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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 11:37:29 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
What, exactly, has been ruled unconstitutional in the arrest, questioning, detention, trial, and imprisonment of Jose Padilla? Nothing.

We have gooks in the wire.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/7/2010 11:47:35 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The idea that the war against Islamic terrorism is somehow "new" or freakishly different


Adams defended one Brit, btw, at least in the BM situation.

It is very different from anything we have faced. No uniforms. No government. No real understanding (imo) of the ideology of our enemy. No understanding of the depth of the problem (23% of English Muslims admitted- admitted- supporting the subway bombings; yet we cling to the comforting PC notion that terrorism is supported only some itsy bitsy teeny weeny % of Muslims, a % that miraculously recruits both funding and personnel in near-total secret). But mostly, we have this utterly mistaken idea that freedom defeats religious doctrine, when the acceptance of said doctrine requires eschewing freedom at the outset.

No, it's a very different threat, and one most do not even see, much less understand. In some ways the closest parallel may be the Barbary Pirates of TJs time.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/9/2010 5:16:05 PM   
luckydawg


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex


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.






Ok Animus, lets go through these one by one.

the rosenbergs...."The prosecution's primary witness, David Greenglass, stated that his sister Ethel typed notes containing U.S. nuclear secrets in the Rosenberg apartment in September 1945. He also testified that he turned over to Julius Rosenberg a sketch of the cross-section of an implosion-type atom bomb (the "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, as opposed to a bomb with the "gun method" triggering device as used in the "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima).[21]"

Brother dropped a dime, public testimony, no secret witnesses or spy work

Robert Hansen..."At the time of the arrest at a park in Vienna, Virginia, Robert Philip Hanssen, age 56, was clandestinely placing a package containing highly classified information at a pre-arranged, or "dead drop," site for pick-up by his Russian handlers."

Caught red handed passing secrets, no secret testimony or methods needed to be revealed

Christoper Boyce..."Boyce, then 24, was exposed after Lee was arrested by Mexican police in front of the Soviet Embassy in December 1976 on suspicion of having killed a police officer. During his interrogation, Lee, who had top secret microfilm in his possession when arrested, confessed to being a Soviet spy and implicated Boyce. Arrested in January 1977, Boyce was convicted in April of espionage and sentenced to 40 years in prison at the federal penitentiary in Lompoc, California."

Arrested for something else, found with classified microfilm on his person, No secret evidence or witnesses needed to get a conviction

Aldrich Ames...." A search of Ames' office uncovered 144 classified intelligence reports not related to his current assignment in CIA's Counternarcotics Center."

Found red handed with illegal documkents, then he plead guilty. No secret testimony or evidence was needed at all.

John Walker..."In May 1985, the FBI was tipped off to Walker's activities by Walker's then ex-wife Barbara, to whom he had refused to pay alimony.[1] Following an investigation, the FBI arrested Walker, Whitworth, Arthur Walker and Michael Walker. Ironically, Walker himself was arrested at a motel in Montgomery County, Maryland using a trick he used to catch people in adultery cases: telephoning their hotel room and telling them that their car had been hit in an accident.[1] Barbara Walker was not prosecuted because of her role in disclosing the ring.[1]"

Ex wife dropped a dime because he wasn't paying Alimony. Yet again, no secret witnesses or methods were used in the conviction.

Are you seeing the patern Animus? None of these cases used secret evidence or witnesses. Not a single one.


Why can't any of you cite a single upheld conviction using secret evidence, that can't be challenged, and/or secret witness?


"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."


How are you going to get around this? Or else the agents have to publically testify, as well as disclose the methods used to get the information.

Right?


_____________________________

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

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/9/2010 5:55:54 PM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

You're not at war. I don't think America has actually declared war on a foreign nation since Korea.
That's a part of what leads to the current legal problems, along with the whole "illegal detention" thing, of course.



Tricky area. The last "Declaration of War" by Congress was World War II. However, while the Constitution says that the Congress has the power "to declare War" - it doesn't specify the method. Congress has authorized military action numerous times - including the First & Second Barbary Wars (1801 & 1815), the Viet Nam War (The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution - 1964), and the Gulf War (H.R.J. Res 77 - 1991). Whether these were actually "Wars" is a matter of opinion. They were legally authorized military actions - a case could (and has) been made that the bill Congress passes doesn't have to say "Declaration of War" to declare a war.

