| Author | Message | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
| | CB wrote: | | Still waiting for you to provide a motive for Israel to knowingly attack a US Navy ship. |
Criminal Law
Motive vs Intent
“Intent refers simply to the deliberateness
of the act -- consciously choosing to commit
the crime. Motive is the offender’s reason
for the act”
The Anatomy of Motive, John Douglas
Note: Generally, motive is immaterial in
establishing criminal liability
http://www.finance.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/sds/CrimLaw.pdf | |  | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Note: Generally, motive is immaterial in establishing criminal liability |
For the act itself, true.
Proof of motive is not required for the conviction of a crime. The existence of motive is immaterial to the matter of guilt when that guilt is clearly established.
However if the 'offense' is intent (as in whether Israel intentionally attacked a US Navy ship), it is highly relevant, especially since there is no evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship.
Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent.
Lack of motive combined with lack of evidence of intent makes your so-called 'case' lame. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
| | fungalfoot wrote: | Criminal Law
Motive vs Intent
“Intent refers simply to the deliberateness
of the act -- consciously choosing to commit
the crime. Motive is the offender’s reason
for the act”
The Anatomy of Motive, John Douglas
Note: Generally, motive is immaterial in
establishing criminal liability
http://www.finance.pamplin.vt.edu/faculty/sds/CrimLaw.pdf
Motive and intent are different things as the above quote makes plain.
Prosecution only has to prove intent, not motive. |
| CB wrote: | For the act itself, true.
Proof of motive is not required for the conviction of a crime. The existence of motive is immaterial to the matter of guilt when that guilt is clearly established.
However if the 'offense' is intent (as in whether Israel intentionally attacked a US Navy ship), it is highly relevant, especially since there is no evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship.
Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent.
Lack of motive combined with lack of evidence of intent makes your so-called 'case' lame. |
Is this the best you can do for mother Israel?
There is ample evidence that Israel intended to attack a US Navy ship:
1. Israel's warning to America that they would sink unidentified ships. Israel obviously knew that the Liberty was already off Sicily. Israel obviously did not want a spy ship listening in on their secret wartime messages.
2. Israel's extensive aerial surveillance, from very close quarters.
3. The Stars and Stripes and hull markings.
4. Overheard radio messages from Israeli pilots saying "It's an American ship."
5. Extensive NSA transcripts that were ordered destroyed but expert American witnesses can testify to their prior existence. These clearly show that the Israelis knew they were attacking the Liberty.
6. Israel claims they thought they were attacking the Egyptian El Queseir.
These two ships are vastly different in appearance as the following shows:
No sane, and honest military man could confuse these two on a day when visibility was perfect.
7. | Quote: | | Actually, Israel's immediate cessation of the attack when the Liberty finally signalled its identity is strong evidence of lack of intent. |
The Israeli objection to the Liberty was clearly because she was an electronic surveillance vessel. The repeated strafes by Israeli jets with cannon and rocket fire and napalm took out all of the radio aerials and satellite dishes and killed 7. The torpedo which struck the Liberty hit her amidships in the hold exactly where the communications centre was situated, instantly killing 25. Israel had achieved all she sought to achieve. The Liberty was rendered useless as a spy ship. Mission accomplished! The MTB could well afford to end the attack; she could ill afford to continue the attack against a finally admitted, clearly identified, American ship. The cover up had just commenced and in Washington LBJ was ordering the recall of the fighters sent to relieve the Liberty.
8. But this is an uneven match. The Israeli defense is subsidised by the American taxpayer. The American citizen pays his taxes to the State Treasury, who gives some of this money in economic aid to Israel, who gives some of this money back to AIPAC, who uses the money to buy up US Congressmen, who work to deprive the Liberty survivors of their day in court. A self-funding defense! How stupendous! Clever, clever Israel! Clever, clever Jews. But your very, very expensive scam has been found out.
