<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Libby Case:  The Defense Summation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/</link>
	<description>Firedoglake weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:13:21 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chetnolian</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512375</link>
		<dc:creator>Chetnolian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512375</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I made a mess of 124. What I should have said was that as a Scot trained in English Law I found the Not Proven debate fascinating. I also wanted to tell you the Blair government, run by commercial lawyers and in thrall to the Murdoch press (sound familiar?) has got rid of the double jeopardy rule for serious crimes if new evidence arises. Only civil liberties freaks and thinking criminal lawyers complained. So don’t be too sure of the abiding benefit of a common law based system. It’s easier to fix politically. Have you heard of ASBOs?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I made a mess of 124. What I should have said was that as a Scot trained in English Law I found the Not Proven debate fascinating. I also wanted to tell you the Blair government, run by commercial lawyers and in thrall to the Murdoch press (sound familiar?) has got rid of the double jeopardy rule for serious crimes if new evidence arises. Only civil liberties freaks and thinking criminal lawyers complained. So don’t be too sure of the abiding benefit of a common law based system. It’s easier to fix politically. Have you heard of ASBOs?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chetnolian</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512358</link>
		<dc:creator>Chetnolian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:50:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512358</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-511768&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;cinnamonape @&lt;br /&gt;
                205              &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-511569&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Thaumaturgist @ 185 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Scotland is a “civil law” jurisdiction; not a common law jurisdiction.  In other words, the law of Scotland is substantially similar to that of Continental Europe, but not similar to that of England, Wales and Ireland.  One way of looking at the Bill of Rights is that it was an attempt to ensure that the United States remained a common law jurisdiction, rather than a Scot-style jurisdiction with inquisatorial, rather than adversarial procedures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition, I wonder if a jury that determines a case “not proved” rather than “innocent” allows the Prosecution to re-enter charges on the same charge later. Does double jeopardy apply in that verdict?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A good prosecutor would point that distinction out to a jury…and say that THERE is the reason that US and other British Courts use a “beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT” standard. Once they determine that verdict the individual cannot be tried on the same charges again.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus the idea that “not proven”   “innocent” is the same as “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” falls apart.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-511768"><em>cinnamonape @<br />
                205              </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p><a href="#comment-511569"><em>Thaumaturgist @ 185 </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Scotland is a “civil law” jurisdiction; not a common law jurisdiction.  In other words, the law of Scotland is substantially similar to that of Continental Europe, but not similar to that of England, Wales and Ireland.  One way of looking at the Bill of Rights is that it was an attempt to ensure that the United States remained a common law jurisdiction, rather than a Scot-style jurisdiction with inquisatorial, rather than adversarial procedures.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, I wonder if a jury that determines a case “not proved” rather than “innocent” allows the Prosecution to re-enter charges on the same charge later. Does double jeopardy apply in that verdict?</p>
<p>A good prosecutor would point that distinction out to a jury…and say that THERE is the reason that US and other British Courts use a “beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT” standard. Once they determine that verdict the individual cannot be tried on the same charges again.</p>
<p>Thus the idea that “not proven”   “innocent” is the same as “not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” falls apart.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cheviteau</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512112</link>
		<dc:creator>cheviteau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512112</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hmmm….I’ll take a dollar of that.  After the Libby verdict…maybe the two.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm….I’ll take a dollar of that.  After the Libby verdict…maybe the two.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cheviteau</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512109</link>
		<dc:creator>cheviteau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512109</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-511464&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;rwcole @ 98 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Here’s another two dollar bet:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fitz will NEVER go after Cheney.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-511464"><em>rwcole @ 98 </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Here’s another two dollar bet:</p>
<p>Fitz will NEVER go after Cheney.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adie</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512049</link>
		<dc:creator>Adie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:49:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-512049</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;lhp&lt;br /&gt;
I finally got a chance to read this.  Wonderful, clear description of the scene &amp; possibilities for tomorrow.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;y’re gonna hate me - next to last line “its”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;[Mod Note; thanks.  Refresh and it should be fixed]&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lhp<br />
