Karpinski sais she would testify Rummy odered torture

[CockySOB]

I don't believe that one itty bit! And YOU shouldn't either!

Our Justice system would be a complete joke and overrun with useless, time taking cases, that had no merrit....which it is not.

There are INSTANCES where the prosecutor might try to manipulate the grand jury like in Nifong's case, but it is not the norm, by ANY means.

And yes, many grand jurys do indict an accused more often than not, but this is due to the fact that a grand jury is not usually called upon, UNLESS a prosecutor believes that he has a good case against the accused. This is only common sense.

Care

Talk about naive....

You haven't bothered to even TRY to understand what goes on in a grand jury, have you? There is no defense counsel to try to debate or refute the prosecution's arguments! It's ALL about the prosecutor's assertions and a determination from the grand jury if there is probable cause based on the prosecutor's presentation to indict the accused.

Here's the section from Wikipedia on Grand juries regarding criticisms of the process.

Some argue that the grand jury is unjust as the defendant is not represented by counsel and/or does not have the right to call witnesses. Intended to serve as a check on prosecutors, the opportunity it presents them to compel testimony can in fact prove useful in building up the case they will present at the final trial.

In practice, a grand jury rarely acts in a manner contrary to the wishes of the prosecutor. Judge Sol Wachtler, the disbarred former Chief Judge of New York State, was quoted as saying that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich."[4] As such, many jurisdictions in the United States have replaced the formality of a grand jury with a procedure in which the prosecutor can issue charges by filing an information (also known as an accusation) which is followed by a preliminary hearing before a judge at which both the defendant and his or her counsel are present. New York has amended procedures governing the formation of grand juries such that grand jurors are no longer required to have previous jury experience.

In some rare instances, the grand jury does break with the prosecutor. It can even exclude the prosecutor from its meetings and subpoena witnesses and issue indictments on its own. This is called a "runaway grand jury." Runaway grand juries sometimes happen in government corruption or organized crime cases, if the grand jury comes to believe that the prosecutor himself has been improperly influenced. Such cases were common in the 19th century, but have become infrequent since the 1930s.[5]

In all U.S. jurisdictions retaining the grand jury, the defendant has the right under the Fifth Amendment not to give self-incriminating testimony. However, the prosecutor can call the defendant to testify and require the defendant to assert the right on a question-by-question basis, which is prohibited in jury trials unless the defendant has voluntarily testified on his own behalf. Other evidentiary rules applicable to trials (such as the hearsay rule) are generally not applicable to grand jury proceedings.

Again, the naive person around her e is you Care, or as I suspect is more likely after all this time, the more biased person is you. Until you decide to be objective in looking at the case, you're only going to see what you want to see.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nifong? Try the prosecutor that finally managed to bring charges against Delay. He called something like 4 Grand Juries over 2 years, the first 3 found no reason to go to trial, he just kept making a new grand Jury till he got one that agreed with him. That is another problem with them, there is no check on double jeapordy or on why or when and what for a prosecutor calls them. A Judge promtly threw out at least one of the charges against Delay by the way.

 

[red states rule]

Nifong? Try the prosecutor that finally managed to bring charges against Delay. He called something like 4 Grand Juries over 2 years, the first 3 found no reason to go to trial, he just kept making a new grand Jury till he got one that agreed with him. That is another problem with them, there is no check on double jeapordy or on why or when and what for a prosecutor calls them. A Judge promtly threw out at least one of the charges against Delay by the way.

Wasn't that DA a Democrat like Nifong - using his powers for politcal gain?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wasn't that DA a Democrat like Nifong - using his powers for politcal gain?

You have to ask?

 

[red states rule]

You have to ask?

Just want to make that fact clear to our liberal friends

 

[CockySOB]

Just want to make that fact clear to our liberal friends

Why? Librulls don't need, care about, nor WANT facts.

 

[Care4all]

Talk about naive....

You haven't bothered to even TRY to understand what goes on in a grand jury, have you? There is no defense counsel to try to debate or refute the prosecution's arguments! It's ALL about the prosecutor's assertions and a determination from the grand jury if there is probable cause based on the prosecutor's presentation to indict the accused.

Here's the section from Wikipedia on Grand juries regarding criticisms of the process.


Again, the naive person around her e is you Care, or as I suspect is more likely after all this time, the more biased person is you. Until you decide to be objective in looking at the case, you're only going to see what you want to see.

Are you just slow to comprehend?

I have already agreed with you that the accused does not get a chance to defend themselves, until the trial? This does not negate the "discovery" that takes place in the grand jury, with sworn testimony, affadavits, and the such.... The defendent has his time to refute it in the trial process if he feels the need.

And thanks for the link on grand juries!

Care

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Liberal radio, the most hateful thing since hitler

You have to ask?

 

[Care4all]

Why? Librulls don't need, care about, nor WANT facts.

Partisanesque, eh? You are showing your true colors!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Torture, can save lives.

I am for it.

Attacking spelling and playing the Clinton card, they have nothing.

Well yes I spell for shit always have and always will and sometimes I forget to go back and check my spelling.

Now why dont you give me a list of the "disgruntled" employees from the Clinton years and Ill give you one for the Bush years and we will compare them.

Tell the truth about each one or Ill nail you.

 

[Care4all]

Torture, can save lives.

I am for it.

Noble Martin??? You, are better than this comment of yours, I have seen it!

TORTURE is ILLEGAL Martin, under any circumstances, under any law that we, the USa goes by. Period!

Please renege what you have stated or pretty please clarify it for me.

Care

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Thank you for the kind words: Please tell me this, how do you know that torturing enemy combatands, and terrorists doesnt lead to tips that can and do save lives both here and abroad?

Oh, and i am not noble, my name is a tribute to a best friend, but I try to be a good person.

Noble Martin??? You, are better than this comment of yours, I have seen it!

TORTURE is ILLEGAL Martin, under any circumstances, under any law that we, the USa goes by. Period!

Please renege what you have stated or pretty please clarify it for me.

Care

 

[Truthmatters]

the whole problem with torutre is you get bad intell.

All the experts agree on this one.

The Bush team torture to be able to create the intell they want.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Fair enough: but can i please have a link to proof it?.

You may ask the same of me, because I am being un-fair to ask for a link when i have not provided one, but that is up to you.

As always, i respect your opinion.

the whole problem with torutre is you get bad intell.

All the experts agree on this one.

The Bush team torture to be able to create the intell they want.

 

[Care4all]

Thank you for the kind words: Please tell me this, how do you know that torturing enemy combatands, and terrorists doesnt lead to tips that can and do save lives both here and abroad?

Oh, and i am not noble, my name is a tribute to a best friend, but I try to be a good person.

Well, may I call you Martin?

Your Welcome, and I mean it.

There are many reasons why we, as a country, put forth, improved upon, and stood behind the Geneva Convention all of the decades and whether we get information that could help us or not, out of another human being has never been a major part of the discussion.

The discussion was about being humane (to all of human kind), just, orderly and righteous.... above the scummy enemies of the past, above the Nazis, above the Japanese, above the Soviets, above them all with our treatment of prisoners etc....because, we wanted them to treat our soldiers in this manner when captured also.

Torture also, has been proven NOT to work, I agree with TM on this...the statistics are EASILY found by doing a google on this.

In addition to this, there are things that could help us stop the enemy from killing more of our own, that we could NOT IN ANY WAY justify doing. For example, we could move our troups out and obliverate everyone in Iraq by Air, that'll sure stop some of the Iraqi's from killing our guys...no? But we would NEVER do something unjust as that, never...well, maybe this administration would, but I still find this hard to believe?

We are not "special" because we are Americans you know...

We are special because we are humans.

So are you saying you ARE FOR BREAKING THE LAW and torturing the enemy?

Proper and legitimate, strenuous investigation, can get many, more ACCURATE FACTS out of the enemy...it has been proven from what I have read.

One reason they give, is that torture makes the enemy "say anything" to stop the torture. But other means of interrogation and stress upon the enemy with "mind games" of some sort can get better results, good intell.

Torture of the enemy is illegal Martin, remember that....there is no excuse to torture.

Even President Bush has said that the Usa does not torture. (Of course, president Bush and his team have redefined what torture is, imho, but that is not the point right now)

Torture is never acceptable! When it becomes acceptable in American's mind then Americans become NO BETTER, than the terrorists themselves.

Care

 

[red states rule]

Noble Martin??? You, are better than this comment of yours, I have seen it!

TORTURE is ILLEGAL Martin, under any circumstances, under any law that we, the USa goes by. Period!

Please renege what you have stated or pretty please clarify it for me.

Care

What do you call torture?

One meal per day? Loud music? 48 hours of Kerry speeches pumped into the cell?

 

[JeffWartman]

What do you call torture?

One meal per day? Loud music? 48 hours of Kerry speeches pumped into the cell?

Regardless of legality, torture should be avoided merely because it frankly does NOT work.

 

[Larkinn]

And, you know, that whole ethical thing.

 

[CockySOB]

Partisanesque, eh? You are showing your true colors!

That's sarcasm, sugar. I should have realized your cognitive capacity is minimal and should NOT have used something like this which could confuse you. My apologies.

 

[Care4all]

That's sarcasm, sugar. I should have realized your cognitive capacity is minimal and should NOT have used something like this which could confuse you. My apologies.

hahahaha! you are such a smart ass! i do enjoy you, you cocky sob! lol

care