CAAF yesterday denied PVT Loving’s petition to reconsider its holding denying his habeas petition.

11 Responses to “CAAF denies recon in Loving”

  1. Anonymous says:

    so now what? Appeal to the Supremes? Go the Habeus route through the district court and argue that whatever happened with CAAF wasn’t the one shot at habeus but something else? (and also because technically the President hasn’t signed it yet, so it isn’t final and therefore habeus really hasn’t happened yet?)

  2. Anon says:

    You can always count on Cossio for insightful legal analysis.

  3. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Are we really still red baiting in the 21st Century? That characterization, of course, is no more accurate than the suggestion that President Bush had issued an order in the Loving case — which he did not.

  4. Deborah Harrison says:

    Loving admitted he did this, I know for a fact that he did this, so get it over with already. There is NO reason why we should have to wait 20 years for an execution, especially when he admitted everything. Why former President Bush did not sign is beyond me. However, President Obama needs to go ahead and sign the papers and let those who survived be rid of this.

  5. Richard Nixon says:

    Cossio even that is too much for me!

    What’s up with this? Cossio gets away with this crap and Lt Col Slade gets hammered because he made a mild criticism.

    Because this is unofficial there should be a rule: No rank titles!

  6. Anonymous says:

    “I know he signed Gray’s execution, I wasn’t sure if he signed Loving’s.”

    Translation: I don’t know what I am talking about. A product of the “Glenn Beck” era where folks feel the need to be an expert on every issue after between 15-60 seconds of research on an issue.

    “How about they just go ahaead and get this BBQ started and fry/hang/poison him already.”

    Translation: All I really know is what the guy was accused and convicted of, but nothing more about the legal issues in the case. Meanwhile, let me tell you for the 100th time how I got screwed in my court-martial.

    I would be curious to know what an “infultration” is.

    I also appreciate your help in making sure we all know what the word “avowed” means. However, I think you are “gravely mistaking” if you think we all do not know what that word means. P.S. Thanks for putting it in all-caps, as we would have missed it otherwise.

    How a conversation about Loving crosses a dimensional barrier into a discussion of Van Jones and his political leanings/knowledge of how “energy works” would boggle even the mind of the unholy spawn of Hawkings and Einstein.

    Kudos for pulling it off as I would have thought the laws of physics (or logic, common sense, rationality) prevented it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    “Loving admitted he did this, I know for a fact that he did this, so get it over with already. There is NO reason why we should have to wait 20 years for an execution, especially when he admitted everything.”

    No reason? Really? We shouldn’t care if he got a fair trial? We shouldn’t make sure he got adequate representation? We shouldn’t check to make sure there were no mental health or other mitigating issues?

    No, if he did it, that is all we need to know?

    The folks on Akbar should just close up shop. After all, he said he did it too. Should just cancel the appeal and move on to the killin’!


  8. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Tricky Dick’s post demonstrates the problem of occasionally weighing in on the comments. Getting fed up with a gratuitous attack on a friend and responding creates an expectation that one will weigh in whenever someone goes over the top. For the record, Mr. President, I did weigh in on Mr. Cossio’s second post in this thread. Also for the record, I have no objection to being called “Mr. Sullivan,” “Sullivan,” or “pal.” Not that Dew needs me to speak for him, but I think he was alluding to a comment that referred to me as Lieutenant Colonel Sullivan — which I was at one time but haven’t been for more than 4 years. (Not that I took any offense at that; there’s no reason to expect people to know my current rank in the Reserves and I haven’t used that rank when referring to myself on this blog.)

    All this still leaves us with the problem of how to respond to gratuitous attacks against individuals. We could remove them all; we could allow only administrator approved comments to appear online; or we could allow for a fairly unruly marketplace of ideas, deleting only the most vile and/or off topic comments and occasionally responding when we get totally fed up. (The last possibility, of course, describes our current ad hoc system.) As always, I’m open to ideas. But I still haven’t reached the point where I think the bad of our unruly little marketplace of ideas outweighs the good.

  9. Dwight Sullivan says:

    p.s., the comment I just deleted would be an example of the “wildly off topic” genre. Folks, there are a lot of blogs devoted to analyzing the Obama Administration. This ain’t one of them.

  10. Richard Nixon says:

    After reading the above responses to Cossio I’m actually embarassed with my ‘simple’ response.

    With the rank issue I was thinking that just recently a couple of commentors used rank in their name…I think comments on this blog are a cut above every other blog or news article. (Even Cossio makes good points sometime when he isn’t going off on a rant). I concur that I never read comments in any other blog or news article I read because they are usually pointless rants.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I’d daresay 99% of the folks on this website know what the “leagal” issues are in Loving’s case. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on whether they rise to such a level as to reverse the conviction or the sentence, but they certainly exist as more than a stall tactic.

    (I was able to spell that word correctly on the first try without spell check by the way, and no my grammar and spelling is not, in fact, perfect but really you should be able to spell the word legal without spell check.)

    The fact that you don’t appear to know what they are is enlightening. The rest of your responses are self-lampoon of such a level that I couldn’t improve upon it them I tried.

    I will say there were no ad hom attacks against you, but instead a pointing out that in this instance, as is often although not always the case, you’ve spouted off without a full knowledge of what you are talking about and along the way interjected a political rant where it had/has no business being.

    I’m out and done, feel free to have the last words, and I apologize in advance for extending this further to everyone else.