I think the discussion was based on the assumption that the constitutional violations are so severe in these cases that conviction will not result in a normal proper US court of law. Otherwise, there is nothing to talk about, is there?

No. There's a difference between trial-level court and an appellate court reviewing a conviction.

What Obama is dealing with (or at least this is the hypothetical we are entertaining, because none of us really know for sure) are cases that might survive appellate review (due to overwhelming evidence of guilt), but would either be thrown out or severely damaged at trial level.

My point is simply that, under our rule of law, Constitutional violations are not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

Shorter version: I'm only doing this because Bush fucked up and these are extremely serious cases. Then, no more.

But what I'm asking you is how can it be justified that we could do it for past cases but not future cases? For someone who believes now that it's more important to detain Terrorists than to abide by the prohibition against using torture-obtained evidence, why would future cases produce a different rationale?

Now I've answered your question. Will you answer mine? If transferring KSM's case to US court would result in dismissal due to Bush abuses, is that a just resolution?

Actually, I answered this pretty explicitly:

Did you read the 1935 case, where the Supreme Court overturned murder convictions of African-American defendants because the confessions were obtained through beatings? Was justice served in that case? Is justice served whenever defendants are acquitted because of constitutional violations by the Government that taint the evidence? I think the answer is clearly "yes" and I don't change my views based on the defendant in question. These principles apply to all crimes, including (one might say "especially") the worst ones.

Obviously, the best possible case is for guilty people to be convicted in accordance with due process and basic precepts of Western justice. But where that's not possible -- where the choice is between (a) allowing the Government to exploit and benefit from torture-obtained evidence and (b) prohibiting them from using that evidence even if it means a guilty person is acquitted -- the far more just option is (b).

That's not controversial. That idea is at the core of many -- I'd say most -- Western systems of justice. Option (b) is obviously not ideal because it allows a guilty person to go free, but option (a) is worse since it allows the Government to benefit from torture and other highly unjust acts (and thereby incentivizes them to use those measures in the future).

There was actually a question of mine you didn't answer: in general, is justice served when, as in that 1935 Supreme Court case (and many cases applying the exclusionary rule), an actually-guilty defendant is acquitted because tainted evidence is disallowed?

Obama will face a nuclear crisis

"I'm motivated ... by a strong belief that the gravest danger facing our nation today is a terror group detonating a nuclear bomb in one of our cities," - William Perry, Jan 8, 2009 - Former Sec. of Defense, Clinton Administration

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hyfEy9mv1XjDov8sGW8cF4NEh7jQ

Regarding the NIE Report

"The nation’s top intelligence official, J. Michael McConnell, testified last month that he “probably would change a few things” if given a chance to redo the report, suggesting that its conclusions had been misinterpreted."

AND

"The document includes a footnote that specifies that Iran is believed to have stopped only its “weapon design and weaponization work,” not the uranium-enrichment work that is widely considered the biggest obstacle to constructing a bomb."

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/31/world/fg-hayden31

You can disagree with the conclusions drawn by those cited above, but it appears that Obama agrees with them, hence his support for FISA and his comments about Iran.

It is not "baseless" to suspect Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons when they continue to enrich uranium, deny inspections, and suffer the penatly of sanctions, if they truly have nothing to hide.

So I will ask once again, why is William Perry worried? Why did he say what he said? (please do not provide a moronic conspiracy theory).

Obama's got to deal with the same nasty world that Bush faced. Until I see otherwise, I trust he will be prudent and do what he needs to do to maintain security (job number 1 for a US President).

Bamage - You're a prosecutor? So KSM is a bad dude, and who cares about the legal niceties? Piss off.

Surprise J! Welcome to the reality of people living in a fantasy land. Abstract principle is more important than any possible consequences of following that principle.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that led to the tragedy of Willie Horton.

... where does the Constitution authorise the President to decide what weapons a sovereign nation may possess?

As posted earlier I am not a proponent of attacking Iran over its nuclear ambitions, but I will say there is a case to be made over the issue, as it would be a violation of the Non-proliferation treaty which Iran is a signatory to.

Also, any threat to the peace may require use of force under the doctrine of collective security, which is the foundation of the United Nations (see article 7 in particular).

If Iran's real leader really was a psychopath intent on nuking Israel or other countries the moment he acquires nuclear weapons, it would be legitimate casus belli for the US or any other country to seek to prevent that.

Of course, the problem is that the Supreme Leader of Iran is not a psychopath and Israel has second-strike capacity so MAD, if nothing else would prevent Iran from actually using nukes in a first strike - the real reason the neo-conservatives want to prevent Iran from getting them is that then invasion would be off the table and Iran would have to be treated with respect.

This whole story comes down to some terribly predictable game theory where each party is causing the other to behave in certain ways that predictably lead to the worst outcome for all. With Obama at least there is some hope of breaking the cycle but if he keeps talking about their nuclear program as a certified fact when it is not, that hope grows ever dimmer.