RE: right wingers losing their memories? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


popeye1250 -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/10/2010 1:59:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It interesting to note that even the liberal Obama administration has halted further releases from Gitmo to Yemen. The panty bomber sure screwed those guys left back in Cuba.

"Liberal" as in "not a member of the Republican party" I take it. The cunt's no more a liberal than I'm being fellated by Alysson Hannigan.


Moon, you are correct. The Republicans should be gratefull that one of their own is in the White House.
Platitudes for the masses, financial bailouts and $check$ for big corporations!




thornhappy -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/10/2010 4:21:04 PM)

That's not what it means - look at the espionage trials of the past, or the trials of the 1993 WTC bombings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

And why did they get let go from Gitmo? Becase Bush wanted to let them go?

Or becase having a civilian trial will require that they get to cross examine all agents who gathered intell about them, as well as the Methods of gathering That Intell. All agents and sources would have to be publically identified.

That is what a civilian trial means.




jlf1961 -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/10/2010 4:40:39 PM)

During the Bush administration, there was a Republican majority in both the house and the senate, which is why, now during the mid terms, the Republicans are talking about taking back the house and senate.

I find it funny that in two short years that is forgotten.




TheHeretic -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/10/2010 5:00:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I find it funny that in two short years that is forgotten.



What?  You're surprised that they blew it so quickly?   




heartcream -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/10/2010 5:33:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

people like dick cheney are mutants
Rudy is nowhere on cheneys level, but he is NOT liberal, not by my understanding of the word....



Mutant reptiles!




jlf1961 -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/10/2010 5:40:30 PM)

Actually, I am surprised that the GOP has forgotten that they left a economic mess for Obama, as well as the statements that "no terrorist attacks occurred during the bush administration."

The same lack of coordination that Obama is getting flack for concerning the christmas day bombing attempt is exactly like the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies that allowed 9/11 to happen. The only difference is, the out going intelligence people tried to tell their replacements that there was intel indicating an upcoming attack but no one listened.

The GOP is also forgetting that the only President who actually came close to taking out Osama Bin Laden was Clinton.

The difference between Bush and Obama is that in closing Gitmo, Obama is not releasing anyone without trial or review.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/10/2010 7:56:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, I am surprised that the GOP has forgotten that they left a economic mess for Obama, as well as the statements that "no terrorist attacks occurred during the bush administration."

except the economic mess was not caused by the GOP.

The same lack of coordination that Obama is getting flack for concerning the christmas day bombing attempt is exactly like the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies that allowed 9/11 to happen. The only difference is, the out going intelligence people tried to tell their replacements that there was intel indicating an upcoming attack but no one listened.

wrong. the only difference is that the procedures that were in place that resulted in no succesful domestic attacks for 7 years were dismantled. there were no effective procedures in place 9.11

The GOP is also forgetting that the only President who actually came close to taking out Osama Bin Laden was Clinton.

We dont forget that he blew the opportunity to take him or kill him.

The difference between Bush and Obama is that in closing Gitmo, Obama is not releasing anyone without trial or review.

no difference at all. Every Bush release was subject to review. nice try.






submittous -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 10:53:36 AM)

Just as 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' I see now that Bush/Cheney proved that memories and facts don't matter if you say things often enough and loud enough.

I would say that among todays politicians Rudy does look best in a dress. If we wasn't such a wacko that would be a good reason for those of us in the fetish communities to support him... having an openly cross dressing President would be cool.




Lucylastic -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 12:02:43 PM)

I think nov 4th 2008 there was a great brain erasing beam amongst those that didnt vote for Obama.
It would explain a lot




luckydawg -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 12:14:37 PM)

Thorn, that is a reply worthy of real one.

Do you have a specific case where the 6TH amendment was over ruled, that you would like to point out?


I cited the 6th, and quoted it. It is clear. What Due process means in civilian law is clear. IT means the right to examine the evidece and methods of getting it, and the right to confront all witnesses, publically. IF Terrorism is a civilian crime, then they get these rights in thier trials. Period. Give a real example of an exception if you can.


