The Cheney Factor
If I were Dick Cheney, I’d be laying low thanking my lucky stars that I’m not on trial for war crimes not going on television to talk smack about the new administration. But talking smack it is. It’s really remarkable when you think about it that anyone would listen to Cheney on the subject of national security. His administration was by far the least successful in American history in terms of preventing international terrorists from murdering Americans. Also by far the least successful in American history in terms of preventing international terrorists from murdering NATO allies. And the military action his administration pursued in response to the terrorist attack we suffered under their watch has come to be mired in problems, teetering on the brink of failure, almost entirely thanks to a second—but completely unnecessary—war his administration chose to undertake in favor of successfully completing the first one.
Meanwhile, during this time hostile nations such as North Korea and Iran have become bigger proliferation threats than ever!
178 Responses to “The Cheney Factor”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 15th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Craziest vp since Aaron Burr. Shouldn’t he be off somewhere shooting his friends?
March 15th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Unfortunately, he knows full well that he’s in no jeopardy (well, in this country at least) of ever being prosecuted, for anything. That’s why he can continue to mouth off.
The real question here is why CNN feels the need to give him an unchallenged stage. They would appear to be trying to make news. Ratings must be down or something.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Cheney reminds me of a spider I saw climb out of a banana box when I worked in a produce section of a grocery store. For a long time, my skin would crawl and the hair on the back of my neck would stand up every time I wondered where it went.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I hope Cheney keeps doing interviews for a long time. The longer people associate the GOP with Cheney’s face, the better.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Well then shouldn’t Congress take up Cheney’s assertions?
Seems to me that Lil Dick is inviting extensive public hearings on the Bush administration’s extra-Constitutional activities.
And as that other Dick learned executive privilege is no defense for criminal activity.
Hey Scooter, your subpoena is in the mail!
March 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
If I were Dick Cheney, I’d be laying low thanking my lucky stars that I’m not on trial for war crimes
Right, ’cause there’s a chance in hell of charges (however legitimate they may be) ever being brought.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
It’s Obama’s problem now.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Are you seriously trying to imply that the Obama administration should use prosecution for war crimes as a pretext for going after Cheney for criticizing the administration, or that Cheney should be worried that they will? I can’t see any other way of reading this sentence. I have a better opinion of the administration than that.
Of course, in a perfect world Cheney would be on trial for war crimes because he committed war crimes, but the idea that the administration should use prosecution for crime as a punishment for criticizing the administration is horrifying. This is true even if the crime was actually committed.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
The man is betting his “legacy” on one thing: wait for the next terrorist attack in the US, then show up on TV and claim he was right all along and that the US should start torturing people to death again.
Disgusting.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Craziest vp since Aaron Burr. Shouldn’t he be off somewhere shooting his friends?
At least Hamilton knew getting shot was a possibility.
I think #9 has it exactly right.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
wait for the next terrorist attack in the US, then show up on TV and claim he was right all along and that the US should start torturing people to death again.
As long as he’s the first. After all, somebody who talks so often and at such length about the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the US clearly knows something he’s hiding from us.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Try the bastard before he has the chance.
Trying to just “move on” hasn’t worked, might as well get justice while we’re stuck here.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I wonder if he’s not attempting to give himself another layer of protection. If investigations ever do come—oh please oh please oh please—he’ll then claim they’re simply politically motivated and were spurred on because his criticisms embarrassed the administration.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
The guy’s a psychopath. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong in the slightest. Why would he ’slink’ around in any sense?
March 15th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
If I were Dick Cheney, I’d be laying low thanking my lucky stars that I’m not on trial for war crimes
Right. Because, you know, there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that that would actually happen.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Means. Motive. Only needs opportunity.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Revenge fantasies are unbecoming, Matthew.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Are you seriously trying to imply that the Obama administration should use prosecution for war crimes as a pretext for going after Cheney for criticizing the administration, or that Cheney should be worried that they will? I can’t see any other way of reading this sentence.
Really. That’s the only interpretation you can come up with?
March 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
“Are you seriously trying to imply that the Obama administration should use prosecution for war crimes as a pretext for going after Cheney for criticizing the administration”
No, I think he’s saying that Cheney should be on trial for war crimes because he committed war crimes.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
No, I think he’s saying that Cheney should be on trial for war crimes because he committed war crimes.
We’ll give Cheney a fair trial, then we’ll hang him.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Accuse your opponent of doing what you’re doing.
Rove’s Playbook
Revenge fantasies are unbecoming, Matthew.
Unlike bringing the use of torture to the American political debate. (You support torture, chum?)
March 15th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
They wail about prosecutions being partisan, because they know for damn sure they can’t defend Dick Cheney on the merits.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
“Are you seriously trying to imply that the Obama administration should use prosecution for war crimes as a pretext for going after Cheney for criticizing the administration”
No, I think he’s saying that Cheney should be on trial for war crimes because he committed war crimes.
Right. You see some career gangbanger in a bar bragging up how tough he is, you are entitled to wish someone would put him behind bars for his crimes to shut him up.
There are several reasons we punish criminals by locking them up, but the first reason is always to keep him and his criminal associates from committing more crimes. Cheney is a habitual liar who is still pushing the same propaganda spin he used to cover up his other illegal activities. Every time Cheney appears on TV, he and that network are providing political cover for thugs who worked for him and some who are still government employees and contractors.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Unlike bringing the use of torture to the American political debate.
Yes, of course. There’s nothing “revengeful” about debating the use of torture.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
We’ll give Cheney a fair trial, then we’ll hang him.
I’m all for giving Dick Cheney the “gold-plated” criminal trials he’s fought so hard to deny to his victims. The best council he can afford, of his own choosing. The strict rules of evidence, including hearsay, that abide in federal criminal court. A jury of his peers. The right to confront his accusers. Absolutely, I want to give him am real trial, not a show trial.
How about you, Matt P?
March 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
They wail about prosecutions being partisan, because they know for damn sure they can’t defend Dick Cheney on the merits.
No, we wail about the proposed prosecutions being partisan because they are partisan.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Absolutely, I want to give him am real trial, not a show trial.
No you don’t. You’ve already decided he’s guilty. You want a witchhunt, not a trial.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Matthew, this has always been the Bush/Cheney strategy: double down. It’s the less-famous part of Rovism. We all know about the notion of attacking your opponent’s perceived strength, but that is accompanied by the relentless hyping of your perceived weakness as actual strength.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Not only is he not being prosecuted, but the interviewer asked if he thought that Obama’s policies would make us less safe. Why would he hide when the media is encouraging him to spout his talking points and trash the new administration, and isn’t critical of him at all? It’s pathetic.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Suddenly, Matt P doesn’t think the distinction between a real investigation and a trial, and a show trial, is terribly important anymore. Hell, he won’t even acknowledge that someone could, even in principle, support one and not the other.
You’ve already decided he’s guilty. You want a witchhunt, not a trial. I already had an opinion about the guilt of Jeffrey Dahmer and that Ted Bundy when they were arrested, too. Nonetheless, I supported giving them complete and fair trials.
What kind of bullshit argument is this? We should not investigate and try people if we already have good reason to believe they’ve done something wrong, because then we’re biased? That’s why we have trials, and judges, and juries.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that the entire right-wing doesn’t think the Constitution exists anymore. Note that people like MattP and gary never try to deny that war crimes were actually committed, because they just can’t. Or they give a fact-free one-liner as a reply (’No, everything Bush and Cheney was legal, deal with it’).
No, we wail about the proposed prosecutions being partisan because they are partisan.
Apart from torture, what other crimes can’t be prosecuted anymore because it would be “partisan”?
March 15th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
BTW, you didn’t answer the question, Matt P, who’s recently developed an appreciation for due process:
Do you want to see a legitimate investigation, an impartial legal proceeding, conducted, or not?
Take your time. I can live with “Yes” and “No.”
March 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
The oddest thing is that now, they don’t have to suck up to Cheney, and they still do. He should be asked, over and over again, how it was that Osama bin Laden escaped at Toira Bora, and how it happened that for eight years the Bush administration watched as al qaeda reconstituted itself in Pakistan territory. He should be asked if there was tacit quid pro quo, so that Bin Laden could attack outside of the U.S., and the Bush administration could use him as a threat to pump up their war on terror. He should be asked what he thinks of the fact that the U.S. has spent well over two trillion dollars on the War on Terror, Osama has spent maybe 20 million, and he is still there, while Bush and Cheney are retired. He should be asked about who decided to allow Pakistan to airlift Taliban leaders from Kunduz in the winter of 2001. Don’t move on to any other topic. There is no other topic that he should be allowed to say peep about. His criminal propensity to get a sexual charge at the thought of torturing people is of interest, but mainly to a shrink. The press, being a worthless, shambling, owned piece of shit over the last eight years, could make up a little bit by actually pressing these questions, a la Stewart. Will they? Hell no.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Uh, what prosecutions would those be, that you’ve researched so thoroughly and concluded are infested with partisan bias?
What you’ve done here, old bean, is give up the game. You’ve, apparently unwittingly, acknowledged exactly the point I made; that you are going to call any prosecution “partisan,” and don’t need any evidence of partisan-motivated bias or wrongdoing to make that accusation.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Facts are partisan too:
US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530
March 15th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
How many sockpuppets this time, Mixner? The pro-torture ones, for sure.
Time for TP to run an IP check.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Almost certainly the fake DTM who’s been haunting the threadz, as well.
DTM smacked the living bejeesus out of a Mixner sockpuppet recently.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I already had an opinion about the guilt of Jeffrey Dahmer and that Ted Bundy when they were arrested, too.
Well, make up your mind. Either you think a trial is necessary to establish guilt or you don’t. If you’ve already decided that Cheney is guilty then you’re not looking for a fair trial, you’re looking for a show trial.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Uh, what prosecutions would those be,
Uh, none. Hence the adjective “proposed.”
March 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘joe from Lowell’.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Huh?
A trial is necessary in our constitution system, no matter how clear the evidence of guilt was.
They found partially-eaten body parts in Daherm’s fridge – and yet he was still put on trial, because that is how our legal system works. Everybody – every criminal defendant – is put on trial, and the state has the responsibility to prove their guilt to the judge and/or jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This is true even when the evidence is so overwhelming that meeting that standard is really, really easy, as in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. Or Dick Cheney.
This isn’t hard. When you play dumb like this, it makes it look like you don’t really have a plausible argument.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Witch hunt? Cheney hasn’t flinched about the torture he used. Nor have his admirers repudiated the tactic.
Maybe you have a private definition of “witch hunt”.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
How can a proposed investigation be biased?
March 15th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
A trial is necessary in our constitution system, no matter how clear the evidence of guilt was.
A trial is necessary to establish guilt. If you’ve already decided Cheney is guilty you’re not looking for a trial, you’re looking for a kangaroo court.
How can a proposed investigation be biased?
In lots of ways. But the proposed action wasn’t an investigation anyway, so your question is a nonsequitur.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
This is true even when the evidence is so overwhelming that meeting that standard is really, really easy, as in the case of …. Dick Cheney.
Ha ha ha ha ha! You’re hilarious. What “overwhelming evidence?” “Overwhelming evidence” of what crime?
March 15th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
A trial is necessary to establish guilt. If you’ve already decided Cheney is guilty you’re not looking for a trial, you’re looking for a kangaroo court.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
March 15th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
A trial is necessary to establish guilt.
Legal guilt and moral guilt are separate. Cheney’s rather proud of torture. How should we respond to someone who’s proud of such a thing?
March 15th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Oh, ‘gary’? ‘ed’ and ‘kieran’ are waiting in the basement for you to jerk them off.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Legal guilt and moral guilt are separate.
A crime is a violation of the law, not a violation of what you think is moral.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘duBois’.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
The oddest thing is that now, [the press doesn't] have to suck up to Cheney, and they still do.
Well, they’re scared of him. I don’t mean ‘intimidated’ in an everyday interpersonal sense, but scared. You don’t have to know whether Sy Hersh is right about this or not to be scared of Cheney, especially if you’re a weasel anyway, which most American reporters are.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
gary,
It’s really simple. We think Cheney is guilty of numerous crimes. We want a fair trial so that he can be presented with the evidence against him, which is his right, and so that his legal arguments and defenses can be tested before a judge or jury. See, for us–unlike for Bush and Cheney–the law isn’t what we say it is, we believe that our legal opinions are subordinate to the workings of the justice system and the rule of law. Just because we believe Cheney is guilty doesn’t mean we want a kangaroo court or show trial. It might mean we wouldn’t be selected for the jury, but we certainly want a fair trial and weighing of the evidence.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
You’re not Dick Cheney. If you were we’d have probably lost part of another city or two by 2003. Cheney will take most of the circa 2000-2004 senior Dem Congressional leadership down with him if there is a “war crime” trial put on by imbeciles (Congresswoman Waters comes to mind) foreign or domestic.
It’s really remarkable when you think about it that anyone would listen to Cheney on the subject of national security. His administration was by far the least successful in American history in terms of preventing international terrorists from murdering Americans.
FDR (CAP/Dem Archangel): Least successful in preventing Pacific fleet sunk in home harbor, after least successful 8-year attempt at economic recovery. (BTW, your criteria makes Clinton #2 to Bush. Hey!! Isn’t that good old Hillary at State?)
Also by far the least successful in American history in terms of preventing international terrorists from murdering NATO allies.
Isn’t this the job of the NATO heads of state; and I thought we had our heads in the sand, were shorting diplomacy, and shirking domestic priorities because we’ve become the go-to world cop. Someone wrote a book about that.
And the military action his administration pursued in response…
WTF is your problem, even President Obama acknowledges the progress in Iraq. He’ll definitely withdraw from Pashtuni/Talibanistan at about the same time we drop off the keys in Baghdad. Quagmire and all that, you know; so much to do at home with the recession dragging into 2011 (both still W’s fault). And also because withdrawal (plus lots of talk) in the face of any proliferation nuclear or conventional, is what Dems, especially Progressive Dems, do.
March 15th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
That’s entirely what we’re saying. We essentially know what Cheney et al did–he’s said as such and is proud of it.
It just so happens that torture has the distinction of being *both* legally and morally wrong.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
> You’re not Dick Cheney. If you were we’d have
> probably lost part of another city or two by 2003.
The United States has only lost one city to complete destruction in its history[*], and that too was during the mis-Administration of Richard Cheney/George W. Bush. That being August 29th, 2005.
