« Previous 1 2 3 Next »

Reply To Thread

Obama subverts justiceFollow

#1 Nov 18 2009 at 1:55 PM Rating: Sub-Default

__DEL__1592317444463

2,892 posts

Quote:

In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Muhammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him

So the president of the USA flat out saying someone is going to be convicted of a crime in a civil court doesn't prejudice the case?

How can this case not be thrown out if the causer of this man made disaster that was 911 was not marandized?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C1VP3O0&show_article=1

#2 Nov 18 2009 at 2:01 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

O.J. Simpson.

Seriously though. Is there a transcript of the actual interview somewhere?

#3 Nov 18 2009 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

It was a prediction. He went on to say that obviously he won't be in the court room but he has been assured that the prosecutor is confident of a conviction.

Meh.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#4 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 18 2009 at 2:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post)

#5 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 18 2009 at 2:06 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,

#6 Nov 18 2009 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

publiusvarus wrote:

marandized

Is that what you do to your $150 steaks?

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#7 Nov 18 2009 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Quote:

In interviews broadcast on NBC and CNN Wednesday, the president also said that experienced prosecutors in the case who specialize in terrorism have offered assurances that "we'll convict this person with the evidence they've got, going through our system."

Not seeing the point. The prosecutors say they'll win the case. Do they often say they'll lose?

#8 Nov 18 2009 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

LockeColeMA wrote:

Do they often say they'll lose?

Only if they don't have the evidence they need.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#9 Nov 18 2009 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

Varus wants 9/11 terrorists to go free because he is a socialist America-hater.

Edited, Nov 18th 2009 3:26pm by CBD

#10 Nov 18 2009 at 2:19 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Samy,

Are you aware if a suspect hasn't been marandized the case can be thrown out?

If he hasn't been mirandized by now we've got no business keeping him in custody all this time.

Edited to add: I'm also not at all clear on the relationship you seem to think exists between prejudicial statements and the Miranda document. If you could, explicate that at your leisure, thanks.

Edited, Nov 18th 2009 12:33pm by Samira

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#11 Nov 18 2009 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good

Tare

YAY! Canaduhian

10,293 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

So the president of the USA flat out saying someone is going to be convicted of a crime in a civil court doesn't prejudice the case?

How can this case not be thrown out if the causer of this man made disaster that was 911 was not marandized?

The same way this one wasn't thrown out.

____________________________

What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.

#12 Nov 18 2009 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1592791884672

Scholar

1,416 posts

"Miranda" rights are only a warning and are not necessary if enough evidence is already available.

#13 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 18 2009 at 2:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) six,

#14 Nov 18 2009 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

six,

Quote:

"Miranda" rights are only a warning and are not necessary if enough evidence is already available.

100% wrong. If a suspect is not read their rights the case can most certainly be thrown out based on that alone.

Okay, but again, what does this have to do with anything a non-involved person says about the case?

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#15 Nov 18 2009 at 2:44 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592791884672

Scholar

1,416 posts

Quote:

100% wrong. If a suspect is not read their rights the case can most certainly be thrown out based on that alone.

It can be thrown out, but only in the regard of your fifth amendment.

I'm okay with being wrong, but if I am, prove it.

Edit: Also, it's my understanding that a Miranda warning can be issued at any time prior to interrogation if it's deemed necessary.

Edited, Nov 18th 2009 1:00pm by sixgauge

#16 Nov 18 2009 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good

Scholar

1,504 posts

As he's ( for the moment ) a Soldier he should of been read the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 31 rights not the Miranda rights.

http://www.uscg.mil/legal/mj/MJM_Word/Encl_05.doc

Last I have read he was still in bad shape in the hospital and very well may not have been " interviewed " as of yet.

____________________________

"If you ask me, we could do with a little less motivation. The people who are causing all the trouble seem highly motivated to me. Serial killers, stock swindlers, drug dealers, Christian Republicans"

George Carlin.

#17 Nov 18 2009 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Pubes is beginning to sound like either a george orwell character or one of those crazy guys on the street that wears doomsday signs.

I can't be sure of which.

#18 Nov 18 2009 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1680481127345

View User Forum

Sage

21,262 posts

Quote:

Edit: Also, it's my understanding that a Miranda warning can be issued at any time prior to interrogation if it's deemed necessary.

Correct. Most police officers go through it at the start just so that there's no question they did it.

#19 REDACTED, Posted: Nov 18 2009 at 3:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Does Obama assuming this guys guilt prejudice any potential jurist?

#20 Nov 18 2009 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498899608

Guru

12,049 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Does Obama assuming this guys guilt prejudice any potential jurist?

If it did, isn't that why we have a process to weed out biased jurors?

#21 Nov 18 2009 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1680481127345

View User Forum

Sage

21,262 posts

In this case, the weeding process didn't even bother trying to find jurors that never heard of 9/11. Instead, they asked for people who were not directly affected by the attacks and who would be willing to keep an open mind about the evidence as presented to them.

On that note, both prosecutors and defense attorneys found that jury members watching CSI were more skeptical of evidence and less likely to believe anything either of them said about it.

#22 Nov 18 2009 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

publiusvarus wrote:

Does Obama assuming this guys guilt prejudice any potential jurist?

Presumably not Pubbie talk-show fans.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#23 Nov 18 2009 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:

On that note, both prosecutors and defense attorneys found that jury members watching CSI were more skeptical of evidence and less likely to believe anything either of them said about it.

Also more likely to be able to name Who songs.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#24 gbaji, Posted: Nov 18 2009 at 3:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm more curious how and when Obama thinks they're going to get the death penalty in New York...

#25 Nov 18 2009 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Quote:

I'm more curious how and when Obama thinks they're going to get the death penalty in New York...

Oh, will it be in a state court? I had assumed Federal.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Nov 18 2009 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

Scholar

1,701 posts

Samira wrote:

Quote:

I'm more curious how and when Obama thinks they're going to get the death penalty in New York...

Oh, will it be in a state court? I had assumed Federal.

The OP's link says it will be in Federal Court.

Quote:

to face a civilian federal trial in New York.

____________________________

If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.

This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.

« Previous 1 2 3 Next »

Reply To Thread

Recent Visitors: 223 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (223)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC