And here is why you don't civilian trial terrorists from Gitmo

[bodecea]

BTW...nobody's complaining. If your name were Literacy perhaps you'd have been able to determine through every single one of my posts on the subject that military tribunals are perfectly fine with me, so long as the rules are followed to the letter.

But because of the purpose and nature of process, I suspect the outcome as far as evidence obtained through coercive methods would be the same or similar. Beating false confessions out of military personnel and using that information to railroad them because you don't like them is as large a violation as doing the same to civilians, and is at the heart of the idea of due process in the courts. Reliability of the information used against the defendant is at the heart of any criminal matter, whether you believe a military court is a "real" criminal court or not.

Hence, my question to determine if you understand the fundamental concept of Due Process and how and why it functions in US courts in general. If you don't understand and can't apply first principles, the details and analysis are meaningless.

Perhaps if you'd stop complaining long enough you'd realize that repeatedly expressing your "concern" is complaining. True story!

I have time and time again put the question to you, GC, because your posts seem to suggest that you don't have the first freakin' clue as to the issue.

So, even if it serves merely to underscore that, I'll ask you yet AGAIN:

What process is due?

I'll even reset the clock for you.

Go!

You have no clue, do you?

You're so wrapped up in what specific procedures these specific defendants should or should not be entitled to because of who they are and what they are alleged to have done, you can't see the forest.

These defendants are due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period.

Those who were captured on the field of battle should be given either a military trial or a civilian one. If they have no connection to military operations, they should have a civilian trial. If they have been declared "Enemy Combatants", it would be reasonable to assume they all fall under the former. In either case, the evidence used against them needs to conform to the existing rules of that venue. It could be traffic court for all I care, so long as the venue is appropriate to the charge and the existing rules are followed to the letter without regard for the identity of the defendant. End of story.

Holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, granting special exemptions to government prosecutors for evidence obtained through coercion, forming special courts either in or out of the public view to deal with them, or any other lowering of the bar for these particular defendants because of their status or identity can not be tolerated.

And again, because of the nature and function of Due Process the outcome for admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion will be either the same or similar across venues. Why? Because the main reason due process exists in the Courts is in order to make sure defendants are not coerced and railroaded. (ETA: Your link says "arbitrary", that's fine. We'll go with that. So it makes sure decisions are not made arbitrarily, but according to reliable information and by standard procedures. In other words, not railroaded.) You don't have to be either a rocket scientist or versed in the details to know that primary function of DP will be followed across all venues, military or civilian, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Is that clear enough for you yet, or do you need something like braille? Smoke signals, maybe? Skywriting is a little beyond my capabilities at the moment, I'm afraid. Check back next week.

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

 

[goldcatt]

Perhaps if you'd stop complaining long enough you'd realize that repeatedly expressing your "concern" is complaining. True story!

I have time and time again put the question to you, GC, because your posts seem to suggest that you don't have the first freakin' clue as to the issue.

So, even if it serves merely to underscore that, I'll ask you yet AGAIN:

What process is due?

I'll even reset the clock for you.

Go!

You have no clue, do you?

You're so wrapped up in what specific procedures these specific defendants should or should not be entitled to because of who they are and what they are alleged to have done, you can't see the forest.

These defendants are due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period.

Those who were captured on the field of battle should be given either a military trial or a civilian one. If they have no connection to military operations, they should have a civilian trial. If they have been declared "Enemy Combatants", it would be reasonable to assume they all fall under the former. In either case, the evidence used against them needs to conform to the existing rules of that venue. It could be traffic court for all I care, so long as the venue is appropriate to the charge and the existing rules are followed to the letter without regard for the identity of the defendant. End of story.

Holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, granting special exemptions to government prosecutors for evidence obtained through coercion, forming special courts either in or out of the public view to deal with them, or any other lowering of the bar for these particular defendants because of their status or identity can not be tolerated.

