From drsulak at zarquon.net  Fri Nov  6 20:55:48 2009
From: drsulak at zarquon.net (drsulak at zarquon.net)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:55:48 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [Goglog] Arming The Military
Message-ID: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>

So why didn't all base personnel have side arms with them at all times? 
If there was ever a place where this would be appropriate (training and
oversight), it would be military base.  I'm assuming it's *not* because
our military leaders are:
A.) Idiots
B.) Been forced to lock up the guns due to legal restrictions

I'd like to think it is because of a solid reason, honed from decades of
operating stateside military bases.

Dale.




From SteveG at swhi.net  Fri Nov  6 21:20:58 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:20:58 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Arming The Military
In-Reply-To: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
References: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <5F6A0F249AAA451A856C9CB752FDD412@StevePC>


Dale says: 

> So why didn't all base personnel have side arms with them at 
> all times? 
<snip>
> I'd like to think it is because of a solid reason, honed from 
> decades of operating stateside military bases.

The obvious reasons.  A military base is a community, 
sometimes a very tightly packed and stressful one, with 
families, rivalries, conflicts, drugs, frustrations, etc.  
When they let the troops keep their sidearms, there are lots 
of accidental and intentional shootings, weapons lost, 
stolen, sold, etc.  No one wants the military bases to 
attract gangs and arms dealers the way they attract con men 
and hookers.  

And no one wants the troops thinking that just because they 
are soldiers, they are entitled to use their weapons to deal 
with any problems other than the designated enemy in a war 
zone.  They are not supposed to be a gang of bullies, 
terrorizing the local community; and that would be hard to 
avoid.  

Lots of soldiers own private weapons - but that is strictly 
separate from their military ones.  They have to qualify for 
civilian licenses, and they have to keep them safe and 
locked up.  In general, military bases don't even allow 
personal weapons unless they are stored in the armory and 
only taken out for off-base use, which has to comply with 
whatever civil law applies.  

When I lived on a base, I felt safe.  If they had allowed 
any random soldier to keep his sidearm at home or in the 
dorm/barracks, I would have felt *very* unsafe.  

    - Steve G 


From ben at bl.com  Sat Nov  7 04:49:24 2009
From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 04:49:24 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Arming The Military
In-Reply-To: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
References: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <p06240803c71affcf51cf@[10.19.35.98]>

At 8:55 PM -0600 11/6/09, drsulak at zarquon.net wrote:
>Replies are directed to the list.
>If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
>____________________________________________________________
>So why didn't all base personnel have side arms with them at all times?

Usually, all arms, ammunition, other weaponry, explosives, bayonets, etc. are locked in the armory, and signed out by military personnel only  AS NEEDED, for training or duty that require them to be armed.

>If there was ever a place where this would be appropriate (training and
>oversight), it would be military base.  I'm assuming it's *not* because
>our military leaders are:
>A.) Idiots
>B.) Been forced to lock up the guns due to legal restrictions
>
>I'd like to think it is because of a solid reason, honed from decades of
>operating stateside military bases.

Sound right.

-- 
------------------------------
 ben at BL.COM      Ben Liberman
------------------------------

From mbcrui at gmail.com  Sat Nov  7 08:57:20 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:57:20 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Arming The Military
In-Reply-To: <5F6A0F249AAA451A856C9CB752FDD412@StevePC>
References: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
	<5F6A0F249AAA451A856C9CB752FDD412@StevePC>
Message-ID: <4AF58AD0.402@gmail.com>

Steve Gruenwald wrote:
> The obvious reasons.  A military base is a community, 
> sometimes a very tightly packed and stressful one, with 
> families, rivalries, conflicts, drugs, frustrations, etc.  
> When they let the troops keep their sidearms, there are lots 
> of accidental and intentional shootings, weapons lost, 
> stolen, sold, etc.  No one wants the military bases to 
> attract gangs and arms dealers the way they attract con men 
> and hookers.  
>   
Dale, I think you've heard my story about standing a hanger watch back 
when the Puerto Rican Liberation Front was bombing recruiters and 
military installations... We'd had several recruiters in Chicago car 
bombed, and were told that we had a serious threat on base... and yet I 
stood watch in a hanger with millions of dollars of equipment and planes 
armed with only a flash light.  One night I saw someone in the hanger.  
I called security and then called out "Halt! Or I'll shoot!"  The guy 
stopped, and we stood a distance apart and waited for security.  Turns 
out he was an officer with insomnia who'd decided to come in and get 
some work done early.  He said "When did they start arming the hanger 
watches?  That's pretty dangerous down here with all the jet fuel 
around."  I replied "We're not armed, but what was I supposed to say... 
"Halt or I'll throw my flashlight at you?"



