The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From Drudge:

• THE WASHINGTON POST's famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame.
  
  In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: "Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."
  
  'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"

If Armitage told Woodward about Plame, does that mean Libby didn't perjure himself? I'm not following.

Why is it that you conservatives don't take perjury seriously?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Armitage told Woodward about Plame, does that mean Libby didn't perjure himself? I'm not following.

Why is it that you conservatives don't take perjury seriously?

Who you callin conservative?

What is the perjury charge, I forgot? I thought it was obstruction.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Armitage told Woodward about Plame, does that mean Libby didn't perjure himself? I'm not following.

Why is it that you conservatives don't take perjury seriously?

I think it's just an identity--Deep Throat lite. Since armitage isn't a reporter, it doesn't help Libby. That is, unless Woodward called Libby to confirm the tip, at which point Libby figured 'the information is out there'. But since Libby could have explained he heard it from Woodward, but didn't, even that defense isn't going to work.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Of course, no one will adopt that scheme because it will monetize and make transparent the costs of shoddy police work.

And thus we come full-circle. The people who complain about the Exclusionary Rule (Spanky) are also the tort-reformers (Spanky) who would be the first to prevent the reforms that would be necessary to eliminate it.

Though apparently we can resolve the problem with better TV shows.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I can't believe I am even having to argue this. The exclusionary rule destroys confidence in our legal system. In almost every cop show, TV movie and any other show about the police criminals are getting off because of the Exclusoinary rule. The exclusionary rule is the most consistently and universally aspect of our criminal justice system that is critisized. Whether or not that is reality is not that important. In public life perception is reality.

And why shouldn't this rule lessen people's confidence in our system's ability to dispense justice. Only a person that has had their mind twisted by law school could come up with a rationalization of why the corpse of a tortured and molested four year old child found in a molesters home could not be used as evidence because the police didn't get the right search warrant. Such an idea goes against common sense. If people don't respect the legal system it can't operate efficienty. As long as we have the exclusionary rule the average person won't respect our system or lawyers.

The one main argument for the exclusionary rule is that it protects our rights. Without it the police would trudge over our rights willy nilly. Well if that is the case, why doesn't this happen in any other country? Are civil liberties consistenly trounced and disregarded in England, Denmark, Norway and Holland? Has their lack of an exclusionary rule turned them into police states? NO. So then why can't we do the same? Do the people in these countrys possess some talent our resourcers that we lack? Why do we have to hold on to this rule that has such heinous outcomes when other countrys don't need it?

In addition, the United States seems to have thrived without the exclusionary rule for at least its first one hundred and fifty years of existence. It was just made up by the courts. Why all of a sudden has it become necessary where it wasn't before.

People are saying that guilty people getting off on a technicality doesn't happen much in real life. In my opinion if one murderer or child molester gets off because of a technicality that is one time too many.

In sum:

1) We don't need the rule. Any argument against that is ridiculous on its face because if other democracies can thrive without it, certainly we can.
2) When implemented it can have heinous consequences.
3) It destroys people's confidence in the legal system.

There is simply no reason to keep it.

Your arguments would be more persuasive if you used statistics instead of television shows.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And thus we come full-circle. The people who complain about the Exclusionary Rule (Spanky) are also the tort-reformers (Spanky) who would be the first to prevent the reforms that would be necessary to eliminate it.

Though apparently we can resolve the problem with better TV shows.

We need tort reform - badly - but that reform does not include something as absurd as a rollback of the exclusionary rule.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Do criminal defense for a while.

I have and in two different countries.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about, and you're making an ass out of yourself in this debate.

I think that comment should be directed at your self. You are projecting.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield Your comparison of this nation to European nations - as though we were interchangeable (disregarding the innumerable cultural/geographic/size differences) -

There are innumerable differences between us and the European countries but the issue is how those differences effect this one specific issue. These differences don't effect other issues like Democracy, respect for human rights and Free Markets. All those issues cross all European national boundaries and ours. In addition, all these European countries are totally different in their Geography, culture etc. yet they all seem to get along fine without the exclusionary rule. Every single one of them. And that does not include all the other developed countrys around the world (Japan) or almost developed countrys (Chile, Argentina). Democracy, Free markets, and a respect for human rights are common among all these countries, but some how they are all the same and we are different when it comes to the exclusionary rule? Please, All these different cultures, Geographies etc have Democracy, Free Markets, respecrt for Human rights - yes. Exclusionary Rule - No. That formula works for all of them. But for us the only formula that works is Democracy, Free Markets, Respect for Human rights, - yes. Exclusionary rule - yes. Why are we similar to all those countries on those other issues but need to differ on the exclusionary rule? The answer is we don't.

In addition, you are making a completely speculative argument bereft of practical application and I have evidence and practical application to back up my argument. You say that it would be a disaster for Human rights in this country if the Exclusionary rule were eliminated. Yet you can't point to one practical example of a country that had human rights, and then when they dropped the exclusionary rule, it all went to hell. On the other hand, when I say that human rights will still be respected and won't be a total disaster if the exclusionary rule is dropped, I can point out that every other developed nation in this world gets a long fine without the exclusionary rule.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield makes you sound a shade below Mortin Downey. O'Reilly wouldn't hamfistedly make the absurd and uninformed statements you've made on this issue.

Again, I think you are projecting here.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Until you spend a couple years actually dealing with the police and FBI, I suggest you shy away from this debate.

I have been investigated by the FBI - have you?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield 3. Nonsense. You couldn't hope to back this staement up with a stitch of hard facts. That's your opinion.

How about every Dirty Harry movie, Charles Bronson Movie etc. All these movies make the criminal justice system out to be totally broken because of the exclusionary rule. Can you name one movie or TV show that has ever praised the exclusionary rule? In addition, I have given a great many political speeches in my time, and the one statement that always gets everyone excited (except for the lawyers) is the elimination of the exclusionary rule.

If you state: Valid and probative evidence should not be excluded from a criminal trial based on technicalities. The exclusionary rule is not in the US constitution, and the courts should stop pretending it is.

Huge applaus every time. Sometimes a standing ovation if you say it right. Except for extremely liberal or conservative audiences, works for both Dems and Repubs.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield If you find Uncle Sam indicting you someday, you'll need it. You'll want it.

If I am guilty of what they are accusing me off, absolutely. If I am innocent the exclusionary rule won't do me much good. (In addition, if the FBI is going after me someday, I will want the FBI to be eliminated, but that doesn't make my opinion in that particular circumstance the same as what is good for general public policy?)

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield Our Govt can ruin innocent people's lives, and it does, every day.

They can do this without the exclusionary rule, and the exclusionary rule does not prevent them from doing this. Wrong remedy for the problem.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield Until you've seen it up close, you don't fully understand it. You're talking shit here and you've no fucking clue.

Again, projecting.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield If you were investigated - if you were audited - if you stood in court while law enforcement agents perjured themselves - you'd get it.

How does perjury relate to the exclusionary rule? Perjured evidence is not probative evidence. I don't think non probative or non reliable evidence should be in. I just think probative evidence should be allowed in, even if the cops screwed up in getting it.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield When the mob mentality of any law enforcement agency takes hold and its mindless agents decide you belong in jail, they'll do anything and everything to put you there, rules and ethics and morality be damned. You'll want any rule you can use then. When its the system versus you, and your liberty is on the line, you deserve every benefit the rules can give you.

Again this problem will exist with the excusionary rule. And the exlusionary rule won't help me much. I would much prefer remedies against the police department for their misconduct. The exclusionary rule does not help me if they perjur themselves, doctor evidence, misrepresent evidence, it only helps me if they screw up when finding probative evidence that actually shows I am guilty. Innocent victims of police misconduct are never helped by the exclusionary rule.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
How about every Dirty Harry movie, Charles Bronson Movie etc. All these movies make the criminal justice system out to be totally broken because of the exclusionary rule. Can you name one movie or TV show that has ever praised the exclusionary rule?

These are not hard facts.

[Replaced_Texan]

And this pisses me off. (spree: wapo article)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have and in two different countries.

I think that comment should be directed at your self. You are projecting.

There are innumerable differences between us and the European countries but the issue is how those differences effect this one specific issue. These differences don't effect other issues like Democracy, respect for human rights and Free Markets. All those issues cross all European national boundaries and ours. In addition, all these European countries are totally different in their Geography, culture etc. yet they all seem to get along fine without the exclusionary rule. Every single one of them. And that does not include all the other developed countrys around the world (Japan) or almost developed countrys (Chile, Argentina). Democracy, Free markets, and a respect for human rights are common among all these countries, but some how they are all the same and we are different when it comes to the exclusionary rule? Please, All these different cultures, Geographies etc have Democracy, Free Markets, respecrt for Human rights - yes. Exclusionary Rule - No. That formula works for all of them. But for us the only formula that works is Democracy, Free Markets, Respect for Human rights, - yes. Exclusionary rule - yes. Why are we similar to all those countries on those other issues but need to differ on the exclusionary rule? The answer is we don't.

In addition, you are making a completely speculative argument bereft of practical application and I have evidence and practical application to back up my argument. You say that it would be a disaster for Human rights in this country if the Exclusionary rule were eliminated. Yet you can't point to one practical example of a country that had human rights, and then when they dropped the exclusionary rule, it all went to hell. On the other hand, when I say that human rights will still be respected and won't be a total disaster if the exclusionary rule is dropped, I can point out that every other developed nation in this world gets a long fine without the exclusionary rule.



Again, I think you are projecting here.



I have been investigated by the FBI - have you?



How about every Dirty Harry movie, Charles Bronson Movie etc. All these movies make the criminal justice system out to be totally broken because of the exclusionary rule. Can you name one movie or TV show that has ever praised the exclusionary rule? In addition, I have given a great many political speeches in my time, and the one statement that always gets everyone excited (except for the lawyers) is the elimination of the exclusionary rule.

