The sad case of an innocent man who cannot be released
Jonathan Montgomery | Virginia Department of Corrections
Here’s some info about the troubling case of a wrongful sexual abuse conviction of a young man, Jonathan Montgomery, on charges later proved fabricated.
He was charged (and convicted) m as an adult even though he had “committed” the (fabricated) offense when he was 14. His accuser has since been charged with perjury.
And Montgomery is still in prison, where he has been wrongfully since 2008. This is because of Virginia’s 21 day rule, and despite a judge’s order for his release. Apparently, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is keeping him there.
From the Virginia American Civil Liberties Union:
Richmond, VA – November 15, 2012 -The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia sent a letter to Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli encouraging them to take action to assist an innocent Hampton man in gaining his freedom and to reform the state’s 21-day rule.
“No person in Virginia should be deprived of liberty for crimes he or she did not commit nor held any longer than necessary once known to be innocent,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Claire Gastañaga. “This is another unfortunate example of the problems stemming from Virginia’s 21-day rule. Wrongfully convicted individuals need a quicker process to have their convictions overturned and gain their freedom.”
Despite the recantation of the victim, and agreement by all involved parties – defense counsel, prosecutors and the court-that Jonathan Montgomery is an innocent man, Montgomery remains in prison. Montgomery is sitting in prison for a crime he did not commit because evidence of his innocence was not discovered until more than 21 days after his conviction. Under Virginia law, a convicted person has just 21 days to return to the circuit court to have the conviction vacated. After 21 days, the individual must appeal to the higher courts for a “writ of actual innocence.” The only other course of action is to appeal to the Governor for a pardon.
AP Photo | Steve Helber
According to media reports, both the Governor and Attorney General have said they intend to help Mr. Montgomery win his freedom by using their authority to either expedite the filing of and decision on a “writ of actual innocence” or granting a pardon. The ACLU is encouraged by the Governor and Attorney General’s willingness to take action to quickly grant Mr. Montgomery his freedom.
“We are pleased to hear that the Attorney General is drafting legislation to reform 21-day rule,” added Gastañaga. “We welcome the opportunity to partner with the Governor and Attorney General to draft legislation for the upcoming session that will prevent future injustices by allowing circuit courts to consider evidence of actual innocence and set aside unjust verdicts at any time regardless of whether such evidence is discovered within 21 days after conviction.”
“Because of DNA evidence, we are seeing more and more cases of wrongful convictions,” said Gastañaga. “If we are to trust our criminal justice system, then innocent people need to have a better system for having their convictions set aside so they can more swiftly obtain their freedom for crimes they never committed.”
A copy of the ACLU’s letter can be found here (pdf).
More information from The Associated Press:
Jonathan Montgomery, 26, was convicted in 2008 of sexually assaulting Elizabeth Paige Coast. The accuser, then 17, claimed Montgomery assaulted her outside her grandmother’s house in Hampton in 2000 when he was 14 and she was 10. Montgomery was sentenced to 7½ years in prison.
The Associated Press does not typically identify alleged victims of sexual assault. However, Coast is being identified because authorities say she admitted to fabricating the story and she has been charged with perjury.
On Friday, Hampton Circuit Judge Randolph T. West tossed Montgomery’s felony convictions and ordered him released from prison.
But when relatives went to pick Montgomery up at the prison in Jarratt, they learned Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli’s office had declared the order invalid because the judge lacked jurisdiction.
“This is a tragedy, and the attorney general is very concerned about it,” Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said in an email. “However, Virginia law will not allow the release.”
. . .Montgomery’s case was first reported by The Daily Press. The Newport News newspaper reported that prosecutor Anton Bell strongly backed Pavek’s request to throw out Montgomery’s convictions and sentence, and West expressed regret for having convicted the man based on Coast’s testimony four years ago.
“You will never forget this, and God knows, I will never forget it,” West said.
Cuccinelli’s full statement on this matter is here.
The gal who accused him, and who has been charged with perjury? She’s free on bond.
November 15, 2012 - 4:51 PM
I wonder if he ever contacted the Innocence Project?
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
or UVA’s Innocence Project
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alumni/uvalawyer/f08/innocenceproject.htm
I guess there’s no chance Cuccinelli could be convinced to secede.
Shrill,
I doubt the Innocence Project would have been able to help this kid. He was convicted purely on the lies of a girl, who alleged Montgomery had abused her when he was 14 and she was 10. Absent her persuasive recantation, his goose was cooked.
The innocence project usually opens old cases and reinvestigates to get a prisoner freed. In this case, there’s no question about guilt or innocence and not much to investigate. It’s like our very own Gitmo, right here in VA.
Yeah, but the most common method they’ve used to free innocent guys is DNA. Even if the girl hadn’t recanted, they wouldn’t have had much to go on. They could have send investigators to talk to the girl, but if she recanted after that, the prosecutors would have cast a wary eye on it.
What kills me is the end of the AP story. She accused Montgomery (after her parents caught her looking at online porn, and she felt she needed a cover story for that) because his family had moved away and she thought the cops would never be able to find him. Jeesh. She’s evilly dumb.
I’d have to do some research, but I don’t think another state has that most ridiculous 21 day rule…VA doesn’t seem to have any problem leaving innocent people in prison…When Warner was governor he ordered the DNA of convicted felons to be retested and lo and behold, innocent men were rotting in prison…but the testing has never been completed on all the samples…Who knew innocence has an expiration date?
I have long considered Virginia’s 21 day rule to be asinine. This is proof of it.
This story is a tragedy if there ever was one.
I have to admit that it’s fun watching Cooch’s scrambling CYA job, though. I’m gonna pop some popcorn and watch how badly he bungles this.
Poor Montgomery. I hope he gets cleared out and can put this behind him. I also hope we can finally be rid of the ridiculous 21-day rule.
I agree that the 21-day rule is cruel and unusual punishment for an innocent person, but KNOWING this man is innocent and keeping him incarcerated anyway is a crime against humanity. May God have mercy. This is an absolute outrage!
Is it possible to have any more idiotic a law exposed in any more egregious a way? Is it possible for the powers that be to waste any more time in releasing this innocent man?
I am afraid the answer to both questions is yes.
Isn’t there such a thing as false imprisonment, and if so can those holding him such as the gov. be charged. I’d love to see that lock the gov. and attorney general away in the worst prison we could find, bet the prisoners would have a field day with them.
This young man can become very wealthy when he is finally released, I’d sue everyone I possibly could.
FTA: “After 21 days, the individual must appeal to the higher courts for a “writ of actual innocence.””
Dan,
This is what I mentioned some time ago in a previous thread. I do not remember what the topic was, but I did mention somewhere that “not guilty” is not the same as “innocent.”
In the eyes of the court, “not guilty” and “innocent” are two distinct findings.
So a woman falsely accused a man of sexual assault?
“So a woman falsely accused a man of sexual assault?”
Yeah, just like Kathleen Willey, Paula whatshername and Juanita Broderick.. How soon you forget, Henry. . .
this is a sad example of law gone wrong. i remember a relatively recent situation of cooch getting behind the release of aninnocent man, but i believe that case might have involved dna.
i suggest that the guy who has the power of the pen contact greg habeeb, john edwards, or onzlee ware about getting the 21-day period law changed.
and, since this apparent tragedy occured in Hampton, perhaps dano can also get someone at the Virginian-Pilot to turn up the political heat down there.
#13 And?
Oh, Henry’s probably one of those Freepers who thinks every other rape accusation is a false one.
Where would you be today Henry if the young lady had accused you of rape? Just asking…
Under an Executive Order, issued by Obama, any American citizen can be detained and held indefinitely for no reason. . .welcome to reality liberals.
Me thinks it would behove someone in the tragedy of errors we call the government to spend a little less on wasteful projects, and a little on finding and repealing all of the laws in Va. such as this one.
Hmmmm… Imagine, innnocence has a 21 day time limit…what else has an expiration dtae that has yet to be discovered or realized??
Your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with this case, Leon. I know you believe Obama is connected to any and all wrongs in this world, but it just isn’t so.