Cranky
[*] I’ll have to go look up the details of the sack of Washington DC during the War of 1812, but based on recall it wasn’t anywhere near the scale of destruction in New Orleans in 2005.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
If I were to interview this twat, I would ask him why he and Bush would only testify together for the 9/11 commission, and why they would not do so under oath.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Well, Cheney did say he was gonna push until someone pushed back. Apparently that does for when he’s out of office, too.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
cranky,
Re: That jewel of an efficient, organized, vigilant, vital, orderly, forward-looking and locally well-governed (by honest wonderful pols) city on 8/29/05; “during” an admin is not the same as causal by an admin, either ante or post. It’s easy to steno the Kanye position, though, all the cool Krankies do.
OTOH:
1938 Hurricane/Flood; Providence, RI and SouthEast NE; 700+ dead, 100,000 homeless. That G-d damned Roosevelt admin again!
Don’t forget Atlanta. That eff’n Lincoln!
Johnstown, PA Flood; 2200 dead (Small cities don’t count for libs. Right?)
Why is American history such a blank spot for CAPsters and ThinkProgs.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
A trial is necessary to establish guilt. If you’ve already decided Cheney is guilty you’re not looking for a trial, you’re looking for a kangaroo court.
You can keep saying this; the fact that we hold trials for people – real trials, not kangaroo court trials – for defendants even when the evidence of their guilt is overwhelming remains uncontested, and refutes your assertion, no matter how many times you repeat it.
I know this concept of an impartial trial being necessary even when there is very little doubt of the accused’s guilt is foreign to you. That’s why you’re a conservative; that’s why you support the sort of detention policies Dick Cheney endorsed.
I’m just glad people like you – the ones who actually created kangaroo courts at Gitmo because they have so little understanding of and respect for the legal norms of a civilized society – are so thoroughly out of power.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
We think Cheney is guilty of numerous crimes. We want a fair trial so that he can be presented with the evidence against him, which is his right, and so that his legal arguments and defenses can be tested before a judge or jury.
But by claiming he’s guilty you’ve already decided that his legal arguments and defenses have no merit. So what you really want is a kangaroo court. You’ve already decided to hang him, and now you just want a show trial to rubber-stamp your prejudices.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I’m perfectly comfortable letting the chips fall where they may. You?
You keep coming up with excuses why we shouldn’t.
But then, that really isn’t fair. Unlike Dick Cheney, George Bush, and numerous high-ranking members of their administration, we don’t actually have any evidence implicating any senior members of the Congressional leadership in any torture or war crimes. We have unsubstantiated accusations from anonymous sources asserting that they were informed of crimes, but being informed of a crime you have no power to prevent isn’t a crime, and the only people in a position to be reporting what went on in those briefings are, themselves, people implicated in those crimes.
So while my “Let the chips fall where they may” is certainly a more principled stance than your hyper-partisan insistence that war crimes by high government officials go unpunished, it is also a fairly easy stance for me to take.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
gary,
I understand that this must be hard for someone who supports the Bush administration and its disdain for the rule of law, but I think there should be trials even for people I think are guilty. With a judge–not me–presiding. And those trials should be fair, even though *I* think the evidence against Cheney is overwhelming. His legal defenses should be aired before a judge, not me.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I guess every single state’s attorney who ever prosecuted a crime in a court of law was actually calling for a kangaroo court, even as they turned over potentially exculpatory evidence and refused to call unreliable witnesses, because they, too, claimed the defendant was guilty.
Oh, wait, that’s absurd. Leveling charges against someone who you believe to be guilty has nothing to do with calling for a kangaroo court; in fact, it is done every single time someone is tried under our constitution in a real court.
You aren’t making any sense. This point has been refuted a dozen times already.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
the fact that we hold trials for people – real trials, not kangaroo court trials – for defendants even when the evidence of their guilt is overwhelming remains uncontested, and refutes your assertion, no matter how many times you repeat it.
No, the fact that we hold trials to determine guilt means that you’re not in a position to claim that Cheney is guilty of any crime whatsoever until he has been convicted of it in a court of law. The fact that you claim he is guilty anyway demonstrates that you’re not interested in a fair trial. You just want a show trial to rubber stamp your insane revenge fantasies.
Fortunately, the chances that Cheney will even be prosecuted for a war crime, let alone convicted of one, are close to zero. So you’ll have to find some other way of assauging your uncontrollable rage.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
пишут в блогах…
It’s really remarkable when you think about it that anyone would listen to Cheney on the subject of[...]…
March 15th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
gary,
Your understanding of trials really is absurd.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
But by claiming he’s guilty you’ve already decided that his legal arguments and defenses have no merit. So what you really want is a kangaroo court.
No, Gary, not US. YOU. If YOU think someone is guilty, you’ve already decided his legal arguments and defenses have no merit, and therefore wish to convene a kangaroo court.
WE disagree with you. WE think that even people whose legal arguments and defenses are without merit have the right to due process. WE think that the government has the duty of proving its case to an impartial judge and jury. WE think that this needs to be done in a court of law in which constitutional standards regarding the rules of evidence, the rights of the accused, and other standards necessary to provide due process are respected.
If we thought like you, or like Dick Cheney, then our strong certainty of Cheney’s guilt would, indeed, be a statement that we don’t think he should have a real trial – buty, you see, we don’t agree with you and Dick Cheney on this. That’s why we voted for the Democrat; that’s why we opposed the DTA; that’s why we applauded the Boudemienne decision – because in our minds, even people as clearly guilty as, say, Dick Cheney or Osama bin Laden should be given trials in legitimate courts of law that abide by the constitution.
I know you don’t think that they do; but you see, we disagree with you about that.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I guess every single state’s attorney who ever prosecuted a crime in a court of law was actually calling for a kangaroo court
No, I think the job of prosecutors is to prosecute. Not to decide questions of guilt. That’s the job of the court. You don’t want a court to decide the question of guilt. You just want a court to rubber-stamp your claim that Cheney is guilty. That’s not a real court, it’s a kangaroo court.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Don’t forget Atlanta. That eff’n Lincoln!
Atlanta wasn’t a US city, it was one of the top five Confederate, slaveholding metropolii.
It’s quite possible to argue that the US would have been better off if we had treated the racist, secessionist scumbags more like Atlanta and Columbia, SC, than like like-minded, good-thinking people the slaveholders were supposed to be.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
No, the fact that we hold trials to determine guilt means that you’re not in a position to claim that Cheney is guilty of any crime whatsoever until he has been convicted of it in a court of law. The fact that you claim he is guilty anyway demonstrates that you’re not interested in a fair trial.
See above examples of Dahmer and Bundy. Their prosecutors declared them to be guilty of their crimes before the trial even began; and yet, their trials – once again, real trials, not kangaroo courts – happened regardless. No, wait, did I write “regardless?” That’s not correct. Those prosecutors’ assertions of those defendants’ guilt, in the form of the charges made against them at their indictments, are WHAT CAUSED their trials to be convened.
You can keep making the same point if you’d like; it’s been refuted.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Then you don’t know what you’re talking about. Prosecutors aren’t like defense attorneys. It isn’t their job to zealously prosecute a defendant regardless of their opinion about his guilt, the way a defense attorney is bound to defense a defendant, regardless of his opinion of that defendant’s guilt. Prosecutors are bound by law only to prosecute those they are convinced are guilty.
Every time a prosecutor files charges, he or she is making a statement asserting his or her belief in the defendant’s guilt. If a prosecutor were to file charges and prosecute a case without a genuine belief in the defendant’s guilt, that prosecutor would be subject to disbarment, if not criminal prosecution.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
If YOU think someone is guilty, you’ve already decided his legal arguments and defenses have no merit, and therefore wish to convene a kangaroo court.
