even though  the government has FAILED to prove any of the charges against the detainee. Instead, some government officials make this determination ex parte.


Your case is the complete opposite of what I am complaining about.


But I'll admit you did give me a jolt when I read your link. But a quick look at the case and statute made the link understandable.

Hi Marikod,

In my heart of hearts, I am a pure Jeffersonian with maybe a hint of Thus Spake Zarathustra thrown in.

From that perspective, the idea of locking someone up and throwing away the key when they weren't convicted of a crime (or were convicted under dubious circumstances) is morally repellent.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world populated by folks who play by the rules of polite society.

All of our founding fathers noted that an absolute prerequisite for the maintenance of our continued freedom was the continuation of a society filled overwhelmingly with people who would act morally even if the threat of government enforcement were absent.

We no longer have such a society. We have a society that is filled with hidden terrorist cells, swindlers in high places, scumbags so brazen they organize official organizations (like NAMBLA) around their sicknesses and more. We have a society in which a massive terrorist act could be carried out with hardly a hint of warning; and we still don't know who all their collaborators were in THIS country, who are now walking around in our very midst.

I'm sorry; but in our zeal to embrace everything hedonistic, perverse, sick, twisted and (of course) FREE -- we have brought deadly enemies and predators into our midst.

We cannot be free until they are removed.

Let me give you an example.

I'm a big 2nd Amendment advocate. I believe everyone should own at least 3 machine guns plus all the rifles and pistols they want. There should be no licenses, etc. It is, after all, a RIGHT.

But that right is actually pretty restricted. WHY?

I'll tell you why. Because human beings walk our streets who will kill people for a $5 pair of sneakers, or will blow their own wife away for the insurance money, or will walk into a Holocaust museum and start shooting.

As long as such people exist in noticeable numbers, it will be very difficult to secure absolute 2nd Amendment rights.

And as long as terrorists collaborate in dark corners, communicate in secret over the phone and Internet, and plan the deaths of innocents -- we will have our freedom against search and seizure and many others curtailed.

The idea of a person found not guilty being detained makes me really sick. I really don't like it. But I currently do not see an alternative.

If one of these detainees gets out and hooks up with a guy mixing up smallpox and then takes a few plane rides while he is infectious and before he succumbs himself --- millions upon millions will die. And that is just one possible scenario.

How do we guard against it?

I'm willing to listen.

We get too concerned about how we treat folks who in some case should be put down. Case in point was when someone I knew was murdered a few years ago. The guy who did it was convicted of assualt charges bu tin the kinder, genlter world that the liberal live in it wasn't really his fault, it was society that made him that way and we should be nice to him, no hard time, maybe a nice work release program wil lmake him a better person.  All that accomplished was a nice young lady was murdered.  

Same thing goes for the folks in GITMO. Let them out today, in a few weeks you'll see them on Al Jazeera chopping off some poor bastards head whose only crime was he didn't think like they did.  Soylent Green, still the best answer.

There are far worse places than GITMO. Maybe we should follow the enlightened approach from one of the workers socialist paradises

These guys we are talking about have case files 6 inches thick. You think the sum total of those case files can be summed up with four little words? "Acquitted of all charges"? You think that just because they couldn't be convicted in a trial means they are actually choir boys, wrongfully detained and accused?

These men are known members of terror groups intent on killing as many Americans as they possibly can. That is their mission in life. It is what they live, sleep, eat, and breath for. The fact that they have either already carried out some "bad act" as you euphamistically put it, that they were not convicted for, or have not yet carried out 'some bad act' doesn't mean squat. We know damned good and well that if we turn them loose, they WILL carry out some 'bad act'. And when they carry out that bad act, mothers and fathers will bury their child, husbands will bury their wife, and children will bury their parents. We know this because that is their ONLY mission in life.

I have to say, aside from this asinine cap and trade bill, the health care bill, and the various blunders Obama has made while meeting foreign leaders, he's shaping up to be pretty decent as President. At least where terrorism is concerned, he's doing a fine job.