If you state: Valid and probative evidence should not be excluded from a criminal trial based on technicalities. The exclusionary rule is not in the US constitution, and the courts should stop pretending it is.

Huge applaus every time. Sometimes a standing ovation if you say it right. Except for extremely liberal or conservative audiences, works for both Dems and Repubs.




If I am guilty of what they are accusing me off, absolutely. If I am innocent the exclusionary rule won't do me much good.

They can do this without the exclusionary rule, and the exclusionary rule does not prevent them from doing this. Wrong remedy for the problem.

Again, projecting.

How does perjury relate to the exclusionary rule? Perjured evidence is not probative evidence. I don't think non probative or non reliable evidence should be in. I just think probative evidence should be allowed in, even if the cops screwed up in getting it.

Again this problem will exist with the excusionary rule. And the exlusionary rule won't help me much. I would much prefer remedies against the police department for their misconduct. The exclusionary rule does not help me if they perjur themselves, doctor evidence, misrepresent evidence, it only helps me if they screw up when finding probative evidence that actually shows I am guilty. Innocent victims of police misconduct are never helped by the exclusionary rule.

If you actually did real crim defense, you'd understand that a defendant needs every available tool in the arsenal. Probative evidence is NEVER precluded. In the years I did crim defense, I never saw it happen. I've seen every judge find a way to keep it in. Courts don't operate like machines. A judge knows when someone is likely guilty, and he uses every trick he can to get the evidence to cook them into the record (and he knows the appellate court will back him up on it).

That you think the exclusionary rule is a widespread problem - or that most people are even familiar with it - shows a galling lack of understanding for the subject matter. Its one thing to pontificate, its another to bloviate as though one has omniscient understanding of all facets of the subject matter on which he's blathering. I'm not projecting anything. You sound like a posturing dilletante on this issue.

A member of my immediate family was investigated by the feds. Fucking pricks accused em of insider trading. They dropped em from a target list after a few months, but refused to tell em, despite numerous inquiries from em's lawyer.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Your arguments would be more persuasive if you used statistics instead of television shows.

It would if it wan't so one sided. I am trying to argue what the view of the exclusionary rule is in pop culture as opposed to the legal culture. If I can't come up with one show in popular culture that reflects well on the exclusioary rule and more than I can count that critisize it there isn't much of argument. And you can't tell me that movies and TV don't have a serious impact on pop culture, and that Movie producers and TV producers don't reflect pop culture prejudices and "conventional wisdom" opinions to make money.

Hollywood uses the public attitude towards and hatred of the exclusionary rule to make money. I have never seen a show that uses the love of or respect for the exclusionary rule to make money.

If I took the time to find an opinoin poll of the exclusionary rule among the general populace, the support of it would probably be in the teens or even single digits. Do you think I am wrong?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
It would if it wan't so one sided. I am trying to argue what the view of the exclusionary rule is in pop culture as opposed to the legal culture. If I can't come up with one show in popular culture that reflects well on the exclusioary rule and more than I can count that critisize it there isn't much of argument. And you can't tell me that movies and TV don't have a serious impact on pop culture, and that Movie producers and TV producers don't reflect pop culture prejudices and "conventional wisdom" opinions to make money.

Hollywood uses the public attitude towards and hatred of the exclusionary rule to make money. I have never seen a show that uses the love of or respect for the exclusionary rule to make money.

If I took the time to find an opinoin poll of the exclusionary rule among the general populace, the support of it would probably be in the teens or even single digits. Do you think I am wrong?

I think that you should talk to Dean Nancy Rapoport about the law and pop culture and then get back to us.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Spanky
countrys

For pete's sake, man, will you please stop this?!?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
For pete's sake, man, will you please stop this?!?

I believe "pete's" should read "Pete's."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If you actually did real crim defense, you'd understand that a defendant needs every available tool in the arsenal.

That is one of the most obvious statements I have ever read, and at the same time, one of the most irrelevent statements I have ever read.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Probative evidence is NEVER precluded.

Then why do we need the rule if it is never used? The purpose of the rule is to preclude probative evidence. Non probative evidence is already thrown out because it is non probative.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield In the years I did crim defense, I never saw it happen.

I was a witness in a murder trial where probative evidence was excluded because of the exclusionary rule.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield I've seen every judge find a way to keep it in. Courts don't operate like machines. A judge knows when someone is likely guilty, and he uses every trick he can to get the evidence to cook them into the record (and he knows the appellate court will back him up on it).

Why make the judges go through all these crazy contortions and force them to make patently absurd ruling and statements to avoid the negative consequences of the rule? Why not just drop it?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A member of my immediate family was investigated by the feds. Fucking pricks accused em of insider trading. They dropped em from a target list after a few months, but refused to tell em, despite numerous inquiries from em's lawyer.

Interesting and tragic, but what does this have to do with the exclusionary rule? How did the exclusionary rule help that member of your immediate family?