Obama Justice Department Political Stunt Leads To Mass Murderer Getting Off The Hook

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
No.

The problem is using a system designed for something else in pursuit of an objective (justice) that is consequently going to be unsuccessful.

I think it supremely foolish to act as though letting obviously guilty criminals go free somehow demonstrates lofty principals and makes us look noble in the eyes of the world. It doesn't. We just look stupid, and stupid ain't a lofty principal (even though it's often practiced as one in P&N).

Fern

This is one of the more confusing parts of the anti-court argument. Without a fair and impartial trial, how do you know that someone is "obviously guilty"?

It also seems to me that, unlike many in this thread, you DO seem to care about "lofty principles" and "looking noble in the eyes of the world"...you just think that trials for terrorists aren't the way to do it. Fair enough, so what's a better approach here? If we're going to go around telling everyone we're a beacon of light for the world, it seems to me like we should ACT like it. If this isn't the way, then what is?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
You speak much of this torture induced evidence.

Are you familar with it?

The 'star witness' wasn't tortured. None of the star witness's testimony came from torture.

The star witness is the guy who sold the defendant the TNT for the bomb. When asked about it, he apparently willing testified.

This would seem like good evidence. Getting a confession through torture or enhanced interogation techniques would not.

But they found out the name of the TNT seller from the defendant himself. And so because of our "tainted fruit from the poison tree" doctrine created by the judicial branch we cannot use the witness's testimony even though it by itself is really untainted by "torture".

I have seen examples where this doctrine made sense to me, however in this case it doesn't. I can understand excluding any statements the defendant made himself about buying the TNT, but I do not now fully understand excluding the TNT seller's statements.

Fern

Without that doctrine in cases like this, flagrantly ignoring the law could frequently be a useful investigative technique as long as the final evidence was itself obtained legally. As many police investigations and legal proceedings rely on a chain of evidence or investigation, allowing the links to be obtained by extra-legal means would result in a rather large amount of bad investigative practices.

I agree that the TNT dealer's testimony is good evidence. But I'd suggest that an alternative to rejecting the "poisonous tree" doctrine would be to stop torturing information out of people, as this would ALSO allow the dealer's testimony to be admissible in court.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I don't think we do.

We do not have a system in place to prosecute foreign people for crimes committed in a foreign juridiction.

We do have a system in place to prosecute crimes committed here, but that's a different thing.

This reminds me of similar problems with the Geneva Convention and attemps to apply it's conventions to the area of terrorism. It came about during the time when we had soldiers in uniform and civilians in the way of combat. Things were clear-cut. Are these fighters/terrorists soldiers and afforded the protections under GC to soldiers in combat? If so, why aren't they executed for not being in uniform as the GC permits?

The tools we are trying to apply were not created for the job.



I don't agree a test was needed.

If this was a test, yes it was a failure and amply demonstrated why the civilian criminal system is a (likely fatally) flawed tool for this purpose.

Fern

Except I'm not sure trying to create an alternative system is a better solution. Rules of evidence, aggressive legal representation for the defendant, etc, etc, all need to be present for anything we can remotely call a fair system. And for all the talk of inherent problems with civilian courts, it seems to me like many of the "fatal flaws" being discussed are fundamental parts of a reasonable legal system.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Except I'm not sure trying to create an alternative system is a better solution. Rules of evidence, aggressive legal representation for the defendant, etc, etc, all need to be present for anything we can remotely call a fair system. And for all the talk of inherent problems with civilian courts, it seems to me like many of the "fatal flaws" being discussed are fundamental parts of a reasonable legal system.

Except we aren't advocating trying to create an alternative system, merely using the one that already exists - a system progressives deem good enough for determining guilt and punishment our military, but evidently not good enough for terrorists. It speaks volumes that no one on the left is arguing that Ghailani is not responsible for murdering a few hundred human beings, nor displaying dismay that he has escaped punishment on those charges. Instead the left contents itself with blaming Bush.

As far as beacons of light, we had two of those on 9/11, with American citizens leaping from them to burst on the pavement far below. Our primary concern should be avoiding repetition of this and of the embassy bombings, NOT bickering over whom is most to blame for our failure to obtain murder convictions. And certainly not trumpeting our "triumph" in obtaining one lesser conviction.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Except we aren't advocating trying to create an alternative system, merely using the one that already exists - a system progressives deem good enough for determining guilt and punishment our military, but evidently not good enough for terrorists. It speaks volumes that no one on the left is arguing that Ghailani is not responsible for murdering a few hundred human beings, nor displaying dismay that he has escaped punishment on those charges. Instead the left contents itself with blaming Bush.

