My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091122/D9C4RM3O1.html)

NEW YORK (AP) - The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."



:tap:

My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091122/D9C4RM3O1.html)



:tap:

We already know why they did it. They are murderous members of a fanatical religion, with no conscience and no respect for life.

Now the Muslim president has given them a platform from which they can throw their feces to the media like a Dairy Farm manure spreader.

Thanks Obama, Thanks Holder.

How's that Hope and Change working?

We already know why they did it. They are murderous members of a fanatical religion, with no conscience and no respect for life.

Now the Muslim president has given them a platform from which they can throw their feces to the media like a Dairy Farm manure spreader.

Thanks Obama, Thanks Holder.

How's that Hope and Change working?

That is your view. Look at our actions from an Iraqi's view point. Your nation is lead by a kook, homicidal maniac who you've happened to learn how to get by in his world. Dangerous but, stable. Then, the US invades, destroying the country, instituting chaos, 100,000's war dead, imposing their world view on yours. There isn't an imperialist nation in history who were not convinced their way was better than the nations they took over.

Look at A'stan from their view. Same thing. The way, the life they know vs. what some foreigners imposed on them.

As for Saudi, we're gonna get the story of their faith, of our corrupting their nation, the tyranny of their monarchs, their sense of helplessness and desperation for their way of life, their traditions, their culture.

Our professor asked me to forward this note, since she won't be able to make it in today.


Okay class, today's reading assignment is Rochin v California (1952), 342 US 165. Once the class has read the assignment, it can have an open discussion of how that Supreme Court opinion might affect the judicial proceedings relating to the trials of the '9/11 defendants'. Particularly, does it create a legal basis or argument on which the defendants might RIGHTFULLY make the proceedings an exploration of the so called torture that they were victims of, as opposed to their actual guilt or innocence? That is to say, could those defendant's attorneys acknowledge their guilt, and then assert that the court must move on to an examination of their treatment while in captivity, in order to determine whether or not convictions against them can be sustained, even in light of their guilt? Further, how reasonable would it be for the trial court to either agree or disagree with such an assertion?

While reading Rochin, I'd like you to focus particular attention on the legal basis on which the high Court based its decision to reverse the conviction. Was it based on the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, pursuant to, say, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, or perhaps the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against being compelled to be a witness against oneself? If not, then what was the Constitutional basis, and how did the high Court interpret that basis to apply in Rochin? If answers to these questions are not immediately clear, then I would suggest that Justice Black's concurring opinion might provide some valuable insight.

For extra credit, industrious members of the class can endeavor to determine whether or not there have been any subsequent rulings of the Supreme Court that substantially reverse the holding in Rochin, or further articulate what that holding means. For gold-star extra credit, in the absence of such rulings, especially ambitious members might look into Circuit rulings, in order to glean how they shed light on (and to what extent they have been consistent with regard to) the legal notion 'born', or at least acknowledged, in Rochin.

I hope this makes for an interesting, enlightening and provocative class discussion. I look forward to following up on this when next we see each other.

That is your view. Look at our actions from an Iraqi's view point. Your nation is lead by a kook, homicidal maniac who you've happened to learn how to get by in his world. Dangerous but, stable. Then, the US invades, destroying the country, instituting chaos, 100,000's war dead, imposing their world view on yours. There isn't an imperialist nation in history who were not convinced their way was better than the nations they took over.

Look at A'stan from their view. Same thing. The way, the life they know vs. what some foreigners imposed on them.

As for Saudi, we're gonna get the story of their faith, of our corrupting their nation, the tyranny of their monarchs, their sense of helplessness and desperation for their way of life, their traditions, their culture.

Hussein was killing more people in his mulchers than we killed during the entire war. Hussein had already killed thousands with his invasion of Kuwait and his war with Iran, and who knew who he would attack next as he had already broken his promises made to the first president Bush. Are you referring to the First gulf war where we saved Kuwait , or the second when you say we invaded and destroyed their country. Didnt Hussein destroy a portion of his country and cause an ecological disaster when he drained the marshes ? How many did he kill with poison gas? Should we have just went away and allowed Hussein to invade Kuwait??
Bush was wrong in thinking Iraq would accept us as their saviors, but he forgot how many of them were already corrupted by Hussein. You are calling America Imperialist? What country have we gone into and stayed? We only ask for enough of their country to bury our dead. Today we dont even want that, we bring our dead home. I agree with you on Afghanistan, If they wish to live in their 10th century land let them, Let them beat and kill their women, if only they would keep it in their own country, but they want to export their beastly attitudes and religion on others. Again you are letting your BDS control your thoughts.

If we had not attacked Iraq when we did : Sooner or later we would have had to go there as Hussein would have kept pushing until we did.

We now face much worse than George Bush whether you want to believe it or not and you are still rehashing your old dissappointment in him . Bush is past, right or wrong we are facing real danger now with this fool we have in the White House and his stooges who are backing him in the Congress.

