Home Court Advantage

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Contessa_Sharra, Nov 19, 2009.

  1. Contessa_Sharra
    Offline

    Contessa_Sharra Searcher for Accuracy

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +147
    Home Court Advantage
    Giuliani should know better than to impugn the capabilities of federal courts.

    By Jonathan Alter | Newsweek Web Exclusive

    Nov 18, 2009

    When last we heard from him, Rudy Giuliani had spent $59 million to win one delegate to the 2008 Republican National Convention. Now he's disrespecting the career attorneys at his old stomping ground, the U.S. Department of Justice, and setting new records in the competitive sport of scaremongering. (Click here to follow Jonathan Alter).

    The decision of Attorney General Eric Holder (not President Obama) to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of the attacks of 9/11, in New York City has kicked off a predictable political flap. Republicans smell political advantage—"The Obama administration is finished. The Democratic Party is finished," exulted Mike Huckabee—and even some Democrats, such as embattled New York Gov. David Paterson, are running for cover.

    But the New York officials who count—Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, and Sen. Chuck Schumer—came fully on board with Holder's decision once they were reassured that the city would be reimbursed for the extra security. They have no doubt that New York can handle the trial, which is at least a year away.

    As Giuliani knows, there are practical prosecutorial reasons to proceed against the biggest criminal in the history of the United States in federal court. Unlike some other detainees, KSM has confessed so many times outside of his interrogations that prosecutors won’t need to introduce evidence obtained through waterboarding. For that reason, efforts by the defense to make the trial about the abuses of the U.S. government will surely fail. And because federal courts have ample precedent in handling terrorism cases, the case will proceed much faster than it would in a military tribunal: by order of the Supreme Court, military justice is subject to extensive judicial review. After convictions in military courts, the appeals process can drag on, because everything about those tribunals is new and therefore subjected to endless adjudication.

    Rules of fair use prohibit posting of pieces in their entirety.

    ~Dude
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2009
  2. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    Long History Behind Military Commissions

    By Kathleen T. Rhem
    American Forces Press Service
    Washington, Aug. 19, 2004 – The United States Army, and before that the British army, have used military commissions to try war crimes at several different points in their long history.

    As the first pre-trial motions get under way for military commissions to try detainees in the war on terrorism, a top official in the process described some history behind military commissions to reporters at an Aug. 17 Pentagon briefing.

    "These types of commissions have been with us since the Revolution," said John Altenburg Jr., appointing authority for the Office of Military Commissions. "The British used a military commission to prosecute Nathan Hale. And some five years later, the United States military, at George Washington's direction, prosecuted Major (John) Andre as a spy for the British." Andre had conspired with American military traitor Benedict Arnold.

    During the Mexican War, Altenburg explained, Gen. Winfield Scott formed two types of military courts. The first, which he called war councils, were used to prosecute violations of the law of war. Scott's General Order 20, of 1847, also provided for military commissions to prosecute Mexicans who committed crimes against American soldiers.

    "Interesting to note," Altenburg added, "(Scott) did not prosecute Mexican crime against Mexicans. He was fairly enlightened in that regard and wanted to make sure that they had their own system running."


    DefenseLink News Article: Long History Behind Military Commissions

    Obama never should have stopped the Military Commissions.

    Rules of fair use prohibit posting of pieces in their entirety.

    ~Dude
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Meister
    Offline

    Meister Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,101
    Trophy Points:
    493
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,102
    The problem I have in a civilian trial of this magnitude, is that it just takes one nut to slip through the cracks during jury selection. Nobody can read the minds of individuals, and anything can happen after that.
    I don't understand why the US is putting these terrorists on trial when they have already confessed? There has to be a reason, and I'm hoping it isn't for a dog and pony show.
    If I'm innocent of a crime, I want the decision from a judge, if I'm guilty of a crime, I want the decision from a jury. Any idea on why?
     
  4. Contessa_Sharra
    Offline

    Contessa_Sharra Searcher for Accuracy

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,639
    Thanks Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +147
    Wouldn't it be something if his lawyer had him plead guilty at trial; Then the show would be over except for sentencing and imposing the sentence!
     
  5. Meister
    Offline

    Meister Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,101
    Trophy Points:
    493
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,102
    Yes it would, but I think you, and I both know that's not going to happen.
     
  6. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,476
    Thanks Received:
    19,872
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,506
    Unbelievable....... And you were educated in this country?

    You don't understand the right to a fair trial? Did you sleep through those classes on our founding fathers?
     
  7. Lost Soul
    Offline

    Lost Soul Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    584
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +118
    You stupid fucker, they are enemy combatants. This isn't an criminal case. These scumbags you liberals love to defend attacked this country which is an act of war. They should be tried by a military court and then after found guilty hung by the neck until they are dead dead dead.

    But scumbags like you love to try and see this country smeared while the liberal media has field day exposing our intelligence techniques to make it easier for terrorists to attack this country again. And morons like you are too damn stupid to realize it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2009
  8. Meister
    Offline

    Meister Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,101
    Trophy Points:
    493
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,102
    You are an ignorant one aren't you, rw?
    First, these terrorists were caught on foreign soil, and ARE subject to a MILITARY TRIBUNAL.
    But, having said that....did you miss the part where they confessed?
    Go back to school, because you really didn't comprehend much when you did go. :cuckoo:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Lonestar_logic
    Offline

    Lonestar_logic Republic of Texas

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,318
    Thanks Received:
    2,193
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,505
    If you think that Attorney General Eric Holder didn't have Obama's blessing then you more of an idiot than you've been given credit for.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. WillowTree
    Online

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,192
    Thanks Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,769
    He's already pled guilty and asked for the death sentence..and bragged about it.. not to mention the DUMBells have tainted the jury pool with their he guilty and will get the death sentence statements so why do we have to pay twice for a "pled guilty" and a "death sentence" oh I remember demoncwats don't give a shit about spending other peoples money.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page