No Liberal will answer this.

[kwc57]

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

And apparently a few others too.

PolitiFact | More than 500 Guantanamo detainees were released or transferred under Bush

 

[kwc57]

Just curious.....does RGS typically start threads and then disappear?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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

And apparently a few others too.

PolitiFact | More than 500 Guantanamo detainees were released or transferred under Bush

I wonder if they get a "sorry we DETAINED you for years" or just told "don't let the door hit ya"?

 

[Ravi]

Just curious.....does RGS typically start threads and then disappear?

Yes. Especially when he is shown to be a fool.

He goes to his happy place.

 

[QUENTIN]

Actually, our long history makes military tribunals expressly illegal for non-soldiers like this and you not only misrepresent, but actually give the exact opposite finding of what the Supreme Court actually concluded.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1866 that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2. This decision was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008 when they ruled in Boumediene v Bush that Guantanamo detainees had a right to habeas corpus and access to US criminal courts under the United States Constitution and that military commissions were an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf

Non-military persons are tried in civilian criminal courts, military persons are tried in military courts. This is how the system does, and has always, worked.

Criminal court is the only place detainees can be legally tried. That is, without doubt, the sole right thing to do.

Where Obama's DOJ goes horribly, unforgivably wrong and essentially nullifies the positive impact of finally acting within the confines of the law, is in not trying every detainee as they must by picking and choosing who will get real trials, who will get some form of military tribunal, and who will not be tried at all but simply held indefinitely or "preventatively detained" to use their Orwellian newspeak based on how much evidence they have on the accused. This "the government always wins and only the venue changes to assure that outcome" form of "justice" is the definition of a kangaroo court system. Similarly, their declaration that even in the event that a defendant is found not guilty they will still be detained indefinitely makes an absurd mockery of all concepts of justice or the principle of the rule of law.

So, yeah. A criminal trial is the only way to try these detainees that doesn't totally abrogate our essential laws and justice system, but the DOJ's current implementation of that cannot seriously be called justice by anyone, but instead a system of show trials and no trials.

The new administration cannot be faulted for the gross, unbelievable injustice of the prior one and their repudiation of all known concepts of Western law and order that the Courts found ludicrous, but they can and should be faulted for merely putting a new spin on the same problem and disingenuously claiming justice is being served.

 

[The Rabbi]

Poor RGS.
He should have known what the answer is. Whenever this administration screws up beyond all recognition, the answer is
BOOOSSSHHHHH!!! IT WAS BOOOOSSHHHHH!!!!

Of course Bush had the right idea. And he put those ideas into practice, crafting legislation with input from the opposing Democratic Party (that used to be called bipartisanship and was considered a good thing).

But now Obama has turned his back on all that hard work. Personally I hope the judge throws all the cases out and releases the prisoners onto the streets of NY. Preferably just before the election in Nov.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just curious.....does RGS typically start threads and then disappear?

Whats wrong baby? No one to call names and throw tantrums about? I CHOSE what , where and when I post.

But just for you a hint, if I log on and there are 2000 posts unread I pretty much just log off and come back later. And I tend to post in the mornings.

You don't like it? TO FUCKING BAD for you.

Not one person has actually answered the questions not one, instead you dance around about how it foes not apply or Bush did it or some other excuse.

It is simple, these men can not be tried in Federal Court because they were not granted a single safe guard our Court system depends on, Our Glorious leader and his lap dog Attorney General KNOW this. SO they have stated for the record that IF ( meaning when) they are released by Federal Court, the Government will just take them back in to custody and turn them back over to the Military.

NO assumption of innocence exists in this case because of that simple statement. SO not only have they NOT been granted any Federal Court Safe Guards they are denied the BEDROCK of our legal system, a presumption of Innocence until proven GUILTY.

They will receive a Kangaroo show trial designed by the President to try and embarrass the previous Administration and then they will be returned to the Military for a Tribunal.

I do not want these men to go free, but I hope the Supreme Court crushes this ploy by the President. He would rather play politics with American lives at stake then safe guard the Nation.

 

[jillian]

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.

it should be dismissed as frivolous chatter.

was it a "media circus [meant to] appease" when the blind sheikh and shoebomber were tried?

"no" you say?

Exactly.

 

[jillian]

And the answer to the O/P...which I, personally, have answered repeatedly... is they can try them... they just can't use an illegaly obtained confession.

1. Miranda does not prohibit anyone from making a statement. I prohibits the taking of a statement while the suspect is under "custodial interrogation" absent warnings.

2. Yes, statements are excluded if coerced, so that shoots the waterboarded stuff in the butt... AS IT SHOULD.

3. Statements can be made by an inmate to fellow inmates. These are not protected.

4. Statements can be made by an inmate spontaneously.

5. Statements can be made by one inmate about another.

6. All evidence obtained other than by illegal means and which isn't "the fruit of the poisonous tree" is admissible.

get it? got it?


good.

