Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 94
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I assure you I'm not a moron, regardless of how many times you say it.
    This whole thing is based on your assertion that the right against self incrimination allows a someone to know of an impending distaster and do nothing to stop it. That right is not applicable in this case. For instance, if you know of an impending disaster, but did nothing to cause it (you overheard it) then you would not be incriminating yourself by alerting the authorities, and therefore the gov't can punish that inaction as a crime as no one would say that is protected by any clause of the Constitution. Now, if the person was to take part in said action they are suddenly not committing a crime by not telling anyone? Surely you cannot eliminate one crime (not informing the authorities of an impending slaughter) by committing another (taking part in the slaughter).
    You would only be allowed to keep the information to yourself if it would tend to incriminate you.

    However, the "right" thing to do would be to make a motion for the judge to grant you immunity and then spill the beans.
  2. #62  
    well i guess in this case you could argue that the "right" thing to do would be, just spill the beans and fry
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    your answer was more reasonable and patient than any I could have written ...
    And written in the english language
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I am not sure how your read or think that when you type that Richard Clarke proposed to both Clinton and Bush that ....... strike all known AQ targets, then 3 lines later write that Clinton signed and approved every military suggetion dealing with terrorism. When I read those statements in the same response it says Clarke said strike the targets, Clinton approved and signed military orders to strike the targets. Well, if that is the case someone is lying or badly misinformed.

    Maybe you need to go back and read your book, or have someone read it to you and take better notes. You have stated several times now that Clarke suggested and Clinton approved strikes against every known target after every terror attack that was listed in an earlier post. That is a false statement. Sorry to be so blunt, but sometimes that is what it takes.
    I cannot believe i have to explain this to somebody who is in the military, but Richard Clark was not in the military chain of command. He is not authorized to submit a proposal to the President.

    I said that Clarke suggested to the President and the Joint Chiefs that they strike all Al Quaida targets at the same time.

    And I said that Clarke blamed in part, Clinton's poor relationship with the military as a reason why the Joint Chiefs gave him few or no military options.

    And I said that of the ones presented to Clinton .. Clinton signed every one.

    There were several.

    Just as i have told you now 4 times.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You would only be allowed to keep the information to yourself if it would tend to incriminate you.

    However, the "right" thing to do would be to make a motion for the judge to grant you immunity and then spill the beans.
    You're right.

    There are numerous examples of the government being aware of confessions and not using them in trial: forced confessions, attorney-client discussions, etc. It is not abnormal for the government to ignore self-incriminations, indeed the constitution obligates it to. As such, I have no problem with it labelling knowledge of an upcoming crime a crime in itself.

    The inability of some people to think beyond sound bites and cliches really frustrates me. Life is full of nuance and needs to be approached as such.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    well i guess in this case you could argue that the "right" thing to do would be, just spill the beans and fry
    If someone were to confess to planning an upcoming terrorist act, and then succeeds in getting the government to stop it, I find it hard to believe the person would be killed. Think of the witness protection plan with regards to mobsters. We protect former criminals all the time.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I cannot believe i have to explain this to somebody who is in the military, but Richard Clark was not in the military chain of command. He is not authorized to submit a proposal to the President.

    I said that Clarke suggested to the President and the Joint Chiefs that they strike all Al Quaida targets at the same time.

    And I said that Clarke blamed in part, Clinton's poor relationship with the military as a reason why the Joint Chiefs gave him few or no military options.

    And I said that of the ones presented to Clinton .. Clinton signed every one.

    There were several.

    Just as i have told you now 4 times.
    Keep adding and subtracting words and you will eventually get close to the truth.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    If someone were to confess to planning an upcoming terrorist act, and then succeeds in getting the government to stop it, I find it hard to believe the person would be killed. Think of the witness protection plan with regards to mobsters. We protect former criminals all the time.
    Yes, that's what i said in my previous post. The criminal's attorney files a motion for immunity in exchange for spilling the beans.

    Or sometimes the prosecution even files a motion for immunity. For example in cases where they cannot compel the defendant to testify, but they really need the information to try somebody else.

