Christy Hardin Smith @ 79

nomolos — No, I’m talking about always. I was a prosecutor after 9.11 as well, and did my job the same way and still took my oath seriously. As do a whole helluva lot of people who work as prosecutors everywhere.

Do not confuse political hacks with the Bush crowd with real prosecutors. Real prosecutors take the job seriously. Political hacks are a horse of an entirely different turdblossom.

Not trying to be contentious, but IIRC, of the people freed from death row by the Innocence Project, in 78% of the cases, misconduct by the prosecution was found to have occurred.

Apparently we need some pretty significant judicial reform.

Ms. Phillips who ran the second grade safety patrol said:

“We had several near death accidents with George patroling—the thought that he would actually have been put in CHARGE of the safety patrol is impossible to imagine. His daddy kept us from firing him- so we used him as human sign.

If George had come from a poor White working class family he probably would’ve been beaten up regularly in school and spent several years in juvie and perhaps a couple in prison.

If George had been from a poor Black family he’d be dead by now.

The only reason he’s survived at all is MONEY. The only reason he’s president is MONEY. The only reason he hasn’t been impeached & kicked out is MONEY.

Edwards for president — Leadership for ALL of America, not just MONEYed interests.

This fits better with the last thread, but Hillary Clinton is refusing to cross the picket line for the CBS debate.
…

Not to be too picky, but is that a statement about how scripted all the candidates’ answers are?

thanks christy, i think that does help…. maybe the prosecutors have been spending all their time the last 18 months arguing to get the “secret” info out and not arguing the gov. position that the case shouldn’t be retried. the article really doesn’t say that’s not the case…. and i probably should be giving the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt.

it’s very sad that the faith i used to have in the system has been so undermined that it’s hard for me to give the prosecutors the benefit of the doubt that they should have and that every person is entitled to.

from the politicalization of the doj, to the doj’s complicity in the padilla case, to the messed up prosecutions of so-called terrorists (like brendan mayfield), to the people i’ve seen arrested at protests because the police didn’t like their politics, to my own chief of police saying publicly (in a city hall mtg) that people (including me) who participated in a legal silent peace vigil were a potential threat to society (that’s why he sent his officers to take identifying photos of all of us)…. well, i’ve come a long way from the kid 35 years ago who learned to trust the system from a military tribunal that trusted me and found me not guilty of parking my bicycle in the wrong place. :(

encephalopath @ 78

Quoting myself: “What would be the effect of disallowing classified information from criminal court cases?”

I realize why the government would want to keep certain information secret. They want to protect methods of investigation and people invovled in investigations. Making those things know would spoil the methods and people invovled making them useless or putting people at risk.

But what I’m wondering is why we have decided that protecting government investigative methods and assets are more important than protecting the right of the defendant to see all the evidence and confront his accusers?

WE haven’t decided that. The unconvicted felons running the government decided that.
But, of course, we knew that.

There are values in conflict here, obviously. The Government has a perfectly legitimate interest in keeping “sources and methods” intelligence information classified. Defendants have a Constitutional right to a speedy and public trial, to confront witnesses, etc. It’s a balancing act, and the Government has to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether putting a particular defendant away is worth the risk of revealing secrets they don’t want to reveal.

That is, of course, the essence of the graymail defense — it’s defense counsel putting the Government to precisely that Hobson’s choice.

Praedor A @ 59

I suspect when the oscillations damp out, the stable level of incompetence will be somewhere below current sea level.

(I thought he passed his level of incompetence in kindergarten.)

As they say down in Texas, Bush is All codpiece, no cod.

dakine01 – just a joke – I’m living in NC & eat grits sweetened with jam.

I’m a Kentucky born and grew up on grits. Having lived all over the country, I’ve also dealt with folks who use grits as the metaphor to trash the south so…

I still prefer hot buttered grits with pepper but also love the leftovers into a pan, refrigerated overnight, cut into rectangles, and fried in some bacon grease. Cover with gravy or maple syrup and yummy!

encephalopath @ 78

Quoting myself: “What would be the effect of disallowing classified information from criminal court cases?”

I realize why the government would want to keep certain information secret. They want to protect methods of investigation and people invovled in investigations. Making those things know would spoil the methods and people invovled making them useless or putting people at risk.

But what I’m wondering is why we have decided that protecting government investigative methods and assets are more important than protecting the right of the defendant to see all the evidence and confront his accusers?

WE haven’t decided that. The unconvicted felons running the government decided that.
But, of course, we knew that.

Yes the same crminals

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI…..nnSTCVideo