> Lots of soldiers own private weapons - but that is strictly 
> separate from their military ones.  
Nearly every Marine I've ever known has their own weapon. when I was in, 
a long time ago, they were kept in the armory and there were practice 
ranges set up along with a shooting club.  The second time I fired a gun 
was on a date with a Marine (first time was in boot camp).

Mary

-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Sat Nov  7 09:02:53 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:02:53 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Fwd: Ft. Hood
References: <4AF57C39.2080501@5-cent.us>
Message-ID: <B6B6B1F5-0B47-4D19-A7BE-349A79989215@worldnet.att.net>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: mark <whitroth at 5-cent.us>
> Date: 2009-November-07  07:55:05 (CST)
> To: gt-pfrc at ml.gt.org
> Subject: Re: Ft. Hood
> Reply-To: gt-pfrc at ml.gt.org
>
> I agree. And I DO NOT WANT TO CARRY A GUN. There. Now, are you going
> to *FORCE* me to? And then I have to worry about someone wandering
> around drunk, or road rage, and they're *ALL* armed?
>
> That is *not* a civilized country. That's Somalia, or somewhere  
> like that.
> Eric. *YOU* go live there - I do *not* want to.

I don't know of anyone who wants to require the general population to  
carry
arms. Certainly, _I_ would never support such an idea. But arguing  
that an
armed populace will lead to general carnage is factually incorrect.  
In every
jurisdiction where restrictions on personal arms have been reduced,  
the crime
rate (including random gun violence) has dropped.

The comparison to Somalia is, I believe, specious. The social, legal and
religious patterns in Somalia (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#Shari.27a) are such that  
violence is
almost inevitable. People in the U. S., on the other hand, are raised  
from
childhood to look first to the legal system for redress; violence is  
seen as a
last resort in the event of immediate threat of death or permanent harm.

Mark "trying to tread lightly" Hagerman



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.zarquon.net/pipermail/goglog/attachments/20091107/47f4ffda/attachment.htm 

From jazz at qnet.com  Sat Nov  7 09:43:46 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:43:46 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Arming The Military
In-Reply-To: <5F6A0F249AAA451A856C9CB752FDD412@StevePC>
References: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>
	<5F6A0F249AAA451A856C9CB752FDD412@StevePC>
Message-ID: <200911071630.nA7GU5RC006852@mail.zarquon.net>

At 21:20 11/6/2009 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote:
>Replies are directed to the list.
>If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
>____________________________________________________________
>
>Dale says:
>
> > So why didn't all base personnel have side arms with them at
> > all times?
><snip>
> > I'd like to think it is because of a solid reason, honed from
> > decades of operating stateside military bases.
>
>The obvious reasons.  A military base is a community,
>...
>When I lived on a base, I felt safe.  If they had allowed
>any random soldier to keep his sidearm at home or in the
>dorm/barracks, I would have felt *very* unsafe.

Airmen were at one time allowed to keep personal weapons at 
home.  Maybe they still are.  The weapons had to be registered with 
the Security Forces.  I knew a chief of Security Forces and he 
specifically told me if his guys had to respond to a domestic dispute 
at one of those homes, the first question was "where were the 
guns?".  I know of at least one suicide attributable to a personal 
firearm in base housing, and one murder.  The murder was of course a 
big deal, especially because it was the first in something like 40 years.

Bill Taylor

From SteveG at swhi.net  Sat Nov  7 10:50:18 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:50:18 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Arming The Military
In-Reply-To: <4AF58AD0.402@gmail.com>
References: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net><5F6A0F249AAA451A856C9CB752FDD412@StevePC>
	<4AF58AD0.402@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BE34BCD0069C4895ADDA790D99B90FD9@StevePC>


Mary Cruickshank Peed says: 

> He said "When did they start arming the hanger 
> watches?  That's pretty dangerous down here with all the jet fuel 
> around."  

Hmm.  I don't know if arming them when they are near the 
fueled aircraft is safer or less safe than risking sabotage 
because they are unarmed.  IIRC, in Iceland the flightline 
guards were armed, but kept away from fuel storage.  

Shortly before I left there, a disgruntled sailor torched 
the station "logistics" aircraft, an old prop plane with 
room for about 45 people - don't recall what it was.  It was 
in a hangar with our air/sea search and rescue helicopters - 
which are always fueled and ready to go - and a C-141, and 
an Icelandair passenger jet.  It was not a major disaster 
only because the search and rescue crews, who have to be a 
little crazy, pulled the helicopters out and then got a tow 
vehicle and got the other a/c out too, while the hangar 
burned.  

I knew some of the Marines who did guard duty; I defended 
one of them.  Basically sincere and well-trained, but on 
reflection, I would not want them carrying firearms around 
jet fuel either.  The "heat of the moment" could become very 
hot.  

