Guantanamo judge drops charges against 15 year old

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:39 pm

I don't like the idea of an innocent person getting shafted any more than the next guy. It would be interesting to compare the number of innocent folks that have gotten caught up in rendition vs innocent folks that have been wrongly convicted by trial.

Looking at statistics published by the Innocence Project, about 1 in 75 people (~1.3%) are wrongfully convicted in the US. That number jumps to 1 in 7 of people (~14.3%) on death row. But these figures are just based on exonerations (and a few years old), so chances are, the rate of wrongful conviction is considerably higher.

Causes of wrongful conviction: In 64 cases of DNA exoneration examined by the Innocence Project, mistaken eyewitness identification by the victim (84%), police misconduct (50%), prosecutorial misconduct (42%), inept defense counsel (27%), false or fabricated confessions (24%), and misconduct by jailhouse snitches (21%). 1/3 of the cases involved tainted or fraudulent scientific evidence purporting to show the defendant was guilty. 57% were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino.

Ain't life grand?

Nekulor · Post by **Nekulor** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:32 pm

psycho_leo wrote:
Nekulor wrote:
Mordekai wrote:Given your amazingly extensive track record of appalling comments in this thread, I'll let myself off the hook for quite justifiably misconstruing your intentions with the above post.
Appalling to you. I can feel that way about people who commit acts of terrorism if I want. For some reason, their suffering just doesn't strike any emotions with me. I dunno, maybe it has something to do with their crimes against humanity? Just a guess. When we're talking about appalling people, I feel the right to make appalling comments about them. Sorry I don't feel empathy for people who target civilians as viable targets in a guerrilla war.
You also don't seem to feel any sort of empathy for the innocents that are being held in those prisons for their allegedly involvement with terrorism.
You know who also doesn't care if innocents get hurt if they can hurt their enemies? Terrorists.
I wouldn't give a flip if you could get a suicide bomber and put him in a secret prison in the middle of nowhere for God knows how long. But people get arrested without a shred of proof I tend to be a tad upset.

Leo, you mistake my meaning here. Those found guilty are who I am referring to. I care deeply about the innocents there and hope that all of them are exonerated of any wrong doing and released. No innocent person should be convicted wrongly like that, especially under such dark accusations.

Jeppan · Post by **Jeppan** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:48 pm

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The innocent must be released. Not having any proof of guilt should be enough to release those poor sods. For once the US should do the right thing. Keeping them there is creating more terrorists than you are keeping locked in (along with other american "behaviour" around the world).

Remember 9/11! Democracy in Chile died at hands of US-sponsored dictator Pinochet! Te recuerdo amanda.

psycho_leo · Post by **psycho_leo** » Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:28 pm

Nekulor wrote: Leo, you mistake my meaning here. Those found guilty are who I am referring to. I care deeply about the innocents there and hope that all of them are exonerated of any wrong doing and released. No innocent person should be convicted wrongly like that, especially under such dark accusations.

Sure. There's just the problem that they didn't have any trial. They are just being held there. Indefinitely. Without real proof.

Nekulor · Post by **Nekulor** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:34 am

and earlier I said to give them trials or ship them home. All bases have been covered. I don't see why they simply can't speed up the process or give everyone a prelim hearing to determine the volume of evidence for trial,

Nekulor · Post by **Nekulor** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 3:36 am

Jeppan wrote:Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The innocent must be released. Not having any proof of guilt should be enough to release those poor sods. For once the US should do the right thing. Keeping them there is creating more terrorists than you are keeping locked in (along with other american "behaviour" around the world).

Remember 9/11! Democracy in Chile died at hands of US-sponsored dictator Pinochet! Te recuerdo amanda.

Pinochet should be ousted IMO. He's a total ass. Him and Hugo Chavez.... you know, I think its time for some regime change down south Jeppan. What do you think about it? If someone is a dictator, they should be removed, plain and simple. The world needs less of them.

...upon further review, I find that the reaper already took care of him for us. I never heard about the death of Pinochet...don't know how I missed it.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:35 am

Nekulor wrote:and earlier I said to give them trials or ship them home. All bases have been covered. I don't see why they simply can't speed up the process or give everyone a prelim hearing to determine the volume of evidence for trial,

Trials?? Most have been held and tortured for about 5 years without even being charged with a crime. Simply accused is enough. Besides, who needs evidence or trials for that matter when people can just disappear?

If someone was to describe what the US is doing without mentioning the country by name, I bet most people would ramble off a list of the worst dictatorships and religious regimes in recent history.

Kate

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:26 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:BILL CLINTON was responsible for the creation of the rendition program in the first place. What about HIS crimes against humanity?

He didn't put innocents through it. It's still illegal, but not anywhere near as bad.

ç i p h é r wrote: And you can't speak definitively about the intentions of the US government. You provided a link earlier to a more than compelling explanation as to why they would torture terrorists. Extrapolate from there a reason why they would not prosecute.

You think the reasons have to be related? They don't. The US govt *tried* to terrorize the terrorists, but of course it failed since it turns out you can't deter martyrs with fear of torture, so now we're stuck with a whole bunch of Arabs in detention with no evidence against them. With a bow on top.

Lusipher · Post by **Lusipher** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:20 am

Most have been held and tortured

You have no valid proof of this.

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:31 am

Danubus wrote:
Most have been held and tortured
You have no valid proof of this.