I finally got a chance to read this.  Wonderful, clear description of the scene &amp; possibilities for tomorrow.</p>
<p>y’re gonna hate me &#8211; next to last line “its”</p>
<p><em>[Mod Note; thanks.  Refresh and it should be fixed]</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TalkLeft</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511923</link>
		<dc:creator>TalkLeft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511923</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;No way Libby’s bond will be revoked pending sentencing if convicted.  He’s neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No way Libby’s bond will be revoked pending sentencing if convicted.  He’s neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mad Dogs</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511791</link>
		<dc:creator>Mad Dogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511791</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-511757&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;cinnamonape @ 204&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some laws do require that the MOTIVE be clearly laid out to a jury…for example, in the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act the proseutor has to demonstrate that the exposure was not ONLY intentional, but that it was done to harm the security of the United States. &lt;b&gt;That’s a very high, if not impossible, standard&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So Victoria Toensing proudly beats her chest proclaiming in the WaPo that &lt;i&gt;she&lt;/i&gt; after all, was instrumental in creating the IIPA law.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Let me see here…a former Reagan-appointed Fed Prosecutor, now full-time Repug shill and cheerleader for Scoots, luvs to take her some credit for designing a law where no one can ever possibly be prosecuted for betraying our country’s intelligence operatives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Heckuva job, Vicki!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-511757"><em>cinnamonape @ 204</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Some laws do require that the MOTIVE be clearly laid out to a jury…for example, in the Intelligence Agents Identity Protection Act the proseutor has to demonstrate that the exposure was not ONLY intentional, but that it was done to harm the security of the United States. <b>That’s a very high, if not impossible, standard</b>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So Victoria Toensing proudly beats her chest proclaiming in the WaPo that <i>she</i> after all, was instrumental in creating the IIPA law.</p>
<p>Let me see here…a former Reagan-appointed Fed Prosecutor, now full-time Repug shill and cheerleader for Scoots, luvs to take her some credit for designing a law where no one can ever possibly be prosecuted for betraying our country’s intelligence operatives.</p>
<p>Heckuva job, Vicki!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mad Dogs</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511785</link>
		<dc:creator>Mad Dogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511785</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-511432&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;looseheadprop @ 67 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cheney is being frozen out. It is looking like Rice is going to be the new puppet master.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the “glove” fits…*g*&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-511432"><em>looseheadprop @ 67 </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Cheney is being frozen out. It is looking like Rice is going to be the new puppet master.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If the “glove” fits…*g*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Schacht</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511784</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Schacht</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511784</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-511456&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;rwcole @&lt;br /&gt;
                90              &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;I’m busy honoring Millard Fillmore.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I’m busy honoring &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7466065&quot;&gt;George Washington&lt;/a&gt;. As NPR reminded us, he was the guy who ordered decent treatment of all prisoners: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;He issued a firm order that no matter how barbaric enemy armies might be, he would not abide any such behavior in his own troops.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Makes Bush look small and tawdry by comparison.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bob in HI&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-511456"><em>rwcole @<br />
                90              </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>I’m busy honoring Millard Fillmore.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I’m busy honoring <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7466065">George Washington</a>. As NPR reminded us, he was the guy who ordered decent treatment of all prisoners: </p>
<blockquote><p>He issued a firm order that no matter how barbaric enemy armies might be, he would not abide any such behavior in his own troops.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Makes Bush look small and tawdry by comparison.</p>
<p>Bob in HI</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sparkles the Iguana</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511780</link>
		<dc:creator>Sparkles the Iguana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/02/19/libby-case-the-defense-summation/#comment-511780</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-511493&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;froggermarch @ 127 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some of the worst things to come out of the OJ trial are named John Gibson and Mr. and Mrs. Victoria Toensing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Didn’t Star Jones come out of the OJ trial too?  What a hellacious list.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-511493"><em>froggermarch @ 127 </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Some of the worst things to come out of the OJ trial are named John Gibson and Mr. and Mrs. Victoria Toensing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Didn’t Star Jones come out of the OJ trial too?  What a hellacious list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.255 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-15 19:16:08 -->

