Home Court Advantage

[bodecea]

REST IN PIECES, U.S. CONSTITUTION, You were loved, and we will miss you...

Please contessa, show us in the constitution where it says enemy combantants shall have a civilian trial? Please show me, if you can't then it sounds just like another partisan hack.
Because our constitution hasn't really been stepped on, huh?

Actually, illegal combatants are traditionally subjected, by all nations, to "drum head" trials. Agreement by three officers and summary execution.

Are they illegal combatants? As does that apply when we are not at war?

 

[Tech_Esq]

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?

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.

And people like you want our Constitution burned and our rights trampled into the mud because you are scared pissless over the terrorists.

How is that exactly?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Please contessa, show us in the constitution where it says enemy combantants shall have a civilian trial? Please show me, if you can't then it sounds just like another partisan hack.
Because our constitution hasn't really been stepped on, huh?

Actually, illegal combatants are traditionally subjected, by all nations, to "drum head" trials. Agreement by three officers and summary execution.

Are they illegal combatants? As does that apply when we are not at war?

We're not at war? How's that?

 

[Meister]

Actually, illegal combatants are traditionally subjected, by all nations, to "drum head" trials. Agreement by three officers and summary execution.

Are they illegal combatants? As does that apply when we are not at war?

We're not at war? How's that?

It's like defining what the definition of "is", is.
When we were in Viet Nam, it was an undeclared war, and called "police action."
Now it's known only as the Viet Nam War.
It comes down to interpretation of the word, and is no more than just symantics

 

[Tech_Esq]

Are they illegal combatants? As does that apply when we are not at war?

We're not at war? How's that?

It's like defining what the definition of "is", is.
When we were in Viet Nam, it was an undeclared war, and called "police action."
Now it's known only as the Viet Nam War.
It comes down to interpretation of the word, and is no more than just symantics

Well, for my money, there was not one single person in the Congress that didn't know that they were voting for war when we attacked Afghanistan. To me, that means we're at war and legally. A fact that was completely supported by NATO by its invocation of Article 5 under the Washington Treaty on September 12, 2001. That's why NATO is in Afghanistan.

 

[Mike458877]

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

Oh bull shit ........... it amazes me that they expect people to buy into lines such as this.

Not Obama's decision?

A micro manager like him?

LOL ........... ahuh, sure!

Mike

 

[Lost Soul]

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?

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.

And people like you want our Constitution burned and our rights trampled into the mud because you are scared pissless over the terrorists.

No you dumb ass, I want these terrorist tried in the right court. First dip shit, they are not Americans so they are not guaranteed the same right under the US court system nor rights of an American.


Second, you fucking moron, they are enemy combatants that have always in the history of this country been tried by the military NOT the civilian court system, asshole.

If you wasn't so damn ignorant you might have a clue, but since you don't, sit your stupid ass down and shut the fuck up before I embarrasses your dumb ass even more.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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?

For some, a "fair" trial is only for when it is their brother or their kid that has done something totally ughly, and for all else, the US Constitution is not pertinent if their bigotry is in the way!

Nice attempt to chill free speech by playing the race card.

Who said anything about RACE, Middle Easterners are WHITE, LOL..... Semitic, but WHITE, and Central Asians are not "racially" Oriental, they are WHITE, too....

And free speech is letting the offensive have their day in court, say whatever, letting a jury hear their confessions, and being done with it, but in a way that has us doing the right thing all the way through.

 

[Claudette]

Funny how everything always comes back to racism. Not a very good argument in this case. Can't think of anyone else who is trying to kill us outside of Muslims.

Llike that drum deal tech.

Save your breath. The libs on this board don't want to hear common sense. They just want these dirtbag terrorist to get that FAIR TRIAL. Don't care how it comes out as long as it goes forward and they can feel good about it. Morons.
\

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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.

And people like you want our Constitution burned and our rights trampled into the mud because you are scared pissless over the terrorists.

No you dumb ass, I want these terrorist tried in the right court. First dip shit, they are not Americans so they are not guaranteed the same right under the US court system nor rights of an American.


