Powered by TypePad

« Metaphor Near-Misses | Main | Trayvon Martin Case - A Partially Parallel Shooting In Alabama »

April 23, 2012



((You're a fickle bunch. so as soon as he makes a public statement you find offensive, he'll be persona non grata))

it's fickle to demand an arrest and "fair trial", the assumption being that American jurisprudence works, and then to yell that American jurisprudence doesn't work when the desired verdict is not achieved, is it not?


Cbolt, I was switching between CNN and HLN as each would cut away for commericals, and, unless I imagined it which at my age is entirely possible, I saw the exchange with Lester leaning down toward Gilbreath and Gilbreath looking up/speaking directly to Lester. It could have been O'Mara, though I didn't find that exchange in the transcript I read.


ThomasC-- I guess Duke Lax kind of counts, but there the rumors that the players were wrongly accused of a crime, and that Nifong committed egregious misconduct were-- well-- true. So they weren't reporting rumors, they were reporting news.


-- the only guidance from the Fla Sup Court thus far is that SYG Immunity can be invoked in a pre-trial motion ... --

If it's the same case that I vaguely recall, it said much more than that. It touched on the conduct of the hearing, in particular the right of defendant to rebut the prosecution (even if defendant's story stinks), and the standard of review.

Captain Hate

also proudly left leaning bloggers at TalkLeft and Durham in Wonderland.

CK Johnson is like a male Althouse. Being a lib is part of his DNA despite how he broke with them in supporting the LAX players.


Bgates-- thanks for the crime info. Didn't know that the orlando and other Fla cities have such high crime rates. Do local Prosecutors routinely run on 'Tough law and order' platforms?

Captain Hate

Aaargh, KC Johnson


cboldt-- tonight I'll get a cite to the Fla Supreme Court SYG Immunity decision, and hopefully a PDF copy.


I'm curious if the CNN transcript of the bond hearing is the only one available...i.e. the one AP et al are relying on, and whether whatever was said in court during commercials was inserted later into a "final" transcript or left out.


-- I don't know for a fact why Judge Soud described his ruling as 'razor thin.' --

I don't know it for a fact either, but I described the evidence that cut against Seay. The news account describes Seay's counter-argument, that the bullet entered the deceased in a direction inconsistent with decedent running away. Judge Soud didn't grant immunity because he did not find a preponderance of the evidence in favor of Seay's claim of self-defense.

-- Prosecutors still have wide latitude and proceed in charging almost as if Immunity does not exist. --

That's conclusory. We don't know the number of non-arrests that are charged; we don't know the number of arrests that are not-charged. We don't know if those numbers changed following enactment of the statute.

As for prosecutors having wide latitude, I don't think anybody is asserting otherwise - just pointing out that a charge without a preponderance of the evidence against self defense is illegal, but without a remedy. And, as you know, a charge without probable cause is clearly unethical; and a charge without a good faith belief in proof beyond a reasonable doubt is likely a politically motivated case.

Thomas Collins

NK, I concede your point. I guess that shows how little respect I have for MSM. When they report clear facts that go against their narrative, it seems to me that in their mind the facts are still rumors!


-- tonight I'll get a cite to the Fla Supreme Court SYG Immunity decision, and hopefully a PDF copy. --

Okay, but as I mentioned, I think I read it recently - and even made some remarks about it. Defendant was not allowed to rebut the prosecution, and this was held to be a denial of due process.

I could be mixing up a SCOFLA case relating to Arthur hearings with an immunity hearing case though.


((Why do you hate America?))

yawn, how boring, some things just never change

ok so I was mistakenly drawn it for a few moments, charitably thinking that the troll actually wanted an honest discussiion instead of an opportunity to twist words the way his satanic majesty twisted Scripture.

Rob Crawford

But when he start's explaining his moral position, no polishing can bring a shine to that scat.

Says the guy who wants slaves.

Scrippsies outbrain 'em.  Whoa!

Heh, he thinks he's really something 'cuz he's smarter than the average Pitzie.


cboldt-- the point about the Seay Immunity claim is that as far as Judge Soud was concerned Seay, did NOT forfeit SYG Immunity by using a handgun he was unlawfully carrying on the street. That Immunity decison hinged on the 'totality of the circumstances'. The rest who knows-- time will tell if SYG has any real effect and whether those effects are positive or mixed. Now I'll beat the dead horse; I am minority at JOM who thinks there is no evidence that GZ has been uniquely singled out in a political witch hunt, instead he is getting the kind of treatment other self-defense shooters get in Florida. Still looking for proof that NOBODY like GZ has ever been charged in such an 'obvious' case of self-defense. There are lots news reports of other Fla Murder 2 charges that say otherwise(some prevail on Immunity hearings, some are acquitted after trial-- but they have been charged inthe first place.)


