Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yep. How can you confer the right to a jury of your peers when these people aren't citizens? By doing these things? They are setting the Constitution on it's ear. (But then when did they give a rat's ass about the Constitution anyway)?
They should instead do a Military Tribunal as has been done throughout history with Prisoners Of War/Enemy combatants.
Do you know why we have over 2,200,000 prisoners in these US? Because the right to a jury of peers has been ignored:
"The right to a trial by jury is guaranteed to every citizen ...... by the Constitution ......The very idea of a jury is a body of men composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is selected or summoned to determine -- that is, of his neighbors, fellows, associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that which he holds. Blackstone, in his Commentaries, says,
"The right of trial by jury, or the country, is a trial by the peers of every Englishman, and is the grand bulwark of his liberties, and is secured to him by the Great Charter."
U.S. Supreme Court
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879)
.
What the FUCK are you talking about here? Right to TRIAL for Foreigners? What part of the Constitution guarantees this to FOREIGN INVADERS?
People plucked off the battlefield that are in POW status?
You're WRONG. Admit it. I'll wait.
Not a chance - all federal courts - military or civilians - are corrupted to their core. They would have never agreed to "try" him in a civilian court if there was a chance that he was going to get a fair trial.
Padilla Jury Opens Pandoras Box
The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007). It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.
.
a jury of peers could be played to have all muslims on the jury, just an ugly thought.
Yep. How can you confer the right to a jury of your peers when these people aren't citizens? By doing these things? They are setting the Constitution on it's ear. (But then when did they give a rat's ass about the Constitution anyway)?
They should instead do a Military Tribunal as has been done throughout history with Prisoners Of War/Enemy combatants.
BTW- Reagan did not support Suddam he supported Iran, .
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
Edited by Joyce Battle
February 25, 2003
BTW- Reagan did not support Suddam he supported Iran, .
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
Edited by Joyce Battle
February 25, 2003
You realize this isnt evidence of a partnership between Reagan and Saddam, right? Its simply a picture of Bush shaking his hand. Thats all you got? Hes a politician, and im sure he shook thousands of hands while he was in office.
Hell, even i got to shake Bush seniors hand, making him the second president i got to shake hands with. Reagan was the first. Thats right, ive met two presidents... whos got that beat?
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
Edited by Joyce Battle
February 25, 2003
You realize this isnt evidence of a partnership between Reagan and Saddam, right? Its simply a picture of Bush shaking his hand. Thats all you got? Hes a politician, and im sure he shook thousands of hands while he was in office.
Hell, even i got to shake Bush seniors hand, making him the second president i got to shake hands with. Reagan was the first. Thats right, ive met two presidents... whos got that beat?
It's Rumsfeld, when he was working for a company that was producing chemicals I think, Monsanto maybe? Anyway there's probably a bit of info kicking around about it on the net.
Does NY have a death penalty? I'm curious, since Holder basically guaranteed that the terrorists would fry, where would they be killed, and who/how would it be done? Would Patterson need to sign-off on it, etc??
Does NY have a death penalty? I'm curious, since Holder basically guaranteed that the terrorists would fry, where would they be killed, and who/how would it be done? Would Patterson need to sign-off on it, etc??
Does NY have a death penalty? I'm curious, since Holder basically guaranteed that the terrorists would fry, where would they be killed, and who/how would it be done? Would Patterson need to sign-off on it, etc??
Those folks are being allegedly prosecuted pursuant to federal law. So NY Law is irrelevant.
ok you got me, but John is dead as a door nail
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82
Edited by Joyce Battle
February 25, 2003
Did you notice, he was looking him in the eye and greeting him as another leader, not bowing in submission?
That was Rummy who shook hands with bad boy Saddam, not Reagan.
ok you got me, but John is dead as a door nail
No problem. Mohammed was killed by lethal injection. You answered my basic question when you confirmed that Mohammed and KSM would be killed by the same method. For some reason I thought that Mohammed was killed under VA State law and that the various States were lining up in case he beat one State's rap.
If KSM et.al. beat the Fed rap, can we assume that NY or NJ will prosecute, or is that double-jeopardy??
