No Liberal will answer this.

[The Rabbi]

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

I realize you are too stupid to get this.
So I will spell it out:
The person in the avatar is Harry Reid. He is the Senate Majority LEader. He is a Democrat. He is demonstrating the statement in my sig line, speaking on behalf of all Democrats.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

To the OP:

Depends. If they act within our borders, we try them as we would any foreign national who commits a crime in the US.

If we go into a foreign nation and attack them, then we and they are all under that nation's jurisdiction.

If they attack our troops in a warzone, we shoot them dead and count them among the dead enemy units.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yep. What a fucked up nightmare he pushed off onto the next administration.

Taken care of BEFORE he left office, He was stopped 3 times by LIBERAL CANDY ASSES and it went to court. The Supreme Court finally heard it and ruled BEFORE he was out of offcie that tribunals were allowed.

You two can take your lying asses some where else.

The Bush administration made the decision to consider the detainees "enemy combatants" as opposed to "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions. This allowed them more wiggle room in how they treated the detainees as well as what the detainees were entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. It also opened a whole new can of worms as they were in uncharted territory.........and long story short.......here we are today. Rather than follow thru on further decisions, he let things ride as they were with no tribunals or trials and left it for the next President to solve. Like Obama's solution or not, Bush could have handled it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Put that up your "lying ass" and smoke it.

They don't abide by the GC's rules of warfare, so they don't get treated according to it. Give them a fair and speedy hearing. Set the innocent ones free. Those guilty of attacks against American citizens can beg for mercy from the guard on duty.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How did the Bush administration proudly handle the case of terrorist Richard Reid?

How did the Clinton adminstration handle the case of the first bombers at the WTC?

They acted within our borders, within our jurisdiction. Trying them was no different than trying a wetback. Handling people we went and plucked out of foreign nations is another matter (Afghanistan and Iraq excluded, since they were effectively American soil during the occupational, prior to the the formation of a local gov't.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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

I realize you are too stupid to get this.
So I will spell it out:
The person in the avatar is Harry Reid. He is the Senate Majority LEader. He is a Democrat. He is demonstrating the statement in my sig line, speaking on behalf of all Democrats.

I think it's just fing hilarious that Reid is flipping you off every time you open your account. Funny shit right there for sure. Harry Reid is flipping you off EVERY DAY! LOL!!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Not one person has actually answered the questions not one, i

What about all those answers I just read before getting to this post?

What was that? You're a lying partisan retard? Okay, that explains it. Carry on, child.

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.

Would you please make up your mind?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

When RGS says nobody answered his question he means nobody answered it the way he wanted them to.

 

[QUENTIN]

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 inadmissible if they were read their Miranda rights anyway because they were coerced 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. Just hilarious.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Accountability wasn't the issue.

What was legal was.

They are committing atrocities and they are at war with us.

Therefore they don't belong in a courtroom nor do they fall under Geneva Convention rules.

The fact that they never step foot on our soil means they can't be afforded the same rights as a inmate at one of our prisons. I think this is why the left and Obama want's to close GITMO....they want to complicate the situation.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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.

Accountability wasn't the issue.

What was legal was.

They are committing atrocities and they are at war with us.

Therefore they don't belong in a courtroom nor do they fall under Geneva Convention rules.

The fact that they never step foot on our soil means they can't be afforded the same rights as a inmate at one of our prisons. I think this is why the left and Obama want's to close GITMO....they want to complicate the situation.

If they are "AT WAR" with us then they deserve protections under the Geneva Conventions. I suppose since we are "AT WAR" with the drug cartels that they have NO LEGAL RIGHTS? Your understanding of legal protections leads to a VERY frightening world indeed.

 

[Contumacious]

They are committing atrocities and they are at war with us.

.

What the fuck are you saying, that they don't have a right to defend themselves?!?!?!?

The US has been subsidizing the Palestinian Genocide since 1949, In Iraq since 1990, in Afpak since 2001.

.

 

[Ravi]

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.

What should they do, ignore the constitution?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wow, Ravi... just wow...

You're not ashamed to look so stupid?

 

[Ravi]

Wow, Ravi... just wow...

You're not ashamed to look so stupid?

Not really.

But why is that stupid?

The only reason we "know" that they are enemy combatants is because the Bush Administration told us they were. For all we know, the were guilty of being in the wrong place while being brown.

Last time I checked, "enemy combatant" was a term made up by the Bush Administration.

The underwear bomber fits under terrorist and possessor of weapons of mass destruction...but we are not at war with Nigeria or Yemen...so he doesn't fit under prisoner of war.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow, Ravi... just wow...

You're not ashamed to look so stupid?

Not really.

But why is that stupid?

The only reason we "know" that they are enemy combatants is because the Bush Administration told us they were. For all we know, the were guilty of being in the wrong place while being brown.

Last time I checked, "enemy combatant" was a term made up by the Bush Administration.

The underwear bomber fits under terrorist and possessor of weapons of mass destruction...but we are not at war with Nigeria or Yemen...so he doesn't fit under prisoner of war.

Once again you dumb ass Get, he was captured BY police IN the United States.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, he was captured by civilians...but you are still retarded.

 

[Maple]

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?

It's just a dog and pony show and even Holder can't answer your questions. Neither can Obama.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Wow, Ravi... just wow...

You're not ashamed to look so stupid?

Not really.

That's signature material, right there...

 

[rdean]

Where is Jillian?

Where is Rightwinger?

Where are all the dumb asses supporting this?

Afraid to be shown for the lying cowards you are?

Afraid President Obama and Holder are shown for liars and breakers of our very own Judicial System?

Come on Justify it, explain it.

Breath in.

Breath out.

Breath in.

Breath out.

I promise none of those guys will ever hurt you, and you will never meet any of them.

Breath in.

Breath out.

Breath in.

Breath out.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Wow, Ravi... just wow...

You're not ashamed to look so stupid?

Not really.

But why is that stupid?

The only reason we "know" that they are enemy combatants is because the Bush Administration told us they were. For all we know, the were guilty of being in the wrong place while being brown.

Last time I checked, "enemy combatant" was a term made up by the Bush Administration.

The underwear bomber fits under terrorist and possessor of weapons of mass destruction...but we are not at war with Nigeria or Yemen...so he doesn't fit under prisoner of war.

Once again you dumb ass Get, he was captured BY police IN the United States.

By POLICE in the UNITED STATES.........Seems he should have been read his Miranda rights.