 

[Ravi]

Didn't this all start because Bush didn't want to classify them as prisoners of war...which would have forced him to abide by the GC...and disallowed him from torturing them?

But yes, it is much simpler for people like RGS to blame Obama for Bush's fuckups.

 

[The Rabbi]

Didn't this all start because Bush didn't want to classify them as prisoners of war...which would have forced him to abide by the GC...and disallowed him from torturing them?

But yes, it is much simpler for people like RGS to blame Obama for Bush's fuckups.

Um, possibly because they don't fit the category of "prisoner of war" failing the Geneva Convention's definition. I guess if he had done that everyone would be screaming that Bush didnt follow the Geneva Convention.

 

[The Rabbi]

And the answer to the O/P...which I, personally, have answered repeatedly... is they can try them... they just can't use an illegaly obtained confession.

1. Miranda does not prohibit anyone from making a statement. I prohibits the taking of a statement while the suspect is under "custodial interrogation" absent warnings.

2. Yes, statements are excluded if coerced, so that shoots the waterboarded stuff in the butt... AS IT SHOULD.

3. Statements can be made by an inmate to fellow inmates. These are not protected.

4. Statements can be made by an inmate spontaneously.

5. Statements can be made by one inmate about another.

6. All evidence obtained other than by illegal means and which isn't "the fruit of the poisonous tree" is admissible.

get it? got it?


good.

If they weren't mirandized at the start then the entire procedure is tainted. If your garden variety criminal were treated the way the terrorists were, is there a judge in this country who would not throw the case out?
No, if they really abide by criminal law then there is no case. The terrorists will be released. If they are threatened with another trial under the military system then that is double jeopardy, illegal under the constitution.
The examples of the blind sheik and shoe bomber are not germane here as their circumstances were completely different.
I personally look forward to a free Sheik Khalid Mohammed roaming the streets of Brooklyn, just before the next election.

 

[feudal22]

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.

I like your words! Govt, please care about us

 

[chanel]

Didn't Holder say KSM would be found guilty? Isn't there some kind of legal/ethical problem there?

Its unprecedented and very complicated. Holder doesn't know what he's doing, just as the Bush admin.got mixed opinions from their lawyers and the Supreme Court. But Obama caved to the Code Pink crowd and now its all in the open. They screwed up big time. That transparency bullshit is going to bite them in the ass.

 

[jillian]

If they weren't mirandized at the start then the entire procedure is tainted. If your garden variety criminal were treated the way the terrorists were, is there a judge in this country who would not throw the case out?
No, if they really abide by criminal law then there is no case. The terrorists will be released. If they are threatened with another trial under the military system then that is double jeopardy, illegal under the constitution.
The examples of the blind sheik and shoe bomber are not germane here as their circumstances were completely different.
I personally look forward to a free Sheik Khalid Mohammed roaming the streets of Brooklyn, just before the next election.

you're wrong. i'm not going to explain Miranda to you again.

and you want your country to be attacked to prove a political point.

pathetic.

typical of you, though.

 

[jillian]

Um, possibly because they don't fit the category of "prisoner of war" failing the Geneva Convention's definition. I guess if he had done that everyone would be screaming that Bush didnt follow the Geneva Convention.

it was a pretend designation contrived by people who didn't want any accountablity.

either they are POW's... or they are criminal defendants.

can't have it both ways.

 

[chanel]

They dpnt wear a uniform or belong to an army. They are not prisoners of war nor are they common criminalks. The underwear bomber fits under enemy combatant as well. Brand new shit. You'd think "progressives" wouldn't rely so much on the "way things were" pre 9/11.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Poor RGS.
He should have known what the answer is. Whenever this administration screws up beyond all recognition, the answer is
BOOOSSSHHHHH!!! IT WAS BOOOOSSHHHHH!!!!

Of course Bush had the right idea. And he put those ideas into practice, crafting legislation with input from the opposing Democratic Party (that used to be called bipartisanship and was considered a good thing).

But now Obama has turned his back on all that hard work. Personally I hope the judge throws all the cases out and releases the prisoners onto the streets of NY. Preferably just before the election in Nov.

My Gawd you really are that dense aren't you? You REALLY are that ignorant aren't you? You REALLY are that DELUSIONAL aren't you? Bush was BIPARTISAN!!!??? He didn't even listen to his OWN military advisors!!! I guess you feal that the Air National Guard DROP OUT Bush knows more about military tactics than REAL military experts don't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Um, possibly because they don't fit the category of "prisoner of war" failing the Geneva Convention's definition. I guess if he had done that everyone would be screaming that Bush didnt follow the Geneva Convention.

it was a pretend designation contrived by people who didn't want any accountablity.

either they are POW's... or they are criminal defendants.

can't have it both ways.

Another false dichotomy from a narrow minded bigot. See the previous post that knocks your assertion on its ass.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Hey Rabbi have you noticed that your OWN avatar is flipping you off?