As far as beacons of light, we had two of those on 9/11, with American citizens leaping from them to burst on the pavement far below. Our primary concern should be avoiding repetition of this and of the embassy bombings, NOT bickering over whom is most to blame for our failure to obtain murder convictions. And certainly not trumpeting our "triumph" in obtaining one lesser conviction.

Where on earth did you get the idea that members of the military are tried in the sort of military commission that Bush created?

This is the problem here, you guys don't even know what you're arguing for.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Where on earth did you get the idea that members of the military are tried in the sort of military commission that Bush created?

This is the problem here, you guys don't even know what you're arguing for.
Luckily we have you to explain both sides to us. So much concentrated wisdom in one so young . . .
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Except we aren't advocating trying to create an alternative system, merely using the one that already exists - a system progressives deem good enough for determining guilt and punishment our military, but evidently not good enough for terrorists. It speaks volumes that no one on the left is arguing that Ghailani is not responsible for murdering a few hundred human beings, nor displaying dismay that he has escaped punishment on those charges. Instead the left contents itself with blaming Bush.

The military justice system isn't more applicable than the civilian one, in fact probably less so. Plus it has all the limitations you dislike in the civilian legal system, so it wouldn't appear to solve your problem.

I don't know whether he's guilty or innocent of the charges. Unlike many people, I don't pretend to have magical insight surpassing that of teams of investigators, lawyers, judges and jurors. And the debate isn't about that, because we're a bunch of random people on the Internet. We can argue the general applicability of a court system, but trying to argue the facts of the case we'd sound, quite honestly, silly.

As far as beacons of light, we had two of those on 9/11, with American citizens leaping from them to burst on the pavement far below. Our primary concern should be avoiding repetition of this and of the embassy bombings, NOT bickering over whom is most to blame for our failure to obtain murder convictions. And certainly not trumpeting our "triumph" in obtaining one lesser conviction.

Clearly this is where you and I differ. Fighting terrorism is indeed important. But it shouldn't be our only concern. As my signature suggests, I believe that national defense can't abandon the principles that make defense of the nation worthwhile.

But don't mistake that for ignoring the tragedy of 9/11, or giving up the fight against terrorism, in the name of principles. I don't reject the idea that we can both protect ourselves from terrorism and maintain the moral high ground.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Luckily we have you to explain both sides to us. So much concentrated wisdom in one so young . . .

You're the one that seemed to think detainees at guantanamo were being tried in the same system as members of our military. The funny part is that you get these loony ideas in your head that have no connection to reality and then get TERRIBLY MAD at how horrible those liberals must be for believing in your made up ideas.

If you stopped saying factually incorrect things, I would stop telling you about them.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Except we aren't advocating trying to create an alternative system, merely using the one that already exists - a system progressives deem good enough for determining guilt and punishment our military, but evidently not good enough for terrorists.

As others have pointed out, these kangaroo military courts are in no way related to military justice.

UCMJ

And just to note that lots of JAG's have condemned the very military courts you are trying to defend. I think they know a little more then you about this, since you don't even know the difference between a made up court and the UCMJ.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
After thinking about this while working the last few days to me the outstanding issue is the outstanding result of only one count sticking because the methods used tainted the evidence.

The reason this is outstanding is the very nature of why our legal system is the hallmark by which the rest of the world measures themselves. No ideology, fear, or political machination can usurp the base fairness and impartiality of the rule of law. If you break the rules you get punished, if the punisher breaks the rule they get held to the same standard.

I am still amazed so many feel that torture is justified in ANY case...ANY.....
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
After thinking about this while working the last few days to me the outstanding issue is the outstanding result of only one count sticking because the methods used tainted the evidence.

The reason this is outstanding is the very nature of why our legal system is the hallmark by which the rest of the world measures themselves. No ideology, fear, or political machination can usurp the base fairness and impartiality of the rule of law. If you break the rules you get punished, if the punisher breaks the rule they get held to the same standard.

I am still amazed so many feel that torture is justified in ANY case...ANY.....

Your sentiment is good, but there are a couple problems you missed.

One, the judge cravenly assured the public that even he'd been found not guilty on ALL charges, he'd still have been held indefinitely imprisoned under Bush/Obama rules.

Second, the punishers who tortured had the evidence thrown out but were NOT punished for their torturing.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
Your sentiment is good, but there are a couple problems you missed.

One, the judge cravenly assured the public that even he'd been found not guilty on ALL charges, he'd still have been held indefinitely imprisoned under Bush/Obama rules.

Second, the punishers who tortured had the evidence thrown out but were NOT punished for their torturing.

If you look at applicable law right now John Yoo is basically considered a laughingstock and the consul rendered is in no way considered still applicable. Even the Bush administration walked away from it in the waning months of their administration.

Do I think that a robust non partisan investigation culminating in a Nuremberg style trial for those that facilitated torture is merited?

Yes....