Heh, good ol' Danubus. I guess the question for you is what organizations reporting on the mass abuses... which resulted in the US Supreme Court getting involved would YOU consider valid?? Somehow I suspect there are none.

Kate

MorbidKate · Post by **MorbidKate** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:39 am

ç i p h é r wrote:BILL CLINTON was responsible for the creation of the rendition program in the first place. What about HIS crimes against humanity?

How about you research that claim a bit more. It's one thing to create a program for small scale, targeted rendition of the most wanted to a large scale, secret prison system with mass abuses and no human rights towards many who are there as a result of finger pointing by those who were PAID to make those accusations.

Kate

ç i p h é r · Post by **ç i p h é r** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:34 pm

MorbidKate wrote:
ç i p h é r wrote:BILL CLINTON was responsible for the creation of the rendition program in the first place. What about HIS crimes against humanity?
How about you research that claim a bit more. It's one thing to create a program for small scale, targeted rendition of the most wanted to a large scale, secret prison system with mass abuses and no human rights towards many who are there as a result of finger pointing by those who were PAID to make those accusations.

Kate

Research the claim? I am stating a fact, and quite sure an undisputed fact, that "extraordinary rendition" was conceived during and approved by the Clinton administration. You're not disproving it by highlighting the abuses under the Bush administration. You're just conflating.

My underlying point is that if you are an honest to goodness human rights advocate, you would be just as concerned about the abuses under the Clinton administration, especially since Bill and Hillary are vying for the White House once again. Your arguments fall flat if you apply them conditionally on the basis of political affiliation.

Here's what the ACLU has to say about it - please note the dates:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordin ... 51206.html

An interesting snippet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordin ... nistration

As to the issue of scale: Mulu has been arguing the ethics of torture. You have been arguing the consequence of blowback. The scale of the abuse is irrelevant when you argue on such a basis. It's also rather laughable to equate ethics to Clinton directly or indirectly. Love him or hate him, the man is completely devoid of ethics.

p.s. On a tangential note, an interview by Michael Sheuer (head of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA) a few years back, who has been critical of both administrations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/ ... 5407.shtml

Of particular note, his statement that the Clinton administration rejected all opportunities to kill Bin Laden that his group identified. The destruction of the WTC and all the lives lost on 9/11 squarely fall on the shoulders of the Clinton administration, if you believe Mr Sheuer. I wonder how that stacks up to the expansion of the rendition program under Bush. Whatever you think of Bill, he has made his share of serious gaffs too.

p.p.s. Incidentally, since the Clinton administration had already crossed the ethical line in approving the rendition program, it is not inconceivable to think that they might have expanded the scale and scope of the program as well in a post 9/11 world, if their term had coincided with that tragedy.

Nekulor · Post by **Nekulor** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:46 pm

ç i p h é r wrote:
MorbidKate wrote:
ç i p h é r wrote:BILL CLINTON was responsible for the creation of the rendition program in the first place. What about HIS crimes against humanity?
How about you research that claim a bit more. It's one thing to create a program for small scale, targeted rendition of the most wanted to a large scale, secret prison system with mass abuses and no human rights towards many who are there as a result of finger pointing by those who were PAID to make those accusations.

Kate
Research the claim? I am stating a fact, and quite sure an undisputed fact, that "extraordinary rendition" was conceived during and approved by the Clinton administration. You're not disproving it by highlighting the abuses under the Bush administration. You're just conflating.

My underlying point is that if you are an honest to goodness human rights advocate, you would be just as concerned about the abuses under the Clinton administration, especially since Bill and Hillary are vying for the White House once again. Your arguments fall flat if you apply them conditionally on the basis of political affiliation.

Here's what the ACLU has to say about it - please note the dates:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordin ... 51206.html

An interesting snippet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordin ... nistration

As to the issue of scale: Mulu has been arguing the ethics of torture. You have been arguing the consequence of blowback. The scale of the abuse is irrelevant when you argue on such a basis. It's also rather laughable to equate ethics to Clinton directly or indirectly. Love him or hate him, the man is completely devoid of ethics.

p.s. On a tangential note, an interview by Michael Sheuer (head of the Bin Laden unit at the CIA) a few years back, who has been critical of both administrations.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/ ... 5407.shtml

Of particular note, his statement that the Clinton administration rejected all opportunities to kill Bin Laden that his group identified. The destruction of the WTC and all the lives lost on 9/11 squarely fall on the shoulders of the Clinton administration, if you believe Mr Sheuer. I wonder how that stacks up to the expansion of the rendition program under Bush. Whatever you think of Bill, he has made his share of serious gaffs too.

p.p.s. Incidentally, since the Clinton administration had already crossed the ethical line in approving the rendition program, it is not inconceivable to think that they might have expanded the scale and scope of the program as well in a post 9/11 world, if their term had coincided with that tragedy.

Cipher makes good points. This is an issue of human rights and military policy, not party politics. Both sides have done it.

Stormseeker · Post by **Stormseeker** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:07 pm

Beware of the clinton's just look at the trail of corruption and screwed up policies that they left in arkansas when they left. Funny both of them no longer live here, and this was suppose to be their home.

Lusipher · Post by **Lusipher** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:06 am

Yeah now shes getting a chance to fuck up the state of NY. Your better off without them.