9. The law says it is not necessary to prove motive, as you admit.
10. Intent is a state of mind. It depends on the thoughts in the accused's mind at the time of the crime. In this case it is impossible to assess the intent of the accused because the prosecution cannot examine the accused's testimony. The defense has consistently refused to present any Israeli evidence as to the state of mind of the accused thus depriving the prosecution the opportunity of cross examination. The defense is running scared. They still insist on proof of motive although legal authority has been produced that proof of motive is not necessary. Now you say it is a side issue of intent.
Generally, motive is immaterial in establishing criminal liability.
[John Douglas]
Motive in itself is seldom an element of any given crime... [Wikipedia]
While evidence of a motive may be admissible at
trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime. [Law Dictionary] | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
WHY THE ISRAELI APOLOGISTS HAVE LOST
In order to prove 'mistaken identity' it is essential that the Apologists lead some Israeli evidence as to what the Israelis were thinking at the time. Thus far they have relied on American evidence only. The Americans cannot possibly testify as to what the Israelis were thinking at the time of the attack and the pre-attack aerial reconnaisance. The obvious exception to this is the reported conversations of Israeli pilots in NSA transcripts (which were ordered destroyed) but to the prior existence of which there is expert testimony.
A US Naval seaman can testify that a torpedo struck the Liberty but he cannot testify as to whether that torpedo was intended for the Liberty or whether it was intended for the El Queseir. This whole case depends on the lack, or presence, of a mistaken state of mind. The only people who can testify to this are the Israelis. Yet the Apologists cannot, will not, lead any Israeli evidence.
The Apologists have therefore conceded defeat by default and for the purposes of WWE Israel is guilty as charged, ie she murdered 34 US Navy seamen and destroyed a US Navy vessel and she caused the wounding of 173 further US Navy seamen.
Israel is supposed to be an ally of America. America is certainly an ally of Israel given the massive economic and military support she gives to Israel. One might have expected Israel in the circumstances to co-operate with a full, independent and open investigation as to the Liberty Incident. But no, this is not the Israeli way. My own personal point of view is that Israel stabs her friends in the back and then runs away. 
Reams and reams of American live testimony are readily available to the Israeli defense. But there is zero live testimony available to the Liberty survivors. We want to examine the actual words spoken by the Israeli witnesses at the various Israeli inquiries. How can a fair debate/inquiry be conducted with such inequality? Yet even with such a weighty advantage the Israeli apologists still evade questions, SPAM, create diversions, SPAM, evade questions, lead irrelevant evidence etc etc etc... What an admission of failure! | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
| Islamic dance of blood of salors goes on.
1) Why Israel sent planes without proper anti ship weapons?
2) Why planes were leading conversations in Hebrew on open uncoded frequence.
3) Why planes and boats were clearly marked?
4) Why first were sent Mirage III with exptremely distinguish shape?
5) Why were sent MBTs, when much simple and faster to sink ship with plane bombs? Especially since Israeli pilots are much more experienced and trained than sailors.
No answers.
No motive.
No evidences.
Recently dumbdumb and filth repeat two idiotic arguments:
* Why Israeli pilots were not cross examined on by US court.
Lets bring other international friendly fire cases:
- Were Iraqis examined for attacking USS Stark?
- Were US sailors examined by Iranian court for atatcking Airbus?
- Were US pilots examined by Chinese court for attacking embacy?
- Were US missile crews examined by British court for attacking British planes?
- Were US pilots examined by Afghan court for attacing weddings?
- Were US pilots examined by Alban court for attacking columns of refugees?
......................
.....................
The answer is NO NO NO. No one gives its military men to be cross examined by foreign court. Not Iraqis, Not Americans themselves.
* How could Israelis mix up Liberty with "horse carrier" El Quseir?
Liberty was also converted from old horse carrier. It was not a battle ship. The only serious difference is its size. However in sea, when you dont have anything to compare with its hard to tell size.
Most amazing that same exactly guys dont have a problem that:
Iraqi pilot mixed up battle frigate with tanker.
Modern AEGIS cruiser mixed up two seat supersonic jet with 300 passenger huge airbus
Pathetic.
| filth wrote: | | How does this prove mistaken identity? |
I brought 5 arguments obviously proving that attack was not deliberate (although burden of proof is on you).
You dont have a single argument. You dont have even motive. You lie and were caight on lies.
| filth wrote: | | Motive in itself is seldom an element of any given crime... [Wikipedia] |
Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act.
Moreover, most common law jurisdictions have statutes that provide for degrees of homicide, based in part on the accused's mental state. The lesser offence of voluntary manslaughter, for example, traditionally required that the accused knowingly and voluntarily kill the victim (as in murder); in addition, it must be shown that the killing took place in the "sudden heat of passion," an excess of rage or anger coming from a contemporary provocation, which clouded the accused mind. Homicides motivated by such factors are a lesser offense than murder "in cold blood." [Wikipedia]
Filth, motive is not necessary, but it is very very important, especially n cases of murder. You dont have nor evidence nor motive. Only reason you accuse Israel is your Mooslime hate towards it. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:06 am Post subject: |
| It is ridiculous to pretend that there is no such thing as 'friendly fire', or that it only comes from Israelis.
In just modern naval history...
1940 - Operation Wikinger: German destroyer sunk by Luftwaffe bombs, another sunk by mines during confusion
1941 - Brit Fleet Air Arm torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield during the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck
1942 - Polish submarine ORP Jastrząb was mistakenly sunk by British destroyer HMS St. Albans and minesweeper HMS Seagull
1944 - British flotilla attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons, off Cap d'Antifer, Le Havre. HMS Britomart and HMS Hussar sunk. HMS Salamander damaged beyond repair and scrapped. HMS Jason escaped major damage
1967 - US accidently attacks Russian ship in Haiphong Harbor, Vietnam
1968 - USS Boston, USS Edson, USCGC Point Dume, HMAS Hobart and two U.S. Swift Boats, PCF-12 and PCF-19 are attacked by US aircraft on June 17 in the Vietnam War. Several sailors were killed and PCF-19 was sunk.
1974 - Turkish Destroyer Kocatepe was sunk by Turkish aircraft during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
1982 - HMS Cardiff shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands Islands
1992 - USS Saratoga during an no-notice exercise that included a simulated RIM-7 launch; confusion ensued, and a sailor launched into the bridge of the Turkish destroyer Muavenet killing 5.
2003 - British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:07 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime. |
It is if you are trying to prove intent. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
| Dude,
Q: 'friendly fire'
R: Happens when forces [allies or a single force] attack one and the same 'enemy.'
The US wasn't attacking anyone.
So why don't you want the USS Liberty survivors have their day in an open court again? | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:02 am Post subject: |
| So many questions unanswered and avoided by this lying tribe of Jews and the sycophants and here they come as usual like turds down a sewer.... the apologists avoiding ALWAYS one simple demand that the crew's simple demand for an honest open fair investigation after 40 years.
Jews really are the most dishonorable and duplicitous selfish people in history. Extolling 40 years of pride in a continued covering-up with avoidance and diversion.
They are shit. It's why there are pogroms. A Liberty apologist is evil incarnate. They are Jews.
Let us pray that one day we get it done right and show them the same lack of compassion, non-concern, immorality, non-justice and dishonesty that they showed the crew and families of the dead and the living of the USS Liberty. | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:57 am Post subject: |
| | arab whore without pride wrote: | Dude,
Q: 'friendly fire'
R: Happens when forces [allies or a single force] attack one and the same 'enemy.'
The US wasn't attacking anyone.
So why don't you want the USS Liberty survivors have their day in an open court again? |
USS Stark and Iranian Airbus did not attack anyone either. You are a lowest form of filth and scum.
Al jeffie, stop whining, you are so pathetic. Arab whore. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