I can see why the Obama administration stayed away from this issue because of the economic and political climate but a real opportunity was lost since the precedent has been set that presidents are above the law and by virtue of their ascended positions are without reproach...

Do I think that this precedent is dangerous and damaging to the legacy of the Us?

Absolutely...

I may have been overly optimistic but my 11 month old daughter started walking today..
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
After thinking about this while working the last few days to me the outstanding issue is the outstanding result of only one count sticking because the methods used tainted the evidence.

The reason this is outstanding is the very nature of why our legal system is the hallmark by which the rest of the world measures themselves. No ideology, fear, or political machination can usurp the base fairness and impartiality of the rule of law. If you break the rules you get punished, if the punisher breaks the rule they get held to the same standard.

I am still amazed so many feel that torture is justified in ANY case...ANY.....

Most of the country, and a lot of people on P&N, don't feel that the law applies when its someone they don't "like"

Thus you get the ridiculous situations like:

-People torturing US citizens = illegal
-US torturing people = legal

-Westboro protesting = OK to commit crimes against them, on the premise that they "deserved it", and police should not investigate said crimes.

Plenty of posts here that confirm this...the law only applies when they want it to. Pathetic.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
But of course you don't like the tainted fruit doctrine. It makes it so hard to make use of torture-obtained evidence. Why not just relax the rules of evidence developed over the past decades? Who needs constitutional protections? Rulings based on the Constitution should be ignored, unless of course they have to do with the 2nd Amendment. In fact, let's start allowing cops to beat up suspects again during interrogations, like they did 50 or 60 years ago. We all know what we want: We want the bad guys convicted, and we don't care how we do it.

Come to think of it: The laws limiting illegal searches are pretty burdensome, too. Why don't we just allow the cops to break into pretty much anyone's house - if you have nothing to hide, why be concerned? Why require search warrants - they just protect criminals, after all.

Does that about sum up your attitudes?

Whose police, the foriegn country's or our caused the 'fruit to be tainted'? Foreign police are a problem we have to deal with when attempting to extend our (domestic) civilian criminal justice procedures abroad, our rules are not their rules.

If this crime were committed here, could our police have identified the chain of distribution for the TNT quickly through it's chemical signature? We can't do that abroad because we can't regulate those foreign countries' TNT/explosives manufacturers.

Upon capturing an AQ operative is there any reason for haste? Do you take your sweet time and ensure a conviction, or are you in a hurry to identify other plots and possibly save hundreds of lives? Which do you place a higher priority on? A sound conviction or the saving of lives? This is rarely, if ever, a concern for domestic crime.

Could, or did, our police find another (lawful per USA standards) avenue to get that evidence? If I understand correctly, even if the answer were 'yes' it wouldn't matter, evidence once tainted cannot be used. Is there any reason to quickly determine an AQ source for explosives? I'd say 'yes', might be very helpful in stopping other plots.

Fern
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
So spidey you must have been leading the charge to free Jose Padilla?

US citizen, arrested on US soil, but still thrown in a dark place for years with no charges or recourse.

Oh wait, of course it was GWB protecting America from the terrorists so it was ok that Padilla was locked up without a trial. If the correct Power says it is ok then you think it is fine?

Gitmo, rendition, Abu Gahrab, and all the cases like them lead to a place that is the opposite of what the US is supposed to stand for.

I don't know what part you don't get. Our legal system is built to protect people on our soil with our laws. Once you cross the line to bring enemies of war against us into that system it fails. That is why we have different rules when off country.

I can kill you outside country in defense of my country with little recourse. If you attack me outside country and kill my countrymen then you are subject to international military court.

Don't try this principles of the US crap hippie. We are at war and to behave differently or coddle the enemy is to our detriment as witnessed in this atrocity of justice.

Obama screwed up big time here, BIG TIME. This outcome was predicted, so a big I TOLD YOU SO to all the leftists.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
So spidey you must have been leading the charge to free Jose Padilla?

US citizen, arrested on US soil, but still thrown in a dark place for years with no charges or recourse.

Oh wait, of course it was GWB protecting America from the terrorists so it was ok that Padilla was locked up without a trial. If the correct Power says it is ok then you think it is fine?

Gitmo, rendition, Abu Gahrab, and all the cases like them lead to a place that is the opposite of what the US is supposed to stand for.

That falls into what I mentioned....laws only apply when you want them to, at least according to a lot of people here on P&N. Pathetic, but there it is.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The military justice system isn't more applicable than the civilian one, in fact probably less so. Plus it has all the limitations you dislike in the civilian legal system, so it wouldn't appear to solve your problem.

I don't know whether he's guilty or innocent of the charges. Unlike many people, I don't pretend to have magical insight surpassing that of teams of investigators, lawyers, judges and jurors. And the debate isn't about that, because we're a bunch of random people on the Internet. We can argue the general applicability of a court system, but trying to argue the facts of the case we'd sound, quite honestly, silly.