Second, you fucking moron, they are enemy combatants that have always in the history of this country been tried by the military NOT the civilian court system, asshole.

If you wasn't so damn ignorant you might have a clue, but since you don't, sit your stupid ass down and shut the fuck up before I embarrasses your dumb ass even more.

You really ought to worry more about how you are embarrassing yourself with your own foolishness.

Summary execution of an "enemy" - you are giving justification to what "THEY" do to our people! Tit for tat bullshit. We are better than that!



http://davekopel.org/2a/Mags/Rights-During-War.htm

Are Civilian Courts Appropriate for Prosecuting Individuals Classified as Enemy Combatants? - Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2007/summer/merrick.html

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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.

REST IN PIECES, U.S. CONSTITUTION, You were loved, and we will miss you...

Not only does no part of the US Constitution support your position, I challenge you to cite any case law that supports your position. There isn't any.

This scheme is made out of whole cloth by an Attorney General who couldn't even answer the most basic question any attorney would seek to have the answer to when confronted with this kind of a question -- venue.

What does precedent say on the subject? Holder didn't know. He claimed to have researched and agonized over this decision, yet he didn't know the answer to the most basic of questions. He's either an incompetent that needs to be removed or he's doing this to achieve some end other than serving the law and he needs to be removed.

The Crimes Happened in New York, Happened in PA, Happened in DC.

and BTW, the words you want are CRIMINAL JURISDICTION, determined by locus delicti, not venue. If you are going to get all pompous on the issue, use the right words, huh!


http://www.jstor.org/pss/2213634
Old Piracy Laws Created Universal Jurisdiction: Modern International Criminal Law Learned from Ancient Problem | Suite101.com
Crimes within the Court's Jurisdiction
jurisdiction legal definition of jurisdiction. jurisdiction synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Criminal Resource Manual 1617 Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction -- 18 U.S.C. §112, 878, 970, 1116, 1117 and 1201

November 18, 2009

THE AGONIZING GITMO DILEMMA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: Enemy Combatants, Gitmo, terror suspects, torture, uspected terrorists, war on terror — johntfloyd @ 5:04 am
Enemy Combatant Cases in Federal Courts Chart Uncertain Path
By Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
On January 22, 2009, just days after assuming the presidency, Barak Obama announced that he would close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility where hundreds “suspected terrorists” have been held for years without trial under an official Bush-administration created designation “enemy combatant.” Civil libertarians and prominent constitutional scholars have long advocated the closure of the facility while political conservatives have fought hard in the trenches to keep the internationally-criticized torture facility open.

A liberal policy think tank called Center for American Progress, a staunch ally of the Obama administration, charged in a recently released report that the administration has made a series of blunders following the President’s January 22nd Gitmo closure announcement. The report, authored by Ken Gude, a scholar for the Center, says these blunders will delay Gitmo’s ultimate closure for months. The most significant blunders, the report charged, was the administration’s failure to have enough people in place to handle the difficult closure process and misleading Congress about its intentions.

The Obama administration assigned two task forces to deal with the Gitmo dilemma: one to examine the overall “detention policy” of suspected terrorists and the second to review the files of more than 200 detainees to determine whether they should be prosecuted in federal civilian courts or by military commissions. The most high-profile of these “enemy combatants” were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks who has been in custody since March 2003, and four of his co-conspirators—all of whom will now be tried in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York based on a recent decision by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Just last month President Obama signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (officially titled the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act) which changes—but some would argue does not actually improve—the rules governing the military commissions created in 2006 to hear terrorism cases. In 2006 then-Sen. Obama, and 33 other U.S. senators, voted against the “military commission’s law,” calling it a “flawed document” that ran counter to American values. (more…)

 

[WillowTree]

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

you've regressed from cat to rat!

Oh, and I do get that you are too dumb to get the big words, LOL......

 

[WillowTree]

you've regressed from cat to rat!

Oh, and I do get that you are too dumb to get the big words, LOL......

DUmmie! cats eat rats! democ Rats.