There is no point in arguing with a mindset like that but I would encourage you to start following the habeas corpus cases as they are decided and you will be shocked to find out

1. there are no case files at all for some of these guys;
2. the ones released to date the "6 inch thick case file in fact contains little probative evidence beyond hearsay and assumption  
3. I have posted the precise facts on some of the most egregious cases on this board.

You are simply assuming that bc they have been labled terorists by someone that "These men are known members of terror groups intent on killing as many Americans as they possibly can. That is their mission in life. It is what they live, sleep, eat, and breath for." If it is so clear, why would they be acquitted?


Hey I'll give the government two bites of the apple but is it too much to ask for some evidence of this before we put them away for life?

is this.

      You guys have such a remarkable faith in our government if they label someone a “terrorist.” Never mind that most of you do not have a clue as to the process (or lack thereof) that led the government to label these people “terrorists” and that the decision was made shrouded in secrecy – the label is enough and you are willing to throw them in jail forever, even when a judge has decided that the government had been unable to prove a single charge against them.

     Charging up the hill, one poster even opines that it is naive to think anything but that they all are deadly killers.

     But if the government tells you something that takes some dough out of your pocket - “we need to raise taxes” or  “we want you to support universal health insurance” or “GM and Chrysler must be bailed out,” - suddenly that faith disappears. Never mind that these decisions are made after detailed study by experts, reviewed all through the administrative process, and tested by the media, you all are ready to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to stop this “violation” of your rights.


And yet I suspect that not one of you has recognized this irony.

But you guys have worn me out and I think I'll put on some relaxing music and go to bed.

H'mm, this one seems appropriate.



-- Modified on 7/8/2009 10:02:32 PM

-- Modified on 7/8/2009 10:06:21 PM

Which is the fallacy of our thinking.  I am sure when the debte to place the Japanese in camps during WWII, we were convinced that the "Japs" were going to betray us.  

If we are to look at the world and say we are a beacon on light on a hill (something like that), we must not have blinders on.  During segregation, we would go to the communist bloc nation and talk about repression and they would respond - what about the way you treat blacks?  You may argue that they get better treatment than your opessed people but that really misses the point about opression? Its been argued that at Gitmo, they get better food and are taken care of but they are still in Prison, especially if you are innocent.

If we are going to say that our laws do not apply to terrorist, we risk other countries doing the same.  Its not a coicidence that North Korea has held those two girls and although we know they were not spies, I am sure the same argument used by the posters here to defend the Bush/Obama policies, are used by the N. Koreans to justiy keeping these ladies - not the same arguments of course but you get the point  

If we going to be a beacon of freedom we must act that way at all times.

I agree with the sentiment of the USA taking responsibility in acting like a beacon of freedom instead of just giving lip service to the ideals of freedom. We portray ourselves to be such a free country with many opportunities and yet when you really take a look at things, the USA is awfully brutal towards those that we dont think belong in our country and we see this loud and clear in the atrocities that have taken place in prisons and even in the system of poverty that many are sucked into.

Sitara Devi

Timbow1689 reads

Ah pie in the sky idealism vs practical pragmatism of insuring the US survival by ends justify the means  and the beat goes on :)

and Machiavellian principals have proven in the end wrong throughout history.  I say, why keep a low level terrorist in prison to be a symbol of tyranny.  Have the things we have done under Bush protected America?  If Bush claims he kept us safe after 911, are you saying it because we kept a few terrorist in Gitmo?  I am not saying swing the pendulum to the battlefeild Miranda warning but at a minimum give habeus corpus rights.  When it was all said and done,. Padilla, who was denied habeus corpus, won his case and still pled gulity and serving 17 years.  We can look the world and say we did it right, instead of the world saying you did it why cant we?

Without habeus corpus, how would you prove that fact in the first place.  Lucky for Padillia he was detained on US soil and not at Gitmo or any holding prison.

Timbow1565 reads

My point is Padiila is differnt from other terrorists since he is an American citizen and I agree with the minority in Boumediene v. Bush, not the majority 5-4 vote .

Register Now!