Clearly this is where you and I differ. Fighting terrorism is indeed important. But it shouldn't be our only concern. As my signature suggests, I believe that national defense can't abandon the principles that make defense of the nation worthwhile.

But don't mistake that for ignoring the tragedy of 9/11, or giving up the fight against terrorism, in the name of principles. I don't reject the idea that we can both protect ourselves from terrorism and maintain the moral high ground.

Conservatives fight terrorism; progressives fight crime. To progressives, blowing up an embassy is a crime, not an act of war. The side that is continually whining about the USA being the world's policeman wants the USA to literally be the world's policeman - just not a military power.

Frankly, I don't think we can fight terrorism and the progressive movement both. I'm giving up. Try them in civilian court, maybe we'll convict them on something more times than not. Or just let them go, kick them out of the country, concentrate on patting down and disrobing every 80 year old grandmother and seven year boy in the name of "security". Frankly, at this point either works for me, but as a country we look ludicrous trying to fight terrorism and liberalism too. Let's just agree that occasionally Muslim terrorists are going to kill a bunch of people and it's really no big deal. Then we can all go back to the way things were before 9/11. We'll save literally trillions - no Department of Homeland Security, no War of Terror, no foreign entanglements killing our soldiers. Who says soldiers' lives should be less important than the occasional airliner of civilians anyway? We'll put up some nice memorials, plant a few crescent-shaped groves of red maples, and go on with our lives.

This isn't Israel; terrorism will have very little effect on most of our lives. Rather, it's the insane attempts that we make at fighting terrorism whilst preserving political correctness that are affecting our lives, whether it's abusive searches at airports or the trillions spent on TSA and on our wars. Does anyone think that returning to the security screening of September 10th will discourage more people from flying than do our current security procedures? Let's just all agree to ignore it.
 

dca221

Member
Jun 21, 2008
135
0
71
Except we aren't advocating trying to create an alternative system, merely using the one that already exists - a system progressives deem good enough for determining guilt and punishment our military, but evidently not good enough for terrorists.
How do you know without a reasonable doubt the people in GTMO are terrorists? Do you take the government's word for it? Remember that Rumsfeld called them "the worst of the worst", and then released a few hundred of them. Or are you OK if a few innocent people get their lives screwed up so that some true terrorists can be locked away indefinitely? Are you willing to destroy some innocent peron's life so can you reduce the risk of a terrorist attack by some arbitrary percentage?


It speaks volumes that no one on the left is arguing that Ghailani is not responsible for murdering a few hundred human beings, nor displaying dismay that he has escaped punishment on those charges. Instead the left contents itself with blaming Bush.
I haven't seen the evidence that guy is guilty. I am not saying he is not. But if there is sufficient evidence he is guilty, then bring it try him like a criminal, without glorifying him, and while sticking to the American principles. If someone who was in charge horribly screwed the whole case such that now we cannot bring the evidence forward the guy and convict the guy like he should be, then whose fault is it? The person in charge now who is trying to do best with the hand he is dealt, or the guy who screwed up dealing the hand?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Whose police, the foriegn country's or our caused the 'fruit to be tainted'? Foreign police are a problem we have to deal with when attempting to extend our (domestic) civilian criminal justice procedures abroad, our rules are not their rules.

If this crime were committed here, could our police have identified the chain of distribution for the TNT quickly through it's chemical signature? We can't do that abroad because we can't regulate those foreign countries' TNT/explosives manufacturers.

Upon capturing an AQ operative is there any reason for haste? Do you take your sweet time and ensure a conviction, or are you in a hurry to identify other plots and possibly save hundreds of lives? Which do you place a higher priority on? A sound conviction or the saving of lives? This is rarely, if ever, a concern for domestic crime.

Could, or did, our police find another (lawful per USA standards) avenue to get that evidence? If I understand correctly, even if the answer were 'yes' it wouldn't matter, evidence once tainted cannot be used. Is there any reason to quickly determine an AQ source for explosives? I'd say 'yes', might be very helpful in stopping other plots.

Fern

Another fan of "24", I see...

The saving of lives scenario is just another bit of simulated rationality- first, reach a conclusion, then amass arguments in its favor...
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
Another fan of "24", I see...

The saving of lives scenario is just another bit of simulated rationality- first, reach a conclusion, then amass arguments in its favor...

If you had even the slightest clue about how many lives are saved every day because of information obtained from captured combatants, you'd change your tune.

If I capture a suicide bomber before he was able to detonate... you want to wait until he has a lawyer before I can question him about who his buddies are and where they are going to attack? You want our legal system to apply across the board, around the world, so that must be what you think should happen.