Democrats Say if You Disagree Leave Country!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57508

(CNSNews.com) â?? Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told CNSNews.com that civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute al Qaeda terrorists and that "if people don’t believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else.â??

Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Nov. 13 that five suspects in the 9/11 attacks would be tried in a civilian court in New York City instead of facing a military trial.

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Conrad: â??Weâ??re going to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If our troops–the evidence against him is going to be found in Afghanistan, there on the battlefield–if our troops need to enter a house and they think that thereâ??s evidence there, should they have to establish probable cause and get a search warrant from a judge first?â??

Conrad said: â??Youâ??re not being serious about these questions, are you?â??

CNSNews.com: â??[Yes], in a civilian trial. If I was on trial or you were on trial, that would have to be [done].â??

Conrad responded, â??We have tried terrorists in our courts and done so very successfully in the past and that is our system. So if people donâ??t believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else. I believe in America.â??

The Fourth Amendment, which protects all defendants in civilian courts, prohibits the government from searching or seizing evidence without first establishing probable cause and obtaining a warrant–based on that probable cause–from a judge.

The Fourth Amendment reads: â??The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.â??

According to the Supreme Court in Weeks v. United States (1914), the government cannot use evidence obtained without a search warrant.

â??The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts, which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution, and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights,â?? the Court found.

2

The idea of this whole thing is already horrible, but the outcome could be even worse. If there is some kind of acquittal or dismissal due to lack of due process in civilian court, it will be the legal clusterfuck of all time.

3

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The idea of this whole thing is already horrible, but the outcome could be even worse. If there is some kind of acquittal or dismissal due to lack of due process in civilian court, it will be the legal clusterfuck of all time. [/quote]

Au contraire, it would demonstrate that the rule of law is more important than the wishes of the unwashed masses.

Because if they can prosecute them ignoring their own rules what is to stop them from coming after you?

Ceterum censeo, civilization is protected at the fringes.

Due process for terrorists, free speech for nazis, the right to pursue happines for drug addicts.

4

our procedural constitutional rights apply to ALL prisoners regardless of citizenship. guantanamo bay/abu ghraib were and are respectively huge foreign policy problems. the real threat to american citizens is the scary thought of arab americans being sent to one of these military constitutional black-holes. of course, that’s lost on you, because arabs can’t be americans, right?

5

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
our procedural constitutional rights apply to ALL prisoners regardless of citizenship. guantanamo bay/abu ghraib were and are respectively huge foreign policy problems. the real threat to american citizens is the scary thought of arab americans being sent to one of these military constitutional black-holes. of course, that’s lost on you, because arabs can’t be americans, right?[/quote]

Nice try, but you’re wrong on just about everything.

6

What if the courts feel pressured to pass convictions, even with a lack of evidence? Let’s say, that in a lot of these trials, evidence isn’t presented because of intelligence concerns. Or, maybe the evidence is ‘tainted’ because there was no clear chain of custody in the chaos of a battlefield/military operation. Fearful witnesses refuse to testify, etc., etc. However, the courts still feel a duty, maybe even some pressure, to convict these guys without evidence, or with evidence that would normally be thrown out for technical reasons. Could precedent be set for how US citizens are tried in the future by somewhat lax adjudication of these cases in our courts?

7

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
our procedural constitutional rights apply to ALL prisoners regardless of citizenship. guantanamo bay/abu ghraib were and are respectively huge foreign policy problems. the real threat to american citizens is the scary thought of arab americans being sent to one of these military constitutional black-holes. of course, that’s lost on you, because arabs can’t be americans, right?

Nice try, but you’re wrong on just about everything.[/quote]

No he is not, but I guess 200 years of eroding freedom have not quite taught their lesson yet.

Or maybe the lesson is entirely lost on you but that does not make him wrong.

8

[quote]orion wrote:

No he is not, but I guess 200 years of eroding freedom have not quite taught their lesson yet.

[/quote]

Because we’ve always tried enemy combatants in our courts?

9

Another thing I don’t get…They’ve implied (heck, maybe they’ve said it explicitly) that not all of these folks will be given trials in our courts. Well, why not? If the argument is that all men have a right to a trial in our courts, why will only a few be tried in them? Is this largely for show?

11

[quote]orion wrote:
<<< Au contraire, it would demonstrate that the rule of law is more important than the wishes of the unwashed masses.

Because if they can prosecute them ignoring their own rules what is to stop them from coming after you?

Ceterum censeo, civilization is protected at the fringes.

Due process for terrorists, free speech for nazis, the right to pursue happines for drug addicts.
[/quote]

You I know how I occasionally tell you that you make very good points sometimes and other times you’re a brain damaged imbecile? This would be a fabulous example of the latter

12

[quote]orion wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
our procedural constitutional rights apply to ALL prisoners regardless of citizenship. guantanamo bay/abu ghraib were and are respectively huge foreign policy problems. the real threat to american citizens is the scary thought of arab americans being sent to one of these military constitutional black-holes. of course, that’s lost on you, because arabs can’t be americans, right?

Nice try, but you’re wrong on just about everything.

No he is not, but I guess 200 years of eroding freedom have not quite taught their lesson yet.

Or maybe the lesson is entirely lost on you but that does not make him wrong.
[/quote]

You guys need to stop spilling the bong water on your history books.

Military tribunals have existed since the birth of our nation, and combatants captured on American soil have been tried in them.

No American of Arabic descent or of Islamic faith is in any danger of being shipped off to Gitmo without first committing an act of war against the US. You know, a tiny little subjectively defined act of war like hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings.

We aren’t talking about CITIZENS. We’re talking about non citizen enemy combatants who committed acts of war against the US and were captured on foreign soil.

13

Well, let’s say we do put them in our civilian courts (I guess this would make them citizens by some weird fucked up logic) we could then easily determine their attacks on America as treason and take them out front of the court and hang them up on the trees.

14

If they are being tried in civilian courts, wouldn’t the fact that they where not read there Miranda rights be enough to throw this case out?

15

dude. stronghold. your arrogance causes your ignorance. you have to understand that the application of procedural due process rights isn’t about your reading of “history.” this is about what the supreme court has deemed to be the appropriate practice. i turn your attention to Rasul v. Bush. the reality is that the Bush administration’s misuse of military detention centers and military tribunals has spoiled it for all future administrations.

16

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
dude. stronghold. your arrogance causes your ignorance. you have to understand that the application of procedural due process rights isn’t about your reading of “history.” this is about what the supreme court has deemed to be the appropriate practice. i turn your attention to Rasul v. Bush. the reality is that the Bush administration’s misuse of military detention centers and military tribunals has spoiled it for all future administrations. [/quote]

You’re trying to throw out strawmen about Americans in detention centers when we are talking about enemy combatants captured on foreign soil. HR-6166 (Military Commissions Act of 2006) authorizes military tribunals in the case of unlawful enemy combatants. Rasul v. Bush states only that detainees my challenge the validity of their imprisonment.

17

All I know is New York better be a death penalty state.

18

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What if the courts feel pressured to pass convictions, even with a lack of evidence? Let’s say, that in a lot of these trials, evidence isn’t presented because of intelligence concerns. Or, maybe the evidence is ‘tainted’ because there was no clear chain of custody in the chaos of a battlefield/military operation. Fearful witnesses refuse to testify, etc., etc. However, the courts still feel a duty, maybe even some pressure, to convict these guys without evidence, or with evidence that would normally be thrown out for technical reasons. Could precedent be set for how US citizens are tried in the future by somewhat lax adjudication of these cases in our courts? [/quote]

This is what I want to hear more about. I would love to hear answers to these kinds of questions from proponents of these trials…

19

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:

No he is not, but I guess 200 years of eroding freedom have not quite taught their lesson yet.

Because we’ve always tried enemy combatants in our courts?[/quote]

Well without a war there are no enemy combatants, arent there?

You could start with those who have authorized an attack without a declaration of war from comgress.

20

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
orion wrote:
<<< Au contraire, it would demonstrate that the rule of law is more important than the wishes of the unwashed masses.

Because if they can prosecute them ignoring their own rules what is to stop them from coming after you?

Ceterum censeo, civilization is protected at the fringes.

Due process for terrorists, free speech for nazis, the right to pursue happines for drug addicts.

You I know how I occasionally tell you that you make very good points sometimes and other times you’re a brain damaged imbecile? This would be a fabulous example of the latter[/quote]

You know how I know you are gay?

Ad hominems!

Yes, I know it makes no sense whatsoever and that is kind of the point.