NO PERSON SHALL...be deprived of liberty, without due process of LAW

[SFC Ollie]

I wonder how many millions of Dollars were wasted because of this little show?

Nowhere near the figure wasted invading Iraq, let alone the lives lost....

I can promise you that there are millions of Iraqis who do not consider any of our efforts there a waste.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, take heart gump,, with the bunch over here they'll probably do what your whimpy assed country did and send them to Libya!

Sent who to Libya? What are you talking about?

I think the idiot doesn't know the difference between the UK and the antipodes.

no surprises there...

Oh right. Does she know that Scotland is in the NH, and NZ and Oz are in the SH even??

 

[Dr Grump]

I wonder how many millions of Dollars were wasted because of this little show?

Nowhere near the figure wasted invading Iraq, let alone the lives lost....

I can promise you that there are millions of Iraqis who do not consider any of our efforts there a waste.

I can promise you there are 10s of millions of Americans who don't think this trial is a waste of money either...

 

[Yurt]

you don't personally have to enter the situs of the crime to be guilty of it.....

I know, that is why I am interested in what evidence they have.

he could get off you know...

as my thread on politics shows....even if he found guilty, holder is NOT going to release him.....

 

[jillian]

Sent who to Libya? What are you talking about?

I think the idiot doesn't know the difference between the UK and the antipodes.

no surprises there...

Oh right. Does she know that Scotland is in the NH, and NZ and Oz are in the SH even??

doubtful...

 

[SFC Ollie]

I know, that is why I am interested in what evidence they have.

he could get off you know...

we are sure of it,, that's the plan stan.

You want him to get off? hhmmmm

what a person will do for politics....

fuck the victims, as long as Obama looks bad huh?

Nice....

No you misunderstand, The Obama administration does not need any help to look bad. this dog & pony show is doing that for them. Just what part of the Military Commissions act and the Supreme Court approval isn't understood? Obama was grandstanding when he stopped the Military commissions which had already started, These people had already admitted their guilt to the commissions. Now they will change that to not guilty and have a public voice instead of a silent grave. But the Obamabots just make any excuse for them that they can.

 

[WillowTree]

I know, that is why I am interested in what evidence they have.

he could get off you know...

we are sure of it,, that's the plan stan.

You want him to get off? hhmmmm

what a person will do for politics....

fuck the victims, as long as Obama looks bad huh?

Nice....

where are you? Mars? they don't have the telly or the news there??? that's what trials are for.. to get the peoples off.. That what defense lawyers do.. I think... but then old holder bolder announced.. If by chance they are acquitted, we still won't let them walk free." now ain't that a hoot n a holler?

 

[Dr Grump]

No you misunderstand, The Obama administration does not need any help to look bad. this dog & pony show is doing that for them. Just what part of the Military Commissions act and the Supreme Court approval isn't understood? Obama was grandstanding when he stopped the Military commissions which had already started, These people had already admitted their guilt to the commissions. Now they will change that to not guilty and have a public voice instead of a silent grave. But the Obamabots just make any excuse for them that they can.

I don't know too much about the tribunals. Were the open to the public?

 

[Dr Grump]

where are you? Mars? they don't have the telly or the news there??? that's what trials are for.. to get the peoples off.. That what defense lawyers do.. I think... but then old holder bolder announced.. If by chance they are acquitted, we still won't let them walk free." now ain't that a hoot n a holler?

I don't follow everything happening in the US....

And the guy is an idiot for saying such..

Then again, you did have an AG that fired a whole lot of attorneys because of their politics...Can't get much more stomach churning that that IMO

 

[WillowTree]

No you misunderstand, The Obama administration does not need any help to look bad. this dog & pony show is doing that for them. Just what part of the Military Commissions act and the Supreme Court approval isn't understood? Obama was grandstanding when he stopped the Military commissions which had already started, These people had already admitted their guilt to the commissions. Now they will change that to not guilty and have a public voice instead of a silent grave. But the Obamabots just make any excuse for them that they can.

