Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ "daleyrocks" (who thinks he's some kind of hick law perfesser)
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... one difference with Clinton is that he admitted his testimony was false. Heh!
Actual falsity is not one of the mandatory elements of the crime of perjury (18 USC § 1621 et.seq). You can say something that is factually wrong, and be innocent of perjury if you do not believe it is factually wrong. Conversely (and perhaps perversely), you can in theory be guilty of perjury if you say something that is true, as long as you believe it to be false when you say it (there was a case upholding a perjury conviction when what the person said was in fact literally true and accurate; the court though made up a legal 'fiction' that the question he was answering was not the one he was actually asked, and concluded that his answer [to a question never asked] was false and believed to be so).
This isssue about belief is what caused the "Scooter" defence; that he just didn't remember and that he answered wrongly. The defence didn't really dispute the evidence that what he had said was false; they tried to convince the jury that he had been so wrapped up in other stuff at the time that he didn't remember what multiple other people testified to. The jury thought he was full'o'sh*te, though, and convicted him of perjury as well as obstruction of justice and lying to an FBI agent).
Clinton said that looking back in hindsight, he was trying to walk a fine line in his testimony, and thought he was staying on the side of truthfulness (although certainly not being overly co-operative, which is not his duty), but realised in looking back that he may have strayed over the line. While that's an admission that he now thinks he may have said something false, that's not an admission that he thought so at the time; rather, he said that he thought he was being truthful (even if not very helpful) then.
Cheers,
-
@ gator90
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't lose the argument. I wasn't allowed to win. Also, nobody who "won" gets to bring this up if we should disagree again in the future. That would be, like, really uncivil.
I agree that "gator90" didn't "lose the argument". He had his standards for proof (or belief), and he was entitled to them, and to make his own conclusions.
I do appreciate Gator's taking the time to do some digging to satisfy his own mind, and his willingness to let the evidence he saw take him where it may.
Most of all, I appreciate the ability that Glenn's forum here provides for all to engage in honest discussion and disputation of matters of interest, and to do so in a civil and honest and even friendly fashion.
I disputed Gator90's conclusions too, because I think that the standard of proof needed in forming opinions as to policy choices and such going forward (including who to rely on as friends in such) is not as strict as that necessary in a court of law. We don't need proof "beyond reasonable doubt" or anything near it when dealing with organisations such as AIPAC, who are not by nature the most forthcoming to begin with (hell, for starters, they're a lobbying organisation!). One may look at the general trends and demeanour, not to mention fellow travellers, when evaluating such. But that's just me.
Cheers,
-
@ ondolette
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Arne Langsetmo]: This is a grey area in the law; the denial of habeas may be found to have such an impact on the outcomes (for example, by preventing a trial at jury with the normal criminal rules of evidence) so that the ex post facto ban may pertain.
If I read you right, you are saying that the "Effective Date" provision of the MCA is possibly a violation of the ex post facto ban.
No, not exactly. One of the question is (or may be) whether "procedural" changes to habeas corpus might be enough to result in an effective increase in punishment. Whether the Constitution bans such a change in habeas corpus procedure due to the Suspension Clause is different subject.
IIRC, there have been changes to habeas allowed in the past that have withstood ex post facto challenges (such as changes in the circumstances under which habeas may be appropriate, and/or the number of times that habeas may be petitioned for). In such cases, the petitioners have claimed that the changes in the procedural law after their crime made the likelyhood of their convictions standing greater (or certain), while they may have had a chance to get a new trial had they been able to get a habeas petition heard. From what I remember loking back on this in law school, the courts have said that such "procedural" changes, even if they make it more likely that a person does go to prison (or stays there), are not an increase in punishment in that the trial and the sentence hadn't changed, only the means to challenge such.
Don't know if I can be any clearer, maybe some lawyers here might be able to clarify more....
Cheers,
-
@ nabalzbbfr
[Read the article: What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You forgot:
3762). There is an Easter Bunny.
Cheers,
-
@ daleyrocks
[Read the article: Our right-wing arbiters of masculinity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][quoting Coulter]:
And then there was this topical analysis: “The war in Iraq has been a magnificent success,” she said. “We’re only a few years into the rebuilding.”
Wow. That was a real zinger.
She must have won hands down.
Cheers,
-
@ daleyrocks
[Read the article: Our right-wing arbiters of masculinity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][with more from the esteemed Coulter]:
Coulter answered the same question by saying, “Jimmy Carter was president.” When Wexler asked for elaboration, she snapped, “What more do I need to say? Jimmy Carter was president.”
Such scintillating logic. Such eloquent reason. How could one not rush off to be a paid Republican sycophant under the circumstances?
How can Franken show his face in public any more after such a pasting of facts and sheer intellect?
Cheers,