Now that's some dramatic must watch court TV! :o
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/05/nidal_malik_hasan_fort_hood_trial_admitted_gunman_will_get_chance_to_cross.html
QuoteThe Fort Hood Shooter Will Be Able to Cross-Examine the Soldiers Whom He Shot
By Josh Voorhees
Posted Monday, Aug. 5, 2013, at 11:23 AM
Tuesday will mark the beginning of the military trial of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major who gunned down 13 people and injured several dozen more during his 2009 shooting spree at Fort Hood. Hasan, both in court and out of it, has already admitted to being the gunman—he claims to have been trying to protect Taliban leaders from U.S. soldiers deploying to Afghanistan—and has even offered to plead guilty to the charges. But that doesn't mean that the courtroom action will be without its fair share of drama, as the New York Times explains this morning in a great table-setter:
It is not unusual for victims to face their assailants in court, as [Staff Sgt. Alonzo M. Lunsford Jr.] will do on Tuesday, when he testifies on the first day of Major Hasan's military trial. What is extraordinary is that Major Hasan, seated behind the defense table in a Fort Hood courtroom, may be the one questioning Sergeant Lunsford during cross-examination.
Major Hasan is representing himself, one of many elements of his long-delayed court-martial that legal experts say will make it one of the most unpredictable and significant military trials in recent history. "I will be cross-examined by the man who shot me," said Sergeant Lunsford, 46, who retired from the Army and remains blind in his left eye. "You can imagine all the emotions that are going to be coming up."
Other than the scene of a shooter questioning someone who he shot, however, legal watchers and historians aren't exactly sure what to expect once the trial gets underway. For starters, there's the question of just how much the trial will explore Hasan's radical Islamic beliefs. And, while it likely won't prove too difficult a task for Army lawyers to convince the jury of 13 to find Hasan guilty, it's less clear if the government will be able to achieve its ultimate goal: the death penalty. (The reason the Army refused to accept Hasan's offer to plead guilty is because, by military law, that would have taken a death sentence off the table.) Even if they do, such an outcome is all but certain to be subject to a lengthy appeals process, one that history would suggest could last more than a decade. Head on over to the Times for more on what's likely to prove to be a historic trial regardless of the outcome.
What a circus. This fucker is a poster child for summary executions.
No shit. They fucked up pretty bad by bringing this guy in alive.
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
Why?
Quote from: dps on August 05, 2013, 10:59:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
Why?
Cuz there's no reason for an accused person to re-victimize their victim?
What we have is a provision for 'court appointed counsel for the purpose of cross-examination'. The court hires a lawyer for you. You tell that lawyer the questions you want to ask. This comes up more than you'd think in terms of domestic abuse cases.
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
Yeah, but the US is a pretty harsh place. Remember, the people who created the country and its laws were the people who loved the brutal violence of slavery.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 11:17:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
Yeah, but the US is a pretty harsh place. Remember, the people who created the country and its laws were the people who loved the brutal violence of slavery.
Trollish, but true. :hmm:
I agree. America sucks. I wish we'd never rebelled. It was a mistake.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 05, 2013, 11:23:42 PM
I agree. America sucks. I wish we'd never rebelled. It was a mistake.
Yeah we could have been as thrilling as Canada.
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 05, 2013, 11:23:42 PM
I agree. America sucks. I wish we'd never rebelled. It was a mistake.
Yeah we could have been as thrilling as Canada.
Or Canada would have been as thrilling as the USA! :cool:
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:29:50 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 05, 2013, 11:23:42 PM
I agree. America sucks. I wish we'd never rebelled. It was a mistake.
Yeah we could have been as thrilling as Canada.
It would be all of the nuclear majesty of America with the benevolent statism of Canada.
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
America would likely be by the far the most important component of the Commonwealth.
I'm pretty sure we'd still have developed atomic weapons first as well.
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life... :hmm:
and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting. On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life... :hmm:
and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting. On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...
I think you have to go back a bit further than that to be successful.
Prince Fredrick doesn't get himself killed playing Cricket in '51 and has a Whig government rather than the Tory one George III propped up. They follow through with Pitt's plan and give the Colonies representation in parliament in the late '60s.
Peace continues until 1778 when the War of Bavarian succession snowballs into a general war.
Austria, Spain, France, Ottomans, Poland vs. Bavaria, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, Netherlands, Saxony.
Result - Poland ceases to exist twenty years earlier and the border of British North America is moved from the Mississippi to the Rio Grande-Continental Divide. Cuba & the Philipines may also be annexed by the Brits. France goes into crushing debt and falls into REVOLUTION within 10-15 years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2013, 12:39:34 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life... :hmm:
and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting. On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...
I think you have to go back a bit further than that to be successful.
Prince Fredrick doesn't get himself killed playing Cricket in '51 and has a Whig government rather than the Tory one George III propped up. They follow through with Pitt's plan and give the Colonies representation in parliament in the late '60s.
Peace continues until 1778 when the War of Bavarian succession snowballs into a general war.
Austria, Spain, France, Ottomans, Poland vs. Bavaria, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, Netherlands, Saxony.
Result - Poland ceases to exist twenty years earlier and the border of British North America is moved from the Mississippi to the Rio Grande-Continental Divide. Cuba & the Philipines may also be annexed by the Brits. France goes into crushing debt and falls into REVOLUTION within 10-15 years.
Forgive me Oh Lord for ever discussing alt-history seriously. :bleeding:
Ok, what do you disagree with there?
The war part I presume?
I think you were ok until you got into the specifics of the War of Bavarian Succession, which was unnecessarily speculative.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on August 06, 2013, 01:11:29 AM
I think you were ok until you got into the specifics of the War of Bavarian Succession, which was unnecessarily speculative.
Yeah, I almost just left it at "War of Bavarian succession snowballs into a general war", but I just felt that I wouldn't be living up to expectations if I did so. We all have our roles to play. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
It's a constitutional thing, we have the right confront and refute witnesses.
Jesus Christ.
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 12:42:38 AM
Forgive me Oh Lord for ever discussing alt-history seriously. :bleeding:
I'm very disappointed in you, Beeb.
Quote from: Neil on August 05, 2013, 10:56:11 PM
No shit. They fucked up pretty bad by bringing this guy in alive.
That's what happens when you have policewomen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2013, 12:45:29 AM
Ok, what do you disagree with there?
That a man who plays cricket would be given multiple opportunities to lead the government of a major power.
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life... :hmm:
and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting. On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...
Here ya go....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Georges
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 06, 2013, 06:33:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2013, 12:45:29 AM
Ok, what do you disagree with there?
That a man who plays cricket would be given multiple opportunities to lead the government of a major power.
But men who played cricket ruled the world for over a century.
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life... :hmm:
and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting. On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...
Improper use of "begging the question," counselor.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 06, 2013, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 12:05:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 05, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
How so? We'd have been wimptastic state fawning over the queen.
I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life... :hmm:
and alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting. On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...
Here ya go....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Georges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Georges)
You could have at least used a good book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Want_of_a_Nail_%28novel%29
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 02:23:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
It's a constitutional thing, we have the right confront and refute witnesses.
Does the constitution say you have the right to do that personally? We have a similar constitutional guarantee...
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 11:10:06 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 06, 2013, 02:23:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 05, 2013, 10:58:11 PM
Even in liberal paradise Canada we have a provisions for accused people to NOT cross-examine the people they victimized...
It's a constitutional thing, we have the right confront and refute witnesses.
Does the constitution say you have the right to do that personally? We have a similar constitutional guarantee...
From the 8th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... ...to be confronted with the witnesses against him"
Frankly, I don't see how it could apply other than personally. It's a right of the accused, not a right of his legal team.
Quote from: dps on August 07, 2013, 12:06:34 AM
Frankly, I don't see how it could apply other than personally. It's a right of the accused, not a right of his legal team.
IIRC, it's not always applied so strictly. For one thing, to represent yourself you need to demonstrate a higher level of competence than is required to stand trial. So it's not automatic that someone on trial has the right to personally conduct cross-examination (and it is probably an extraordinarily bad idea to do so). It's also possible for a disruptive defendant to lose his right to even be in the courtroom for his trial (though he has to be able to watch the trial via video and comminicate in real time with his attorney). Also, I think in some cases public policy doesn't allow the accussed to personally cross-examine witness (specifically a defendant accussed of sexually abusing a child may be barred from personally cross-examining that child).
Quote from: Barrister on August 06, 2013, 12:05:24 AM
I don't recall a lot of fawning going on in my life... :hmm:
Maybe you are too close to see it?
Quoteand alt-history where 1776 fails is interesting. On one hand it begs the question to what extent the US rebellion spurred liberalism in the rest of the colonies (no question it did), but it also begs the question to what extent being a part of the empire would have ended slavery without a war...
Slavery ended in the Empire only several decades before it ended in the US, and even then it was because it wasn't worth as much as it once was, and so the economic forces behind it weren't fighting as fiercely to defend it.
I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance), but probably several decade after it did historically, as the economic forces behind American slavery became as weakened as those behind Caribbean slavery in the 1830s.
Of more interest would be the impact of British mercantilism on the growth of the US. I think the US population would have grown much more slowly in a "US-as-colony" world, since the British discouragement of industry in its colonies would have meant fewer American jobs for immigrants.
Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2013, 10:24:23 AM
I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance),
How does that work? It's not like the planters would have fought a guerrilla war without the backing of their state governments.
Quote from: chipwich on August 10, 2013, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2013, 10:24:23 AM
I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance),
How does that work? It's not like the planters would have fought a guerrilla war without the backing of their state governments.
The colonies would still be locally administered, and still probably in a regional fashion (i.e Colony of South Carolina). I could see a number of the southern colonies trying to foment a second American Revolution against the Empire.
And if Britain didn't get it's hand on the Louisiana territory, there could be much more French/Spanish intrigue via the frontier as well.
There was a strange case in New York about 20 years ago where a guy named Colin Ferguson shot up a bunch of people on the subway. He cross examined the witnesses (many of whom were his victims). It was clear the man was insane, and the whole situation was bizarre.
Quote from: chipwich on August 10, 2013, 01:00:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 10, 2013, 10:24:23 AM
I think that slavery would have ended in a US colony of Britain without war (though not without violent resistance),
How does that work? It's not like the planters would have fought a guerrilla war without the backing of their state governments.
Sorry, you cannot have my point. The counter to my argument that there would be no war isn't your argument that there couldn't be a war.
There is violence that doesn't constitute war, though. Read a newspaper.
Quote from: grumbler on August 11, 2013, 06:33:33 PM
Read a newspaper.
I can't read. I can't write. I like to watch TV.
The only thing about me is the way that I walk.
You fucked it up, Ide.