No Liberal will answer this.

[kwc57]

You are either to stupid to know what you just said is not true or you are a liar. Which is it?

Bush had Tribunals start BEFORE he left office and Obama ordered them stopped. In fact KSM plead Guilty in such a tribunal.

Look jackass........what the fuck took Bush so long to do anything? Spin it however you desire, but Bush was President and CiC for 8 years. Had he done the job when it needed doing, we wouldn't be here today with Obama making bad decisions in his place. That isn't too hard for a reasonable person to understand. You are reasonable......aren't you?

He tried and faced 3 DIFFERENT court cases to BLOCK his use of tribunals. He could not use them until AFTER, in 2008, the SUpreme Court ruled he could. And he was blocked by the Democrats and the Liberals.

I am starting to understand just how fucking stupid you really are. You do not know basic information about this and continue to spout off untruths left and right, when shown they are untrue you make more shit up.

So I REPEAT, are you just AMAZINGLY STUPID? Or are you just an out right liar?

With all due respect to your service to our country which I do appreciate (my dad was a WWII Marine vet), your petty and childish insult hurling disrespects the uniform I assume you proudly wore. Interwebs tough guys like you can kiss my rosey red rump.

Let me lay it out where any reasonable person can understand it. I know that doesn't include your emotionally charged nancy ass, but it is for the benefit of the intelligent people here. Had Bush chosen to follow convention and tradition in respect to prisoners of war, we would not be where we are today. He knew full well the can of legal worms he was opening by declaring them "enemy combatants" instead of "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Convention and knew it would be challenged in court.......but he decided to go that route anyway. Obama bringing these terrorists thru the US Judicial system is a direct result of Bush's actions. This whole thing could have been put to bed early in Bush's second term without any court decisions challenging his decisions.....had he made the right choices.

Go ahead, insult me and spin some more.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where is Jillian?

Where is Rightwinger?
Come on Justify it, explain it.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 6, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration has selected a ...sixth Guantanamo Bay detainee to face a military commission.

How many detainees were freed under Bush admin?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well those involved in the first WTC bombing were TRIED, CONVICTED, and PUNISHED using our legal system so why do you have a problem with trials for these SUSPECTS from GitMo?

 

[rightwinger]

RGS

Asked and answered on the duplicate thread

Not my fault if you don't like the answers. Starting a duplicate thread does not make you any less dense

 

[kwc57]

Well those involved in the first WTC bombing were TRIED, CONVICTED, and PUNISHED using our legal system so why do you have a problem with trials for these SUSPECTS from GitMo?

The WTC bombers commited a crime. Detective work and evidence convicted them before a jury. Many Gitmo detainees are POW's. They were captured on the battlefield. Other than being the enemy, they have not necessarily committed a crime. At the end of WWII, POW's were released at the end of the war. We are fighting a war against a tactic rather than a state. Like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, it is a war you can't "win" and therefore is a war that will never end. That is your sticky wicket. Do you imprison these people for life? Should there be some sort of sorting out and those who have acted criminally be tried by either the court system or tribunals? Bush choosing to reinvent the wheel has us where we are today with Obama trying to sort things out.

 

[kwc57]

RGS

Asked and answered on the duplicate thread

Not my fault if you don't like the answers. Starting a duplicate thread does not make you any less dense

What? There are two of these?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Further explain how any sane Judge can even hold a trial when none of the safeguards provided a defendant existed for these men.

Very easily. He throws out any and all evidence that is "fruit of the poisoned tree."

If the prosecution is wise, they won't even attempt to use any of it to start with.

Leaving NO evidence at all. EVERY THING those men ever said was without the safe guards of Federal Courts.

They don't need statements by the suspects, confessions, or any other of the evidence obtained after arrest. They need only the evidence that is not reliant on any of that, for the relevant charges. They will have to first, get an indictment from a Federal Grand Jury. It all depends on exactly what charges are pursued.

Further how does a Judge even agree to take the case when he has already been told by the Attorney General of the United States that no matter the verdict the men will be retained in Military custody?

He doesn't get to agree or disagree. He gets the case when the indictment comes down in his jurisdiction. He doesn't get to cherry-pick his cases based on what might happen to the suspect after the trial.

He can recuse himself, but he would have to show cause that's within the law.

First let's see if we get any indictments, and what those are for before we get all up in what might happen at trial. If the Grand Jury no-bills the suspects, there won't be a trial on those charges anyway.

But.... If we get true bill indictments, I am pretty confident we'll get convictions.

 

[Ravi]

Well those involved in the first WTC bombing were TRIED, CONVICTED, and PUNISHED using our legal system so why do you have a problem with trials for these SUSPECTS from GitMo?

