Bush vetoes ban on harsh interrogation

[WhyteP38]

You cannot say "it is all the same but it is different."

You're right. But I never said, "It is all the same but it is different."

FRE 801(c) defines what hearsay means for the Federal Rules of Evidence.
FRE 801(d) defines certain particular statements as nonhearsay even though those same statements would normally fall under the definition of hearsay. Why they are called "nonhearsay" rather than "exceptions" is one of the oddities of the FRE, but there it is.
FRE 803 lists and defines 23 hearsay exceptions.
FRE 804 and FRE 807 provide two other types of exceptions.

Logically, if someone says "X is defined as such-and-such," "Y is not such-and-such," and "These particular Xs are exceptions to such-and-such," that someone is not saying "It is all the same but it is different." In fact, from the beginning, I said very much the opposite.

It's amazing that you ever drew such a conclusion. During the last two pages of this thread, you keep insisting on that conclusion but you're the only one making it.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Logically, if someone says "X is defined as such-and-such," "Y is not such-and-such," and "These particular Xs are exceptions to such-and-such," that someone is not saying "It is all the same but it is different."

That is not what the law says. If that is what it was saying then they would simply need to say hearsay is defined as "blank" and not allowed. They are not saying that the exceptions are not hearsay. They are saying that under these circumstances certain forms of hearsay are admissible. They are not saying that under these circumstances it is not hearsay.

 

[zukiphile]

At some level, I regret having checked back in on this.

That is not what the law says.

PBP, may we agree based on the last couple of pages that wisdom should restrain you, especially at this point, from asserting what "the law" says?

Aside from being wrong, this is an argument against all interrogation whatsoever, since it will always provide evidence you deem categorically unreliable.

Now you are backing off.

No, I am explaining the problem with your critique. If you didn't understand that, it would be better not to guess (incorrectly) that I am "backing off".

I am stilling waiting to see the testimony I requested.

You may have to keep waiting. I didn't see the testimony on the internet and can't mlink it for you.

I am more than willing to be schooled ...

That's very generous of you.

Here is one way to approach a matter. Assert only what you have some reasonable basis for thinking you might know. Ask questions if you have them, and listen to the answers of people who might know.

This should work better than trying to bluff your way through an argument with people who know better, and simply assuming that because you weren't confident in what you asserted that no one else is either.

 

[WhyteP38]

So, some forms of hearsay are more reliable. Does that not mean that some forms are not as reliable?

Why do you insist on misstating other people's statements? Did you not read the word "likely"? I never said nor implied nor inferred that "some forms of hearsay are more reliable." I wrote "more likely to be reliable" and "are more reliable" are very different. The first is a potential; the second is an absolute.

Even evidence that is more likely to be reliable can ultimately turn out to be unreliable, just as evidence that is less likely to be reliable can ultimately turn out to be reliable. That's why trials are held, evidence is presented, and evidence is weighed.

 

[Playboypenguin]

You may have to keep waiting. I didn't see the testimony on the internet and can't mlink it for you.

So you are saying the evidence to back up the statements does not exist but your still support it?

 

[Playboypenguin]

I wrote "more likely to be reliable" and "are more reliable" are very different.

Nice semantics game but it does not address the spirit of the question.

"More likely to be reliable" still assigns a value of being more reliable.

 

[WhyteP38]

That is not what the law says. If that is what it was saying then they would simply need to say hearsay is defined as "blank" and not allowed. They are not saying that the exceptions are not hearsay. They are saying that under these circumstances certain forms of hearsay are admissible. They are not saying that under these circumstances it is not hearsay.

Wrong again!

Google FRE 801(d)(1) and FRE 801(d)(2). It's clear that I'm not able to explain this to you. It starts off with: "Statements which are not hearsay."

You might also want to check FRE 802: Hearsay Rule
"Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Suprement Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress."

So much for your contention that hearsay is not even admissible.

 

[zukiphile]

You may have to keep waiting. I didn't see the testimony on the internet and can't mlink it for you.

So you are saying the evidence to back up the statements does not exist but your still support it?

Do you really think that is what I just wrote? You quoted it, so it should not be difficult to decipher.

If something isn't on the internet, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you genuinely didn't understand that and it was a good faith error, that's fine.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Wrong again!

Google FRE 801(d)(1) and FRE 801(d)(2). It's clear that I'm not able to explain this to you.

You might want to reread that. 801 declares what is NOT hearsay. The exceptions later in the document (803, 804,805) declare what types and under what conditions testimony that is by definition hearsay is admissible.

 

[WhyteP38]

Nice semantics game but it does not address the spirit of the question.

"More likely to be reliable" still assigns a value of being more reliable.

It's only semantics if you believe there's no difference between a potential and an absolute. One leaves room for inquiry, the other is a conclusion.

But then it's just semantics if you believe there's no difference between an inquiry and a conclusion.

 

[WhyteP38]

You might want to reread that. 801 declares what is NOT hearsay.

You might want to try understanding what you read. Ask yourself why the FRE would define what hearsay is, provide exceptions to the hearsay rule, and then define certain statements as not hearsay under the Article 8 titled "Hearsay"?

If what you said is true, there would be no need to define those certain statements as not hearsay. Instead, those statements would fall under Article 7.

 

[WhyteP38]

I gotta sign off. Getting late here. But so far:

PBP doesn't know what hearsay is.
PBP doesn't know what a declarant is.
PBP doesn't know that hearsay evidence is admissible under exceptions in the FRE.
PBP doesn't know that it's "tangible" and "circumstantial" evidence, not "hard" and "soft" evidence.
PBP doesn't believe the FRE means what it says it means.
PBP doesn't believe there's a difference between a potential and an absolute, or between an inquiry and a conclusion.
PBP doesn't understand that when someone says there are exceptions to the hearsay rule means that they are not all the same.

But he's more than willing to insist upon all of the above.

 

[DonR101395]

While you guys are figuring out if waterboarding is effective and what constitutes torture; the enemy is doing stuff like this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080312/wl_mcclatchy/2877385

BAGHDAD _U.S. authorities in Baghdad have received five severed fingers belonging to four Americans and an Austrian who were taken hostage more than a year ago in Iraq , U.S. officials said Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The FBI is investigating the grisly development, and the families of the five kidnapped contractors have been notified, American officials said on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the case publicly.

Authorities confirmed that the fingers belonged to hostages Jonathon Cote , of Gainesville, Fla. ; Joshua Munns , of Redding, Calif. ; Paul Johnson Reuben , of Buffalo, Minn. ; Bert Nussbaumer of Vienna, Austria ; and Ronald J. Withrow , an American who was kidnapped separately from the others.

No information was available on when or how the fingers were delivered to U.S. authorities. Some relatives of the missing men said that they'd heard weeks ago that the DNA of the hostages had been obtained, but they'd been given no details.

The first four men were security contractors with Kuwait -based Crescent Security and were captured in a brazen ambush of their 43-truck supply convoy in the southern Iraqi town of Safwan, near the Kuwaiti border, on Nov. 16, 2006 .

There was no word on a fifth contractor who was seized with them, John Young , of Kansas City . Contrary to Austrian news reports, none of the fingers belonged to him, authorities said.

"The government is in touch with us, but they said nothing has been verified yet," said Sharon DeBrabander , Young's mother. "I certainly don't understand why my son's wasn't found. What does that mean?"

Withrow, a computer specialist who worked for JPI Worldwide, was kidnapped separately at a phony checkpoint near the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Jan. 5, 2007 , according to news reports. Very little information is publicly available about his abduction; the bodies of his Iraqi translator and driver were discovered the next day. His employer is a Las Vegas -based company that provides Internet and technological support to remote or war-torn areas around the globe, according to the company's Web site.

The Austrian weekly magazine News first reported the delivery of the five fingers in Wednesday's edition, citing unnamed authorities working on the case.

Austrian officials said at a news conference in Vienna that U.S. officials had provided information about "fingerprints and DNA traces that were positively matched to Nussbaumer," the Austrian hostage. They didn't confirm that the sample was a severed finger.

Relatives of the American hostages said they received phone calls from U.S. authorities early Wednesday, though initially they were told only that fingerprints or DNA had been obtained. Later, at least one father said he'd been notified that his son's finger had been delivered by the hostage-takers, but there still was confusion among the relatives about the development.

"All we have right now is prayers," said Mark Munns , the father of former Marine Joshua Munns , 25, who has spent his past two birthdays in captivity. "I don't know how to make head or tails of what's going on. Are they still alive? A whole bunch of stuff goes through your head."

State Department representatives check in with the families in a telephone conference call every Monday, though several relatives have complained that they're being kept in the dark about the investigation. The FBI has told them that the information is classified to preserve the integrity of the investigation— little solace for families who've gone 18 months with scant news.

"I know we're in a war on terror, but to not tell the families anything and let us sit out here for 18 months just isn't right," Mark Munns said.

The Crescent contractors appeared in two hostage videos released in December 2006 and January 2007 in which they pleaded for the United States to withdraw troops from Iraq and to free all Iraqi prisoners. In the videos, they appeared in good condition and said that they were being treated well.

No financial demand has been made public, and it's unclear what group is holding the men. All of the hostages were seized in southern Iraq , where powerful Shiite Muslim militias operate with relative freedom.

"I'm hoping this may be a sign that the hostage-takers sent the fingers to prove they have the guys and may want to deal. I'm trying to look at the positive of this," said Mark Koscielski , a Minnesotan who is in close contact with the families of the hostages and maintains a Web site, www.Save5.net, dedicated to the abducted men. One of the hostages, Reuben, is a former Minneapolis police officer.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I gotta sign off. Getting late here. But so far:

PBP doesn't know what hearsay is.
PBP doesn't know what a declarant is.
PBP doesn't know that hearsay evidence is admissible under exceptions in the FRE.
PBP doesn't know that it's "tangible" and "circumstantial" evidence, not "hard" and "soft" evidence.
PBP doesn't believe the FRE means what it says it means.
PBP doesn't believe there's a difference between a potential and an absolute, or between an inquiry and a conclusion.
PBP doesn't understand that when someone says there are exceptions to the hearsay rule means that they are not all the same.

Sad, you cannot defend you statement and the lack of ability to understand the actual code so you start attacking. Sad but not surprising. But just like you defense of your postion, just saying something does not make it so.

They define hearsay and then say hearsay is not admissible except under certain circumstances (defined in 803, 804, and 805). They also say define when something is NOT hearsay (801).

If they were saying hearsay is only admissible when it is NOT hearsay (801) that would not make sense now would it. That is why that is not what they are saying. They are saying that hearsay is generally not reliable and therefore not admissible but that in certain circumstances (deined in 803 ,804, and 805) it is, as you said, "more likely to be reliable" and is therefore admissible (actually they are saying it is verifiable and able to withstand legal challenge). But first they were clarifying in 801 what in NOT hearsay and therefore does not need to meet the criteria of 803-805. You stated that yourself then altered you defense when that did not pan out how you wanted it to.

 

[Unregistered]

While you guys are figuring out if waterboarding is effective and what constitutes torture; the enemy is doing stuff like this

I'd say that is exactly why some of us are opposed to the US resorting to torture. The bad guys use it.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I'd say that is exactly why some of us are opposed to the US resorting to torture. The bad guys use it.

I am not opposed to it for that reason. I do not get far enough into it for that part to become an issue. I am just not for it because I see no evidence it is a valid practice for obtaining reliable information. If I thought it would work, I might be okay with it's use in certain circumstances. I have really not dealt with that part of the issue myself.

 

[Al Norris]

We've been all over this, and are no closer to a consensus than we were at the start.

I know this will disappoint some of you, but I'm pulling the plug on this.