The Glade 4.0

I'd be careful with the "complete **** idiot" classification. AFAIK, most of mainland Europe answers "yes" to the second and third questions. Germany, for example, allows illegally obtained evidence to be used at trial, and obviously there is no "poisonous tree" doctrine. German convicts can also be detained indefinitely if they are deemed highly likely to re-offend. Punishment of the police officers/government officials that obtained/used the evidence illegally is seen as sufficient remedy.

And thus you see one of the key differences between American and European ideology, and the reason that for the most part of the last 400 years people have left there and flocked here.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Except, if recent history proves anything, the "Complete **** Idiot" Classification certainly applies to mainland Europe.

_________________

Damn, beat me to it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, No and No. Emphatically.

No, no, and no.



And no.

_________________

Hop to it

_________________

_________________

For those that answered no, no, no - do any of your answers change if it's a non citizen, non POW? Say he's allegedly into terrorism, drug smuggling, arms smuggling, sex trafficking, or something along those lines.

Arathain, speaking for no one other than myself here:

i have issues with a noncitizen being afforded qny constitutional rights when they have been incarcerated. Not a citizen, not protected by the social contract and all that.

That said, lifetime in prison with no justice is no bueno. I would be a fan of deportation, and if the **** is caught doing terroristic activity in the future... Discreet elimination of a threat.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Depends. Was he captured pursuant to national security activity, or pursuant to domestic law enforcement?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It does not change my answers.

_________________

Heheh, let the Europeans with their lack of protections deal with it.

Otherwise, no.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Men like KSM and his kind are essentially enemy soldiers without a country and should be treated accordingly

Foreign nationals acussed of other crimes I believe are protected by the consitution in like manner as citizens. I could be wrong though

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Yeah, that was one of my follow-up thoughts as well:

Scenario B: Defendant is a US citizen, arrested by the FBI on US soil, and is accused of planning and participating in terrorist attacks against American targets. There's no doubt this guy is guilty, and it's extremely likely that he'll do it all again if he's released. Unfortunately, though, all of the key evidence against him was obtained via serious violations of Constitutional protections - searches and arrests without warrants, coerced confessions, etc. - and there's no way we can use any of it in court.

First question: If the DA is able to cover up the violations and thereby obtain a conviction, do you think he should?

Second question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial in this kind of situation?

Third question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the detention of such defendants we "know" are guilty and likely to re-offend, even if we can't prove it in court?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario C: Defendant is not a US citizen, was arrested by the FBI on US soil, and is accused of planning and participating in terrorist attacks against American targets. There's no doubt this guy is guilty, and it's extremely likely that he'll do it all again if he's released. Unfortunately, though, all of the key evidence against him was obtained via serious violations of Constitutional protections - searches and arrests without warrants, coerced confessions, etc. - and there's no way we can use any of it in court.

First question: If the prosecutor is able to cover up the violations and thereby obtain a conviction, do you think he should?

Second question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial in this kind of situation?

Third question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the detention of such defendants we "know" are guilty and likely to re-offend, even if we can't prove it in court?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario D: Defendant is a US citizen, captured by US troops or CIA operatives on foreign soil, and is accused of planning and participating in terrorist attacks against American targets. There's no doubt this guy is guilty, and it's extremely likely that he'll do it all again if he's released. Unfortunately, though, all of the key evidence against him was obtained via serious violations of Constitutional protections - searches and arrests without warrants, coerced confessions, etc. - and there's no way we can use any of it in court.

First question: If the DA is able to cover up the violations and thereby obtain a conviction, do you think he should?

Second question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial in this kind of situation?

Third question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the detention of such defendants we "know" are guilty and likely to re-offend, even if we can't prove it in court?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario E: Defendant is not a US citizen, was captured by US troops or CIA operatives on foreign soil, and is accused of planning and participating in terrorist attacks against American targets. There's no doubt this guy is guilty, and it's extremely likely that he'll do it all again if he's released. Unfortunately, though, all of the key evidence against him was obtained via serious violations of Constitutional standards - searches and arrests without warrants, coerced confessions, etc. - and there's no way we can use any of it in court.

First question: If the prosecutor is able to cover up the violations and thereby obtain a conviction, do you think he should?

Second question: Do you think we should allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial in this kind of situation?

Third question: Do you think we should allow the detention of such defendants we "know" are guilty and likely to re-offend, even if we can't prove it in court?

We're not doing your homework for you RD :p /tease

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Heh. Come on, please? I'll totally make it up to you. You can borrow my notes from Civ Pro if you want!

Nah man, hook me up with your sister and we'll talk /wink

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Military tribunals have been found to be appropriate in many of those scenarios, RD, where they're not, my answers remain - no.

Dude, have you seen his sister?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Last I saw her, she was gettin' up off your pops!

Your scenarios involving illegally obtaining evidence break down in C and D. For example, there's no such thing as an "illegal search" by troops on foriegn soil. Warrants and the like are not needed to conduct military operations. If you happen to be in a hotel in Baghdad making bombs when someone kicks in the door without a warrant.. well, tough ****. Of course, in that case you're far more likely to end up in front of an Iraqi court, and they don't necessarily have the same views on what is ok in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

1,2,3 Already demand Constitutional protections apply either by virtue of citizenship or having taken place in a state or territory where the Constitution is law.

4 - Our laws do not apply.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Wow! That's worse than I heard, he's been dead for eight years.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Well, to be honest, my sister ain't no prize either.