Gitmo detainees want to stay there

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

This just gets more bizarre. On CNN, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has again commented on the presumed guilt of KSM, saying this:



If the White House is out there practically guaranteeing both the outcome and the sentence, what is the purpose of trying them in a civil court in the first place?

I thought the reason we were doing this is to "show the world" how American jurisprudence works: habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, due process, etc. All of this is out the window. What you have here is an American show trial.

This is so amateurish it's embarrassing.

He didn't "guarantee" a verdict. He said "likely" which sounds about right.

For a trial to be fair, you don't need a 50% chance of acquittal. You do realize that, right?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He didn't "guarantee" a verdict. He said "likely" which sounds about right.

And before he said "likely" he also said "is going". Your word-parsing aside, Obama, Gibbs, and Holder have all left the distinct impression that there is no chance KSM will be found anything other than guilty. It doesn't matter if they try to qualify it with a weasel word or two. Lawyer-speak like that may work in the courtroom, but it doesn't fly in the court of public opinion.

Moreover, what message does this send the world? How does this appear different from any other show trial in any other despotic nation?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

For a trial to be fair, you don't need a 50% chance of acquittal. You do realize that, right?

Does it require the presumption of innocence?

And what about the appropriateness of the chief executive commenting on a pending criminal trial, predicting the verdict and sentence?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

And before he said "likely" he also said "is going". Your word-parsing aside, Obama, Gibbs, and Holder have all left the distinct impression that there is no chance KSM will be found anything other than guilty. It doesn't matter if they try to qualify it with a weasel word or two. Lawyer-speak like that may work in the courtroom, but it doesn't fly in the court of public opinion.

Moreover, what message does this send the world? How does this appear different from any other show trial in any other despotic nation?



Does it require the presumption of innocence?

And what about the appropriateness of the chief executive commenting on a pending criminal trial, predicting the verdict and sentence?

Sure- you can presume innocence, but that doesn't mean you have to ignore the weight of evidence either. They aren't on the jury, so they can speak about the evidence with which they are familiar and extrapolate from that the odds of a conviction. You could have a 99.9% chance of conviction and still the process could be fair and impartial.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure- you can presume innocence, but that doesn't mean you have to ignore the weight of evidence either. They aren't on the jury, so they can speak about the evidence with which they are familiar and extrapolate from that the odds of a conviction. You could have a 99.9% chance of conviction and still the process could be fair and impartial.

You keep repeating this as though it matters. Tell me, how do you arrive at a number--any number--for a "chance of conviction"? Intrade? There's no statistical model I'm aware of that determines chance of conviction, so the question is totally moot. Who cares what the chances are? What matters is whether the integrity of the system is being violated, and I don't see how you can argue that it isn't.

I ask you again ... how appropriate is it for the chief executive of the country and his senior staff to weigh in on pending cases? Obama (and his mouthpiece, Gibbs) is not some man-on-the-street, and neither is Holder. Their words carry more weight than Mr. Joe Average.

I also ask again, what message do their comments send to the world? When you have the leader of the free world insisting that conviction and even execution* are all but inevitable, how do you expect other countries, especially despots, to take American jurisprudence seriously?



*Where is creekster and his band of merry anti-death-penalty men when you need him?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You keep repeating this as though it matters. Tell me, how do you arrive at a number--any number--for a "chance of conviction"? Intrade? There's no statistical model I'm aware of that determines chance of conviction, so the question is totally moot. Who cares what the chances are? What matters is whether the integrity of the system is being violated, and I don't see how you can argue that it isn't.

I ask you again ... how appropriate is it for the chief executive of the country and his senior staff to weigh in on pending cases? Obama (and his mouthpiece, Gibbs) is not some man-on-the-street, and neither is Holder. Their words carry more weight than Mr. Joe Average.

I also ask again, what message do their comments send to the world? When you have the leader of the free world insisting that conviction and even execution* are all but inevitable, how do you expect other countries, especially despots, to take American jurisprudence seriously?



*Where is creekster and his band of merry anti-death-penalty men when you need him?

Why is it not appropriate for the president to comment on a case of national significance? He isn't on the jury. He isn't involved in the trial. He isn't giving testimony. He won't be deposed. He is a political figure giving his opinion on an upcoming issue of national significance. So what?

What evidence do you have that his statements will taint the process in any way, shape or form? If his statements will taint the process, won't the media's? Won't Glenn Beck's? Won't Mitch McConnell's? Won't yours or mine?

As for the "odds" of conviction, no- there isn't an obvious mechanism to find an exact probability, but you miss the point. The point isn't that we should try to find that exact probability, but that if we could, and if we could peg it at 99.9%, that says nothing about whether or not the trial would be fair. Even if we can't determine with precision what the probability of conviction is, anyone who is familiar with the evidence could have a pretty good idea of the odds of a conviction generally (highly likely, more likely than not, likely, not likely, remote). Obama is familiar with the evidence against KSM, and he is a lawyer and can make a pretty good guess about the odds of conviction. The evidence against KSM is overwhelming, so odds of a conviction are quite high. Saying they are very high isn't tantamount to "guaranteeing" a conviction, nor does it mean the process isn't going to be fair. This doesn't strike me as particularly complicated.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why is it not appropriate for the president to comment on a case of national significance? He isn't on the jury. He isn't involved in the trial. He isn't giving testimony. He won't be deposed. He is a political figure giving his opinion on an upcoming issue of national significance. So what?

