Lindsey Graham Defends the Constitution, citizens, and Courts in front of Erik Holder

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm no big Lindsey Graham fan but i do have to give him some Kudos on this one.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

However, brining them to trial in the US criminal court system automatically extends constitutinal rights to them.

If they had a military tribunal you would be correct but in a US criminal court trial you are wrong.

Just because they are on U.S. soil, that does not mean they get constitutional rights. The administration wants to give them rights. They are dangerously wrong.

If you believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, the perps in question do not have rights under our Constitution even if they are tried on American soil. The Constitution was written for American citizens not terrorists or enemy combatants. The President wants to cross a line that should never ever be crossed, by giving them V Amendment rights, a lawyer etc.

If you believe that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and if you believe that the function of the Constitution, and the government, is to protect those inalienable rights,

then it would be an odd contradiction to then qualify that to claim that citizens are the only men who possess those inalienable rights.

You might want to study the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Apparently, you don't know the difference between the two. We are governed by the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

However, brining them to trial in the US criminal court system automatically extends constitutinal rights to them.

If they had a military tribunal you would be correct but in a US criminal court trial you are wrong.

Just because they are on U.S. soil, that does not mean they get constitutional rights. The administration wants to give them rights. They are dangerously wrong.

If you believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, the perps in question do not have rights under our Constitution even if they are tried on American soil. The Constitution was written for American citizens not terrorists or enemy combatants. The President wants to cross a line that should never ever be crossed, by giving them V Amendment rights, a lawyer etc.

If you believe that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and if you believe that the function of the Constitution, and the government, is to protect those inalienable rights,

then it would be an odd contradiction to then qualify that to claim that citizens are the only men who possess those inalienable rights.

When have we ever extended the bill of rights (ok i'll be nice and say the constitution) to an enemy combatant? I'll be even nicer, when have we ever extended constitutional rights, through court trials, to any POW our nation captured?

I know I know its the same question that Holder couldn't answer but you could easily be smarter than that baffon of an AG, its like we have ashcroft back or something.

 

[QUENTIN]

What are you afraid of? Fear not. Liberal democrats will save the day again. We'll clean up the mess the scardy cat cons got us into...........again.

hey! haven't you heard? your DUmbasses have tainted the jury pool.

I dont think dev actually listened to, watched, or read the Question and answer session.

The point being that in our criminal courts you have to have your miranda rights read to you at the time of detention and interrogation. If you did not have them read to you your case can be easily dismissed under the writ of habeas corpus.

Smooth move to try them in a constitional court system, giving them rights under the constitution, that were violated during their capture and subsequent detention and interrogation.

People need to stop getting their understanding of US law from reruns of Boston Legal.

There are a multitude of reasons the Miranda warning can be omitted. Sufficient evidence to indict upon arrest is one of them, which given all the legally obtained documents we had detailing KSM's financial support of Al Qaeda, we more than had. He wasn't arrested by US police either, but Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence who don't and aren't required to Mirandize.

It's not uncommon to be arrested and not read your Miranda rights. The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Therefore, for Miranda to apply six factors must be present:

1. evidence must have been gathered
2. the evidence must be testimonial
3. the evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody
4. the evidence must have been the product of interrogation
5. the interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents and
6. the evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.

So if prosecutors rely on the mountains of evidence against KSM and his cohorts besides their confessions, which would be inadmissable if they were read their Miranda rights anyway because they were coerved via torture, the Miranda thing is a total non-issue that wouldn't come up and doesn't matter.

There are few things funnier than seeing an obvious amateur pretend to be an expert. This trial has opened the floodgates for people who have no understanding of the law outside popular entertainment to try to refute the Supreme Court and DOJ. Just hilarious.

 

[QUENTIN]

See, this is the problem.

Ramzi Yousef, one of the planners of the 1993 bombing was apprehended in PAKISTAN and extradited to the United States. And convicted in a civilian criminal trial. And put away forever.

Just like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

hey! haven't you heard? your DUmbasses have tainted the jury pool.

