My use of “false dichotomy” in that thread could also be explained by the fact that the poster I responded to used a false dichotomy.
But why would I care? There is ample evidence of his kindness to his dog Blondi, so what?
By the same token, I expect that my country will behave itself. I expect that if we grab people from a foreign land on the presumption that they are enemy combatants (lawful or otherwise), we have very good evidence that such is the case. Evidence that will stand up, evidence that will put paid to any assertion that such detainees are innocent victims. I hold our nation to a higher standard than I hold others, because…well, its ours, isn’t it?
The very fact that we have released so many is evidence that this standard is not being met, if not evidence that it is being utterly ignored. Hence, the assertion that the evidentiary foundation is less than I require is already substantiated. As well as the demonstrated fact that we only seem to be able to try and convict a chauffeur.
From what I have already seen, our efforts to protect the innocent from injustice rates an “F”. That is important, that matters, somebody has to be the Americans. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Compared to those questions, the dreadful injustice you face here on these lefty leaning boards is less than a snowflake in an avalanche.
And, after all, big guy, you weren’t drafted. Nobody dragged you in here. And if someone did, tell me who, and I promise I will speak rather sharply to them.
What i am railing against in this thread is the very thought process that you used to draw conclusions about my positions based on my posts inm this thread.
I’ll ask you what I asked luci: do you not see that I could agree with everything ýou say and still get mad that Dio would (i) fully believe the unsupported opinion of two reporters and (ii) extrapolate the lack of “comprehensive case files” for many detainees into a complete lack of evidence?
I do see how that is possible, Rand, but I respectfully submit that you would have more success in reaching accord with the likes of Dio if you were to say so. The way you debate seems to suggest you are unwilling to concede any point of agreement.
Now: to take it out of the hypothetical, do you agree that the situation is a little fucked up, or not?
Er … the intent of my comment was not to imply that your comprehension is impaired, but that Rand’s communication is same. In other words, what he should be used to is not your failing to understand an argument, but his failure to make the argument clear, based on how many people, not just you, regularly respond to him with some variation of “what the fuck are you talking about.” In retrospect, this was not articulated as cleanly as it might have been, which, naturally, is the height of irony, given the observation I was attempting to make. It doesn’t make Rand Rover any less of a babbling douchebag, but it does suggest that continued proximity to his douchebaggery has a contaminating effect.
Again, you are extrapolating the article’s argument that there are no “comprehensicpve case files” for many detainees into the proposition that there is not sufficient evidence against many (or any) detainees.
Also, this is probably the third thread in which you have invited me to leave. It is interesting that you ask me to leave in the very same post that you show why my presence is necessary. This is a large area of ignorance that I like to fight, so looks like I’ll be here for a while.
I’d just like to pop in to address the whole “case file” portion of this discussion/debate/rant/debacle.
There is a whole field devoted to the issue of maintaining a case file that’s composed of many different types of documents or just a sheer number of documents. Yes, it is time consuming, and methodical, and monotonous sometimes, but it is absolutely essential, and it’s law.
Even asking the question, “What is considered a comprehensive case file?” makes me wonder if you really are a lawyer. There aren’t differing answers to that question. It’s a collection of all documents that were reviewed, worked on, produced, or otherwise handled in connection with a lawsuit or potential lawsuit. It’s really that simple.
Not keeping a coordinated case file is begging for multiple problems such as loss of evidence, failure to see evidence that you have, failure to give evidence to opposing counsel, etc which can result in sanctions or outright dismissal.
Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it states that whenever a lawsuit can be reasonably anticipated, all evidence must be preserved. It doesn’t sound to me like their doing a very good job at it. Judging by the parts of the story where each agency seems to have a piece of the data and how it is scattered, I’d be willing to bet that there is absolutely no chain of custody taking place and it would all be suspect when brought before a court, especially if there are gaps.
Anywho, if you don’t know what a case file is, I’d learn if I were you before that first malpractice lawsuit hits.
As an aside, I can see how conflicting statements were given during the article where several people say there isn’t anything resembaling a complete case file, and another person who says, “Yes there is, look at the database.” However, if there is a database, there wouldn’t be any reason for people to complain unless they never had access to said database, which I guess is possible. One further thing I’d like to point out; In the article, he states, “Not all the documents are physically located in one place,” Morrell said, but most are available through a database." Most is not all. And most is not sufficient when dealing with a criminal trial. ALL evidence must be preserved. So I hope they know where it is, wherever it’s located. Guess we’ll find out in due course, huh?