The WTC bombers commited a crime. Detective work and evidence convicted them before a jury. Many Gitmo detainees are POW's. They were captured on the battlefield. Other than being the enemy, they have not necessarily committed a crime. At the end of WWII, POW's were released at the end of the war. We are fighting a war against a tactic rather than a state. Like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, it is a war you can't "win" and therefore is a war that will never end. That is your sticky wicket. Do you imprison these people for life? Should there be some sort of sorting out and those who have acted criminally be tried by either the court system or tribunals? Bush choosing to reinvent the wheel has us where we are today with Obama trying to sort things out.

What battlefield was that?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

kwc......I think you missed my point. My point is that the GitMo detainees are accused of CRIMES and should therefor be tried as criminal defendants. If the only evidence is that they were narced out by a neighbor with an axe to grind they will quickly be aquited and released. If there is real EVIDNCE against the SUSPECTS then they will be CONVICTED just like the first WTC suspects.

 

[kwc57]

Well those involved in the first WTC bombing were TRIED, CONVICTED, and PUNISHED using our legal system so why do you have a problem with trials for these SUSPECTS from GitMo?

The WTC bombers commited a crime. Detective work and evidence convicted them before a jury. Many Gitmo detainees are POW's. They were captured on the battlefield. Other than being the enemy, they have not necessarily committed a crime. At the end of WWII, POW's were released at the end of the war. We are fighting a war against a tactic rather than a state. Like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, it is a war you can't "win" and therefore is a war that will never end. That is your sticky wicket. Do you imprison these people for life? Should there be some sort of sorting out and those who have acted criminally be tried by either the court system or tribunals? Bush choosing to reinvent the wheel has us where we are today with Obama trying to sort things out.

What battlefield was that?

Hmmmm? What nation was being run by the Taliban who were harboring bin Laden and Al Queda following 9/11? Oh yeah, Afghanistan. That battlefield.

 

[kwc57]

kwc......I think you missed my point. My point is that the GitMo detainees are accused of CRIMES and should therefor be tried as criminal defendants. If the only evidence is that they were narced out by a neighbor with an axe to grind they will quickly be aquited and released. If there is real EVIDNCE against the SUSPECTS then they will be CONVICTED just like the first WTC suspects.

Got ya. It's helpful to understand the players.

Enemy combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enemy combatant is a term historically referring to members of the armed forces of the state with which another state is at war. Prior to 2008, the definition was: "Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war." In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term "enemy state" may be replaced by the more general term "Party to the conflict" (as described in the 1949 Geneva Conventions Article 3).

In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.

Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

 

[Ravi]

The WTC bombers commited a crime. Detective work and evidence convicted them before a jury. Many Gitmo detainees are POW's. They were captured on the battlefield. Other than being the enemy, they have not necessarily committed a crime. At the end of WWII, POW's were released at the end of the war. We are fighting a war against a tactic rather than a state. Like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, it is a war you can't "win" and therefore is a war that will never end. That is your sticky wicket. Do you imprison these people for life? Should there be some sort of sorting out and those who have acted criminally be tried by either the court system or tribunals? Bush choosing to reinvent the wheel has us where we are today with Obama trying to sort things out.

What battlefield was that?

Hmmmm? What nation was being run by the Taliban who were harboring bin Laden and Al Queda following 9/11? Oh yeah, Afghanistan. That battlefield.

Is it your belief that anyone that was in Afghanistan at the time was a terrorist, enemy combatant or whatever we are calling them these days?

 

[kwc57]

What battlefield was that?

Hmmmm? What nation was being run by the Taliban who were harboring bin Laden and Al Queda following 9/11? Oh yeah, Afghanistan. That battlefield.

Is it your belief that anyone that was in Afghanistan at the time was a terrorist, enemy combatant or whatever we are calling them these days?

Hell no! The word terrorist gets thown around just like the word hero to the point that they don't mean anything. A hero is someone who does a heroic act of bravery. A terrorist is someone who engages in an act of terrorism to make people conform out of fear. The 19 asswads who took over planes and crashed them into buildings on 9/11 are bona-fi'ed terrorists. Moohamed shooting at soldiers from another country rolling past his momma's mud hut probably isn't. Now if Moohamed was attending training camps back in the mountains somewhere and learning how to blow himself up on a plane trip to the US, he would be a terrorist. Far too many talk radio hosts and their followers think of everyone over there as a "terrorist" because it stirs the emotion.

 

[Ravi]

Hmmmm? What nation was being run by the Taliban who were harboring bin Laden and Al Queda following 9/11? Oh yeah, Afghanistan. That battlefield.

Is it your belief that anyone that was in Afghanistan at the time was a terrorist, enemy combatant or whatever we are calling them these days?

Hell no! The word terrorist gets thown around just like the word hero to the point that they don't mean anything. A hero is someone who does a heroic act of bravery. A terrorist is someone who engages in an act of terrorism to make people conform out of fear. The 19 asswads who took over planes and crashed them into buildings on 9/11 are bona-fi'ed terrorists. Moohamed shooting at soldiers from another country rolling past his momma's mud hut probably isn't. Now if Moohamed was attending training camps back in the mountains somewhere and learning how to blow himself up on a plane trip to the US, he would be a terrorist. Far too many talk radio hosts and their followers think of everyone over there as a "terrorist" because it stirs the emotion.

Right...which is why I always question the picked up on a battlefield bit. It is my understanding that many of them were picked up in Afghanistan, but not necessarily on the battlefield.

 

[asaratis]

Explain how you can support this knowing all this?

Why do you make the assumption that people support this?

I don't.

Obama and his appointed Attorney General do. It is going to be a media circus, photo op, propaganda generating, appeasing release of more terrorists back to their homelands where they can regroup and help in the killing of Americans again.

I have asked today and on other days before.

Since the Gitmo detainees that will be tried in open Federal Court had no basic Federally guaranteed rights how does one try them in court?

NO Miranda rights.

No right to a Lawyer before being interrogated

No Lawyer to argue for bail

No Lawyer at all

No right to a speedy trial.

Held with no basic criminal court rights at all.

THEN Holder, the Attorney General announces that even if the defendents are found not guilty or released because of all the violations they will be rearrested by the Military and held for Military Tribunals.

In other words NO presumption of Innocence at all, they are presumed guilty and if the Court disagrees it will be ignored.

How is this Justice? How is this even LEGAL.

Military Tribunals are legal because of long history and because the Supreme Court has ruled in these cases they can be used. Holder is going to ( with Obama's permission ) VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW and he is the SENIOR Legal advisor in the Country.

Explain how you can support this knowing all this?

Easy. You are misrepresenting most every thing.

You're merely dismissing it all with frivolous chatter. Whatever transpires in this effort will be a saga with a circus atmosphere, appease the terrorists, ignore justice and eventually set free several animals that should have been executed a long time ago.

 

[kwc57]

Is it your belief that anyone that was in Afghanistan at the time was a terrorist, enemy combatant or whatever we are calling them these days?

Hell no! The word terrorist gets thown around just like the word hero to the point that they don't mean anything. A hero is someone who does a heroic act of bravery. A terrorist is someone who engages in an act of terrorism to make people conform out of fear. The 19 asswads who took over planes and crashed them into buildings on 9/11 are bona-fi'ed terrorists. Moohamed shooting at soldiers from another country rolling past his momma's mud hut probably isn't. Now if Moohamed was attending training camps back in the mountains somewhere and learning how to blow himself up on a plane trip to the US, he would be a terrorist. Far too many talk radio hosts and their followers think of everyone over there as a "terrorist" because it stirs the emotion.

Right...which is why I always question the picked up on a battlefield bit. It is my understanding that many of them were picked up in Afghanistan, but not necessarily on the battlefield.

I'm not sure what else you call a place where we have boots on the ground and we are engaged in a shooting war. Any suggestions?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Don't worry anyone asar has appointed himself Judge, Jury, AND Executioner.

 

[Ravi]

Hell no! The word terrorist gets thown around just like the word hero to the point that they don't mean anything. A hero is someone who does a heroic act of bravery. A terrorist is someone who engages in an act of terrorism to make people conform out of fear. The 19 asswads who took over planes and crashed them into buildings on 9/11 are bona-fi'ed terrorists. Moohamed shooting at soldiers from another country rolling past his momma's mud hut probably isn't. Now if Moohamed was attending training camps back in the mountains somewhere and learning how to blow himself up on a plane trip to the US, he would be a terrorist. Far too many talk radio hosts and their followers think of everyone over there as a "terrorist" because it stirs the emotion.

Right...which is why I always question the picked up on a battlefield bit. It is my understanding that many of them were picked up in Afghanistan, but not necessarily on the battlefield.

I'm not sure what else you call a place where we have boots on the ground and we are engaged in a shooting war. Any suggestions?

No...but when it is claimed they were picked up on a battlefield, it sounds as if they were engaged in battle. From what I've read that isn't true of many of the detainees.

And if they were engaged in battle they should have been shot on the spot.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Remind me how many detainees were released from GitMo while Bush was in office?

 

[kwc57]

Remind me how many detainees were released from GitMo while Bush was in office?

At least two.

Northwest Flight 253: al Qaeda Leader Behind Terror Plot Was Released by U.S. - ABC News