Cheney: Waterboarding works (YouTube)

[mawilson 2,133]

Ideologically appointed judges? Hmmm

Aren't they all?

I doubt it.

I can't imagine calling the judge "liberally biased" would be considered a valid defence in a criminal courtroom.

Judges - particularly Supreme Court justices - tend to represent the political agenda and ideological

views of the party in government at the time of their appointment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ideologically appointed judges? Hmmm

Aren't they all?

I doubt it.

I can't imagine calling the judge "liberally biased" would be considered a valid defence in a criminal courtroom.

Judges - particularly Supreme Court justices - tend to represent the political agenda and ideological

views of the party in government at the time of their appointment.

Sure - but there's only so far you can take that.

When a judge dismisses a case for lack of evidence or for procedural reasons - its because the law demands specific criteria for ensuring a fair trial and a solid conviction. Adhering to that criteria doesn't mean they "aren't taking it seriously".

Edited December 19, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[mawilson 2,133]

When a judge dismisses a case for lack of evidence or for procedural reasons - its because the law demands specific criteria for ensuring a fair trial and a solid conviction. Adhering to that criteria doesn't mean they "aren't taking it seriously".

The law demands no such thing for non-citizen terrorists captured on foreign soil and

kept on foreign soil who have committed hostile acts against the US. These people

are not garden-variety criminals and different rules should apply. I'm not saying

"no rules", just a different set of rules. They should be charged and tried and all that,

but releasing them because of some procedural fuckup is outright irresponsible.

[HAL 9000 96]

When a judge dismisses a case for lack of evidence or for procedural reasons - its because the law demands specific criteria for ensuring a fair trial and a solid conviction. Adhering to that criteria doesn't mean they "aren't taking it seriously".

The law demands no such thing for non-citizen terrorists captured on foreign soil and

kept on foreign soil who have committed hostile acts against the US. These people

are not garden-variety criminals and different rules should apply. I'm not saying

"no rules", just a different set of rules. They should be charged and tried and all that,

but releasing them because of some procedural fuckup is outright irresponsible.

I agree. Suspects detained with sufficient evidence to detain should be subjected to due process until it has been exhausted beyond any reasonable cause- convict or release should mean there is no further process to pursue with them. Indefinite detention while 'evidence' is collected is NOT sufficient to justify detention when the evidence for the detention is based on whom they associate with- as is apparently the case with many of the detainees at this point.

This isn't a separate legal criterion... its the proper application of A legal criterion that best represents a just judicial system.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When a judge dismisses a case for lack of evidence or for procedural reasons - its because the law demands specific criteria for ensuring a fair trial and a solid conviction. Adhering to that criteria doesn't mean they "aren't taking it seriously".

The law demands no such thing for non-citizen terrorists captured on foreign soil and

kept on foreign soil who have committed hostile acts against the US. These people

are not garden-variety criminals and different rules should apply. I'm not saying

"no rules", just a different set of rules. They should be charged and tried and all that,

but releasing them because of some procedural fuckup is outright irresponsible.

Well that's dodgy reasoning - given that the nature of the arrests requires blind faith in the idea that everyone in these secret prisons deserves to be there (which I might add isn't really a completely unjustifiable assumption - unless you accept and justify the possibility of innocents being caught up in the mix). Besides, I'm not sure how guerila fighters picked up on foreign battlefields can be claimed to have committed "hostile acts against the US", that's a tenuous statement at best. They may have fought against the US military, but I don't think that's an offense against the State - unless you do it as a USC (in which case its treason).

As to the law - neither of us is particularly knowledgable about it so making arbitrary statements of fact is silly. The reality is that the judges appointed to oversee these cases do work to established criteria and have clearly decided that procedural aspects are important. Given the secrecy around this process - I'm not sure how this "different set of criteria" should be implemented and managed, as it would be operated largely behind closed doors and without the accepted forms of judicial oversight. Its not a good precedent to make - especially in a climate where a person can be arrested (in the US) under terrorism laws for chaining themselves up outside a McDonalds.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Paul Daniels