Guantanamo

[grandma]

My understanding of the Adminstration's decision to try these terrorists, most especially the one who organized, trained, completed the attack on the civilains in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 ... my understanding is they are going to be brought to New York for trial, be given all the courtesy, protection of any U.S. citizen, that by this they will be able to plead the 5th ammendment, that they will be able to declare swift & undelayed trials, etc, etc.
What is the Liberal take on this????

[Steadygain]

My understanding of the Adminstration's decision to try these terrorists, most especially the one who organized, trained, completed the attack on the civilains in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 ... my understanding is they are going to be brought to New York for trial, be given all the courtesy, protection of any U.S. citizen, that by this they will be able to plead the 5th ammendment, that they will be able to declare swift & undelayed trials, etc, etc.
What is the Liberal take on this????

Who knows ??:)

[Steadygain]

OK -- Grandma -- I just can't leave thinkn' no one is responding to your question.

So I'll quell your curiosity ;)

My understanding of the Adminstration's decision to try these terrorists,

Here a Liberal would respond in shock and dismay... since when would any Administration representing any President in the history of our country .... feel that any person deserves the right to a trial..

So I'm with you on this one -- just the thought of them being tried seems 'outrageous'

most especially the one who organized, trained, completed the attack on the civilains in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 ...

Here a Liberal would say 'The right to a fair trial and legal representation' only applies to those U.S. citizens that are unquestionably and undeniably innocent --- but anyone thought to be guilty -- even if by hearsay -- or even with what some may consider 'good reason for suspecion' --

they should be denied everything and immediately executed.

my understanding is they are going to be brought to New York for trial,

A Liberal would say New York is too expensive ... he should be taken to a small Southern Town -- predominately known for its prejudical and racial hated and intollerance -- too both lower the costs and speed the trial.

be given all the courtesy, protection of any U.S. citizen,

A Liberal would insist on showing the rest of the world that if you are not a U.S. citizen --- all forms of courtesy and human decency will be taken away and they will be subjected to the lowest and deepest forms of humiliation and disrespect. All forms of protection would be withdrawn -- and they would be totally left to defend themselves.

that by this they will be able to plead the 5th ammendment,

A Liberal would demand that the Constitution be withdrawn in its entireity. They would say there is no such thing as the 5th and force them to talk -- force them to sign confessions -- force them to do many things

that they will be able to declare swift & undelayed trials, etc, etc.


Well Grandma -- shucks --- a Liberal would say they can not declare anything because they are not a U.S. citizen and just because they are in our country and dealing with our courts does not give them any right to be represented in any manner other than how we 'The Liberals' think they should be treated. So if they would have 'the gull' to ask for a quick trial then we should stretch it out for 10 or 20 years.


I know how it feels to make a post.... especially one like this ... and you wait and wait......

so now you've got something to read and enjoy...


Well that's it for me -- PEACE and God bless America

[Birchtree]

If the good guys hadn't bothered with prisoners we wouldn't have this problem today - know what I mean. I bet the lesson has been learned.

[Steadygain]

If the good guys hadn't bothered with prisoners we wouldn't have this problem today - know what I mean. I bet the lesson has been learned.

;):):)

[Viva La Migra]

My understanding of the Adminstration's decision to try these terrorists, most especially the one who organized, trained, completed the attack on the civilains in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 ... my understanding is they are going to be brought to New York for trial, be given all the courtesy, protection of any U.S. citizen, that by this they will be able to plead the 5th ammendment, that they will be able to declare swift & undelayed trials, etc, etc.
What is the Liberal take on this????
This is a disaster in the making. Obama's taking a big risk with this one. If they don't get convicted, they walk among us until or unless they leave the country on their own.

[phil]

There is either the rule of law, or not. We have the rule of law in this country. I see many of you here complaining about President Obama and the constitution.

And you're the same people now who want to ignore the constitution, and the rule of law. How odd.

Fortunately, we don't currently live in a dictatorship, though many of you seem to want that. We are bound by the rule of law, even in the face of terrorism, even in the face of crime.

The Nuremberg trials served a purpose. I encourage many of you to read about the trial, or at least know what was at stake. We had our own war crimes, truly.

[Steadygain]

Viva La Migra.......

....it's your turn ..... or he automatically wins by forfit

[Buster]

There is either the rule of law, or not. We have the rule of law in this country. I see many of you here complaining about President Obama and the constitution.

And you're the same people now who want to ignore the constitution, and the rule of law. How odd.

Fortunately, we don't currently live in a dictatorship, though many of you seem to want that. We are bound by the rule of law, even in the face of terrorism, even in the face of crime.

The Nuremberg trials served a purpose. I encourage many of you to read about the trial, or at least know what was at stake. We had our own war crimes, truly.
At least you have revealed some of your hand..you truly are not a patriot to this country are you? Would you rather the US apologize to the German Nazis too for beating their asses and freeing Europe from Hitler's siege?...If I didn't know better, I'd say you and Jane Fonda (Turner) have been pen pals for a long time.

These scum bags in Gitmo are not citizens of the United States and therefore are not entitled to the same Constitutional rights our citizens are, especially when it will more than likely cost millions of TAX payer dollars to try them like they are citizens....Good Lord man, why the hell don't you move to Canada or some other country if this one bugs you so much.

[phil]

Why don't you move to Iran? I think you have much more in common with them.

So I talk about Nuremberg, and I'm not a patriot?

Yes. America has a lot to answer for, particularly in Vietnam and Iraq.

Well, I guess you really can't have your dictatorship anytime soon. Too bad for you.

Yes, some of the people in Gitmo are guilty. Guess what? Some are not guilty. So we just treat the guilty and not guilty the same way? I know! Let's look at the evidence! What a good idea!

[James48843]

So I take it the rest of you would simply take them out back behind the woodshed, and put a bullet in their heads?

[James48843]

"Vengeance is mine saith the Lord!"
"for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

God did not say vengeance is ours. He said vengence is His. If we want to be on the receiving end of God's blessings and favors, we have to truly understand what it means to give it completely over to the Lord.


"Do not say I'll pay you back for this wrong! Wait for the Lord, and He will deliver you." Proverbs 20:22




Have mercy on all.



All.


"God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy" (Matthew 5:7)

"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth: Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him and he turn away his wrath from him." (Proverbs 24:17-18)

[Steadygain]

James,
I snuck on because I felt bad about a lot of my rather insensitive and corny comments. I think a lot of it is meant to be entertaining but in retrospect many of the subjects are very serious and my comments do not do justice for my deeper feelings and convictions.

When posts are made to slam a religion then I'm bound to respond in an equally absurd way. Will do the same when it's against race or gender.

With Politics -- I think the views are often way too limited to the current Administration and to me that's ridiculous when that is reflected on how either our country, world, economy... or whatever is where it is today. I have no doubt however, that many here have honestly found evidence of great suspecion regarding Obama and cause to be alarmed at where our country is heading.

Here however we are dealing way more with the integrity and sanctity of the United States Legal System and how that would be best represented in regards to foreigners tried in our country for any offense regardless of what it may be.

So no James -- to simply take him or anyone out back and shoot them would be to disregard all that honestly makes this country sacred (or a lot of what it does). I'm sorry that we have to spend our tax dollars in providing the safety, luxuries, accomodatioins, and legal representation for these vicious criminals. But he (or anyone else) is not guility because anyone on this MB (including me) says they are guility.

It's one of those times where I believe we have no other choice but to be grateful for the legal system as it is (flawed as it may be) and have faith in all involved that Justice will be carried out in the most appropriate manner and that everyone throughout the world will honestly believe and know that everything was done fairly.

Anyway -- Grandma, CB and whoever -- I don't mean to offend or challenge you and I'll try to communicate a little better.

I don't have the answers and I am neither a Liberal or Conservative; or a Rep or Dem ---- I am totally a free thinker and independantly weigh every post. So this one to me boils down to how should the United States Government treat a foreign law breaker (irregardless of the specific offense}. Since this crime was committed in NY then I believe NY is entitled to try him and pronouse the verdict.

Hopefully all of you can understand me a little better because when you list a specific offense like this one -- I have to think across the board and honestly assess how 'a foreigner' should be treated and tried. What is the example the U.S.A. should establish for not only everyone in our country -- but for the whole world.

Well have a wonderful weekend everyone and with things like this I would ask to evaluate things as I'm reflecting and not base them on your personal feelings and emotions.

[phil]

Amen, SG and James.

[phil]

Well, we've already spent 700 BILLION of my TAX payer dollars in Iraq, a country that had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, so I really don't think the cost of a trial for the people who committed this crime is outside our current budget, do you?
Truly, they are not citizens. But we advocate the Rule of Law here. They will be tried in New York. They'll receive a fair trial.

You could probably get to Iran through a neighboring country. There, you can denounce the horrible ideas about America's legal system, and that it's better that you have a less rigid ethical code there, and that the dictums of "what everyone knows" seems much simpler than examining evidence before making judgment. If the idea of the rule of law bothers you that much, you should leave. It doesn't bother me, so I'll stay.



These scum bags in Gitmo are not citizens of the United States and therefore are not entitled to the same Constitutional rights our citizens are, especially when it will more than likely cost millions of TAX payer dollars to try them like they are citizens....Good Lord man, why the hell don't you move to Canada or some other country if this one bugs you so much.

[McDuck]

My understanding of the Adminstration's decision to try these terrorists, most especially the one who organized, trained, completed the attack on the civilains in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 ... my understanding is they are going to be brought to New York for trial, be given all the courtesy, protection of any U.S. citizen, that by this they will be able to plead the 5th ammendment, that they will be able to declare swift & undelayed trials, etc, etc.
What is the Liberal take on this????

A Jury of 9/11 Terrorist Peers?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcoltop22.81021.ImageFile.jpg

[phil]

Not the "liberal" take as you say, but mine.

Well, we've already spent 700 BILLION of my TAX payer dollars in Iraq, a country that had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, so I really don't think the cost of a trial for the people who committed this crime is outside our current budget, do you?
Truly, they are not citizens. But we advocate the Rule of Law here. They will be tried in New York. They'll receive a fair trial.

You could probably get to Iran through a neighboring country. There, you can denounce the horrible ideas about America's legal system, and that it's better that you have a less rigid ethical code there, and that the dictums of "what everyone knows" seems much simpler than examining evidence before making judgment. If the idea of the rule of law bothers you that much, you should leave. It doesn't bother me, so I'll stay.

[Viva La Migra]

Well, we've already spent 700 BILLION of my TAX payer dollars in Iraq, a country that had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, so I really don't think the cost of a trial for the people who committed this crime is outside our current budget, do you?
Truly, they are not citizens. But we advocate the Rule of Law here. They will be tried in New York. They'll receive a fair trial.

You could probably get to Iran through a neighboring country. There, you can denounce the horrible ideas about America's legal system, and that it's better that you have a less rigid ethical code there, and that the dictums of "what everyone knows" seems much simpler than examining evidence before making judgment. If the idea of the rule of law bothers you that much, you should leave. It doesn't bother me, so I'll stay.
Wow Phil, I didn't realize you've paid 700 Billion in taxes. Why are you wasting your time with the TSP?

What do we do with them if they are not convicted Phil? They can't be removed from the United States, because no country will take them. The worst thing we MIGHT be able to charge in immigration court if they aren't convicted of terrorism is that they have no visa to legally enter or remain in the U.S.

[Steadygain]

Wow Phil, I didn't realize you've paid 700 Billion in taxes. Why are you wasting your time with the TSP?



Oh my dear friend :)

Man I know where you're comming from and I've been there all the way and dealt with all of it. Was totally wrapped up in it and it seemed like every shread of my existence and all the emotions were kind of locked into 'his world'.

There is NO WAY -- I am any better than you at all and so I honestly don't mean this in some kind of condescending manner. But once I let go --- things were totally different and what may have grated me in some manner no longer has any impact.

I've just learned to look at the core of his expression and ignore the details. No idea where he's come up with $700 B when I know it well exceeds $7 T --- but whatever -- I'm free man and life is good.

[James48843]

No idea where he's come up with $700 B when I know it well exceeds $7 T --- but whatever -- I'm free man and life is good.

The cost of war:
http://www.costofwar.com

Cost just for Iraq so far:

Cost of War in Iraq
$700,707,169,158 (there is a real-time counter on that page- click on it to see what it is up to now.)

[Steadygain]

Wow -- thanks James !!

I'll have to see if I can gather some older sources....

.....but I'd say for sure that when Bush was in charge the figure was over $6T


but I may have misread it or remembered it wrong :confused:

[phil]

Then I hope that we can get convictions. Taking them out and shooting them just wouldn't go over very well. Just to let you know, if our government should do the same to you, I would also object. You are also protected by the law. I'll let you worry about their current immigration status.

A bit of that 700 billion was my tax dollars. Are you planning to pay me and everyone else, and my kids back for the amount of money that we spent there?


Wow Phil, I didn't realize you've paid 700 Billion in taxes. Why are you wasting your time with the TSP?

What do we do with them if they are not convicted Phil? They can't be removed from the United States, because no country will take them. The worst thing we MIGHT be able to charge in immigration court if they aren't convicted of terrorism is that they have no visa to legally enter or remain in the U.S.

[FAB1]

Cost of War in Iraq
$700,707,169,158 (there is a real-time counter on that page- click on it to see what it is up to now.)

Im drinking the wine of astonishment. :confused:

[Steadygain]

The cost of war:
http://www.costofwar.com

Cost just for Iraq so far:

Cost of War in Iraq
$700,707,169,158 (there is a real-time counter on that page- click on it to see what it is up to now.)

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/0393067017

Readers may be surprised to learn just how difficult it was for Nobel Prize-winning economist Stiglitz and Kennedy School of Government professor Bilmes to dig up the actual and projected costs of the Iraq War for this thorough piece of accounting.

Sorrry it took so long for me to find this .... ;) .... but when I really want to know the truth I have a way of finding it.

Using "emergency" funds to pay for most of the war, the authors show that the White House has kept even Congress and the Comptroller General from getting a clear idea on the war's true costs. Other expenses are simply overlooked, one of the largest of which is the $600 billion going toward current and future health care for veterans. :rolleyes:

Figuring in macroeconomic costs and interest-the war has been funded with much borrowed money-the cost rises to $4.5 trillion; add Afghanistan, and the bill tops $7 trillion.

Yah --- das is where I remember the $7 Trillion --- Yah

You see I may be 'crazzzzzy' but I know my stuff.

So now my MB friends -- please see how many Billion are in a Trillion

[phil]

www.costofwar.com (http://www.costofwar.com) only uses information about direct expenditures. Opportunity costs and other associated costs are not put in, but they're very sizeable indeed.

[Steadygain]

www.costofwar.com (http://www.costofwar.com) only uses information about direct expenditures. Opportunity costs and other associated costs are not put in, but they're very sizeable indeed.

Thanks Phil ;)


As bad as it sounds... and it is undoubtedly terrible....

.....it's totally insane and outrageous......


The Cost of what 'The BIG BANKS' did -- is even worse....

..... and we are going to get screwed....and no vasiline either:mad::mad:

[CountryBoy]

Thanks Phil ;)


As bad as it sounds... and it is undoubtedly terrible....

.....it's totally insane and outrageous......


The Cost of what 'The BIG BANKS' did -- is even worse....

..... and we are going to get screwed....and no vasiline either:mad::mad:

Watch your spelling Steady and punkchewaytion, phil is a grammar queen, or it may be just me. ;)

[phil]

I'm only checking spelling with people who use the term "useful idiot". Like I said before: Your posts are like a box of chocolates. I never know what I'm going to get.

<Whack>

Watch your spelling Steady and punkchewaytion, phil is a grammar queen, or it may be just me. ;)

[CountryBoy]

I'm only checking spelling with people who use the term "useful idiot". Like I said before: Your posts are like a box of chocolates. I never know what I'm going to get.

<Whack>

Oh phil grow a sense of humor, if your kind can. That's what being eclectic can do for ya. :D

[Steadygain]

Watch your spelling Steady;)

Hey CB !! It's good ta see ya my friend :)

Let me ask ya something :embarrest: if you don't mind :o



Someone put a post out the other day about some man having sex with her horse....and apparently he'd been caught doing this before


Well anyway I was wondering.... if you're lost in the woods for months on end ... scraping by eating roots and whatever you've managed to trap or kill....

.....well after months and months of isolation and living like a wild animal.... if a Grizzy Bear ...somehow seduces you and you give into it and have sex... is that against the law???

After reading that other post I have to wonder about these things... I mean what if I get lost in the woods for months at a time.....

and the moment someone finds me.... is after I finally link up with a Grizzly

Now how many people would ask that kind of question on a setting where 300,000 readers -- worldwide -- drop by every 20 minutes??