There have been many many innocent people held in VA’s prisons or, after release on parole. never being notified that they were actually exonerated through DNA testing…
This is just the latest:
“The Commonwealth of Virginia learned that Bennett Barbour was innocent nearly two years ago, when DNA testing cleared him of the crime. Virginia authorities, however, never informed Barbour of his innocence. (State officials claim to have mailed a letter with the test results to Barbour’s last four known addresses, but none of those letters ever reached him.) Barbour learned of the DNA tests that proved his innocence only last month, on Feb. 5, when he received a phone call …”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/bennett_barbour_exonerated_of_rape_in_virginia_how_the_state_is_botching_the_dna_retesting_and_notification_of_old_cases.html
#18 The U.S. cannot hold you indefinitely for being falsely accused of rape. However, under Virginia’s idiotic 21-day rule, Virginia can.
Care to try again, Leon?
While this is a sad case of the 21 day rule not working, I’m not sure that it’s enough to write off the rule entirely. The 21 day rule exists to protect the finality of convictions: giving victims and their families the ability to rest easy, knowing that the criminal who has hurt them can’t endlessly appeal to the Circuit Court and drag out litigation indefinitely. The appeals courts exist specifically to deal with these kinds of issues.
Obviously, the law is designed to protect the victims of crimes and ensure judicial efficiency. It’s sad to see a case like this, but the law does outline the proper channels that this man can take to appeal his conviction based on this recantation. I can only hope that, with the help of both the prosecution and the defense, that will happen in a speedy manner.
Debbie,
His Leon’s comment is quite relevant. Everyone decries someone being put in jail when they have not been convicted of a crime, or are found to be innocent after the fact.
It’s the way it is. Your rights are slowly being taken away… First Amendment, Second, Fourth… Fifth… quick and speedy trail. All going away.
Rawrly, I can see the rationale behind such a rule, but I don’t think that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to give victims or families peace of mind – certainly their rights to that don’t begin to supercede the rights of the accused in the system.
Rawrly, if the effect of the rule is to keep an innocent man in prison — where he’s already been for FOUR YEARS, for God’s sake — efficiency in the system be damned. Hell, it’s more efficient for trains to simply run over automobiles at at-grade crossings and keep going, too. That doesn’t make it right or just.
BTW “ensure judicial efficiency” means “not spend taxes” in search of the truth.
Think about it. Sound like someone we know?
BTW, what ever happened to, Blackstone’s formulation (a.k.a. Blackstone’s ratio) — i.e., the principle: “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, — Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone ?????
hey Leon, i think your post #18 is right on the money.
And, the first three monkeys appear to beee…”see no evil” Debbie, “hear no evil” Shrillary, and “speak no evil” gdud….regarding obuma’s Executive Order thingy.
#18 The U.S. cannot hold you indefinitely for being falsely accused of rape. However, under Virginia’s idiotic 21-day rule, Virginia can.
Care to try again, Leon?
Comment by gdad — November 16, 2012 @ 9:37 am
Under the new executive order issued by Obama they can hold you indefinitely for no reason. Are you uninformed or unintelligent?
Leon,
I think both of gdud’s feet rest squarely in the “unintelligent” category.
“new executive order issued by Obama “
We’ll need a link to that one. Thanks in advance.
#29 Leon, why don’t you provide some actual information rather than just making a flat declaration?
Here it is.. I was pretty sure it was Kristen who said there is no “innocent” in our system of justice.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2012/06/a-houston-case-of-stand-your-ground/#comment-181392
Re: Leon @ 2:30 pm
Citation, please.
@Dave Hicks,
From our mutual friend…
http://monachuslex.com/?p=2055
The Obama Executive Order Re: indefinite detention pertains to the people held at Guantanamo who have been arrested because of evidence of being a terrorist threat. Republicans and Tpers have also been claiming that Obama has abused exective orders and claiming thaty he has issued over 900 executive orders during his term, a false charge that has been debunked by snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp
Jack,
If you are responding for Leon, I don’t see, in either AUMF or MCA, that allegations of being a domestic rapist is one of the categories of alien enemies or belligerents who have substantially supported the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces.
