• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Terrorist found not guilty

I don't believe BHO is all that Conservative yet he didn't make a move to repeal that act. Perhaps it serves a legitimate purpose.

It doesn't, and I'm not saying there weren't dems involved in it's signing it actually went through pretty easily in both parties. I'm saying that an overwhelming number of republicans have been more willing to put civil liberties on the back burner for "security". Also this is an issue that I am extremely opposed to the current administration.
 
"Also this is an issue that I am extremely opposed to the current administration."


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How effective has your opposition actually been? Would it be fair to say that your opposition to Obama's renewal of the Patriot Act is ineffective?
 
It doesn't, and I'm not saying there weren't dems involved in it's signing it actually went through pretty easily in both parties. I'm saying that an overwhelming number of republicans have been more willing to put civil liberties on the back burner for "security". Also this is an issue that I am extremely opposed to the current administration.

Well that puts a different light on it!The Liberals and Conservatives are both wanting to invade your home and yet you appear skeptical of 'security".

Maybe there is no such thing.
 
Well that puts a different light on it!The Liberals and Conservatives are both wanting to invade your home and yet you appear skeptical of 'security".

Maybe there is no such thing.

That is really outside the original point, changing the focus of the argument. What I was getting at was the comment about not caring about how evidence is obtained. I'm not doing the semantic thing today.
 
"Also this is an issue that I am extremely opposed to the current administration."


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How effective has your opposition actually been? Would it be fair to say that your opposition to Obama's renewal of the Patriot Act is ineffective?

Would it be fair to say that that has nothing to do with the original argument, would it also be fair to say that given your argument here that posting on this site at all is a waste of time?
 
That is really outside the original point, changing the focus of the argument. What I was getting at was the comment about not caring about how evidence is obtained. I'm not doing the semantic thing today.

You're quite right. It has drifted away and I'm partly responsible for that.

But sloppy statements such as, "Are you suggesting that police should just be able to do as they please?" or "conservatives say they want smaller government but then they want to let the police or military invade our privacy and our homes" is hyperbole. I know of no one who supports either of these contentions.
 
You're quite right. It has drifted away and I'm partly responsible for that.

But sloppy statements such as, "Are you suggesting that police should just be able to do as they please?" or "conservatives say they want smaller government but then they want to let the police or military invade our privacy and our homes" is hyperbole. I know of no one who supports either of these contentions.

That's fair enough, most of the point of your quote was that strictly speaking conservatives and people who want limited government shouldn't be for things like the patriot act. And when said the way I said it no one actually supports those things but the quote here however is nearly as ridiculous when you look at it.

I have always found the whole "inadmissible evidence" to be a crock.

are you any less of a drug dealer just because the cops didn't have a search warrant when they found 8 million $$$ of drugs in your house?

are you any less guilty of murder because the cop forgot to read you your rights before you confessed?

are you any less of a terrorist because they poured some water over your head to get you to confess?

people alway whine and cry about how the system sucks because sometimes an innocent person is convicted. how about all those times where some guilty POS is released due to some bull**** technicality?

It's an argument which has raged for decades. It would put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove these violations took place, rather than put the burden on the government to show that the evidence was obtained cleanly. The burden should always be on the government.

Inadmissibility is the most libertarian way to do it.

Harshaw's view isn't unlike my own in this quote here.
 
Would it be fair to say that that has nothing to do with the original argument, would it also be fair to say that given your argument here that posting on this site at all is a waste of time?

1. Maybe, maybe not.

2. No.
 
Been out of the thread for a bit, but wanted to add a little. Going back to the thrust of the debate, I believe it to be the wisdom in choosing a Civilian Court trial vs. a Military Commission, and a debate over whether or not the outcomes would vary. The admissability of evidence has been one of the issues raised. Let me elaborate and add to that.

1) The judges in a Military Commisiion are also the jury. As such, they rule on what they let themselves hear. They regard themselves more highly than a common civilian jury, and the pattern has been for them to want to hear the evidence, then decide how much to pretend not to matter because of torture and coercion.

2) The verdict need not be unanimous with a Commission. 2/3rds will do.

3) While evidence may be categorized as obtained by "torture" or "coercion", Military Commissions are also granted leeway in whether or not they will allow it. If it is deemed to have probative value, that is to be deemed significant enough, they can allow it. Or they can allow it for partial consideration. This will also vary based upon whether or not the coersion occurred before or after Dec 30, 2005, when the Detainee Treatment Act went into effect.

More about Military Commissions here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/manual-mil-commissions.pdf

There is no doubt that the average defendent has somehwhat less Constitutional protections with a Commission. It can also be argued that most defendents there are not U.S. Citizens to begin with, and therefore do not have all the same protections as an American citizen to begin with.

However, just the above three differences allow for the possibility of verdicts different from the Civilian process, weighted against the defendent. There are other advantages/disadvantages, but they do not go to evidence and verdict.
 
Last edited:
I take comfort in the fact that the "one charge" they got him on carries a minimum 20 year sentence and a max of life. :shrug:

Shhh - don't tell J-Mac. He didn't bother to read the article he posted.
 
Shhh - don't tell J-Mac. He didn't bother to read the article he posted.


Hmm....Trolling again Hazel? I read everything before I post it. I just don't believe that 20 years is what America, or Obama had in mind with no conviction on the murder this man caused. In fact the only reason to bring it up now is the highlight on how far sympathizers like yourself will go to muddy the fact that this was embarrassing to Obama.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom