I really dislike Pat Buchanan but did you notice last night he slipped about KSM's children?

[NNN0LHI]

He said how can KSM be given fair trial if the people doing the questioning had told him they were going to kill his family if he didn't talk? Whats a federal judge going to say about that?

I ask how can anything he said be believed under those circumstances? Hell, if some thugs were holding my kids under the threat of death I would implicate myself and anyone else the questioners wanted me to implicate to save my kids. Wouldn't anyone?

Anyone else catch that on Hardball last night? That was the first time I have heard that detail mentioned on cable.

Don

[aquart]

1. That's why the reds don't want this to come to trial.

An honest court would throw out the case because of misconduct.

[Fuzz]

2. I think that was an episode of 24

[librechik]

6. if only

It's absolutely true--and nobody will say where those kids are even now, by the way.

[Warpy]

3. They are going to have to throw out 100% of his confession

since it was all likely obtained under duress.

They might still have enough circumstantial evidence and enough of a paper/computer trail to put him away. If they don't, they'll make one up.

The right wing's fears are unfounded in this case, the way they are in most cases.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Exactly. They have enough to put him away without all that.

But all that is why the ones who are screaming are screaming.

And now Glenn Beck is now openly encouraging war crimes on the radio. And he has the nerve to suggest that people against torture and the like are not Americans.

[Bitwit1234]

5. You are correct about Pat

He looks, acts and talks like a typical OLD WHITE REPUBLICAN MALE.

[Honeycombe8]

7. He was making the same point as the pundit who said the AG pre-judged the case...

when he said that the man WOULD be found guilty.

The point of all those kinds of arguments is that the defense attorney would rightly make an argument to the court that the defendant can't get a fair trial and must be released. That's a valid argument.

Some famous defendant got off, I believe, when Richard Nixon commented before trial that the guy was guilty, and the statement was printed in the newspapers. It taints the jury pool (in that case, it was the whole nation), so the guy was released, I think. Buchanan brought up that case, I think.

It's a valid point. I couldn't believe all these big shots on TV saying the guy is guilty, before his trial, if only because that brings this defense into play. Stupid comment to make.

[conscious evolution]

8. That was the Manson trial

and the case was continued anyway.
IIRC,when questioned no one on the jury said they saw the newspaper held up by one of mansons followers.

[Honeycombe8]

9. Thanks. Now I remember. But a mistrial was requested because of it. Glad he didn't get off! nt