M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 --and obviously they are--then have to be unsure by definition. Gosh no. Theycan look at the same testimony and decide a different interpretation is available. Such as Poor Omar was seconds shot after the grenade was thrown... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Gosh no. Theycan look at the same testimony and decide a different interpretation is available. Such as Poor Omar was seconds shot after the grenade was thrown... The prosecution--who are relying on the testimony of the people there--cannot know more about it than the people there. We're talking actual physics, now. I know you're not stupid...so I know you're indulging in a dishonest debating tactic. Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 I know you're not stupid...so I know you're indulging in a dishonest debating tactic. Then one of us is.... I will repeat. Evidence is subject to interpretation. Evidence is rarley black and white, and in the case where the defence says that there is doubt who trew the grenade, it is highly subjective. It is highly possible that the intrepretation of the prosecution is different than the defense, who will always interpret from the best possible advantage to their client. So once again, given the testimony, it si the defense who says there is doubt, not the prosecution. In the prosecution's mind there is no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Then one of us is.... I will repeat. Evidence is subject to interpretation. Evidence is rarley black and white, and in the case where the defence says that there is doubt who trew the grenade, it is highly subjective. It is highly possible that the intrepretation of the prosecution is different than the defense, who will always interpret from the best possible advantage to their client. So once again, given the testimony, it si the defense who says there is doubt, not the prosecution. In the prosecution's mind there is no doubt. If the prosecution says they have no doubt...they are lying. Period. The same thing can be said for the defense. The facts--the only facts that we know--are that the man who was actually there says he "believes" Khadr threw the grenade...but that he isn't sure. We also know that there is some quesiton about physical positioning which could make the process problematic for the prosecution. And mind: I am not for one second saying that Khadr didn't do it; I am utterly agnostic on that issue. But no: the prosecution cannot "know" that Khadr is guilty. That's physically impossible. Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 If the prosecution says they have no doubt...they are lying. Thank you Mr Kreskin. Do you have any predictions for what 2010 will bring? But no: the prosecution cannot "know" that Khadr is guilty. That's physically impossible. Whether they objectively know isn't the issue. They will however attempt to prove the case. As long as they have no doubt that they can prove the case, and that they have no doubt that Omat is guilty is all that matters. Also, your petulance against Canada is showing; Americans plainly have no more interest in or knowledge of the matter. That's word salad. The facts--the only facts that we know--are that the man who was actually there says he "believes" Khadr threw the grenade...but that he isn't sure. We also know that there is some quesiton about physical positioning which could make the process problematic for the prosecution. And mind: I am not for one second saying that Khadr didn't do it; I am utterly agnostic on that issue. But no: the prosecution cannot "know" that Khadr is guilty. That's physically impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Thank you Mr Kreskin. Do you have any predictions for what 2010 will bring? Yes. January, then February, and so on. I am making the radical claim that the people on the ground know more about the incident than the poeple who were not there. You're the one who's claiming we don't know that April won't arrive before January. Whether they objectively know isn't the issue. They will however attempt to prove the case. As long as they have no doubt that they can prove the case, and that they have no doubt that Omat is guilty is all that matters. If they feel they can prove the case, they will attempt to prosecute. Yes, that's more than obvious. You asked how I knew that the prosecution might have soem doubts (that was the stated point: doubts, not certainty). I explained why they must. Now, whether those doubts are sufficient to throw out a trial is an entirely other matter. That's word salad. ???? First of all...not it wasn't. Read what I wrote. It was a direct response, perfectly understandable. Second, I think you might have included that one here by accident. (Which deserves no condemnation, as I've made the same boo-boo myself before. I'm just sayin.') Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 You asked how I knew that the prosecution might have soem doubts (that was the stated point: doubts, not certainty). I explained why they must. No you merely showed you have an opinion they must. Furthermore, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Just because the defense posits there is doubt does not mean that opinion is shared by anyone else. I for one do not buy it. First of all...not it wasn't. Read what I wrote. It was a direct response, perfectly understandable. Second, I think you might have included that one here by accident. (Which deserves no condemnation, as I've made the same boo-boo myself before. I'm just sayin.') I have no idea what you are on about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 No you merely showed you have an opinion they must. Furthermore, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Just because the defense posits there is doubt does not mean that opinion is shared by anyone else. I for one do not buy it. It's not about what the defense posits. It's about what the soldier who captured Khadr said. Your argument is with the soldier who captured Khadr. For...some reason, unstated. I have no idea what you are on about. Strange, since it's your error, not mine. You quoted my remark from a different post: Also, your petulance against Canada is showing; Americans plainly have no more interest in or knowledge of the matter. ...and then you responded That's word salad. My remark, and your response, are 100% divorced from this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Your argument is with the soldier who captured Khadr. For...some reason, unstated. Actually it would be your argument. You said "they" have doubts. If the "they" is the soldier, perhaps a not positive can be construed as doubt If the "They" is the defense, I agree, it is their business to cast doubt. If the They is the prosecution, they you don't understand the adversarial justice system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Actually it would be your argument. You said "they" have doubts. Right. To be fair, maybe I made an eror injudgement in assuming the prosecutors were concerned about justice itself, not just prosecuting. This could be incorrect; the prosecutors could be type of Police-State dgenerates who don't care about the truth. I honestly can't say. If the "they" is the soldier, perhaps a not positive can be construed as doubt "Perhaps" a not positive can be construed as doubt? No--a "not positive" IS doubt. If the "They" is the defense, I agree, it is their business to cast doubt. Again, this wasn't about the defense. It was about the witness to and agent of the action. If the They is the prosecution, they you don't understand the adversarial justice system. Again: if you're the prosecutor, and you know for a fact that Khadr wasn't the only fighter, and you know for a fact that your witness isn't sure that Khadr was the perpetrator, then you have doubts. They could lie about the doubts; that doesn't mean the doubts don't exist. Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Right. To be fair, maybe I made an eror injudgement in assuming the prosecutors were concerned about justice itself, not just prosecuting. This could be incorrect; the prosecutors could be type of Police-State dgenerates who don't care about the truth. I honestly can't say. "Perhaps" a not positive can be construed as doubt? No--a "not positive" IS doubt. Again, this wasn't about the defense. It was about the witness to and agent of the action. Again: if you're the prosecutor, and you know for a fact that Khadr wasn't the only fighter, and you know for a fact that your witness isn't sure that Khadr was the perpetrator, then you have doubts. They could lie about the doubts; that doesn't mean the doubts don't exist. Again you are making the mistake that evidence and testimoy can only have one intepretation. Your whole argument rests on this mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Again, this wasn't about the defense. It was about the witness to and agent of the action. Actually it is entirely about the defense. They are the ones who say it casts doubt. No one else. Further, testimony is one thing, and as you said, physics might be another factor too.. The report says OC-1 believed Khadr and the man with the AK-47 rifle were the only two men alive at the time of the assault. It also states he believe Khadr threw the grenade because the "nature of the ... lob was inconsistent with being thrown by someone who was shooting." That alone should show you that it is not a cut a dried proposition. And if you cared as much about...about justice as you so slanderously accuse the prosecution of not caring...then you would be forced to admit that the prosecution can just as easily be without doubt as the defense can cast doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 I've seen the picture of Khadr and where he was found...I can't see any jury or judge buying that he was capable of burying himself under debris where he found in the condition he was in...the soldier who found him did so accidently when he realized he was standing on a body beneath the ruble...among the description of his wounds one comment was his heart was visibly beating...how does a 15 yr old get wounded so horribly still have the ability to bury himself under the debris? and note in the picture of the scene there was an adult Taliban laying dead not far from Khadr, more than likely the one that was shot throwing a grenade.... it all sounds very improbable and the Bush regime just wanted bodies to punish whether they were guilty or not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 ...how does a 15 yr old get wounded so horribly still have the ability to bury himself under the debris? I guess you have to ask how someone gets shot twice in the back while buries under the rubble... The answer is... They get shot twice in the back before the rubble falls on him. not that there was a lot of rubble on him.... http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khadr_in_Rubble_2.png Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 He is being treated as a civilian caught under those circumstances. To wit, even better than a mercenary.. Had he committed his crimes in Canada, or the US, he would be subject to civilian law, but instead he committed them in a foreign country against the lawful forces of the US, hence he is a civilian, being treated as a civilian under military law. Except that every other civilian caught under those circumstances has been dealt with. The only difference in Khadr's case and the one that appears to have left him in limbo is that he was a kid when he was caught. It's not too difficult to grasp. No it isn't. We're treating him only marginally better than the people we're fighting treat people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Actually it is entirely about the defense. They are the ones who say it casts doubt. No one else. No one else, huh? So when the soldier who was there says he "believes" Khadr threw the grenade, but is "not sure"--because he didn't see him do it (and there IS another possible