For that matter, the debate about and litigation on AUMF and/or MCA has to do with arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens, on American soil, without warrant, charges or speedy trial — as belligerents who have substantially supported the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces. The subject of this thread is about correction of an error after trial & conviction.
IANAL, however, I do believe that Hedges et al v. Obama et al was basically a 1A case that has nothing to do with domestic rape incarceration post trial and conviction.
I am still waiting for Leon to show where there is a “new executive order issued by Obama” that authorizes holding one “indefinitely for no reason [emphasis added].”
Leon is referring to the NDAA and US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier’s ruling on the recent hold order of the injunction from Hedges v Obama.
The only EO [that I could find] issued by the Obama admin regarding the NDAA was this one: http://bit.ly/TIIrgY which is actually a requirement for periodic review of captives at GITMO.
Again, the hypocrisy astounds. Republicans had no problem with indefinite detention when it was started under Bush, but now under Obama, they do.
On top of all of that, indefinite detention has nothing to do with rapists or any other domestic, non-terrorist crimes. Essentially, he’s babbling irrelevantly. The exact wording of the [non]applicable NDAA follows:
“…a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Thanks for playing, Leon. You’re an awesome parrot. Next talking point, please.
Careful, J.M. White.
You are treading dangerously close to “speaking for Leon” and he that tends to upset him.
He ascribes everything he finds wrong or unpleasant to Obama, ESPECIALLY when it’s unjustified.
If it rains when the weatherman said it would be sunny, it’s Obama’s fault. If you go to a store to purchase a sale item, and they’re all gone, it’s Obama’s fault. If you go to bed feeling good and wake up feeling bad, it’s Obama’s fault. There is nothing bad under the sun that can’t be blamed on Obama.
“If it rains when the weatherman said it would be sunny, it’s Obama’s fault. If you go to a store to purchase a sale item, and they’re all gone, it’s Obama’s fault. If you go to bed feeling good and wake up feeling bad, it’s Obama’s fault. There is nothing bad under the sun that can’t be blamed on Obama.”
Leon’s and Suzie’s and Frank’s ignorance . . . Obama’s fault!
Hey dano,
Since this travesty happened in Hampton, doncha think you could enlist the aid of the Virginian-Pilot to publicize the matter? …as well as using your own pen-power an appeal to john edwards, onzlee ware and Greg Habeeb to get the law changed?
Surely you see the merit in that?
Hey guys, I know now that the national election is over some of you are contractually obligated to resume the daily attacks on Cuccenelli, but isn’t your beef here more with a law that needs to be changed rather than with the AG for following the law in it’s current state. After all, aren’t you the same ones who are all over him if he dares interpret a law?
J.M., personally I have no problem with indefinite detention of terrorists under either president. However, the hypocrisy lies with Obama and the left who ruthlessly and uninformedly assailed both Bush and McCain in 2008 for these detentions. Now, Obama is president and all of the sudden he, and you, are okay with it? Let me say again, I’m okay with no matter who is in office because I’m okay with the principle. The left, on the other, doesn’t appear to be standing on principle, but instead on politics.
Chuck
Ipersonally am opposed to the indefinite detention order and I still believe that Guantanamo should be closed and that any prisoners remaining there should be tried and if they are found gulity locked up. It ios one of the things about which I strongly disagree with the President.
The issue being made here by Leon and Co. is that the order applies to every citizen and that the government can just go around jailing people indiscrimnately for no reason. That is not the case and is just more right wing paranoia.
Leon,
I think both of gdud’s feet rest squarely in the “unintelligent” category.
Comment by Frank — November 16, 2012 @ 2:50 pm
This from the guy who has caricatured himself as the ignorant redneck charcter Gomer Pyle and thinks that his constant “Hey”is somehow endearing or cute.
Goooolee!
Gomer @ 7:44
I think you said that already. Having a little trouble remembering tonight ? Or is this goig to be like Benghazi— the same post over and over and over again?
“hey dano,
Since this travesty happened in Hampton, doncha think you could enlist the aid of the Virginian-Pilot to publicize the matter?”