Cambridge Police and Henry Gates, Jr.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What evidence do you have that his statements will taint the process in any way, shape or form? If his statements will taint the process, won't the media's? Won't Glenn Beck's? Won't Mitch McConnell's? Won't yours or mine?

Oh, I'm sure Glenn Beck will be thrilled to hear you think his comments carry the same influence as Obama's. I'm sure potential jurors across the nation will be just as influenced by a talk show host, as the nation's chief executive and his attorney general.

Moreover, I'm sure developing nations across Eastern Europe are watching Glenn Beck carefully, to take cues on how they should develop their own constitutions and judicial systems.

I can't believe you even wrote that post with a straight face.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Cambridge Police and Henry Gates, Jr.



Oh, I'm sure Glenn Beck will be thrilled to hear you think his comments carry the same influence as Obama's. I'm sure potential jurors across the nation will be just as influenced by a talk show host, as the nation's chief executive and his attorney general.

Moreover, I'm sure developing nations across Eastern Europe are watching Glenn Beck carefully, to take cues on how they should develop their own constitutions and judicial systems.

I can't believe you even wrote that post with a straight face.

"Same" influence? No, I didn't make that argument. That's all you.

My argument is that they all have the ability to be heard, and to be heard by millions of people. What is it about Obama that makes you concerned when he comments on a process but not concerned when someone with a gigantic microphone makes a comment (including other political leaders on the Republican side)?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your Eastern Europe comment. Obama isn't involved in the trial or jury. What about his comments should give Eastern Europe heartburn?

I think your arguments are getting a bit desperate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Same" influence? No, I didn't make that argument. That's all you.

My argument is that they all have the ability to be heard, and to be heard by millions of people. What is it about Obama that makes you concerned when he comments on a process but not concerned when someone with a gigantic microphone makes a comment (including other political leaders on the Republican side)?

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your Eastern Europe comment. Obama isn't involved in the trial or jury. What about his comments should give Eastern Europe heartburn?

I think your arguments are getting a bit desperate.

No, your comments left the distinct impression that Obama opining on a case is no different from Beck, McConnell, or you and me. That's just silly.

"What is it about Obama ...?" Um, I dunno, how about that he's the President of the United States? It's tad bit bigger of a role than just a guy with a "gigantic microphone". I repeat: how well did that whole comment thing work out in the Gates/Cambridge case, eh?

Re: Eastern Europe: again, reflect on the message it sends to countries with less developed judiciaries when the President and Attorney General virtually guarantee conviction in what is supposed to be an impartial process. It sends exactly the opposite message to the world that Obama intended to send by trying terrorists in civil courts in the first place!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, your comments left the distinct impression that Obama opining on a case is no different from Beck, McConnell, or you and me. That's just silly.

"What is it about Obama ...?" Um, I dunno, how about that he's the President of the United States? It's tad bit bigger of a role than just a guy with a "gigantic microphone". I repeat: how well did that whole comment thing work out in the Gates/Cambridge case, eh?

Re: Eastern Europe: again, reflect on the message it sends to countries with less developed judiciaries when the President and Attorney General virtually guarantee conviction in what is supposed to be an impartial process. It sends exactly the opposite message to the world that Obama intended to send by trying terrorists in civil courts in the first place!

Then you stand corrected on what I intended, so you can recalibrate your thoughts accordingly.

What does Gates/Cambridge have to do with anything? Did that taint some judicial process I am unaware of? Try to give an analogy that is actually... an analogy. Your argument, I thought, wasn't that the president can sometimes stick his foot in his mouth (true of all presidents), but that statements made by him could taint a judicial process. In this instance, I disagree he stuck his foot in his mouth, but even if he did, I disagree it would do anything to taint the judicial process. You keep saying it will, but based on what?

As for Eastern Europe, which you seem particularly concerned about, once again... he didn't guarantee a conviction. He said "likely." Go back a page for a more full recap.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What does Gates/Cambridge have to do with anything? Did that taint some judicial process I am unaware of? Try to give an analogy that is actually... an analogy. Your argument, I thought, wasn't that the president can sometimes stick his foot in his mouth (true of all presidents), but that statements made by him could taint a judicial process. In this instance, I disagree he stuck his foot in his mouth, but even if he did, I disagree it would do anything to taint the judicial process. You keep saying it will, but based on what?

By virtue of the office, my friend. He can do things to influence public opinion, polarize issues, and draw attention like no other man can. The Cambridge incident perfectly illustrates how his interference can complicate things. I'm amazed that you're turning a blind eye to this power by hiding behind Glenn Beck. It's unseemly.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for Eastern Europe, which you seem particularly concerned about, once again... he didn't guarantee a conviction. He said "likely." Go back a page for a more full recap.

If you think hiding behind that weasel word is going to change the way other countries view what he said, you're kidding yourself. Go listen to the Gates clip from last Sunday. Listen to his tone in addition to his words. Everything he, Obama, and Holder have been saying communicates, "Don't worry, the outcome is already decided."

They are trying to have it both ways: offering the promise of American fairness while still guaranteeing the punishment that is so politically desirable. And it's not working. A lawyer may see the distinction by inserting one word in a sentence, but the public doesn't, I promise you.