    They would grant him immunity (without even asking him), then they would order him to spill the beans. 5th ammendment would no longer apply.

    added
    ---------
    oops, i just read your other post, you already addressed some of this, sorry
    Last edited by theBlaze74; 05/05/2006 at 04:21 PM.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Keep adding and subtracting words and you will eventually get close to the truth.
    Lol, or perhaps get close to sinking in to your brain.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Or sometimes the prosecution even files a motion for immunity. For example in cases where they cannot compel the defendant to testify, but they really need the information to try somebody else.

    They would grant him immunity (without even asking him), then they would order him to spill the beans. 5th ammendment would no longer apply.
    And thus the law complies with morality. Funny how things work out.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    And thus the law complies with morality. Funny how things work out.
    Well kind of. Because if they could have compelled him to speak, that would mean that he would have immunity from prosecution. Which in this case would not be so good. lol
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well kind of. Because if they could have compelled him to speak, that would mean that he would have immunity from prosecution. Which in this case would not be so good. lol
    What if they had just not used the admission as evidence? Wouldn't that have left the door open? Judges throw out admissions all the time (especially on television) but the case is allowed to proceed.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    What if they had just not used the admission as evidence? Wouldn't that have left the door open? Judges throw out admissions all the time (especially on television) but the case is allowed to proceed.
    There are many reasons why an admission would be thrown out. Such as, the defendant was threatened (or tortured) in to the admission. The defendant was not in the right state of mind to make an admission, for example he was drugged. Or even that the defendant was not made aware that he was not required to give the confession, ie he did not know about the 5th amendment, or ... he was not "read his miranda rights".

    But all of these beg the question, why on earth would a defendant give information against himself before securing immunity? That would be suicidal, literally.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    But all of these beg the question, why on earth would a defendant give information against himself before securing immunity? That would be suicidal, literally.
    Well, first because it's the right thing to do. Second, because there should be a law compelling him to (but respecting the right against self incrimination, that admission should not be used as evidence or as lead).
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by dutchtrumpet
    Should have put him down like the human trash he is. He admittedly had information that could have saved lives.
    Nonsense. The man is a wannabe. Life in prison will be the best thing that has ever happpened to him in his miserable life.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Nonsense. The man is a wannabe. Life in prison will be the best thing that has ever happpened to him in his miserable life.
    Life down the road in a Supermax prison designed to induce insanity is just the right reward to prepare Zack for the afterlife.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Nonsense. The man is a wannabe. Life in prison will be the best thing that has ever happpened to him in his miserable life.
    Interesting that death penalty proponents are often religious, but at the same time believe in sending the condemned priests and ministers and clerics, and giving a last meal, and last rights, and pretty much all the time and everything the convict needs to enter paradise. All things that the victims never had. So we send the criminal to heaven, and the victims to? Never understood that thinking.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Interesting that death penalty proponents are often religious, but at the same time believe in sending the condemned priests and ministers and clerics, and giving a last meal, and last rights, and pretty much all the time and everything the convict needs to enter paradise. All things that the victims never had. So we send the criminal to heaven, and the victims to? Never understood that thinking.
    Clearly.

    The problem is that you're assuming those same religious folks aren't also trying to give the innocent (i.e. the average person on the street) the same opportunity for salvation. You know, those people who want to share their beliefs with you.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Clearly.

    The problem is that you're assuming those same religious folks aren't also trying to give the innocent (i.e. the average person on the street) the same opportunity for salvation. You know, those people who want to share their beliefs with you.
    I am?
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Interesting that death penalty proponents are often religious, but at the same time believe in sending the condemned priests and ministers and clerics, and giving a last meal, and last rights, and pretty much all the time and everything the convict needs to enter paradise. All things that the victims never had. So we send the criminal to heaven, and the victims to? Never understood that thinking.
    I hope that no one read my post as advocating the death penalty for wannabes. One can believe that one has had such a miserable life that life in prison is an improvement and still believe that one does not execute people simply because one does not like their rhetoric or their associates. Even Mousaoui's friends did not like him very much. The man is a mess; no one argues otherwise. One does not execute people because they cannot live their lives consistentlhy, because they are neither good citizens or effective terrorists.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions