Coming soon to a Political Theater near you...

[FrenchieCat]

"Dumping on the Janitor"

Here's the plot: Foreigners are plucked out of other countries that we are at war with. We then detain them for 7 years, all the while they are tortured and humiliated. Then, we insist that the New President should have them tried in US courts because we don't like Tribunals (yuky poo) even if the rules of the Tribunal are drastically changed (coz that's not change we can believe in). Then we wait to see how long before they are each acquitted....considering that tortured defendants automatically would have their case thrown out of court based on the constitution and prescendence! Ooh...and the best part is that the new President is the one that gets to make this suggestion (at our insistence) as the way of dealing with detainees at Guatanamo!

Sooo Fucking Brilliant!

Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court in any criminal prosecution of the tortured defendant. And, to make matters worse for federal prosecutors, the use of torture to obtain statements may make those statements (and any evidence gathered as a result of those statements) inadmissible in the trials of other defendants as well. Thus, the net effect of torture is to undermine the entire federal law enforcement effort to put terrorists behind bars. With each alleged terrorist we torture, we most likely preclude the possibility of a criminal trial for him, and for any of the confederates he may incriminate.
Snip

This is true both in federal courts, which operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and military courts, which operate under the Military Rules of Evidence. Both the Fifth Amendment's right against compulsory self-incrimination and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process preclude the use of a defendant's coerced statement against him in criminal court. In addition, any evidence gathered because of information learned through torture (sometimes called "derivative evidence") will likely also be excluded. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested in its landmark Fifth Amendment case, Oregon v. Elstad, that it might exclude evidence gathered after the use of any coercion, regardless of attempts by police and prosecutors to offset the coercion with measures like a Miranda warning. If Mohammed were prosecuted, and a court followed the line of reasoning set forth in Elstad, he might well see the charges against him evaporate entirely for lack of evidence.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100543/

[firedupdem]

1. I hate to say this, but if President Obama decided to say

"fuck this shit" in 2012, I wouldn't blame him.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Naw....we have all of the answers, remember!

Democratic Underground I mean.

We know what to do for him to change the world in one fell swoop.

OF course, if he follows the advise here, he won't be winning in no 2012,
no matter what he wants.

[NYC_SKP]

3. The critics here are much harder on the President than the MSM, the Right, and easily...

more critical than mainstream Americans.

I wonder why that is?

[FrenchieCat]

4. Cause we think we know what we don't know?

IN other words, we know quite well what we object to and what is broken....
but we only know how to fix it in a simplistic and unrealistic manner.

[NYC_SKP]

7. Yep, that's about right.

Oddly, I believe they would prefer a president with matching ideology but who would dictate to others what THEY want, and to hell with what works or what makes sense or what, in the end, is desired by a plurality of the governed.

Kind of strange, that... Not terribly democratic, IMHO.

[AlCzervik]

12. before we were rudely interrupted in the black helicopters are hovering over my

kitchen island thread---that stuff from the 60's may not help when the Umbrella Corp sprays their Zombie formula, you want to be prepared you know?


Did you hear that click on my phone line, wait.......is that your black sedan parked across the street, tell me it is.

[NYC_SKP]

16. They were just at my door.

Two men and two women, they said, "Are you ready?", and then they were gone. :P

[rug]

5. Yes this is all about Obama, not human rights, the Constitution or progress.

Poor guy.

[FrenchieCat]

6. It is exactly about process and the constitution.....

It is about the decision that was made in reference to tribunals and why it was made...and it is about many of us not getting it at all....cause we want simple solutions to complex problems.

Any information gained through torture will almost certainly be excluded from court in any criminal prosecution of the tortured defendant. And, to make matters worse for federal prosecutors, the use of torture to obtain statements may make those statements (and any evidence gathered as a result of those statements) inadmissible in the trials of other defendants as well. Thus, the net effect of torture is to undermine the entire federal law enforcement effort to put terrorists behind bars. With each alleged terrorist we torture, we most likely preclude the possibility of a criminal trial for him, and for any of the confederates he may incriminate.
Snip

This is true both in federal courts, which operate under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and military courts, which operate under the Military Rules of Evidence. Both the Fifth Amendment's right against compulsory self-incrimination and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process preclude the use of a defendant's coerced statement against him in criminal court. In addition, any evidence gathered because of information learned through torture (sometimes called "derivative evidence") will likely also be excluded. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggested in its landmark Fifth Amendment case, Oregon v. Elstad, that it might exclude evidence gathered after the use of any coercion, regardless of attempts by police and prosecutors to offset the coercion with measures like a Miranda warning. If Mohammed were prosecuted, and a court followed the line of reasoning set forth in Elstad, he might well see the charges against him evaporate entirely for lack of evidence.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100543/

[LooseWilly]

8. There is an underlying assumption in the tribunal issue...

that I'm not sure if people even really realize they are making.

The talk about how the tribunals, or Gitmo, or locking up Gitmo detainees in US prisons without bothering to actually charge them... and the hue and cry about Obama being left holding the bag of shit... the hyperbolically hysterical fits over the impending armageddon that will ensue if the detainees are allowed to go through the judicial system and will be potentially released due to torture mucking up the case against them...

It all rests, as far as I can tell, on fear. Simple, unreasoning, unmitigated fear of the terrorist boogeymen.

Maybe I drove a taxi in Oakland for too long, but I'm not afraid to release human beings who were potentially guilty of terrorism ,or conspiracy, or aiding and abetting... if the way we treated them makes it impossible to prosecute them. I am quite simply not afraid.

I'd rather not run into them in a dark alley, with them armed and me not armed... but it's a risk I'm willing to take. I, personally, feel like the integrity of our nation's laws requires it.

Yes, there are risks. Yes people could die. Yes, I might be the one that dies. I think the integrity of the Nation of Laws myth requires it though.

On the other hand, as long as this nation can't be bothered to show any integrity in prosecution of its laws, I feel no personal compunction about breaking whatever laws I feel like I can get away with breaking. If the President can do it, I'm damn sure gonna try to get away with it too.

Now before everyone commences to villifying me, I'm not really criticizing Obama here. I'm challenging the Public at large. Do we, as a Public, have the courage to risk our comfort and safety in the name of ideals and National Honor? ... Or is the prospect just too scary?

[FrenchieCat]

10. We have a media that will not allow the fear in our citizenry to subside.....

and you should know this.

[LooseWilly]

17. The media certainly tries to contribute to the fear.

No argument there.

The question I have.... ok, questions I have, are whether people realize that the prospect of letting possible terrorists out of prison over mistreatment issues while in custody is only "off the table" if one is just too terrified to consider the option. And secondly, how much of the Public is willing to put ideals and National Honor ahead of personal comfort.

I really have no idea how much of the Public is even willing to entertain the thought, let alone accept and endorse it.
As for the media, they can try to scare us, but they don't have the power to prohibit the fear subsiding. They've failed to make me afraid... maybe they've failed with others?...

[ibegurpard]

9. that's the price we pay

for holding them illegally and torturing them.
why bother fighting for anything at all if we can't even uphold our own standards of "freedom" and "decency?"

[FrenchieCat]

11. I'm not that idealistic. I'm not giving up my fucking agenda

for your standard of freedom and decency.

Hell, I'm still waiting for two acres and a mule then!

[ibegurpard]

13. my standard of freedom and decency

protects ME from the government labelling ME a terrorist and locking me up indefinitely as long as the government and the people it supposedly represents believe in that standard.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Than be upfront and advocate for letting the Detainees go free.....

cause that is really what you want done.

[ibegurpard]

15. i couldn't give a shit about them

seriously
i don't trust a government or a people willing to throw away the protections that keep them safe from tyranny because of fear of terrorists from screwing over ME or MY FAMILY when all is said and done.

[FrenchieCat]

18. So what's your solution? Put them through US courts?

That would be for show, as they would all have to go free.

So again, what's your answer?