I’m not the one claiming Cheney is guilty. YOU are. YOU want to convene a kangaroo court to rubber-stamp YOUR assertion that Cheney is guilty.
WE think that the government has the duty of proving its case to an impartial judge and jury.
But you’ve already decided Cheney is guilty. You don’t think there needs to be trial to resolve that question. You just want a show trial to rubber-stamp what you’ve already decided is true. You don’t want a trial, you want a charade.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
gary, you’re making it clear that you don’t think people that you believe are guilty deserve a fair trial, as you can’t comprehend our view. You need civics class. I sincerely hope you are 15.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
also, we think the government has to prove its case before a judge, *regardless* of what we non-judges think about the defendant’s guilt.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
See, gary, this is where your argument falls apart.
But you’ve already decided Cheney is guilty. You don’t think there needs to be trial to resolve that question.
You think the first statement leads to the second – that if I think a defendant is guilty, I don’t think the government needs to hold a trial to prove that fact, in a venue that meets the standards of our constitutions.
That’s where you’re wrong. I, like every prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge in American, believe that defendants need to be tried in legitimate courts of law, and that the prosecution needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, even when the evidence is so strong that I, personally, decide beforehand that the defendant is guilty.
I await your next round of “nuh-uh” with baited breath.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I’m not the one claiming Cheney is guilty. YOU are. YOU want to convene a kangaroo court to rubber-stamp YOUR assertion that Cheney is guilty.
It should be pointed out that the first person to use the word “guilty” on this thread was a Cheney defender:
March 15th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Their prosecutors declared them to be guilty of their crimes before the trial even began;
Prosecutors don’t get to decide questions of guilt. That’s what trials are for. The fact that a prosecutor “declares” someone to be guilty doesn’t mean that he is.
Then you don’t know what you’re talking about.
No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You not only think the mere decision to prosecute a suspect establishes his guilt. You even think you know someone is guilty when he hasn’t even been prosecuted, let alone convicted. You are delusional.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Here, gary, let’s try a different tack.
Patrick Fitzgerald charged and prosecuted the World Trade Center bombers. He decided they were guilty before the trial began. When he walked into that courtroom on the very first day, his mind was already made up.
Did Patrick Fitzgerald want a kangaroo court? No, he wanted a real trial, subject to the federal rules of evidence and the rights of the accused guaranteed in the constitution. Because, you see, people who believe in our constitutional system of government think that even people who are obviously guilty are still entitled to real trials, in real courts.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
yeah, gary, we *think* Cheney is guilty just as every prosecutor who brings a case believes the defendant is guilty. They don’t believe that that is enough to declare him guilty, though, which is why they want a real trial for those they believe are guilty, where they will bring their evidence–the reasons they think he is guilty–and have it evaluated by a judge. They do that with defendants they believe are guilty. None of us every said that us believing guilty means that he has been found guilty; we’re saying we believe he is guilty, therefore he should be brought to trial and those claims can be tested, fairly, in a court of law.
Your line of argument reveals some scary things about the right-wing understanding of–and disdain for–American jurisprudence.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I, like every prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge in American, believe that defendants need to be tried in legitimate courts of law, and that the prosecution needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, even when the evidence is so strong that I, personally, decide beforehand that the defendant is guilty.
You’re contradicting yourself. Either you believe Cheney needs to be tried to establish whether he’s guilty or not, or you don’t believe that. If you do believe it, you’re admitting that you’re not in a position to claim that Cheney is guilty. If you don’t believe it, you’re asserting that trials are not necessary to establish guilt. Which is it? Make up your mind.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
gary is either 15 and hasn’t taken civics or is just messing with us. I hope.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
gary, did you believe jeffrey dahmer was guilty? Does that mean you wanted him to have a show trial, or a real trial?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Well Joe, its your principles (and you being fully conversant with evidentiary standards as they apply to war crimes, Article 2, precedent, etc., & arriving at your opinion and the ontologically-locked implications of absolute guilt via exhaustive legal research), versus, say, a Mumbai in Lawrence (which Hell, I don’t know, might be OK for you — let the blase chips of honor fall as they may).
All that and shaking the nation to the core at this moment, when, lets face it, we are vulnerable. All so you can have your perfect, subjective, vindictive, sophomoric, personal revenge fantasy. You don’t give a disinterested, high-minded, non-partisan damn about the country, or anything other than your own solipsistic, above-it-all sensibilities, a fairly easy stance you, same as Brutus.
As for evidence you’ve got nothing. As for a historical perspective you’ve got less. And you (and Leahy and Conyers) know it.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Patrick Fitzgerald charged and prosecuted the World Trade Center bombers. He decided they were guilty before the trial began.
Fortunately, we don’t find people guilty of crimes simply because prosecutors accuse them of being guilty. We have these things called “courts” to decide that question. This really isn’t a very hard concept to understand. I’m not sure why you’re having so much trouble.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
When wound up, Mixner will continue trolling all night, as he has nothing better to do with his life.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
uh…those of us who want this U.S.’s laws enforced aren’t the ones who “don’t give a damn” about it.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Prosecutors don’t get to decide questions of guilt.
To be precise, prosecutors get to – in fact, are required by law to – decide question of guilt for themselves. They don’t get to decide whether the defendant is to be considered guilty in the eyes of the law, but most certainly can, like everybody else, make up their own minds about a defendant’s guilt.
You not only think the mere decision to prosecute a suspect establishes his guilt. In fact, it does establish his guilt IN THE EYES OF THE PROSECUTOR. It doesn’t establish his guilt in the eyes of the court, or of the government, but prosecutors are bound by law only to prosecute those they believe to be guilty. The decision to prosecute a case is a statement by the prosecutor that he believes the defendant to be guilty.
This, of course, is not the same thing as considering someone to be guilty in the eyes of the court, and therefore subject to punishment by the state – it’s just an opinion that one brings to court, and attempts to prove. You see how that works? You get the chronology there?
1. Prosecutor concludes someone is guilty.
2. Prosecutor prosecutes case in court of law.
3. Court rules on the defendant’s guilt.
Still with me?
You even think you know someone is guilty when he hasn’t even been prosecuted, let alone convicted. It is very possible to know someone is guilty when he hasn’t been prosecuted. Victims, witnesses, and the defendants themselves know that defendants are guilty all the time. This isn’t the same thing as that defendant being declared guilty by a court of law, and being subject to sanction under the law, but it is still knowledge of guilt.
See, that’s the part you don’t understand – I, and everyone else who understands and believes in our constitution, realize that our belief in, even absolutely certain knowledge of, a particular defendant’s guilt is NOT THE SAME THING as thinking that defendant should be considered guilty before the law, or punished, without a fair trial. We believe, as apparently you do not, that even people whose guilt we are certain of have the right to a trial, and the state has a duty to prove that guilt at trial, before the defendant can be considered guilty before the law and sanctioned.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
gary is either 15 and hasn’t taken civics or is just messing with us.
Anthony is either insane or shockingly ignorant. Perhaps both.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Fortunately, we don’t find people guilty of crimes simply because prosecutors accuse them of being guilty. We have these things called “courts” to decide that question. This really isn’t a very hard concept to understand. I’m not sure why you’re having so much trouble.