Several times the United States has "gone to war" based on a United Nations resolution - Korea (UNSCR 84, 1950) and Bosnia (UNSCR 770, 1991) as examples - without Congressional authorization.

Iraq & Afghanistan were both authorized by Congress and so could be considered Wars. Afghanistan was also authorized by the UN (UNSCR 1368, 2001) and I could make a case that Iraq was as well - but that opens up a huge mess of legal wrangling over the multiple UN resolutions and the nature of the current Laws of War and international law - which serves no real purpose.

Most of the authorized but "non-declared" wars had an official end - a treaty was signed, a UN resolution passed or something similar. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan has yet to have any "official" end to hostilities, although they will apparently change the name of Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn on September 1st.

I would certainly argue that in any military operation officially recognized and approved by the United States Congress the laws of war should apply and so should all facets of the UMCJ.



_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/10/2010 6:36:42 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Well, uckie.........you can analyze all you want, you are plain wrong.

since you are going to dogbone this, not bothering to understand the law or even google, this is the landmark case (with implications) that says you can except the face to face:

156 U.S. 237

then they extended it and quoted it in decisions rendered subsequently by:

448 U.S. 56

they pulled back from that extension in:

541 U.S. 36

thus returning us to the implications of:
156 U.S. 237

additionally, see:

384 U.S. 333

which also has implications regarding what may or may not be open to the public in a trial.



_____________________________

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


(in reply to InvisibleBlack)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/10/2010 9:17:40 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Adams defended one Brit, btw, at least in the BM situation.

Not so.
John Adams defended the officer in a trial that was seperated from his men. The Officer was aquitted.
Adams also defended the men in a seperate trial.  Two of those men were convicted of manslaughter and not murder which they were charged with.  The others were aquited.


(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/10/2010 5:26:56 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
Mnot, why do you even bother with this stuff?

Did you read your "landmark case"?


"When a person accused of the crime of murder is tried in a District Court of the United States, and is convicted, and the conviction is set aside by this Court and a new trial ordered, a properly verified copy of the reporter's stenographic notes of the testimony of a witness for the government at the former trial who was then fully examined and cross-examined, and who died after the first trial and before the second, may be admitted in evidence against the accused on the second trial."





Absolutly nothing to do with secret witnesses nor a lack of cross examination. OR secret evidence. Nothing at all.

What do they call it in troll land where you make an argument based on bullshit and lies.

But it is cute of you to come try to save Animus from having to answer.

And why can't you cite a single casewhere secret evidence from a secret witness was used Mnot? Not a single one. You pretend that a fully identified publiccally deposed witness who dies before the retrial is comparable.....
How many pages iof insults and bullshit have you posted, while not posting a single valid example????



_____________________________

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

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/10/2010 9:18:49 PM   
AnimusRex


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

What, exactly, has been ruled unconstitutional in the arrest, questioning, detention, trial, and imprisonment of Jose Padilla? Nothing.



Well, you are right- so far the Padilla case has never been brought to court, so, I guess it hasn't been ruled on yet.

But I just want to make your position clear- you honestly want to agree that President Obama should have the power to simply arrest any American citizen on American soil, and hold him forever without a trial or charges? Just because the President assures us that the guy is dangerous?

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/10/2010 9:21:53 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
Luckydawg-
The cases you refer to are my point.

Did any of these defendents get to cross examine or call as witness any covert agents? Did they get to make public the secret microfilms, and files?

The "State Secrets" exclusion is incredibly wide, and powerful. It has been used time and again, to exclude any evidence the Government claims is secret.

There will be no outing of covert agents, unless it's by Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/11/2010 5:34:47 AM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
I stand corrected.
I vaguely remembered the defence of the officer, forgot or never knew of his role in the trial of the men.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/11/2010 5:44:00 AM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

so far the Padilla case has never been brought to court,


Not so much. Sentenced in fed court to... 20 years? Something like that.

"you honestly want to agree that President Obama should have the power to simply arrest any American citizen on American soil, and hold him forever without a trial or charges?"