Frank, why don’t you do some research into this, and report back to me whether they did do any stories on this injustice or not? If they haven’t I’ll certainly encourage them to do so.
Re: dave @ 7:56 pm
I totally agree on trying the remaining detainees and strongly disprove of the President actions on this issue.
OTOH, I still think “jailing people indiscrimnately for no reason” is a major stretch and what ever the actual practices are it did not originate with Obama.
Without adequate judicial due process and review? Yup, IMHO.
OTOH, indiscrimnately for no reason suggest a total lack of judicial review and/or a lack of administrative review. Hedges et al v. Obama et al establishes there is a level of judicial review. NDAA and the EO issued by the Obama admin requires periodic administrative review.
hey dano, why don’t you lend them a hand? since you indicate they may have done some stories, it appears as though they haven’t moved anybody. give’em some help, dano. sheesh.
or, if there IS some positive movement, why don’t you report it?
“OTOH, I still think “jailing people indiscrimnately for no reason” is a major stretch and what ever the actual practices are it did not originate with Obama.”
Leon’s been silent on this issue almost since he first brought it up. Apparently he realizes how wrong he was.
Or . . . maybe the administration has arrested him and his holding him without cause!
Golly I hope not.
Frank, if you know something, tell us what it is. Why be coy about it? Give us a link . .
Dan:
“You are treading dangerously close to “speaking for Leon” and he that tends to upset him.”
Leon could use a spokesman.
Chuck:
“J.M., personally I have no problem with indefinite detention of terrorists under either president.”
All it takes is a simple change or expansion in classification as to who qualifies to be considered a terrorist and therefore be indefinitely detained. The slippery slope concerns me.
I don’t have a link, dano.
You wrote about a problem with a law, and it appears as tho all commenters believe that the law should be changed. YOU have connections in tidewater via the Virginian-Pilot, and YOU have pen-power. I suggested that you USE them.
You appear to be brushing me off. Why?
For my part, I will do what I can with my legislators.
Chuck: To be fair, I haven’t expressed how I lean regarding indefinite detention. That said, I was outraged when it happened under Bush and I’m still appalled at it now. Try to imagine for a minute losing nine years of your life in a jail cell on foreign soil without ever being charged with a crime…
I’m NOT okay with the suspension of due process under any circumstances or administrations. When you start picking and choosing who gets due process in law, it’s only a matter of time before it expands to other areas and people. If we wait until it’s us they’re detaining, you and I both know that it’ll be too late.
I’m not alone. There are others like me. Like any other draconian measure, the populous just gets numb to the injustice of it and life goes on. I’m VERY disappointed with Obama regarding GITMO. Those detainees should be charged, tried and sent to their appropriate ends. My opinion isn’t going to change a thing, though.
This is not a political issue; this is a human rights issue. People have been jailed indefinitely for NO crime. They are decade-long captives held on nothing but suspicion. What if you unknowingly bought a car that the CIA had “solid intel” on being involved in a terrorist plot and you were arrested, shipped to GITMO and never even told what the charges were? Would it make a difference if you were interrogated repeatedly as to your involvement with a group that you had no idea even existed?
Keep in mind, I have no doubt that there are detainees there who indeed are involved with terrorist organizations. They should be tried, as well. I don’t care if they’re convicted on conditional terms pending their cooperation. Personally, I think a man faced with 90-100 years in prison is a lot more apt to cooperate than a man faced with “sit here and rot for whatever we threw you in here”. Maybe I’m just idealistic.
The fact remains that until we stand together, regardless of political affiliation and demand that this injustice be remanded, nothing will get done. As we numb ourselves to the truth, with each arrest made and each expansion of the reach of the law, we watch liberty wither on the vine.
38.Leon is referring to the NDAA and US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier’s ruling on the recent hold order of the injunction from Hedges v Obama.
Thanks for playing, Leon. You’re an awesome parrot. Next talking point, please.
Comment by J.M. White — November 16, 2012 @ 5:23 pm
Try NDAA 2012; not 2011 JM. Thanks for trying to play.