    - Steve G 


From mbcrui at gmail.com  Sat Nov  7 13:38:38 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:38:38 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Arming The Military
In-Reply-To: <BE34BCD0069C4895ADDA790D99B90FD9@StevePC>
References: <60768.69.217.199.151.1257562548.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net><5F6A0F249AAA451A856C9CB752FDD412@StevePC>	<4AF58AD0.402@gmail.com>
	<BE34BCD0069C4895ADDA790D99B90FD9@StevePC>
Message-ID: <4AF5CCBE.1060303@gmail.com>

Steve Gruenwald wrote:
> Hmm.  I don't know if arming them when they are near the 
> fueled aircraft is safer or less safe than risking sabotage 
> because they are unarmed.  IIRC, in Iceland the flightline 
> guards were armed, but kept away from fuel storage.  
>   
The response I got to "There's a guy wandering around the hanger" was 
NOTHING to the response I got to "Hey, one of these planes is leaking fuel".
>  It was not a major disaster 
> only because the search and rescue crews, who have to be a 
> little crazy, pulled the helicopters out and then got a tow 
> vehicle and got the other a/c out too, while the hangar 
> burned.  
>   
I only know Coastie S&R and yeah, they're nuts.  Not as bad as 
submariners, but a close thing.
> I knew some of the Marines who did guard duty; I defended 
> one of them.  Basically sincere and well-trained, but on 
> reflection, I would not want them carrying firearms around 
> jet fuel either.  The "heat of the moment" could become very 
> hot.  
>   
The Spanish Marines carried weapons on guard duty, when I was in Spain, 
but Spain took terrorism more seriously, even in the early 80's.  They'd 
had a couple of serious hits from the Bast separatists then.  I don't 
think anyone really took the Puerto Ricans very seriously, even tho they 
managed to maim a couple of recruiters.

Mary

-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From ben at bl.com  Wed Nov 11 13:48:49 2009
From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:48:49 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] EPA attorneys come out against "cap and trade"
Message-ID: <p06240801c720c58fbac2@[10.19.35.98]>


http://newsrealblog.com/2009/11/11/the-huge-mistake/

-- 
------------------------------
  ben at BL.COM      Ben Liberman
------------------------------

From mbcrui at gmail.com  Sat Nov 21 11:06:11 2009
From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank Peed)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:06:11 -0500
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Message-ID: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091119_Case_s_main_question_will_be_about_torture.html

I've been wondering how the prosecutors were going to be able to get 
around the "evidence acquired through torture isn't admissible" stand.  
The Philly Inquirer's Samuel Buell feels that they probably have enough 
evidence from before he was captured to not have to use anything he was 
tortured for.  However, he's worried about the "government outrageous 
conduct" rulings from 1952 and feels that the only way they're going to 
get around that is to have the Supreme Court throw out that defense. 

> On its way there, it will force the federal courts to confront the 
> central questions in the debate over torture. The unavoidable issues 
> include whether what was done to Mohammed "shocks the conscience," 
> because it was indeed, by anyone's sensible definition, torture. The 
> courts will also have to decide whether the government is so culpable 
> in the victimization of the defendant that it has forfeited its right 
> to call him to account for his role in the murders of the victims of 9/11.

Of course, if the SC does throw it out, they still have him in 
custody... and they've hung on to him this long with no due process 
(which is another thing altogether). 

I find that I sort of agree with a Tom Clancy* scenario in this whole 
"who should try the terrorists and what should be done with them" 
thing.  In once of Clancy's books, terrorists were tried as criminals, 
they weren't given the political legitimacy, as it were, of being tried 
for their politics, only for the criminal act they committed.  Every 
time I see Rudy Guilliani say that they should be tried in a military 
tribunal, I think "No, they should be treated as criminals.  Calling 
them terrorists gives them a stage.  It says that they have a cause and 
they're different from regular criminals.  Terrorists strive to be 
different, even if they're only thugs.  Opium suppliers are criminals... 
unless they're financing a terror organization... then they're freedom 
fighters... good guys, fighting for a cause not drug pushers killing 
children or at least they can use that in the news media to justify 
themselves. 

I think they should be tried as criminals... and I think the entire 
process-- from the media to the prosecutors should treat them as 
CRIMINALS, not "terrorists".  I don't think we need to give them a 
platform to advocate whatever twisted political agenda they used to 
justify their crimes.  I think we should call them murders and 
criminals.  That's what they are.

Mary
*I'm still a little freaked that I agree with someone as far right as 
Clancy, believe me.

-- 
--
Mary Cruickshank Peed


We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong.
  - Sir Arthur Eddington


From drsulak at zarquon.net  Sat Nov 21 11:26:51 2009
From: drsulak at zarquon.net (drsulak at zarquon.net)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:26:51 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Message-ID: <54019.69.216.247.80.1258824411.squirrel@mail.zarquon.net>

There will be lots of motions, likely covering all the issues you mention
and then some.  The trial will be long.  There will be hand-wringing
everywhere that he will get off due to <insert various hot-buttons> and
it's the fault of <insert cast of characters>.

But when it goes to the jury - guilty!

And it will be appealed.  Insert more hand-wringing here.  But if it goes
back to jury - guilty.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Dale.


From mhagerman at worldnet.att.net  Sat Nov 21 15:44:08 2009
From: mhagerman at worldnet.att.net (Mark Hagerman)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:44:08 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>

On 2009-Nov-21 , at 11:06, Mary Cruickshank Peed wrote:

> I find that I sort of agree with a Tom Clancy* scenario in this whole
> "who should try the terrorists and what should be done with them"
> thing.  In once of Clancy's books, terrorists were tried as criminals,
> they weren't given the political legitimacy, as it were, of being  
> tried
> for their politics, only for the criminal act they committed.  Every
>
> [snip]
>
> I think they should be tried as criminals... and I think the entire
> process-- from the media to the prosecutors should treat them as
> CRIMINALS, not "terrorists".  I don't think we need to give them a
> platform to advocate whatever twisted political agenda they used to
> justify their crimes.  I think we should call them murders and
> criminals.  That's what they are.


Philosophically, I tend to agree. However, my understanding is
that _these_ criminals are likely to use the trial process to force
the public exposure of intelligence sources and methods,
thereby rendering those things less useful in capturing other
terrorists (and quite possibly getting a number of operatives
killed).

At a minimum, no one without a security clearance should be
permitted in the courtroom during testimony concerning such
matters, and those portions of the court record should be
classified. News reporters, above all, should be kept out of
the entire proceeding.

Mark Hagerman




From SteveG at swhi.net  Sat Nov 21 15:57:33 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:57:33 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BA589D166AF7491388B7E7D82ED28FA4@StevePC>


Mary Cruickshank Peed says: 

> I've been wondering how the prosecutors were going to be able to get 
> around the "evidence acquired through torture isn't 
> admissible" stand.  

AFAIK they have no intention of trying to do so.  I've heard 
repeatedly - including, I think, from Atty. Gen. Holder - 
that the decision to try him is based on the belief that 
they have enough evidence against him from his own 
statements made before he was "subjected to enhanced 
interrogation techniques," although not necessarily all from 
before he was arrested.  If so, the "fruit of the poisonous 
tree" concept (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 
U.S. 385 (1920)) also won't apply.  

Buell obviously has significant expertise in criminal law 
(far more than I), but I suspect he may also have a bias.  I 
think his concern about the "outrageous conduct" ruling from 
1952 will probably turn out not to be a valid concern.  The 
actual Supreme Court ruling he is referring to is Rochin v. 
California, 342 U.S. 165, and it was *not* a ruling that 
Rochin could not be prosecuted because of the "shocking" 
conduct, but that he could not be convicted *on the basis of 
evidence* that was obtained in a way that "shocked the 
conscience."  (Police forcibly obtained the contents of the 
suspect's stomach, when they mistakenly believed he had just 
swallowed illegal drugs.)  

This was just a variation on the exclusionary rule that 
already applied to Federal prosecutions under Weeks v. 
United States, a 1914 case.  Rochin made it applicable to 
the states on a new basis, by interpolating this new 
"outrageous conduct" standard into the 14th Amendment.  

Of course Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be prosecuted in 
Federal court, so the Weeks rule would apply anyway.  More 
important (as to a confession rather than physical evidence), 
the much stricter rule in Miranda v. Arizona, a 1966 case, 
would also apply.  But AFAICT none of these cases (Weeks, 
Rochin or Miranda) seems relevant if the prosecution is 
based on evidence *not* obtained in an illegal or especially 
offensive way.  

As far as I'm aware, most references to the Rochin standard 
since Miranda, at least, have to do not with whether a 
criminal conviction can be upheld, but with whether the law 
enforcement officials are stripped of their usual partial 
immunity and can be held personally liable for damages under 
42 USC ?1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871).  

> > The courts will also have to decide whether the 
> > government is so culpable in the victimization of the 
> > defendant that it has forfeited its right to call him to 
> > account for his role in the murders of the victims of 
> > 9/11.

But I know of no case that establishes any such rule.  AFAIK 
that would be totally new and extremely unlikely.  

> Of course, if the SC does throw it out, they still have him in 
> custody... and they've hung on to him this long with no due process 
> (which is another thing altogether). 

But that will become very hard to support.  While the 
Government has continually and openly argued that some 
people are "too dangerous to let go," AFAIK no one has 
suggested that there is law supporting that notion (other 
than as to the dangerously insane).  

> In once of Clancy's books, terrorists were tried as 
> criminals, 
> they weren't given the political legitimacy, as it were, of 
> being tried 
> for their politics, only for the criminal act they committed.  

Well, he can get some things right.  

> Every 
> time I see Rudy Guilliani say that they should be tried in a military 
> tribunal, I think "No, they should be treated as criminals.  Calling 
> them terrorists gives them a stage.  

I don't disagree, but you don't have to resort to public 
image arguments to reach that result.  "Terrorists" *are* 
criminals.  Military tribunals are legitimate for US 
military defendants, and for POW's who commit crimes while 
in custody.  I know of no valid reason not to apply "the 
judicial power of the United States," which is vested in the 
courts.  

      - Steve G


From SteveG at swhi.net  Sat Nov 21 17:02:16 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:02:16 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
	<3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>


Mark Hagerman says: 

> Philosophically, I tend to agree. However, my understanding is
> that _these_ criminals are likely to use the trial process to force
> the public exposure of intelligence sources and methods,

I keep hearing that - but I have yet to hear how they can 
"force" this.  

> At a minimum, no one without a security clearance should be
> permitted in the courtroom during testimony concerning such
> matters, and those portions of the court record should be
> classified. 

No, not an option.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right 
to a "speedy and public trial."  The trick is to find a way 
to focus the testimony narrowly on the facts relevant to 
guilt or innocence, and not on the specific procedures used 
to obtain the evidence.  Under the Classified Information 
Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. App. sec. 6 et seq., limited 
hearings on the admission and handling of evidence can be 
restricted from the public, but not the trial.  

That's one of the reasons I object to the use of military 
tribunals when they are legitimately applicable - they can 
deprive the accused of some of the rights given to every 
"person" or "accused" on trial.  (While, in general, normal 
military trials by court-martial are almost identical to 
civilian ones in regard to protection of the accused against 
actual unfairness, some details are different that may be 
important in these cases, and special-purpose "tribunals" 
may have their own additional differences.)  

The right to a public trial was created for a reason.  While 
there may be honest, just reasons to *want* to conduct some 
trials in secret, there is a huge risk if it is permitted.  
We know some people in government have done outrageous 
things, historically and recently, when they thought it was 
justified by national security and no one would ever know.  

I think there is a good chance that a military tribunal 
system could be set up that would comply with traditional 
standards of fairness while maintaining better security. 
One could be operated under *rules* that at least were 
published, and staffed with military judges and military 
lawyers who were told they really had to follow those rules, 
and were to do justice and make no changes from their usual 
practices other than as necessary to maintain security of 
classified information - but if they were not told this, but 
something entirely different, possibly no one would ever know.  

       - Steve G 


From Charis_Doula at worldnet.att.net  Sat Nov 21 17:27:50 2009
From: Charis_Doula at worldnet.att.net (Ann Totusek)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:27:50 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>	<3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
	<652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
Message-ID: <4B087776.3090701@worldnet.att.net>

So how would you go about protecting the evidence which, if made public, 
would lead to the death of operatives?  Seems to me that the US owes 
such operatives (especially those who are not US citizens) their life, 
safety, security, and livelihood if they are endangered by their 
activities on our behalf.   Would it be equitable to  guarantee those 
operatives and their families (as extended as necessary) relocation to 
the United States or other country of their choice, along with the 
basics- housing, food, and clothing, as well as education as needed to 
provide for their future?   Would excluding classified evidence from 
trial transcripts/records and charging any who reveal it with treason 
punishable by death be reasonable?  Otherwise, I can easily see a 
defendant or his/her attorney sprinkling their questions or answers 
liberally with statements that would implicate and endanger others just 
because they could.   I have the greatest respect for the rights of the 
accused, but my respect for the actual life of others trumps that.  I 
have no problem with the right to a public trial, but there are times 
when ensuring the rights of one person will give us a great financial 
burden which we MUST shoulder without complaint in order to be just. 

Ann


Steve Gruenwald wrote:
> Replies are directed to the list.
> If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line!
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> Mark Hagerman says: 
>
>   
>> Philosophically, I tend to agree. However, my understanding is
>> that _these_ criminals are likely to use the trial process to force
>> the public exposure of intelligence sources and methods,
>>     
>
> I keep hearing that - but I have yet to hear how they can 
> "force" this.  
>
>   
>> At a minimum, no one without a security clearance should be
>> permitted in the courtroom during testimony concerning such
>> matters, and those portions of the court record should be
>> classified. 
>>     
>
> No, not an option.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right 
> to a "speedy and public trial."  The trick is to find a way 
> to focus the testimony narrowly on the facts relevant to 
> guilt or innocence, and not on the specific procedures used 
> to obtain the evidence.  Under the Classified Information 
> Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. App. sec. 6 et seq., limited 
> hearings on the admission and handling of evidence can be 
> restricted from the public, but not the trial.  
>
> That's one of the reasons I object to the use of military 
> tribunals when they are legitimately applicable - they can 
> deprive the accused of some of the rights given to every 
> "person" or "accused" on trial.  (While, in general, normal 
> military trials by court-martial are almost identical to 
> civilian ones in regard to protection of the accused against 
> actual unfairness, some details are different that may be 
> important in these cases, and special-purpose "tribunals" 
> may have their own additional differences.)  
>
> The right to a public trial was created for a reason.  While 
> there may be honest, just reasons to *want* to conduct some 
> trials in secret, there is a huge risk if it is permitted.  
> We know some people in government have done outrageous 
> things, historically and recently, when they thought it was 
> justified by national security and no one would ever know.  
>
> I think there is a good chance that a military tribunal 
> system could be set up that would comply with traditional 
> standards of fairness while maintaining better security. 
> One could be operated under *rules* that at least were 
> published, and staffed with military judges and military 
> lawyers who were told they really had to follow those rules, 
> and were to do justice and make no changes from their usual 
> practices other than as necessary to maintain security of 
> classified information - but if they were not told this, but 
> something entirely different, possibly no one would ever know.  
>
>        - Steve G 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Goglog mailing list
> Goglog at mail.zarquon.net
> http://mail.zarquon.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goglog
>
>   


From ignatz at dminet.com  Sat Nov 21 17:38:29 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:38:29 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
	<3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <20091121233829.GA26464@dminet.com>

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 03:44:08PM -0600, Mark Hagerman wrote:
> Philosophically, I tend to agree. However, my understanding is
> that _these_ criminals are likely to use the trial process to force
> the public exposure of intelligence sources and methods,
> thereby rendering those things less useful in capturing other
> terrorists (and quite possibly getting a number of operatives
> killed).

That's a red herring.  Nothing can, or will, be divulged in court without
permission of the court.  If they start to do so, proceedings would be
halted and the courtroom closed until the matter is resolved.  Before
entering the courtroom, any evidence or line of 

> At a minimum, no one without a security clearance should be permitted
> in the courtroom during testimony concerning such matters, and those
> portions of the court record should be classified. News reporters,
> above all, should be kept out of the entire proceeding.

No can do--"right to a speedy and public trial".  HOWEVER, those dealing
with potentially sensitive evidence can be required to have passed
security checks, and evidence that is deemed sensitive can be kept out
of the public record.

There *are* ways to do this, and we've know it for decades.  Descending
to star chamber trials is not the way we want our country to go--or
they (the bad guys) have won, by definition.

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From ignatz at dminet.com  Sat Nov 21 17:47:54 2009
From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:47:54 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <4B087776.3090701@worldnet.att.net>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
	<3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
	<652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
	<4B087776.3090701@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <20091121234753.GB26464@dminet.com>

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 05:27:50PM -0600, Ann Totusek wrote:
> So how would you go about protecting the evidence which, if made public, 
> would lead to the death of operatives?

Redacting the court documents, guaranteeing that counsel on both sides
and the judge have a security clearance such that they *can* argue just
that portion of any such evidence necessary to the case, etc.

> Would it be equitable to  guarantee those operatives and their
> families (as extended as necessary) relocation ...

Conceivably, although probably only in case of inadvertent divulgence of
their identity.  (I'm assuming you're speaking of in-country assets, not
US covert inserted assets.)

> ...along with the basics- housing, food, and clothing, as well as
> education as needed to provide for their future?

Of course the terms of any such protection would be negotiated.

> Would excluding classified evidence from trial transcripts/records
> and charging any who reveal it with treason punishable by death be
> reasonable?

A bit over the top--charging with treason, the level of punishment
concomitant with applicable law, would be more realistic.  That
stipulated, yes.

> Otherwise, I can easily see a 
> defendant or his/her attorney sprinkling their questions or answers 
> liberally with statements that would implicate and endanger others just 
> because they could.

No, wouldn't happen.  As soon as they *started* down such a dangerous
path, proceedings would be halted.  And everything brought up in the
courtroom is *not* a surprise to the other side (TV drama aside.)

> I have the greatest respect for the rights of the accused, but my
> respect for the actual life of others trumps that.  I have no problem
> with the right to a public trial, but there are times when ensuring
> the rights of one person will give us a great financial burden which
> we MUST shoulder without complaint in order to be just.

I disagree with most of that.  I have the greatest respect for our system
of justice, and have quailed in terror for the 8 years of the just-past
administration as I saw it gutted in the name of expediency.

If, in the course of following the law, there *is* a financial burden,
then so be it--but nothing should ever trump the rights that are supposed
to be guaranteed by our Constitution and the rule of law.  Nothing.

As I've told cops in the HTCIA who've complained about restrictions that
make forensic investigation harder--"We're the good guys.  We HAVE to
play by the rules, and still win.  Yeah, it's harder, but it's what we
have to do.  Or we're not the good guys any more."

Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	ignatz at dminet.com

From SteveG at swhi.net  Sat Nov 21 19:16:44 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:16:44 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <4B087776.3090701@worldnet.att.net>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>	<3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net><652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
	<4B087776.3090701@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <46A47B46FBD94A2DA105C8D989441980@StevePC>


Ann Totusek says: 

> So how would you go about protecting the evidence which, if 
> made public, would lead to the death of operatives?  

You don't make it public; as I said, you focus the testimony 
narrowly on the facts relevant to guilt or innocence, and 
not on the specific procedures used to obtain the evidence.  
Those methods are not anything the jury needs to hear.  

The defense attorney would be subject to disbarment and 
possibly jail time if she/he disclosed the information.  The 
defendant would most likely be in jail for life and unable 
to communicate without monitoring.  

I say "she" intentionally because of the case of Lynne 
Stewart, attorney for Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, one of the 
conspirators in the 1993 attempt to bomb the World Trade 
Center.  She just reported to jail Thursday, to start a 
28-month sentence for passing a message from her client to 
supporters in Egypt.  

> I have the greatest respect for the rights of the 
> accused, but my respect for the actual life of others 
> trumps that.

It's not the rights of any one accused that concerns me, as 
much as the system that protects the rights of all of us.  
You can't tear down the system to deal with selected cases 
of bad people, and then assume it will be in good shape to 
keep us nice people safe.  

    - Steve G 

PS - One of my favorite stage dialogues of all time is 
from "A Man for All Seasons," by Robert Bolt:  

William Roper:  So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More:  Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper:  Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More:   Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! 



From SteveG at swhi.net  Sat Nov 21 19:23:33 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:23:33 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <20091121234753.GB26464@dminet.com>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com><3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net><652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC><4B087776.3090701@worldnet.att.net>
	<20091121234753.GB26464@dminet.com>
Message-ID: <8680B33F1F3B4D1EB88AB2B94F1001EA@StevePC>


Dave Ihnat says: 

> > Would excluding classified evidence from trial transcripts/records
> > and charging any who reveal it with treason punishable by death be
> > reasonable?
> 
> A bit over the top--charging with treason, the level of punishment
> concomitant with applicable law, would be more realistic.  That
> stipulated, yes.

- and, two minor points:  

(a) Treason is a narrowly defined crime - the only one, in fact, 
defined by the Constitution itself.  You can't just decide to 
charge it when convenient.  

(b) You probably can't charge a self-declared enemy foreign 
national with treason at all.  That wouldn't seem to make 
sense.  

    - Steve G 


From jazz at qnet.com  Sat Nov 21 20:48:48 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:48:48 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
	<3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
	<652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
Message-ID: <200911220255.nAM2t3N5009955@mail.zarquon.net>

At 17:02 11/21/2009 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote:

>No, not an option.  The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right
>to a "speedy and public trial."

I would think this would be one of his first and most powerful 
arguments.  What constitutes "speedy", and how does that compare to 
over 4 years confinement before even being charged?


>The right to a public trial was created for a reason.  While
>there may be honest, just reasons to *want* to conduct some
>trials in secret, there is a huge risk if it is permitted.
>We know some people in government have done outrageous
>things, historically and recently, when they thought it was
>justified by national security and no one would ever know.

The accused has the right to the public trial.  But the public has an 
interest too.  To the degree the trial process and evidence can be 
examined by the public, they get an accurate picture of what the 
government is claiming to be a crime.  Keeps the government 
relatively honest and grounded. The accused has the public political 
process working for him to, hopefully, prevent a railroad or sham trial.

Bill Taylor

From SteveG at swhi.net  Sun Nov 22 07:46:10 2009
From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:46:10 -0600
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <200911220255.nAM2t3N5009955@mail.zarquon.net>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com><3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net><652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
	<200911220255.nAM2t3N5009955@mail.zarquon.net>
Message-ID: <7B0A85EBA75A428B8FD72AB0D9E8823C@StevePC>

 
Bill Taylor says: 

> What constitutes "speedy", and how does that compare to 
> over 4 years confinement before even being charged?

Yes, that may be a serious concern.  As I recall, he was 
first arrested by Pakistan and there is some doubt about how 
long he was in their custody before being transferred to US 
control, but in any event it was quite a while after that 
that he was charged.  The transfer itself will raise (at 
least) procedural questions.  There may be a legitimate 
argument that he was at first a POW, which is entirely 
different, before he was being confined as a criminal 
suspect entitled to "speedy trial."  I'm sure the DOJ has 
been working hard on that issue.  

> The accused has the right to the public trial.  But the 
> public has an interest too.
<snip> 

Yes, and for the reasons you mention.  I've always been a 
bit peeved by the arguments that "the public" (meaning the 
press) has a right to access to trials for their own 
entirely different reasons - a right to access to news in 
and of itself - even over the objections of the defendant.  

           - Steve G 


From jazz at qnet.com  Sun Nov 22 09:55:37 2009
From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:55:37 -0800
Subject: [Goglog] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
In-Reply-To: <7B0A85EBA75A428B8FD72AB0D9E8823C@StevePC>
References: <4B081E03.5080002@gmail.com>
	<3F373913-7E3E-4F03-BDD1-BE642FDF80CB@worldnet.att.net>
	<652551A6F8C548909564C49C627C0529@StevePC>
	<200911220255.nAM2t3N5009955@mail.zarquon.net>
	<7B0A85EBA75A428B8FD72AB0D9E8823C@StevePC>
Message-ID: <200911221556.nAMFujDt005599@mail.zarquon.net>

At 07:46 11/22/2009 -0600, Steve Gruenwald wrote:

>Bill Taylor says:
>
> > What constitutes "speedy", and how does that compare to
> > over 4 years confinement before even being charged?
>
>Yes, that may be a serious concern.  As I recall, he was
>first arrested by Pakistan and there is some doubt about how
>long he was in their custody before being transferred to US
>control, but in any event it was quite a while after that
>that he was charged.  The transfer itself will raise (at
>least) procedural questions.  There may be a legitimate
>argument that he was at first a POW, which is entirely
>different, before he was being confined as a criminal
>suspect entitled to "speedy trial."  I'm sure the DOJ has
>been working hard on that issue.

I had to go look for the capture date.  1 March 2003.  The Pakistani 
internal police handed him over to the US "soon" after.  Same day, 
maybe the next week, but a very short span of days.  So 6 years, 8 
months in custody and counting.  Even assuming he was a "battlefield 
detainee" before becoming a POW (and accused war criminal), and now a 
criminal defendant, the sequence of events, the timing, and what 
justifies what will be important.

Of course the remedy for non-speedy trial would ordinarily be 
release.  No one is going to order KSM released within the US, and no 
country would openly take him. At best he'd go into a different 
detention (for undeportable illegal aliens?).  Most likely back to 
military detention.

> > The accused has the right to the public trial.  But the
> > public has an interest too.
><snip>
>
>Yes, and for the reasons you mention.  I've always been a
>bit peeved by the arguments that "the public" (meaning the
>press) has a right to access to trials for their own
>entirely different reasons - a right to access to news in
>and of itself - even over the objections of the defendant.

Yes, we often hear "the public has a right to know" as a press excuse 
to get access to whatever strikes their fancy.  But a public trial is 
an area where that phrase literally comes into play.

Bill Taylor

From bogus@does.not.exist.com  Sat Nov  7 13:38:54 2009
From: bogus@does.not.exist.com ()
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:38:54 -0000
Subject: No subject
Message-ID: <mailman.0.1265140774.3466.goglog@mail.zarquon.net>

privacy..."

  http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ar.aKlNjF4TQ
  
  By Patrick Donahue
  
  Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said in
  a newspaper interview that Germany will buy stolen information on Swiss
  bank accounts, backed by a poll showing majority support among voters
  if it helps tackle tax evasion.
  
  Schaeuble said that the Swiss case is legally similar to a tax probe begun
  two years ago, when German authorities bought client data in Liechtenstein
  and used the information to pursue tax cheats, the southern German
  newspaper Augsburger Allgemeine citing him as saying in an interview.
  
  "For this reason we could hardly decide otherwise", Schaeuble was cited
  as saying today. The decision has already been taken "in principle."
  A Finance Ministry spokeswoman wasn't immediately able to confirm
  his comments.
  
  A majority of Germans, 57 percent, said they support using information
  on tax violations even if it was illegally obtained, a Forsa poll of
  1,000 people for Stern magazine showed. Forty- three percent said they
  oppose such a move, the poll showed.
  
  A decision to buy the information risks further souring ties between
  Germany and Switzerland already damaged last year in a spat over tax
  evasion. Swiss Finance Ministry spokesman Roland Meier declined to comment
  on Schaeuble???s remarks. Meier referred to Finance Minister Hans-Rudolf
  Merz's statement yesterday that the authorities in Switzerland will
  offer no legal help on tax matters that involve stolen information.
  
  Information on secret Swiss accounts held by German nationals could
  yield 200 million euros ($278 million) in lost tax revenue to the German
  government, Handelsblatt reported yesterday. Tax authorities were offered
  a CD that contained 1,500 names in exchange for 2.5 million euros.
  
  Chancellor Angela Merkel said yesterday that German tax authorities
  should pursue the information "if it's relevant." Swiss banks, already
  reeling from attacks on bank secrecy by the U.S., France and Germany,
  said Merkel's government shouldn't pay for stolen data.
  
Cheers,
--
	Dave Ihnat
	President, DMINET Consulting, Inc.
	dihnat at dminet.com
	773/550.0929