I rant, Just some legal / political ranting

[/rant]
Good news for a change.
msnbc
Seems parts of the Patriot Act were declared unconstitutional, again. ~happy dance~
[rant]



msnbc

[Emphasis Added]
/sigh

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Sep 6 2007, 09:27 PM

msnbc

Oh free speech, how I never knew you. KKK get to say stuff like this. What's the distinction? They're American citizens? I'm pretty sure even the most heinous, convicted, American criminals still get free speech. So we can arbitrarily censor foreigners all we want, and by we, I mean the federal government?

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Sep 18 2007, 12:59 AM

Dammit, we're Americans, and we don't like being reminded that foreign terrorists were able to upstage our homegrown guys.

What we need is another Rudolph, another McVeigh & Nichols, even another Kaczynski, to step up and bring the pride back to good ol' American ingenuity.

msnbc
It sure must be nice being a congressmen. You can choose which subpoenas you will show up for and which ones you won't. Wait.. What? Bullshit.

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Sep 20 2007, 09:17 PM

I have a question. I read the article and and the two official comments state that they have no idea why they are being subpoenaed (rephrased for brevity). Doesn't the subpoena have to state what they will be questioned on?

My understanding is that it wouldn't simply state "you must come in and we will ask questions": I would refuse something like that! More that it will state things like the two of you are perceived as personal friends and questions will be asked about private conversations between this time and that time or Cunningham sub-chaired on your committee which eventually received goods or services from said contractor, information relating to the committees checks and balances and deciding criteria will be needed. Perhaps the House attorneys feel the subpoenas are incomplete and that some of the possible questions might result in security breaches.

The responses are definately retarded in this light but perhaps the end result isn't.

Perhaps. I'm pretty sure that the subpoena need not provide you the questions that they will ask. They are being subpoenaed to testify in a bribery case against another (former) senator. The fact that they worked together is alone enough to subpoena them, I would think. They could be character witnesses, expert witnesses explaining how the senate works, eye witnesses for specific events which these 13 may have seen / taken part in.

It doesn't matter. I was unaware you could "resist" a subpoena to testify. I would think doing so would result in contempt of court. I doubt a regular person could say no to an equivalently phrased subpoena.

The final argument of secrecy is bull too. To allow them to refuse a subpoena because it may involve some secrecy issues is granting them an excuse to avoid all subpoenas. Senators are not above the law. (Well, in some cases they are. I forget exactly how it works, but they can't be stopped for trivial infractions while on the way to congress. Federal law.) Questions involving secrecy should be done the old fashioned Hollywood way: if they ask such a question, state you are unable to answer for national security reasons.

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Sep 20 2007, 09:31 PM

It seems ex post facto is in vogue now.
msnbc
Grant immunity extending to past acts to all telecommunications companies for all privacy infractions related to government surveillance? Sounds like a plan!

I swear to god that I thought the constitution barred shit like this.
EDIT: Yep. Quoting Wikipedia: "Prohibited by Article I section 9 (applying to federal law) and section 10 (applying to state law) of the U.S. Constitution."

EDIT:
PS: I just wanted to reiterate that I don't really have a problem giving broad latitude to police, etc., when they want to wiretap someone. I'm all for that. I might even be OK with blanket data mining techniques, as long as there's lots of oversight on it. I just want oversight to prevent abuse. However, I am against allowing arbitrary gag orders or indefinite gag orders, especially without oversight.

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Sep 21 2007, 01:44 AM

I am currently involved as Guardian Ad Litem for my daughter's personal injury claim (she was hit by a car while using a school crosswalk). They have so far subpoenaed my daughter's school and my work. These two subpoena's do specifically state what information they want. For Cat's school it is her academic records and any supportive programs she was involved in, like tutoring. For my work it is specifically related to my work history for a certain time period relating to me missing work because of her accident.

The information about Cat's school records was under question at first and had to be rewritten. Originally the request was all school records, it was amended to be her academic records plus support programs. My work informed me today that they received a subpoena regarding my work history for the time following the accident. They didn't deviate from what would be expected this time.

I am sure the Scooter Libby trial is fresh in these guys minds. Once they get you under oath and ask you the same questions six different ways about things that happened a long time ago and you misremember something guess what...its YOUR ass in the sling now. No matter what they were looking for originally.

As far as congressweasels getting to rule 0 subpeonas, I can't answer to that.

Given their ten days of deliberation, it would seem that the jury was pretty well convinced that Libby perjured himself twice, obstructed justice once, and willfully made one false statement to the investigator about his discussions with Russert, but was not guilty of the same about his discussions with Cooper. Considering the jury even asked for and received additional instructions from the judge specifically about what should be considered reasonable doubt regarding one's memory, I would think that they were quite competent to decide whether the inconsistent bits of Libby's testimony were intentionally or accidentally so, even given the number of times he was called to testify during the investigation. It doesn't seem to be a matter of Fitzgerald catching Libby forgetting what color socks he wore on a specific day. Reverend, do you have reason to believe otherwise?

I agree that it's fishy for these Representatives to refuse to comply with this subpoena, but the wheels of justice can turn oddly when elected officials are involved.

The whole thing was a fishing expedition. Fitzgerald found out that Richard Armatage who worked for Colon Powell in the State department was the Plame leak. It was not a crime. Instead of closing up shop and sending everyone home, Fitzgerald kept questioning people multiple times to trip them up.

The jury was a joke. The defense used all of its preemptive challenges to remove all the Moveon.org teeshirt wearing clowns, but in Washington DC, the chances of finding an impartial jury to try someone with Bush (or Cheney) connections is slim and none. And of course, Slim just left town.

During final arguments Fitzgerald in what was supposed to be a trial for purgery, lamented that he REALLY wished it were Dick Cheney in the dock for the leak case. No matter that it wasn't Dick Cheney and not even a crime to begin with.

THEN, there was the juror who was neighbor and friend of a key witness, Tim Russert. I'm sorry, but why was he not excused immediately? And as soon as the verdict was read he went to the media excited that they got a conviction because he was going to write a book and it always makes a better story with a conviction.

Political trial.
Political conviction.

First, I'd like to address your ad hominem statement. Holding a political opinion does not remove one from being able to impartially consider evidence. Though from discussion, it's fair to say that you and I have widely differing political views, I would like to think that we could give each other a fair trial, even in cases involving political matters. If a juror can't be impartial, they should be dismissed, but not for simply wearing either a MoveOn.org or Club for Growth T-shirt. This is immaterial, though: a number of the juror selection questions were related to the prospective juror's ability to be impartial, despite the names and positions held by the defendant and witnesses. Attorneys reserve the right to dismiss a juror for cause, above and beyond the peremptory challenges you mentioned, so running out of dismissals isn't really an option.

One of the reasons we have jury trial by peers is that they understand the community in which the alleged crime happened and the case will be decided. Jurors do business in the community and reflect the ideals and standards of the community, so they help give the defense a sort of democratic life preserver against prosecution that the community would consider unnecessary or improper. In this case, the jury included some members of the press that have been in and around Washington political and journalistic circles, which means that they were more aware than most of what would or would not be beyond the pale in discussions with the press, and would have specific knowledge of the issues brought up in the case. Both sides commented on the unusual composition of the randomly selected jury pool, but as far as I'm aware, neither side alleged any impropriety.

Additionally, alleging that one juror, of twelve, may have come to his decision for partial motives does not impeach the other eleven. If you want to suggest that all of the other jurors -- or even enough to constitute a very persuasive majority -- were corrupt, please explain why you think so. If a juror you find questionable was not dismissed, it might well be because he was trusted by both sides to be able to make an impartial judgment based on the evidence, as I noted above.

Moreover, I thought it was was clear from the grand jury and trial testimony that Libby was on the docket for obstruction of justice because his falsely given testimony (the perjured testimony and false statements) prevented the federal investigator and grand jury from properly and fully investigating the Plame leak and even whether that leak was a crime or not. Fitzgerald had every right to tell the jury where he thought that investigation would have led, but that case ultimately could not be brought because of Libby's actions -- classic obstruction of justice.

Blackwater. Private, civilian defense contractors. So, they are not part of the military, but they are above the law. They have all the freedom the military in how they act, and none of the accountability or training. I call this bullshit. It sounds like the military doesn't have enough troops, so they've turned to mercenaries. I mean, seriously, that's what they are, superlegal mercenaries. Bullshit.

Update. It appears at least "Private Security Contractors" in Iraq lost their immunity from the US Congress. Too bad if it was their fault they can never be charged.


Discussion Resurrection!
The more that times goes on, and the more I think about it, the more I agree with my previous line of thinking.

By the way, by this definition I am sexist. X-ism is just preferring one thing over another. I prefer being with a woman. However, if I cannot invoke the harm principle in some way, the government shouldn't do anything about it.


PS: Damn all those people for who this is a voting issue and are against same sex marriage. We have got so many bigger, relevant, things we could spend our time on. You hear me congressmen? I swear to god... If I somehow got in charge, it would be different. There would be no more bullshit. No political pandering. Any bills with riders on it I would veto on principle. I would slap the shit out of anyone proposing something that wasn't law, just a suggestion or a statement. It's a damned wasted of time. Anyone who misplaces 8 billion USD would be shot.

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Oct 6 2007, 11:05 PM

I think your postscript is a bit out of line (but then again, the topic you started is called, "I rant," so I may not be in a position to judge). Much as I agree with your argument and your conclusion, I'm a bit uncomfortable with you asking God to damn those who disagree. Not that I think Yahweh is taking suggestions on who should go where in the afterlife, but it does seem a bit dissonant with the thrust of your argument. Besides, I would think Jesus is more likely to hang with a pair of "married" lesbians with love in their hearts and actions than someone who lets anger and bigotry overtake them.

On another note, marriage has always had a sort of dual nature; it's simultaneously a civil joining of two people and property and a social/religious joining of two souls. In reality, the government shouldn't give a rat's ass about the second half of it, and a church shouldn't care about the first. Let the government call every joining of any two consenting adults who want to share a legal life together a "civil union," and leave it entirely to peoples' varied religious or social beliefs as to whether they want to call it a "marriage." If I have to start electing politicians based on the social mores as well as the civil behaviors I want to live under, I'll be writing in Larry Flynt's name on every ballot I cast.

Ehh, sorry If I offended. Removed.

Completely agree with you here. I wonder how much opposition would be removed if it was just "give gay couples the same legal rights" though. Some of the emotion might die down, but some people might still be uncomfortable with having the government acknowledge in some way same-sex couples.

I think I may have mentioned this before, but the reasoning behind me supporting same-sex marriage, the harm principle, can be easily extended to polygamy. Assuming no abuse and consenting adults, multiple spouses shouldn't harm me, but some part of me somewhere thinks it's wrong. Also, I think the legal system is set up for only one spouse, so we would probably have to go and re-write a bunch of laws, but really, convenience should not be a reason. Any thoughts or errors in my logic?

Well, I could argue that one to one spouse has a certain cash value associated with it given by the government, their employers, etc. If you start allowing more spouses, then this extra cash for the extra spouses comes from increased taxation, increased prices = harm.

Then there's the whole thing you addressed about how some polygamist societies are also correlated with forced marriage, rape, and child rape, which complicates issues.

You think multiple spouses are wrong, and I may agree with you there, but the "beauty" of the harm principle is that even if what they are doing is wrong, the government cannot stop them. You can talk to, console, persuade, choose not to associate with (glazing over some finer points of J S Mill right now, see PS), etc., but not make it illegal.

I think in a way that the harm principle is a definition of wrong. Another way to define wrong would be to invoke religion, or maybe invoke majority rule, maybe some utilitarian reasoning, but the harm principle need not invoke any of the those.

I find myself struggling over a similar problem with homosexuals raising children. I shouldn't care what homosexuals do in their spare time, but raising children seems to cross a line for me. I examined why. It all came back to the possibility that homosexuality is wrong. I examined why I felt this possible, and I found it to be a mix of religion, custom, and tradition. I don't see anything inherently wrong with homosexuality when I examine it critically, but because of the way I've been raised, it's still there, nagging me.

PS: Basically, Mill was concerned about government level action only. However, he notices that not only the government has that level of influence. For example, the McCarthy era. There were blacklists of people suspected or known to be communists. This has such a far reaching effect as to come under his harm principle. Again, line is fuzzy. Exactly what constitutes far enough reaching to be covered under the harm principle? I can choose not to associate with polygamists. In my very small company, I can choose not to hire polygamists, but what if every company chose not to hire polygamists? Replace polygamist with any definable subpopulation.

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Oct 10 2007, 07:54 AM

msnbc
Random innocent German kidnapped, flown to another country, and tortured for 4 months, all using my tax money. This is why I'm angered. I'm also angered because no one will be held responsible, either for mistaking the identity and torturing an innocent man, or for simply torturing. Amusing that Germany issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA officers.

Frankly, the concept of enemy combatant bothers me. Let's be realistic here. Suppose some jackass fired a gun at a US soldier. There's witnesses. Hold a public trial. It doesn't have to be a full blown US style trial. It'll take an hour. Have the soldiers testify via satellite TV. I don't care. That should be more than enough to handle most concerns. Same for if they found someone with a shitton of bombs in their house. The problem seems to arise when we use these "state secret" methods of figuring out he is a criminal / enemy combatant. Allowing him to publicly question his confinement would result in these "state secret" methods of intelligence gathering to become public. So, we have a choice. We can continue with "state secret" intelligence gathering techniques and violate basic legal provisions that the Magna Fucking Carta declared as law, or we can not.

Moreover, in the case of the innocent German kidnapped and flown around the world, this is my take on would could happen. Possibility 1- He's guilty, in which case he'd still be in whatever hellhole prison. Possibility 2- He's innocent, in which case they admit they messed up, they pay the fine, and they don't have to reveal any state secrets. State secrets should not be a "get out of jail free card".

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Oct 9 2007, 08:20 PM

msnbc

I wrote up a big list of reasons why this is bullshit, I looked over it, and I said hell with it. If you don't understand why kidnapping people from random countries, sometimes allied countries in your "war", is bullshit, I don't know what to say. Let us continue to piss on the sovereignty of our allies, enemies, and random fucks, and see how far that gets us.

EDIT: apparently he was kidnapped while in the USA. Thus it makes it illegal under our laws to do this, I'd hope. The aforementioned still applies to situations like where they kidnapped that German guy.

This post has been edited by Vash the Stampede on Oct 19 2007, 01:51 AM