[WorkFE]

Steady,
Please find a time consuming hobby before you hurt yourself.

[James48843]

Steady- now WHOAAhh.. there big fella.


I think you spent a little too much time think'in about MamaBear.

http://pbskids.org/berenstainbears/characters/img/mama.gif

[Steadygain]

Steady,
Please find a time consuming hobby before you hurt yourself.

:D:D:D;)

Yeah I guess I got a little carried away when CB said something about sense of humor


Thanks James !

[CountryBoy]

Hey CB !! It's good ta see ya my friend :)

Let me ask ya something :embarrest: if you don't mind :o



Someone put a post out the other day about some man having sex with her horse....and apparently he'd been caught doing this before


Well anyway I was wondering.... if you're lost in the woods for months on end ... scraping by eating roots and whatever you've managed to trap or kill....

.....well after months and months of isolation and living like a wild animal.... if a Grizzy Bear ...somehow seduces you and you give into it and have sex... is that against the law???

After reading that other post I have to wonder about these things... I mean what if I get lost in the woods for months at a time.....

and the moment someone finds me.... is after I finally link up with a Grizzly

Now how many people would ask that kind of question on a setting where 300,000 readers -- worldwide -- drop by every 20 minutes??

Hey Steady,

I missed that post, thank goodness, but did see something in the paper about some guy in the Northwest somewhere getting caught in that position. I didn’t read or study the article for details.

Sorry but my mind doesn’t work that way, to even contemplate that happening with an animal, it’s against my law and the law of nature to my way of thinking, but I’m sure there are pervs out there that wouldn’t give it a second thought.

The only question I would ask, is what kind of perv is this person.

EDIT: A sense of humor is one thing, but sex with animals sure isn't my idea of humor. But maybe you got a laugh of of it. It does take all kinds.

[phil]

Back to you, CB. I give back what I take.

Oh phil grow a sense of humor, if your kind can. That's what being eclectic can do for ya. :D

[Steadygain]

Hey Steady,

I missed that post, thank goodness,

I figured you must have missed it !! Was expecting a response the next second demanding why the *#I$) would I even ask you a question like that ??

So thanks CB -- You really are a gentleman and a scholar

but did see something in the paper about some guy in the Northwest somewhere getting caught in that position. I didn’t read or study the article for details.

Fortunately wherever I saw it didn't go into details either but I mean it's still pretty sick...:sick:

Sorry but my mind doesn’t work that way, Trust me -- I do know that


to even contemplate that happening with an animal, it’s against my law and the law of nature to my way of thinking,
So then if we're out doing some far off hunting... and we come across some kind of crap like that...we should put the guy out of his misery and let it go.

but I’m sure there are pervs out there that wouldn’t give it a second thought.
In all sincereity I hope it is with a Grizzly --- out in the Wild -- oh my gosh that would be better than shootin' em.

The only question I would ask, is what kind of perv is this person.

Who knows -- I guess we'll have to ask ..... hmmmm who should we ask??????

No -- picking on you was enough for today -- and I appreciate you not stomping me in the ground.

Have a good night my friend.

Steady

[CountryBoy]

Who knows -- I guess we'll have to ask ..... hmmmm who should we ask??????

No -- picking on you was enough for today -- and I appreciate you not stomping me in the ground.

Have a good night my friend.

Steady

I figgered you were pulling my leg and in person, you would have gotten, "WTF are you thinking or talking about????

You have a good one too bud.

[WorkFE]

"WTF are you thinking or talking about????

Along with the:

Stomping in the ground. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[James48843]

I mean what if I get lost in the woods for months at a time.....

and the moment someone finds me.... is after I finally link up with a Grizzly



Oh, Steady, the thought of that is just un-bearable!

Steady- now we know why you were always watching that big 'ole smiling guy on the Grizzly Adams show....

7262

that's ok- I won't ask, if you don't tell......

But there really must be something about an old bear skin rug....

[CountryBoy]

Along with the:

Stomping in the ground. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yeah, then running in the opposite direction, screaming for help...:laugh:

[Steadygain]

Oh, Steady, the thought of that is just un-bearable!


:embarrest: Kind of amazing -- as when I came up with that little story for CB, I immediately came up with the most dangerous animal I could think of..... and that picture is totally the opposite of what I thought could be possible.

Well anyway --- back to Politics :mad:

I sincerely believed BHO wanted to cap the Exec bonuses and that he essentially put into law --- a decent (but not excessive) cap

NOW - I find the same BANKS currently have $50 Billion set aside for Exec bonuses --- right now

SO -- Is it BHO is in reality powerless and Congress and all of them have no power to do anything to the ones 'really in control' ..:mad:

or is there a way for BHO and his Administration (Congress) to put them in their place???

PLEASE -- Think about the current situation and reflect on BHO's projected 'honest' view and reaction to these Execs.....

Maybe it is NOT -- BHO --- Maybe we are seeing the TRUTH as it really is... and that's even worse.

[Viva La Migra]

Then I hope that we can get convictions. Taking them out and shooting them just wouldn't go over very well. Just to let you know, if our government should do the same to you, I would also object. You are also protected by the law. I'll let you worry about their current immigration status.

A bit of that 700 billion was my tax dollars. Are you planning to pay me and everyone else, and my kids back for the amount of money that we spent there?
I hope we get convictions too, but I'm not nearly as confident as the AG is. I agree that taking them out and shooting them would not go over well, but it would make a lot of people feel better! In all honesty, I'm hoping the C130 transporting the prisoners to NY does a JFK Jr. into the Atlantic and the only people rescued are the crewmembers.

I'm not worried about the terrorists' immigration status. I already know what their status is. What I worry about are the activist liberal immigration judges that will grant these people legal status if they aren't convicted.

Don't get me started on what our tax money goes to. I think we can agree that there are a lot of things our tax money pays for that we would rather not pay for. This government has gone far beyond it's Constitutionally delegated authority it is scary, but the only way to fix it is to vote the bastards out that caused this mess and put people in that will bring the government back within the limits of the Constitution. That will never happen now that the people have started voting themselves money out of the treasury. I fear where we are going as a nation...straight to bankruptcy!:mad:

[Silverbird]

What...ok. This assumes:
1) No Death sentence
2) No consecutive life sentences (which I figure is the next lowest rung and if you do the math parole will be after death unless these guys are immortal).
3) All other subsequent cases against the defendents go awry as well (there are other cases besides the main one)
3) They actually make it through prison life before sentencing (yes I know they will probabably be in solitary - this includes sanity and unsucessful suicide - they want to die and meet the virgins that's part of this.)
4) They are not deported (it's not like they are US citizens or here legally)

Giving them rights as enemy combatants would give them rights under the Geneva convention and would be bad news - soldiers are not convicted for killing the enemy (for either side - the problem here is we don't have two sets of soldiers shooting directly at one another).

[Steadygain]

What...ok. This assumes:
1) No Death sentence
2) No consecutive life sentences (which I figure is the next lowest rung and if you do the math parole will be after death unless these guys are immortal).
3) All other subsequent cases against the defendents go awry as well (there are other cases besides the main one)
Most of the other cases are 'Military Courts'

This ONE is singled out strictly for 'a front' -- a 'representation' -- a 'good face' so to speak.

He has enough charges that even in the remotest possibility he was aquitted or pardoned for the ONE he is facing -- he would immediately be arrested for a seperate crime.

It's largely a show for everyone's pleasure.... much like the aired rescue of the WV young female soldier...
3) They actually make it through prison life before sentencing (yes I know they will probabably be in solitary - this includes sanity and unsucessful suicide - they want to die and meet the virgins that's part of this.)
4) They are not deported (it's not like they are US citizens or here legally)

Giving them rights as enemy combatants would give them rights under the Geneva convention and would be bad news - soldiers are not convicted for killing the enemy (for either side - the problem here is we don't have two sets of soldiers shooting directly at one another).

Good post SB

[phil]

Limits of constitutionality would, of course, exclude the Patriot Act. Yes, people voting themselves money is just wrong, no matter how you slice it. As a Federal worker, I take it as my duty to be able to help the greater good with the least possible expenditure, to provide honest, efficient and ethical government, no matter what others may believe.

Activist liberal immigration judges act according to US law. While I may not agree with them in many cases, I won't argue with the decision after it's made, or make any judgment to the contrary.

Wouldn't you rather see justice done? I think that the trial will help many people bring some closure to 9/11. I think that's the purpose, rather than to keep an open wound.

Your bankruptcy fears are well-founded, considering how much money we've spent in the past 8 years, and how little we've received.


I hope we get convictions too, but I'm not nearly as confident as the AG is. I agree that taking them out and shooting them would not go over well, but it would make a lot of people feel better! In all honesty, I'm hoping the C130 transporting the prisoners to NY does a JFK Jr. into the Atlantic and the only people rescued are the crewmembers.

I'm not worried about the terrorists' immigration status. I already know what their status is. What I worry about are the activist liberal immigration judges that will grant these people legal status if they aren't convicted.

Don't get me started on what our tax money goes to. I think we can agree that there are a lot of things our tax money pays for that we would rather not pay for. This government has gone far beyond it's Constitutionally delegated authority it is scary, but the only way to fix it is to vote the bastards out that caused this mess and put people in that will bring the government back within the limits of the Constitution. That will never happen now that the people have started voting themselves money out of the treasury. I fear where we are going as a nation...straight to bankruptcy!:mad:

[Silverbird]

Statfor Analysis on holding Terrorist Trial in New York City
[their conclusion - yes, this court knows what they are doing, and New York already is, and always will be a target for terriorists, and they already have foiled numerous plots.]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091118_terrorist_trial_new_york_city?utm_source= SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091118&utm_content=readmore

[Viva La Migra]

Limits of constitutionality would, of course, exclude the Patriot Act. Yes, people voting themselves money is just wrong, no matter how you slice it. As a Federal worker, I take it as my duty to be able to help the greater good with the least possible expenditure, to provide honest, efficient and ethical government, no matter what others may believe.

Activist liberal immigration judges act according to US law. While I may not agree with them in many cases, I won't argue with the decision after it's made, or make any judgment to the contrary.

Wouldn't you rather see justice done? I think that the trial will help many people bring some closure to 9/11. I think that's the purpose, rather than to keep an open wound.

Your bankruptcy fears are well-founded, considering how much money we've spent in the past 8 years, and how little we've received.
None of these people were Mirandized prior to being interrogated. None of the statements they gave after they were captured are going to be admissible in court. None of the evidence found as a result of the statements made after capture will be admissible in court. They are all more than likely going to walk on a technicality.

Not only that, but the defense could argue that they cannot receive a fair trial in New York and request to have the case moved to another state...like California and the ninth circuit court of appeals! A move like that would almost certainly guarantee dismissal of charges.

They will have to be paroled into the United States for prosecution purposes, but without a conviction DHS will only be able to put them into removal proceedings for being aliens not in possession of immigration documents. Their home countries are, so far, unwilling to accept them back, so they are stateless and will be eligible to be released from custody after up to six months in custody. If DHS does not release them, then they can file a Habeas Corpus petition and sue for their release, which they are likely to win, because they were not convicted of a crime and are stateless.

I think this is going to be a disaster that will blow up in AG Holder and Pres. Obama's face. If it weren't such a serious matter, I'd watch the proceedings with a bowl of popcorn and laugh when the jury issued it's verdict.

For the record, I hope I'm wrong on this one. On this rare occasion, I do not look forward to saying I told you so.

[phil]

Then I guess we'll have to trust the US justice system. We really shouldn't have a dictatorship here. Try Central America or parts of Asia.


None of these people were Mirandized prior to being interrogated. None of the statements they gave after they were captured are going to be admissible in court. None of the evidence found as a result of the statements made after capture will be admissible in court. They are all more than likely going to walk on a technicality.

Not only that, but the defense could argue that they cannot receive a fair trial in New York and request to have the case moved to another state...like California and the ninth circuit court of appeals! A move like that would almost certainly guarantee dismissal of charges.

They will have to be paroled into the United States for prosecution purposes, but without a conviction DHS will only be able to put them into removal proceedings for being aliens not in possession of immigration documents. Their home countries are, so far, unwilling to accept them back, so they are stateless and will be eligible to be released from custody after up to six months in custody. If DHS does not release them, then they can file a Habeas Corpus petition and sue for their release, which they are likely to win, because they were not convicted of a crime and are stateless.

I think this is going to be a disaster that will blow up in AG Holder and Pres. Obama's face. If it weren't such a serious matter, I'd watch the proceedings with a bowl of popcorn and laugh when the jury issued it's verdict.

For the record, I hope I'm wrong on this one. On this rare occasion, I do not look forward to saying I told you so.

[grandma]

Did anyone else see the article in today's paper that Germany is sending a representative of their government over to the NYC trial proceedings?
The purpose is to ensure that any information obtained through them & used against the terrorists will Not/can Not be used to obtain a death penalty.

[James48843]

Did anyone else see the article in today's paper that Germany is sending a representative of their government over to the NYC trial proceedings?
The purpose is to ensure that any information obtained through them & used against the terrorists will Not/can Not be used to obtain a death penalty.

A very good argument against picking up terrorists and allowing "extrodinary rendition"- foreign governments to do the questioning for us, don't you think? You would have thought that a proper government (not fun with Dick and George) would have considered all of the possible adverse ramifications of directing the questioning to be done outside of the United States by foreign government agents.

But no--


We'll see. I am sure that the current government thought about what can and cannot be used in the prosecution, before deciding what the appropriate forum would be to bring charges.

[grandma]

I am sure that the current government thought about what can and cannot be used in the prosecution, before deciding what the appropriate forum would be to bring charges.
I believe I agree whole-heartedly - that the current government has given deep & informed consideration to what the outcome will be, from their application of considerable time, night & day, day in & day out, studying on all the legal variables of this case. ...and that their expectations will succeed, whether any part of it is what the Citizenry expected or not.

[The HalfBreed]

Some of you have commented that I am a Liberal.
To which I say "Phooey".

I believe that most, if not all people on this board cannot be classified as either / or.

I consider myself a centrist, leaning slightly left of center tho. However, IMO, I feel that those in Gitmo should be transferred back to their home of origin, on a ship, shackled to each other. Then, around the Golden Triangle, the boat should suffer catastrophic failure and sink.

With only the Capt and crew as sole survivors.


End of Story. :D

[Buster]

However, IMO, I feel that those in Gitmo should be transferred back to their home of origin, on a ship, shackled to each other. Then, around the Golden Triangle, the boat should suffer catastrophic failure and sink.

With only the Capt and crew as sole survivors.


End of Story. :D
Hmmm..Seems you and Viva have similar views...and he's a Conservative..it would appear you're leaning a little to the Right of center now ...Welcome home:D

I hope we get convictions too, but I'm not nearly as confident as the AG is. I agree that taking them out and shooting them would not go over well, but it would make a lot of people feel better! In all honesty, I'm hoping the C130 transporting the prisoners to NY does a JFK Jr. into the Atlantic and the only people rescued are the crewmembers.

[nnuut]

Some of you have commented that I am a Liberal.
To which I say "Phooey".

I believe that most, if not all people on this board cannot be classified as either / or.

I consider myself a centrist, leaning slightly left of center tho. However, IMO, I feel that those in Gitmo should be transferred back to their home of origin, on a ship, shackled to each other. Then, around the Golden Triangle, the boat should suffer catastrophic failure and sink.

With only the Capt and crew as sole survivors.


End of Story. :D
Great Idea Drown the Bastards, now THAT is a conservative view if I ever heard one. I should know because I am a Conservative and I feel the same way, don't waste any more money on this scum and never let them go free!:nuts: 7320

[mick504]

Why on earth would we bring terrorists to the U.S. try them in court in NY or elsewhere...for them to be paraded on national TV....make more terrorists upset, possibly create some bombings in New York or wherever the trial is moved to. We are acting like they have the same rights as US citizens and they do not. Since they were fighting our military....a military court is in order. This is rediculous! What's next!

[phil]

The idea to try the terrorists in New York is fine. I don't think that the idea that this would somehow upset other terrorists really comes into the equation. The reason that we try them is to also bring this crime to closure. It's been an open wound for us for many years. Bringing this to an end for us is very important.


They committed a crime in the US, and they'll be tried in the US court system, hopefully found guilty and punished. The enormous and wasteful expenditures on the global war on terror will also hopefully come to an end at some point.
Why would we NOT want to do that?

[Show-me]

Battle field executions are cheaper.

[Show-me]

And, we won't have the additional cost of transporting and tyeing up civilian courts.

[Show-me]

Keep it simple, no new prisons, just quick and speedy executions.

[Show-me]

The 3,000 souls that died in the towers need their justice and it seems you don't want to remember them or their families.

How quickly we forget about our dead.

[Silverbird]

Battle field justice? For the Trade Center and Pentagon incidents? Hrmm, that creates a VERY interesting mind picture. New York firing squad? With some of these cases the problem is it's not a battlefield.

I still think staying in a Supermax is the perfect sentence, those virgins are going to get long in the tooth waiting :toung: and they'll have to stay in solitary for their own protection. Death sentence appeals keep you in there for a Loooonnnngggg time (at least 2 years I think?).

[KevinD]

The Democrats have a history of considering these acts to be a law enforcement issue. IMO, the Obama administration is just following the past practice of the Clinton administration.

I'm not sure if this MewsMax article was supposed to be "news" or if it was an opinion piece.

Clinton assured Americans that he had put forth "the full, full resources of the federal law enforcement agencies - all kinds of agencies, all kinds of access to information - at the service of those who are trying to figure out who did this and why."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/142108.shtml

[Show-me]

It was a act of war on American soil, let the military take care of it at sea.

How many are American citizens that committed crimes in America?

Really I'm curious.

[Silverbird]

I really don't want these felons treated as enemy combantants. They are not guilty of anything long term as enemy combatants (soldiers can be held prisoner but they are not on the whole held responsible for killing people that are subjects of a country they are at war with, battle is expected to result in deaths.).

[Show-me]

And, if they are citizens, should they be charge with treason.

[Show-me]

Is not jihad a act of war that shows loyalty to another country or group.

[nnuut]

The idea to try the terrorists in New York is fine. I don't think that the idea that this would somehow upset other terrorists really comes into the equation. The reason that we try them is to also bring this crime to closure. It's been an open wound for us for many years. Bringing this to an end for us is very important.


They committed a crime in the US, and they'll be tried in the US court system, hopefully found guilty and punished. The enormous and wasteful expenditures on the global war on terror will also hopefully come to an end at some point.
Why would we NOT want to do that?

This is what's needed, Now we are giving these solders rights reserved for US Citizens!! STUPID STUFF!!!:nuts:
Jurisdiction
Courts-martial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts-martial) generally take jurisdiction only over members of their own military and sometimes, civilians present with them. Even when court-martial procedures are used to try enemies, the body convened is often instead called a military tribunal or military commission.
A military tribunal or military commission, in contrast, is generally used to refer to bodies who assert jurisdiction over persons who are held in military custody and stand accused of being enemies in a conflict in which the military is engaged who a combatants who have violated a law of war.
Military tribunals convened to impose punishment (as opposed to tribunals established solely to classify persons in military custody as combatants or non-combatants), generally limit themselves to accusations that an individual violated the laws of war. Military tribunals generally do not consider cases where an individual is merely being accused of being a combatant on behalf of the enemy.
Military tribunals also, generally speaking, do not assert jurisdiction over people who are acknowledged to be non-combatants who have committed ordinary civil crimes. But, military tribunals are sometimes used to try individuals not affiliated with a national military who are nonetheless accused of being combatants acting in violation of the laws of war.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_tribunal&action=edit&section=3)] Controversy

While tribunals can provide for quick trials under the conditions of war, many critics say this occurs at the expense of justice.
Time constraints and the inability to obtain evidence can greatly hamper a case for the defense. Others have tried to use this argument in favor of commissions, as issues such as chain of evidence and hearsay, which are applied in civilian and criminal trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_(law)), could preclude conviction if such rules were applied (e.g., how to claim a bomb was in proper custody from a battlefield to a courtroom?) Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret. Because conviction usually relies on some sort of majority quota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quota), the separability problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separability_problem) can easily cause the verdict to be displeasing not only to the defendant but also to the tribunal.
Decisions made by a military tribunal cannot be appealed to federal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts). The only way to appeal is a petition for a panel of review (which may or may not include civilians as well as military officers) to review decisions, however the President, as commander-in-chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief), has final review of all appeals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal). No impartial arbiter is available.
Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights), that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006). All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_tribunal&action=edit&section=4)] Trial by military commission of the Guantanamo detainees

Main article: Guantanamo military commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission)
President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp) were to be tried by military commissions. This decision sparked controversy and litigation. On June 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_29), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.
In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006) was passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements and with a designated system of appealing those decisions. A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-3) As of June 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_13), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), the appellate body in this military commission system had not yet been constituted.
Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_13), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007). One detainee, David Matthew Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Matthew_Hicks) plea bargained and was sent to Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) to serve a nine-month sentence.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-4) Two case were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_4), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_8), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007). [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-5) One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Ahmed_Khadr), who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Ahmed_Hamdan) who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system. The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#Jurisdiction

[Silverbird]

They do not represent a country we can attack and go into combat with, and have no land we can take over or bomb that we know belongs to them. Plus, they do not wear uniforms, that is one of the things a soldier MUST do to qualify as a soldier - they must obviously be representing their country.

They don't represent anything except a "cause", and a religious dogma (I can't even say Islam here because I bet they don't like Sufis, and there are more Sufis than any other sect of Islam.). Treating them as soldiers is an insult to the real thing.

[Steadygain]

Did anyone else see the article in today's paper that Germany is sending a representative of their government over to the NYC trial proceedings?
The purpose is to ensure that any information obtained through them & used against the terrorists will Not/can Not be used to obtain a death penalty.

I wasn't aware of this Grandma ~~ but perhaps the 'world at large' is seeking the most advanced method of trying to insure Justice at the highest possible levels.

It appears that simply by being an 'American' (although I hate that word -- only because it totally neglects Canada, C.A. and S.A. ) it's impossible to deny the wide spread 'brain washed' American Mentality -- and how that makes 'us' think that anyone we attack deserves to be attacked; that any kind of war we engage in is because 'we are always right'.... and everybit equal to that the belief that 'we are innocent and never deserve to be attacked irregardless of who the attackers are and their circumstances'.

So perhaps having people from other countries -- participate in the trials of 'foreigners' shows a marked advancement in our society.

[Steadygain]

The 3,000 souls that died in the towers need their justice and it seems you don't want to remember them or their families.

How quickly we forget about our dead.

Show-me,
With all due respect !!

3,000 is a very small number compared to the millions and millions around the world that are tortured and killed simply because they were born where they were and had to grow up in circumstances beyond their control.

It was a very sad and traggic event -- one that hit me very hard -- I just wish I could equally be 'outraged' when the same thing happens to others around the world.

Maybe the biggest problem is we put too much focus on 'our dead' and fail to be bothered with the destuction and horrible circumstances of so many others.

Anyway -- forgive me -- this is way to beyond me to know the answers... the underlying problems... or if any solution is possible.

[nnuut]

They do not represent a country we can attack and go into combat with, and have no land we can take over or bomb that we know belongs to them. Plus, they do not wear uniforms, that is one of the things a soldier MUST do to qualify as a soldier - they must obviously be representing their country.

They don't represent anything except a "cause", and a religious dogma (I can't even say Islam here because I bet they don't like Sufis, and there are more Sufis than any other sect of Islam.). Treating them as soldiers is an insult to the real thing.
I have to disagree, they are NOT US Citizens, they are organized, they attacked our Country you have to consider that an act of WAR. These fractions are at war with us, they call it a WAR so it is. They should be treated as soldiers because they are, and they call themselves soldiers of Islam, so they are. It is ridiculous for us to treat them any other way, what is there to prove by going against US Law for these assassins, give them the rights of the people they are determined to kill? They are at war with us and we are at war with them, treat them like they would treat us, CUT OFF THEIR DAMN HEADS, they do it to our people without any type of trial!!

[grandma]

[QUOTE=Steadygain;241393]I wasn't aware of this Grandma ~~ but perhaps the 'world at large' is seeking the most advanced method of trying to insure Justice at the highest possible levels.
Different nations within the UN have different viewpoints of `justice.'
Therefore, it would seem, that the `highest possilbe levels' is relative
to whichever nation is doing the seeking.

...belief that 'we are innocent and never deserve to be attacked irregardless of who the attackers are and their circumstances'.
If circumstances are criteria for justification of evil, explain how any one from the ghettos in the Larger-than-Large cities ever rise above their circumstances and become contributing personalities to society in general?

So perhaps having people from other countries -- participate in the trials of 'foreigners' shows a marked advancement in our society.
I think that even if I ponder on this a bit before replying, I will still feel offended by the thought of having other countries participate in our Judicial system would be considered a marked advancement. Considering the judicial processes of most of the Other Countries on this planet, maybe a better idea would be to have us - the United States Of America - participate in theirs. Especially considering that Germany is persecutinghomeschoolers, even to the extent of removing kids from their families, of refusing to let those families escape to another country.

Considering if a Key Word in your response is `foreigners' maybe we need to explore what that means? ...would that include all folks who crossed into our borders (whether by land or into our air-space) without benefit of visas, or passports, or resident cards? Violators of airspace in Foreign Countries if not shot down are escorted to that military base for examination. How does that compute with Marked Advancement?
I can understand the earlier response of not asking/permitting another country to do our interogations for us if we want to use that information for later prosecution. My question of this tactic: is that only what was allowed by the capturing country - that the country with the warrant can't take part on foreign soil? Another- are we sitting in on those interogations? Why isn't that allowed, then. If the country with the warrant can't take part in the questioning on foreign soil, then why would that country's interview be considered sacrosant here, their foreign soil?

And - as I recall the original article at the beginning of this discussion, didn't mention Germany taking part in any of the trial - it only said that
Germany would be sitting in attendance to verify their interrogation wouldn't be used
as evidence for a death penalty.
:) grandma

[Silverbird]

My point is, if this is a war, then they are soldiers. If you treat them as soldiers, you really can only kill them in battle. These guys don't engage in battle, they blow up civilians, and don't even think about attacking our troops (if they did, we could shoot back with no problems whatsoever). Prisoners of war are supposed to be held until the end of the war, and not prosecuted for killing (that's the nature of warfare). So I don't consider them soldiers because it gives them a clean slate after the war is over, because if they were soldiers they would be engaged in warfare with our soldiers, and killing and dying is part of warfare. No way these guys get a clean slate "after the war", nor do they have rights as enemy combatants. They are not soldiers. Just thugs with a theme.

There are times in battle that you can't take prisoners and end up killing soldiers you capture, but in this case that arguement doesn't work, they are our prisoners already.

[Steadygain]

[QUOTE=Steadygain;241393]
Justice at the highest possible levels.

Different nations have different viewpoints of `justice.'
Therefore, it would seem, that the `highest possilbe levels' is relative
to whichever nation is doing the seeking.

Perhaps. Grandma, I have no idea and I was simply reflecting some thoughts. I guess the more I think about it the more it seems Justice in the realest and most purest sense is virtually impossible - at least among the human race.

...belief that 'we are innocent and never deserve to be attacked irregardless of who the attackers are and their circumstances'.

If circumstances are criteria for justification of evil, explain how any one from the ghettos in the Larger-than-Large cities ever rise above their circumstances and become contributing personalities to society in general?

Grandma, you are one I deeply respect and I meant nothing offensive. When I mentioned 'circumstances' I had in mind the companies and industries of a Super Power going throughout other Nations and taking all their valuable resources -- for their own selfish interests -- while leaving the populations in misery or in essense -- keeping the overall popluations in poverty so the few in power can enjoy all the wealth. I guess I have to wonder where is the real evil -- is it not those most responsilbe for forcing ghettos and the overwhelming odds that they have little to no chance in success?

Grandma, I don't have the answers... again I'm simply reflecting.

So perhaps having people from other countries -- participate in the trials of 'foreigners' shows a marked advancement in our society.
I think that even if I ponder on this a bit before replying, I will still feel offended by the thought of having other countries participate in our Judicial system would be considered a marked advancement.

I was simply thinking that Germany could not have had the thought to send someone (and my thoughts wholly stemmed from only your previous post) -- unless various Nations had joined together and it was a co-operation of 'World Interests'.

Considering the judicial processes of most of the Other Countries on this planet, maybe a better idea would be to have us - the United States Of America - participate in theirs.
:D:D I don't believe the USA would be capable of isolating their own self interests. I believe whatever they decided would be only as they saw it benefitting them.

Again - I really don't mean this as an argument - simply reflecting what I believe is real.

Especially considering that Germany is persecutinghomeschoolers, even to the extent of removing kids from their families, of refusing to let those families escape to another country.

Grandma, this is an issue I knew nothing about. Can only say that I have many relatives that are 'home schooled' and I fully support 'home schooling'.

Considering if a Key Word in your response is `foreigners' maybe we need to explore what that means? ...would that include all folks who crossed into our borders (whether by land or into our air-space) without benefit of visas, or passports, or resident cards?

I don't mean to sound like such an idiot Grandma. 'Foreigners' to me would include anyone who is of a foreign Nationality -- whether they have 'passports or not' -- that have come here and engaged in either an attack (or were caught in the plan of an attack) - or were in some manner arrested for ill-intention towards the Country.

I'm simply reflecting on how much I wish the US Citizens could have other Countries be a part of their trial when N. Korea, China, Iran and others arrest them.

So Grandma - usually my reflections are not specific to one case.

Violators of airspace in Foreign Countries if not shot down are escorted to that military base for examination. How does that compute with Marked Advancement?

It doesn't from my perspective. I believe the Military (and Military Mindsets) are largely why things are so bad. With that is the undeniable belief that whatever 'flag' you're under is sacred and true -- that it is the 'ultimate right'. Yet each 'flag' is different.

I can understand the earlier response of not asking/permitting another country to do our interogations for us if we want to use that information for later prosecution. My question of this tactic: is that only what was allowed by the capturing country - that the country with the warrant can't take part on foreign soil? Another- are we sitting in on those interogations? Why isn't that allowed, then. If the country with the warrant can't take part in the questioning on foreign soil, then why would that country's interview be considered sacrosant here, their foreign soil?

And - as I recall the original article at the beginning of this discussion, didn't mention Germany taking part in any of the trial - it only said that
Germany would be sitting in attendance to verify their interrogation wouldn't be used
as evidence for a death penalty.
:) grandma

I have no clue how to respond.

Thank you for sharing what you did -- hopefully I answered what I could .

Steady

[phil]

So, you're saying that these people are soldiers?

No, I won't give them that. They're criminals, and should be treated as criminals. I will not dignify their actions as soldiers with a cause or with a nation.


This is what's needed, Now we are giving these solders rights reserved for US Citizens!! STUPID STUFF!!!:nuts:
Jurisdiction
Courts-martial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts-martial) generally take jurisdiction only over members of their own military and sometimes, civilians present with them. Even when court-martial procedures are used to try enemies, the body convened is often instead called a military tribunal or military commission.
A military tribunal or military commission, in contrast, is generally used to refer to bodies who assert jurisdiction over persons who are held in military custody and stand accused of being enemies in a conflict in which the military is engaged who a combatants who have violated a law of war.
Military tribunals convened to impose punishment (as opposed to tribunals established solely to classify persons in military custody as combatants or non-combatants), generally limit themselves to accusations that an individual violated the laws of war. Military tribunals generally do not consider cases where an individual is merely being accused of being a combatant on behalf of the enemy.
Military tribunals also, generally speaking, do not assert jurisdiction over people who are acknowledged to be non-combatants who have committed ordinary civil crimes. But, military tribunals are sometimes used to try individuals not affiliated with a national military who are nonetheless accused of being combatants acting in violation of the laws of war.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_tribunal&action=edit&section=3)] Controversy

While tribunals can provide for quick trials under the conditions of war, many critics say this occurs at the expense of justice.
Time constraints and the inability to obtain evidence can greatly hamper a case for the defense. Others have tried to use this argument in favor of commissions, as issues such as chain of evidence and hearsay, which are applied in civilian and criminal trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_(law)), could preclude conviction if such rules were applied (e.g., how to claim a bomb was in proper custody from a battlefield to a courtroom?) Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret. Because conviction usually relies on some sort of majority quota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quota), the separability problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separability_problem) can easily cause the verdict to be displeasing not only to the defendant but also to the tribunal.
Decisions made by a military tribunal cannot be appealed to federal courts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_courts). The only way to appeal is a petition for a panel of review (which may or may not include civilians as well as military officers) to review decisions, however the President, as commander-in-chief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief), has final review of all appeals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal). No impartial arbiter is available.
Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights), that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006). All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_tribunal&action=edit&section=4)] Trial by military commission of the Guantanamo detainees

Main article: Guantanamo military commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission)
President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) ordered that certain detainees imprisoned at the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp) were to be tried by military commissions. This decision sparked controversy and litigation. On June 29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_29), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), the U.S. Supreme Court limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals to suspected terrorists at Guantánamo Bay.
In December 2006, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006) was passed and authorized the establishment of military commissions subject to certain requirements and with a designated system of appealing those decisions. A military commission system addressing objections identified by the U.S. Supreme Court was then established by the Department of Defense. Litigation concerning the establishment of this system is ongoing.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-3) As of June 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_13), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), the appellate body in this military commission system had not yet been constituted.
Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_13), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007). One detainee, David Matthew Hicks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Matthew_Hicks) plea bargained and was sent to Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) to serve a nine-month sentence.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-4) Two case were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_4), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_8), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007). [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#cite_note-5) One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Ahmed_Khadr), who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Ahmed_Hamdan) who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system. The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal#Jurisdiction

[James48843]

I have to disagree, they are NOT US Citizens, they are organized, they attacked our Country you have to consider that an act of WAR. These fractions are at war with us, they call it a WAR so it is. They should be treated as soldiers because they are, and they call themselves soldiers of Islam, so they are. It is ridiculous for us to treat them any other way, what is there to prove by going against US Law for these assassins, give them the rights of the people they are determined to kill? They are at war with us and we are at war with them, treat them like they would treat us, CUT OFF THEIR DAMN HEADS, they do it to our people without any type of trial!!

Excuse my asking, but......

If they are "at war", then does the Geneva Convention apply? Because if we are "at war", it does, you know. And if the Geneva convention applies, then yes, they must be treated as soldiers.

And you know what that means- once you capture them, then you must safeguard them until the war is "over", and then you must let them go free.

That is the whole argument with whether or not they are "enemy combatants". Because of they are, then the Geneva Conventions apply, and you can't try them for actions on the battlefield- you have to safeguard them and then let them go when "it is over".

Of course, it will never be "over", because there is no power to sign a peace agreement with. And there was no "declaration of war", as required by the Geneva convention and the U.S. Constitution. Remember that little gem that requires Congress to declare war?

Congress authorized sending troops to Afhganistan - but never did they "declare war" against the taliban.


Here is EXACTLY what Congress authorized :

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.



There is nothing in that autorization of the use of force about trying suspects in anything OTHER than the legal system of the United States. Sorry, but it just isn't there.

... treat them like they would treat us, CUT OFF THEIR DAMN HEADS

Um, if you tried that, you would be commiting a war crime. I, and every other soldier who ever swore to uphold the constitution, would be obligated to stop you from doing so.

Sorry, but that simply isn't an option.
I'd refer you to FM 27-10, Law of Land Warfare:
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm

I kind of like the idea of having a jury find them guilty, but instead of sentencing them to solitary, I would think it would be good to simply put them in with the general population of prisoners. I kind of think THAT would be the most efficient way of taking care of things. I believe they would last a very, very short time in the general population, but you could safely say that you met your obligation to try and safeguard them.

for about a day, I'd think.

The guy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn't picked up in Afghanistan, anyway. He was captured by Pakistani police, and somehow wound up in Gitmo. There is plenty of evidence to convict him, in civil trial, of any of a NUMBER of events- not just the 9-11 attacks. So I have no doubt that man will get a speedy trial, and then will get his due. I think they will fast track things as we move along. We'll see how it works out.

[grandma]

[QUOTE=grandma;241410]
I have no clue how to respond.
Thank you for sharing what you did -- hopefully I answered what I could .
Steady
- aggravation & questioning needed by all at some time or another...
whether what's written makes any sense to the reader or not...
you're cool - okay?:)

[Steadygain]

[QUOTE=Steadygain;241434]
- aggravation & questioning needed by all at some time or another...
whether what's written makes any sense to the reader or not...
you're cool - okay?:)


Thank you !! So are you ;)

[Steadygain]

They are at war with us and we are at war with them,

Well here we'd have to see 'Why are they at war with us'?

Let's take the wonderful population of Iran for instance. If we took the time to honestly research into the general population we would find everybit the beauty of anything remotely connected to our population. They have far more roots than we could ever dream of having and have been around a whole lot longer.

NOW -- How do we honestly evaluate their bitterness towards 'us' when we find that 'we' have for years and years taken their OIL and left them to barely survive? How can we be comfortable with the documented and undeniable CIA plots (coups) that errupted over the years and all the Political Turmoil 'we' created.

treat them like they would treat us,

If we in REAL LIFE -- represented the bulk of Nations that the USA has incredibly close ties with (like Iran over many years) and they did to us -- exactly what we've done to them....

we would not be 'happy campers'... we would want to fight.

CUT OFF THEIR DAMN HEADS, they do it to our people without any type of trial!!

Actually they do have some kind of 'Judgement/Trial' they simply don't have the garbage legal system we do.


If they are "at war", then does the Geneva Convention apply?

Only if 'we' want it to. :rolleyes:

Because if we are "at war", it does, you know. And if the Geneva convention applies, then yes, they must be treated as soldiers.
:D:D

So I have no doubt that man will get a speedy trial, and then will get his due. I think they will fast track things as we move along.

I wholeheartedly agree with that -- and like most everyone else my 'American' hertitage wants the same outcome everyone else wants.

We'll see how it works out.

Let's hope it's a comming together -- where the U.S. says no more war and everyone comes home. Where China says 'Hey you owe us $11 Trillion -- but we're cool so get your country strong first before you worry about us'; where GB and the USA spill the beans and tell everyone all they've been hiding, where the EU says hey enough is enough --- we're not going to let Islam, Muslims, or any other religion take us over....

Gosh there's so much and I just don't have time to do justice to every Nation and the global population. But we'll hope for the best.

BTW -- Saw 2012 -- of course National Geographic already elaborated recently on 'Yellowstone' the MEGA-VOLCANO. If that happens as expected ~~ anyday now ~~ the rest of this stuff is pretty meaningless.

OK -- Moderators -- you may resume the fight

[nnuut]

Of course I'm wrong as hell again!! I don't think that is true. We are not at WAR with every Muslim but for damn sure we are at WAR with TERRORISM!! Might be that WAR was not officially declared on these RATS of THE EARTH but YES it was declared by us and them, it takes 2 baby to have a WAR and there are 2 even if we don't know what Country they are from and supported by.
If you think the Geneva Conventions apply you are wrong, no it's Not for them as they have certainly demonstrated and not for us because we are NOT at WAR,,,,, but we are and it is with one of the worst enemies, one that claims no soventry one that executes prisoners on TELEVISION in the most brutal ways. If that was your son that had his head cut off on TV how would you feel would you think that we are justified to declare WAR? What is wrong with you people can't you see, are you deaf and dumb at what their intentions are? What do you do, you do what our founders would have done you kill the SOBs, that's all they understand, put the fear of the real GOD in their souls and they will slither off like the snakes that they are. Kissing their asses will accomplish NOTHING!!!
I think everyone knows where I stand, I will argue no more, don't be afraid be strong~!!:cool:

[James48843]

.. We are not at WAR with every Muslim but for damn sure we are at WAR with TERRORISM!! :cool:


Really?

How does one "win" a war against-- an emotion?


Main Entry: ter·ror Pronunciation: \ˈter-ər, ˈte-rər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrēre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble — more at tremble (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tremble)
Date: 14th century
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scourge) b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : worry (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worry) d : an appalling person or thing; especially : brat (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brat)
3 : reign of terror (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reign+of+terror)
4 : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
synonyms see fear (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fear)


Tell me how it ends.

Tell me what you want our soldiers who are deployed, to do, in order to come home.

How do we quantify "a win"? in a war against an emotion.

And then how do we get there from here?

If you figure it out, let me know.

[phil]

We are going to try them in a court in the United States. We're going to have the rule of law. Otherwise, they'll win. Their purpose is clear. I have no desire to extend our war to any other countries at this point. It's just too costly, and we can't afford it. The most useful thing we can do is to bring the people who committed the crime to justice. Then we can have some sort of closure. And move on.

We aren't at war with terrorism either, to be honest. Some of these groups exist for a reason in their countries. Some people chose to belong to terrorist groups in their country because they had to, not because they wanted to. Our own country at its inception was created by a group of terrorists, according to the British.

[James48843]

.. and not for us because we are NOT at WAR,,,,, but we are and it is with one of the worst enemies, one that claims no soventry one that executes prisoners on TELEVISION in the most brutal ways. If that was your son that had his head cut off on TV how would you feel would you think that we are justified to declare WAR?:cool:

No. Cutting off a head isn't war that requires Congress to declare war. Who would they be declaring war against, anyway? It's a crime-- not a nation state.

I wouldn't expect the U.S. Congress to declare war in such a case. I WOULD expect law enforcement authorities to take action and arrest, and then convict, those responsible.

But that's me.

You are entitled to your view on it. I'll take the Court case. I am confident that Justice will be served.

[nnuut]

OH, NEVER MIND, you Guys would argue with a STOP SIGN. Way to lenient on the Bad Guys, but that's what you do right, follow in the footsteps of the Chosen One, kissin' the bad guy's BUTTS. As for what's going to happen in New York City when the trials start, do you think that giving these assassins a platform to speak to the World is a good idea? What do you think they will tell the World about the USA, LIES, but it doesn't matter that they LIE whatever they say will be taken as TRUTH not only by many in the Muslim World, but the entire planet. The world is looking at what we are doing and laughing. :cool: JMHO
You two are ganging up on me, is that fair?

[KevinD]

Just another step toward One World Government. :D

[Steadygain]

We are at WAR with TERRORISM!!
Norm,
I honestly mean this with the deepest respect and am merely throwing this out for reflection. Is the root behind 'Terrorism' stemming from the way a 'Super Power' has negatively impacted on other Nations. If that is the basis for 'resentment' and others are responding to the horrible injustices done to them --- then the real TERROR was forced upon them.

Because these Nations are outside of our borders - we don't see it and it has not had a bearing on our lives -- other than the abundance we've had throughout our lives and always knowing a standard of life that is far above and beyond everyone else.

RATS of THE EARTH
How would all other Nations refer to the Super Power that takes their resources and forces them to live in poverty - with little to no chance of escape?

worst enemies, one that claims no soventry
There is none but GOD alone

one that executes prisoners on TELEVISION in the most brutal ways.
And the many lynchings in the South were very public events.

I'm absolutely certain that if the U.S.A would televise executions it would be the most population program ever. Maybe the USA could build a 'collusium'

If that was your son that had his head cut off on TV how would you feel
I would know that my daughter was there only because she was convinced that God wanted her where the needs were the greatest.

would you think that we are justified to declare WAR?
No Norm, I would not feel that way. I have to trust that my daughter was willing to take the risk -- and if she was tortured and killed then I know in my heart of hearts who she served and that LOVE was the basis for eveything she did.

I would not destroy her work -- her life -- by waging war.

What is wrong with you people can't you see, are you deaf and dumb at what their intentions are?
I would guess their intentions are to make the world a better place, to want Justice and Equality - and they are willing to give their lives in that effort.

But if their intentions are to force a 'mindset' and a 'lifestyle' that is equally WRONG on everyone else then they will lose.

What do you do,
The best thing to do is take the time to open mindedly research into their history and find as much as possible about how their Nation came into being and how it changed over thousands of years. Find out everything possible about the 'Native Population' and their hertitage. Then see how 'Politics' and other Nations interferred.

Do this with Vietnam - with Iraq, Iran, and essentially any other Nation you feel are the RATS OF THE EARTH.

you kill the SOBs, that's all they understand,
They have learned from 'our example'

put the fear of the real GOD in their souls and they will slither off like the snakes that they are.
The fear of the real GOD in their souls could never be accomplished through hatred and destruction. It could only come through the real GOD showing Grace and Mercy -- LOVE, ACCEPTANCE and PEACE.

They would be transformed from 'snakes' to 'lambs'

Kissing their asses will accomplish NOTHING!!!:cool:

We don't know that Norm -- it may give us opportunity to kiss them in other places. We have to start somewhere and to me it doesn't make any difference where we start. When they feel the genuine loving expressions of our tender kisses it will likely cause them to 'melt enough' that we can reach even better places... like their abdomens, chest, and back.

But never underestimate the power of kisses. ;):)

[CountryBoy]

+1 nnuut, argue with a stop sign is the best I've heard yet. :laugh:

[alevin]

We don't know that Norm -- it may give us opportunity to kiss them in other places. We have to start somewhere and to me it doesn't make any difference where we start. When they feel the genuine loving expressions of our tender kisses it will likely cause them to 'melt enough' that we can reach even better places... like their abdomens, chest, and back.

But never underestimate the power of kisses. ;):)

Steady, methinks you are really really confused right now! :laugh:

[nnuut]

Some Great Politicians posting in this thread, such talent, to make inappropriate comparisons and walk gingerly around a subject that is as simple as this. I think I'll volunteer to serve for equal rights for Terrorists and Illegal Aliens, that's my next thing.:laugh: 7326

[CountryBoy]

It all depends on your definition of Terrorist and Illegal. ;) Though it seems pretty straight forward. :D

[Steadygain]

Steady, methinks you are really really confused right now! :laugh:

Alevie, my sweet little sister,
If I am confused then it's only in regards to my understanding of 'Why the Rest Hate the West'.

If I am the 'lone voice' it makes no difference to me.

The subject was 'TERRORISM' -- and the WAR against it. That alone is what I'm addressing in my last post.

We can see this purely from the 'American' perspective -- which totally ignores how the U.S.A. has negatively impacted on the existence of other populations. Which completely fails to appreciate the details by which the CIA and American Corporations and Industries have deliberately sought to take whatever they wanted without any regard for the Native Populations or making any effort to appreciate their roots and hertitage. We can buy into the Belief that 'we are innocent' and 'good' -- 'that we did no wrong' -- 'that we represent a better way'.

Alevie -- we can not possibly hold on to that belief if we independently take the time to honestly research everything at length. The more you take the time to explore their conditions and the existence forced upon them -- the more you realize how innocent the native population as a whole really is.

His message was Hate and Destruction
My message was Love and Acceptance

His message was geared towards seeing them as 'rats' - 'snakes'
My message was seeing them as human beings just like us.

His message was grounded in their 'evil deeds'
My message is -- who is most responsible for forcing this on them

So forgive me my friend, because I am so easily 'misunderstood' but his message was 'We can kiss their asses'
Meaning we can both 'accept' and 'encourage' their hatred and the evil deeds that flow from that hatred.

Or -- as I meant to express -- we can stive to love them with such a real and perfect LOVE that it will overcome their hatred and:

the TERROR will end -- NOT because we forced it in like manner -- but because they were changed by something far better.

That is honestly what I meant to reflect.:embarrest: Thanks for pointing out my flawed communication. ;):cool:

[James48843]

OH, NEVER MIND, you Guys would argue with a STOP SIGN. Way to lenient on the Bad Guys, but that's what you do right, follow in the footsteps of the Chosen One.....


I only wish I could try to follow in those footsteps...

7328

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy time seven."

[nnuut]

OK, I quit, not fair to play the religion card!!! Never mind I'll go talk to my friend RED!!!:laugh::laugh: 7329

[Steadygain]

7326

Nnuut - I just realized that my previous message totally ignored some other aspects that to me have nothing to do with

TERRORISM and the WAR ON TERRORISM

I am fully convinced that many individuals committing horrible crimes against women, children, men, animals, and society at large should be swiftly and accurately addressed.

I believe the Legal System we have is terrible because it's largely a sham -- it's way more about 'money' and the insistence on making a good image -- and does essentially nothing to change the underlying condition.

If this is more 'What you were expressing' then I am in full agreement.

I believe the 'condition' creating the problem has to be addressed in a manner that makes the individual a fully functioning member of society and that everyone -- without exception -- knows they are safe.

Only in this manner can a repeat serial rapist be friends with any of my daughters and I (nor anyone else) should not be concerned.

SO -- my previous message was one regarding general relationships with other Nations and people in general.

This one -- may be more in line with what you were expressing -- but here I mean every single person that can honestly be considered 'Socially Unacceptable'.

Here I would say -- change the wiring -- change the 'condition'.

[nnuut]

I am a realist and already understand what you graciously reminded me about, the oblivious is always there and delving too deeply into the reasons that our government and judicial system may be slanted one way or the other is the wrong avenue to take. The simple fact is that these people are the ones that attacked our biggest city and our Capital and killed 3,000 innocent people and I don't think they deserve to be judged by our courts and have the same RIGHTS as our citizens, no I don't love them because they are people JUST LIKE US, no I don't think we should TURN THE OTHER CHEEK, No I don't care about their feelings, but am fully in touch with mine and let there be no confusion, I think to feel any other way in an insult to the GOOD people of America. WAR is HELL and always will be I don't care what our mental health professionals think is a healthy attitude. Something’s you just can't cure problems with kindness or the threat of kindness. No more please.;)
Now where is my friend RED? OH, hi Buddy!! 7331

[SkyPilot]

We are going to try them in a court in the United States. We're going to have the rule of law. Otherwise, they'll win.

Just wondering... Do you suppose the rule of law only exist in civilian court?

Military tribunals are a model of "rule of law" which often exceeds the practice of civilian jurisprudence. Military tribunals may offer a venue which is decidedly more objective than civilian court.

As for the notion that the accused are not soldiers, perhaps. However, they are likely unlawful combatants that choose not to wear a uniform, and therefore are either spies or terrorists. How do we know this?

It is their own confession and passion. They are self described terrorist and holy warriors, and it is their heartfelt desire to suffer martyrdom in service to their g-d.

If we are to follow the rule of law in civilian court, then it is likely that they will have their cases dismissed, as President Obama has already declared them guilty, and has thoroughly tainted the jury pool.

However, if they are to be tried by a jury of their peers, who might their peers be?

Another question: How could they be expected to get a fair trial in the city in which their alleged acts (crimes?) are so obvious?

It is not a simple as you seem to want to make it.

[nnuut]

Well SAID SP!!:cool:

[James48843]

..
Military tribunals are a model of "rule of law" which often exceeds the practice of civilian jurisprudence. Military tribunals may offer a venue which is decidedly more objective than civilian court.

As for the notion that the accused are not soldiers, perhaps. However, they are likely unlawful combatants that choose not to wear a uniform, and therefore are either spies or terrorists. How do we know this?



Good point duly noted Skypilot. Since they were not picked up in Afghanistan, or on the battlefield, but rather captured by another country and turned over to us, I think that is a large part of the reason why those particular ones are going to be tried through civil, rather than military courts.

I acknowledge that properly convened military tribunals can and do serve a purpose, and can be the appropriate forum, in some cases even a superior forum. I guess you really have to take all the specific circumstances, and types of evidence into account.

I think they will get a fair trail in New York.

In fact, it may even be easier to invoke the death penalty there than elsewhere. We'll see. New York U.S. Attorneys have a pretty good track record of convictions.

[Steadygain]

I am a realist

So am I -- more than you may realize

reasons that our government and judicial system may be slanted

That's not what I stiving to communicate

these people are the ones that attacked our biggest city and our Capital and killed 3,000 innocent people

Dealing with these specific people is a whole lot different than dealing with TERRORISM - and the WAR on TERRORISM which 'sounds perfect and pure' but has been ongoing for years and years.

If we are dealing strictly with the 'cell' responsible for the Twin Tower bombings.... that's a whole different matter.

and I don't think they deserve to be judged by our courts and have the same RIGHTS as our citizens,
Here I could care less what anyone on the MB thinks -- including me - because it's beyond us and our 'opinion' makes no difference.

no I don't love them because they are people JUST LIKE US,
Let's assume that 'us' means people that by nature are socially acceptable individuals -- that have consistently over the years proven to be a vital and productive part of society.

We don't know if they would be 'just like us' -- By nature they may be everybit as 'good' as us and were led astay by 'abnormal beliefs' and 'brain-washing'

If that's the case and we simply need to break the 'beliefs' that hold them bondage -- and 'un' brainwash them -- then that would be most appropriate justice we could serve.

no I don't think we should TURN THE OTHER CHEEK,
Nor do I my friend -- that's the last thing we should do.

If they are by nature this way -- if this is their 'wiring' and will remain a condition that never disappears...

Then I say we should 'address that wiring' -- that would be the most appropriate justice we could serve.

No I don't care about their feelings,
But they are your brothers -- and mine too.

but am fully in touch with mine and let there be no confusion I think,
I think the need for 'revenge' is distorting your thinking

to feel any other way in an insult to the GOOD people of America.
How would changing them permanently - in the manner I've described be an insult to anyone in America. Torturing them and killing them does no good for anyone -- in no way can that be good for America.

WAR is HELL and always will be
Because War is always grounded in one group attempting to overthrow another --- where more advanced weapons make one group look like the right group. Because WAR is always a Political endeavor that completely ignores the 'native population' and the interests of the whole.

I don't care what our mental health professionals think is a healthy attitude.
Well there may be one out there you would say 'Wow, I'm glad to know what you think'.

Something’s you just can't cure problems with kindness or the threat of kindness.


I totally agree with that !! Nor would throwing them in a 6 x 6 room for years and years 'cure' the problem.

So -- if we are looking for 'The Cure' then consider my previous post.

A CURE -- means the person has been transformed...

is no longer 'sick' ... no more 'a danger' :D:D

BTW --- I'm just realizing we're talking about the guys who apparently were behind the Twin Tower Bombing

SO - My FIRST POST --- does not apply

[James48843]

I would also note that we don't know exactly what they will be charged with. Since they all are accused of being involved in a NUMBER of different crimes, the government attorneys may have something up their sleeves we don't know about yet, like trying them for the U.S.S. Cole attack, rather than the twin towers attack.

Something like that- a strange twist- might allow the prosecution to enter evidence based on their own confessions, rather than having to muddy the waters with twin tower evidence gotten from the germans. We just don't know exactly what the trial will be about, and won't , until the trial gets underway. We'll see what evidence comes out in the trial.

I am sure they won't have any problems finding a jury with an open mind. There are a lot of people in New York with open minds. At least, that's what they'll say when the jury is chosen.

I know I am open minded.

I am open to firing squad, or hanging, or lethal injection, or electrocution. I am not closed minded about that at all.

[Birchtree]

Please - if you are deployed try not to take any prisoners. They are not worth the sacrifice of saving - send them directly to Allah. Do this country a favor - use revenge to kill as many as possible - that way we won't release them so they return to the battle field again.

[phil]

Interesting points, but what makes you think that the military courts should have jurisdiction? They are not soldiers, they're civilians who have committed crimes, and should be handled by civilian courts.

As for President Obama's statement:
In an interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/) aired on NBC's Today show, President Obama predicted that one of the alleged September 11th terrorists will be convicted and executed. He quickly backpedaled saying he did not intend to pass judgment before the trial.

So I don't think it necessarily follows that he's tainted the jury pool. Besides, a lot of people wouldn't follow the advice, and vote on the jury based on the evidence.

As far as a jury of their peers: would their peers also be found in the military justice system?

Getting a fair trial in New York: I think they can find 12 people out of several million to fill a jury, don't you?

No. Things are actually simpler, if we ask the right questions.

Just wondering... Do you suppose the rule of law only exist in civilian court?

Military tribunals are a model of "rule of law" which often exceeds the practice of civilian jurisprudence. Military tribunals may offer a venue which is decidedly more objective than civilian court.

As for the notion that the accused are not soldiers, perhaps. However, they are likely unlawful combatants that choose not to wear a uniform, and therefore are either spies or terrorists. How do we know this?

It is their own confession and passion. They are self described terrorist and holy warriors, and it is their heartfelt desire to suffer martyrdom in service to their g-d.

If we are to follow the rule of law in civilian court, then it is likely that they will have their cases dismissed, as President Obama has already declared them guilty, and has thoroughly tainted the jury pool.

However, if they are to be tried by a jury of their peers, who might their peers be?

Another question: How could they be expected to get a fair trial in the city in which their alleged acts (crimes?) are so obvious?

It is not a simple as you seem to want to make it.

[Steadygain]

Please - if you are deployed try not to take any prisoners. They are not worth the sacrifice of saving - send them directly to Allah. Do this country a favor - use revenge to kill as many as possible - that way we won't release them so they return to the battle field again.

I would say this message should all the more be given to every Nation willing to attack us.

We have repeatedly been the Aggressor Nation inflicting the damage.

So if this message applies to 'US' it all the more applies to 'THEM'

None of us are worth the sacrifice of saving...

Send everyone of us to our final resting place...

No one has more grounds for REVENGE than the other Nations

Kill us all and take whatever is for the taking -- or turn us into your slaves so we can experience what 'we' have done to others.


Right on Birch -- well said :)

[Steadygain]

I know I am open minded.

I am open to firing squad, or hanging, or lethal injection, or electrocution. I am not closed minded about that at all.

James there is no doubt about that and you communicate very well.


The STOP does not leave room to be open minded -- that's the thrill of our posts and if anything that is the bottom line; it challenges the STOP sign and forces all to acknowledge who is unmoving...

...especially in hate, revenge, death.....

...and who is willing to bend ... who is willing to find 'a better way' or at least be willing to accept that a 'better way' may exist.

[Steadygain]

Please - if you are deployed

Well there is no way I can head home with this hanging over me...:o


If you are 'Active Duty' - in the Guard or Reserves ...

...or have already fought in Battle


I mean no DISRESPECT to you !!!


I'm simply sick and tired of Hatred - of everything to do with Terror - and that's across the board.


BUT -- in no way do I mean anything offensive to our Soldiers


So now I can leave and be at peace

[Buster]

Try them, convict them, then sentence them..

Why are we over there, instead of waiting around like spineless wimps for another attack on one of our major cities?...

Unknowingly, Show-Me said the most perfect reason....

Attacking the life cycle at the right time is the key. .

[Show-me]

Try them, convict them, then sentence them..

Why are we over there, instead of waiting around like spineless wimps for another attack on one of our major cities?...

Unknowingly, Show-Me said the most perfect reason....

Aww, shucks. :embarrest: Hope your nuts do better next year.:nuts:

[Steadygain]

Last night I thought about 'Radical Extremists' and how much I detest the ones who live that way. They have a 'Mindset' that leaves no room for deviation or intollerance. For them, there is no mercy or grace, no pardon or forgiveness -- because they are fully convinced that those they perceive as their enemy deserve no rights and are only here to suffer and die.

With that in mind consider the following; for I believe this mindset is wrong for everyone:

How can we possibly condemn any other group for having the same mindset ?

These scum bags in Gitmo are not entitled to Constitutional rights,
This is the mindset and this is to anyone that deviates from this:
why the hell don't you move to Canada or some other country if this one bugs you so much.

Great Idea Drown the Bastards, don't waste any more money on this scum and never let them go free!

Battle field executions are cheaper.

won't have the additional cost of courts.

Keep it simple, no new prisons, just quick and speedy executions.


let the military take care of it at sea.

treat them like they would treat us, CUT OFF THEIR DAMN HEADS

these RATS of THE EARTH

If you think the Geneva Conventions apply you are wrong

What is wrong with you people can't you see, are you deaf and dumb at what their intentions are? kill the SOBs, that's all they understand, put the fear of the real GOD in their souls and they will slither off like the snakes that they are.

Way to lenient on the Bad Guys, but that's what you do right, follow in the footsteps of the Chosen One, kissin' the bad guy's BUTTS. What do you think they will tell the World about the USA, LIES, but it doesn't matter that they LIE whatever they say will be taken as TRUTH not only by many in the Muslim World, but the entire planet.

I don't think they deserve to be judged by our courts and have the same RIGHTS as our citizens, no I don't love them because they are people JUST LIKE US,No I don't care about their feelings,

I think to feel any other way in an insult to the GOOD people of America.

Please - if you are deployed try not to take any prisoners. They are not worth the sacrifice of saving - send them directly to Allah. Do this country a favor - use revenge to kill as many as possible - that way we won't release them so they return to the battle field again.

Please know that I do not mean this post as an attack against the individuals who made the posts. I believe each and every individual has immensely added to the quality of this site and many of their reflections have been meaningful and wonderful.

At the same time I, in all sincereity, fully believe that if the comments listed above were Statements taped by Radical Extremeists and they were 'aired for all to hear' -- or they were published 'for all to read'

That essentially every person who heard the messages or read the messages would be 'concerned'. My guess is that the ones who made the posts would undoubtedly be the most outspoken.

So all I'm asking is that we strive to deal with issues without displaying 'Radical Extremism' -- It can be done.

[nnuut]

Being a pushover, being naive, will get us nowhere with these people. Telling the truth, and fighting fire with fire is nothing to be ashamed of!! It would be ideal if we could smooth them over to our side with kindness and forgiveness, but that is NOT going to happen, these people are very determined (a Religion thing) and blindly follow their leaders. Their plans are NOT short term they know what they are trying to do may take centuries, they will never quit because we think they are wrong and misguided. A new definition of the word PATIENCE.:suspicious:
Wanting to protect your own is not being a Radical Extremeist.

[SkyPilot]

My reply did not challenge the assertion of who should have jurisdiction, but rather was positing the query regarding your expressed doubt that they could receive fair treatment under rule of law by military tribunal.

Backpedaling aside, (the bell cannot be unrung) the jury pool is tainted by these unfortunate comments. To what degree is to be determined.

This will be a motion by the defense to dismiss, and these statements alone can be determined so prejudicial that a case cannot go forward. As far as passing judgement, he has done so on more than one occassion (notably his presumptive statements related to the conduct of Boston police and the arrest of his friend, when he stated he did not know the facts of the circumstances, but the police were wrong anyway. All this resulted in the infamous "Beer Summt").

The higher the profile, the more prejudicial. One cannot be higher profile than this. This is part of the "rule of law" that you expressed concern about.

As it is his Department of Justice that will be prosecuting the case, it is not beyond the pale to beleive that when the president states you are guilty, the presumtion of a fair trial under rule of law is compromised.

However, jurisdiction dispute is in play, and is not easy and clear cut. Your use of the term civilian is quite expansive. Once one joins a militia, they can hardly be termed strictly civilian. So you see, the debate is legitimate, and far from easy and clear cut.

As none of the terrorist seem to belong to a military organization as you seem to want to define it, then is all this effort to defend against terrorism merely a police action rather than a military conflict? By that reasoning, we should not be conducting a police action with deployed military troops. Law enforcement and Military action are well purposed when deployed appropriately, but are disastrous when confused.




Interesting points, but what makes you think that the military courts should have jurisdiction? They are not soldiers, they're civilians who have committed crimes, and should be handled by civilian courts.

As for President Obama's statement:
In an interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/) aired on NBC's Today show, President Obama predicted that one of the alleged September 11th terrorists will be convicted and executed. He quickly backpedaled saying he did not intend to pass judgment before the trial.

So I don't think it necessarily follows that he's tainted the jury pool. Besides, a lot of people wouldn't follow the advice, and vote on the jury based on the evidence.

As far as a jury of their peers: would their peers also be found in the military justice system?

Getting a fair trial in New York: I think they can find 12 people out of several million to fill a jury, don't you?

No. Things are actually simpler, if we ask the right questions.

[Show-me]

Last night I thought about 'Radical Extremists' and how much I detest the ones who live that way. They have a 'Mindset' that leaves no room for deviation or intollerance. For them, there is no mercy or grace, no pardon or forgiveness -- because they are fully convinced that those they perceive as their enemy deserve no rights and are only here to suffer and die.

With that in mind consider the following; for I believe this mindset is wrong for everyone:

How can we possibly condemn any other group for having the same mindset ?
























Please know that I do not mean this post as an attack against the individuals who made the posts. I believe each and every individual has immensely added to the quality of this site and many of their reflections have been meaningful and wonderful.

At the same time I, in all sincereity, fully believe that if the comments listed above were Statements taped by Radical Extremeists and they were 'aired for all to hear' -- or they were published 'for all to read'

That essentially every person who heard the messages or read the messages would be 'concerned'. My guess is that the ones who made the posts would undoubtedly be the most outspoken.

So all I'm asking is that we strive to deal with issues without displaying 'Radical Extremism' -- It can be done.

My comments are out of frustration. These are enemy combatants, pick up on the battle field. What kind of freak'n trial do you need? They were there, fighting against our forces. GUILTY, DONE, END IT, MOVE ON!

[SkyPilot]

As far as a jury of their peers: would their peers also be found in the military justice system?

I don't beleive that a jury of peers is part of the construction of a military court. I have included an introductory link for you as a place that you may refer to if you wish to become more familiar with the details of the issues you are discussing. http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/military-tribunals.html (http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/military-tribunals.html)

You seem to be asserting that I suppose that a military tribunal is the preferred and appropriate jurisdition. I beleive that you misunderstand the nature of my questions to you and my comments regarding your post.

It seems clear to me that you oppose military justice as a matter of principal by the assertion that military justice does not follow the mandate of "rule of law" but that civilian courts do.

And as you have raised what seems to you an easy matter of determining jurisdiction, may I suggest some study on the history of jurisprudence and the issues related to jurisdiction? http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3254&lang=en

I am sure you will find it fascinating, instructive and will come away with a more textured and nuanced understanding of the issues at hand.

Hopefully this will inform your understanding of what the "right questions" are.

[Steadygain]

Being a pushover, being naive, will get us nowhere with these people.

Norm,
I completely agree with you. Anyone that deliberately sets out to destory 'innocent people' should receive the consequences of their actions. This is not being a pushover -- or being naive.

When others do wrong -- they should deal with the consequences.

My problem is totally due to the reference of 'these people'

Are you willing to include 'individuals from the U.S.A' when you say 'these people'

Are you willing to accept the fact that thousands upon thousands of 'innocent people' have already been killed and many others destroyed -- way beyond the Twin Tower deaths -- because of 'us'.

Do they not have the same right to be bothered ?

Did you know that the people native to Vietnam never referred to the massive destruction to their land and people as the Vietnam War --- that's true -- they call it 'The American War'.

Telling the truth, and fighting fire with fire is nothing to be ashamed of!!

What is 'The Truth' Norm ?? Seriously

The TRUTH is GB and the USA went to Iran and took their OIL year after year and had the native population working as their slaves. They took their only source of wealth and left the people with nothing. Finally the people got fed up and said 'No More' -- get the foreigners out -- and let us have what rightfully belongs to us.

Is this 'The Truth' -- you want to make known.

I ask you in the deepest sincereity -- do you honestly want people to know 'The Truth' about what we did in Vietnam and 'why' we did it. Do you really want to shed the REAL TRUTH about what we did upon arriving in Iraq and have continued to do to this day??

It would be ideal if we could smooth them over to our side with kindness and forgiveness,

What is our side Norm? Do you mean to show them the extend by which 'our corporations' -- price fix essentially every marketable product-- show them how 'our standard' has always been many times beyond everyone else.

Is 'our side' the side that 'rewards' all those who don't want to work or drives down the desire to be ambitious. Is our side the side that has the highest growth of obesity ever recorded?

And when has 'our side' ever demonstrated 'kindness and forgiveness'

but that is NOT going to happen,

How can it possibly happen when everything we do is meant to destroy them -- to take more from them -- and leave them in even worse situations.

these people are very determined (a Religion thing) and blindly follow their leaders.

When I swore in to 'serve my Country' our group was told 'Congratulations ladies and gentlemen, you are now United States Government Property'.

I've been there Norm -- I know what it is 'To Blindly Follow' because there is no higher level of committment. Yet all regarded me as 'a Hero' -- I was highly rewarded for having this mindset.

SO -- Maybe they are 'heros' if all things are measured evenly.

Their plans are NOT short term they know what they are trying to do may take centuries,

And what are 'their plans' -- is it to get the 'foreign companies and corporations' out of their land? Is it they do not want 'Western Influence and Lifestyle' forced on them?

Are they fed up with having little to nothing so the mighty 'Super Power' can have everything?

I'm not asking you these things to make you mad !!!

I'm asking that we all honestly look at the whole picture and try to understand why so many others would RESENT the U.S.A.

they will never quit because we think they are wrong and misguided.

Are we wrong Norm? Are you willing to honestly see how most of the other populations have been forced to live? Are you willing to seriously see the extent by which the U.S.A. has brought the circumstances and conditions that many other Nations have to endure?

A new definition of the word PATIENCE.:suspicious:
Wanting to protect your own is not being a Radical Extremeist.

Are we wanting to protect our own or are we wanting to protect the incredible standard and abundance we've always had?

Are we any different from them when our message is one of 'Death to All' --when we label all of them for destruction --

Don't get me wrong! If they were responsible for the Twin Tower Event -- then they should be punished. I personally believe 'The Twin Tower Event' will be 'pinned' on anyone and everyone they want to pin it on because nothing would more give the backing of the American Population.

So in the end -- we all have to wonder -- what is the truth???

I've always appreciated you Norm -- from day one

I've got nothing more to add.

[Show-me]

Look at the cost to maintain, transport, feed, cloth, and freak'n legally represent enemy combatants. Are you kidding me? I know families that can use that money. Hell, put them back on the battle field and let the Marine take care of it. Give them a weapon, get them off the taxpayer dime.

[WorkFE]

I don't beleive that a jury of peers is part of the construction of a military court.

It absolutely is.

[CountryBoy]

My comments are out of frustration. These are enemy combatants, pick up on the battle field. What kind of freak'n trial do you need? They were there, fighting against our forces. GUILTY, DONE, END IT, MOVE ON!

+1 Show-me and Steady you gotta remember the context in which these comments were made. 9/11, attacking our troops, beheadings, wanting to wipe out the infidels..... the hits just keep on coming. Evil and these people are pure evil, needs to be eradicated, just like a roach.

[SkyPilot]

Good point duly noted Skypilot. Since they were not picked up in Afghanistan, or on the battlefield, but rather captured by another country and turned over to us, I think that is a large part of the reason why those particular ones are going to be tried through civil, rather than military courts.

I acknowledge that properly convened military tribunals can and do serve a purpose, and can be the appropriate forum, in some cases even a superior forum. I guess you really have to take all the specific circumstances, and types of evidence into account.

I think they will get a fair trail in New York.

In fact, it may even be easier to invoke the death penalty there than elsewhere. We'll see. New York U.S. Attorneys have a pretty good track record of convictions.

Yes, this matter of jurisdiction is a sticky wicket indeed. Given the Federal Judiciary, I hope that we have not given these guys a get out of jail free card, so to speak. My concern is that if we are trying to convince the world of the fairness and rightness of American Justice, then we are on a fools errand.

It seems that there are more politics being played with this issue than ultimate concern for what would be the best and fairest way to try these men. The fact that it may be easier for them to be convicted in civil court in New York does not give me comfort. It seems we may be "jury shopping" and that the results of the trial are a forgone conclusion.

As this is a process of meeting out justice and not revenge, this is my concern.

Peace for us all,

*by the way, I have enjoyed reading your posts over the years. :)

[SkyPilot]

It absolutely is.

Would you please provide citation? The best I can do is the following and it does not seem to support the concept of "peer". This however is related to Court Marshall. My research may be faulty and I would appreciate your reference. :)


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47_40_V.html

more specifially to Military Tribunal
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s1941.html

Although...
http://www.news8austin.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=258594 Maybe peer by different definition?

[Steadygain]

+1 Show-me and

Steady you gotta remember the context in which these comments were made.

CB,
The context by which these comments are made are by American Citizens who have been born and raised with the greatest freedoms and the most abundance of all people living on our planet.

They are 'primarily made' from people who deeply believe that by virtue of being an American they are 'good' and that everything connected to their country is 'right and honorable'.

They fail to realize the 'absurdity' of this logic and do not have the ability to see 'the Truth'. They are all too deeply convinced that they are right and whatever the USA and anything connected with the USA does throughout the world -- is 'right'.

They essentially all believe that the USA has the 'right' to do whatever it wants to do -- to any population -- to any other Nation - and they are 'right' in doing whatever they do.

9/11,
All I'm saying is look at the 'Real Truth' -- see what we have done to them for years and years before 9/11

Why would these people want to attack us? Was it in response to years and years of hardships forced on them?

attacking our troops,
Here I would simply ask -- are 'our troops' invading their lands. Do they have the right to protect themselves?

It's never a 'one sided' picture -- but that's the way 'we' always project it.

beheadings,
Have 'we' not done the equivalent to them many times over?

wanting to wipe out the infidels.....
And who are 'we' trying to wipe out.... anyone and everyone that displays any evidence of resistence to 'us' taking their resources or forcing 'our way' of life upon them.

the hits just keep on coming.
Would the hits stop -- if you and I and the rest of those posting were in their place?

How would we react if it were us?

Evil and these people are pure evil, needs to be eradicated, just like a roach.

I have absolutely 'no doubt' that if you honestly looked at all the facts -- you would have to say 'These people are pure evil'

BUT WE ARE NOT PURE EVIL -- the general population of the US has nothing to do with what is happening around the world and what has been ongoing for many years. It is the few with Power and Control.

That is the Greatest Source of Evil and it stems from here.

'Needs to be eradicated'

I agree CB -- so why are we bothered by their actions???

Have a good TG -- my friend and say 'Hi' to your daughter for me

[CountryBoy]

Steady,

We'll just not agree on this issue. Have a good TG also. :)

CB

[SkyPilot]

I have absolutely 'no doubt' that if you honestly looked at all the facts -- you would have to say 'These people are pure evil'

BUT WE ARE NOT PURE EVIL -- the general population of the US has nothing to do with what is happening around the world and what has been ongoing for many years. It is the few with Power and Control.

That is the Greatest Source of Evil and it stems from here.

'Needs to be eradicated'

I agree CB -- so why are we bothered by their actions???

Have a good TG -- my friend and say 'Hi' to your daughter for me

Steady, this is a lawless world, and we ar to be in it, but not of it... easy to say, hard to do. I like to say it like this; we cry for justice, but we really want mercy. If it is a plea for justice, then we all are condemned. If we seek mercy, then we leave vengence for the One whose vengence is pure and we are not tainted by the rightous evil that must be done.

I appreciate you and your thoughtful words. You too, CB. And so many of you who help elevate this board beyond just the discussion of the financial, but have made it a truly caring and passionate community. Especially Grandma!

Peace upon us all, and enjoy the festivities. We all have much to be thankful for! :)

[SkyPilot]

I only wish I could try to follow in those footsteps...

7328

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy time seven."





:) :) :)

[WorkFE]

SkyPilot, I am in no way connected to the military legal system and only speak from experience. I have seen jury trials in the military. In fact I would call these individuals more of a peer than what you get in the civilian world. The Court-Member Panel. Similar to civilian juries, court-martial members are officers or enlisted persons from the same community or command ("jury of peers") as the servicemember on trial. In civilian communities, serving on a jury is a duty of citizenship, and local court officials will "summon" citizens to serve as jurors. In the military, the commander assigns members to serve as jurors, and that becomes their primary military duty. Of course the commander in alot of situations is the one who pushes the court martial. Fairness can be tough to determine but the military judges are not elected officials, so very often accused opt for trial by Judge.

[nnuut]

Wow, this line by line comment of everything I post is a little bit of a overkill isn't it?

I won't play that game it's way too tedious for my way of thinking, which is to digest someones thoughts, ponder the meaning of the message and comment.

So, in general I think you have the best of intentions, but your comments are giving credence to the Soldiers of Islam, and justification for the attack on the Twin Towers, Federal Building in Oklahoma city and the many other acts of Terrorism, I won't even try to post all of these brutal acts ( and they proudly admit they were responsible for most of them) committed by these people to SHOCK the world and imbed the deepest fear possible. You evidentially believe their actions were justifiable and are our fault, we deserve what we are getting for we are the BIG EVIL. I'm not impressed with your other examples of our PRIDE and Manipulation of the people of the world to meet our end. I really think your comments show a deep disdain for our Country and everything that we have done for the last 150 years. Never has our country been a Saviour, freed enslaved peoples, fought the for human rights, been the most charitable, or helped countries that were being absorbed by self proclaimed Dictators of the world. I love the USA and the people of the USA any actions that were other than acceptable are not the fault of the people but the Government. At this time the people are divided again as the Government is trying to do the wrong thing, the wrong way, but for our own good:laugh: but you know what, the truth will come out and we will make it out of this mess and NEVER GIVE UP regardless of how disdainable a people we are, we will win in the end.:cool: I've had enough!!
Turkey day !!!!! Just took ours out of the frig. Man it's going to smell good cooking, I love that!!:rolleyes:

[Steadygain]

Steady, this is a lawless world, and we ar to be in it, but not of it... easy to say, hard to do. I like to say it like this; we cry for justice, but we really want mercy. If it is a plea for justice, then we all are condemned. If we seek mercy, then we leave vengence for the One whose vengence is pure and we are not tainted by the rightous evil that must be done.

I appreciate you and your thoughtful words. You too, CB. And so many of you who help elevate this board beyond just the discussion of the financial, but have made it a truly caring and passionate community. Especially Grandma!

Peace upon us all, and enjoy the festivities. We all have much to be thankful for! :)

Amen !!! My brother and friend ;)

I all the more appreciate your thoughtful words and all you add.

A wonderful Thanksgiving to all !!

[SkyPilot]

SkyPilot, I am in no way connected to the military legal system and only speak from experience. I have seen jury trials in the military. In fact I would call these individuals more of a peer than what you get in the civilian world. The Court-Member Panel. Similar to civilian juries, court-martial members are officers or enlisted persons from the same community or command ("jury of peers") as the servicemember on trial. In civilian communities, serving on a jury is a duty of citizenship, and local court officials will "summon" citizens to serve as jurors. In the military, the commander assigns members to serve as jurors, and that becomes their primary military duty. Of course the commander in alot of situations is the one who pushes the court martial. Fairness can be tough to determine but the military judges are not elected officials, so very often accused opt for trial by Judge.

Fair enough! Happy Thanksgiving! :)

[SkyPilot]

Turkey day !!!!! Just took ours out of the frig. Man it's going to smell good cooking, I love that!!:rolleyes:

Blessings, my friend!

[phil]

From the 2nd article that you posted:

The question of "military justice" transcends the judicial sphere and goes to the very heart of observance of the rule of law. In many countries, military jurisdiction and the esprit de corps that has characterised it have turned military courts into true instruments of military power that have been wielded against civilian power. Military courts often remove members of the armed forces and military institutions from the rule of law and the scrutiny of society. The wellknow quotation from French statesman Georges Clémenceau to the effect that "military justice is to justice what military music is to music" reflects the enormous controversy that military courts have always prompted.



I don't beleive that a jury of peers is part of the construction of a military court. I have included an introductory link for you as a place that you may refer to if you wish to become more familiar with the details of the issues you are discussing. http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/military-tribunals.html (http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/military-tribunals.html)

You seem to be asserting that I suppose that a military tribunal is the preferred and appropriate jurisdition. I beleive that you misunderstand the nature of my questions to you and my comments regarding your post.

It seems clear to me that you oppose military justice as a matter of principal by the assertion that military justice does not follow the mandate of "rule of law" but that civilian courts do.

And as you have raised what seems to you an easy matter of determining jurisdiction, may I suggest some study on the history of jurisprudence and the issues related to jurisdiction? http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3254&lang=en

I am sure you will find it fascinating, instructive and will come away with a more textured and nuanced understanding of the issues at hand.

Hopefully this will inform your understanding of what the "right questions" are.

[Steadygain]

Wow, this line by line comment of everything I post is a little bit of a overkill isn't it?

I only wish we could honestly cover those beliefs at length. I fully believe the only way to prove their validity is by elaborating to the point that -- we show what is REAL and all of us accept that, deal with it, and move on.

So, in general I think you have the best of intentions,

My intentions are making it very clear that we can't possibly see things the way we need to see them without including the various factors associated with it. I simply refuse to believe everything is 'one sided' and we are always right -- and they are always wrong.

but your comments are giving credence to the Soldiers of Islam, and justification for the attack on the Twin Towers, Federal Building in Oklahoma city and the many other acts of Terrorism, I won't even try to post all of these brutal acts ( and they proudly admit they were responsible for most of them) committed by these people to SHOCK the world and imbed the deepest fear possible. You evidentially believe their actions were justifiable and are our fault,

My comments are showing that 'we' have everybit acted as 'terrorists' to many other people around the world. You may refuse to believe that but all I'm asking is that you be willing to look at all the facts. The facts are undeniable and we can all see the Real Truth if you're willing to do it.

we deserve what we are getting for we are the BIG EVIL.

Again Norm --- this is not me against you; or you against me; it is having a willingness to honestly look at the many details None of us either know about -- or refuse to acknowledge.

If there is 'an evil' in this world -- Now please hear what I'm saying

If there is 'an evil' in this world -- who is most responsible for leaving the rest of the world in 'less desirable circumstances'? who would that be? What Nation is most responsible for the hardships the Global Population has to endure????

Consider the Recession/Depression happening.

I'm not impressed with your other examples of our PRIDE and Manipulation of the people of the world to meet our end. I really think your comments show a deep disdain for our Country and everything that we have done for the last 150 years.

Then let's leave 'my opinions' out - so there is no misunderstanding. Are you honestly willing to bring all the REAL FACTS to light and openly acknowledge what our Country has done over the past 150 years.

I would love that Norm -- I would really love to do that.

Never has our country been a Saviour,
But we always project ourselves this way to the American people

freed enslaved peoples,
We have forced far more people into slavery --than freed them.

Again Norm -- I'm asking you if you are honestly willing to shed the spotlight on 'reality'

fought the for human rights,
Our fight has always been for the 'Interests of our Country' and that is mainly and only for those few in power and control.