For the record, NK@1106 - no one said Immunity was FORFEIT if a defendant possessed an illegal handgun. The statement was that being in illegal possession UNDERMINES a SYG defense. If you want to disagree with that statement, go ahead.

Rob Crawford

I am minority at JOM who thinks there is no evidence that GZ has been uniquely singled out in a political witch hunt

You're in the minority in the whole fricking world.

Charges were only brought against him after the appointment of a special prosecutor who MADE SHIT UP IN THE INDICTMENT. That was after a month, month-and-a-half, of shit-stirring by the Black Klan.


" ... Black Klan ..."



NK: Dennis v. Florida, 51 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2010).

- the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity
- section 776.032 grants defendants a substantive right to assert immunity from prosecution and to avoid being subjected to a trial
- Section 776.032 does not limit its grant of immunity to cases where the material facts are undisputed
- the procedure set out by the First District in Peterson best effectuates the intent of the Legislature
- the Peterson case held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches.

El Bango

"Not that I am aware of. Are you sure the Judge posed the question, and not O'Mara?"

I thought I read that as well, but all I can find is this (someone who thought it was the judge who asked):

"Prosecutor is scrambling to save case. Does not appear to be prepared for this.
Judge (I think) asks about proximity of gunshot. Investigator confirms powder burns, at close range."


The press corps' war against Candidate Gore:



-- Still looking for proof that NOBODY like GZ has ever been charged in such an 'obvious' case of self-defense --

Making proof by finding absence of cases is a fool's errand, and no thinking person is going to fall for that form of argument.
It's your burden, counselor, to find cases that resemble Zimmerman, that were charged. So far all the cases have been distinguishable on their facts and on the arrest/charge/finding process.

Find a case where the police said they did not have probable cause, and the prosecutor charged.


AliceH -- I'll go back to yesteday morning's thread, but I remember reading a comment (not your's apparently) that I should go back and read the law because the no criminal conduct phrase in the SYG staatute barred someone unlawfully carrying a hand gun from invoking Immunity, so I was being ridiculous citing the Seay case when JiB linked to an article about it. I'll let you know who made that comment.

RobC -- in your opinion, --Fla prosecutors disagree with you about how they should handle self-defense cases -- what can I tell you? take it up with the Prosecutors in Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Tallahasse, and Tampa. They've all charged Murder 2 in 'obvious' cases of self-defense.

Danube of Thought

there is no evidence that GZ has been uniquely singled out in a political witch hunt

I would say there is some evidence of just that, but it is certainly not conclusive.

OK, OK, I give.

Hmmm, since you aren't a Professor you are smarter than the average Pitzie?


Oh, and I did mix up the Dennis and Arthur cases. The Arthur case is the one where defendant was not given an opportunity to rebut the prosecution's showing in the form of closing argument to the judge; and the decision hinged on due process of law grounds.


--I'll let you know who made that comment.--

Cecil Turner cited the statute. I'm not sure you're correctly characterizing the rest of his comment.

Thomas Collins

BFF, I trust my mother, but I prefer to cut the cards.

I think the best way to be informed is to practice true diversity. That is, see how different sources deal with the same story. So, NY Times, PajamasMedia, MEMRI, Claremont.org, WSJ (the news portion of which was rated by a UCLA prof as being more left oriented than the NYT), JammieWearingFool, TalkLeft, Durham in Wonderland, Huffington Post, and especially Just One Minute, for example, provide a variety of perspectives.
For popular culture, I like TMZ (I know that's not exactly a unanimous choice here, but as a devotee of Platonic political thought, I'm convinced that if Plato's Socrates lived today, he'd be blogging and using social media not only with respect to international and economic affairs, but also to discuss the goings-on of LiLo and Mel Gibson and the like). For sports, I gravitate towards CNNSI, ESPN and the Boston Herald. For writing ability in MSM organs, I find the NY Post to be excellent (I think the writing in the NY Post is underrated by the coastal oligarchy because of the tabloid nature of much of the reporting). And, I must say that I find the communitarian anarchist web pages of the professor you claim you are not to be very well done, and a pleasure to read, although I strongly disagree with the notion that communitarian anarchism has the potential to lead to a more just society (I realize we have agreed to disagree about communitarian anarchism).


it's hilarious that some wingnuts are apparently convinced that comments by Democrats saying Saddam had WMD somehow change the fact that Bush lied to sell Americans on invading Iraq.
Sure, Democrats went along with him, but they didn't do the lying and, surely, wouldn't have were it not for the conservative bloodlust for an invasion...

Posted by: bunkerbuster

Hey stupid:

It was the official policy of the US government and every Western intelligence agency that Saddam's Iraq had WMD prior to Bush ever being a candidate for President.

Your silly "lies" comments are an embarrassment to facts and reason.


cboldt-- you're assuming facts. you don't know for a fact if Det Serino or other SPD or State police recommended arrest and charge. We'll find out someday. I do know that Corey charged murder 2 on an elderly women defending herslf against a violent attack, and the tallahassee Prosecutor charged Murder2 on a 61 yo women in her OWN HOME because she cocked and pulled the trigger twice-- that's it. Those are 2 contemporaneous examples of harsh Prosecutor charging in the face of a compelling self-defense claim. Of course the Governor appointing Corey made it obvious there would be a homocide charge against GZ (remember where you heard that first), but it is just flat wrong to claim but for the politics, no one like GZ has ever been charged-- that's demonstrablty false. That's my minority (one man?) JOM opinion.


That Bob Owens site has this observation too, also new to me.

did I just heard that right? Martin’s mother never told police that the voice was her son? So, that claim isn’t evidence, is it? how did it get in the affidavit.


Thanks, El Bango. That's as I remember it, i.e. Bernie was finished with unsuccessfully rehabilitating Gilbreath and about to release him, when Judge Lester turned and asked Gilbreath about how close to TM the gun was when fired, and Gilbreath answering it was close and left gunshot residue and stippling. Huge imo, but unreported that it was Judge Lester who asked that pivotal question. I don't think that exchange/info about "close range/residue/stippling" appears in any transcript.


Nothing said about Gore compares to Rathergate forgery.


Ig-- yes thanks, it was cecil T's coment. I'll go back and read his comment tonight-- I'll paste it in its entirety

cboldt-- thanks for the cite again, I'll read with interest tonight.

Jane (Better a crate than a plate)


WE could take every word written in that blog and multiply it by 1000 and it still wouldn't hold a candle to the press bias against George Bush.


Exactly as I predicted, DoT now finds the extent of Zimmerman's injuries especially relevant. I think we can all agree that if the photo showed no injury, DoT would have continued to maintain their extent doesn't matter.
My position remains the same: If Zimmerman has evidence he was seriously injured, that is a key element supporting the contention that a reasonable person would have feared for his life.
Moreover, as I said over and over again, my position has never been that I know, or even believe, that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. Rather, I believed there was probable cause for an arrest.
If we get a trial, which seems likely, the people will get to see ALL the available evidence about the extent of Zimmerman's injuries.
I will reserve final judgment until then.
BTW, I did notice the blood flow from the cuts seems a little odd, trickling straight down from a straight cut. Doesn't look like what I would expect to see from a contusion-type injury. It looks much more like a cut from a sharp object, doesn't it...

Cecil Turner

For the record, NK@1106 - no one said Immunity was FORFEIT if a defendant possessed an illegal handgun.

I said it. (At least when it applies to anything but the "imminent death" clause.) I'll say it again. Here's the law. The basic "deadly force" clause is here:

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Scrolling on down to 776.013, obviously he wasn't in a dwelling or occupied vehicle, so those parts don't apply. The only part left starts out:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be . . .
Which fairly obviously doesn't apply to a person unlawfully carrying a firearm. So what section of the immunity clause applies to Seay? Not that it mattered in this case, because Seay fairly obviously wasn't defending himself.

The funny part of this logical inversion is that Seay is obviously engaged in unlawful activity, and not defending himself. So how this argument leads to the conclusion that Zimmerman--not engaged in unlawful activity, and obviously defending himself--should forfeit immunity in sympathy or some wacky notion of fair play to criminals is certainly not a rational conclusion.

Thomas Collins

BFF, Socrates might have fared better before Judge Judy than he did before the Athenians! :-)


NK: Here is the comment from yesterday, in full. The italics quotes your prior comment. There is an link to the law, which I've put in LUN.

CecilT makes my point. Corey didn t charge the kid in jacksonville with unlawful gun possession she charged him with murder2 and opposed his immunity motion.

No, you just can't be bothered to read the law, which makes it clear that unlawful gun possession undermines the immunity motion:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [emphasis added]

Zimmerman being law abiding is not prejudice, it's an essential part of the defense.

(He also didn't shoot after his assailant was fleeing, or empty his weapon like this kid did, but that's just gravy.)

Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 22, 2012 at 12:31 PM


OCTOBER 8, 1997 – IAEA SAYS IRAQ FREE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: "As reported in detail in the progress report dated 8 October 1997 and based on all credible information available to date, the IAEA's verification activities in Iraq, have resulted in the evolution of a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme. These verification activities have revealed no indications that Iraq had achieved its programme objective of producing nuclear weapons or that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapon-usable nuclear material or had clandestinely acquired such material. Furthermore, there are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for t he production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." [Source: IAEA Report, 10/8/98]

FEBRUARY 23 & 24, 2001 – COLIN POWELL SAYS IRAQ IS CONTAINED: "I think we ought to declare [the containment policy] a success. We have kept him contained, kept him in his box." He added Saddam "is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens not the United States." [Source: State Department, 2/23/01 and 2/24/01]

SEPTEMBER 16, 2001 – CHENEY ACKNOWLEDGES IRAQ IS CONTAINED: Vice President Dick Cheney said that "Saddam Hussein is bottled up" – a confirmation of the intelligence he had received. [Source: Meet the Press, 9/16/2001]

SEPTEMBER 2001 – WHITE HOUSE CREATES OFFICE TO CIRCUMVENT INTEL AGENCIES: The Pentagon creates the Office of Special Plans "in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true-that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States. The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans was accompanied by a decline in the influence of the c=I.A. and the D.I.A. bringing about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community." The office, hand-picked by the Administration, specifically "cherry-picked intelligence that supported its pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest" while officials deliberately "bypassed the government's customary procedures for vetting intelligence." [Sources: New Yorker, 5/12/03; Atlantic Monthly, 1/04; New Yorker, 10/20/03]

Throughout 2002, the CIA, DIA, Department of Energy and United Nations all warned the Bush Administration that its selective use of intelligence was painting a weak WMD case. Those warnings were repeatedly ignored.

JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials." [Source: NY Times, 2/6/02]

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program." [Source: W. Post, 4/15/02]

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03]

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]

Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.

LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]

JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND: "In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November, inspectors told the council they had not found any weapons of mass destruction." Weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council they had been unable to find any WMD in Iraq and that more time was needed for inspections. [Source: CNN, 2/14/03]

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE: The head of the IAEA told the U.N. in February that "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." The IAEA examined "2,000 pages of documents seized Jan. 16 from an Iraqi scientist's home -- evidence, the Americans said, that the Iraqi regime was hiding government documents in private homes. The documents, including some marked classified, appear to be the scientist's personal files." However, "the documents, which contained information about the use of laser technology to enrich uranium, refer to activities and sites known to the IAEA and do not change the agency's conclusions about Iraq's laser enrichment program." [Source: Wash. Post, 2/15/03]

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD: "A CIA report on proliferation released this week says the intelligence community has no ‘direct evidence’ that Iraq has succeeded in reconstituting its biological, chemical, nuclear or long-range missile programs in the two years since U.N. weapons inspectors left and U.S. planes bombed Iraqi facilities. ‘We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs,’ said the agency in its semi-annual report on proliferation activities." [NBC News, 2/24/03]

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES: IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes or specialized ring magnets for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. For months, American officials had "cited Iraq's importation of these tubes as evidence that Mr. Hussein's scientists have been seeking to develop a nuclear capability." ElBaradei also noted said "the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that documents which formed the basis for the [President Bush’s assertion] of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic." When questioned about this on Meet the Press, Vice President Dick Cheney simply said "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." [Source: NY Times, 3/7/03: Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

MAY 30, 2003 – INTEL PROFESSIONALS ADMIT THEY WERE PRESSURED: "A growing number of U.S. national security professionals are accusing the Bush administration of slanting the facts and hijacking the $30 billion intelligence apparatus to justify its rush to war in Iraq . A key target is a four-person Pentagon team that reviewed material gathered by other intelligence outfits for any missed bits that might have tied Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons or terrorist groups. This team, self-mockingly called the Cabal, 'cherry-picked the intelligence stream' in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat, said Patrick Lang, a official at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The DIA was "exploited and abused and bypassed in the process of making the case for war in Iraq based on the presence of WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official in the State Department, said it appeared to him that intelligence had been shaped 'from the top down.'" [Reuters, 5/30/03 ]

JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: "The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements." [Reuters, 6/6/03]


DoT-- of course politics has played a role in GZ's case since early march -- BIG TIME. Again dead horse stuff, but my last soap box pitch-- isn't it also 'politics ' of a different sort for prosecutors like Corey to win re-election based on their 'tough on crime' overcharging and zealous prosecutions to win votes from her constituents? If you want tough zealous prosecutors (like I DO) you have to admit there will be miscarriages of justice from over charging, denying bond, not giving self defense benefit of the doubt etc. If you are going to be tough on suspects, you have to be evenhanded, and tough on all of them, not cut a break for a 'good guy' because everybody's definition of a good guy differs. And no you don't have the option of the prosecutor should get them "all right". Never happen, criminal justice is a human system, it will have human errors. That's my pitch-- one man's opinion.

Rob Crawford

Rather, I believed there was probable cause for an arrest.

And until you and yours ginned up the mob, the authorities disagreed. Now an innocent man has to fight for his life -- again -- and even if he's acquitted, has to hope some ignorant thug doesn't come after him.

It looks much more like a cut from a sharp object, doesn't it...

You mean like the edge of a sidewalk?

(I hope you don't wear cleats.)


Again, the Democrats are absolutely guilty of helping spread the WMD myth and Clinton is absolutely guilty of using the bombing of Sudan as a "Wag the Dog" distraction.
I just don't get why wingnuts think that means Bush didn't lie to start a war.

Rob Crawford

What's your point, buub? That the press bullshitted you and you believed it?

Rob Crawford

I just don't get why wingnuts think that means Bush didn't lie to start a war.

Because he didn't, dickwad.

For fucks sake, Mara Liason in late 2001 was demanding Bush "do something" about Iraq before the public moved on!

It was the Democrats who decided they'd politicize all the intelligence reporting in order to smear Bush, support the nations' enemies, and get Democrats elected!

Everyone knew Saddam had gas weapons! The damned left was predicting hundreds of thousands of dead US soldiers from the weapons, and Saddam's own generals kept demanding authorization to use them!

Stop trying to bullshit us, buub. We were all here for the entire thing. We were paying attention. We know who lied, and it wasn't Bush.

Hell, I bet you still believe in the plastic turkey...

Danube of Thought

DoT now finds the extent of Zimmerman's injuries especially relevant

False. I find merely that they directly contradict your assertions about them. I note that the prosecutor found them so important that, six weeks after the event, it still had not sought the medical records.

I will explain Florida law to you one more time: the importance of the wounds is that they tend to corroborate GZ's account. They are not essential to his claim of self defense, which can be successfully asserted with no injury at all.


Way off topic.
A Chinese official came to a US consulate and provided info about a top politician who has since gotten into big trouble.
Every time I read about the story it is mentioned that the informer is in Chinese custody.
Why? Did he request to be turned over? Did our embassy decide to surrender him? Perhaps a consulate is not sovereign territory and cannot legally resist claims by local law enforcement, for example.
I wonder if any JOM-er knows more or can provide plausible speculation.
Trivia: I am told that the Chinese city of Chengdu is the oldest in the world which still has its original name.
After spending a night at the consulate, [Chongqing police chief] Wang [Lijun] was taken into custody by Chinese officials, a fate later shared by Bo [Xilai] and his wife Gu Kailai.


CecilT-- thanks for your 1200, big help reposting that. The Seay case apparently means that the words 'unlawful activity' don't apply to the Inchoate crime of illegal possession of the handgun. I say apparently, becasue I haven't seen Judge Soud's decision or the briefs to the appellate court-- so someday the Fla courts may interpret those words to forfeit SYG-- but they haven't yet. Obviously, GZ has a far more compeling Immunity claim than Seay, lawful carry permit, on the grounds of his home where he was a Comm Watcher, shot TMartin in the chest at close range. If I were the Judge, I'd grant Immunity. Here's where the politics will interfere IMO, and Imunity will be denied. the Judge will cite GZ's 'following' Tmartin as reason to deny-- IMO.


-- you're assuming facts. --

What I said was that the police lacked probable cause. If they had probable cause, they would have arrested Zimmerman. They did not arrest Zimmerman. A spokesman for the town of Sanford put out a FAQ explaining that the reason for absence of arrest was absence of probable cause. We have news reports of Serino saying ALL of the evidence supported Zimmerman's account.

Hardly an assumption.