I think the President must be given broad latitude to protect America from terrorists. Declaring jihadists to be enemy combatants and incarcerating them for potentially long periods of time is, and should continue to be, part of that latitude. Even if the President in question is Obama.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/11/2010 6:24:13 AM   
mnottertail


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Mnot, why do you even bother with this stuff?

Did you read your "landmark case"?


"When a person accused of the crime of murder is tried in a District Court of the United States, and is convicted, and the conviction is set aside by this Court and a new trial ordered, a properly verified copy of the reporter's stenographic notes of the testimony of a witness for the government at the former trial who was then fully examined and cross-examined, and who died after the first trial and before the second, may be admitted in evidence against the accused on the second trial."





Absolutly nothing to do with secret witnesses nor a lack of cross examination. OR secret evidence. Nothing at all.

What do they call it in troll land where you make an argument based on bullshit and lies.

But it is cute of you to come try to save Animus from having to answer.

And why can't you cite a single casewhere secret evidence from a secret witness was used Mnot? Not a single one. You pretend that a fully identified publiccally deposed witness who dies before the retrial is comparable.....
How many pages iof insults and bullshit have you posted, while not posting a single valid example????



Dear uckypierre and 666.

It is obvious that you have absolutely no knowledge of the law, nor any inclination to garner any. cherrypicking from decisions will not advance your case here and certainly not in court.

You don't understand why this is a landmark case? I would say dead is a pretty liberal interpretation of face to face with accuser. And other (many other interpretations of what might and might not be viable have flowed from that decision, and for a very long time the second cite I gave you (around 20 years or so) was the very liberal standard of that, and it was reigned in by the third cite I gave you.

However, you could google this, read the reasoning and the entire decision rather than shithouse lawyer, but you are wrong totally and completely, just as you are wrong about military tribunals, the ucmj and constitutional law.





_____________________________

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


(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/11/2010 7:52:05 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I stand corrected.
I vaguely remembered the defence of the officer, forgot or never knew of his role in the trial of the men.


He was there and he was in command.  If he had given the order to fire he would have been convicted.  Adams proved that he was in the direct line of fire and therefore would most likely not have given that order.
Of course the racial slurs used by Adams to describe the first man to die in the American revolution were less than charitable.

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/11/2010 10:00:53 AM   
luckydawg


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

Luckydawg-
The cases you refer to are my point.

Did any of these defendents get to cross examine or call as witness any covert agents? Did they get to make public the secret microfilms, and files?

The "State Secrets" exclusion is incredibly wide, and powerful. It has been used time and again, to exclude any evidence the Government claims is secret.

There will be no outing of covert agents, unless it's by Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.



There were no covert witnessess in your cases to be crossexamined. No covert methods had to be used. They are not germaine to the current issue at all.

The contents of the microfilms were of no relevance. They were Classified, and the perps were not allowed to have them. So there was no purpose in exposing the data in court.

So, Animus you are in favor of closed trials with secret witnessess, that can not be cross examined, and using secret evidence that can not be challenged?

IS that basically it?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/12/2010 5:57:57 AM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

There will be no outing of covert agents, unless it's by Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.


By which you mean: "There will be no outing of covert agents, unless it's by Richard Armitage".

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/12/2010 6:18:46 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

Aw, can't you just let them have ONE lie? After all, lies are all they have...


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

There will be no outing of covert agents, unless it's by Scooter Libby and Karl Rove.


By which you mean: "There will be no outing of covert agents, unless it's by Richard Armitage".


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/12/2010 7:18:39 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
And insults Sanity. They have insults also. And Snark. More snark than you can shake a stick at....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/12/2010 8:00:37 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
Thank God you're above all that.

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/13/2010 2:06:52 AM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
Hey, Thanks for the compliment MM. I try, but sometimes give in to the attacks of the trolls and hurl an insult or two. But I always let the other throw the first stone.


And I never do ridiculous shit like Mnot does in posting case after case thast has nothing at all to do with the issue under discussion, while hurling insults.

But MM do you have an opinion on he subject of this thread? Or you just snarking?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not - 3/19/2010 6:50:49 PM   
luckydawg


Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009
Status: offline
I guess it was just snarking....

_____________________________

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

(in reply to luckydawg)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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