That’s what we’re saying! We think they’re guilty, just as prosecutors do when they bring cases, and we want a court of law to weigh the evidence and, hopefully, *find* them guilty. You’re the one who somehow concluded this means we want a show trial, when, like anyone else who thinks someone is guilty, we want a fair trial to determine this beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that you don’t get that says a lot about the law under Bush.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
tao9,
You can wet your bed all you want. I’ll still choose to live my life as a free man, in a society that adheres to the rule of law and the principles of our constitution.
That’s the part you wingnuts don’t understand. We understand that we are vulnerable. We want to live in a free country anyway.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Don’t forget Atlanta. That eff’n Lincoln!
Atlanta wasn’t a US city, it was one of the top five Confederate, slaveholding metropolii.
It’s quite possible to argue that the US would have been better off if we had treated the racist, secessionist scumbags more like Atlanta and Columbia, SC, than like like-minded, good-thinking people the slaveholders were supposed to be.
So that “war crime” was cool? Because they were, all of ‘em, scumbags?
Got it.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Precisely, Mixner. For me, or Anthony, or Patrick Fitzgerald to say “Hey, that guy committed a crime!” doesn’t mean we don’t want a fair trial. In means that we DO want a fair trial. I don’t want Dick Cheney imprisoned based on my assertion of his guilt, or even Patrick Fitzgerald’s (assuming he’s named the Special Prosecutor, which would be teh awesome). What I want, when I say Dick Cheney is guilty, is a TRIAL, just like when Patrick Fitzgerald accuses someone of a crime.
Trouble understanding it? I’ve been trying to explain this to you all night.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:04 am
To be precise, prosecutors get to – in fact, are required by law to – decide question of guilt for themselves.
There’s no such thing as “guilt for themselves.” No one is guilty of a crime simply because a prosecutor believes he is guilty.
It is very possible to know someone is guilty when he hasn’t been prosecuted.
Utter nonsense. You really have no clue what you’re talking about. The whole point of a trial is to determine whether the accused is guilty.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:07 am
For me, or Anthony, or Patrick Fitzgerald to say “Hey, that guy committed a crime!” doesn’t mean we don’t want a fair trial.
Either you believe Cheney needs to be tried to establish whether he’s guilty or not, or you don’t believe that. If you do believe it, you’re admitting that you’re not in a position to claim that Cheney is guilty. If you don’t believe it, you’re asserting that trials are not necessary to establish guilt. Which is it? Make up your mind.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:09 am
gary—we said Cheney should be tried, you said this meant we wanted show trials because we already think he’s guilty. We say yes, WE think he’s guilty and we believe that the state must prove this beyond a reasonable doubt before he can be punished, you say “there’s no such thing as ‘guilt for themselves’”. The point is that people believe other people are guilty all the time—those of us who believe in American institutions then think that the state must prove that, so we want a trial. The fact that you say if we believe someone is guilty, we must want a show trial, yes a lot about how you and your kind see the law—if you believe someone is guilty, there’s no point to a trial (and don’t pretend you’ve never beleved anyone is gulity. You believe Osama is guilty, don’t you? So do I–the difference is, I still think he should have a trial.)
March 16th, 2009 at 12:09 am
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Anthony’.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:10 am
I think x is guilty.
A prosecutor believes x is guilty.
A prosecutor gets enough evidence to indict x.
X gets a defense lawyer.
A judge sets a court date.
I want x to be proven guilty in a court of law according to law, because I believe in the rule of law and I want a fair trial in the case that I am ever accused and indicted for a crime.
X is put on trial.
Both sides present evidence.
A jury decides if x is guilty or not.
If found not guilty, x will be free to go.
If found guilty, the judge will sentence x.
What I believe about x has absolutely no bearing on the court proceeding. It’s the court’s duty to dispense justice.
If you want to argue with this gary, then you’re STUPID.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:12 am
not just stupid–I think he might “hate America”!
March 16th, 2009 at 12:12 am
There’s no such thing as “guilt for themselves.”
Yes, there is. It’s called a personal opinion. People have them all the time. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, and as you apparently stipulate to, a prosecutor must, by law, hold the opinion that a defendant is guilty before prosecuting him.
No one is guilty of a crime simply because a prosecutor believes he is guilty.
To be precise, a person is guilty of a crime when they commit a crime. In order for them to be considered guilty in the eyes of the law, they need to be be found guilty in a court of law after a trial (or plead guilty), and only then can they be punished. Nonetheless, a mugger is guilty the moment he hits someone and takes his wallet. This guilt is not created by the judgement of a jury at the end of a trial, but established. At that point, the government recognizes his guilt. Nonetheless, people who rob banks and never get caught are guilty of bank robbery, while wrongly-convicted defendants are not actually guilty of their crimes.
Not even semantics are going to save you here, Mixner. You’re just not making sense.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:13 am
When Wind-Up Mixner runs into a wall, don’t worry! Just point him in a completely different direction, and he’ll troll away for another three hours!
March 16th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Wow… How long are you guys going to continue replying to this moron/troll? He can repeat “if you are prosecuted it means you are guilty!” all night apparently.
Still zero debate on whether torture actually happened, and it is all that matters. Investigate those crimes and let’s see who is guilty.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Either you believe Cheney needs to be tried to establish whether he’s guilty or not, or you don’t believe that.
I’ve explained this to you a dozen times already; you’re simply repeating a point I’ve already responded to.
This is what you do when you’re cornered; you just pretend not to have seen arguments you can’t answer.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:16 am
I’ll still choose to live my life as a free man, in a society that adheres to the rule of law and the principles of our constitution.
Oh my, you ply the worn boards of the stage don’t you?
“You” didn’t choose. You happen to have been born by the grace of God in the most free country in the world, in history. Cut the damn drama.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:17 am
And here we go again. Yet another thread with 100+ posts arguing over bullshit that a fifth grader would be able to comprehend. For the love of God, people, stop responding to Mixner.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:17 am
I may have missed this, but is there a reason that Mixner doesn’t post as Mixner anymore?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Um, yeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh, you don’t get to play the “don’t be so dramatic” card after writing about a Mumbai in Lawrence.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Yes, there is. It’s called a personal opinion.
No, there isn’t. No one is guilty simply because the “personal opinion” of a prosecutor is that he is guilty.
To be precise, a person is guilty of a crime when they commit a crime. In order for them to be considered guilty in the eyes of the law, they need to be be found guilty in a court of law after a trial (or plead guilty), and only then can they be punished. Nonetheless, a mugger is guilty the moment he hits someone and takes his wallet. This guilt is not created by the judgement of a jury at the end of a trial, but established. At that point, the government recognizes his guilt.
More nonsense. Courts don’t “recognize” guilt. They determine it. Guilt is a legal status, not an empirical fact. No one is guilty of a crime unless a legal determination of guilt has been made. You really have no understanding of the law at even a basic conceptual level, Josephine.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:23 am
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Wind-Up Mixner Manual’.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:23 am
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Chris D’.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Yawn.
Semantic dodge based on feigned ignorance of the difference between factual and legal guilt.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:24 am
gary–so what’s the problem with us believing that Cheney is guilty. As you say, that doesn’t determine his legal guilt; that has to be proven in a court of law, which we’ve never said we didn’t want for those we believe to be guilty.
You say this means we “know” they’re guilty and don’t want a fair trial, then you say that there is no such thing as guilt outside of a court’s finding, so our personal opinions *can’t* mean that we think he’s guilty. So which is it? Make up your mind.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:29 am
ignorance of the difference between factual and legal guilt.
Ha ha ha ha! What the hell is “factual guilt” supposed to be? How does it differ from “legal” guilt? How is “factual” guilt determined?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:33 am
You say this means we “know” they’re guilty
No, I haven’t said you “know” (or even that you know) they’re guilty. I’m saying exactly the opposite, in fact. You don’t know any such thing. You now seem to be just totally confused.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Desperate Mixner:
1. Forced laughter/condescension that doesn’t fit how the argument has gone.
2. Feigned ignorance of obvious points.
3. Accusing opponents of confusion or incoherence.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Whoa, 3/3.
Good night, folks.
March 16th, 2009 at 12:37 am
ignorance of the difference between factual and legal guilt.
Ha ha ha ha! what the hell is “factual guilt” supposed to be? How does it differ from “legal” guilt? How is “factual” guilt determined, Josephine?
March 16th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Good night, folks.
Run away! Run away! Do let us know when you’ve figured out what you mean by “factual guilt.”
March 16th, 2009 at 12:59 am
A verdict is considered a finding of fact
No, a verdict is a legal judgment rendered on the basis of findings of fact and findings of law.
it is proper to say that with a verdict of “guilty” the jury finds that a guilty person is guilty, not that the jury makes an innocent person into a guilty person.
No, it is a proper to say that a verdict is a legal determination of guilt or its absence. No one is guilty of a crime unless a legal determination of guilt has been made.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:15 am
gary: Is OJ guilty of killing Nicole?
March 16th, 2009 at 1:16 am
An innocent person can be found guilty. There are appeals, and someone found guilty can be exonerated with new evidence.
The difference is not between “factual” and “legal guilt”, but between being “innocent” and “not guilty, or “innocent” yet “guilty”.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:18 am
No, a verdict is a legal judgment rendered on the basis of findings of fact and findings of law.
Astonishingly wrong. From Black’s Law Dictionary:
verdict. A jury’s finding or decision on the factual issues of a case.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Is OJ guilty of killing Nicole?
No. And “killing” isn’t a crime, anyway.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Sometimes I feel guilty when I touch myself in that special way, but as far as I know I’ve never been convicted of it. Do you think a secret jury has heard all the evidence and concluded that I’m a wanker? Maybe I’m going insane. I can no longer distinguish the meaning of simple english words from their technical meaning when used in a specialized field.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Your new Wind-Up Mixner doesn’t require batteries or recharging–
It runs on bullshit and its own intense sense of self-loathing!
March 16th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Chris D,
verdict. A jury’s finding or decision on the factual issues of a case.
You must be paraphrasing, truncating or otherwise doctoring the definition because your phrase above is incoherent. “Issues,” plural, require multiple findings or decisions, not just a single one.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:28 am
I love Mixner. I’ve always loved Mixner. And I always will. Mixner is my life. I’m pleasuring myself right now thinking of Mixner.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:32 am
I made red-beans and rice for dinner, with coconut milk and Cajun sausage.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:39 am
The ruling of a court on the guilt of the accused is not simply a matter of the jury verdict. The jury delivers its verdict to the Judge, who then issues the final judgment of the court. Judges can and sometimes do set aside jury verdicts they consider to be invalid.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:46 am
You must be paraphrasing, truncating or otherwise doctoring the definition because your phrase above is incoherent. “Issues,” plural, require multiple findings or decisions, not just a single one.
Nice try, but I know how this is going to go. You’re going to create a smokescreen by throwing every semantic quibble you can think of at me. Then when you’re finally cornered, you’re just going to restate your original unfounded assertion and start the process over again. I’m not playing that game. Bottom line, if you don’t believe me, you’re welcome to go to the nearest law library and look up the definition in Black’s yourself.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:53 am
You’re going to create a smokescreen by throwing every semantic quibble you can think of at me.
It’s not a quibble. You’re obviously playing games with the text. Or maybe just making it up out of thin air. “Issues,” plural, require multiple findings or decisions, not just a single one. All cases involve multiple issues of fact that juries must render separate decisions on.
Bottom line, if you don’t believe me, you’re welcome to go to the nearest law library and look up the definition in Black’s yourself.
It’s not my job to produce evidence for your assertions. That’s your job.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:54 am
The ruling of a court on the guilt of the accused is not simply a matter of the jury verdict. The jury delivers its verdict to the Judge, who then issues the final judgment of the court. Judges can and sometimes do set aside jury verdicts they consider to be invalid.
Good point. They’re not called “Judges” for nothing.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:52 am
This is one of the most remarkable displays of sustained breathless trolling I’ve seen in quite some time. To me, at least, the motives are rather mysterious. I’m pretty skeptical that there’s any overlap between the set of people who read comments on this blog and people confused or gullible enough to not see through “gary’s” silliness. He must be doing this for the sheer love of trolling.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:11 am
gary:
No, the fact that we hold trials to determine guilt means that you’re not in a position to claim that Cheney is guilty of any crime whatsoever until he has been convicted of it in a court of law. The fact that you claim he is guilty anyway demonstrates that you’re not interested in a fair trial. You just want a show trial to rubber stamp your insane revenge fantasies.
Jesus this is stupid. If someone shoots me and I survive with a clear memory of the shooting, and I say he should be put on trial in order to establish his legal guilt or innocence even though I am 100% convinced he is “guilty” of shooting me in the nonlegal sense, does that mean I’m “not interested in a fair trial” and just want a “show trial”?
March 16th, 2009 at 6:35 am
обзор блогов…
If I were Dick Cheney, I’d be laying low thanking my lucky stars that I’m not on trial for war crimes not going on television to talk[...]…
March 16th, 2009 at 6:56 am
> This is one of the most remarkable displays of
> sustained breathless trolling I’ve seen in quite
> some time. To me, at least, the motives are
> rather mysterious.
We had quite a few discussions in the 2003-2007 time frame as to whether the Radical Right was running a paid counter-blogging effort. My conclusion was that they were. It served several purposes, but one of them was to test (or prove in the older sense of the word) memes that hard right wing spokesmen would push out into the general political environment using the big-dollar media. You could actually trace this process once or twice on Kevin Drum’s old site.
The flooding of the wingnut welfare system with out-of-work Republicans and the Bush-induced collapse of the financial system seem to have combined to take the wind out of this particular Radical Right plague ship, and many of the personas we knew and loved to hate have disappeared. But I suspect the core mechanism is still there, and Cheney’s supporters are revving it up a bit.
Cranky
March 16th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Not only is gary wrong and willfully obtuse about the issue of guilt and the role of the court, but he’s managed to distract us from his original distraction.
gary said that we want a show trial, not a real trial, because we are already convinced of Cheney’s guilt. We pointed out that prosecutors are often convinced of a defendant’s guilt in order to show that being convinced of guilt doesn’t preclude wanting a fair trial. gary said: well luckily a court determines guilt, not a prosecutor’s feelings. Uh, yeah—that’s our point. That we and a proscutor believe someone to be guilty, but we *still* believe it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial, which gary says we somehow don’t believe in, then hijacks the discussion to one about whether prosecutors “decide” whether someone is *found guilty*, which we never said. He’s actually making our point: no matter how much we believe Cheney is guilty, we still believe he is entitled to and should have a fair trial, because our convinctions alone don’t determine whether he is found guilty and punished.
gary’s failure to understand this says a lot about the Right—ie it is clear that when they think someone is guilty, they think a trial is a waste of time or just for show. gary, do you think osama is guilty? I do. For me that means he should have a fair trial. I guess for you it doesn’t, based on your inability to grasp that basic legal principle.
Again, I accept others’ view that you are Mixner in disguise, but for my own comfort I’m going to pretend that you’re 15, angry, and just haven’t taken civics yet in high school.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am
also, gary, your comment on OJ shows that you’re insisting on (or perhaps refusing to acknowledge) a semantic distinction between two senses of “guilty”: 1) committed a crime 2) found culpable in a court of law. You say that only 2 can be defined as “guilty”. OK–even if we go by this idiosyncratic understanding, it helps make our point, not yours.
You say that someone is only guilty when they have been found so in a court of law. Fine. We’ve been saying that we think there is overwhelming evidence that Cheney committed a crime and should be brought to a fair trial, where hopefully he will be found guilty. You are teh one who said we’ve already decided he’s guilty, and therefore we want a show trial. But by your own definition of “guilty”, it’s not something we could ever decide, about anyone, therefore a trial–a fair trial–is necessary, even if we play by your weird terms. Otherwise we’d be guilty of wanting a show trial for *everyone*–osama, dahmer–when we think there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Fortunately, your definition–that “guilty” is only something decided by a court–means that we can’t have already decided that matter or want a show trial, but a real trial to establish his giult as a legal matter. Thanks.
March 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Gary,
repeatedly shitting yourself is not an argument. By your logic all American courts are kangaroo courts. So you’re not just mind-blowingly stupid, but anti-American to boot.
Good work.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Finding of guilt.
Interesting word, “find.” It’s defined not at the creation of something new, but as the uncovering or discovery of something that already exists.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:15 am
gary’s failure to understand this says a lot about the Right—ie it is clear that when they think someone is guilty, they think a trial is a waste of time or just for show.
Alternately, it says something different about the Right – that they consciously make statements they don’t believe, and know to be false, in order to avoid acknowledging truths that threaten their political or psychological integrity.
Could be one, or other other, or some combination.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I knew it — had to be a mixner thread.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:19 am
totally right up until the end there. North Korea and Iran – neither are “proliferation threats”. what happened is that Bush failed to remove Pakistan as a proliferation threat, and they are and have been the main threat of this kind for over a decade now. Iran is under IAEA inspections, and despite having enough material to make bombs, according to globalsecurity.org, have done no such thing. no proliferation threat. North Korea is making nukes, yes, but is there a threat really of them selling or trading them? they got all the info and technology from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan in the first place. if they just sold their nukes off, they wouldn’t have any left to threaten armageddon with anymore, which would be no fun.
well, I’ll give you half right. but its North Korea and Pakistan that need closer scrutiny. Iran is being scrutinized better than we could do.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I suppose Mixner/Gary believes that all the detainees at Guantanamo are innocent, since they have not been found guilty by fair trial?
March 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am
(Ha. Only Mixner is 150 comments worth of awesomely obtuse. You’ve got to give him that.)
If you’ve already decided that Cheney is guilty then you’re not looking for a fair trial, you’re looking for a show trial.
This is why, in my country, we have special ‘Thought Police’ that go around the country before before charges are brought and make sure bystanders do not have any opinions about the guilt of of the would-be defendant.
After all, if they do, the whole thing would just be a show trial, and we have to cancel it. We are very keen on justice in my country.
March 16th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I’m sure this is pointless, but….
Gary, you’re confusing the statements of random folks on a message board with the state of mind needed by a jury before trial.
I believe Dick Cheney should be prosecuted. I also think he’s guilty. However, because I believe in the rule of law, I think that the people who should decide whether or not he is guilty are the *jurors*. Not me. The jurors. If a jury decides he’s not guilty, then he walks. That’s the way the system works.
My belief that he is guilty has no effect on the jurors. It has no effect on the trial. You only have a kangaroo court when the people making the decisions have already determined guilt. The opinions of random people on the internet have no effect on Cheney’s conviction, or lack therof, and therefore no effect on the fairness of a potential trial.l.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Matt: Iran is not a “proliferation threat” unless you think they intend to export their nuclear energy expertise to some country that might actually use the technology to make nukes.
Which is ridiculous on the face of it because that’s what the NPT is supposed to do – spread nuclear energy to everybody who can afford it without making nuclear weapons.
North Korea might be considered such a threat since apparently they have helped other countries with nuclear technology under the table. However, again, if the NPT were adhered to by the West, perhaps this wouldn’t be necessary.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
There will be no prosecution of Cheney or any other high-ranking Bush Administration officials. It’s just a leftwing masturbation fantasy. Eric Posner describes the reasons why here.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
…and when has Eric Posner ever steered you wrong?
Oh. Right. Moving right along…
March 16th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
And ‘joe’, troll here for the rest of the day. It’s not as if you have anything better to do.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I thought Posner makes some good points. He didn’t say Obama is going to “rule out” prosecution. He said that for a variety of legal, political and practical reasons prosecution is unlikely.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
‘Mixnerspotter’ I am not Mixner. You need to reign in that overactive imagination of yours.
March 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
You’re grasping at straws, DTM. It’s not a matter of expertise, just common sense. Let us know when those indictments are handed down, won’t you.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Damn, Mixner, still sore about last night, I see.
No wonder. This thread is like a murder scene. Reading it again, you look like an idiot.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I would guess that his reason for surfacing right now is to get the views out early during this administration, and play the odds that a terrorist attack will happen under an Obama administration (not wholly impossible), thus “vindicating” his view and the administration’s actions. It’s very rational, and it could easily work.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Josephine, have you figured out yet what the difference between “factual guilt” and “legal guilt” is supposed to be?
March 16th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
gary, “factual guilt” vs. “legal guilt” is easily illustrated by my example in comment 135:
If someone shoots me and I survive with a clear memory of the shooting, and I say he should be put on trial in order to establish his legal guilt or innocence even though I am 100% convinced he is “guilty” of shooting me in the nonlegal sense, does that mean I’m “not interested in a fair trial” and just want a “show trial”?
Factually, I know he’s guilty of shooting me because I saw him point the gun at me and shoot. Legally, he can’t be called guilty unless he is tried and a jury declares him guilty. See, it’s not so hard! Now tell me whether the fact that I am confident he shot me means I’m “not interested in a fair trial”.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
gary, let’s rewind to before your distraction. We said that we think Cheney is guilty.
So said this means we want a show trial, not a real, fair trial.
We said that, well, prosecutors often are convinced that the defendant is guilty. We asked you if that means that those prosecutors want a show trial or a real trial.
You said that prosecutors don’t determine guilt, the court does. You are arguing where none contendeth. We know that prosecutors don’t determine guilt. The parallel–our reason for mentioning prosecutors–was that you said that that our thinking Cheney is guilty means we can’t want a fair trial.
So let’s try again—prosecutors are convinced that defendants are guilty. Does this mean that they want a fair trial or a real trial. We know that prosecutors don’t determine guilt, so don’t distract us. Imagine a situation where a prosecutor brings a case against a defendant that he thinks is guilty. Does this mean that that prosecutor wants a show trial? Yes or no.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Factually, I know he’s guilty of shooting me because I saw him point the gun at me and shoot.
Er, what are you claiming to know he is guilty of? Simply seeing him point the gun at you and shoot doesn’t prove anything about his state of mind.
