It’s a twofer!
But the assnuggets will still be in complete and total denial. I wonder why they think it was perfectly fine to spend public tax dollars on Gitmo? A good use of public money?
A database and people to maintain the database, so that whever a scrap might be, it will be tracked in the database. Pretty basic stuff for large (e.g. 1,000,000+ documents) files and for when there is a multiplicity of procedings and/or parties.
The irony of this is pretty striking. All you folks have such a concern for the facts that you are bemoaning the lack of “comprehensive case files” for “many” detainees, but you don’t need any facts to determine whether or not this is the case, the spin put on it by two reporters is enough for you.
That’s what I asked, dipshit. :rolleyes: They haven’t hardly any information about what and why these people where charged-false imprisonment, perhaps?
Don’t you think, if you’re going to arrest someone and charge them with terrorism, or aiding such, you should have a CASE FILE on them? (And if you, a fucking lawyer, don’t know what that is, I feel very, very sorry for your clients)
OK, so now try “comprehensive case file.”
Also, I guess you missed the part of the story that says that there is exactly such a database that contains information about the detainees: “Not all the documents are physically located in one place,” Morrell said, but most are available through a database.
Guin, I as asking for what you thought the factual predicate for the charge would be–not what you thought the legal requirement they violated would be.
Also, please show me how you arrived at the belief that “they haven’t hardly any information about what and why these people were charged.” The article linked in the OP doesn’t even go that far.
Also, writing a word in all caps does not mean that that word now has some accepted meaning such that anyone can make the judgment that something out in the world is or is not that thing and their judgment is entitled to respect.
Fuck it. Go play at the kid’s table Guin, let me and Dio and elucidator hash this one out.
I’m a transactional lawyer.
No, I didn’t miss a thing. You asked what a case file was, and I answered. If you believe that I was wrong in my explanation, then I encourage you to get a few more years under your belt, and to work on some truely large litigation files.
It’s not put out by reporters but by multiple sources in the Justice Department, the Pentagon and from officials in both the Bush and the Obama administration. Trying to handwave it off as a liberal media conspiracy might fly on wingnut daily or fact free republic, but don’t bring that weak shit around here.
As to the definition of a case file? Well, it has to be some sort of comprehensive collation of evidence, facts, charges, etc. – basically a “case” if you will – for each individual which is accessible from a central data base, whether that data base be a manilla folder or a computer file. It’s the professional and competent thing to do. Ask any prosecutor.
Interesting that the “database” line was not attributed to Morrell in quotes. It’s also self-contradictory to say that everything isn’t available in one place but that it’s available in a database.
It sounds like everybody else except a few hardcore Bush ball suckers is saying that no coherent case files exist, and even the Bush weasels are using weaselly language.
OK, so now the requirement is for a “coherent case file.” Gotcha. Just trying to keep those goal posts nailed down.
I have to go to bed, but read the article again and try to divide each paragraph into (i) a recitation of specific facts, (ii) the reporters’s opinion (i.e., the first paragraph), and (iii) paragraphs where the reporter summarizes multiple sources. All of the good meaty scary stuff is in paragraphs under (ii) and (iii), whereas the paragraphs in (i) above paint a much more nuanced and complex version of what’s going on.
The lack of actual facts won’t keep the reactionary liberal douches from going to the battlements though.
That’s the bare minimum to prosecute a case, yes, and it’s not moving the goal posts/ I used that exact same phrase in my OP.
The reporter never gives an opinion. He reports what muliple credible witnesses are saying, and also gives room for slippery responses from non-credible Bush weasels. The “liberal media” is the sheerest conservative moonshine.
Makes me wonder what Bush’s intentions were concerning the trials – just how many years was he intending to keep prisoners without trials.
Bush originally wanted to set up a gas chamber on Guantanamo, then start assembly line secret tribunals and executions. I don’t think he expected the Supreme Court to thwart him the way it did. He basically wanted to turn Gitmo into a death camp, and do it in such a way that the convictions and executions could never be examined or questioned.
This was a problem at Abu Ghraib too. They had to call in the FBI to fingerprint and interview all the detainees because they hadn’t kept close enough track to even know why people were in there. We can hope Gitmo isn’t that bad, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.
That **Rand Rover **is claiming this a reporter’s fevered liberal concoction, when the reporter is citing the federal filings of prosecutors, is laughable as usual.
Gas chambers? That’s silly.
Please, my friend, I beg of you – please don’t tempt fate. I really REALLY don’t want to know the answer.
Somehow, I feel that a mere LINK to this website would leave Rand Rover backpedaling in every case he’s been associated with. Multiple acquittals? I can see it.
OK, I’ll bite.
Comprehensive case file. A group of files that if:
- the prisoners are charged with something after 7 and a half years
- the prisoners actually get legal representation from a competant attorney
- the prisoners actually appear before a judge or judicial panel or a court system of some kind and
- the prisoners’ attorneys make a motion in discovery to view the prisoners’ case file
the administrators at Gitmo can say “oh, hey, this group of files is what we should copy off to give to the other side and by doing so, we won’t be forgetting anything relevant to the case that needs to be disclosed.”
Ok, I see it says “execution chamber” instead of “gas chamber.” I may have remembered the method wrong. I guess it was lethal injection, not the gas chamber.
But they were still talking about trying to carry out executions at Guanatamo as recently as last February.