Comments on: Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s Lawyers Can’t Know about the Torture that Drove Him Crazy

By: NMvoiceofreason

NMvoiceofreason — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:57:47 +0000

Refusing requests for information is a problem depending on who asked for it. If the other party in the lawsuit asks for it, you are under no obligation (generally) to turn it over. Exceptions apply in criminal law if it tends to prove innocence, etc. If the court asks you to turn it over, in a civil case (such as a discovery request), you may or may not be in big trouble if you defy the order, depending on the judge, and depending on the “probative nature” of the evidence. If it proves you have lied to the court, judges will look at you very harshly from then on, and some old school types will send you to the bar for sanctions (i.e. a fine). There is an entire doctrine on the “spoilation of evidence” where you have caused evidence to go missing or be falsely presented, where the result is the presumptions against the lier of the despoiler. However, the diary in question is not evidence of competence, nor is it probative on the question of competence. Only testimony of medical and mental health professionals as to the CURRENT status of the defendent is really part of the question before the court.

But only a kangaroo court would accept the government’s denial of the defendant’s own diary at trial, and the government is going down a very hard road with this. If Kangaroo does let them have their way, there is no way the conviction (if any) stands on appeal.

Thankfully, there is no equivalent to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. While the government can rush you through the process to execute you, you have no way to accelerate the process of appeals, even once you have been ordered to be released (This paragraph is written in SarcasticFont(tm)).

By: wavpeac

wavpeac — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:37:48 +0000

If we were to apply the geneva conventions in the way they had always been applied in the past; how many soldiers, how many administrators broke the law and committed war crimes? I mean, we would have to guess but it seems that this could be a pretty big number…those who participated or knew…how many people are we talking about do you think? What would the list look like at the top theorizing from what we know?

I guess I am wanting to get a big picture of the “audacity” of “sadistic where in the hell is the freakin’ hope”.

By: perris

perris — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:07:38 +0000

since I am nal, I have a question for those who are;

I was always under the assumption that;

1) the government can refuse even legal requests for information, however if they do

2) when they do the plaintif is given all benefit of doubt and all claims are assumed true

so, I guess that assumption was wrong?

By: Boston1775

Boston1775 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:40:29 +0000

And the fact that John Kerry decided it was wise not to intervene in police affairs is all I needed to know.

By: Boston1775

Boston1775 — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:35:34 +0000

The use of a taser on a college journalism student asking John Kerry tough questions is the exact picture of where our country is today.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:43:40 +0000

It’s a tough economy, but I see Kafka and Lenin still have work. In Belarus a large statue of Lenin fell over…on top of a man and killed him.

We need to resolve these crazy issues from the recent past, so we can get past all the crazy surrealism of the Bushies.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:33:22 +0000

Wasn’t there a law passed specifically to immunize some people from prosecutions?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:32:12 +0000

I guess you have to say “Oops” and let ‘em get back to work.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:29:22 +0000

The DOD knows how to spend money.
The CIA knows how to keep secrets.
The DOJ knows how to uh, do something or other.

By: MaryCh

MaryCh — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:25:53 +0000

Thanks! I was being snarky, but this is helpful and I appreciate it.