Pissing and moaning about Bush mistakes wont stop this fool from making us appear weak, from destroying our alliances with former allies. from destroying our economy, from making us government slaves through health care and Cap
and Trade.

I was dissappointed in Bush also, but as time goes on I believe history will prove him a lot better than you wish to admit.

That is your view. Look at our actions from an Iraqi's view point. Your nation is lead by a kook, homicidal maniac who you've happened to learn how to get by in his world. Dangerous but, stable. Then, the US invades, destroying the country, instituting chaos, 100,000's war dead, imposing their world view on yours. There isn't an imperialist nation in history who were not convinced their way was better than the nations they took over.

Look at A'stan from their view. Same thing. The way, the life they know vs. what some foreigners imposed on them.

As for Saudi, we're gonna get the story of their faith, of our corrupting their nation, the tyranny of their monarchs, their sense of helplessness and desperation for their way of life, their traditions, their culture.

Damned right it's my view and I am not going to let your BDS change it either.
If you think 911 was justified by anything Bush did you are full of crap.
Bush wasnt in office when they bombed the WTC the first time.

Splain that Ricky.

Damned right it's my view and I am not going to let your BDS change it either.
If you think 911 was justified by anything Bush did you are full of crap.
Bush wasnt in office when they bombed the WTC the first time.

Splain that Ricky.

You can spend the rest of your life and NEVER find where I blamed, or even suggested, 9/11 was his fault.

You will find where I say he failed to act on whacking OBL on his first day in office. If Clinton shoulda done it, and he should have, a national security issue, then so should have Dubbya.

Your Bush Denial Syndrome is in good order I see, taking offense to things not even said.

You are calling America Imperialist? What country have we gone into and stayed?

Please tell me you are kidding. Please.

If we had not attacked Iraq when we did : Sooner or later we would have had to go there as Hussein would have kept pushing until we did.



This is Bush Denial Syndrome. I don't disagree, at all, that we would have had to keep dealing with Saddam. However, what you and your fellow deniers constantly do is give out points for intentions and effort and totally leave results out of the equation.

For one thing, what we did, under Bush, was not the ONLY good option. For another, he failed at the option he chose. For yet another, the last thing any American president can afford to do is what Bush did; awaken the ghosts of Viet ####ing Nam.

We now face much worse than George Bush whether you want to believe it or not and you are still rehashing your old dissappointment in him . Bush is past, right or wrong we are facing real danger now with this fool we have in the White House and his stooges who are backing him in the Congress.



No. Obama is not worse. Yet. He is VERY much on course to be worse but, Bush not only wrecked the economy, got us trapped in two quagmires, expanded government scope and cost, brought about TARP but, his worse sin was bequeathing us...Obama.

Bush spent over $5 trill into the black hole. Obama may well catch him by end of next year and, if Obama gets his socialized medicine, we will have a new cancer to go along with SS and medicare.

One day, you may actually come around to honestly asking how we got here.

And Obama is impossible absent the shear ineptitude and poor decisions of George W. Bush.

:buddies:

Please tell me you are kidding. Please.



hehehe I think he was referring to permanent take over


I am sure the Islamist would argue the current Gobberment in Iraq is a western puppet state ... same with A-stan .... however our good intentions


but you cannot accuse the US of controlling Western Europe or Korea or Japan ...


but it is not looking good if we do not get out ....

fek'em and feed 'em PORK ... let em fend for themselves ... they will welcome some dictator in short order because all they know is subjugation by there own ...

I was dissappointed in Bush also, but as time goes on I believe history will prove him a lot better than you wish to admit.

HOW? How is TARP ever going to be good? He sanctified 'too big to fail', aka, "Above the law" as SOP.

He expanded the government, massively, with DHS.

He cost this nation $5 tril in debt and another $13 tril in lost home and stock value.

Iran is far stronger today than they were in 2001. Their power and influence over Iraq went from being non existent 8 years ago to near total now. We've made Iraq virtually an Iranian satellite state.

We did not set us on a course of nuclear power or expanding domestic oil reserves to battle price fluctuations.

Our China debt exploded under him.

He presided over 6 years of one party rule and lost it.

How does this get better over time?

hehehe I think he was referring to permanent take over


Define permanent.

We're still in Korea and Japan and Germany. :lol:

The one place we're not in, and no longer pissing resources into is the place we lost; Vietnam.

Define permanent.

We're still in Korea and Japan and Germany. :lol:

The one place we're not in, and no longer pissing resources into is the place we lost; Vietnam.



yes but if we were in those countries as Imperialists we would be running the gobberments ....

or they would be controlled by someone appointed from Washington DC

yes but if we were in those countries as Imperialists we would be running the gobberments ....

or they would be controlled by someone appointed from Washington DC

And that is how we reconcile what we do vs. our constitution. We go invade, we take over and then...we get nothing out of it.