And again, because of the nature and function of Due Process the outcome for admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion will be either the same or similar across venues. Why? Because the main reason due process exists in the Courts is in order to make sure defendants are not coerced and railroaded. (ETA: Your link says "arbitrary", that's fine. We'll go with that. So it makes sure decisions are not made arbitrarily, but according to reliable information and by standard procedures. In other words, not railroaded.) You don't have to be either a rocket scientist or versed in the details to know that primary function of DP will be followed across all venues, military or civilian, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Is that clear enough for you yet, or do you need something like braille? Smoke signals, maybe? Skywriting is a little beyond my capabilities at the moment, I'm afraid. Check back next week.

No kid. I am the one (of the two of us) who DOES get it. Your myopia is staggering.

I have tried (patiently, since you libs need to be handled with kid gloves) to persuade you to tell the class what process is due for a reason. Your studious insistence on ducking that question is telling. Sad. But telling.

Since the issue of "due process" IS intimately involved with properly defining "what process is due," your unsupported CONTENTION that these fuckers are allegedly ". . . due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period." is silly. Adding your "period" to the assertion doesn't make it any less silly.

And that's a real problem you have. For your contention IS silly.

By WHAT claim of right can an illegal enemy combatant (who could have been summarily executed) be heard to complain that he may not be held without a "trial?" Does the fucker cite to the now infamous " GOLDCATT pronouncement?" ("It is true because GOLDCATT says so, that's why! Period. Amen!") Sorry, child, but the fact that you make grandiose pronouncements doesn't qualify as self-supporting.

Try something a little more novel: Back that shit up.

But you won't. You can't.

*sigh*

Because the term "Enemy Combatant" is an exception to the International laws dealing with treatment of POWs, it is not US law. So unless you're seriously advocating binding the US Courts by International law rather than US law, and going through Geneva in order to try to find a level of process detailed anywhere in that document, we're back to where we started from. And that means you're going to have to provide the citation in US law that sets aside normal process for individuals who have been deemed "Enemy Combatants" under International law. Which was already asked of you, and you have not yet done so.

I'll give you a hint, if it had existed the Gitmo cases would not have been necessary. And what did they find, again?

You do understand the distinction between International and US law, right?

 

[goldcatt]

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

I'll tell you a secret. I kinda like Liability for some odd reason. But don't tell anybody. They might take away my lefty card.

 

[bodecea]

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

I'll tell you a secret. I kinda like Liability for some odd reason. But don't tell anybody. They might take away my lefty card.

I like my toys too.

 

[goldcatt]

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

I'll tell you a secret. I kinda like Liability for some odd reason. But don't tell anybody. They might take away my lefty card.

I like my toys too.

He does tend to keep me occupied when there's nothing on TV.

 

[Liability]

You have no clue, do you?

You're so wrapped up in what specific procedures these specific defendants should or should not be entitled to because of who they are and what they are alleged to have done, you can't see the forest.

These defendants are due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period.

Those who were captured on the field of battle should be given either a military trial or a civilian one. If they have no connection to military operations, they should have a civilian trial. If they have been declared "Enemy Combatants", it would be reasonable to assume they all fall under the former. In either case, the evidence used against them needs to conform to the existing rules of that venue. It could be traffic court for all I care, so long as the venue is appropriate to the charge and the existing rules are followed to the letter without regard for the identity of the defendant. End of story.

Holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, granting special exemptions to government prosecutors for evidence obtained through coercion, forming special courts either in or out of the public view to deal with them, or any other lowering of the bar for these particular defendants because of their status or identity can not be tolerated.

And again, because of the nature and function of Due Process the outcome for admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion will be either the same or similar across venues. Why? Because the main reason due process exists in the Courts is in order to make sure defendants are not coerced and railroaded. (ETA: Your link says "arbitrary", that's fine. We'll go with that. So it makes sure decisions are not made arbitrarily, but according to reliable information and by standard procedures. In other words, not railroaded.) You don't have to be either a rocket scientist or versed in the details to know that primary function of DP will be followed across all venues, military or civilian, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Is that clear enough for you yet, or do you need something like braille? Smoke signals, maybe? Skywriting is a little beyond my capabilities at the moment, I'm afraid. Check back next week.

No kid. I am the one (of the two of us) who DOES get it. Your myopia is staggering.

I have tried (patiently, since you libs need to be handled with kid gloves) to persuade you to tell the class what process is due for a reason. Your studious insistence on ducking that question is telling. Sad. But telling.

Since the issue of "due process" IS intimately involved with properly defining "what process is due," your unsupported CONTENTION that these fuckers are allegedly ". . . due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period." is silly. Adding your "period" to the assertion doesn't make it any less silly.

And that's a real problem you have. For your contention IS silly.

By WHAT claim of right can an illegal enemy combatant (who could have been summarily executed) be heard to complain that he may not be held without a "trial?" Does the fucker cite to the now infamous " GOLDCATT pronouncement?" ("It is true because GOLDCATT says so, that's why! Period. Amen!") Sorry, child, but the fact that you make grandiose pronouncements doesn't qualify as self-supporting.

Try something a little more novel: Back that shit up.

But you won't. You can't.

*sigh*

Because the term "Enemy Combatant" is an exception to the International laws dealing with treatment of POWs, it is not US law. So unless you're seriously advocating binding the US Courts by International law rather than US law, and going through Geneva in order to try to find a level of process detailed anywhere in that document, we're back to where we started from. And that means you're going to have to provide the citation in US law that sets aside normal process for individuals who have been deemed "Enemy Combatants" under International law. Which was already asked of you, and you have not yet done so.

I'll give you a hint, if it had existed the Gitmo cases would not have been necessary. And what did they find, again?

You do understand the distinction between International and US law, right?

**sigh**

Your double-talk is getting too convoluted for you to even manage.

But, no worries. The facts remain.

These fuckers are illegal combatants. There's not even any honest debate about that.

Accordingly, they are not properly subject to (or parties under) the Geneva accords.

Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to the benefits of those agreements. And they are absolutely not entitled to be treated as criminal under our criminal justice system. Nothing in our laws obliges us to be suicidal idiots. Application denied.

When the Courts told the Bush Administration some bullshit to the contrary, even though he would have been fully justified in ignoring them, he tried to acquiesce. He got Congress to craft the MCA. This gives the captured al qaeda fuckers the very protections to which you imagine they are "entitled." Yet even that turns out not to be "good enough." And then, for reasons that make less than no sense at all, the OBAMA Administration brings these scumbags into OUR land to try them AS mere criminals under our civilian justice system with all the associated rights and benefits.

The Obama Administration is certifiably insane.

The judge, by the way, I should note again, was not wrong. That odd-ball decision was practically forced on him. The shitheads are getting criminal trials in our courts of law and the only DUE PROCESS available is pretty well established. But if the fuckers were getting tried under the MCA, the same suppression ruling would NOT necessarily have been required. The process which would be DUE to them would be potentially VERY different and the OUTCOME could be very different, too. And the difference in the outcomes would connote no necessary implication of any violation of due process.

 

[Liability]

Perhaps if you'd stop complaining long enough you'd realize that repeatedly expressing your "concern" is complaining. True story!

I have time and time again put the question to you, GC, because your posts seem to suggest that you don't have the first freakin' clue as to the issue.

So, even if it serves merely to underscore that, I'll ask you yet AGAIN:

What process is due?

I'll even reset the clock for you.

Go!

You have no clue, do you?

You're so wrapped up in what specific procedures these specific defendants should or should not be entitled to because of who they are and what they are alleged to have done, you can't see the forest.

These defendants are due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period.

Those who were captured on the field of battle should be given either a military trial or a civilian one. If they have no connection to military operations, they should have a civilian trial. If they have been declared "Enemy Combatants", it would be reasonable to assume they all fall under the former. In either case, the evidence used against them needs to conform to the existing rules of that venue. It could be traffic court for all I care, so long as the venue is appropriate to the charge and the existing rules are followed to the letter without regard for the identity of the defendant. End of story.

Holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, granting special exemptions to government prosecutors for evidence obtained through coercion, forming special courts either in or out of the public view to deal with them, or any other lowering of the bar for these particular defendants because of their status or identity can not be tolerated.

And again, because of the nature and function of Due Process the outcome for admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion will be either the same or similar across venues. Why? Because the main reason due process exists in the Courts is in order to make sure defendants are not coerced and railroaded. (ETA: Your link says "arbitrary", that's fine. We'll go with that. So it makes sure decisions are not made arbitrarily, but according to reliable information and by standard procedures. In other words, not railroaded.) You don't have to be either a rocket scientist or versed in the details to know that primary function of DP will be followed across all venues, military or civilian, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Is that clear enough for you yet, or do you need something like braille? Smoke signals, maybe? Skywriting is a little beyond my capabilities at the moment, I'm afraid. Check back next week.

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

boredtoseeya cannot keep her inane obsession with me closeted in the other thread. She will now play troll for a while (generally speaking, it will be a long time) in this thread, too.

boredtoseeya objects to being called boredtoseeya even though she is so completely formulaic that shi is as boring as hell. But she pretends that I do the "formulaic" thing. She is beyond petty. But at least she's always unpersuasive.

boredtoseeya also has the obsessive need to get in the last word, but thinks that by saying that I am the one guilty of this mortal sin, she is somehow absolved. Her hypocrisy is boundless. But she's an amusing thang.

Ask her how she came by the handle "dump truck."

 

[Liability]

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

I'll tell you a secret. I kinda like Liability for some odd reason. But don't tell anybody. They might take away my lefty card.

I kinda like you, too, GC. Unlike boredtoseeya, you are willing to engage in actual debate (and you are purdy good at it too). Although I find your arguments unpersuasive, by and large (and vice versa, I presume) you seem like a bright and pleasant person.

I just wish you weren't so --

misguided!

 

[goldcatt]

No kid. I am the one (of the two of us) who DOES get it. Your myopia is staggering.

I have tried (patiently, since you libs need to be handled with kid gloves) to persuade you to tell the class what process is due for a reason. Your studious insistence on ducking that question is telling. Sad. But telling.

Since the issue of "due process" IS intimately involved with properly defining "what process is due," your unsupported CONTENTION that these fuckers are allegedly ". . . due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period." is silly. Adding your "period" to the assertion doesn't make it any less silly.

And that's a real problem you have. For your contention IS silly.

By WHAT claim of right can an illegal enemy combatant (who could have been summarily executed) be heard to complain that he may not be held without a "trial?" Does the fucker cite to the now infamous " GOLDCATT pronouncement?" ("It is true because GOLDCATT says so, that's why! Period. Amen!") Sorry, child, but the fact that you make grandiose pronouncements doesn't qualify as self-supporting.

Try something a little more novel: Back that shit up.

But you won't. You can't.

*sigh*

Because the term "Enemy Combatant" is an exception to the International laws dealing with treatment of POWs, it is not US law. So unless you're seriously advocating binding the US Courts by International law rather than US law, and going through Geneva in order to try to find a level of process detailed anywhere in that document, we're back to where we started from. And that means you're going to have to provide the citation in US law that sets aside normal process for individuals who have been deemed "Enemy Combatants" under International law. Which was already asked of you, and you have not yet done so.

I'll give you a hint, if it had existed the Gitmo cases would not have been necessary. And what did they find, again?

You do understand the distinction between International and US law, right?

**sigh**

Your double-talk is getting too convoluted for you to even manage.

But, no worries. The facts remain.

These fuckers are illegal combatants. There's not even any honest debate about that.

Accordingly, they are not properly subject to (or parties under) the Geneva accords.

Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to the benefits of those agreements. And they are absolutely not entitled to be treated as criminal under our criminal justice system. Nothing in our laws obliges us to be suicidal idiots. Application denied.

When the Courts told the Bush Administration some bullshit to the contrary, even though he would have been fully justified in ignoring them, he tried to acquiesce. He got Congress to craft the MCA. This gives the captured al qaeda fuckers the very protections to which you imagine they are "entitled." Yet even that turns out not to be "good enough." And then, for reasons that make less than no sense at all, the OBAMA Administration brings these scumbags into OUR land to try them AS mere criminals under our civilian justice system with all the associated rights and benefits.

The Obama Administration is certifiably insane.

The judge, by the way, I should note again, was not wrong. That odd-ball decision was practically forced on him. The shitheads are getting criminal trials in our courts of law and the only DUE PROCESS available is pretty well established. But if the fuckers were getting tried under the MCA, the same suppression ruling would NOT necessarily have been required. The process which would be DUE to them would be potentially VERY different and the OUTCOME could be very different, too. And the difference in the outcomes would connote no necessary implication of any violation of due process.

Of COURSE they're not entitled to treatment as POWs under Geneva. As I stated numerous times already, the classification as "Enemy Combatant" is an exception that exists within the Geneva Conventions for individuals who do not meet the standards of Prisoners of War. Glad we cleared that up.

Now where does the term appear in US law, exempting "Enemy Combatants" as defined by Geneva from being treated according to our own legal standards? You can shout at the wind about them being "Enemy Combatants" all you want, but unless you can prove it means something beyond the fact that they're not POWs it means....why, nothing at all.

And one of those legal standards is, of course, the right of habeas corpus and not to be detained by force without charge and trial. Which brings us full circle.

 

[Liability]

*sigh*

Because the term "Enemy Combatant" is an exception to the International laws dealing with treatment of POWs, it is not US law. So unless you're seriously advocating binding the US Courts by International law rather than US law, and going through Geneva in order to try to find a level of process detailed anywhere in that document, we're back to where we started from. And that means you're going to have to provide the citation in US law that sets aside normal process for individuals who have been deemed "Enemy Combatants" under International law. Which was already asked of you, and you have not yet done so.

I'll give you a hint, if it had existed the Gitmo cases would not have been necessary. And what did they find, again?

You do understand the distinction between International and US law, right?

**sigh**

Your double-talk is getting too convoluted for you to even manage.

But, no worries. The facts remain.

These fuckers are illegal combatants. There's not even any honest debate about that.

Accordingly, they are not properly subject to (or parties under) the Geneva accords.

Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to the benefits of those agreements. And they are absolutely not entitled to be treated as criminal under our criminal justice system. Nothing in our laws obliges us to be suicidal idiots. Application denied.

When the Courts told the Bush Administration some bullshit to the contrary, even though he would have been fully justified in ignoring them, he tried to acquiesce. He got Congress to craft the MCA. This gives the captured al qaeda fuckers the very protections to which you imagine they are "entitled." Yet even that turns out not to be "good enough." And then, for reasons that make less than no sense at all, the OBAMA Administration brings these scumbags into OUR land to try them AS mere criminals under our civilian justice system with all the associated rights and benefits.

The Obama Administration is certifiably insane.

The judge, by the way, I should note again, was not wrong. That odd-ball decision was practically forced on him. The shitheads are getting criminal trials in our courts of law and the only DUE PROCESS available is pretty well established. But if the fuckers were getting tried under the MCA, the same suppression ruling would NOT necessarily have been required. The process which would be DUE to them would be potentially VERY different and the OUTCOME could be very different, too. And the difference in the outcomes would connote no necessary implication of any violation of due process.

Of COURSE they're not entitled to treatment as POWs under Geneva. As I stated numerous times already, the classification as "Enemy Combatant" is an exception that exists within the Geneva Conventions for individuals who do not meet the standards of Prisoners of War. Glad we cleared that up.

Now where does the term appear in US law, exempting "Enemy Combatants" as defined by Geneva from being treated according to our own legal standards? You can shout at the wind about them being "Enemy Combatants" all you want, but unless you can prove it means something beyond the fact that they're not POWs it means....why, nothing at all.

Where in our laws are we obligated to treat captured illegal enemy combatants as mere violators of our civilian criminal laws?

Could you maybe point to that?

And I ask for a reason, so try to be precise and accurate. You will be graded on your answer.

Thank me.

 

[goldcatt]

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

I'll tell you a secret. I kinda like Liability for some odd reason. But don't tell anybody. They might take away my lefty card.

I kinda like you, too, GC. Unlike boredtoseeya, you are willing to engage in actual debate (and you are purdy good at it too). Although I find your arguments unpersuasive, by and large (and vice versa, I presume) you seem like a bright and pleasant person.

I just wish you weren't so --

misguided!

Right back atcha. On all counts.

 

[goldcatt]

**sigh**

Your double-talk is getting too convoluted for you to even manage.

But, no worries. The facts remain.

