Decius wrote:

In closing arguments, Padilla's lawyers argued he never spoke in code. His voice is heard on only seven of 300,000 taped conversations.

They also tried to rebut a key piece of prosecution evidence -- an al Qaeda terrorist training camp application or "mujahedeen data form."

A covert CIA officer -- who testified in disguise at Padilla's trial -- said he was given the form in Afghanistan, and a fingerprint expert found Padilla's prints on the form, prosecutors said.

But Michael Caruso, Padilla's defense attorney, said the prints on the form were not consistent with someone who filled out the document.

"Jose at some point handled the document, but did not fill out the form," Caruso said.

Per the script, clearly you can convict terrorist suspects in the criminal justice system, even if you have almost no evidence, and the evidence you do have is questionable.

I think perhaps we don't use juries because they are actually a good way of determining whether or not someone is guilty. We use them to distribute responsibility for making the determination, so that no one person can be held personally responsible if it was wrong, or completely baseless, or politically motivated. We don't know how to build a system that makes good decisions, so we've built a system that makes unaccountable ones.

Was that part of a script?

I'll have to go with the OJ defense... They found a way to do a plant. "Jose? See this? We know you're guilty." (hands Jose the paper getting his prints on it)

Considering what he was charged with had absolutely zero to do with what he was detained for, I'm skeptical. Given what we know of his treatment over the past six years, whoever Jose Padilla was then is gone. (see here)

Decius wrote:

In closing arguments, Padilla's lawyers argued he never spoke in code. His voice is heard on only seven of 300,000 taped conversations.

They also tried to rebut a key piece of prosecution evidence -- an al Qaeda terrorist training camp application or "mujahedeen data form."

A covert CIA officer -- who testified in disguise at Padilla's trial -- said he was given the form in Afghanistan, and a fingerprint expert found Padilla's prints on the form, prosecutors said.

But Michael Caruso, Padilla's defense attorney, said the prints on the form were not consistent with someone who filled out the document.

"Jose at some point handled the document, but did not fill out the form," Caruso said.

Per the script, clearly you can convict terrorist suspects in the criminal justice system, even if you have almost no evidence, and the evidence you do have is questionable.

I think perhaps we don't use juries because they are actually a good way of determining whether or not someone is guilty. We use them to distribute responsibility for making the determination, so that no one person can be held personally responsible if it was wrong, or completely baseless, or politically motivated. We don't know how to build a system that makes good decisions, so we've built a system that makes unaccountable ones.

Was that part of a script?

Please convince Canada to invade Mexico so I can have a future there.

Catonic wrote:

Decius wrote:

In closing arguments, Padilla's lawyers argued he never spoke in code. His voice is heard on only seven of 300,000 taped conversations.

They also tried to rebut a key piece of prosecution evidence -- an al Qaeda terrorist training camp application or "mujahedeen data form."

A covert CIA officer -- who testified in disguise at Padilla's trial -- said he was given the form in Afghanistan, and a fingerprint expert found Padilla's prints on the form, prosecutors said.

But Michael Caruso, Padilla's defense attorney, said the prints on the form were not consistent with someone who filled out the document.

"Jose at some point handled the document, but did not fill out the form," Caruso said.

Per the script, clearly you can convict terrorist suspects in the criminal justice system, even if you have almost no evidence, and the evidence you do have is questionable.

I think perhaps we don't use juries because they are actually a good way of determining whether or not someone is guilty. We use them to distribute responsibility for making the determination, so that no one person can be held personally responsible if it was wrong, or completely baseless, or politically motivated. We don't know how to build a system that makes good decisions, so we've built a system that makes unaccountable ones.

Was that part of a script?

Please convince Canada to invade Mexico so I can have a future there.

Bad news. Canada's court system is almost identical to ours with the exception of how they deal with sequestering juries.