Originally posted by murrowthe prosecutor claimed they dropped the charges so that they could structure new charges and submit them, just as they had already done in the other case i posted.
Yes I read it.
So, if I understand you right, you're saying-- yes, he was released without charge, but to hell with "innocent until proved guilty" and all that, you, zeeblebot, know he was guilty because you've read a wikipedia post summarising the prosecution case against him (the one that was dropped for some reason).
So, although I can't take what de ...[text shortened]... gh they didn't believe it themselves enough to actually prosecute the case.
Irony much?
THEN, after the obama administration took over, they did not declare him innocent, they just turned him over to britain, with conditions.
Originally posted by murrowyou can quite often see prosecutors say, yes, we were wrong, we had bad evidence, or a previous prosecutor acted badly, all charges are dropped.
....
So, although I can't take what defense lawyers say at face value, you *can* take at face value what the prosecuting lawyers say (second hand via wikipedia). Even though they didn't believe it themselves enough to actually prosecute the case.
Irony much?
how often do you see a defense lawyer say "my client was guilty as hell"?
or even give out one iota of admission that the client might be guilty?
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotexamples please (out of curiosity)
you can quite often see prosecutors say, yes, we were wrong, we had bad evidence, or a previous prosecutor acted badly, all charges are dropped.
but if you have so much faith in prosecutors, why don't you check out what BM's (US military) prosecutor thought of the whole business?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7761315.stm
"Guantanamo 'a stain on US military' "
Originally posted by zeeblebotyou haven't answered my question - why do you think they released him if they were so sure he was guilty / they had enough evidence to charge and convict him?
the prosecutor claimed they dropped the charges so that they could structure new charges and submit them, just as they had already done in the other case i posted.
THEN, after the obama administration took over, they did not declare him innocent, they just turned him over to britain, with conditions.
Originally posted by murrowi exactly answered your question with the following post.
you haven't answered my question - why do you think they released him if they were so sure he was guilty / they had enough evidence to charge and convict him?
Originally posted by zeeblebot
when the charges were dismissed in Oct 2008, against Binyam M and others, the chief prosecutor made it clear that it was for the purpose of filing new charges.
charges were similarly dismissed against another prisoner in May 2008, and the new charges in his case were filed in Nov 2008, 8 months later. (wiki Mohammed al Qahtani)
in Binyam M's case, the Obama administration returned him to the UK in Feb 2009, 4 months after charges were dropped. maybe they did it because of the torture. i didn't find anything that said why.
there was a plea bargain, one (or the) provision of which is that Binyam M agrees never to travel to the US.
none of this indicates exoneration.
Originally posted by murrowhttp://www.google.com/search?q=prosecutor%20%22dropped%20all%20charges%22&hl=en&ned=us&tab=nw
examples please (out of curiosity)
but if you have so much faith in prosecutors, why don't you check out what BM's (US military) prosecutor thought of the whole business?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7761315.stm
"Guantanamo 'a stain on US military' "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case
On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent. Cooper stated that the charged players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans – were victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."[7] The initial prosecutor for the case, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who had been denounced as a "rogue prosecutor" by Cooper, withdrew from the case in January 2007 after the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics charges against him. That June, Nifong was disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation", making Nifong the first prosecutor in North Carolina history to lose his law license based on actions in a case. Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt and served one day in jail.[8]
Originally posted by zeeblebotHmm. I sort of follow. Although in the case you cite, of course, the prosecutor (Mr Nifong) was disbarred and jailed for contempt. So it's not like *he* dropped charges and admitted the guy was innocent.
http://www.google.com/search?q=prosecutor%20%22dropped%20all%20charges%22&hl=en&ned=us&tab=nw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case
On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent. Cooper stated that the charged players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finner ...[text shortened]... ons in a case. Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt and served one day in jail.[8]
It's also a slightly funny example to quote if your main point is, 'don't believe anything the defence lawyers say; but always believe the prosecutors'....
On which note, did you make anything of the comments BM's military prosecutor made when he resigned?
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou seem to be labouring under a couple of basic misconceptions.
i [b]exactly answered your question with the following post.
Originally posted by zeeblebot
when the charges were dismissed in Oct 2008, against Binyam M and others, the chief prosecutor made it clear that it was for the purpose of filing new charges.
charges were similarly dismissed against another prisoner in May 2008, and the hich is that Binyam M agrees never to travel to the US.
none of this indicates exoneration.[/b]
1. There was *not* a plea bargain in this case. Plea bargains are where the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a crime in return (usually) for a more lenient sentance. Here charges were dropped so there was nothing to plead guilty (or innocent) to.
2. "Exoneration" refers to people who are first convicted of a crime and then found to have been wrongly convicted. Here BM was never convicted - indeed never tried - so there is nothing to exonerate him from, either.
I take it you are not a fan of the presumption of innocence?
Originally posted by murrowi didn't say always believe the prosecutors. and the good prosecutor in this case was the one following Mr. Nifong.
Hmm. I sort of follow. Although in the case you cite, of course, the prosecutor (Mr Nifong) was disbarred and jailed for contempt. So it's not like *he* dropped charges and admitted the guy was innocent.
It's also a slightly funny example to quote if your main point is, 'don't believe anything the defence lawyers say; but always believe the prosecutors'... ...[text shortened]... ote, did you make anything of the comments BM's military prosecutor made when he resigned?
what did the BM prosecutor say?
Originally posted by murrowi didn't say there was a plea bargain. i said BM was released with conditions. no declaration of innocence was made. my post made it clear; if not:
You seem to be labouring under a couple of basic misconceptions.
1. There was *not* a plea bargain in this case. Plea bargains are where the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a crime in return (usually) for a more lenient sentance. Here charges were dropped so there was nothing to plead guilty (or innocent) to.
2. "Exoneration" refers to people who ar ...[text shortened]... to exonerate him from, either.
I take it you are not a fan of the presumption of innocence?
1. the prosecutor intended to file new charges.
2. the new administration arrived.
3. the new administration released him.
i'm not a fan of the idea that justice has to be perfect. there are not enough resources in all the world to make it so.
Originally posted by zeeblebotHe said "I resign". Amongst other things.
what did the BM prosecutor say?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7761315.stm
The problem is, the "evidence" on which you have based your conclusions as to this man's guilt seems from your wiki link to be based entirely on BM's alleged confessions. But because of the way he was treated, any such confession would not be admissable in a regular court, for a number of good reasons, including the fact that confessions obtained by torture are simply not reliable. Many people subjected to torture will do anything to make it stop, including confessing to any crime.
If there were credible evidence against BM it seems likely to me that he would have been tried in a federal court, or prosecuted on return to the UK. The fact that he was allowed to walk free suggests to me there is none.