39.Careful, J.M. White.
You are treading dangerously close to “speaking for Leon” and he that tends to upset him.
He ascribes everything he finds wrong or unpleasant to Obama, ESPECIALLY when it’s unjustified.
Comment by Dan Casey — November 16, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
Typical Lypocrisy. Can’t argue the point, can’t defend your Messiah. . .resort to attacking someone who does not buy into the
liberal lie.
Leon’s and Suzie’s and Frank’s ignorance . . . Obama’s fault!
Comment by Dan Casey — November 16, 2012 @ 6:01 pm
Dan Casey; expert in ignorance.
Leon, I’m actually on your side on this issue.
I offered what proof I could find in my little bit of research and you offered absolutely nothing but your own blathering despite repeated requests.
Logically, this leaves me with two probable conclusions: 1) You read this tidbit somewhere else and wanted to squawk it on Dan’s blog with no vetting of your own, or 2) You DID search for a brand new Executive Order as requested and could find nothing, making your proclamation nothing more than an unsubstantiated shot from the hip.
I’d be glad to consider any other variables you’d like to add to the equation. I’m so very interested in it all.
“blathering despite repeated requests” to provide a source.*
J.M. White,
I’m betting 1 and then 2 to the extent Google would let him.
I see that Leon can produce no evidence of his allegation. Neither had Frankie. Ignorant parrots.
Certainly Virginia’s 21 day rule is and long has been a travesty. However here is my question about this sad situatio: What legal authority does the Attorney General have to declare as invalid the Circuit Court order directing this man’s release? The AG’s office could appeal the order and seek to have it invalidated by an appellate court, but there is no judicial authority vested in the AG himself whereby he can invalidate a court order.
blathering despite repeated requests” to provide a source.*
Comment by J.M. White — November 16, 2012 @ 11:16 pm
See post 55. If you need help finding stuff on the internet. . .call computer geeks. Running your mouth too much can be cured with a pair
of socks. . .simply put a sock in it.
Yes Jack, I did say that. This guy doesn’t need the court to “declare” him anything. The entire case should be vacated. Why on earth would a guy who did nothing get the same “not guilty” OJ got? The court doesnt need to declare him “innocent”…no such label exists.
I don’t know of any “libs” who don’t think those detainees should be brought to the US and put on trial. It’s my greatest disappointment with Obama, and I have a few. Either we can make a case or we can’t, and if we can’t, they get to go home. But the people on the right just seem to have developed a problem with this since Obama took office…while Bush was in office, it was okey dokey.
#55 Leon, we’re still waiting for some sort of link to what you’re talking about. If you can’t find anything, please just admit it. If you can, provide it. If you do neither, read JM’s post at #58.
#55 And mind you, Leon, I am no fan of parts of the Patriot Act and then the NDAA.
I believe The Cooch should personally pay Montgomery, out of his pocket, for every day that Cooch thwarts his release.
Certainlly, it’s not Cooch’s fault that the guy ended up in prison — that’s an entirely different question. But Cooch’s actions are keeping him locked up longer than he needs to be. And Cooch ought to be held accountable for that in some way.
Can anyone suggest a daily “rate” for bring unjustly locked in a maximum-security prison?
Dan@10:21
Let’s start the bidding at $5000 a day. That means that in 11 days we could wipe out the $55000 that he poketed from the impostor Bobby Thompson, or whatever his name was.
hey dano,
is Cooch following the law?
When you read the entirety of the article, and the Attorney General’s Statement which you provided in your hit piece, you will see that both Cooch and McDonnell will do what they can to expedite the process.
If you want to change the law, there is a way to try and do that.
But, nah, you and your lunch-line partner davie would prefer to falsely slander Cooch. Yeah boy, that’s gonna do Mr. Montogmery, and others like him, a whole lot of good.
You and davie are doing nothing more exploiting the sad situation for your own amusement.
hey J.M.,
I’m with you on rendition. Unfortunately, our current and former potuses aren’t with us.
See post 55. If you need help finding stuff on the internet. . .call computer geeks. Running your mouth too much can be cured with a pair
of socks. . .simply put a sock in it.
Comment by Leon — November 17, 2012 @ 9:37 am
Perhaps we’ve been moving too fast for you. The NDAA, regardless of year, is NOT an Executive Order. You’ve been yakking about an EO from Obama. We want a link, buddy. Because of your history here of spouting off complete and total b.s., you have zero credibility. Bold claims require bold evidence, and all we require is a link to this alleged EO.
You don’t have one. If you did, you wouldn’t have been able to resist shoving it down our throats long ago. Instead, you squawked a talking point (without actually comprehending the subject at hand) from one of your handlers and now realize that you have nothing to back it up. So you want us to do your homework for you. Guess what? I did, and you still come up wanting.
Section 1021 of the NDAA for FY 2012 – (a) Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force . . . includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.
Subsection (b) explains to whom this is applicable. Nothing has changed, man. Whether you are a citizen or not, and long before 9-11-01, if you were suspected of terrorism against the US, you could be held indefinitely. This is the first time in the decades that the US has been doing this that the language is actually codified. Still, it’s not new. Just because you’re just now finding out about it doesn’t make it any more or less tragic; it just makes you uninformed.
(c) explains that suspects can be held until the end of hostilities. Again, there is no change from the previous NDAA and none of this is new.
(d)…Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (emphasis added) Do you see that, Leon? Read it again – slowly. Let it sink in.
(e)…Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
You really haven’t read any of this act, have you? Your masters told you to jump and jump you did. Don’t be a fool, Leon. As much as the Dems may be pulling the wool over the eyes of their constituency, your Repubs have been doing it for just as long. They refer to people like you as useful idiots. You just take whatever Mama Bird regurgitates in your mouth and pass it on down the line. Try being a part of the solution for once instead of the problem.
Wake up, Neo. The Matrix has you.
@Kristen: “The court doesnt need to declare him “innocent”…no such label exists.”
Here we go again. Yes, the court can find you innocent… yes, “innocent.” Dan mentions it right in the article: “…the individual must appeal to the higher courts for a “writ of actual innocence.””
hey J.M. and Leon,
I agree with the primary point all of you are making. That said, the link below takes you to a description of what obama did in the last moments of 2011. In my opinion, obama has expanded police/military powers to include snatching willy wonka off the corner of Jefferson and Campell without charges, and hold him indefinitely….provided that the powers that be believe that the snatchee is suspiciously involved in a terrorist plot. And I note…there’s lots a wiggle room there. do ya trust the gov’mint?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/
What part of “terror suspects” and “…a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners”, and documented “judicial review” as shown in Hedges et al v. Obama et al don’t you folk understand?
“Indiscriminately” and “for no reason” suggest a total lack of judicial review and/or a lack of administrative review.
The courts do accept cases. NDAA and the EO issued by the Obama admin requires periodic administrative review.
Normal time-lines for VI A/s “the right to a speedy and public trial” are blurred. However, “Indiscriminately” and “for no reason” is a serious stretch given documented court oversight.
I see the MidAtlantic Innocence Project is now involved in the Montgomery case. This should speed up the release if Cuccinelli would get out of the way.
hey shrill,
Cooch CAN’T get out of the way.. The LAW has to be followed. Cooch CAN help expedite THAT process. idiot.
FYI see: http://tinyurl.com/bnlngtz
Re: The Virginia Division of Legislative Services’ brief on 2013 Session: General Assembly Issues
**
SNIP
Actual Innocence
The General Assembly may see legislation
related to actual innocence, when a convicted
felon claims innocence based on evidence,
unknown or unavailable at the time of conviction,
that proves innocence. In 2004, the
General Assembly expanded the law to allow a
felon to submit non-DNA evidence, such as
fingerprints, ballistics, witnesses, and recanted
testimony. In the 2012 Session, several bills to
ease the standards related to actual innocence
narrowly failed in committee. The Virginia Bar
Association and the Office of the Attorney
General support removing the current limit that
allows filing only one writ per conviction and
“creating a reasonable doubt” vs. “proving
beyond a reasonable doubt.”
SNIP
**