For example, the Way OJ was able to examine the validity of DNA testing, publically examine teh system, in order to show there is a possibility of not being accurate. Terrorists would get to do the same to any Intercepted Phone calls






luckydawg -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 12:29:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What the fuck are you on about, fuckhead?

The 6th amendment applies to UCMJ and military trials as well. So--------------

That is what I have said in the matter, go show me where it doesnt.

Your bullshit about oh, we cant divulge the name of every operative and agent we have working in us interests, becuse this is a civilian court (and avoiding the fact that you are trying to lie and pretend about that that is not the case in military courts.)

The sixth amendment applies in military courts exaclty as it applies in civilian court.
Any court that is military, tribunal or whatever, is governed by the UCMJ (which is --- are you ready draft dodger?) The Uniform Code of Military Justice. By example, the Miranda warning is based on law from the UCMJ and preceeded it by decades. The united states military is not a foreign entity, it is the united states, its laws are based wholly on the federal laws, statutes and precedents of federal courts and on up to the Constitution of the united states.


and for you intelligence impaired sockpuppets search the thread about the guantanemo five, I didn't my ass.




Your babbling. I never said the 6th was not in operation in the UCMJ. I said the UCMJ, has as much relevance as the great court of China. The discussion, in the real world, is between civilian trials, and a new form of Tribunal. Which according to the Constitution, Congress can create at will.

UCMJ, has no bearing of any sort or kind on the discussion. None at all except in troll land.

Pleas continue with the insults, IT shows all who read, its all you have.

Try reading my post a few times If you do not grasp the point I was making in reference to the 6th. Thorn and several others got it just fine.




mnottertail -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 12:45:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Thorn, that is a reply worthy of real one.

Do you have a specific case where the 6TH amendment was over ruled, that you would like to point out?


I cited the 6th, and quoted it. It is clear. What Due process means in civilian law is clear. IT means the right to examine the evidece and methods of getting it, and the right to confront all witnesses, publically. IF Terrorism is a civilian crime, then they get these rights in thier trials. Period. Give a real example of an exception if you can.


For example, the Way OJ was able to examine the validity of DNA testing, publically examine teh system, in order to show there is a possibility of not being accurate. Terrorists would get to do the same to any Intercepted Phone calls







THE RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION

The confrontation clause guarantees the right to confront hostile witnesses. Defendants have the right to test the credibility of their accusers in order to prevent ex parte (outside of court) hearsay statements. This right is designed to enhance the truth-finding function of trial in two ways: by face-to-face confrontation during the witness's direct testimony; and through the opportunity for confrontation by cross-examination. The first way entitles the defendant to be in court at all important stages of testimony, and their physical presence in the courtroom is normally required unless: (a) they voluntarily choose to be absent; or (b) they continually disrupt the proceedings after being warned not to do so. The second way permits the defendant, or more likely, their counsel, to test the witness's credibility and reliability under cross-examination. To some extent, almost any test is tolerated, including the witness's believability. An important derivative of this right is the Hearsay Rule (Federal Rule of Evidence 801c) which, in general, prohibits hearsay because the defendant cannot confront an absent witness. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the confrontation clause does not prohibit hearsay under certain exceptions: if the prosecution demonstrated good-faith in getting a witness to testify; if the hearsay is trustworthy and reliable in the totality of circumstances; or any number of other exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The compulsory process clause guarantees the right to compel the attendance of favorable witnesses. This is usually done by means of a court-ordered subpoena. To exercise this right, the defendant must show that the witness's testimony would be relevant, material, and favorable to the defendant. Compulsion of such witnesses must not be cumulative or redundant. In other words, the defendant does NOT have the right to keep calling witness after witness to testify favorably on their behalf.

The origins of the right to confrontation are obscure. One romantic myth traces it to the trial of sir Walter Raleigh, who was convicted on the basis of an affidavit by an alleged co-conspirator who was never produced in court. Trial by affidavit, or ex parte absent witnesses, is common in civil law, but it is strictly prohibited in criminal cases by the Sixth Amendment. Nevertheless, evidence law allows certain exceptions, especially in criminal cases. The dying declaration is one such exception, and criminal courts place a lot of weight on the last words of a victim or witness, regardless of their accuracy. Another doctrine is the so-called availability standard, which allows admission of ex parte testimony if the prosecutor has exhausted all means at the government's disposal to bring forth a witness. Forensic law also allows some experts to testify by written report or response to hypothetical research questions.

The right to cross-examine witnesses of one's adversary is absolute. The right to confront the witnesses of one's adversary in a face-to-face context before a judge or jury is NOT absolute. This is because the right to cross-examination has been thought of as the "greatest legal engine ever invented for discovery of truth" and to "inhere logically from the confrontation clause" (Bruton v. U.S. 1968). With few exceptions, the Court has always treated cross-examination as the more logically derived right or what the framers intended. Cross-examination is also a more "critical" right since it is allowed when taking depositions from potential witnesses in the pretrial stage where the defendant is not normally present.

The most common situation in which the confrontation clause is triggered involves a joint trial of two or more co-defendants where one confesses (and implicates the others) while the others take the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify on their behalf. In such situations, the Hearsay Rule needs to be relaxed and/or juries instructed not to consider the implicating confession as proof of guilt for the silent co-defendants, nor the right to remain silent as proof of guilt. Needless to say, jurors have to perform some neat tricks of "mental gymnastics" to follow these kinds of instructions, and it becomes all the more complicated when you consider that a prosecutor's favorite trick is to try all co-defendants jointly and rely upon the pretrial confession or deposition of one co-defendant in a refreshed memory tactic when all the defendants take the Fifth at trial. All these situations involve the Bruton doctrine (from Bruton v. U.S. 1968) which has many exceptions, but generally prohibits prosecutors from using a "one trial for all" tactic. Many scholars regard evidence law as being in conflict with constitutional law on this regard.

In recent years, there have been more straightforward cases involving the confrontation clause. Coy v. Iowa (1988), for example, involved sexually abused child victims who testified in the courtroom behind a screen so as not to see the defendant during their testimony. The Supreme Court ruled this was unconstitutional, not because it deprived the defendant of his rights, but because the state of Iowa was doing it for all sexual abuse cases. There has not been a standard or test developed in any subsequent rulings, and appellate law varies by region. Most regions follow a public policy and necessity standard set down by Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1990) which requires the trial judge make a particularized finding over the individual mental or emotional harm a child victim of sexual abuse would experience in the presence of the defendant. Various state shield laws provide a constant arena of constitutional questions, as does the modern use of technology, such as videoconferencing.

There are just a couple precedents that say you are full of shit, since you will not lie and pretend you are not, repeatedly.

here is some supreme court rulings, and one for you is the case where the child molester did not have the right to face the child acusser...do to overriding circumstance... you go ahead and see where you want to plug that in with national security (or go looke up the case law and precident yourself, sockie)

Aw hell, I lost the link.




mnottertail -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 1:06:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What the fuck are you on about, fuckhead?

The 6th amendment applies to UCMJ and military trials as well. So--------------

That is what I have said in the matter, go show me where it doesnt.

Your bullshit about oh, we cant divulge the name of every operative and agent we have working in us interests, becuse this is a civilian court (and avoiding the fact that you are trying to lie and pretend about that that is not the case in military courts.)

The sixth amendment applies in military courts exaclty as it applies in civilian court.
Any court that is military, tribunal or whatever, is governed by the UCMJ (which is --- are you ready draft dodger?) The Uniform Code of Military Justice. By example, the Miranda warning is based on law from the UCMJ and preceeded it by decades. The united states military is not a foreign entity, it is the united states, its laws are based wholly on the federal laws, statutes and precedents of federal courts and on up to the Constitution of the united states.


and for you intelligence impaired sockpuppets search the thread about the guantanemo five, I didn't my ass.




Your babbling. I never said the 6th was not in operation in the UCMJ. I said the UCMJ, has as much relevance as the great court of China. The discussion, in the real world, is between civilian trials, and a new form of Tribunal. Which according to the Constitution, Congress can create at will.

UCMJ, has no bearing of any sort or kind on the discussion. None at all except in troll land.

Pleas continue with the insults, IT shows all who read, its all you have.

Try reading my post a few times If you do not grasp the point I was making in reference to the 6th. Thorn and several others got it just fine.



The point I am making and the entire point I am making if the united states runs it thru tribunal (a military UCMJ structure) or thru civilian court systems, there will be no magic taking place, the 6th amendment will be in effect, anything else (and you havent made any goddamn point other than the whale is undoubtably one of the largest mammals alive today which is to say the obvious, what the 6ht amendment of constitution states)

IS that THE 6th AMENDMENT WILL be in full force with full caselaw and precedent included in any form of court.

Thanks for saying nothing, I am amazed that you can take forever to say it in the most ignoble and obfuscatory way.

Congress can create a tribunal at will, and nature can create a rainstorm at will, they dont operate under different law at will.





jlf1961 -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 2:03:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, I am surprised that the GOP has forgotten that they left a economic mess for Obama, as well as the statements that "no terrorist attacks occurred during the bush administration."

except the economic mess was not caused by the GOP.




Actually, the current economic mess can be traced to October 1982, when then President Ronald Reagan signed into Law the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which began the process of Banking deregulation that helped contribute to the savings and loan crises of the late 80's/early 90's, and the financial crises of 2007-2010. President Reagan stated at the signing, "all in all, I think we hit the jackpot".

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The same lack of coordination that Obama is getting flack for concerning the christmas day bombing attempt is exactly like the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies that allowed 9/11 to happen. The only difference is, the out going intelligence people tried to tell their replacements that there was intel indicating an upcoming attack but no one listened.

wrong. the only difference is that the procedures that were in place that resulted in no succesful domestic attacks for 7 years were dismantled. there were no effective procedures in place 9.11



And yet it is a matter of record that the Bush administration was warned that Intelligence sources indicated that an attack was forth coming and the Bush administration ignored the information from out going Clinton appointees.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The GOP is also forgetting that the only President who actually came close to taking out Osama Bin Laden was Clinton.

We dont forget that he blew the opportunity to take him or kill him.




Shortly after the September 11 attacks it was revealed that President Clinton had signed a directive authorizing the CIA to apprehend bin Laden and bring him to the United States to stand trial after the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Africa; if taking bin Laden alive was deemed impossible, then deadly force was authorized.
On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden's training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.
In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état.
In 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one in which bin Laden was riding.

Now during the Bush Administration, The Washington Post reported that the US government concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the Battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in late 2001, and according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge, failure by the US to commit US ground troops to hunt him led to his escape and was the gravest failure by the US in the war against al Qaeda. Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border.
The Washington Post also reported that the CIA unit composed of their special operations paramilitary forces dedicated to capturing Osama was shut down in late 2005.
US and Afghanistan forces raided the mountain caves in Tora Bora between 14–16 August 2007. The military was drawn to the area after receiving intelligence of a pre-Ramadan meeting held by al Qaeda members. After killing dozens of al Qaeda and Taliban members, they did not find either Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri.

Why did the Bush Administration shut down the unit tasked with getting Osama Bin Laden?


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


The difference between Bush and Obama is that in closing Gitmo, Obama is not releasing anyone without trial or review.

no difference at all. Every Bush release was subject to review. nice try.





Well, with the evidence supporting the fact that former detainees are active with Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, I think the review standards under the Bush Administration speak for themselves.

As for the rest, any simple search on the internet will yield the information since it is public record. It proves that a Democrat President was proactive in operations against Al-Qaeda.

There were also no blatant lies told to justify invading a country which 1) did not have weapons of mass destruction, and 2) Had no ties to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Both reasons were given at separate times to justify the invasion of Iraq.

It is also a matter of Public Record that then President Bush was told that the US military "Did not have the manpower or assets to effectively fight a two front war." President Bush chose to ignore the recommendations and invade.

Funny thing is that when I was growing up, it was the Republican party that was the party that got us out of a war that dealt primarily with insurgent forces.

quote:

BAGHDAD — An unpublished, 513-page federal history of the U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.

"Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience," the first official account of its kind, is circulating in draft form here and in Washington among a tight circle of technical reviewers, policy experts and senior officials. It also concludes that when the reconstruction began to lag - particularly in the critical area of rebuilding the Iraqi police and army - the Pentagon simply put out inflated measures of progress to cover up the failures.

In one passage, for example, former Secretary of State Colin Powell is quoted as saying that in the months after the 2003 invasion, the Defense Department "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces - the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000."'


Full article is available here Government report details the failures of rebuilding Iraq

This is a 2008 article that clearly shows the Bush Administration failed in their plans for rebuilding Iraq. It also shows the blatant and falsified claims given by Bush appointees to try and prove that there was actually some progress being made.

It may be a little side note to point out that the first attempt at Health Care Reform was attempted by Teddy Roosevelt, a REPUBLICAN,on February 6, 1974, Nixon introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income. In 1985 Reagen signed the COBRA act, president, Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which included a prescription drug plan for elderly and disabled Americans.

It seems that Health Care Reform is a good thing when a Republican is pushing the idea, but a bad one when it is a Democrat. Bush in his race against Kerry was a proponent of Health Care Reform, and he had a republican congress to get any health care package passed... it is also a matter of record that after the medicare prescription drug plan nothing else was done.




rulemylife -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 2:51:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually, I am surprised that the GOP has forgotten that they left a economic mess for Obama, as well as the statements that "no terrorist attacks occurred during the bush administration."

except the economic mess was not caused by the GOP.

The same lack of coordination that Obama is getting flack for concerning the christmas day bombing attempt is exactly like the lack of coordination between intelligence agencies that allowed 9/11 to happen. The only difference is, the out going intelligence people tried to tell their replacements that there was intel indicating an upcoming attack but no one listened.

wrong. the only difference is that the procedures that were in place that resulted in no succesful domestic attacks for 7 years were dismantled. there were no effective procedures in place 9.11

The GOP is also forgetting that the only President who actually came close to taking out Osama Bin Laden was Clinton.

We dont forget that he blew the opportunity to take him or kill him.

The difference between Bush and Obama is that in closing Gitmo, Obama is not releasing anyone without trial or review.

no difference at all. Every Bush release was subject to review. nice try.



Yet another one of your enlightening posts Willbeur.

Not even a feeble attempt at offering any facts, just saying "wrong" and "nice try" and all your other cute little phrases instead of an attempt to make an actual argument.








PyrotheClown -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 2:59:06 PM)

I still can't believe there's so much fuss over this joker, yes he had "explosives" on the plane, but just enough to blow his pelvis every where and not much else... Really, we're this freaked out over some nearly roasted wheeny ..... And all these republicans coming out of the wood work to make accusations and bull shit media appearances,Makes me wonder if they're all just chomp'n at the bit for some thing really bad to happen so they can some how make a catastrophe into some sort of political opportunity... The only good thing bout this whole mess is that it shows the ignorance of these assholes claims on such a trivial matter so when they start spewing this kind of shit later, it's more discernible for us who know what's going on to tell that their just spewing out more shit.. Welcome to America, not even our leaders know WTF their talking about lol




rulemylife -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 3:23:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: submittous

Just as 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' I see now that Bush/Cheney proved that memories and facts don't matter if you say things often enough and loud enough.



And Cheney and his daughter are still doing their best to prove that.


The Chicken Little style of national leadership on display Atlanta Journal Constitution







luckydawg -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/11/2010 5:01:04 PM)

Mnot.

Mnot, Absolulty nothing in the quote you posted said secret witnesses can be used. To argue they can is nonsense.

Some data can be shielded from the General Public, is Child victims of abuse. However the media, and more importantly, the Lawyers Know it. Lawyers working for Al Queda, would get the names and methods of our operatives adn get to cross examine them, perhaps via video or behind a screen, like in your Quote. And most certainly the jury will be kept secret, as is one of the exceptions in your quote.

But nothing in your quote says or implies that evidence and testimony from secret sources can be used, in fact it says the opposite.

Why do trolls like to bable about whales and such?

Trial by affidavit, or ex parte absent witnesses, is common in civil law, but it is strictly prohibited in criminal cases by the Sixth Amendment. Nevertheless, evidence law allows certain exceptions, especially in criminal cases. The dying declaration is one such exception, and criminal courts place a lot of weight on the last words of a victim or witness, regardless of their accuracy. Another doctrine is the so-called availability standard, which allows admission of ex parte testimony if the prosecutor has exhausted all means at the government's disposal to bring forth a witness. Forensic law also allows some experts to testify by written report or response to hypothetical research questions.

And again, no one is considering the UCMJ in this. It is a question of whether Congress creates a new sort of tribunal (which would allow secret anonamous evidence) or Civilian law. The UCMJ has no relevance at all to this discussion. None.



The right to cross-examine witnesses of one's adversary is absolute.


Please throw more insults, its funny that that is all you really have in terms of debate....






jlf1961 -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/12/2010 4:49:45 AM)

Unless I am mistaken, and it very well be that I am, the only testimony from an absent witness allowed in a criminal trial is in the form of a dieing declaration.

Pyro, the underwear bomber had 80grams of explosive, which would have been enough to blow a hole in the side of the plane. The problem with this type of explosive is that it is very hard to work with.




mnottertail -> RE: right wingers losing their memories? (1/12/2010 6:46:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Mnot.

Mnot, Absolulty nothing in the quote you posted said secret witnesses can be used. To argue they can is nonsense.

Some data can be shielded from the General Public, is Child victims of abuse. However the media, and more importantly, the Lawyers Know it. Lawyers working for Al Queda, would get the names and methods of our operatives adn get to cross examine them, perhaps via video or behind a screen, like in your Quote. And most certainly the jury will be kept secret, as is one of the exceptions in your quote.

But nothing in your quote says or implies that evidence and testimony from secret sources can be used, in fact it says the opposite.

Why do trolls like to bable about whales and such?

Trial by affidavit, or ex parte absent witnesses, is common in civil law, but it is strictly prohibited in criminal cases by the Sixth Amendment. Nevertheless, evidence law allows certain exceptions, especially in criminal cases. The dying declaration is one such exception, and criminal courts place a lot of weight on the last words of a victim or witness, regardless of their accuracy. Another doctrine is the so-called availability standard, which allows admission of ex parte testimony if the prosecutor has exhausted all means at the government's disposal to bring forth a witness. Forensic law also allows some experts to testify by written report or response to hypothetical research questions.

And again, no one is considering the UCMJ in this. It is a question of whether Congress creates a new sort of tribunal (which would allow secret anonamous evidence) or Civilian law. The UCMJ has no relevance at all to this discussion. None.



The right to cross-examine witnesses of one's adversary is absolute.


Please throw more insults, its funny that that is all you really have in terms of debate....





you are a waste of oxygen. but what disturbs me most is that as ignorant as your most intelligent posting profile is (which is absolutely unconcious) you find it necessary to also post as a cretin, in another sockpuppet, somehow thinking that you must be more witless to be stupid. you are babbling, they can and they cant and witnesses can be hidden (as you allow in criminal case of child rape) but they cant in a criminal case you say further on in your drool . In the case of our national security, there can be all sorts of ways to protect the identity of witnesses, so on on so forth.

It may surprise you that the 6th (and we have to usually include the 14th when talking the 6th) have interpetations called precedent and ruling and a certiori and .....oh, never mind any more that are part and parcel of the use and legal doctrines espoused by those amendments.

The supreme court is not where you pick up you hot stone pizzas at the galleria. Thats how slavery was and was not legal in this country, in turn.

Same constitution though.

You havent the capacity for rational thought or arguement, why do you lie and pretend that you do?


,




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625