I don't know too much about the tribunals. Were the open to the public?

oh you mean the poor terrorists won't be handed a microphone to spew?? yes,,, well I don't know if you get O'Reilly on mars but he had a lawyer guy on who is working to get these guys OFF.. and made no bones about the fact this circus would indeed be used to spew the terrorist version of why 9-11 was justified.. now ain't that a hoot n a holler?

 

[WillowTree]

where are you? Mars? they don't have the telly or the news there??? that's what trials are for.. to get the peoples off.. That what defense lawyers do.. I think... but then old holder bolder announced.. If by chance they are acquitted, we still won't let them walk free." now ain't that a hoot n a holler?

I don't follow everything happening in the US....

And the guy is an idiot for saying such..

Then again, you did have an AG that fired a whole lot of attorneys because of their politics...Can't get much more stomach churning that that IMO

yes, he was fired because he was a conservative Latino (how dare a Latino be conservative) who did the exact same thing the Clinton AG had done.. but fancy that shit.. that's the liberal way in liberal la la land.. oh and in case you didn't get this news on mars the holder bolder guys also say in pretty much this order.

1. They will be tried

2. they will be convicted

3 they will be executed.

and then

if by chance they are acquitted we will never let them walk free. You still liking American Justice?????

 

[Navy1960]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It does list the exception in the clause if anyone cared to actually read it. First of all going all the way back to the Lincoln military tribunals up to the FDR military tribunals for 8 German spies , this nation has used military courts as a means to dispense justice in times of war. Even the AG when asked at his last congressional hearing said that this nation was at War. That is not in dispute here and this nation has had a long tradtion of using such tribunals during wartime for individuals captured here and on the battlefield that have been engaged in acts of war. If these terrorists were given POW status under the Geneva Convention that would still not preclude a trial by a Military Tribunal as was the case with many of those accused of War Crimes after WW2 who were tried by International Military Tribunals.


Fearful that a civilian court would be too lenient, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that the eight would-be saboteurs be tried by a military tribunal, the first held since the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Placed before a seven-member commission, the Germans were accused of:

Operation Pastorius - World War II German Operation Pastorius

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942),

This decision states:

“ …the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geneva Convention Article 103
. ' First sentence. -- Investigations '

Under Article 82, paragraph 1 , judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war must be conducted in accordance with the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the Detaining Power; questioning, the hearing of witnesses, examination by experts, etc. must take place in accordance with those rules, and in this instance the Convention cannot in any way be substituted for the provisions of national legislation. The application of the principle of assimilation should ensure that prisoners of war receive humane treatment as required by the Convention. In order, however, to prevent certain instances of abuse such as occurred during the Second World War, the present provision enjoins the authorities concerned to conduct investigations "as rapidly as circumstances permit". The fact that prisoners of war are involved may well make certain procedures more difficult; it was nevertheless desirable to permit some flexibility, in order not to give any semblance of justification for hasty investigation.
International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention

I fail to understand why anyone would see military Tribunals as abandoning tradtion or not showing the world who we are when this nation has used Military commissions and Tribunals as far back as George Washington in times of War. Could it be that in a quest for world opinion some are willing to abandon 200 plus years of tradtion in order to satisfy some deep need for other nations to like us better? I submit that tactic didnt work so well after the trial of the first WTC Bomber as we all know the results of the Second one.

 

[Dr Grump]

if by chance they are acquitted we will never let them walk free. You still liking American Justice?????

I've never liked the American Justice system - well, a vast majority of it anyway...

 

[Liability]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the fucktards who claim that the "islamofascists" have no right to be tried in US Courts should read the Fifth Amendment until they fucking memorize the same.

The Amendment says NO PERSON , it doesn't say NO US CITIZEN....

.

You fucking simpleton liberoidal asslickers never seem to catch on. Even when you manage to QUOTE the language, you miss the key words. It's amazing.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime . . . . "

I provided a REALLY REALLY SUBTLE HINT, but the odds of you catching it, even now, are pretty much in the range of: 1 in infinity.

Why?

Because you are utterly libtarded.

 

[Contumacious]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the fucktards who claim that the "islamofascists" have no right to be tried in US Courts should read the Fifth Amendment until they fucking memorize the same.

The Amendment says NO PERSON , it doesn't say NO US CITIZEN....

.

The Constitution was written for and applies to, American citizens. The V Amendment does not apply to terrorist, enemy combatants, illegal aliens, and any other illegal entity.

Identify the historical fact upon which you relied for that assertion.

.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the fucktards who claim that the "islamofascists" have no right to be tried in US Courts should read the Fifth Amendment until they fucking memorize the same.

The Amendment says NO PERSON , it doesn't say NO US CITIZEN....

.

The Constitution was written for and applies to, American citizens. The V Amendment does not apply to terrorist, enemy combatants, illegal aliens, and any other illegal entity.

Identify the historical fact upon which you relied for that assertion.

.

As I have said before, the Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, as they apply to the citizens of the United States, who are the grantors of said enumerated limited powers of the federal government.

To suggest that the V Amendment applies to non-citizens, is to ignore the reasons why and to whom the Bill of Rights were written in the first place. There is no support for your position in the founding documents, if one reads them in proper context, in my opinion.

 

[jillian]

The Constitution was written for and applies to, American citizens. The V Amendment does not apply to terrorist, enemy combatants, illegal aliens, and any other illegal entity.

Identify the historical fact upon which you relied for that assertion.

.

As I have said before, the Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, as they apply to the citizens of the United States, who are the grantors of said enumerated limited powers of the federal government.

To suggest that the V Amendment applies to non-citizens, is to ignore the reasons why and to whom the Bill of Rights were written in the first place. There is no support for your position in the founding documents, if one reads them in proper context, in my opinion.

wrong. as has been pointed out innumerable times, anyone tried in our criminal courts is entitled to the rights applicable to any criminal defendant... regardless of whether the accused is a citizen or not.

everyone's got "opinions"...

 

[JFK_USA]

Everyone deserves the right to a trial. If we as Americans believe that everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves in a trial by jury, then we must do this to the terroists as well.

And republicans, if you think that right should only be given to US citizens, well you are just as arrogant as you claim the president to be.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Identify the historical fact upon which you relied for that assertion.

.

As I have said before, the Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, as they apply to the citizens of the United States, who are the grantors of said enumerated limited powers of the federal government.

To suggest that the V Amendment applies to non-citizens, is to ignore the reasons why and to whom the Bill of Rights were written in the first place. There is no support for your position in the founding documents, if one reads them in proper context, in my opinion.

wrong. as has been pointed out innumerable times, anyone tried in our criminal courts is entitled to the rights applicable to any criminal defendant... regardless of whether the accused is a citizen or not.

everyone's got "opinions"...

Prove your case via the Constitution, that terrorists have the same rights as you do, in a criminal proceeding. Prove me wrong that the V Amendment does apply to them,

 

[Yurt]

The Constitution was written for and applies to, American citizens. The V Amendment does not apply to terrorist, enemy combatants, illegal aliens, and any other illegal entity.

Identify the historical fact upon which you relied for that assertion.

.

As I have said before, the Constitution does not grant rights. It was written to enumerate the limited powers of the federal government, as they apply to the citizens of the United States, who are the grantors of said enumerated limited powers of the federal government.

To suggest that the V Amendment applies to non-citizens, is to ignore the reasons why and to whom the Bill of Rights were written in the first place. There is no support for your position in the founding documents, if one reads them in proper context, in my opinion.

you've ignored numerous requests to cite relevent authority.....

this is nothing more than your opinion with no basis in legal authority or historical authority