The problem is you have a court saying the testimony by people recanting was not compelling, but to whom? There were at least two jurors that thought it was compelling enough where they had doubt. I just think with all the doubt they should have at least seated another jury, or redone the sentencing phase. If a person is really guilty nothing will change. As for wasting time, if it means an innocent person doesn't die, why not. As for him getting what he deserved, what makes you the arbiter of justice? I'll stop now because you are clearly one of those people that is just dead set in your beliefs and can never accept change.

Read through the ruling. The recants weren't even really recants.

There has to be limits to the granting of a new trial. It's not just wasted time - though that's a big consideration. Should we let defense investigators harass jurors for decades after the fact, hoping for a recantation? What about state witnesses? If you are brave enough to testify in a murder trial should you be pressured and harassed into recanting for the rest of your life? What about the memories of eye witnesses? The further we get away from the event, there will be fewer witnesses still alive, and memories will fade. There will also be the idea in the heads of some jurors that someone "has already done enough time" - which of course is not supposed to be a consideration for jurors. Not to mention what the victims' family goes through - a new trial potentially every few years? Maybe the defense could try different strategies, coach witnesses in different ways, because hey, if you lose this one, try try again....What's the point of putting people under oath and allowing cross-examination, and having rules of evidence if we're going to put just as much stock in outside-the-court statements made by witnesses years later at a coffee shop late at night with no rules of evidence in place, no cross-examination, with unknown pressure applied by defense investigators, etc. Still, with all these reasons courts strongly prefer "1 trial", new trials are ordered very often, all the time. (Much more often on the grounds of trial error than "new evidence").

I've read a lot of the appellate opinions on this and this guy, of course, tried everything. My favorite argument is that the "aggravated factor" of killing a police officer carrying out his duties (which led to the death penalty) shouldn't have applied because this officer was only working in a private capacity, and that Davis didn't know he was a cop anyway, he just thought he was trying to break up a fight.

The sooner you learn this about Jon and the less time you waste arguing with him, the more enjoyable your time on the board will be. He believes he is absolutely right on everything, and that compromise and changing one's mind is unconscionable.

C'mon, can't you get this shit straight after all these years?

-- If I didn't believe I was right, I'd take a different position. (After all, who the hell sets out to be wrong intentionally ... other than liberals I mean)

-- Compromise is an option when your situation is absolutely & irrevocably unwinnable. That's an exception the would supersede* the unconscionable nature of it.

-- Changing your mind is often an indication of positions set with insufficient examination in the first place. More of a character flaw than unconscionable.

Damn DT, how many times do I have to explain this shit to you?

*I always thought that the word was spelled "supercede" rather than "supersede". But spellcheck can't be wrong, can it?

Learned something new today:

Supercede - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
"Supercede has occurred as a spelling variant of supersede since the 17th century, and it is common in current published writing. It continues, however, to be widely regarded as an error."

Cede - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
For some reason, in my mind, I had always tied it to cede and I always thought supercede was correct, too. In the end, I guess it doesn't make a lot of sense as they are different words and different ideas.

Totally different Latin roots:
Cede: "French or Latin; French céder, from Latin cedere to go, withdraw, yield"
Supersede: "Middle English (Scots) superceden to defer, from Middle French, from Latin supersedēre to sit on top, refrain from, from super- + sedēre to sit"

So, like so many things, we can blame the French. They took supersedere and made it superceden and English was just trying to correct back to the Latin root with supersede.

SI

And naturally the French version surrendered ;)

That statement is full of juicy irony...

It's another of those "corrections" made when they produced the American dictionary. Supercede is certainly the English English spelling but as with the replacement of "s" with "z" for the "zzz" sound (as in the analyze/analyse thread) the "c" was replaced with "s" for the "sss" sound (soft c) to rationalise (that is flagged as a spelling mistake) American English spelling.

According to spelling checkers my spelling is awful - they don't like my "s" and prefer a "z", don't like my "c", they prefer an "s" or "k". Any text I write is a sea of red underlining :)

I suspect that the "cede" in "supercede" is the same root. Cede means to accept an alternative argument and supercede that one thing replaces another. Both are about the replacement of one thing by another.

Didn't get a chance to watch the debate so catching up on the internet.

This one was funny. Was it as awkward as it reads?

Romney, Perry go after each other in debate - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com

Ron Paul seems to always do well.

Who Won The Debate? | Fox News

"Gary Johnson" sounds more like a gay sex act than Santorum ever will.

I'm not sure about "awkward" but yes they did have a go at each other - though the most common response was to avoid a question by attacking Obama :)

Romney hit home with his "you'd better find the other Rick Perry and stop him saying that" and Perry was clearly embarrassed by that. Mind you, Romney saying "there are many reasons for not voting for me" struck me as giving a hostage to fortune should he make the nomination. If Fox will release the video I can see a whole series of Democrat attack ads using that as an intro in an election campaign.

Laugh of the debate came when one said "my next door neighbour's dog has created more shovel-ready jobs than Obama".

I'm not sure why they saw Paul as the "winner" but then I'm not part of the choir when it comes to his particular music :rolleyes:

We need this character ---ç for words like supersede.

And oddly enough I had a similar reaction to Jon when I was using supersede in a paper today. It doesn't look correct.

Yes, though the use of "s" is perfectly rational as are the other changes introduced for the American dictionary. English kids do have a lot of problems with traditional English spelling and I often have to think and even write down words before knowing the "correct" spelling. Traditional English spelling can be a pain in the butt.


Yes it does look "wrong". Maybe because it's not a word in too much common use and you've mainly seen it in text books or older texts in which the English spelling is used. I'm pretty sure an English English teacher would flag it as incorrect but the spelling checker on this board rejects "supercede".

Look no further than the sentence at the bottom of the linked page.
This is not a scientific poll.

The Paulbots are consistent voters in online polls & the like.

Cynical b*#stard! :)

But I watched the debate and I must admit I can't see why they saw Paul as the winner and the audience interviewed after were in no doubt that they believed Romney won it. A few did suggest they'd moved away from Perry.

But that's the thing, according to merriam-webster above, they aren't:


That's what surprised me a little but cede does have a bit of a different connotation

SI

It got lost given the Israel/Palestine stuff, but this seems like a really big deal. Now that the government has said this, won't there have to be changes to our relationship?

Just looked up the spelling of supercede/supersede in the Oxford dictionary and it does include supercede but says that, while often used, is generally regarded as an error in spelling and the correct spelling is supersede. That would back the argument that sedere and not cedere is the Latin root. I stand corrected and will change my spelling from now on :)

I think it's part of a diplomatic game. What we see in the press is just a move by our government or theirs. The geopolitical reality is what it is, and our relationship is going to be based on that. This news makes me think just that there's some reason we want to put the heat up, or put some distance between us at this point. The Pakistani generally like that as well, as they can't look like they're too close to us.

I think I've moved from GWB's fault to still GWB's fault but Obama shares blame for not getting us better. I get the GOP has been fighting him and not giving him what he wants but this pending double dip is definitely on his watch.

Poll: Majority of Americans blame Obama for economy – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The article wasn't very detailed on the changes but sounds as if we knew we weren't going to make it so we moved the goalposts.

Obama making big changes to Bush-era education law - politics - White House - msnbc.com

I had friends in the military in prior century and they were adamantly against gays in the military. I think the millenials are ready for this.

End of 'don't ask, don't tell' brings relief, celebration - CNN.com

I'm not sure, but to hit that 29.1 percent number I almost think they are counting only income that is taxed by the income tax which doesn't cover the $1 salary CEO who gets most of his money through investment income which is taxed differently. Most of the numbers the article starts out with are highly biased ones (total share of taxes has nothing to do with individual rates when you look at wealth disparity gaps).

I think the 'FACT CHECK' needs to put up a list of say the Forbes 100 in the USA and put their effective tax rate next to it. Enough of the numbers are public that even without accounting for weird deductions you can get a raw estimate based on how they earned their income for the year (salary versus stock net worth, etc.). Even if you take that list down to every millionaire in the United States you will see a large number under 29.1 percent.

In fact, the only way I think the math works out for 29.1 percent counting all income is if they are taking an average based on each person's individual taxes. Maybe there are enough millionaires paying at 35% plus (I know of at least one, damn daytrading) to balance out the billionaires at 18%. My guesstimates are based on the whole pool of money which certainly is not being taxed at 29.1 percent (if it was our budget deficit would disappear instantly, that is how much money is sitting in that pool at a lower than 29% rate even for private individuals).

Linked from TMQ, political pundits no better than a coin flip:

Hamilton College - Pundit - Executive Summary

Liberals are better predictors than conservatives, and lawyers are the least accurate. My conclusion: there are too many lawyers in the Republican party.

No word if MBBF was one of those they checked and if he skewed the results.

Five Of Boehner's Six "Fiscal Experts" Agree: Deficit Reduction Requires Revenue Increases | Political Correction

Well, I think Boehner & the Republicans' response to that would be that you have to grow the economy in order to increase the revenues. And in principle, I agree that "raising taxes" isn't always the best way to cut a deficit (a deficit I don't think should be there in the first place...but I digress).

Its the reality of the world economy which makes me disagree that there is a realistic opportunity, within 8 years (and perhaps much longer), to grow the economy enough to make that approach viable.

I was watching the politicians talk all week and learned it's all the fault of job killing regulations by the EPA. Job killing tax increases will never work if the job killing regulations are repealed. But the primary thing to do is cut taxes on job creators making 1M so the economy can be fixed.

The democrats response to that was maybe.

I caught the tail end of an interview on CBS Nightly News with some bigwig African-American business leader. He came out and said what I think I've tried to say in here: the way to fix this is to have some politicians, House, Senate, and President, willing to be one-term politicians and make the hard choices that will fix the issues no matter what it means to their re-election chances. Nice to see someone nationally say that.

But that won't work. Those one term politicians will be replaced by people who vow to overturn those decisions. Without buy-in from the public any changes will be temporary.

That's without getting into the deeply undemocratic fantasy of "fixing" the problems in ways that ignore popular will.

It still amazes me that people buy that stuff. Tax cuts don't create jobs, demand does. All we need to do to prove this is point out the top percentile is paying less than in any time in history and we have high unemployment.

There is plenty of demand out there. But there is not a magic button that will tell you, there is demand for 100,000 units of energy saving household light bulbs at $5.45 per unit. An investor / entrepreneur has to figure out what will fulfill a potential demand and at what price point to cost ratio. That means they have to invest time/effort and risk capitol to do that.

It is a fact that regulation, taxes, fees, licenses and other barriers to entry are a factor in whether or not someone spends their time and money on a venture.

It is more likely that someone like a Steve Jobs or Michael Moore will engage in a developing a new product or movie concept than someone like me or you. They have are already successful in their respective fields and can afford to pay the barrier costs. But even those guys are not going to risk time and funds on a venture they are not pretty sure will be a winner.

Bottom line, increased regulation and taxes reduce new development efforts and support the status quo because it is tougher for new people to enter the field. That touches on two things. One, the argument on regulation and taxes and two, the argument on how unfair it is that rich people have an unfair advantage. More regulation and taxes just increase their advantage by decreasing competition.

Okay, I think this one is a legit #2 or #3.

U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed: Yemeni officials - CNN.com

I think the idea that a democrat would be weaker on terror or weaken our national defense against Al Qaeda has been debunked over the last few years. Its nice to see that BOTH Republicans and Democrats can now both run for office without the ridiculousness that pervayed.

Yeah, funny how continuing Bush's foreign policy is getting him kudos now. However, he's still got a ways to go to overcome what Clinton did to our defense back in the 90's. But agreed that it's POSSIBLE for a Democrat to be sane about these things.

Interesting - I'm sure I'll take heat for this, and I in no way shed any tears that this guy is dead (yay USA!), but did he ever renounce his citizenship? I assume so, right?

If he's running at you with a gun, you're not going to stop to check his papers. I think it's pretty clear where he stood.

So what about Rumsfeld's speech on Sept. 10th, 2001 that talked about continuing and extending the military cuts started during the Clinton administration?

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/spee...x?speechid=430

Nope. Due-process free assassination of an American citizen.

My point wasn't about where he stood, it was more about what lcjdnh says right above as far as assasination of an American citizen.

Slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not shedding a tear or complaining that he's dead - I just think it's a significant line that we should all recognize has been crossed.

Irrelevant hypothetical. Long on the "targeted killing" list despite his American citizenship and lack of due process.

Sets a dangerous precedent is all.

If the government decides you're a terrorist now, don't expect to be notified. They'll just send an assasin to take you out and you'll be dead before you know it.

Now was this guy a POS who deserved his fate...yup. Not arguing that. But it's a dangerous precedent.

I'm not sure how this is a dangerous precedent. If we'd targeted this guy in a come in Connecticut, I'd have a problem. Targeting him (was he the main target) in an Al-Qaeda camp in Yemen seems less dangerous.

Vast majority supported it in an unscientific poll. Hope he's enjoying his virgins otherwise he's in hell.

Open Channel - Vote: Should U.S. kill citizens overseas without affording them due process?

Not sure I see the distinction. Do you lose your due process rights as an American citizen by leaving the country's borders? This was not a we-tried-to-capture-but-had-killed-him. It was an actual assassination.

What about Padilla, a US citizen who was arrested in the US, tortured to the point of madness and when it came time to charge him as the "dirty bomber" the government backed out rather than proving the original charges.

I think the distinction is that unlike, say a Finnish barber shop for instance, a Yemeni Al Qaeda training camps are a pretty good place to put some level of "trust" into the military killing somebody.

I understand the slippery slope argument and I'm usually on that side of it. In this case, I'm indifferent due to "where" this man was killed. He certainly wasn't there trying to talk them into surrendering and turning over a new leaf. Is there a line to be drawn somewhere between witch hunts & bureaucracy run-wild? I think so...this just isn't it imho.

Already answered.