Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 1:57:46 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline 		Tazzy cited zero criminal cases Mnot. everyone who reads the thread can plainly see that.

We are talking about Criminal hearings. Not non criminal hearings. Deportation hearings (what every case Tazzy cited --She did also cite a case where the child was not forced to testify, but was not kept secret either, so it has no bearing on what we are talking about.--) have different rules.

As will the Millitary Tribunals (nothing at all to do with the USMJ), that Bush and Obama want to use.

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:00:36 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		findlaw.

ok, toilet licker, the fucking drug case is nothing to do with whatever you want it to be about.

the reversable error is not what you want it to be about.

what is the finding that made it reversable error HOWEVER and this is why when it is fundamental to the defense (because there may have been mitigating or extenuation circumstance due to personal knowledge of the accuser) that it was reversible error

(a) Where disclosure of an informer's identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair trial, the Government's privilege to withhold disclosure of the informer's identity must give way. Pp. 353 U. S. 60-62.

(b) However, no fixed rule is justifiable. The public interest in protecting the flow of information to the Government must be balanced against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether nondisclosure is erroneous depends on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors. P. 353 U. S. 62.

(c) In this case, the informer was not expressly mentioned in the relevant charge of the indictment; but the charge, viewed in connection with the evidence introduced at his trial, is so closely related to the informer as to make his identity and testimony highly material. Pp. 353 U. S. 62-63.

(d) The provision of the statute authorizing a conviction when the Government has proved that the accused possessed narcotics -- unless he explains or justifies such possession -- emphasizes petitioner's vital need for access to any material witness. P. 353 U. S. 63.

that is the part as a coward that you convieniently lie and pretend doesnt exist. U.S. 62 p 353.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:03:34 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		So, military tribunals will not use UCMJ, what will they then use? give us the link, sockpuppet.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:08:54 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline 		Nope I don't pretend it doesn't exist.


I say that no rule exists allowing secret evidence from secret witnessess, gathered by secret means to be used in a criminal trial. Which you keep insisting does exist, despite your own link saying the opposite.

If the attempt is made, it stands a good chance of resulting in a reversable error, and the defendant going free. Or simply refusing to release him after ordered by the courts (as Obama has already said could happen). Both of which I see as very bad for the Nation.


Now what creative insults will the troll hurl at me now. Ususally at this point he devolves into poop and anal references....

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:11:41 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline 		they will use whatever rules the congess creates for them.

Still with the sockpuppet thing.

I guess since you don't have facts or logic on your side, you are best stickign with that.

Like realone

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:18:27 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		(b) However, no fixed rule is justifiable. The public interest in protecting the flow of information to the Government must be balanced against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether nondisclosure is erroneous depends on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors. P. 353 U. S. 62.

footnote 12 from the actual case (353) before the supreme court. citing (something you are unable to do) the relevant nuances in the caselaw and precedent setting reasonings.

In the Portomene case, supra, the accused was charged with two sales of narcotics to an informer. The accused took the stand, denied selling narcotics, and testified that the person he believed to be the informer had a grudge against him. The Fifth Circuit held that disclosure was essential to the defense.

In the Conforti case, supra, the accused was charged with possession of counterfeit notes. Agents overheard the informer make arrangements with the accused, saw the informer meet the accused and a package transferred, and then received from the informer a package containing counterfeit money. The Seventh Circuit stated that the accused would have been entitled to disclosure of the informer's identity if a proper demand had been made at the trial.

In the Sorrentino case, supra, the accused was charged with both sale and possession of narcotics. Government agents saw the accused go into a house with the informer after arrangements for a sale had been overheard, and the informer later turned over narcotics to the agents. The Ninth Circuit stated that the accused was entitled to disclosure under these circumstances, but the conviction was affirmed on the ground that the record demonstrated that the accused knew the identity of the informer.

See also Crosby v. State, 90 Ga.App. 63, 82 S.E.2d 38

so, not always reversable error, once again.........know what you are talking about and stop talking out your ass. go to the findlaw cases I cited and enumerate for me all the entire clandestine resources of the united states that were forced to be outted because you interpret this correctly.

Or, what you really should do is go over in the corner by your dish and lay down

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:24:36 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

they will use whatever rules the congess creates for them.

Still with the sockpuppet thing.

I guess since you don't have facts or logic on your side, you are best stickign with that.

Like realone


Uh, no.........the congress has thru the constituion the right to create military tribunals, and the constitution also denies them the right to make ad-hoc and/or ex-post facto laws.

thanks, like I said, give the fucker a read sometime, it isn't too hard, even a third grade reading comprehension should get it, but that as of late has been under some cloud of surety.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:34:40 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

(b) However, no fixed rule is justifiable. The public interest in protecting the flow of information to the Government must be balanced against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether nondisclosure is erroneous depends on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors. P. 353 U. S. 62.

footnote 12 from the actual case (353) before the supreme court. citing (something you are unable to do) the relevant nuances in the caselaw and precedent setting reasonings.

In the Portomene case, supra, the accused was charged with two sales of narcotics to an informer. The accused took the stand, denied selling narcotics, and testified that the person he believed to be the informer had a grudge against him. The Fifth Circuit held that disclosure was essential to the defense.

In the Conforti case, supra, the accused was charged with possession of counterfeit notes. Agents overheard the informer make arrangements with the accused, saw the informer meet the accused and a package transferred, and then received from the informer a package containing counterfeit money. The Seventh Circuit stated that the accused would have been entitled to disclosure of the informer's identity if a proper demand had been made at the trial.

In the Sorrentino case, supra, the accused was charged with both sale and possession of narcotics. Government agents saw the accused go into a house with the informer after arrangements for a sale had been overheard, and the informer later turned over narcotics to the agents. The Ninth Circuit stated that the accused was entitled to disclosure under these circumstances, but the conviction was affirmed on the ground that the record demonstrated that the accused knew the identity of the informer.

See also Crosby v. State, 90 Ga.App. 63, 82 S.E.2d 38

so, not always reversable error, once again.........know what you are talking about and stop talking out your ass. go to the findlaw cases I cited and enumerate for me all the entire clandestine resources of the united states that were forced to be outted because you interpret this correctly.

Or, what you really should do is go over in the corner by your dish and lay down



Ok all 3 of those cases the courts ruled that the identity could not be kept secret.



How about instead of throwing insults......you cite me a case that actually agrees with you.? You keep citing cases (4now) in which it was ruled that the identity of the witnessess had to be revealed. everysingle one.


Seriously how many pages have you written (full of insults and incorrect analysis) without givign a single case that agrees with you.


A criminal case, not overturned, where secret eveidence from sectret witnessess, gathered by secret methods was used.


Not insults, not cases that agree with me. But one that agrees with your point.


There is a reason why you haven't yet, adn are so angry.

There isn't one.

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 2:38:15 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

they will use whatever rules the congess creates for them.

Still with the sockpuppet thing.

I guess since you don't have facts or logic on your side, you are best stickign with that.

Like realone


Uh, no.........the congress has thru the constituion the right to create military tribunals, and the constitution also denies them the right to make ad-hoc and/or ex-post facto laws.

thanks, like I said, give the fucker a read sometime, it isn't too hard, even a third grade reading comprehension should get it, but that as of late has been under some cloud of surety.




so you agree with me again!!! Now sit up and hurl insults!!


What a lame realone trick of trying to switch to the creation of Adhoc laws. never said nor implied anything about them. Nor would they be needed to use in the new court system to be created by congress, ie (millitary tribunals).

but realone did learn his game from you.

_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 3:06:11 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
In civilian courts you get a plethora of rights, which would either expose agents and methods of gathering intell or eliminate much of the evidence.


And courts have wide discretion in being able to hide any sensitive "state secrets" from public view, even in a public trial.

The government has prosecuted people in sensitive espionage cases once or twice; its not like this whole notion of rights and courts and trials was invented yesterday.


Exactly.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 9:28:44 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline 		These people obviously and simultaneously can and do believe:

1. Enemy combatants captured on overseas battlefields by American and foreign forces, interrogated by foreign and American soldiers and intelligence officers (CIA, etc), transferred to and held in Abu Ghraib, perhaps, or other foreign detention facilities, transferred to Gitmo, and interrogated there for years, have been treated in such a way that all evidence and testimony obtained from both them and their friends is perfectly admissable in federal court.

2. Gitmo is the most horrible torture palace in history, a blight and stain on the honor of the country, and must be closed at once.

Funny, really.

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 10:05:42 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

These people obviously and simultaneously can and do believe:

1. Enemy combatants captured on overseas battlefields by American and foreign forces, interrogated by foreign and American soldiers and intelligence officers (CIA, etc), transferred to and held in Abu Ghraib, perhaps, or other foreign detention facilities, transferred to Gitmo, and interrogated there for years, have been treated in such a way that all evidence and testimony obtained from both them and their friends is perfectly admissable in federal court.

2. Gitmo is the most horrible torture palace in history, a blight and stain on the honor of the country, and must be closed at once.

Funny, really.


Yes. Funny, indeed.
So lets start with this- what causes you to imagine that the Gitmo detainees were "captured on the battlefield"?
According to my reading, here, here, and especially here, most of them turned out to have been captured in non-combat situations, far away from any battlefield or hostility.
Here is the statement of Mark Denbeaux, Professor of law at Seton Hall University, testifying before the Senate Armed Services committee:

Our government’s records produced in response to habeas corpus reveal that 55%
of those detained at Guantánamo are not accused of committing a single hostile act. Our
government’s records reveal that at least 60% of those detained are neither “members of”
nor “fighters for” al Qaeda or “members of” or “fighters for” the Taliban. Our
government’s records reveal that 60% of those detained are held only because they have
an “association” with some group, whether al Qaeda, Taliban, or otherwise. Our
government’s records also reveal that the Taliban was the governing authority of
Afghanistan at the time.
Our government’s records produced in response to habeas corpus reveal that
those detained at Guantánamo were not captured on the battlefields of Afghanistan
shooting at Americans.
According to our government’s records, 92% of those detained at Guantánamo
were not captured by Americans; 66% were not even picked up in Afghanistan and only a
handful of detainees were ever accused of shooting any weapons at Americans.

In other words, just cab drivers, farmers, or guys stopped at a checkpoint, picked up because a rival clan was paid a bounty for turning in anyone. And now they have been held for years, without the government ever producing a shred of evidence that they had anything to do with any hostility or threat against the US.

In fact, even the US GOVERNMENT has admitted that most of them were innocent. It only took a few years of imprisonment before the government admitted this.

But hey, Gitmo is kinda like a resort, right?

Well, a resort where American soldiers torture a 15 year old boy, I guess.

Where we use torture techniques that we learned from Communist Russia and the North Koreans.
Where we think its ok to throw prisoners and let them rot for eternity without ever having a trial or even being charged with a crime.

So some people simultaneously can and do believe that we can do all this and still consider ourselves to be..."exceptional".

Now THATS funny.

Really.

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/6/2010 11:37:22 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline 		I have no idea how much weight I should give the testimony of Prof Denbeaux. Given my experience with the trustworthiness of other law professors, though (think: Obama), I'm certainly going to err on the side of caution. Especially if he's one of those who piss and moan about Padilla.
I will admit that there has, evidently, been some small problem with Afghans "turning in" other Afghans inappropriately. I will also admit that I'm not too concerned. It's a war. They brought it.
I would have made a long-lasting example of both Iraq and Afghanistan, examples severe enough to dissuade Iran (even this modest projection of American firepower was enough to make QaDaffy see the light), examples severe enough to postpone the inevitable.
Which will start in the Netherlands, or perhaps France (again).

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 3:16:20 AM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
In civilian courts you get a plethora of rights, which would either expose agents and methods of gathering intell or eliminate much of the evidence.


And courts have wide discretion in being able to hide any sensitive "state secrets" from public view, even in a public trial.

The government has prosecuted people in sensitive espionage cases once or twice; its not like this whole notion of rights and courts and trials was invented yesterday.


Exactly.



Then cite me a civilian criminal case where a conviction (and upheld)was obtained with secret evidence, from secret witness, using secret methods
Mnot can't and resorted to screaming insults. Can you?



_____________________________

I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 3:54:23 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

YahooNews had an article a few days ago about one of the GTMO savages who was released and is now leading those savages in Afganistan.
We're either at war or we're not.


So a guy who was imprisoned and tortured for years, without trial or charges, ends up being bitter and hateful and wanting to stick it to the government that did this to him?


How remarkably odd.


Yea, I heard he was a boy scout out looking for lost puppies when he was picked up. Now look what we did to him. Went and made him into some kind of hater.


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 12:02:34 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
I have no idea how much weight I should give the testimony of Prof Denbeaux. Given my experience with the trustworthiness of other law professors, though (think: Obama), I'm certainly going to err on the side of caution. Especially if he's one of those who piss and moan about Padilla.


What do you mean, "piss and moan about Padilla"?

On the other thread, we hear about the Oathkeepers, who solemnly vow not to obey illegal orders to imprison American citizens without Constitutional protections.

Isn't that exactly, precisely what happened to this American citizen?

So are you saying the Government should NOT follow the Constitution?

On one hand, we have conservatives shouting loudly about "Obeying the Constitution" and worried that the government is "too powerful" and so on and so forth.

Yet when given an example of exactly what the Oathkeepers and Tea Partiers claim to oppose, you shrug it off.

Why?

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 12:13:01 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

These people obviously and simultaneously can and do believe:

1. Enemy combatants captured on overseas battlefields by American and foreign forces, interrogated by foreign and American soldiers and intelligence officers (CIA, etc), transferred to and held in Abu Ghraib, perhaps, or other foreign detention facilities, transferred to Gitmo, and interrogated there for years, have been treated in such a way that all evidence and testimony obtained from both them and their friends is perfectly admissable in federal court.

2. Gitmo is the most horrible torture palace in history, a blight and stain on the honor of the country, and must be closed at once.

Funny, really.


When you have to invent positions to attack, it doesn't help make your argument.

I'd start with the Inquisition as the most horrible, and I'd could probably come up with more if I spent a little time on it.

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 12:50:45 PM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		If we're looking for more horrible places in American history, Jacksonville springs to mind for a start.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 12:59:46 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Then cite me a civilian criminal case where a conviction (and upheld)was obtained with secret evidence, from secret witness, using secret methods
Mnot can't and resorted to screaming insults. Can you?


Well, I was looking up some clever screaming insults, but accidently stumbled across this:

Julius & Ethel Lindbergh;
Robert Phillip Hanssen;
Christopher Boyce;
Aldrich Ames;
Micheal and John Walker;

Among many others; All of these cases involved highly sensitive, top secret classified material, covert agents, and classified methods, as you requested.

For instance, consider the Rosenbergs; Since much of the evidence against them was sensitive, much was redacted during the trial; for many years, some people were convinced of their innocence, and it was only after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and Soviet classified materials get opened, did absolute proof of their guilt come out.

In other words, we have never had a problem accusing, trying, and convicting people of crimes in highly sensitive classified intelligence cases.

When I said we have been doing this a while, I wasn't being snarky. We grappled with the issue of how to keep state secrets and at the same time, comply with civil liberties and freedom, as far back as the Revolution, when John Adams (The guy who invented beer) defended British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. Today he would be accused by Liz Cheney of being a "terrorist sympathizer"; but he was proud to provide a legal defense for men accused of crimes, even though he was a committed Patriot.

The idea that the war against Islamic terrorism is somehow "new" or freakishly different, and that our Constitution is incapable of handling it, is total nonsense.



(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 3:34:15 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

What a lame realone trick of trying to switch to the creation of Adhoc laws. never said nor implied anything about them. Nor would they be needed to use in the new court system to be created by congress, ie (millitary tribunals).

but realone did learn his game from you.


damn I must have traumatized lucky beyond anything imaginable.

Glad to see you love me so much lucky.

Take your meds it will ok tommorrow.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094