Comments on: Decision Day On al-Haramain (updated)

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sun, 31 May 2009 00:48:02 +0000

Well, right. But Obama is earning his embarrassment here. It is fairly duplicitous assertions, and conclusions and actions thereon, that this case, like Binyam Mohamed, is still being litigated on. Those are affirmative and adopting actions by Obama. Sorry, it pains me to an undeterminable level too; but it is what it is. At some point you own your actions; we are there for Obama. The better question is how does it play out. As with the torture, torture tapes, and torture photos issues, the once present and future view seems to be stonewalling and embarrassment.

By: thnelson

thnelson — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:52:07 +0000

Mary, I think that the “record stuffed with lies” is a possible if not probable scenario, for it is clear the scope of classified material in Judge Walker’s file far exceeds the Document itself. Interestingly, in a prior hearing Judge Walker told Tony Coppolino that he (the judge) was not impressed by the Government’s secret (”ex parte, in camera”) filings. With a protective order Jon and Steve would get to see all that stuff – but they wouldn’t be allowed to share it with anyone, including co-counsel.
I think that there are other possible scenarios as well that could be triggered by release of the Document and other classified filings, perhaps not just lies but indications of other actions that could be highly embarrassing, even to Obama. (Obama’s embarrassment quotient may be fairly low these days — witness the decision to withhold torture photos.)

By: bmaz

bmaz — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:32:27 +0000

Well, LI Expressway was just the thing, I think, and it was fucking crazy open and fast or crazy slow and congested, and not all that width in numbers and width of lanes by Western US standards. A semi jacknifed out into the road is plenty of concern to get this roadside romeo off duty cop to put down his symbolic donut and let a call be made to the appropriate jurisdiction for the road. Was it 9-11? No. but it was plenty to take precedence and the “contempt of cop” belligerent BS response from the cop was absolutely triable to a jury. For an appellate judge with a cold record in front of her, to come behind the jury, and substitute her valuation on the facts for theirs, is absolutely the very definition of wrong for an appellate judge. This is fucking fundamental; more simple than Marbury v. Madison. You just don’t do that unless you have an agenda that is wrongheaded and inappropriately considered for the decision you are facing.

By: SmileySam

SmileySam — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:17:56 +0000

Does anyone know what came of the Gov. threat to Judge Walker to come in a take his copy of secured document ? I seem to remember a bit of a stink at the time they made that threat but I haven’t heard anything since.

I’m of the same mind as others in that I wonder why the DOJ doesn’t just accept the fine and be happy? Is it because they fear Walker will turn over copies of his copy to the plaintiffs?

What effect would summary judgment have on the other pending cases, if anything ?

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Sat, 30 May 2009 21:18:04 +0000

I don’t see how Mr. Jocks had an emergency in the first place

maybe the weather or time of day was a contributing factor, or there was a curve or other obstruction that made this an “emergency” situation

absent those facts, this guy needed to call a tow truck, not 911

I’ve driven semi trucks in Los Angeles an the Bay area

One stalled truck blocking a lane isn’t an emergency

it was upright, marked with flares, and nobody was bleeding

what’s the problem ???

By: dakine01

dakine01 — Sat, 30 May 2009 21:02:57 +0000

Book Salon up at the Mothership with Dr Jurgen Todenhofer’s Why Do You Kill?: The Untold Story of the Iraqi Resistance hosted by Siun

By: freepatriot

freepatriot — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:59:58 +0000

could ya splain dis to me like I was an idiot

this is a civil case, in the discovery process, with a judge ready to issue a summary judgment for the plaintiff

does that just “end” the proceeding ???

I don’t see how the plaintiff can get relief without a “cease and desist” order followed by some sort of sanction against the government

is the possibility of present day wire tapping of plaintiff or future illegal wiretapping a moot issue ???

if not, the plaintiff is suffering a from crime that could be continuing

where is the relief in a judgment that gives plaintiff money, and then allows defendant to continue the illegal action ???

as I see it, the plaintiff is due the relief of exposing the crime, and exposing the criminals, so that criminal prosecutions can be used to deter further illegal wire tapping of plaintiff

that’s the whole point, ain’t it ???

By: Synoia

Synoia — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:55:50 +0000

The Official Secrets Act is used to protect the Bureaucracy from informed criticism. As are D notices.

In the UK it is not possible to sue the Government or the Crown. They are sovereign.

By: PapaZita

PapaZita — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:27:25 +0000

Doesn’t that remind one of Sir Humphrey’s lines in Yes, Minister? “The Official Secrets act is not to protect secrets, it is to protect officials”.

By: dakine01

dakine01 — Sat, 30 May 2009 20:20:35 +0000

bmaz – Do we have some insane lawyers working at DoJ? (insanity = doing the same thing in the same way time after time and expecting to get a different result)