Legally, he can’t be called guilty unless he is tried and a jury declares him guilty.
You’re contradicting DTM. He claims that the shooter is guilty as soon as he commits the crime.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
gary at 166: that’s that factual vs. legal guilt you pretend not to understand. DTM didn’t say he’s legally found guilty when he commits the crime. Try to keep up.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I could be snarky and suggest that anyone who knows Eric Posner would know he isn’t the first person you would look to for reliable “common sense”.
You could, yes, but doing so would just further expose your own foolishness.
But instead I’ll just note that political predictions are rarely a matter of “common sense”,
That claim is highly dubious, and it’s irrelevant in any case. Many political predictions really are just a matter of common sense. The predictions that Cheney won’t be prosecuted or convicted are among them, for all the reasons Posner describes.
If you have a serious rebuttal to Posner’s arguments, then make it. Right now, you’re just blowing smoke.
To be clear, I don’t know if anyone will be indicted, and if it does happen I doubt it will be soon.
Yes, obviously, you don’t know if anyone will be indicted. More to the point, you haven’t offered any serious reasons to think that an indictment of Cheney is even likely. Do you have any?
March 16th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
DTM didn’t say he’s legally found guilty when he commits the crime. Try to keep up.
DTM said he is guilty when he commits the crime. Try to read.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
factually guilty, yes. Then legally found guilty in a court. Again, try to keep up. You responded to a post that explained that distinction to you by pretending there was not distinction.
Care to respond to my earlier question about whether a prosecutor who believes a defendant is guilty wants a “show trial” as you said we do for thinking Cheney is guilty? This is what you deflected before by saying that prosecutors don’t determine guilt, which no one had claimed.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
factually guilty, yes. Then legally found guilty in a court. Again, try to keep up.
You are thoroughly confused. DTM claimed “a person is guilty as soon as they commit a crime.” To “commit a crime” is to be “legally” guilty, since crimes are violations of laws. So what’s the difference between “factually guilty” and “legally guilty?”
March 16th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
distract distract distract distract
March 16th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
You are thoroughly confused. DTM claimed “a person is guilty as soon as they commit a crime.” To “commit a crime” is to be “legally” guilty, since crimes are violations of laws. So what’s the difference between “factually guilty” and “legally guilty?”
March 17th, 2009 at 12:01 am
factual/legal has been explained ad nauseum.
do you think a prosecutor, who thinks a defendant is guilty, wants a show trial. That is what you accused us of wanting since we believe Cheney is guilty. All the rest of this is distraction and obfuscation—and has been answered and explained to you many times. The last time we asked you this question, your response was: prosecutors don’t determine guilt. The question was: Since we think Cheney is guilty and you think this means we don’t want a fair trial, does a prosecutor who thinks a defendant is guilty want a fair trial or a show trial?
March 17th, 2009 at 12:03 am
I’m fairly sure even a five year old knows the difference, Mixner. You’re “factually guilty” when you take the cookie from the jar. But you’re not “legally guilty” until your mother comes in later and sees the cookie crumbs all over your shirt.
But stop playing games. There are two statements involved here:
A. I believe Dick Cheney has committed various crimes.
B. I want Dick Cheney’s trial for those crimes to be rigged.
You contend that A implies B, but you haven’t even attempted to argue that. You just asserted it, then played a lot of semantic games when everyone else called you on your foolishness.
Why don’t you present us with either a real argument for your weird little assertion (if you can think of one), or some long overdue humble silence.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:06 am
by the way—I wasn’t around for a while (have followed the blog for a long time but rarely comment): is there a reason why Mixner no longer posts under his own name?
March 17th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Anthony-
I for one have no idea. It seemed like he went away for awhile, though it’s possible I just wasn’t reading comment threads much, and now he turns up again under various pseudonyms.
He probably thinks he’s being sneaky or something, but you obviously can’t disguise his particular brand of industrial strength stupid.
I did see him post something moderately dumb (and get smacked down) on Ryan Avent’s blog under ‘Mixner’ a week or two ago though.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:19 am
jack lecou–thanks! Yeah, he really has a distinctive style of stupid and obtuseness.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:48 am
gary:
Er, what are you claiming to know he is guilty of? Simply seeing him point the gun at you and shoot doesn’t prove anything about his state of mind.
Let’s say he was a known enemy of mine, we had an extended conversation before he shot me where he appeared perfectly sane and was gloating over having gotten the drop on me, and finally he said “I’ve been waiting to do this a long time” before he pointed the gun and shot me in the chest. While it’s conceivable there could be some crazy extenuating circumstances like his being hypnotized or having been told he had to do this or his entire family would be killed, certainly in this case I can have a high degree of confidence that he is guilty of premeditated attempted murder, no? (and even without all this prelude, simply knowing something about him and our relationship and the circumstances of the shooting might still give me a pretty high degree of confidence in this.) Now answer my question about whether feeling a high degree of confidence a crime was committed proves that I am not really interested in a fair trial.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:20 am
See, but that’s an impossible hypothetical, since you wouldn’t BE Cheney in the first place. Therefore it is impossible to make sense of him in what you perceive as reality. It’s like being a murderer, and then lying about having committed it. If you’ve got whatever it takes to do the first, the follow-up is not only minor in comparison but a mere afterthought. If Cheney was willing to sacrifice many lives for strictly political reasons, why wouldn’t he brazenly appear on TV to defend his side and mock the other so soon after his term? It’s nothing to him.It’s even logical, if you’re him. Then again, I’d never be Cheney either so what do I know.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:23 am
Oh, and to those wrapped up in the legalities of a viable case, you’re either missing the point by design (to distract) or because you’ve allowed yourselves to be led off track.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Josephine, have you figured out yet what the difference between “factual guilt” and “legal guilt” is supposed to be?
Precisely what I explained it to be in the comment where I brought up the terms.
How sad it must be, to have to hide behind word games like this. Nobody believes that you don’t understand the difference between having committed a crime and having been found guilty of it in a court of law.
You’re just flailing about, because you have no argument.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:24 am
BTW, you still can’t answer the point about a prosecutor’s or victim’s accusation that a defendant is guilty leading, in almost every case, to a real trial, and not a show trial.
Because you can’t.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I think the fact that gary thinks it is insulting to call a man by a woman’s name indicates that he really is in high school. I look forward to a long apology after he takes civics, or U.S. government, or whatever the kids today call it.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am
gary gave away the game at 11:54 on March 15.
He understands perfectly well the difference between an accusation of guilt and a statement that no trial is necessary.
He understands perfectly well the difference between having committed a crime (which makes you guilty of that crime) and being found guilty of that crime in a court of law (which makes you subject to punishment in the eyes of the law).
He plays dumb, for whatever personal reasons drive him to such behavior.
Fine with me. I’m not trying to convert the fool; I’m trying to discredit him, and his ideas, among anyone who might read them. When we pulls stunts like this, advertising his dishonesty or drawing attention to the weakness of his ideas, it just makes my goal easier.
Nobody is going to read his silly evasions about and come away thinking his ideas have merit; he’s hurting his own cause. Fine with me.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Good afternoon. Try to put your happiness before anyone else’s, because you may never have done so in your entire life, if you really think about it, if you are really honest with yourself.
I am from Luxembourg and learning to speak English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Search the top travel sites for cheap airline tickets, hotels and cars! Flights hotels cars book together and save! Round trip.”
Thanks
. Dutch.