How many of you heard about this...

[Busyman™]

First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.

Don't talk down to you?

Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.

Now-

As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.

If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.

My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.

That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.

What if there's is something wrong with the system?

What if there is?

Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?

But it isn't, you see.

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

[j2k4]

Don't talk down to you?

Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.

Now-

As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.

If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.

My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.

That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.

What if there's is something wrong with the system?

What if there is?

Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?

But it isn't, you see.

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

Question:

Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?

Do you believe in your argument or not?

[j2k4]

LIbby was convicted of perjury which obstructed the investigation. (wasn't that what you wanted Clinton impeached for? ) Not the outing of a covert agent. Even a wingnut like yourself should understand that. (BTW like it or not it has been officially confirmed she was covert)

Please explain what the F@#k his conviction has to do with crimes others may or may not have committed.

Is that a good enough start?

secondly he was convicted yet you wingnuts think him innocent based on what you call "no underlying crime". He lied, he obstructed the investigation. The fact that the investigation couldn't bring a prosecution because it couldn't be proven it was a deliberate act is irrelevant to the charges against libby.

Okay, try to follow me here:

Pat Fitzgerald instituted an investigation to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's identity, causing her CIA "cover" to be blown (more about that later).

After much hoopla and hullabaloo, Scooter Libby is charged as a perjurer over testimony he provided to the Grand Jury.

Meantime, Richard Armitage (no friend to the administration, and certainly no fan of the Iraq war) publicly admits he was the primary offender in the affair, yet Fitzgerald (strangely) has no problem with the fact...it further develops Fitzgerald had that information in hand at the outset of the investigation, well before Libby was even called to provide his peripheral testimony.

Let me reiterate that for you: Fitzgerald had information in hand before he started the investigation that negated the need to investigate anything.

End result:

Armitage=the guilty party=no penalty; not even a slap on the wrist - reputation intact.

Libby=caught in an investigation that need not have even taken place=30 months in prison, reputation ruined.

Plame=CIA says she was an agent at the time of Armitage's "slip", yet her husband, Joe Wilson, says she had not been covert since approximately 1996, during the Clinton administration.

The rest of the Bush administration - Cheney, Rove, et. al.= conspiracy-free, by Fitgerald's reckoning.

You're right, by the way; Libby's conviction has naught to do with the crimes of others...why, then, did you bring it up?

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

[vidcc]

Okay, try to follow me here:

Pat Fitzgerald instituted an investigation to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's identity, causing her CIA "cover" to be blown (more about that later).

After much hoopla and hullabaloo, Scooter Libby is charged as a perjurer over testimony he provided to the Grand Jury.

Meantime, Richard Armitage (no friend to the administration, and certainly no fan of the Iraq war) publicly admits he was the primary offender in the affair, yet Fitzgerald (strangely) has no problem with the fact...it further develops Fitzgerald had that information in hand at the outset of the investigation, well before Libby was even called to provide his peripheral testimony.

Let me reiterate that for you: Fitzgerald had information in hand before he started the investigation that negated the need to investigate anything.

End result:

Armitage=the guilty party=no penalty; not even a slap on the wrist - reputation intact.

Libby=caught in an investigation that need not have even taken place=30 months in prison, reputation ruined.

Plame=CIA says she was an agent at the time of Armitage's "slip", yet her husband, Joe Wilson, says she had not been covert since approximately 1996, during the Clinton administration.

The rest of the Bush administration - Cheney, Rove, et. al.= conspiracy-free, by Fitgerald's reckoning.

So what? None of it has to do with what libby is convicted of. All you have done is put in more words the daily talking point memo you got in your republican email "no underlying crime."

It doesn't matter that you don't want republicans investigated don't think the investigation should have continued. Fact is it did. And like it or not Libby still lied and no matter what you think of the investigation continuing this does not excuse him. It doesn't matter if you think an investigation should have continued or should even have started, one still has to tell the truth.

Why is this so hard for you wingnuts to understand?



BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.
We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.

[j2k4]

So what? None of it has to do with what libby is convicted of. All you have done is put in more words the daily talking point memo you got in your republican email "no underlying crime."

It doesn't matter that you don't want republicans investigated don't think the investigation should have continued. Fact is it did. And like it or not Libby still lied and no matter what you think of the investigation continuing this does not excuse him. It doesn't matter if you think an investigation should have continued or should even have started, one still has to tell the truth.

Why is this so hard for you wingnuts to understand?

