In my book.

hehe

When Brennan was asked if it would happen again he said "I defer to future policymakers"

Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled this is cruel and unusual punishment.

The Police regularly use Pepper Spray, allow me to correct that. The Police regularly use police strength pepper spray on people as a punitive measure, also Cruel and Unusual punishment in my opinion.

This was done to a Military Prisoner, which would fall under the President wouldn't it?

the US has more prisoners in long-term solitary confinement than most countries have prisoners, full stop. Long-term solitary confinement is torture: http://io9.com/why-solitary-confinement-is-the-worst-kind-of-psycholog-1598543595

The administration also has found a way to avoid distribution of the photographs just before Obama travels to Egypt to speak directly to Muslims. Government lawyers had promised a federal judge to turn over the photos by May 28, a week before the president's trip.On Wednesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president will try to block the court-ordered release of hundreds of photos showing US troops abusing prisoners; he reversed his position after military commanders warned that the images could stoke anti-American sentiment and endanger soldiers.

The same arguments were made last month against releasing so-called torture memos, Bush-era documents outlining often-harsh methods CIA agents could use when interrogating terror suspects. Obama released the memos anyway.

The pictures, said to show mistreatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the subject of a federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, an advocacy group. The government recently had agreed to release 44 photographs and said in court papers it was “processing for release a substantial number of other images,” for a total expected to be in the hundreds.

Gibbs said the president wants administration lawyers to challenge the photos' release based on national security. He said that argument was not used before.

“The president does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court,” he said.

The former Bush administration already argued against the release on national security grounds and lost. ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said that argument “has been made by the government multiple times, and has been rejected unequivocally every time.”In September 2008, a three-judge federal appeals panel in New York wrote “It is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

http://www.dawn.com/news/818553/obama-revives-old-arguments-on-torture-photos

2014 he still uses the argument. Tensions are already inflamed, give up on that shit. Doing it in the first place inflames the tensions, but it is the release of it that inflames. I wonder what the things are we don't know.

It started out so promising too
Obama said of the Freedom of Information Act in a January 21 memo, “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”

her as a domestic terrorist and offered a $1 million reward for assistance in her capture. On May 2, 2013, the FBI added her to the Most Wanted Terrorist List.

she was beaten and tortured during her incarceration in a number of different federal and state prisons.

But here's where I'm having bit of a problem connecting your assertion that it's best for her to not be extradited to a "country that tortures:" Relevance, or the lack thereof.

We both understand that the entities that tortured detainees (Mostly Islamic) did so for reasons pertaining to the so-called War of Terror. Plus, the US under President Obama has indicated that those methods are no longer used.

The harsh treatment that she received didn't happen as a course of official US policy, as did the torture of detainees under Bush, did it not? So are you alleging that she's would be tortured anyway, with or without official sanction today?

Are you saying the government of the United States would go out of it's way to torture someone NOT associated with the War on Terror and by an administration that has stated that torture practices are no longer engaged in? And what information would they want to derive from torturing her? Wouldn't torturing her ultimately risk the government's case against her?

Now, let me say this, I'm glad that Cuba has chosen NOT to extradite her back to the States. But not for the same reasons that you've dug a hole and dropped yourself into for. I believe that she was political prisoner who was innocent of the charges they railroaded her on. Sending her back to this country would be a miscarriage of justice. And frankly, I don't see what good it would do to connect one policy under Bush, to the ending of that policy under Obama.

The situation wouldn't merit the use of torture as an official policy, if that's what you're alleging right now. It's just silly to bring it up.

supermax facilities and into solitary confinement. I consider long term solitary confinement to be torture.

to be indicative of a mind set.

So, actually the point is rendered quite moot.

After a few American companies discuss how they are politically unable to open a factory or hotel on the island while Chesimard is free, the regime may become far more amenable, particularly after a few more months have passed. Also remember that the sanctions cannot be fully lifted without congressional approval, and both Democrats and Republicans demand Chesimard back on US soil.

There is also the matter of the millions of dollars in federal and state bounties on Chesimard that some may try to collect after more normal travel is restored.

Last edited Thu Dec 25, 2014, 07:25 AM - Edit history (1)

First thing that should be made clear is she was a target of COINTELPRO.

She beat several cases, often representing herself but the one case where her innocence was the most obvious was the one she was convicted on. Experts testified the wounds she suffered made it physically impossible to fire at officers, the only witness said she was hit with a bullet with her arms up. No gunpowder or fingerprints were on any of the weapons. The were well documented fairness issues such as as the judge blocking evidence at every turn. If you go with since the person she was with committed murder also means she is guilty also which is how a lot of laws are written you're correct as the law is written but calling her "cop killer" is a stretch since she didn't actually kill anyone.