Here 'human rights' means nothing -- humans have no rights they are all 'property of the government' and if the government says we will 'draft 35,000 soldiers a month' then that's what's going to happen. If a government wants to take another Nation's resources then they will do it.

been the most charitable,
I hope your kidding Norm. Do you think we would ever spend one penny on anything if it wasn't for selfish interests?

Whose money are 'we' giving when we're Trillions in debt?

or helped countries that were being absorbed by self proclaimed Dictators of the world.
Who are the 'Real Dictators' -- are they not the ones that are truely in Power - the very few connected to the Banks, Corporations, Industries especially of the USA ?

I love the USA and the people of the USA

So do I Norm, more than you would probably ever give me credit. The USA and the people of the USA are absolutely 'beautiful' but then so are the people of 'Iran'.

It is the ones in Control that I have a problem with -- the few in Power who have done what they have done for ages and continue to do to this day.

any actions that were other than acceptable are not the fault of the people but the Government.

Well I'll be darned -- OK Norm

BIG HUG !!!! FOR THAT !!!!

That's exactly what I'm saying -- but I could easily show how the Government of the USA is controlled by the Big Guys that control the Banks, Corporations, and Industries.

This is a 'Break Through' -- we are on the same page !!

At this time the people are divided again

Amen Brother -- another big hug !!

The people have been divided for ages -- every administration

as the Government is trying to do the wrong thing,

Oh yeah !!! Now you're talking ... doing for the few and screw the rest

the wrong way,

Standing and cheering !!!

but for our own good:laugh: but you know what, the truth will come out

Boy -- you had me going at first :embarrest:

RIGHT ON !! They can not hide the truth any longer

and we will make it out of this mess

Or we can just accept what is and know we're hopeless to change it.

and NEVER GIVE UP regardless of how disdainable a people we are

'We' are the most beautiful people ever -- it is only the handful that ruin it for everyone else.

, we will win in the end.:cool: I've had enough!!
Turkey day !!!!! Just took ours out of the frig. Man it's going to smell good cooking, I love that!!:rolleyes:

Well Norm -- I've got to admit -- in the end you really made my day

THANK YOU !!!!

Happy TG - my friend.

Peace and Goodwill to all --- com bi ya -- and all that stuff

[SkyPilot]

From the 2nd article that you posted:

The question of "military justice" transcends the judicial sphere and goes to the very heart of observance of the rule of law. In many countries, military jurisdiction and the esprit de corps that has characterised it have turned military courts into true instruments of military power that have been wielded against civilian power. Military courts often remove members of the armed forces and military institutions from the rule of law and the scrutiny of society. The wellknow quotation from French statesman Georges Clémenceau to the effect that "military justice is to justice what military music is to music" reflects the enormous controversy that military courts have always prompted.

Yes, you have deftly quoted an opinion. And your supposition that military courts are patently unjust is noted. I think you have made your position clear. It was my hope to lead you into greater critical thinking. I fear I have only promted you to further entrench yourself. :worried:

I condede and give you the last word, which is what I suppose you value most.

[phil]

The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, editorialized that, "The president and his men (and women) should think again" and abandon the plan for the tribunals. The Cato Daily Dispatch, a libertarian journal, cited a constitutional scholar who called tribunals, "law on the fly" for their and secrecy and lack of due process. The Washington National Office of the American Civil Liberties Union decried the tribunal plan as further evidence of "the government's increasing willingness to circumvent the Bill of Rights." Yet public opinion seems to support the president's plan. In a Washington Post-ABC News Poll released two weeks after the military order, 59 percent of Americans supported the use of special military tribunals, against 37 percent who favored the use of the regular U.S. criminal court system for trying terrorists.

The problem remains: Now that we open the door to trying people by military tribunal, what next? Can we not also make the case to try economic crimes or other crimes that may or may not undermine our national security by military tribunal?

The answer isn't complicated. I don't want the Presidency to have overwhelming power, but instead that power be placed as close to the American people as possible. This precludes having military commissions try cases outside of their jurisdiction.

It's a slippery slope that we've been on.

[phil]

Actually, I just wanted to know whether you read the article from the link you gave. I certainly did, and found that I agreed with what was said. I had hoped that you also would agree with the article in question.

On the ICJ side, I have read some of their articles previously.

Here's a good one: http://www.icj.org/IMG/PR_22-05-09.pdf

The ICJ expressed alarm today at the plans of the Obama administration to continue and regularize a scheme of indefinite detention without trial that has been emblematic of the worst US abuses in its counter terrorism programs since 11 September 2001.

Thanks very much for the links to the articles. By the way, they're good reading. I'm only quoting from what you've posted. I don't think I'm entrenched into anything, but I have read your references.

Yes, you have deftly quoted an opinion. And your supposition that military courts are patently unjust is noted. I think you have made your position clear. It was my hope to lead you into greater critical thinking. I fear I have only promted you to further entrench yourself. :worried:

I condede and give you the last word, which is what I suppose you value most.

[nnuut]

Well Norm -- I've got to admit -- in the end you really made my day

THANK YOU !!!!

Happy TG - my friend.

Peace and Goodwill to all --- com bi ya -- and all that stuff
The big problem I am seeing is that your posts are really one sided, everybody knows our history, there was Greatness and there was Manipulation, name a country that hasn't done that, possibly Monaco? Yes good deeds are usually done for selfish reasons, even the simplest things down to helping a friend, if it's not the recognition it's the good feeling it gives you, makes you feel better about yourself. Governments do the same thing for different reasons, and surprisingly some are done for just humanitarian reasons. We all know you are a good person Steady but you are very hard on the USA and we don't deserve that.
Have a Great Thanksgiving, Turkey!:D 7351

[Steadygain]

The big problem I am seeing is that your posts are really one sided

Norm, you're right and only in an effort to look at the other side..... do I now realize how right you are.


I was way too 'one sided' :o

We all know you are a good person Steady but you are very hard on the USA and we don't deserve that.

Amazing -- here I thought it would be me making others feel a little 'guilty'.

Come to think of it... when I look at Panama, and every other country .... I see the same s*** -- if not worse.

I'm humbled Norm -- you did a good job. See where good commuication gets us -- if we let it play out.
Have a Great Thanksgiving, Turkey!:D 7351


Thank You !!!

You've helped me more than you realize.

We are a great Country -- and a very wonderful people

[James48843]

Well, it's now past 4 p.m. eastern time- and I'm off work. Thank you for the early dismissal, Mr. President.

In honor of Thanksgiving, I hereby declare this thread "SUSPENDED" as to any further discussion of things GITMO, trials, terrorists, or the legal system. The caviet is that you may discuss GITMO in this thread if you wish to wish our Armed Forces there a Happy Thanksgiving- I think that would be appropriate in a thread titled "Guantanamo"

You are hereby kindly and graciously requested to refrain from, cease and desist, from any more such extraneous NON- "thank" activity, until no earlier than 0800 eastern standard time, Friday, November 27, 2009. At that time, you may resume your normal badminton critique.

In the meantime, please feel free to express your feelings relating to THANKSGIVING here or elsewhere on the boards.

For me, it's giving thanks for the men and women who serve today, tomorrow, and every day, in the Armed Forces of our nation around the world. I give thanks for their devotion to duty, and willingness to serve where ever our county needs them.
Including, the guards who serve every day in Gitmo, and the hundreds of locations around the world.

Thank you each and every one.

And Thanks Nnuut for the fine looking bird there- looks yummy!
7353

[CountryBoy]

Steady, this is a lawless world, and we ar to be in it, but not of it... easy to say, hard to do. I like to say it like this; we cry for justice, but we really want mercy. If it is a plea for justice, then we all are condemned. If we seek mercy, then we leave vengence for the One whose vengence is pure and we are not tainted by the rightous evil that must be done.

I appreciate you and your thoughtful words. You too, CB. And so many of you who help elevate this board beyond just the discussion of the financial, but have made it a truly caring and passionate community. Especially Grandma!

Peace upon us all, and enjoy the festivities. We all have much to be thankful for! :)

Thanks for the kind words SP,

I live by the golden rule, but I just can't tolerate evil. Live and let live. I hope you're almost headed home.

It is nice to have you back on the board and posting. I always enjoyed your comments.

CB

[nnuut]

Likewise CB!!!:D
Happy Thanksgiving!!

[SkyPilot]

Thanks for the kind words SP,

I live by the golden rule, but I just can't tolerate evil. Live and let live. I hope you're almost headed home.

It is nice to have you back on the board and posting. I always enjoyed your comments.

CB

:):):)!

[phil]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091123/national/afghan_cda_abuse_3

Reports on Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

[Steadygain]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091123/national/afghan_cda_abuse_3

Reports on Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

"Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are common in the majority of law enforcement institutions, and at least 98.5 per cent of interviewed victims have been tortured," said the commission's April 2009 study.

This is perplexing !!!

How can we possibly get everyone on the same page without 'Brain Washing'?

What may be regarded as 'Torture, or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment' may be the only possible method of getting everybody to think the same way - believe the same way -- live the same way

Can there be 'Peace and Harmony'? among a wide variety of individuals if somehow they are not brought to think as one; if they are not truely united.

And as strange as it sounds.... there is probably no way to guarantee 'Unity' without widespred 'brain washing'....

What to do .... what to do........ if only people themselves were not such complicated beings ....:mad::mad::o

[grandma]

another perspective:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=791004

[phil]

From the article:

(How, for instance, will these show trials result in any better or more just outcome than a guilty plea and execution sentence – something that the military commission had all but secured?)


Well, let me get this straight. We've had these guys for how long now? And, if they were to be tried by a military commission, why exactly haven't they been tried many years ago?

So now, the President has chosen to have them tried in a courtroom, people are going to criticize. Why didn't the former administration want to do this, instead of leaving it to posterity?



another perspective:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=791004

[Boghie]

From the article:

(How, for instance, will these show trials result in any better or more just outcome than a guilty plea and execution sentence – something that the military commission had all but secured?)


Well, let me get this straight. We've had these guys for how long now? And, if they were to be tried by a military commission, why exactly haven't they been tried many years ago?

So now, the President has chosen to have them tried in a courtroom, people are going to criticize. Why didn't the former administration want to do this, instead of leaving it to posterity?

The ACLU and other progressive groups lawyered up and challenged all aspects of the military commissions.

Now they will lawyer up and challenge all aspects of these 'show trials'.

I'm absolutely certain that the world’s jihadis will allow justice to prevail. They are so concerned about the life of KSM that they would never use violence. That may martyr him:nuts:

Enjoy.

[phil]

Then we'll have to see. So you're saying that the ACLU stopped the former administration from trying these people in a military court?

Do you have any citation for this? It didn't stop them from trying others.

[SkyPilot]

Then we'll have to see. So you're saying that the ACLU stopped the former administration from trying these people in a military court?

Do you have any citation for this? It didn't stop them from trying others.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/memorandum-congress-president-bushs-order-establishing-military-tribunals

[phil]

The ACLU does not have the authority to stop the executive branch from doing anything. This is a letter to Congress written in 2002.

The Supreme Court handed down a decision, Hamden vs. Rumsfeld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission

On September 28 and September 29, 2006, the US Senate (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US_Senate) and US House of Representatives (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US_House_of_Representatives), respectively, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006), a controversial bill that allows the President to designate certain people with the status of "unlawful enemy combatants (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Unlawful_enemy_combatant)" thus making them subject to military commissions, where they have fewer civil rights (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Civil_rights) than in regular trials.
With the War Crimes Act (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996) in mind, this ruling presented the Bush administration with the risk of criminal liability for war crimes (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/War_crimes). To address these legal problems, among other reasons, the Military Commissions Act (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act) was adopted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/memorandum-congress-president-bushs-order-establishing-military-tribunals

[Viva La Migra]

The ACLU does not have the authority to stop the executive branch from doing anything. This is a letter to Congress written in 2002.

The Supreme Court handed down a decision, Hamden vs. Rumsfeld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_military_commission

On September 28 and September 29, 2006, the US Senate (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US_Senate) and US House of Representatives (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/US_House_of_Representatives), respectively, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006), a controversial bill that allows the President to designate certain people with the status of "unlawful enemy combatants (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Unlawful_enemy_combatant)" thus making them subject to military commissions, where they have fewer civil rights (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Civil_rights) than in regular trials.
With the War Crimes Act (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996) in mind, this ruling presented the Bush administration with the risk of criminal liability for war crimes (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/War_crimes). To address these legal problems, among other reasons, the Military Commissions Act (http://www.tsptalk.com/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act) was adopted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act
So why then, after the Bush administration began the military commissions, did President Obama stop the hearings? Why is he giving the most aggregious cases due process that U.S. citizens have, while other "Unlawful Enemy Combatants" receive the military commissions?

[phil]

How many unlawful enemy combatants were tried by the Bush administration?
The hearings have not stopped. That decision remains somewhat controversial. He's just trying a few in public.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/819/42092


So why then, after the Bush administration began the military commissions, did President Obama stop the hearings? Why is he giving the most aggregious cases due process that U.S. citizens have, while other "Unlawful Enemy Combatants" receive the military commissions?

[Steadygain]

The ACLU does not have the authority to stop the executive branch from doing anything.

The Supreme Court handed down a decision, Hamden vs. Rumsfeld.

Phil,
Just glancing over the past few posts and not reading them intently enough to get 'bogged down'.

May I say that sometimes 'Getting too Serious' can work againt you.

Sometimes you 'Need to chill' -- show us you can relax


How many unlawful enemy combatants were tried by the Bush administration?

I would say you'd be a thousand times more convincing if you didn't come across like such a 'Know it All'

Don't be afraid to show us your 'vulnerable side' -- to show us 'you don't know it all' -- to show us 'you're still learning'...

will be way better received.

Peace man

[Viva La Migra]

How many unlawful enemy combatants were tried by the Bush administration?
The hearings have not stopped. That decision remains somewhat controversial. He's just trying a few in public.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/819/42092
You always act so coy. You know KSM and the others were nearing the end of their military commission trials when Obama stopped them. I haven't been able to find the story, but I read somewhere that KSM was upset when he was told he'd have to start the court process all over again. He's probably celebrating now, because he'll win his case and be able to find another way to martyr himself and guarantee his 72 virgins!

Your link is very interesting. It's funny that Chez Guevara's picture is in the seal of the Green Left Online website. What did Chez Guevara do with people determined to be enemies of the revolution? Oh, that's right, he put them before firing squads! Did they get Geneva Convention rights or any form of due process? Nope, good ole Chez "reviewed" the appeals himself. Maybe you'd have appreciate Bush more if he had done that instead of the military commissions. The left would have loved Bush if he just said, (read this with your best GWB impersonation) "I'm channeling my inner Chez Guevara." The left might have even pushed for him to get a third term!:laugh:

[Steadygain]

You always act so coy.


Wow with you it's a thousand times easier ;)


I can just say, 'Shut the hell' :D:D




Well good night to all !!

Actually closing down and heading home !


Be good kids and don't stay up too late :nuts:

[phil]

So.....what's the answer then? Can you find the story? Did we simply waste a lot of time? Did the former administration just "not have enough time". That seemed to be a constant problem.


You always act so coy. You know KSM and the others were nearing the end of their military commission trials when Obama stopped them. I haven't been able to find the story, but I read somewhere that KSM was upset when he was told he'd have to start the court process all over again. He's probably celebrating now, because he'll win his case and be able to find another way to martyr himself and guarantee his 72 virgins!

Your link is very interesting. It's funny that Chez Guevara's picture is in the seal of the Green Left Online website. What did Chez Guevara do with people determined to be enemies of the revolution? Oh, that's right, he put them before firing squads! Did they get Geneva Convention rights or any form of due process? Nope, good ole Chez "reviewed" the appeals himself. Maybe you'd have appreciate Bush more if he had done that instead of the military commissions. The left would have loved Bush if he just said, (read this with your best GWB impersonation) "I'm channeling my inner Chez Guevara." The left might have even pushed for him to get a third term!:laugh:

[Boghie]

So.....what's the answer then? Can you find the story? Did we simply waste a lot of time? Did the former administration just "not have enough time". That seemed to be a constant problem.

Phil, you could try Googling 'military commissions legal challenges'.:)

Here is one (http://www.truthout.org/1120091). They are conflating folks captured on the battlefield with folks who just murder other folks. Not the same.

Here is a second (http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-files-first-new-challenges-military-commissions-act) one. Again, do we give trials to folks in POW camps?

Here is another (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/detainees/military_commissions/index.html).

Just another one (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/13/september11)for the road.