These fuckers are illegal combatants. There's not even any honest debate about that.

Accordingly, they are not properly subject to (or parties under) the Geneva accords.

Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to the benefits of those agreements. And they are absolutely not entitled to be treated as criminal under our criminal justice system. Nothing in our laws obliges us to be suicidal idiots. Application denied.

When the Courts told the Bush Administration some bullshit to the contrary, even though he would have been fully justified in ignoring them, he tried to acquiesce. He got Congress to craft the MCA. This gives the captured al qaeda fuckers the very protections to which you imagine they are "entitled." Yet even that turns out not to be "good enough." And then, for reasons that make less than no sense at all, the OBAMA Administration brings these scumbags into OUR land to try them AS mere criminals under our civilian justice system with all the associated rights and benefits.

The Obama Administration is certifiably insane.

The judge, by the way, I should note again, was not wrong. That odd-ball decision was practically forced on him. The shitheads are getting criminal trials in our courts of law and the only DUE PROCESS available is pretty well established. But if the fuckers were getting tried under the MCA, the same suppression ruling would NOT necessarily have been required. The process which would be DUE to them would be potentially VERY different and the OUTCOME could be very different, too. And the difference in the outcomes would connote no necessary implication of any violation of due process.

Of COURSE they're not entitled to treatment as POWs under Geneva. As I stated numerous times already, the classification as "Enemy Combatant" is an exception that exists within the Geneva Conventions for individuals who do not meet the standards of Prisoners of War. Glad we cleared that up.

Now where does the term appear in US law, exempting "Enemy Combatants" as defined by Geneva from being treated according to our own legal standards? You can shout at the wind about them being "Enemy Combatants" all you want, but unless you can prove it means something beyond the fact that they're not POWs it means....why, nothing at all.

Where in our laws are we obligated to treat captured illegal enemy combatants as mere violators of our civilian criminal laws?

Could you maybe point to that?

And I ask for a reason, so try to be precise and accurate. You will be graded on your answer.

Thank me.

My edit came too late. My apologies, didn't mean to sneak it in on you.

Unless specifically authorized (as with POWs, for example), we are Constitutionally barred from holding anyone in detention by force without the right of habeas corpus and without charge and trial. That is clear. So either a new law must be put in place to create that exemption that will pass constitutional muster, which was not done prior to their detention on US sovereign territory, or they must be treated as criminal defendants in order to be able to keep them detained but remain within the constitution. Again, connecting those dots is not rocket science.

Unless you want to treat them as POWs after all, but then you have a whole 'nother set of issues.

Now, where is that authorization to detain "Enemy Combatants" without habeas rights, charge or trial? That's right....it was claimed and the Gitmo cases slammed that door shut. So criminal defendants they are, unless you'd prefer they were released?

 

[Liability]

Of COURSE they're not entitled to treatment as POWs under Geneva. As I stated numerous times already, the classification as "Enemy Combatant" is an exception that exists within the Geneva Conventions for individuals who do not meet the standards of Prisoners of War. Glad we cleared that up.

Now where does the term appear in US law, exempting "Enemy Combatants" as defined by Geneva from being treated according to our own legal standards? You can shout at the wind about them being "Enemy Combatants" all you want, but unless you can prove it means something beyond the fact that they're not POWs it means....why, nothing at all.

Where in our laws are we obligated to treat captured illegal enemy combatants as mere violators of our civilian criminal laws?

Could you maybe point to that?

And I ask for a reason, so try to be precise and accurate. You will be graded on your answer.

Thank me.

My edit came too late. My apologies, didn't mean to sneak it in on you.

Unless specifically authorized (as with POWs, for example), we are Constitutionally barred from holding anyone in detention by force without the right of habeas corpus and without charge and trial. That is clear. So either a new law must be put in place to create that exemption that will pass constitutional muster, which was not done prior to their detention on US sovereign territory, or they must be treated as criminal defendants in order to be able to keep them detained but remain within the constitution. Again, connecting those dots is not rocket science.

Unless you want to treat them as POWs after all, but then you have a whole 'nother set of issues.

Now, where is that authorization to detain "Enemy Combatants" without habeas rights, charge or trial? That's right....it was claimed and the Gitmo cases slammed that door shut. So criminal defendants they are, unless you'd prefer they were released?

Did you know that Congress has forbidden the Courts from addressing HABEAS issues with regard to certain classes of individuals -- specifically these very types of detainees?

See, for example, Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

In that light, please tell me again how these guys can assert the Great Writ?

 

[bodecea]

You have no clue, do you?

You're so wrapped up in what specific procedures these specific defendants should or should not be entitled to because of who they are and what they are alleged to have done, you can't see the forest.

These defendants are due a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction according to the standard due process requirements of the forum. No more, no less, and no different than any other defendant. Period.

Those who were captured on the field of battle should be given either a military trial or a civilian one. If they have no connection to military operations, they should have a civilian trial. If they have been declared "Enemy Combatants", it would be reasonable to assume they all fall under the former. In either case, the evidence used against them needs to conform to the existing rules of that venue. It could be traffic court for all I care, so long as the venue is appropriate to the charge and the existing rules are followed to the letter without regard for the identity of the defendant. End of story.

Holding them indefinitely without charge or trial, granting special exemptions to government prosecutors for evidence obtained through coercion, forming special courts either in or out of the public view to deal with them, or any other lowering of the bar for these particular defendants because of their status or identity can not be tolerated.

And again, because of the nature and function of Due Process the outcome for admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion will be either the same or similar across venues. Why? Because the main reason due process exists in the Courts is in order to make sure defendants are not coerced and railroaded. (ETA: Your link says "arbitrary", that's fine. We'll go with that. So it makes sure decisions are not made arbitrarily, but according to reliable information and by standard procedures. In other words, not railroaded.) You don't have to be either a rocket scientist or versed in the details to know that primary function of DP will be followed across all venues, military or civilian, with appropriate safeguards in place.

Is that clear enough for you yet, or do you need something like braille? Smoke signals, maybe? Skywriting is a little beyond my capabilities at the moment, I'm afraid. Check back next week.

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

boredtoseeya cannot keep her inane obsession with me closeted in the other thread. She will now play troll for a while (generally speaking, it will be a long time) in this thread, too.

boredtoseeya objects to being called boredtoseeya even though she is so completely formulaic that shi is as boring as hell. But she pretends that I do the "formulaic" thing. She is beyond petty. But at least she's always unpersuasive.

boredtoseeya also has the obsessive need to get in the last word, but thinks that by saying that I am the one guilty of this mortal sin, she is somehow absolved. Her hypocrisy is boundless. But she's an amusing thang.

Ask her how she came by the handle "dump truck."

See? #1 at the least. He can't help it.

 

[George Costanza]

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE? Be specific.

None. Absolutely none. And that's precisely what is wrong with your position on this issue.

 

[goldcatt]

I see you have been introduced to our "Post by Numbers" member....I will have to link you to the appropriate list so you can see it's always the same formulaic posting.


Here it is:

Step 1: Alter the person's name to make a childish mockery of it.

Step 2: Alter the spelling of the person's political party, religion, or other affiliation in a failed attempt at derogatory name calling.

Step 3: Insinuate they are stupid

Step 4: Explicitly call them stupid, regardless of the topic or what's said.

Step 5: Inform the other person they fail at what they're saying, without supporting evidence of any form.

Step 6: Exclaim that your political party, religion, affiliation, or belief is superior, but don't say why.

Step 7: Repeat a combination of step 2 and step 4, in distinction to step 6 as a reminder.

Step 8: Call the other person pathetic, once again with no support or reason. If they continue their point, return to Step 4 again here as well.

Step 9: Claim you are victorious.

Step 10: Assorted smileys.

Step 11: Respond to out of context clips of posts as if it was the only thing the other person said, completely failing to address the actual point.

Step 12: Tell other posters why they do or think a certain way based on.....well, Liability "just knows".

And he has the uncontrollable need to get the last post in....just so you know.

boredtoseeya cannot keep her inane obsession with me closeted in the other thread. She will now play troll for a while (generally speaking, it will be a long time) in this thread, too.

boredtoseeya objects to being called boredtoseeya even though she is so completely formulaic that shi is as boring as hell. But she pretends that I do the "formulaic" thing. She is beyond petty. But at least she's always unpersuasive.

boredtoseeya also has the obsessive need to get in the last word, but thinks that by saying that I am the one guilty of this mortal sin, she is somehow absolved. Her hypocrisy is boundless. But she's an amusing thang.