I dont think dev actually listened to, watched, or read the Question and answer session.

The point being that in our criminal courts you have to have your miranda rights read to you at the time of detention and interrogation. If you did not have them read to you your case can be easily dismissed under the writ of habeas corpus.

Smooth move to try them in a constitional court system, giving them rights under the constitution, that were violated during their capture and subsequent detention and interrogation.

People need to stop getting their understanding of US law from reruns of Boston Legal.

There are a multitude of reasons the Miranda warning can be omitted. Sufficient evidence to indict upon arrest is one of them, which given all the legally obtained documents we had detailing KSM's financial support of Al Qaeda, we more than had. He wasn't arrested by US police either, but Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence.

It's not uncommon to be arrested and not read your Miranda rights. The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Therefore, for Miranda to apply six factors must be present:

1. evidence must have been gathered
2. the evidence must be testimonial
3. the evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody
4. the evidence must have been the product of interrogation
5. the interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents and
6. the evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.

So if prosecutors rely on the mountains of evidence against KSM and his cohorts besides their confessions, which would be inadmissable if they were read their Miranda rights anyway because they were coerved via torture, the Miranda thing is a total non-issue that wouldn't come up and doesn't matter.

There are few things funnier than seeing an obvious amateur pretend to be an expert. This trial has opened the floodgates for people who have no understanding of the law outside popular entertainment to try to refute the Supreme Court and DOJ. Just hilarious.

Hey dude KSM's confession , which is the evidence against him, can be THROWN OUT of his court case due to the lack of miranda being read to him prior to his interrogation.

Please read How will Pleading Guilty to a Felony Affect Your Life? - Criminal Information Network

 

[QUENTIN]

I dont think dev actually listened to, watched, or read the Question and answer session.

The point being that in our criminal courts you have to have your miranda rights read to you at the time of detention and interrogation. If you did not have them read to you your case can be easily dismissed under the writ of habeas corpus.

Smooth move to try them in a constitional court system, giving them rights under the constitution, that were violated during their capture and subsequent detention and interrogation.

People need to stop getting their understanding of US law from reruns of Boston Legal.

There are a multitude of reasons the Miranda warning can be omitted. Sufficient evidence to indict upon arrest is one of them, which given all the legally obtained documents we had detailing KSM's financial support of Al Qaeda, we more than had. He wasn't arrested by US police either, but Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence.

It's not uncommon to be arrested and not read your Miranda rights. The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Therefore, for Miranda to apply six factors must be present:

1. evidence must have been gathered
2. the evidence must be testimonial
3. the evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody
4. the evidence must have been the product of interrogation
5. the interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents and
6. the evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.

So if prosecutors rely on the mountains of evidence against KSM and his cohorts besides their confessions, which would be inadmissable if they were read their Miranda rights anyway because they were coerved via torture, the Miranda thing is a total non-issue that wouldn't come up and doesn't matter.

There are few things funnier than seeing an obvious amateur pretend to be an expert. This trial has opened the floodgates for people who have no understanding of the law outside popular entertainment to try to refute the Supreme Court and DOJ. Just hilarious.

Hey dude KSM's confession , which is the evidence against him, can be THROWN OUT of his court case due to the lack of miranda being read to him prior to his interrogation.

Please read How will Pleading Guilty to a Felony Affect Your Life? - Criminal Information Network

His confession would and should be thrown out anyway because it was coerced via torture. Miranda rights are moot at that point.

The confession is not "the evidence against him" though, it's one piece of a ton of evidence against him. Had he had nothing to do with 9/11, we could still convict him of material support for terrorism based purely on well-documented and irrefutable financial ties and give him a life sentence at ADX Florence.

They won't be using the confession anyway to obtain a conviction because it wouldn't hold up for a dozen reasons (like other people torturing him and everafter ruining any case against him based on confession). The lack of Miranda warning is not the kind of technicality that could get the case thrown out because we already had enough evidence to indict. That evidence alone is enough to see him locked up in a hole the rest of his miserable life.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

People need to stop getting their understanding of US law from reruns of Boston Legal.

There are a multitude of reasons the Miranda warning can be omitted. Sufficient evidence to indict upon arrest is one of them, which given all the legally obtained documents we had detailing KSM's financial support of Al Qaeda, we more than had. He wasn't arrested by US police either, but Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence.

It's not uncommon to be arrested and not read your Miranda rights. The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Therefore, for Miranda to apply six factors must be present:

1. evidence must have been gathered
2. the evidence must be testimonial
3. the evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody
4. the evidence must have been the product of interrogation
5. the interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents and
6. the evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution.

So if prosecutors rely on the mountains of evidence against KSM and his cohorts besides their confessions, which would be inadmissable if they were read their Miranda rights anyway because they were coerved via torture, the Miranda thing is a total non-issue that wouldn't come up and doesn't matter.

There are few things funnier than seeing an obvious amateur pretend to be an expert. This trial has opened the floodgates for people who have no understanding of the law outside popular entertainment to try to refute the Supreme Court and DOJ. Just hilarious.

Hey dude KSM's confession , which is the evidence against him, can be THROWN OUT of his court case due to the lack of miranda being read to him prior to his interrogation.

Please read How will Pleading Guilty to a Felony Affect Your Life? - Criminal Information Network

His confession would and should be thrown out anyway because it was coerced via torture. Miranda rights are moot at that point.

The confession is not "the evidence against him" though, it's one piece of a ton of evidence against him. Had he had nothing to do with 9/11, we could still convict him of material support for terrorism based purely on well-documented and irrefutable financial ties and give him a life sentence at ADX Florence.

They won't be using the confession anyway to obtain a conviction because it wouldn't hold up for a dozen reasons. The lack of Miranda warning is not the kind of technicality that could get the case thrown out because we already had enough evidence to indict. That evidence alone is enough to see him locked up in a hole the rest of his miserable life.

since he wont face a tribunal i truly hope that all the evidence is admissable in his criminal case and you are right. If not its a pretty bad situation.

 

[QUENTIN]

Hey dude KSM's confession , which is the evidence against him, can be THROWN OUT of his court case due to the lack of miranda being read to him prior to his interrogation.

Please read How will Pleading Guilty to a Felony Affect Your Life? - Criminal Information Network

His confession would and should be thrown out anyway because it was coerced via torture. Miranda rights are moot at that point.

The confession is not "the evidence against him" though, it's one piece of a ton of evidence against him. Had he had nothing to do with 9/11, we could still convict him of material support for terrorism based purely on well-documented and irrefutable financial ties and give him a life sentence at ADX Florence.

They won't be using the confession anyway to obtain a conviction because it wouldn't hold up for a dozen reasons. The lack of Miranda warning is not the kind of technicality that could get the case thrown out because we already had enough evidence to indict. That evidence alone is enough to see him locked up in a hole the rest of his miserable life.

since he wont face a tribunal i truly hope that all the evidence is admissable in his criminal case and you are right. If not its a pretty bad situation.

It is since it was acquired legally mostly before he was captured. It's the same way we sometimes try mobsters or major drug dealers not for killing people but for racketeering because it's easier to prove and financial records can't plead the fifth. Except terrorism-related charges automatically have more severe sentences than racketeering or criminal conspiracy, pretty much guaranteeing life in prison.

In the literally basically impossible event that by an act of God, KSM was found not guilty despite the overwhelming evidence tying him to a dozen different charges we can throw at him that all come with at least supermax for life, he would still not be released. That's just when the DOJ would have to publicly reveal what a kangaroo court and multi-tiered justice system this is, as they've already asserted the right to hold any terror suspect via "post-acquital preventitive detainment" i.e., even if they were found not guilty, they'd still be in prison the rest of their lives. The conviction is a slam dunk, that's why these guys are before a court so we can have a public display of the sanctity of our justice system, but if for any reason it doesn't go how they want (even if it somehow turned out they were actually innocent), the accused will still be in jail permanently.

 

[Intense]

Soon We will be able to charge Him for not having Health Insurance. No worries Man!!!!