suspect)--how does that square with your "no one else...says it casts doubt"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 No one else, huh? So when the soldier who was there says he "believes" Khadr threw the grenade, but is "not sure"--because he didn't see him do it (and there IS another possible suspect)--how does that square with your "no one else...says it casts doubt"? Because he is not 'casting' doubt. He is not saying, "Kadr is innocent because someone else, (who I don't believe did it) threw the grenade." While his testimony may cast doubt, he is not. Do you get this or are you simply playing silly buggers? The ones who are casting doubt are the ones whose job it is to cast doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Except that every other civilian caught under those circumstances has been dealt with. Nonsense. Are you suggesting lil Omar is the only guest at Gitmo? Every prisoner there is a civilian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 No it isn't. We're treating him only marginally better than the people we're fighting treat people. He's being treated head over heels better. Especially the head part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Because he is not 'casting' doubt. He is not saying, "Kadr is innocent because someone else, (who I don't believe did it) threw the grenade." While his testimony may cast doubt, he is not. Do you get this or are you simply playing silly buggers? The ones who are casting doubt are the ones whose job it is to cast doubt. Undoubtedly you're as aware as I am that this post is really, really starting to go 'round and 'round. But ok, I"ll indulge my inner masochist, and try again. Because he is not 'casting' doubt. He is not saying, "Kadr is innocent because someone else, (who I don't believe did it) threw the grenade." If he said this, he wouldn't be "casting doubt": he'd be proclaiming Khadr's inncoence. That's not doubt; it's absolute. When he says "I believe Khadr did it, but I am not sure," he IS casting doubt, since before the military thankfully made the error of releasing this info, it was taken for granted by most people that he was guilty. While his testimony may cast doubt, he is not. Do you get this or are you simply playing silly buggers? The ones who are casting doubt are the ones whose job it is to cast doubt. No. You aren't understanding. Or, worse, you are, but you're beiong oily with semantics. Look at it this way: do YOU know he's guilty? Don't answer: your answer is "no." You have doubt. I have doubt. The defense has doubt. The soldier who was fighting has doubt. therefore, the prosecutors also have doubt..unless they're lying. Edited December 23, 2009 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 Nonsense. Are you suggesting lil Omar is the only guest at Gitmo? Every prisoner there is a civilian. No I'm saying that he is the only Western citizen still being held in Guantanamo, every other civilian caught under THAT circumstance has been dealt with. The fact Khadr was also the youngest prisoner held there and was a child at the time of his arrest stands out like a sore thumb, so does the fact that Canada has not lifted a finger to help him. You should be ashamed, not proud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 No I'm saying that he is the only Western citizen still being held in Guantanamo, every other civilian caught under THAT circumstance has been dealt with. The fact Khadr was also the youngest prisoner held there and was a child at the time of his arrest stands out like a sore thumb, so does the fact that Canada has not lifted a finger to help him. You should be ashamed, not proud. I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that Western born terrorists should have preferential treatment over their eastern born accomplices? As far as Canada helping him, we did plenty, education, healthcare, cultural services...of course that was before he and his family spit in our faces. There are 100s of canadians in US jails..no one has said why Lil Omar should get help before any of those criminals, other than the fact he is an anti american terrorist...which for some makes him worthier than the average bank robber... As far as the youngest, someone had to be. Younger ones were probably killed, thankfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 23, 2009 Report Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) Look at it this way: do YOU know he's guilty? Don't answer: I am under know illusions about his innocence. The defense has doubt. At this point I am confident you don't know what you are talking about. The defense has no doubt of his innicence, unless they intend to plead guilty. One thing I hope you know, defense lawyers ask their clients a lot of questions, the one question they never ask is if the client is guilty. They cannot ever be certain of guilt if they want to defend. The soldier who was fighting has doubt. therefore, the prosecutors also have doubt..unless they're lying. I give up, you have a layer of intellectual thickness that no amount of reason will penetrate. You don't care if the evidence convicts him, as far as you are concerned, he should be innocent and anyone who feels differntly is lying. That is a scoundrels position, well suited to the defense of terrorists. Edited December 23, 2009 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 ...As far as the youngest, someone had to be. Younger ones were probably killed, thankfully. Poor Omar....the only love he has now comes from Sgt. Hulka at 'Gitmo in the way of Froot Loops and Doritos. Maybe we should get him a puppy for...oh wait...never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted December 24, 2009 Report Share Posted December 24, 2009 Poor Omar....the only love he has now comes from Sgt. Hulka at 'Gitmo in the way of Froot Loops and Doritos. Maybe we should get him a puppy for...oh wait...never mind. On the bright side, lil Omar and Sgt Hulka have a lot in common. Both got blowed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.