Ask her how she came by the handle "dump truck."

See? #1 at the least. He can't help it.

I don't think I've been treated to that one. If I have, it wasn't memorable.

Now I feel left out.

 

[bodecea]

boredtoseeya cannot keep her inane obsession with me closeted in the other thread. She will now play troll for a while (generally speaking, it will be a long time) in this thread, too.

boredtoseeya objects to being called boredtoseeya even though she is so completely formulaic that shi is as boring as hell. But she pretends that I do the "formulaic" thing. She is beyond petty. But at least she's always unpersuasive.

boredtoseeya also has the obsessive need to get in the last word, but thinks that by saying that I am the one guilty of this mortal sin, she is somehow absolved. Her hypocrisy is boundless. But she's an amusing thang.

Ask her how she came by the handle "dump truck."

See? #1 at the least. He can't help it.

I don't think I've been treated to that one. If I have, it wasn't memorable.

Now I feel left out.

My friend, give it time. He cannot help himself. It's his main MO.

 

[Liability]

boredtoseeya cannot keep her inane obsession with me closeted in the other thread. She will now play troll for a while (generally speaking, it will be a long time) in this thread, too.

boredtoseeya objects to being called boredtoseeya even though she is so completely formulaic that shi is as boring as hell. But she pretends that I do the "formulaic" thing. She is beyond petty. But at least she's always unpersuasive.

boredtoseeya also has the obsessive need to get in the last word, but thinks that by saying that I am the one guilty of this mortal sin, she is somehow absolved. Her hypocrisy is boundless. But she's an amusing thang.

Ask her how she came by the handle "dump truck."

See? #1 at the least. He can't help it.

I don't think I've been treated to that one. If I have, it wasn't memorable.

Now I feel left out.

You weren't. It's usually reserved just for the dopes worthy of derision. Disagreement is a different matter.

boredtoseeya will be back momentarily for some more ineffectual ad hominem irrelevancies!

 

[Liability]

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE? Be specific.

None. Absolutely none. And that's precisely what is wrong with your position on this issue.

That makes less sense than you usually make.

If no "process" is "due," then there would be absolutely nothing wrong with my position.

IF SOME process is due, the QUESTION would become "Well, what process? How much process? What is its nature? How is it to be delivered?"

But to say that my position is somehow "wrong" BECAUSE no process at all is due is just meaningless of you.

 

[goldcatt]

Where in our laws are we obligated to treat captured illegal enemy combatants as mere violators of our civilian criminal laws?

Could you maybe point to that?

And I ask for a reason, so try to be precise and accurate. You will be graded on your answer.

Thank me.

My edit came too late. My apologies, didn't mean to sneak it in on you.

Unless specifically authorized (as with POWs, for example), we are Constitutionally barred from holding anyone in detention by force without the right of habeas corpus and without charge and trial. That is clear. So either a new law must be put in place to create that exemption that will pass constitutional muster, which was not done prior to their detention on US sovereign territory, or they must be treated as criminal defendants in order to be able to keep them detained but remain within the constitution. Again, connecting those dots is not rocket science.

Unless you want to treat them as POWs after all, but then you have a whole 'nother set of issues.

Now, where is that authorization to detain "Enemy Combatants" without habeas rights, charge or trial? That's right....it was claimed and the Gitmo cases slammed that door shut. So criminal defendants they are, unless you'd prefer they were released?

Did you know that Congress has forbidden the Courts from addressing HABEAS issues with regard to certain classes of individuals -- specifically these very types of detainees?

See, for example, Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

In that light, please tell me again how these guys can assert the Great Writ?

Boumediene v. Bush

BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH

The portion of the MCA of 2006 stripping the detainees of their habeas rights was tossed.

The MCA of 2009 was passed to reinstate habeas for detainees per the SCOTUS ruling

Text:
Military Commissions Act 2009

What else you got?