Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score 1) 634

Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.

Wasn't for Nixon. History disagrees with you.

Really? Last I heard, Nixon, who was never charged, never had is pardon challenged in court by either side. There is zero precedent to prove a pre-emptive pardon is legal or not except that Ford's action was never challenged. I don't think Hillary would be so lucky.

You may think I'm partisan, but what Hillary did with the E-mail thing on a private server IS illegal. Somebody broke the law, apparently multiple somebodies did. It was a violation of State Department regulations, PLUS given the classified nature of some of the e-mails, multiple felonies where committed. Was it Hillary committing these crimes? Sure seems likely to me. Many of the classified E-mail messages she wrote herself, or where sent under her authority as if they came from her. Not to mention that if she even SAW classified data in an unprotected environment it was her responsibility under law, to take the necessary steps to report and secure the information to the best of her ability or it's a felony too.

Now if you wan to believe Hillary's story that she didn't do anything wrong... Well, first you are going to have to pick which of Hillary's stories you are talking about, we are on the fourth or fifth version of this now.... You are going to have to explain how Hillary didn't commit a crime here. Is she incompetent enough to not recognize what classified information was? Was she so stupid that she not know it was being sent over an unsecure channel? You tell me, how does she get out of this, beyond a presidential pardon from Obama?

Comment Re: Fundamentals (Score 1) 343

No, but you cannot force the military into a law enforcement role AFTER the fact either.

I'm not saying there are any easy answers here, only that the often suggested solution of trying them in criminal court is STUPID in that the outcome can be predetermined with nearly 100% accuracy. Regardless of what they did or didn't do, they will walk on technicalities. They where NOT arrested and advised of their rights, they where detained without charge, they where not provided a lawyer even if they requested one and the evidence that was collected hasn't been vetted and maintained to the legal standards necessary for a prosecution to get it introduced at trial. Any ONE of these issues gets them out the jailhouse door.

So, you just want to let them go? Forget all this trial business and just SAY that up front....

Personally, I'm waiting for the military to deal with this. Given we are plowing new legal ground, trying unlawful combatants, I'm guessing this will take awhile. Given the nature of the people involved, I would expect the prudent thing is to leave them where they are.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 343

Enemy combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military, they can be killed, detained without charge and questioned without a lawyer present even after they request legal representation. PLEASE tell me you understand why this is and why you don't want to change it.... So, if you put them on trial, what do you suppose the FIRST motion their appointed lawyer is going to make?

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 343

What do you mean by a trial? You want them in a federal court in down town New York? Just let them go then, they won't be convicted because the military does not follow the proper law enforcement procedure when detaining somebody, nor do they concern themselves with obtaining and storing their evidence so it can be used in a criminal trial...

You want a military tribunal? They are getting that process now, stand by for results and in the mean time Club Gitmo stays open.

I suspect that you really just want to let them go though...

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 343

Why is it that SOOOO many people don't understand the basic legal structure of our government and under what rules parts of it operate in? Don't they teach this stuff in school anymore?

The military is NOT a law enforcement agency. They don't investigate and arrest people guilty of crimes, they kill people, break things and occasionally detain combatants on the battlefield though capture or surrender. Until you understand and admit how that's different from law enforcement, I don't think you are going to understand what I'm saying. (Or do you really understand but choose to act like you don't because you've already decided to let these people walk free?)

Comment Re:dont be so sure (Score 1) 343

Seriously? Sanders calls himself a "Socialist" and means it. How he gets traction is by promising to give away stuff that there is no way one could tax enough to pay for. He is the shining example of "Tax and Spend" mentality, except that he takes it to a whole new level of absurd. We are NOT a socialist country, our constitution just doesn't fit that model, it's antithetical to our founding Calling him a nut is being charitable if you ask me.

Comment Re:How about we treat the rest of the world better (Score 1) 343

Somewhere in all this there has got to be a balance between just not getting involved and being the world's policeman, between bombing the heck out of one group, arming another group or letting the world to it's own devices,

Let me know when you figure that out.

Sure, I'll be running for President when I get to the point I can clearly explain it too..

