This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Terror Trials

245

Comments

  • edited November 2009
    Holy out of context, Joe. Post my entire original comment if you want to have a shred of credibility.
    Pennsylvania and Maryland were possibilities.
    I said that I didn't understand why the trials would be in New York, not federal court itself.
    Kilarney, I think you lack a fundamental understanding of how the Federal Court system works.
    Yes, it's pretty clear that K doesn't understand what he's talking about. Everyone can see that you have some problems with this concept. Nuri is trying to help you, K. If you read what she wrote, maybe you'll understand things better.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited November 2009
    No oone is going to be an impartial juror.
    This. You won't find unbiased people anywhere in the US for these sorts of trials. It's utterly impossible. You just have to accept that and really emphasize the impartiality instructions.
    Fair enough. But one must maximize the acceptance of these trials by other nations, and minimize the likelihood that a verdict will be overturned on appeal.

    I'm going to die. But I don't walk in front of cars because of that fact.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    Pennsylvania and Maryland were possibilities.
    You are so childish. I said that I goofed, and meant VA rather than MD. But wait... you left that part out.

    Joe, stop being an idiot. If you want to debate, that's fine. But if you want to act like an eleven year old, go somewhere else. Frankly, this behavior speaks much more of you than me. I should probably just let it continue. Yes, Joe. You are better at 5th grade playground arguments than I am. You are a master of taking comments out of context. Congratulations.

    Now let's debate like adults.

    If anyone has any doubt as the the hypocrisy on this board, I love how Joe gets a free pass to act like this but others don't. If nothing else, I am glad that Joe is proving my point.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • But one must maximize the acceptance of these trials by other nations, and minimize the likelihood that a verdict will be overturned on appeal.
    And again I ask, where on this soil will you find a fair trial? Guantanamo is completely unfair. At least in New York, while it's the site of the attacks, you'll also guarantee that you can pull people of many different backgrounds and opinions. Plus, New York is a pretty liberal and progressive place, so I'm betting they're more likely than other Americans to look beyond a bias in this situation.
  • If anyone has any doubt as the the hypocrisy on this board, I love how Joe gets a free pass to act like this but others don't.
    You know, maybe it's just we don't want to step into the middle of another of your fights? Also, we acknowledge that Joe is opinionated and curmudgeonly, but he is also frequently funny. You are too bitter in a non-entertaining way to be the token bitter old man of the forums.
  • The biggest fear that I am aware of, both exaggerated and legitimate, is that the civilian (albeit federal) court system has standards of evidence and requirements of procedure that will bog down the pace of the trial as well as dismiss evidence, often the only evidence, that would be admissible in a military tribunal but not in a civilian court. There'll also probably be evidence that could be used that may not be used because it exposes intelligence sources.
  • You know, maybe it's just we don't want to step into the middle of another of your fights? Also, we acknowledge that Joe is opinionated and curmudgeonly, but he is also frequently funny. You are too bitter in a non-entertaining way to be the token bitter old man of the forums.
    QFT.
  • The biggest fear that I am aware of, both exaggerated and legitimate, is that the civilian (albeit federal) court system has standards of evidence and requirements of procedure that will bog down the pace of the trial as well as dismiss evidence, often the only evidence, that would be admissible in a military tribunal but not in a civilian court. There'll also probably be evidence that could be used that may not be used because it exposes intelligence sources.
    So holding him to our standard of law and giving him a fair trail is somehow a bad thing?
  • The biggest fear that I am aware of, both exaggerated and legitimate, is that the civilian (albeit federal) court system has standards of evidence and requirements of procedure that will bog down the pace of the trial as well as dismiss evidence, often the only evidence, that would be admissible in a military tribunal but not in a civilian court. There'll also probably be evidence that could be used that may not be used because it exposes intelligence sources.
    So holding him to our standard of law and giving him a fair trail is somehow a bad thing?
    I keep hearing this fear thing from the right and "what if he's acquaited?!?" So freaking what? People, this plan was not all that brilliant. They used box cutters to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings. We were just woefully complacent and unprepared. I'd love to see them rot in jail for the rest of their lives (don't kill them, it's what they want), but if we can't do it with a court of law then let them go and move on with our lives. Ship them back to Afghanistan and be done with it.
  • edited November 2009
    So holding him to our standard of law and giving him a fair trail is somehow a bad thing?
    Well of course! He's a (suspected) terrorist, and they're less than human! Forget that whole "due process" thing. He looks sort of like one of those people who did us wrong, and that's good enough for me!

    EDIT:
    I keep hearing this fear thing from the right and "what if he's acquaited?!?"
    Yeah, that's the part that gets me. If he was acquitted, maybe it's because he wasn't fucking involved. Did anyone think about that?
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited November 2009
    If anyone has any doubt as the the hypocrisy on this board, I love how Joe gets a free pass to act like this but others don't. If nothing else, I am glad that Joe is proving my point.
    *ahem*

    The thing is, when Joe is called on something unreasonable he usually accepts responsibility and says, "Oh right, my bad." Many of us revise our statements when we are shown that something we said is reactionary and/or douchey. Even I have done it! But we don't make a regular habit out of being douchey. Joe has more non-douchey posts than douchey posts. That goes a long way in his favor.

    To be fair, since people tend to respond to you and Steve the same way whether you phrase your posts in a douchey way or a non-douchey way, it would seem that you have very little motivation to change your posting style. This is something I dislike, but I can't really change how other people respond to posts.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • edited November 2009
    If that's the best example you have, I think you've supported my point.

    Heck, in this very thread I corrected a mistake. Joe made a major substantive goof and stuck his head in the sand. (jurisdiction vs. venue) I made no bones about the fact that I goofed. The goof was meaningless to my overall argument, though. Nonetheless, Joe kept dragging out this irrelevant matter. Instead of being cool about it, he acted immature. And yet nobody took issue with that. Just proves my point that there is a double standard here.

    I'm a big boy, and I can certainly handle it. But I"m also going to point it out when it happens.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • And yet nobody took issue with that.
    Could it be that we think Joe is in the right?

    No, that's just crazy.
  • K - What you don't see in that thread is the whispered conversation between me and Steve, continuing the material discussion. Also, you've been part of discussion in other threads where I and other people have pointed out the problem with the antagonistic discussion (such as the health care bill).

    You said nobody ever calls Joe on his shenanigans. That's not true. In fact, several of us have called people on their "rape-kit" tactics quite often. Unfortunately, it usually ends up being unproductive, as both parties continue their childish behavior, so what do you expect us to do? Take it with a grain of salt and move on. I don't whine about Nine's stupid Vagina remarks in response to perfectly legitimate issues. I let the thing speak for itself. If Joe is making an ass out of himself, be the bigger person and move on. People will make their judgments based on your arguments AND how each of you conducted yourselves. Putting forward a well-reasoned, well-written argument trumps the douchey response.
  • edited November 2009
    Joe made a major substantive goof and stuck his head in the sand. (jurisdiction vs. venue)
    Wrong. If you'll read back in the thread, you'll see where Nuri tried to reason with you about this. It's so very clear that you have some basic misunderstanding about why the case was called in NYC. Nuri tried to explain it to you, but you still didn't understand.

    I think, as I said before in other posts, that part of the reason people don't like you is that you have so little imagination that you keep using the same phrases over and over. Just how many times do you actually say "head in the sand", or "moving the goalposts" in a single day?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • This has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It has to do with the tone used. I'm crass. I'm called out on it all the time. And yet nobody calls Joe out on it. And he's said much worse things than I have.
  • (jurisdiction vs. venue)
    Well, except that your argument completely sounded like a questioning of jurisdiction and not simply a questioning of venue. It was a trivial mistake to make.

    Yes, Joe dragged it out unnecessarily. C'est la vie. Everyone on this board is guilty of belaboring the point to some extent or another. We don't let Joe pass any more than we do anyone else. You're conflating that with our agreeing with him.
  • edited November 2009
    (jurisdiction vs. venue)
    Well, except that your argument completely sounded like a questioning of jurisdiction and not simply a questioning of venue. It was a trivial mistake to make.
    See, other people thought you misunderstood this concept as well. Also, you make a big show of calling even the most trivial disagreements or misunderstandings "major goofs". That doesn't win you many friends.
    Yes, Joe dragged it out unnecessarily.
    It was hard to resist, because K was getting so angry. I could easily imagine steam coming out of his ears. K, you really need to do some anger management or get a zen garden or something.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited November 2009
    Wrong. If you'll read back in the thread, you'll see where Nuri tried to reason with you about this. It's so very clear that you have some basic misunderstanding about why the case was called in NYC.
    Joe, this makes it very clear that you have some basic misunderstandings. I questioned why the case was being tried in New York - not why it was being tried in federal court. This is a basic question of venue. Yet you cited "jurisdiction" as the reason the case was being tried in New York. This was wrong. Plain and simple. How do I debate with someone who does not understand such a fundamental matter?

    Joe, the very article you cited shows this distinction. Either you are being dishonest, or you need to admit that the matter was not one of jurisdiction, but was one of venue.

    Maybe this will help you:
    Jurisdiction

    And this:
    Venue

    A simple rule: If you are talking about which general court should take up a matter, that's jurisdiction. If you are talking about which physical location of any given court should take up a matter, that's venue. I was wondering why it was being brought in New York, not why it was being brought in federal court. So connect the dots... I was talking about venue.

    Not hard, is it?

    You keep saying that I do not understand why the case was brought in New York? And you are correct - I do not understand the decision to bring it there. I said that. How you take that comment and infer that I don't understand how it was possible to bring it in New York, is laughable. Way to ignore context to make a huge logical leap. Such petty distraction.

    When you purposely ignore what I say your arguments are petty and juvenile.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    Okay then, regarding venue:

    The NY federal court clearly is an appropriate venue for the crimes committed in NYC. The majority of the impact was in NY. Lots of the evidence is in NY. Many of the crimes that would be charged were committed in NY. No improper intent to prejudice the trial against the defendant has been demonstrated (this burden would be on the Defense, btw, if they asserted this claim). What exactly would be the grounds for changing the venue here?

    You don't get to change the venue just because you think the people in the venue you are in might not like you as much as the people in another place. That is called "venue shopping," and our system tries to discourage it. You have to have a legitimate legal reason for changing the venue. We don't give terrorists an exception to our general policies. There is pretty strong support for prosecuting in NY, and it will hold up to any international inquiry.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • edited November 2009
    A fair argument. Reasonable minds can disagree. I would have chosen PA for reasons stated earlier.

    Just one clarification. It is possible for an accused to have venue changed if they can show sufficient prejudice. Not an easy threshold, but a possibility. The intent of the government is not the issue in such a claim. What matters is the makeup of the jury, and whether there is sufficient prejudice such that it is impossible to seat an impartial jury.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    K, your link talks about subject matter jurisdiction. Do you think subject matter jurisdiction is all there is to any jurisdictional question?

    Read this again.

    It says:

    The Sixth Amendment calls for trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Within the federal court system, Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifies which federal court may hear a particular criminal case:

    Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
    Anderson, 328 U.S., at 703 holds: “[T]he locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.”
    The federal court in NYC has jurisdiction to hear the case because the crime happened there. It's sort of like in personam jurisdiction, which itself is like the question of venue.
    Venue and personal jurisdiction are closely related for practical purposes.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited November 2009
    Joe, you are correct. For the seventh time, I never questioned jurisdiction - or for that matter whether it was an impermissable venue.

    I was only questioning the choice of this particular venue over other options. This is why your smug comment about jurisdiction was completely irrelevant - and still is.

    Get it? Why is this concept so difficult for you? Even Giuliani, who knows much more about these things than you and I combined is using the term venue. Are you going to say that he has no fundamental understanding of the federal court system too?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Just one clarification. It is possible for an accused to have venue changed if they can show sufficient prejudice. Not an easy threshold, but a possibility.
    Yep, I was actually adding that into my post while you were replying. The Defense must show that there is improper intent to prejudice the trial.

    I'm actually not clear on whether prejudice in general can be enough to change a venue. From the wording, I *think* it has to be demonstrated that the venue was chosen with the intent to prejudice the trial, but I'm not sure. Haven't gotten to that yet.

    Any help on that, Joe?
  • edited November 2009
    I was only questioning the choice of this particular venue over other options.
    Well, he's technically correct. You have to prosecute people in this venue for the crimes committed there. You can't prosecute them in a PA court for attacking or plotting to attack buildings in NYC, can you? In other words, the court's jurisdiction necessitates this venue.

    EDIT: This brings up an interesting question. Let's look at a crime of this magnitude. Is it really possible to try somebody "fairly" in these circumstances? As our access to information continues to grow, we'll hear about more and more news from all over the world. We will reach a point where no crime will be unknown to potential jurors before it goes to trial. What happens to impartiality then?
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • edited November 2009
    I see your point. And yes, I suppose that can be an issue raised as part of a claim. But there is no requirement of improper intent on the part of government. Venue can be changed if the jury pool is sufficiently prejudiced.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    Everything I have read said that New York (the location of the World Trade Center); Pennsylvania (where Flight 93 met its end), and; Virginia (where Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon) were the three options available to federal authorities.. Joe himself has agreed with this.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Pete; Do you think they are going to stand trial for their crimes in each state separately?
  • Pete; Do you think they are going to stand trial for their crimes in each state separately?
    Couldn't they, though? Wouldn't that be the most technically correct way to do it?

    I suppose it depends on the charges themselves. These obviously are not the people who actually flew planes into buildings, so they're being charged with conspiracy-related things and such. In that case, I guess any of the three venues is an option.
  • edited November 2009
    Just one clarification. It is possible for an accused to have venue changed if they can show sufficient prejudice. Not an easy threshold, but a possibility.
    Yep, I was actually adding that into my post while you were replying. The Defense must show that there is improper intent to prejudice the trial.

    I'm actually not clear on whether prejudice in general can be enough to change a venue. From the wording, I *think* it has to be demonstrated that the venue was chosen with theintentto prejudice the trial, but I'm not sure. Haven't gotten to that yet.

    Any help on that, Joe?
    I'd have to look at the federal rule, but I don't think it says anything about intent to prejudice the trial. I believe you can get a change of venue if you prove that the jury pool is tainted against your client and/or that you cannot pick a fair and impartial jury in the original venue. You don't have to show that there was any intent to have the trial held in a biased venue.
    As our access to information continues to grow, we'll hear about more and more news from all over the world. We will reach a point where no crime will be unknown to potential jurors before it goes to trial. What happens to impartiality then?
    Professional jurors (a set of people that keep themselves in the dark for the sole purpose of being able to sit on juries), or Futureland.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
Sign In or Register to comment.