The combination of this & other cases is probably among the worst cases of abuse from the justice system over the course of a lifetime. I stress she was a target of a COINTELPRO. Adding her to the most wanted terrorist in 2013 seems kinda backwards to me, especially since she didn't physically hurt anyone.

I usually keep my opinions to myself as I start feeling passionate when it comes to her. I have a lot admiration for how she handled herself in the face of all that.

On Wikipedia, I suggested that her bio should explain the point you make (that she was convicted although she didn't kill anyone) as follows: "The prosecution argued that, even if Shakur had not fired any shots, she could be convicted of Foerster's murder under the felony murder rule, which makes every participant in a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony." I'm not very well versed in the details of the case. Do you think that sentence is accurate?

I would add that murder charge in, even though the judge later dismissed it due to changes in the law. Further.....she was convicted on all 8 counts, including the violent predicates.

This indicates that the jury simply did not believe she was uninvolved, as she admitted on the stand that she knew her co-conspirators were armed.

but uninvolved in what? The weapons are in the car so I doubt she knew they had weapons even though something like what she admitted on the stand is hard to find. Officer lied in reports in grand jury the he saw her pull out a gun and start firing so whatever reason the police and "co-conspirators" decided to fire rounds at each other while the evidence points to her clearly complying with officer demands to surrender (putting her arms up which a bullet hit her in the process).

Uninvolved as in knowing that a firefight was about to happen which she clearly wasn't participating in. In any case, the weapon possession charges she was hit with she was probably a lot more not guilty on that one than the other ones since there isn't any evidence as far as I'm aware of including no fingerprints on the guns.

The whole trial was questionable at best which the all-white jury simply choose what to believe or what not to believe. DU seems to have the most pro-prosecutor attorneys.

first time reading which had to be at-least 5 or more years ago. I just wanted to get the basic forensic details right so I used wiki but also noticed that.

The thing I did remember which wiki very briefly mentions (in stating the charges she faced) is she was also convicted of murder for the passenger who was killed by police. Wiki mentions the two murder convictions.

I'm not sure how the furtherance of the felony part applies when was a stop initiated over a broken taillight. There is a local example of 3 or 4 very young participants in a burglary were all charged with a murder over the decision by 1 to decide to kill the homeowner(it was an unexpected encounter--not something pre-planned or had input from the other participants).

I think it was wiki that was I looking at but whatever it was had a lot more detailed information not just on that case but the others. I'm not an expert when it came to that but there certainly appeared to be grounds for an appeal and retrial at the very least.

is one of those states where assault cannot be a predicate for FMR...and I'm too lazy to go look it up right now. (Making pancakes.)

Hint it wasn't her, and the officer who made the claim he saw her with a gun (who later backtracked testifying he never saw her with a gun) never claimed she stole the gun and killed the officer with it, she was hit with multiple bullets with an expert claiming the clavicle injury wasn't possible if her arms weren't raised, refuting the officer's initial claim that she was firing bullets at him when he then fired his weapon, hitting her.

No, I mean, "Thanks, Cuba!"

She's a very smart loving woman. She hates racism and the institutions that perpetuate it. I believe she's committed to revolutionary struggle and has demonstrated that in her life in Cuba.

Her story is fascinating. She was convicted in the U.S. at a time and place when it was not possible for her to receive a fair trial. As a poster above said she was targeted by COINTELPRO, a program that illegally harassed civil rights advocates including Fred Hampton and Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm delighted the Cuban government granted her asylum and won't extradite her.

I believe that even if my family member had been killed that day on the New Jersey turnpike I would not request her extradition. From what I've read, those times were like a war zone in our country. There were casualties. She's well-loved in Cuba. She is not a threat to anyone. Leave her be.

If Ms Shakur is demanded to be let back on American soil in exchange for some congressional action, then President Obama, after seeing the evidence, should pardon her immediately upon return, and that will end any attempts by NJ to prosecute her for a crime she may not have committed, and over 40 years ago at that. The president has nothing to lose for doing this, even if VP Biden decides to run for President. Also, while he is at it, pardon Don Seigleman of Alabama and that action will tell the Rs and Karl Rove's gain to stick it "whatyagonnadoboutit". (I just made up the last term)

Chesimard was convicted of murder in state court in New Jersey, and thus the only person who currently can pardon her or commute her sentence is NJ Governor Christie. Given Chesimard's unpopularity in NJ, neither he nor even a future Democratic governor would likely ever consider any leniency.

In that case, Cuba should keep Chesimard for the time being.

I wonder what it will cost the U.S. for her extradition?

Lots of sports writers continued to refer to him as Cassius Clay, which I thought was a real asshole policy. Still do.