Comment Re:dont be so sure (Score 1) 343

Well young'n you got some learn'n to do 'bout politic'n. The sooner you catch on to the fact that just about everybody is parsing their words carefully, generally talking about doing things "if elected" they won't have the power to actually do, and that this ability to tailor your message to your audience seems to be a skill that politicians develop over time, the better you will be at filtering out the rhetoric from the principle. Vote on principle and be ignoring the rhetoric the best you can.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 343

You forget to consider that these guys are "Unlawful combatants" (By the rules of war) taken into custody by the military, which is NOT a law enforcement agency, can never be a law enforcement agency, and you don't want to BE a law enforcement agency. Military actions are NOT, CANNOT be limited by due process constraints or you are insanely stupid or just plain naïve to an astonishing extent.

So now we have this problem, where we have military actions that resulted in the capture of these people for legitimate reasons and are in limbo because as illegal combatants, there are no legal precedents or treaties that govern. What are we going to do?

Think about what options we have and ask yourself what the moral dilemma actually is and what the net affect of your choices here are. IMHO we leave well enough alone, keep them in military custody, in Cuba, until such time as they are deemed to no longer be a military threat BY THE MILITARY. This is consistent with international law the Geneva conventions and our treaty commitments.

THAT is what I'm saying. The rest of this is about my reasons why specific approaches are unlikely to achieve what we want, unless you just intend to let them go, in which case, just say so and forget all this bickering.

Comment Re:dont be so sure (Score 1) 343

Don't confuse them with the facts...

Their real problem is they don't like the score so they are complaining about the rules and how the field is striped. Problem is, democrats helped write the rules and stripe the field all before the game started, and you can bet that if the roles where reversed, they'd be saying what I am now, "Tough luck now play the game or go home." How do I know? I've seen it happen...

Comment Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score 1) 634

OK, Yes, Obama *could* try it and my original post was incorrect... Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.

But, I cannot imagine that he would or that it would help Hillary in any way politically. It might save her jail time but at what cost to Obama's legacy and the democratic party? Not to mention that a pre-emptive pardon would very likely be adjudicated by the courts and IMHO found to be invalid. Just the spectacle of all this winding its way though the courts, regardless of the outcome, would damage the democratic party greatly, ruin the Clinton's public image forever and hand the republicans unprecedented power for many elections to come.

Think about it. First, Obama would NEVER do this until AFTER the election, most likely in the last hours of his holding office. There are two scenarios to consider. 1. Hillary is the president elect or 2. she's not. If she's president elect, a preemptive pardon would only shield her from criminal prosecution and then only AFTER she's no longer president because once she takes office, the whole criminal case stops. You don't put the president on trial in criminal courts. The pardon would be pointless (and stupid), plus it doesn't prevent an impeachment which might make hers the shortest presidency in history. IF she's just a private citizen, having lost the nomination bid or the general election, then the pre-emptive pardon *might* help her. The question though is would Obama do it? I really don't see any reason that would motivate him to do this, take the hit to his legacy and damage the party. Given the obvious friction between the Clintons and Obama, I'd be surprised he'd take one on the chin for Hillary unless she's got some serious leverage on Obama we don't know about.

For all I don't like about what he does, I do recognize that Obama is a smart guy, so he's not doing stupid stuff like granting a preemptive pardon to citizen Hillary who just lost the election, nor wasting his limited public good will granting President Elect Hillary Clinton a preemptive pardon that's pointless. If he does do this, he will have been forced into it to save his own skin, and made a stupid move that is unlikely to end well for him OR Hillary...

Comment Re: Fundamentals (Score 1) 343

So what you are saying is that people who probably committed no crime, if given fair trials are likely to be exonerated and you think that is a bad thing because what if they commit crimes after they are released ?

No, that's NOT what I'm saying.

They are "unlawful combatants" meaning they are NOT POW's. I'm also saying that what ever they did to get into Gitmo, a military run establishment on foreign soil is a matter for the military NOT our criminal courts. Now if you choose to change this situation, make them POW's, try them in civilian court or what have you, you are GOING to affect their release.

Now if that's what you want, just say it, but be prepared to address the "They are going to try and harm us again" charge, because that's where this goes if you change their status in an way. IMHO we should just leave their status alone.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Working...