As far as I am concerned, we did it right in destroying the Japanese and Germans and wiping the slate clean. We did it 1/2 ass in Korea and we have 35,000 of our people WE have placed in a hostage situation. We did it wrong in Vietnam and lost but, if nothing else, we're gone. Not our problem any more. What does America get out of KIA? Or the ships we don't get to build? Or other heavy industry?

In A'stan and Iraq, we are doing it 1/2 ass and we are making our enemies stronger and ourselves weaker. So deal, that.

In A'stan and Iraq, we are doing it 1/2 ass and we are making our enemies stronger and ourselves weaker. So deal, that.



I agreed with you a couple weeks ago, is was past time to

"Exit Stage Right"

k4qFxTTi8q0

Hussein was killing more people in his mulchers than we killed during the entire war. Hussein had already killed Millions with his invasion of Kuwait and his war with Iran,

Small correction, but I think worthy.

And I THINK we hadn't invaded Iraq prior to 9/11... most of us #####ed that we didn't, but the first desert Storm, we got them out of Kuwait, like we promised, ended hotilities, and came home.

We (as in the WORLD community) should have done something about Hussein decades prior, but nobody listened...

We (as in the WORLD community) should have done something about Hussein decades prior, but nobody listened...

this aint personal .... speaking to the general topic

:buddies:

ah huh ....

and what would that be bob ?

the (worthless IMHO) UN passed how many resolutions ? who is going to do what ?? the French, Germans ? they were too busy doing business with Iraq to put the guy out on the street spending millions of euros with European Companies

plenty of other places in the world today beset with violence and Dictators ...

or in Somli - no Gobberment only warlords wanna expend more American Treasure on futile nation building ?


pass out Weapons and Ammo, when people get tired of being slaughtered they will do something until then your wasting time and American Lives for ungrateful retches

:popcorn:

Not for nothing, but America became imperialist in 1865. Or, maybe it was 1861? No bother, it was around then.

Not for nothing, but America became imperialist in 1865. Or, maybe it was 1861? No bother, it was around then.

:buddies:


Good Point .... ( Looks like ) Fascist Actions to me ...


I am doing this for your own good

Okay, so who read Rochin v California, and is ready to participate in a group discussion of how, or if, it, or rulings pursuant to it, might affect the Holder Trials? :tap:

Okay, so who read Rochin v California, and is ready to participate in a group discussion of how, or if, it, or rulings pursuant to it, might affect the Holder Trials? :tap:



ah ah ah ..... :faint:

Okay, so who read Rochin v California, and is ready to participate in a group discussion of how, or if, it, or rulings pursuant to it, might affect the Holder Trials? :tap:

My dog ate my monitor... :shrug:

Can I buy a Vowel .... :popcorn:

Rochin v. California (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1951/1951_83)


Facts of the Case:

Rochin swallowed drug capsules to dispose of evidence. The police pummeled him and jumped on his stomach in a vain effort to make him throw up. They took him to a hospital where a doctor was instructed by the police officers to administer an emetic by forceably passing a tube into Rochin's stomach. He vomited the capules and was convicted on the basis of the evidence produced from his vomit.
Question:

Did the police procedure forcing Rochin to vomit violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Conclusion:

The Court reversed the conviction. The police violated Rochin's right to due process of law. Due process was an admittedly vague concept, but it prohibited "conduct that shocks the conscience." This nebulous approach was mocked in a concurring opinion by Justice Black.


From Wiki:

Background

On July 1, 1949, three Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs entered the Rochin's residence without a search warrant and forcibly entered Rochin's room on the second floor.

Upon entering the room, the officers noticed two capsules on the night stand. Rochin immediately swallowed the capsules after officer Jack Jones asked him, "Whose stuff is this?" Jones then grabbed and squeezed Rochin by the neck, as well as shoving his fingers in Rochin's mouth as he attempted to eject the capsules.[1] The officers, unable to obtain the capsules, handcuffed and took Rochin to Angeles Emergency Hospital where he was strapped to an operating table and had a tube forcibly placed in his mouth and into his stomach and given an emetic solution, whereupon he vomited the capsules into a bucket. The officers then retrieved the capsules and tested them to be morphine.[2]

Subsequently, this was submitted as evidence, and Rochin was found guilty of violating California Health and Safety Code § 11500 as having an unlawful possession of morphine.

Rochin appealed his case on the basis that his rights, guaranteed to him by Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution and by Article I(1)(13)(19) of the California Constitution rendered the evidence inadmissible, and that the forced stomach pumping was self-incrimination. The appeals court denied his defense arguing that the evidence was admissible, despite the egregious behavior of the officers, as it was "competent evidence," and the courts are not allowed to question the means in which it was obtained. As the court wrote, "illegally obtained evidence is admissible on a criminal charge in this state."[2]


I am thinking right off entering without a warrant is a bad thing, unless this is another one of those "Probable Causes" cops love to use so much


The Decision

The court voted in an 8-0 decision (Minton abstained), to overturn the decision. Justice Frankfurter wrote the majority opinion which struck down the conviction arguing that the brutality of the means used to extract the evidence from Rochin, "shocks the conscience," and clearly violates the due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Frankfurter also admitted the term "due process" was nebulous; he asserted that it existed in order to preserve the fairness and integrity of the system and that society expects judges to act impartially and to take into account precedence and social context.[3]

The court quoted from the decision of the California Supreme Court, in which two justices dissented, saying,
“ . . . a conviction which rests upon evidence of incriminating objects obtained from the body of the accused by physical abuse is as invalid as a conviction which rests upon a verbal confession extracted from him by such abuse. . . . Had the evidence forced from defendant's lips consisted of an oral confession that he illegally possessed a drug . . . , he would have the protection of the rule of law which excludes coerced confessions from evidence. But because the evidence forced from his lips consisted of real objects, the People of this state are permitted to base a conviction upon it. [We] find no valid ground of distinction between a verbal confession extracted by physical abuse and a confession wrested from defendant's body by physical abuse.[4] ”

Justice Douglas and Black both wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that the lower court's decision should have been overturned based on the Fifth Amendment liberty from self incrimination. Both justices believed that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "due process" incorporated that right. The justices' opinions also offered much criticism of Frankfurter's opinion for the court.

Douglas rebuked the court for suddenly declaring that the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, which had not been an issue up until then, suddenly violated the "decencies of civilized conduct."[5] Black disagreed with the logic in the majority as being contradictory. He argued the opinion enabled the court to nullify the California state law of using illegal evidence based on due process because its application, "shocks the conscience," but then admonishes judges to be impartial and use the society's standards in judgment.



I am guess the fact evidence was forcibly obtained, by making the suspect vomit up the pills .... this will be a kin to getting admissions of Guilt by waterboarding Terrorist suspects

how can you be made to give DNA, Urine or Blood then ?

Rochin v. California (http://law.jrank.org/pages/9905/Rochin-v-California.html)

In Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for police to pump a criminal suspect's stomach and use the resulting evidence at trial. The Court held that such conduct was "shocking to the conscience" and that the evidence must be suppressed under the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.


seems to me it would be a case of self incrimination ...

any medical procedure to gather evidence

Okay, so who read Rochin v California, and is ready to participate in a group discussion of how, or if, it, or rulings pursuant to it, might affect the Holder Trials? :tap:
:howdy: I'll play, but as we do not know what will be used as evidence I think any discussion would be like putting the cart before the horse.

I am guess the fact evidence was forcibly obtained, by making the suspect vomit up the pills .... this will be a kin to getting admissions of Guilt by waterboarding Terrorist suspects

The issue may run even deeper than that. I'm not convinced that Rochin and its progeny have any applicability at all, but I think there is a legitimate question as to whether or not they do. And, they may well open the door to an argument that is viable enough that Attorney General Holder should not have overlooked it. But, then again, maybe he didn't ...

how can you be made to give DNA, Urine or Blood then ?

seems to me it would be a case of self incrimination ...

any medical procedure to gather evidence

You have to consider that this case occurred before the Supreme Court had held that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination applied to states. Apparently, at the time, the relevant California courts did not feel that California's rules offered such protection (at least, not in this case).

:howdy: I'll play, but as we do not know what will be used as evidence I think any discussion would be like putting the cart before the horse.

Ahhh, but there's the rub. It isn't entirely clear whether or not that matters.

And when I say it isn't entirely clear, I sincerely mean it - I'm not just trying to be welcoming of another viewpoint. I posted about this case as a starting point for discussion, because I really don't have an opinion about how it will affect the proceedings in the these trials. Since then, I've read the Supreme Court decisions U.S. v Russell, Hampton v U.S., and about a half dozen circuit court cases (from various circuits, including the 2nd) - as well as snippets from other, referenced cases. Honestly, the more I read, the less inclined I am to have a strong opinion about the possible implications of the 'outrageous government misconduct' doctrine, with regard to the forthcoming judicial proceedings. We are dealing with a nebulous concept, regarding which the Supreme Court has given very little guidance. Even the circuit rulings have done little to clarify what it means and how it might apply and be applied.

That is the point. Rochin opened a door - but a door to where? Where that door might lead, for the most part, has only been explored in theory, and even then, with almost no precision. Russell and Hampton seemed to have notionally affirmed the existence of the outrageous government misconduct defense, but they've lent very little insight beyond that. Are we just talking about excluding evidence that was obtained via government behavior that 'shocks the conscience'? Or, are we talking about a federal court's 'authority to dismiss criminal charges as a sanction for government misconduct', regardless of the legality of the evidence that underpins those charges?

Does this doctrine only acknowledge possible situations 'in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction', when the government conduct in question is some form of participation in the alleged crimes? Or, does it contemplate situations in which the government's lack of respect for 'decencies of civilized conduct', regardless of the relation of that conduct to the commission of the crime or the evidence collected there of, is so violative of the 'fundamental fairness' required by due process, that it dictates that conviction must be barred?

I'm so far from sure about these questions, that I believe the flip of a coin would be as likely to be right as I would. Although I'm sure many people are inclined to have a stronger opinion than I do on the matter, I can't see how anyone can presume to know the 'correct' answer for sure, either way. If someone says they do, then I would tend to believe them either a fool or a liar. If Eric Holder purports to know the answer with certainty, then I believe he is being disingenuous.

The reality is, there is no correct answer - yet. And that's the problem. Even if a conviction is assured based on the evidence, it may be the case that a conviction would be barred based on the government's torture of the defendants (even if that torture did not yield any of the evidence vital to the conviction). That could put an examination of their treatment while in custody, and the legal question of whether or not it rises to the level of outrageous government misconduct, at the forefront of the proceedings - and perhaps, legitimately so. It could easily be a viable grounds for appeal, perhaps even to the Supreme Court. The first time our highest Court examines the bounds of this nebulous concept, in something other than a hypothetical way, it could be in the context of whether or not some of the people, who have been convicted of the 9/11 attacks, have to be set free. Some might argue that that possibility speaks beautifully to what America is, but I suspect it is unlikely to slide smoothly down the throat of most of America.

Again, I'm not sure what to make of this doctrine, and of particular importance, whether or not it will substantially affect the proceedings in question. But, I'm here to tell you that neither does Eric Holder. There's no way that he could. There's no way that he could know for certain that convictions against these people could withstand due process scrutiny on the basis that I'm referring to.

What is the nature of the vague due process right contemplated by Rochin? I don't know, but I know that it is something different than the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

I welcome thoughts and opinions. But, I warn you - counter-intuitively, the more one reads relevant rulings, the more ones ability to offer clear opinions will be compromised.

My dog ate my monitor... :shrug:

Aren't you the one with the 1970s style monitor? You know, the non-flat screen type that is about the size of a recliner? No way a dog can eat one of those - you're obviously lying.

You will be assigned extra homework to make up for your lame excuse.

Aren't you the one with the 1970s style monitor? You know, the non-flat screen type that is about the size of a recliner? No way a dog can eat one of those - you're obviously lying.

You will be assigned extra homework to make up for your lame excuse.

St. Bernard. :shrug:

I am guess the fact evidence was forcibly obtained, by making the suspect vomit up the pills .... this will be a kin to getting admissions of Guilt by waterboarding Terrorist suspects

Let's add this to the mix;

Al Qaeda terrorists using 'butt bombs' to evade detection (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/qaeda_ass_assin_hKiF3TDJkgYItnBQkJXmTN#ixzz0X81ftyHd)

Nobody has any thoughts on the outrageous government misconduct doctrine? Okay, I'll discuss it with myself then. :lmao:

I found this motion (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/KSM%20et%20al%20-%20D%20-%20014%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Outrageous%20Government%20.pdf), filed last year on behalf of Ramzi Bin Al Shibh (is he one of the 5?), asking the Military Commission to dismiss all charges against him on these very grounds - outrageous government misconduct. This was before it was decided to move these cases to civilian court.

In the motion, his attorneys assert that, due to the government's conduct with regard to Ramzi, it has effectively forfeited its jurisdiction over him. They are interpreting the concept in one of the possible ways that alluded to above - that government treatment of suspects can be so outrageous that it, in and of itself, bars their conviction on criminal charges. The motion actually references many of the same cases I referred to earlier, and actually quotes some of the same excerpts (I hadn't found this motion until this morning - but the similarity of references just goes to show how little case law there has been with regard to fleshing out what OGM means).

Naturally, the prosecution's response to this motion asks the Military Judge to deny it. And, as might be expected, it argues an alternative meaning of OGM. It asserts that, even if it were found to have been present, the dismissal of the charges against him is unwarranted, as a matter of law. It asserts that '(t)he accused's remedy, if any, lies in the civil process or prosecution of any offenders'. (*)

Interestingly (especially now), one of the arguments made by the prosecution is that Ramzi has no Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. It asserts that:

Invoking the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Ramzi Bin al Shibh asks this commission to "relinquish personal jurisdiction" over him and for the commission to dismiss the charges based on what he characterizes as "plainly outrageous" governmental conduct in violation of the Due Process Clause. See Motion to Dismiss at 9. However, the Due Process Clause does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants, such as the accused, who are detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be tried for war crimes.

Then it proceeds to cite and explore numerous court cases in order to support the claim that Ramzi does not enjoy due process protections. After having done so, it moves on to assert that, even if Ramzi did enjoy due process protections, he isn't entitled to the relief he seeks.

Now, I can only assume that Ramzi's motion was denied. But, it is worth noting that there seems to be a material change with regard to one of the arguments made by the government - the cases are now in civilian court, where we would presume that the defendants DO enjoy due process protections.

Whose interpretation of the scope of the OGM doctrine is correct? Again, I state plainly that I don't know. And again, therein lies the problem - neither does Eric Holder. (I think the issue has not been sufficiently judicially settled yet - so no one can know, at least not for sure.) If this was an issue that defendants' lawyers were inclined to explore before the Military Commission, you can bet the farm they'll be inclined to pursue it in civilian court, where the legitimacy of asserted due process protections can only be greater.

It should also be noted that, Ramzi's attorney was asking for an outright dismissal or, in the alternative, an evidentiary hearing with regard to the OGM assertion - in other words, a chance to air the dirty laundry with regard to torture. Of course, the government opposed such an evidentiary hearing, such a laundry airing, and asserted that the motion should be denied as a matter of law - that the nature and extent of Ramzi's (mis)treatment didn't matter. Well, if a court decides that their general position is wrong, as a matter of law, then guess what - the stench of that laundry becomes the only issue that matters, and accordingly, the defendants treatment while detained becomes the focus of the proceedings. That's the point, and don't even try to tell me that that possibility is lost on Eric Holder - doing so would be an extreme insult to the man's intelligence.

I will refrain, for now, from casting specific aspersions on his possible motives - I don't think I need to. Once you understand some of the issues in play, they reveal themselves plainly enough.




(*) I think it goes without saying that another remedy is the exclusion of evidence obtained by way of OGM - but that remedy still falls well short of that which Ramzi's attorneys were asking for.

Nobody has any thoughts on the outrageous government misconduct doctrine? Okay, I'll discuss it with myself then. :lmao:



You may want to consider just how defeated many, many people feel these days in terms of our government, the economy, right and wrong and the rules, the limits on government power as we thought we understood them.

The game has become 'go right because they will do right/get ####ed over/excuse their behavior then go left/ they will do right/get ####ed over/excuse their behavior". We are going to go back right, a good bit, this next election but, to what end?

We, the people, have become pivot man in a circle jerk.

This is Bush Denial Syndrome. I don't disagree, at all, that we would have had to keep dealing with Saddam. However, what you and your fellow deniers constantly do is give out points for intentions and effort and totally leave results out of the equation.

For one thing, what we did, under Bush, was not the ONLY good option. For another, he failed at the option he chose. For yet another, the last thing any American president can afford to do is what Bush did; awaken the ghosts of Viet ####ing Nam.

Well Larry then please explain what the next good option for Saddam was?

By the way please make no mention of the UN or economic sanctions because they all failed.

Secondly this is not Vietnam... Maybe you should get some help and get those demons out of your head...

Big difference between 58,0000 dead and 4500 dead... Whole different war and whole different outcome!

Well Larry then please explain what the next good option for Saddam was?

By the way please make no mention of the UN or economic sanctions because they all failed.

Secondly this is not Vietnam... Maybe you should get some help and get those demons out of your head...

Big difference between 58,0000 dead and 4500 dead... Whole different war and whole different outcome!

There are no demons in my head. They're too scared! :lol:

Yes, there is a huge difference between 58,000 KIA and 4,000 or so. However, you are arguing a matter of degree, that X dead for us is OK, Y is not, right? Then, the next question is 'what did we get for our dead and wounded?' and then "What will we get for our next dead and the one after that?"

You will not be hearing much about UN sanctions from me. I would kick the UN out of the US. As for sanctions, I do not see where it is our business or concern to be placing embargoes on Iraq or Iran. Our interest over there is oil and it is only oil.

So, to your question, what should we have done? The invasion option was acceptable to me. Paul Bremers decisions were not. It was mind numbing to watch us make obvious, massive mistake after mistake; disbanding their army when those troops were needed and Rumsfeld was depending on using them to secure the nation. De-Baathification removed the people who knew how to run and control things from any responsibility and productive use and forced them into leaving...or fighting for their lives. Allowing Sadr to set up shop was the last straw for me. THAT is when it dawned on me that Bush had very, very bad ideas on how these things are done. And the contractors, armed ones, was ALWAYS a mistake. Bush should have expanded our military.

Had we not invaded, a simple matter of establishing enough oil reserve capacity (getting back on line) to be able to check any and every move Saddam made in terms of threat to our ONLY national interest; the free flow of oil at market prices.

Please understand; my objections are that we're losing for no good gain, not that we went in.

:buddies:

Sorry, I've been "absent" for a while so I'm just catching up (and I'm the slow one in the class, too, so bear with me please).

Reading all of this leaves me with several questions and thoughts...


Moving this to a civilian court opens up several different areas of defense/argument/resolution possibilities that were not available under military court, most of which provide benefits to the accused. I do not believe that Holder was stupid enough not to know this, so therefore, he had a particular reason/agenda for making this move. What was it?
Do foreign nationals have the same protections and rights under our Constitution as do citizens of the US? If so, and this case cememts that, what, if any impact might this have on future cases in any range of areas, beginning with illegal immigration for starters, and then going practically anywhere as a precedent-setting case?
How will they address "jury composition"? I could see interesting challenges from both sides while trying to obtain a "jury of peers" (assuming that this will BE a jury trial -- let me know if I'm in error as I don't have all the details). Seems to me that a jury of peers would be Muslim fanatics who think and believe the same way the accused people do or who at least share the same religion so the accused has some kind of common ground with them, upon which to judge their actions (endless appeals).
Please tell me that my tax dollars are not paying the legal fees for the defense of these creatures (I would have said people but MY religion cannot rationalize their actions against defenseless people, including children). If so, would it be possible for citizens of the US to file a class action lawsuit for injunctive relief (or some such....)and what provisions of the law would we use to make our case?
Should the court allow into evidence the so-called torture treatment, and I believe that they will with the resulting "outrage" on the world stage (which I believe is one of the main motivations behind moving this case to civil court), and the court finds that it is egregious behavior on the part of the government, could this case be used as a precedent to throw out every single case/charge against ANY person who has experienced this in the course of their detainment by any US personnel, anywhere? I could see this leading to the wholesale release of everyone detained at any point, or at the very least, mass requests to have proceedings moved to civil court.Personally, I believe that these creatures should be subject to the same kind of justice that occurs in their own country -- they're still following the old "eye for an eye" theory, correct? Throw them in a building and send in a drone loaded with gasoline to explode into it. (I'm sure the cost of the drone wouldn't exceed the legal fees we're going to be paying.)

Oh, and strap one of them to it first, so they can be like the little two-year on the first plane into the building.

Yeah, it might make them martyrs in their country but it sure as heck would make a lot of people in my country feel better!

Sorry, I've been "absent" for a while so I'm just catching up (and I'm the slow one in the class, too, so bear with me please).

Reading all of this leaves me with several questions and thoughts...

Moving this to a civilian court opens up several different areas of defense/argument/resolution possibilities that were not available under military court, most of which provide benefits to the accused. I do not believe that Holder was stupid enough not to know this, so therefore, he had a particular reason/agenda for making this move. What was it?
Do foreign nationals have the same protections and rights under our Constitution as do citizens of the US? If so, and this case cememts that, what, if any impact might this have on future cases in any range of areas, beginning with illegal immigration for starters, and then going practically anywhere as a precedent-setting case?
How will they address "jury composition"? I could see interesting challenges from both sides while trying to obtain a "jury of peers" (assuming that this will BE a jury trial -- let me know if I'm in error as I don't have all the details). Seems to me that a jury of peers would be Muslim fanatics who think and believe the same way the accused people do or who at least share the same religion so the accused has some kind of common ground with them, upon which to judge their actions (endless appeals).
Please tell me that my tax dollars are not paying the legal fees for the defense of these creatures (I would have said people but MY religion cannot rationalize their actions against defenseless people, including children). If so, would it be possible for citizens of the US to file a class action lawsuit for injunctive relief (or some such....)and what provisions of the law would we use to make our case?
Should the court allow into evidence the so-called torture treatment, and I believe that they will with the resulting "outrage" on the world stage (which I believe is one of the main motivations behind moving this case to civil court), and the court finds that it is egregious behavior on the part of the government, could this case be used as a precedent to throw out every single case/charge against ANY person who has experienced this in the course of their detainment by any US personnel, anywhere? I could see this leading to the wholesale release of everyone detained at any point, or at the very least, mass requests to have proceedings moved to civil court.Personally, I believe that these creatures should be subject to the same kind of justice that occurs in their own country -- they're still following the old "eye for an eye" theory, correct? Throw them in a building and send in a drone loaded with gasoline to explode into it. (I'm sure the cost of the drone wouldn't exceed the legal fees we're going to be paying.)

Oh, and strap one of them to it first, so they can be like the little two-year on the first plane into the building.

Yeah, it might make them martyrs in their country but it sure as heck would make a lot of people in my country feel better!

You pose some interesting questions. I'll offer my thoughts on them. Sorry for any delay, been helping my brother-in-law hang drywall. :dead: :lol:

1. I suppose we could speculate all day, as there are plenty of plausible motives for the decision. I don't have a problem ascribing to him, at least as primary motives, those reasons that he might represent (I'm not sure exactly what he's said, but I can guess what it might be) - in order to create the perception of fairness, in order that the world regard our actions as reasonable, judicious, or otherwise civilized, in order that the proceedings be more open, and be appreciated as such. To what degree those kinds of, we'll call them noble, intentions drove the decision, I don't know - but I'm sure they played some role in it.

On the other hand, there are some less 'noble' reasons that could have played small, or even large, roles in the decision that was ultimately made. One could be to effectively put the Bush Administration, and its policies, on public trial - at least symbolically. Another could be to create the following win-win scenario. Either they are all convicted, and executed or imprisoned forever, or they would have been, but pursuant to the OGM doctrine, or another legal reason, they could not be held to account for their horrible actions because of the way they were treated in captivity. If the former, then the current justice department gets credit for doing things the 'right' way, and finally getting justice. If the latter turns out to be the case, then Bush, Cheney, et al are the scapegoats - 'see, we had the evidence to put them away, but we couldn't because of what those guys did, it's there fault.' I won't go so far as to say I believe Holder would prefer the latter - but I could be convinced of that, I suppose.

Another possible reason is to further assert, perpetuate and affirm the notion of universal jurisdiction, and the idea of global sovereignty, at the expense of national sovereignty. It seems that many people like the idea of the world having (more) control over nations, and in particular the U.S., and this action certainly lends support to that agenda (however subtly).

2. For the most part, U.S. citizenship is not required in order to enjoy the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. This is not strictly true, but it is true with regard to most rights and, of particular importance to this conversation, with regard to the due process rights of these defendants. In most places, the Constitution refers to 'person', or 'people', or 'person within (a state's) jurisdiction'. I don't think this case is likely to have precedential impact in this regard, as there is already a significant body of case law regarding the Constitutional rights of non-citizens.

3. I'm not sure of the extent to which the right to trial by jury is judicially manifest as the specific right to trial by a 'jury of peers', or even what that means exactly (that said, I don't mean to dismiss the notion as a valid common law principle). Though such language has been used in many different forums and regards, the Constitution uses no such language. The Sixth Amendment states that '(i)n 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;'. Now, generally, that has been taken to mean that the pool of potential jurors needed to be 'representative of the community' - where the 'community' is the one in which the alleged crime occurred. I've had a hard time finding Supreme Court decisions that expressly affirm the right to trial by 'jury of (one's) peers'. One such decision may be Strauder v WV (1879), which asserted that:

The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds.

However, it should be noted that some of the findings in that case have since been dismissed. Getting to the point though, I think that the notion of 'jury of (one's) peers', to the extent that it is a right of criminal defendants, refers mostly to a fair and impartial jury taken from a pool of potential jurors that is fairly representative of the community in which the crime was committed. I suppose I could get lost now in a discussion of where these crimes (i.e. the actual criminal acts of these 9/11 defendants) actually occurred, but I'll opt not to - it's been explored to a fair extent elsewhere.

Point being, though the defendants may try to make some judicial hay with the idea that the jury composition (in regard to being of their 'peers') is a violation of their rights, I doubt they'll actually get too far with it. They'd probably have more success arguing with regard to the impartiality (or presumed lack there of) of the potential jurors.

4. (a) I'm afraid I can't. (b) I doubt any action to enjoin the government from (possibly) providing them with counsel would be able to get out of the starter's box.

5. Fleshing out the meaning and bounds of the outrageous government misconduct doctrine could indeed be rather problematic for the justice system. Of course, as always, the devil is in the details - but it is a Pandora's Box that, if swung wide open, could lead to some interesting places (though it may not have any profound effects at all).

I'd also like to say that I've read a few more circuit court decisions that touch on the notion of outrageous government misconduct. I've not found it possible to glean from them a precise understanding of its bounds - rather, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that such does not exist.

But, I can say a couple of things with some degree of confidence.

(1) Some circuits definitely have recognized the possibility that criminal prosecutions could be barred by the occurrence of OGM, even when that conduct has no relation to the evidence used in those prosecutions.

(2) There has definitely been disagreement between circuits with regard to what OGM might mean, and even, whether or not it is still viable at all as a defense. Dare I say those magic words - 'circuit court split'?

Sorry, I've been "absent" for a while so I'm just catching up (and I'm the slow one in the class, too, so bear with me please).

How will they address "jury composition"? I could see interesting challenges from both sides while trying to obtain a "jury of peers" (assuming that this will BE a jury trial -- let me know if I'm in error as I don't have all the details). Seems to me that a jury of peers would be Muslim fanatics who think and believe the same way the accused people do or who at least share the same religion so the accused has some kind of common ground with them, upon which to judge their actions (endless appeals).




you get one Muslim in the jury and the trial will end in a hung jury ....

and since these fundies believe a woman is only 3/5's a man .... how will they sit with woman sitting on the jury pool ...