Wrong.

If "one" (Armitage) is never questioned by the Grand Jury, he doesn't even have to lie.

Do you realize that you are advocating the commission of crimes by democrats (Armitage) for the specific purpose of ensnaring republicans while ignoring the offense committed by the democrat (Armitage is acknowledged to have been the original leaker and responsible party, ergo he should have been at the front of the line)?

BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.

The guy who leaks it first is "THE" leaker, and that was Armitage.

Sorry.

We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.

And you are willing to so describe an investigation that didn't nail the perpetrator, settling instead for a mere bystander?

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.

Hmmm.

Now who's making excuses?

BTW-

Why are you calling me a "wingnut"?

Golly gee - compared to you, Busyman is William-fucking-Shakespeare.

You still haven't told why you brought up Libby to begin with, Nigel.

[Busyman™]

Don't talk down to you?

Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.

Now-

As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.

If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.

My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.

That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.



What if there is?

Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?

But it isn't, you see.

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

Question:

Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?

Do you believe in your argument or not?

It means I have my reservations.

[j2k4]

But it isn't, you see.

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

Question:

Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?

Do you believe in your argument or not?

It means I have my reservations.

Listen-

I have reservations of my own, but not about the efficacy of putting someone who is positively guilty out of our mutual misery.

I am not sanguine about sloppy judicial proceedings that result in wrongful incarceration, but-

The problem is not with a procedure that says innocent-until-proven-guilty, it is with the flaws of the humans charged with it's administration.

Competence, in other words; rich man's lawyer/poor man's lawyer - you know what I mean.

There is, however, the occasional supremely, clearly, and/or self-admittedly guilty person.

No problem there.

Your mistake is proffering time spent on death row is worse than time spent doing "life" to an extent that the fact alone is worth tossing the death penalty...at least until you solidly document the wrongful deaths, which you correctly indicate are irretrievable; in such cases, however, you can bet some enterprising lawyer in search of a stray dollar will volunteer to test the DNA for free, and if he/she ever gets the desired result, you'll hear about it.

In the meantime, however...

[vidcc]

Wrong.

If "one" (Armitage) is never questioned by the Grand Jury, he doesn't even have to lie.

Do you realize that you are advocating the commission of crimes by democrats (Armitage) for the specific purpose of ensnaring republicans while ignoring the offense committed by the democrat (Armitage is acknowledged to have been the original leaker and responsible party, ergo he should have been at the front of the line)?

BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.

The guy who leaks it first is "THE" leaker, and that was Armitage.

Sorry.

Firstly, don't complain again if I quote your words, I have not altered what you have said.
Secondly, I don't care that Armatage is a democrat or Libby is a republican, that's something you care about.

Thirdly, you make the argument a 5 year old makes. "He did it first" doesn't cut it.....sorry..... they all still leaked the name....the phrase is "multiple leakers"

We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.

And you are willing to so describe an investigation that didn't nail the perpetrator, settling instead for a mere bystander?

No.
The investigation closed early IMO.
IMO they all should have been charged, but the law is that it has to be intentional, which is almost impossible to prove. Fitz can prove they outed her, he couldn't prove they knowingly outed her. (have you considered that it may have been impossible to prove because of the lies?)

But the case not having been completed has no relevance to the bystander "being nailed". He wasn't nailed for the case being investigated, he was nailed for committing a crime while the case was being investigated.

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.

Hmmm.

Now who's making excuses?

Excuses????? for what????? I said he did what he did, What am I excusing?

BTW-

Why are you calling me a "wingnut"?

Golly gee - compared to you, Busyman is William-fucking-Shakespeare.

Probably for the same reason you feel you need to keep calling me a liberal. Your opinions don't point to you being a conservative from where I am standing (sitting actually), even if you think they do. The do however point to you being a right wing partisan

You still haven't told why you brought up Libby to begin with, Nigel.

I brought libby up because contrary to the evidence of his guilt the wingnuts are claiming him innocent, without being able to prove it (other than unconnected conspiracy theories). We were talking about standard of proof required to be sentenced to death and the view given that the system is sound enough already to give the sentence. Sometimes the innocent can't prove it. would you accept the word of those people?

[vidcc]

The judge in the libby trial had an interesting footnote in the court order he issued allowing 12 top lawyers, including Robert Bork to issue briefs on Libby’s behalf.

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.

The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

source (copy of the order)


assuming this is genuine it's a nice comment.