At least as much my fault as yours. Apology offered.
I do agree that the situation is a little fucked up.
-
I am a transactional lawyer, so I don’t deal with cases or case files. I don’t even associate witjh the likes of litigators (the very thought!).
-
If there is some definition of “comprehensive case file” that is regularly used in the legal world, the article gives no indication that it is using such definition.
-
More generally, the article does not support at all the proposition that there’s no evidence at all.
-
Are you a lawyer? If so, then I am sure you can name two income tax treaties with lax LOB provisions and tell me why a state pension plan doesn’t care whether a real estate fund is fractions rule compliant. If you can’t, you must not be a lawyer. :rolleyes:
“A little fucked up” World War Two was noisy. The Black Death was unfortunate. Ayn Rand was a lead-hearted biyatch. OK, we’re getting somewhere.
Not a bit of it. Freak freely, says I, and I stand by it. Besides, where else could you go to bask in the golden light of my wisdom? Showering down upon you.
:rolleyes: You can lead a liberal douche to water but you can’t take the scales from his eyes. Or whatever.
Now THAT would turn this thread into about seventeen kinds of awesome. I could use another meltdown.
lit·i·gator n. [Latin ltigre, ltigt- : ls, lt-, lawsuit + agere, to drive; see ag- in Indo-European roots]
A barrister who goes to court to deal with failed transactions.
Whoa-was that the one where he claimed his house was broken into, and it turned out he was lying? Or was that someone else? Refresh my memory? (There have been waaaaay too many meltdowns here over the years)
Rand Rover a lawyer of ANY kind! The very idea!
No that was, aw hell, can’t remember his name either - he came back as a sock later on dumberdorf? something like that.
Freek’s meltdown came about as he kept changing his story about where he essentially stalked a stranger.
Did anyone really ever expect that Gitmo was anything other than the Administration locking up the the enemies of it’s friends on the hearsay say-so of those friends? The whole thing was a sham from the git go with no evidence. That was the whole reason to lock them up at an overseas military base, to keep the lack of evidence from scrutiny. No one incarcerated at Gitmo has ever been convicted, nor will be. Seven years is a long time for a prosecutor to let evidence go stale. My recollection is that they tried one person who was acquitted, and they are getting ready to try one guy who wants to be found guilty and put to death. Out of the hundreds of inmates, they have one guilty plea? That’s a record for any fascist prosecutor to be proud of.
So for review kids, we’ve kidnapped these people based on suspicion that now appears to be poorly documented, incarcerated them in a military prison in a foreign country for seven years. Put them in stress positions every day and waterboarded them, deprived them of counsel, a trial and their freedom. An unknown number have become ill, mentally ill and some died.
We are all responsible for this. It’s no wonder that some of us deny that any of this, much less all of it, has happened. But what can we really expect of a Republican Administration where the number two in charge drunkenly shoots his best friend in the face with a shot gun and then makes the friend publicly apologize?
Wait-he left off his last post with-they’re com-AAAHHH
Or is that the first one I thought of?
Damn!!! This is like, hard!
Excellent. For what it’s worth I agree there is a difference between “no evidence at all” and “no comprehensive case file.” They are not equivalent.
However, if there is no comprehensive single source for all the information on any one prisoner, I have to wonder how they know any of these men are dangerous. Any assertion that these are terrorists, that they cannot be released due to the danger they will re-offend, or re-join with Al Queda, ought to be backed up by facts. Yet it seems that even the Obama administration cannot put easily their hands on these facts without a great deal of effort.
Either they (meaning the Bush administration generally, and the organizers of Guantanamo specifically) know the men are dangerous, or they don’t. If they do know, how do they know? Where are the files that prove the assertion? How was it possible at some previous point to know the men were dangerous without a case file? If they don’t know for certain that they are dangerous, why aren’t they assembling that information? And yet it seems that neither are facts easily available, nor were they being made easily available. It seems like the first rule of running any prison under the Magna Carta: habeus corpus (at least as I understand it, being only a lay person).
Does this seem problematic to you? Is there a logical explanation I’ve missed?
I believe, without checking, that that was sqrlcub, or some such.