-- Prosecutor charged Murder2 on a 61 yo women in her OWN HOME because she cocked and pulled the trigger twice-- that's it. --

Ernestine Broxsie took the stand today and literally shook as she described what happened in her kitchen back in 2008. Broxsie was arrested that day and charged with murder in the death of Elbert Johnson. He was shot with a .22 gun and died on the back steps of Broxsie's home. She told the judge today that Johnson pushed her to the ground and threatened to kill her and she shot him as the two struggled over a gun. ...

"The problem is the gun that was used was a single action revolver. In order to fire it, it's gotta be hammer cocked, pull the trigger. Hammer cocked, pull the trigger, prosecutor Jon Fuchs argued. "It takes deliberate steps."

"There's only two people who know what happened and one of them is deceased," Fuchs said.

I don't know what the forensic evidence had to say about the distance between the firearm and Elbert Johnson for each of those two shots.

But again, the police arrested Ernestine Broxsie because they had probable cause that she had not acted in self defense; and the prosecutor believed there was sufficient evidence to defeat a claim of self defense. Some of that evidence is described above.

The evidence in favor of Zimmerman's self-defense claim is stronger (eyewitnesses, injuries, a stranger, not a friend as a victim, etc.) and the police did not find probable cause.

You can go ahead and claim they are similar, but don't be surprised when I quit engaging you in debate.

This is your boy, Bubu, who has a little explaining to do.  Unless you can do it for him.

The February 6, 2003 LATimes has an op-ed by Joe Wilson arguing that the US shouldn't invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein would use his WMD on our troops.

Danube of Thought

Dana is still waiting for that exit wound in Trayvon's chest.


Rehashing Iraq: Who remembers the other 2(?) reasons presented to the UN for military action, besides WMD?
When people only argue WMD, it shows they are in talking points mode.

I'm glad Hussein is gone. It's true that we paid way too much to get it done.


I can understand why many libs prefer to dwell on the past than try to defend the present.

Onrushing cataracts of consciousness.

Jim, that happened so long ago memory is vague, but my impression at the time was that there was evidence of a huge and vital power struggle nationally that was focussed locally, and that the US Consulate fearfully decided to stay the Hell out of it.

Mileage varies; I've no idea of the truth.


Jim,IIRC we refused to grant him asylum

Danube of Thought

the Judge will cite GZ's 'following' Tmartin as reason to deny

He may well do so, and for the reason you state--the politics of it. But he won't do that if he follows the law, and I was a little bit encouraged by what I saw of him on Friday.


Jim,MVCUSA - I was just trying to remember the other reasons, and am annoyed I can't. I do remember the Bush Admin considered WMD to be the least critical (though strong) point.
There was the point of 10+ years of Saddam defying a dozen UN resolutions since the first Gulf War, including constant breeching of the no-fly zone, and non-cooperation on inspections. I do not recall if Oil for Food scandal was officially part of the justification, since that may have been something the UN and many of our allies were, unofficially, happy about.

Poor Pitzie Fool.

It is shown, by Claudia Rossett & others, that Saddam had the will and the way(through OFF) to WMD. Furthermore, he bluffed so persuasively, to fend off Persian aggression, that even his own military thought he had WMD.

In view of 9/11, you'd choose to wait?


((JUNE 6, 2003 – INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN SAYS INTEL WAS HYPED: "The CIA bowed to Bush administration pressure to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs ahead of the U.S.-led war in Iraq , a leading national security historian concluded in a detailed study of the spy agency's public pronouncements." [Reuters, 6/6/03]))

too funny. bubu starts out by bloeharding that the msm spreads right wing rumors and lies, and to prove it, he cites msm reports that debunk the so-called right wing rumors and lies that the msm is supposed to be spreading.

wheels within wheels within tangled webs

Cecil Turner

The Seay case apparently means that the words 'unlawful activity' don't apply to the Inchoate crime of illegal possession of the handgun.

I don't think you can say that. For one thing, there's still the basic ("imminent") clause. For another, there's no need to make that determination to conclude Seay didn't rate immunity.

On the rest, IMO the judge will grant immunity. Because he'd rather look like an insensitive a$$hole than a brain-dead buffoon.

And in fact, the case is so clear it should never have been brought. And further, except for political pressure, fear of race riots, and a spineless Governor and Prosecutor, it wouldn't have been brought. And yes, it's all Trayvon's fault.

Slam Dunk.

Now here's the magnificent irony. With far more evidence of Persian WMD, and far more evidence of the will to use it maliciously, we still 'choose to wait'.

A stiff, but fair, price.

There are about 3,000 enfranchised Iraqi voters for every dead American.

Muddy waters.  The Big One.

Dana believes in inspections. Dana must have thought Oil for Food was a humanitarian impulse.

Danube of Thought

Reasons for invading Iraq, as cited in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.

The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.


It is shown, by Claudia Rossett & others, that Saddam had the will and the way(through OFF) to WMD.

Yes, including the Duelfer Report that the MSM tried to spin the other way.


CecilT-- I agree that the Seay case means SYG Immunity in Fla is case by case, and if the witness statements and forensics show shot 2 of the guys as they fled. Good luck with Seay's appeal. Case by case, what does that mean for GZ? Judge Lester --IMO-- made clear at the Bond Hearing that he believes the State has a very weak Murder 2 case-- well it does have a weak Murder case the charge is a joke. Immunity? even though he thinks it's a weak Murder 2 case, I still believe Lester denies Immunity and will steer the case to a manslaughter plea. Minority JOM opinion again.


SYG Immunity in Fla is case by case

NK, are you suggesting that is a BAD thing?

Danube of Thought

A peek at what the is tweeting today.

Danube of Thought

Link didn't take. Tryin' again on what the Left-Wing Lynch Mob is tweeting today.

Danube of Thought

With Dubya's '16 words'

Which were, of course, absolutely true.

Dana's just been propagandized.  Usually I just feel sorry for him.

Yah, DoT, the British still back 'em, too.


AliceH-- 'bad' thing, no. But case by case is definitely a thing, what I mean by that is that 2 of the reasons for the law SYG proponents cited was rapid resolution so the person doesn't spend years in jail (remember there is a presumption of no bond in Murder cases in Fla) waiting for their claim of immunity to be made at trial, and that passing the statute would give 'bright line' clarity and consistency to self-defense cases. It may be that SYG hasn't really changed much if the Prosecutors and Judges are going case by case, just like the historical 'self-defense' standard. Time will tell.


"There are about 3,000 enfranchised Iraqi voters for every dead American."
That's one measure.

I've been in the lobbies of the World Trade Centers.

Yah, jk, Duelfer-Will, Rossett-Way.


I remain a big supporter of Op Iraqi Freedom. For me, forget all the statements, Intel assessments, Congressional resolutions, and IAEA reports, Sadaam was a hostile enemy of the USA; he (like Osama BL) was a man who needed killin'.


"I remain a big supporter of Op Iraqi Freedom."
There's many that deserve killin' but only so many resources to go around. I agree with NK, yet I still think we paid too much.

Danube of Thought

then ask the family of each dead man, if it was worth it.

Ask the same of the family of each man who died taking Guadalcanal. Or Tarawa. Or Iwo Jima.



NK: Without expressing any opinion on what proponents of SYG cited in support of it, I think "case by case" is absolutely the minimum requirement of a just system for every single instance where citizens and the law intersect. But I speak of "case by case" in terms of fairly and consistently evaluating the evidence to make a determination that supports or fails to support a finding of probable cause/immunity/beyond reasonable doubt.

You seem to be using "case by case" to mean deciding what the law means, deciding whether to apply the law, deciding how to apply the law.... That is not a just system. Or am I misunderstanding?


I should add, I find the other cases being cited support MY version of what "Case by case" means, not the one I'm tentatively assigning (pending confirmation) to be YOUR version.


I'd say Bush doubled-down in the face of fierce opposition and drove the war to a mostly successful conclusion from the point of view of American interests.
A big part of the result, afaik, consisted of allowing Shia to put the fear of Allah in Sunni communities.

Obama, after the sacrifices made, did indeed "Declare 'victory' and leave the field". A concise and accurate description.

Don't worry, Dana, Israel don't need no persuadin.

Oh, boy, I like this idea. By cutting off one half of the Iraqi/Iranian nuclear arms race, we took the urgency out of it for Iran, or otherwise they would already have Da Bomba.

Is the mission accomplished, poor believer?

Love the irony. Mission accomplished, yet he stayed, and Obama left.


BenF@1:38 -- 'leave the field at halftime' what are you talking about? you're fantasizing. In May 2003, the officers and crew of USS Abraham Lincoln took deserved credit for their military professionalism during Op Iraqi Freedom by flting that banner. Ok, Rove got bamboozled by the media claiming that was a Boosh sign all's fair in politics. But 4 years later-- 4 frikkin' years later-- Bush ordered the Surge to win the insurgency war over AQ. The Grunts and the Jarheads kicked ass and Iraq became a graveyard for AQ. Left the field in May 2003, what a joke.

Reality based, from a precious niche.

Oh, Jim, I hadn't read your's, and it's the same thought. Sad to be as deluded as Dana by false narratives, by misunderstood slogans, by progressive thought.

Idiocy, or maliciousness?

Sure, and Obama who greatly diminished the chances of Bush's negotiations working out as hoped.

Where's your's?  Or any progs?

I cite my own sense of humour, Dana.


BTW BenF@1:38--, orders of magnitude more Americans died from military incompence in WWII than were killed, injured or got sunburned in Iraq. Pelieu a needless campaign to give the Navy and USMC something to do before leyte 1700+ killed, 8000+ injured -- that almost got Halsey and Nimitz relieved, Operation Cobra Bombing 1944, over 100 friendly fire deaths, USS Indianapolis stupid standing orders about overdue ships, over 1000 men die of exposure and shark attacks, Operation Tiger, incompetent D-Day rehearsal 750 die , that's over 3500 WWII fatalities from rank incompetency of the top of my head. Bush's military was far more professional and smarter than our WWII commanders. war is a dirty inexact business, I'm glad 'Bam is pulling out of Iraq and Afghan/Pak, he has neither the brains nor the guts to be a military CINC.


JimMtn-- by the grace of God I did not lose any friends or relatives in Iraqi Freedom. I did not personally feel the pain of a loved one lost; so my selfish abstract opinion is that the Nation is better off that CinC Bush went to war to remove sadaam and the Baathists.


UH-- BenF -- if in 1941 you told America that the bottom line in 1945/1946 would be a Communist eastern Europe and China, a bankrupted British Empire, a nuclear Cold war with the USSR, and a next war on the Korean peninsula 5 years later, and paying to rebuild German and Japan, after firebombing/nuking them -- the voters would have said NO WAR-- that's crazy, make a deal with Hitler and Tojo, Stalin's the real enemy. And yet, that is exactly where we wound up under FDR. By your standards, FDR's WWII was the most incompetent military strategy in US history.


Dana@2:19-- I swear you go off your meds sometimes. You're incredibly manic.


One fool's comment can get the whole group off on a tangent for a half-day?

I blame myself for responding, but it was irresistible.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Not so fast BenF-- because the USA is a just and good nation, things turned out that way in Europe and Japan-- but that wasn't FDR's public or private war plan. The plan was to remove the cancerous Nazi and Militarist regimes in Germany and japan, and the freedom loving people there would embrace - wait for it -- DEMOCRACY, and likewise the nations of Europe freed from Nazi oppresion would win self-determination(Hmm sounds like Op Iraqi Freedom). Stalin played FDR like a sap. stalin saw the war as a way to get the US to help him win domination of Europe/Asia from the English Channel to manchuria, and south to the Adriatic. It took 45 years of rightwing anti -communism, but FDR's goal was finally realized by Ronald Reagan/GHW Boosh.


I see one faux BenF comment-- any others?


2:19 and 2:41



USSR was an ally of convenience, but i lost the thread of your thought.

Tom Maguire
If I understand the challenge, it's to identify a false rumor started by the right, that made it to prominence.

I muddied the waters - the PowerChallenge was clearly for groundless rumors, but I noted as examples some grounded rumors that were ignored.

And now to mention it, the PowerGuy is wrong in one respect - if the rumor can be easily debunked and make the right look silly it becomes news. I am thinking of Obama's ducking out to his kid's soccer game and the ensuing silliness.


BenF-- no biggie --my simple point was WWII turned out NOTHING like FDR planned nor expected because of Stalin's treachery (or FDR's stupidity, take your pick.) 100,000s of US dead, millions of German's and Japanese dead, and we wound up with a new Cold War and paying the Germans and japanese to rebuild to protect us against our 'ally of convenience' the USSR. By your logic, FDR screwed the pooch didn't he?


"it was Bush Admin who negotiated the withdrwal."
Bush was still in charge last year? OK, my mistake. You win this one.


JimMtn-- in fact it's kind of both, which makes 'Bam even worse. Bush teed up a Status of Forces Agreement much like the ones we have with ROK, Japan and Germany. The point was for the US-Iraq to have a 'normal' international relationship, like the US enjoys with other countries. All 'bam had to do was finalize some face saving derails and sign. 'Bam --that narcisisitic bastard-- torpedoed the SOFA because Iraq was'Bush's war'. Infantile bastard.

The comments to this entry are closed.