I don't think the myriad of challenges are coming from the Richard Melon-Scafe Foundation - yuk, yuk...

Maybe you want these morons tried here. Maybe you think OBL will thank the United States for a fair and open trial. Maybe you are convinced that none of the defense attorneys will divulge secrets (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AG4CE20091117). Maybe OBL and Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Brotherhood wont want to make a splash - with the blood of Great Satan minions.

For me, not so much confidence.

I pray all goes well.

[phil]

First of all, thank you for the information. The question, had you read it, was "How many unlawful enemy combatants were tried by the Bush administration?"
Regrettably, while much of this was nice to know, not a single article could answer the question. Again, thanks for the info. A lot of the information was good to know like:

The attorney general believes that the reforms Congress recently incorporated into the Military Commissions Act will ensure that military commission trials will be fair and that convictions obtained will be secure.
But many disagree - fiercely. One of them is Professor David Frakt of Western State University law school, the Air Force Reserve officer who successfully served as military defense counsel for a Guantanamo detainee - Gitmo's other child soldier, Mohammed Jawad, who was recently released to return to Afghanistan.
Lieutenant Colonel Frakt has strong views on military commissions. He believes that "Allowing some cases to go forward in the military commissions means that some detainees are getting second-class justice."


Maybe is such an interesting word. Maybe we can finally try people in the system and maybe we can finally bring this to some closure.

By the way, I guess I'll just have to look up how many people the Bush administration tried, unless that's some sort of secret.




Phil, you could try Googling 'military commissions legal challenges'.:)

Here is one (http://www.truthout.org/1120091). They are conflating folks captured on the battlefield with folks who just murder other folks. Not the same.

Here is a second (http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-files-first-new-challenges-military-commissions-act) one. Again, do we give trials to folks in POW camps?

Here is another (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/detainees/military_commissions/index.html).

Just another one (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/13/september11)for the road.

I don't think the myriad of challenges are coming from the Richard Melon-Scafe Foundation - yuk, yuk...

Maybe you want these morons tried here. Maybe you think OBL will thank the United States for a fair and open trial. Maybe you are convinced that none of the defense attorneys will divulge secrets (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AG4CE20091117). Maybe OBL and Hamas and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Brotherhood wont want to make a splash - with the blood of Great Satan minions.

For me, not so much confidence.

I pray all goes well.

[Boghie]

First of all, thank you for the information. The question, had you read it, was "How many unlawful enemy combatants were tried by the Bush administration?"

Phil, I do not want any unlawful enemy combatants tried.
I want them held in detention till the conflict is over.
Then we will either release them or try them.
Many of these chumps are war criminals.

Then we could warm up Ole' Sparky for action.

If their side wants to fight for the next fifty years than we hold them and the future chumps we capture for those fifty years. That is what would have been done had all those well meaning Lib groups not rushed in to force the issue to American courts.

Have you thought of the battlefield repercussions of all these actions? My guess is that a statistical surprise will emerge. Surprise, there are fewer gentlemen being detained; and regretfully, a larger percentage of those valiants have been martyred. Only a guess.

So, Phil, I emphatically do not care how many of these miscreants have been tried. They are not criminals. They are terrorists or terrorist supporters. I do not want them anywhere near the largest city in the United States - the one their side gleefully bombed twice. They are not combatants - so, in reality they do not have the rights of combatants. Their side shows no mercy, compassion, or respect for the conduct of war when they capture one of ours.

[phil]

So, thanks for the bait and switch routine, but I was interested in seeing how many people had been tried by the military commissions during the Bush years. I guess we'll never know the answer.

By the way, how many Al-Qaeda were released by the administration during those years, without trial? I'm sure you don't care about that either.

I guess you don't want them tried, as you somehow want to continue this useless struggle that's costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars. That's interesting. Hold them in detention until the conflict is over? It can never be over, as long as there's conflict.

Phil, I do not want any unlawful enemy combatants tried.
I want them held in detention till the conflict is over.
Then we will either release them or try them.
Many of these chumps are war criminals.

Then we could warm up Ole' Sparky for action.

If their side wants to fight for the next fifty years than we hold them and the future chumps we capture for those fifty years. That is what would have been done had all those well meaning Lib groups not rushed in to force the issue to American courts.

Have you thought of the battlefield repercussions of all these actions? My guess is that a statistical surprise will emerge. Surprise, there are fewer gentlemen being detained; and regretfully, a larger percentage of those valiants have been martyred. Only a guess.

So, Phil, I emphatically do not care how many of these miscreants have been tried. They are not criminals. They are terrorists or terrorist supporters. I do not want them anywhere near the largest city in the United States - the one their side gleefully bombed twice. They are not combatants - so, in reality they do not have the rights of combatants. Their side shows no mercy, compassion, or respect for the conduct of war when they capture one of ours.

[Boghie]

Phil,

The conflict will be over when they decide to stop fighting and when they give up OBL and some of the other terror turds.

That is all that has to happen.

Could happen tomorrow:)

[Steadygain]

They are terrorists or terrorist supporters. I do not want them anywhere near the largest city in the United States - the one their side gleefully bombed twice.

Well then I guess the Great Debate now will shift to where they should go. From my perspective, out here in the Mid West with the Greatest Farms worldwide.

Life out here is not like it is for you 'City Slickers' -- we are a more wholesome breed and we're just good ole people down to the core. We're the kind that fill the school stadiums and our towns are what reminds everyone else of what Good Ole American stands for.

They would not fit in 'our area' -- and it would be both a hardship on us and them. They would definately fit in any big city and therefore this argument is over. Send them to L.A., N.Y.C, D.C., or wherever but just make sure you don't send them our way.

[SkyPilot]

Really, why should they go anywhere? Gitmo as a physical facility is not at issue. Even Abu Ghraib is still functioning... Wherever they are sent, there will be the taint associated with the function of the facility. And once they are on the mainland, they will be able to file endless lawsuits regarding the conditions of their confinement.

Maybe the best of all situations is to transfer the operation of Gitmo to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, rename the facility and provide the civilian treatment there. This already happens in Puerto Rico at the Federal Prison at Guaynabo http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/gua/index.jsp.

I am sure there are many details that would have to be addressed, but with any action this will be true.

Your thoughts? :)

[Steadygain]

Your thoughts? :)

My thoughts are Obama meant well but did not really consider all the 'red tape' and the lengthy details involved.

Plain and Simple -- Let's put the message out:

The Old Ways of 'Barbaric and Outdated Torture' will no longer be tollerated. We are bringing in a New Era of 'Intelligence and Communication' -- where co-operation will replace aggression.

So basically the message on Closing this Place -- was nothing more than saying to the world at large 'Our Place of Torture' is being shut down.

REALITY - is always a trillion times harder to deal with than a Proclaimation of World Peace and Co-operation.

In retrospect I think the best thing he could have done is simply say from this day forward TORTURE is unacceptable across the board. We will allow 'Amnesty International' - 'The Red Cross' - or other groups to conduct random independent inspections of all our facilities and report their findings Globally. If there is evidence of wrongdoing -- I will personally make sure all violators are swiftly dealt with.

Then the Facility no longer has a 'Stigma' attached...

the prisoners on the battlefield can still be 'tortured'

and everyone's happy

[SkyPilot]

My thoughts are Obama meant well but did not really consider all the 'red tape' and the lengthy details involved.

Plain and Simple -- Let's put the message out:

The Old Ways of 'Barbaric and Outdated Torture' will no longer be tollerated. We are bringing in a New Era of 'Intelligence and Communication' -- where co-operation will replace aggression.

So basically the message on Closing this Place -- was nothing more than saying to the world at large 'Our Place of Torture' is being shut down.

REALITY - is always a trillion times harder to deal with than a Proclaimation of World Peace and Co-operation.

In retrospect I think the best thing he could have done is simply say from this day forward TORTURE is unacceptable across the board. We will allow 'Amnesty International' - 'The Red Cross' - or other groups to conduct random independent inspections of all our facilities and report their findings Globally. If there is evidence of wrongdoing -- I will personally make sure all violators are swiftly dealt with.

Then the Facility no longer has a 'Stigma' attached...

the prisoners on the battlefield can still be 'tortured'

and everyone's happy

Pesky definitions: Torture; One persons interrogation can be another's torture. If I am the one being interrogated, everything is torture... otherwise, why would I say anything.

Physical, psychological, emotional and even spiritual coercion in any manner can be described as torture by someone.

Even trying to set boundaries and limits of acceptable limits in a legal fashion can in itself be labeled as participatory and can lead to culpability.

I know, we all know it when we see it, we just have a heck of a time defining it, and then coming to agreement.

I wonder how they view these issues in Tehran, Baghdad, Pyongyang and Peking... not to mention Moscow? :worried:

[coolhand]

I'm tortured every day at work. Does that count? :laugh:

[Steadygain]

This is excellent !!

The problem is 'Politics' and saying whatever needs to be said so everyone's cool.

So when Obama talked about 'Torture' -- everyone (not matter who and across the globe) was supposed to interpret that as 'BAD'

Then since Guantanamo -- had already been 'tarnished' he thought by declaring he was 'Shutting it Down' that all would see he's putting his words in actions.

NOW - if I could take us back to that Moment in History this is how I would make it:



Obama says let's deal with the issue of torture:
Pesky definitions: Torture; One persons interrogation can be another's torture. If I am the one being interrogated, everything is torture... otherwise, why would I say anything.

That would make everyone realize --- oh yeal --- hummm

Physical, psychological, emotional and even spiritual coercion in any manner can be described as torture by someone.

No one could argue that -- and this makes Guantanamo and what it represents a more 'acceptable facility'.

Even trying to set boundaries and limits of acceptable limits in a legal fashion can in itself be labeled as participatory and can lead to culpability.

I know, we all know it when we see it, we just have a heck of a time defining it, and then coming to agreement.

I wonder how they view these issues in Tehran, Baghdad, Pyongyang and Peking... not to mention Moscow? :worried:

Anyway -- if I had to do all over --- I'd more stress the first 4 parts of your post and assure the American Citizens and the Global Community that the place is staying in operation and no one is going anywhere until their time is up.

[SkyPilot]

I'm tortured every day at work. Does that count? :laugh:

My own private Gitmo! Right here in the midwest already! :D:nuts::blink:

[Boghie]

Steady,

I think President Obama thought that the nations of origin for these miscreants would assume the responsibility for care and feeding and securing.

That was his biggest mistake concerning Guantanamo.

Nobody wants these turds.

The big ‘controversy’ merely was a way of hassling America. The EuroTrash do it all the time. And, I mean EuroTrash in an affectionate manner – like Yankee Cowboy.

So, President Obama starts calling the Chinese. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the Egyptians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we look the other way when you have your discussions with them? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the Jordanians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we rendition them to you? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the English. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We’ve got enough problems with gentlemen like this.

So, President Obama starts calling the Australians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We kinda thought we flushed that turd years ago.

So, President Obama starts calling the Pakistanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Are you absolutely kidding me!!!

So, President Obama starts calling the Afghanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. How dumb do you think we are.

So, President Obama starts calling the Iraqis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Uuummm, you ain’t serious – are you.

So, President Obama starts calling the Saudis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Our reeducation camps are full, and they don’t seem to work anyhow, and you will start whining if we lean on them a bit – eh.

This will be fun to watch. Another unforced error!!! :embarrest:

[SkyPilot]

Maybe we should just let them out,

one by one,

a day at a time,

on the streets of New York,

with lots media attention so everyone will know when and where.






Then,

let nature take it's course...

[Steadygain]

First of all, thank you for the information.

Gosh - you're welcome :embarrest:, but jeeze it was Boghie who really gave the most vital information.

First off he clearly shows how Obama made an 'ass' of himself because of the word 'assume' -- and that is the most significant and outstanding comment anyone could make

'thought these miscreants would assume responsibility'



I think President Obama thought that the nations of origin for these miscreants would assume the responsibility for care and feeding and securing.

That was his biggest mistake concerning Guantanamo.

Nobody wants these turds.

The big ‘controversy’ merely was a way of hassling America. The EuroTrash do it all the time. And, I mean EuroTrash in an affectionate manner – like Yankee Cowboy.

So, President Obama starts calling the Chinese. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No.
The chinese obviously don't want to visit.

So, President Obama starts calling the Egyptians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we look the other way when you have your discussions with them? Answer: No.
The Egyptians have a 'great sense of humor' and I can picture Obama's expression as they're saying this.

So, President Obama starts calling the Jordanians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we rendition them to you? Answer: No.
Jordanians obviously know very little English.

So, President Obama starts calling the English. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We’ve got enough problems with gentlemen like this.
Ah wow, I did enjoy their response.

So, President Obama starts calling the Australians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We kinda thought we flushed that turd years ago.
This is great! I'm ready to relocate my family to Australia because so far they have the best response.

So, President Obama starts calling the Pakistanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Are you absolutely kidding me!!!
The Pakistanis are good at telling people what they think.

So, President Obama starts calling the Afghanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. How dumb do you think we are.
Oh man, this had me bursting out loud -- I could picture Obama holding the phone ... wondering ahh how do I respond??

So, President Obama starts calling the Iraqis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Uuummm, you ain’t serious – are you.
Here Obama would have already reached his limit; so I could see him saying 'You're damn right I'm serious and they are being sent to you whether you want them or not'.

That would give him way more Middle East backing.

So, President Obama starts calling the Saudis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Our reeducation camps are full, and they don’t seem to work anyhow, and you will start whining if we lean on them a bit – eh.
That's exactly what they would say.

This will be fun to watch. Another unforced error!!! :embarrest:

Bogie,
I'd have to go with Phil on this one 'THANK YOU' for all that valuable information !!!

One of the best posts I've ever read !!!

[phil]

Huh. That's funny. Because a lot of them were already released during the Bush administration. From Faux News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195886,00.html

It IS fun to watch unforced errors.


Steady,

I think President Obama thought that the nations of origin for these miscreants would assume the responsibility for care and feeding and securing.

That was his biggest mistake concerning Guantanamo.

Nobody wants these turds.

The big ‘controversy’ merely was a way of hassling America. The EuroTrash do it all the time. And, I mean EuroTrash in an affectionate manner – like Yankee Cowboy.

So, President Obama starts calling the Chinese. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the Egyptians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we look the other way when you have your discussions with them? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the Jordanians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we rendition them to you? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the English. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We’ve got enough problems with gentlemen like this.

So, President Obama starts calling the Australians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We kinda thought we flushed that turd years ago.

So, President Obama starts calling the Pakistanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Are you absolutely kidding me!!!

So, President Obama starts calling the Afghanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. How dumb do you think we are.

So, President Obama starts calling the Iraqis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Uuummm, you ain’t serious – are you.

So, President Obama starts calling the Saudis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Our reeducation camps are full, and they don’t seem to work anyhow, and you will start whining if we lean on them a bit – eh.

This will be fun to watch. Another unforced error!!! :embarrest:

[Viva La Migra]

Maybe we should just let them out,

one by one,

a day at a time,

on the streets of New York,

with lots media attention so everyone will know when and where.






Then,

let nature take it's course...
I have a better idea. Let them go in Alaska and give them wolf colored faux fur coats...then let Sarah Palin loose to thin the herd!:D

[phil]

Huh. That's funny. Because a lot of them were already released during the Bush administration. From Faux News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195886,00.html
You see, many countries are required by their own laws to look after their citizens' welfare when they are detained......even the US.

You're right. It IS fun to watch unforced errors.

Steady,

I think President Obama thought that the nations of origin for these miscreants would assume the responsibility for care and feeding and securing.
That was his biggest mistake concerning Guantanamo.
Nobody wants these turds.

The big ‘controversy’ merely was a way of hassling America. The EuroTrash do it all the time. And, I mean EuroTrash in an affectionate manner – like Yankee Cowboy.
So, President Obama starts calling the Chinese. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No.
So, President Obama starts calling the Egyptians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we look the other way when you have your discussions with them? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the Jordanians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Well, how about if we rendition them to you? Answer: No.

So, President Obama starts calling the English. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We’ve got enough problems with gentlemen like this.

So, President Obama starts calling the Australians. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. We kinda thought we flushed that turd years ago.

So, President Obama starts calling the Pakistanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Are you absolutely kidding me!!!
So, President Obama starts calling the Afghanis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. How dumb do you think we are.
So, President Obama starts calling the Iraqis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Uuummm, you ain’t serious – are you.
So, President Obama starts calling the Saudis. Hey man, would you like your indigenous terrorists back? Answer: No. Our reeducation camps are full, and they don’t seem to work anyhow, and you will start whining if we lean on them a bit – eh.

This will be fun to watch. Another unforced error!!! :embarrest: