Democrats Say if You Disagree Leave Country!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Where does your constitution authorize the kidnapping of foreign citizens?

22

[quote]JPCleary wrote:
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?

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…[/quote]

Because tribunals that will basically be part of the executive branch will avoid these pitfalls while operating in secret?

He has a point but kangaroo courts are not the remedy.

23

[quote]John S. wrote:
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?[/quote]

This is exactly my point, according to civilian court, they have already had their civil rights violated. No Mirandization, no evidence has been taken to a Federal Grand Jury for them to convene to see if there is enough probable cause, no indictment, no formal arraignment, there is no consistency within the law. They will be prosecuted through the 2nd circuit in New York, and housed at MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center New York) if they follow suit of a normal Federal trial.

24

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
John S. wrote:
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?

This is exactly my point, according to civilian court, they have already had their civil rights violated. No Mirandization, no evidence has been taken to a Federal Grand Jury for them to convene to see if there is enough probable cause, no indictment, no formal arraignment, there is no consistency within the law. They will be prosecuted through the 2nd circuit in New York, and housed at MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center New York) if they follow suit of a normal Federal trial.

[/quote]

And that is WRONG because you WANT, WANT, WANT to hang them …

Well, if they want to make a case they should do it the right way next time.

Maybe legalizing drugs and abolishing RICO cases would free up enough resources to deal with real crime properly.

25

[quote]orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
John S. wrote:
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?

This is exactly my point, according to civilian court, they have already had their civil rights violated. No Mirandization, no evidence has been taken to a Federal Grand Jury for them to convene to see if there is enough probable cause, no indictment, no formal arraignment, there is no consistency within the law. They will be prosecuted through the 2nd circuit in New York, and housed at MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center New York) if they follow suit of a normal Federal trial.

And that is WRONG because you WANT, WANT, WANT to hang them …

Well, if they want to make a case they should do it the right way next time.

Maybe legalizing drugs and abolishing RICO cases would free up enough resources to deal with real crime properly.

[/quote]

This entire thing screams military tribunal. What they did was an act of war. That clearly falls under military not civilian.

26

[quote]John S. wrote:
orion wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
John S. wrote:
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?

This is exactly my point, according to civilian court, they have already had their civil rights violated. No Mirandization, no evidence has been taken to a Federal Grand Jury for them to convene to see if there is enough probable cause, no indictment, no formal arraignment, there is no consistency within the law. They will be prosecuted through the 2nd circuit in New York, and housed at MDC (Metropolitan Detention Center New York) if they follow suit of a normal Federal trial.

And that is WRONG because you WANT, WANT, WANT to hang them …

Well, if they want to make a case they should do it the right way next time.

Maybe legalizing drugs and abolishing RICO cases would free up enough resources to deal with real crime properly.

This entire thing screams military tribunal. What they did was an act of war. That clearly falls under military not civilian.[/quote]

That is not an act of war, because they do not represent a nation state.

Its basically vandalism and murder on a grand scale.

Also, your executive branch has the authority to defend the country during an immediate attack but not to take the war to the enemy, that is expressis verbis the job of the legislative branch and for very good reasons.

I know that that makes it very hard for a president to go to war for inane reasons and to strut around as a “war time president” but that is exactly why the branch of government that benefits far less from war is the only with the authority to declare war.

Look at your recent history and you see exactly what they were trying to avoid.

Whatever they are, POWs they are not, because there is no war.

27

[quote]orion wrote:

Its basically vandalism and murder on a grand scale.

Also, your executive branch has the authority to defend the country during an immediate attack but not to take the war to the enemy, that is expressis verbis the job of the legislative branch and for very good reasons.

I know that that makes it very hard for a president to go to war for inane reasons and to strut around as a “war time president” but that is exactly why the branch of government that benefits far less from war is the only with the authority to declare war.

Look at your recent history and you see exactly what they were trying to avoid.

Whatever they are, POWs they are not, because there is no war.

[/quote]

I must be mistaken, I could have sworn they declared a Jihad on us. They wanted to play war so they should get to visit our fine war time military trials.

28

Either way, my money is on one of the prison officers executing them before they ever get to see their days in court.

29

[quote]John S. wrote:
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??[/quote]

If you can’t be bothered to edit out the â??â??, don’t expect me to bother reading it.

How many successful military trials have there been under Bush, after 8 years of the war on terror?

I believe the answer is three successful prosecutions so far - correct me if I’m wrong - which is a record of failure IMO, seeing as how we have detained hundreds and hundreds of people.

Our justice system is not perfect but generally works pretty well. Terror suspects are going to face the best prosecutors we have. If you don’t believe in our justice system as a whole, then seriously - why the fuck DO you live here?

30

[quote]K2000 wrote:
John S. wrote:
Conrad said: �¢??You�¢??re not being serious about these questions, are you?�¢??

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

If you can’t be bothered to edit out the Ã?¢??Ã?¢??, don’t expect me to bother reading it.

How many successful military trials have there been under Bush, after 8 years of the war on terror?

I believe the answer is three successful prosecutions so far - correct me if I’m wrong - which is a record of failure IMO, seeing as how we have detained hundreds and hundreds of people.

Our justice system is not perfect but generally works pretty well. Terror suspects are going to face the best prosecutors we have. If you don’t believe in our justice system as a whole, then seriously - why the fuck DO you live here?

[/quote]

You have to be the stupidest person I have ever met. You do realize that if they go to a civilian trial the fact that they where not Mirandized is enough to through it out right? Perhaps maybe you want war criminals to be let free. I am sure you watch 9-11 videos with a smile on your face.

31

Good intelligent response.

32

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Good intelligent response.[/quote]

Was it the part when I questioned your patriotism? Or was it when I used a fact to make you look foolish?

33

Your PMS is showing. Try to be strong.

34

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Your PMS is showing. Try to be strong.[/quote]

HAHAHAHA, you are too much fun. Now go run away from PWI for a few weeks and return so I can chase you off yet again.

35

[quote]John S. wrote:
You have to be the stupidest person I have ever met. You do realize that if they go to a civilian trial the fact that they where not Mirandized is enough to through it out right? Perhaps maybe you want war criminals to be let free. I am sure you watch 9-11 videos with a smile on your face.[/quote]

Not true. A lack of a miranda warning would cause any evidence confessed to before the warning to be inadmissible. the case itself wouldn’t be thrown out.

36

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
John S. wrote:
You have to be the stupidest person I have ever met. You do realize that if they go to a civilian trial the fact that they where not Mirandized is enough to through it out right? Perhaps maybe you want war criminals to be let free. I am sure you watch 9-11 videos with a smile on your face.

Not true. A lack of a miranda warning would cause any evidence confessed to before the warning to be inadmissible. the case itself wouldn’t be thrown out.
[/quote]

What evidence did they have before the confession? I would also assume that the whole water boarding thing may be counted against them too.

How did they get the information leading to his arrest.

Since they are now being tried in court how will there stay in Guantanamo be factored in?

We also have to look into where he was arrested, how was he given over to us.

When someone commits an act of war, the crime is under military jurisdiction.

How can anyone defend the civilian jurisdiction?

This is so flawed that if it doesn’t get thrown out it is a slap in the face to our legal system. If they are found guilty it will be by public opinion and not on the facts they will be allowed to show in court.

Now if these terrorists had any brains they would just plead the fifth and ride the trial out. But more then likely they will step forward and explain why they did it and how America is so evil. That should be enough to set off the vast majority of the public against this move. The backlash against liberals will be astounding.

Edit*

Can anyone show the arrest warrant for KSM before he was captured by Pakistan? That will be needed if he is to go to Civilian court.

37

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
John S. wrote:
You have to be the stupidest person I have ever met. You do realize that if they go to a civilian trial the fact that they where not Mirandized is enough to through it out right? Perhaps maybe you want war criminals to be let free. I am sure you watch 9-11 videos with a smile on your face.

Not true. A lack of a miranda warning would cause any evidence confessed to before the warning to be inadmissible. the case itself wouldn’t be thrown out.
[/quote]

If you ever get arrested and are not read your Miranda rights you will get the case tossed out.

38

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
John S. wrote:
You have to be the stupidest person I have ever met. You do realize that if they go to a civilian trial the fact that they where not Mirandized is enough to through it out right? Perhaps maybe you want war criminals to be let free. I am sure you watch 9-11 videos with a smile on your face.

Not true. A lack of a miranda warning would cause any evidence confessed to before the warning to be inadmissible. the case itself wouldn’t be thrown out.
[/quote]

This is wrong;.

Law enforcement is obligated to notify you of your rights, not to explain them or to stop you from incriminating yourself. If you choose to spill your guts, that is YOUR choice, and will certainly be used against you in a court of law. Should you talk with law enforcement and regret the decision later, you will be told that you could have plead the 5th amendment, which you are legally entitled to do. But if is your own failure if you choose not to use it. Failure to mirandize does give grounds for a dismissal, will the judge actually grant that, we will find out.

This is why I tell people, if you are not sure of your situation, plead the 5th. They won’t do anything more or less to you. You are entitled to legal counsel, use it. This is coming from a guy who dealt with this shit personally.

39

Won’t giving them a civilian trial also bring in the 6th amendment? Can’t exactly say he had a speedy trial.

40

we can debate these issues all day, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t know more about the law than eric holder and his legal team, nor do you know more of the specific facts of the case.