Dr Grump
Platinum Member
what rights are Obama's political enemies talking about taking away?
Who was talking about Obama's political enemies? I was talking about the 'good' folk on this board.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
what rights are Obama's political enemies talking about taking away?
what rights are Obama's political enemies talking about taking away?
Who was talking about Obama's political enemies? I was talking about the 'good' folk on this board.....
what rights do they want to take away?
Who was talking about Obama's political enemies? I was talking about the 'good' folk on this board.....
what rights do they want to take away?
Trial...
And I'm not talking military tribunal.
BTW, I asked a question before and maybe you know the answer. Is a military tribunal open to the public, or is kept in house?
I am pretty sure it is kept in house. the trouble with having the trial is that the evidence obtained against KSM by way of waterboarding will be thrown out. If the system works as it should, Obama is letting KSM walk.
I am pretty sure it is kept in house. the trouble with having the trial is that the evidence obtained against KSM by way of waterboarding will be thrown out. If the system works as it should, Obama is letting KSM walk.
Ah, well, a lesson learned. Surely if they had enough intel on him WITHOUT the waterboarding evidence he'll still do time.
The question I have to ask is, if they had evidence on him, why torture him? Unless they were trying to extract info about future events?
I mean they must have had something on him in the first place to arrest him, right? They didn't just pick him up for nothing? Things aren't created in a vacuum..
You see? This is why you should mind your own business.....OUR AG's serve at the pleasure of the President.
And that is why your system sucks...
what rights do they want to take away?
Trial...
And I'm not talking military tribunal.
BTW, I asked a question before and maybe you know the answer. Is a military tribunal open to the public, or is kept in house?
I am pretty sure it is kept in house. the trouble with having the trial is that the evidence obtained against KSM by way of waterboarding will be thrown out. If the system works as it should, Obama is letting KSM walk.
We shall see. It was very dangerous for Obama to do this. That we can be sure of. The guy who planned the attacks set free on a technicality. Imagine it. You think Bush's approval ratings were low.......
You see? This is why you should mind your own business.....OUR AG's serve at the pleasure of the President.
And that is why your system sucks...
Maybe so...but it's OUR SYSTEM and it's worked just fine for 200+ years....and remember..if it wasn't for us you would have squinty eyes and buck teeth.
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....
.
Who was talking about Obama's political enemies? I was talking about the 'good' folk on this board.....
what rights do they want to take away?
Trial...
And I'm not talking military tribunal.
BTW, I asked a question before and maybe you know the answer. Is a military tribunal open to the public, or is kept in house?
Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.
To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.
But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.
If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.
James Madison
It is argued that as this court has held, in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417 , 5 Sup. Ct. 935, and in Mackin v. U. S., 117 U.S. 348 , 6 Sup. Ct. 777, that no person can be held to answer, without presentment or indictment by a grand jury, for any crime for which an infamous punishment may be imposed by the court, and that imprisonment at hard labor for a term of years is an infamous punishment, the detention of the present appellants in the House of Correction at Detroit, at hard labor, for a period of 60 days, without having been sentenced thereto upon an indictment by a grand jury and a trial by a jury, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Source ( FINDLAW caselaw.lp)
I think it's pretty clear that person(s) be they citizens or non-citizens IN THIS NATION are covered under it's laws as well as our constitution.
And that conclusion was arrived at by the SCOTUS extrapolating something from the Constitution that was not there to begin with. I asked for refutation of my position via the Constitution itself, if you disagree with me.
And that is why your system sucks...
Maybe so...but it's OUR SYSTEM and it's worked just fine for 200+ years....and remember..if it wasn't for us you would have squinty eyes and buck teeth.
Actually, it hasn't worked that well for a long time....
If it weren't for you, we wouldn't have even been involved in the first place....
Ya we should have just kept selling metal and oil to Japan so they could conquer China. Of course that begs the question, why did they need MORE ships to beat China?
Dumb ass eventually they were gonna go for the SRA they just wanted a bigger Navy and more supplies before they did it.
Ya we should have just kept selling metal and oil to Japan so they could conquer China. Of course that begs the question, why did they need MORE ships to beat China?
Dumb ass eventually they were gonna go for the SRA they just wanted a bigger Navy and more supplies before they did it.
They were in China to get said materials, they didn't need to buy them from you..
No idea what the SRA is.....
Very interesting Navy. Thanks for the heads up. So what your saying is that these guys do have the right to a trial in our civil court system even though they were picked up overseas???