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

[Dr Grump]

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.....

 

[elvis]

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?

 

[Dr Grump]

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?

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?

 

[elvis]

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

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..

 

[elvis]

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..

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.......

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

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 don't think the evidence will be thrown out. Waterboarding was legal at the time.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.......

I concur.

The judge will have to make the call - was the waterboarding legal, and did it have an affect on his confession - or whatever evidence they have...

I still think they must have other evidence of this guy's involvement....

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

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....

 

[eots]

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....

.

but many assume this does not apply or should not apply to people that are kinda brown and speak some weird language because they are not really full fledged persons

 

[Yurt]

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?

they can be public

 

[Yurt]

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.

why is it you demand others prove their positions when you refuse to prove your position? you haven't proven your position via the constitution or any other authority....

hypocrite much?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.....

Ok, lets refresh shall we? YOU claimed we caused them to join WW2. That would assume they were pissed we quit selling them iron and Oil. Which we did because we did not agree with their war in China. They were not getting oil or much anyway from China nor were they getting much iron or metal either.

For the truly stupid the SRA is the Southern Resource Area. All the Dutch and English Resource centers they seized when they started the war.

So if we follow YOUR logic we should have been forced to continue to sell Japan as much iron, metal and Oil as they wanted or we caused a war. Do I have that about right?

You are blissfully ignorant on WW2, did your Country quit teaching about it also?

 

[Claudette]

Let me see if I've got the straight??

1.The military tribunals were in progress, approved by the Supreme Court.

2. The dirtbag terrorists were all going to plead guilty and be executed.

3. OL'BO comes to power and stops the tribunals.

4. Now we are going to have an expensive dog and pony show in NYC. The dirtbags are going to plead not guilty so they can spew their garbage and quite possibly be aquitted.

Gotta wonder if anyone in OL'BO's team has an ounce of common sense?? I guess not. Then of course you have to wonder about the politics of the whole thing. Now that makes sense. The politics. Apparantly the victims of 9-11 don't count for much when you figure in the politics. Oh yeah, the politics
thats what seems to be important to this administration.

These guys have no rights under our Constitution. Graham asked Holder about how many enemy combatants had been captured overseas and tried in US courts? Holder didn't know but Graham did.
NONE.

If these guys are aquitted Me thinks the American People will not be happy at all. Hmmmmm. Another nail in OL'BO's coffin perhaps????

 

[Navy1960]

Here is a small example of how the constitution covers non citizens

Stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American military will begin recruiting skilled immigrants who are living in this country with temporary visas, offering them the chance to become United States citizens in as little as six months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/us/15immig.html


Those same individuals each of them take an oath to support and defend what? the constitution of the United States of America and should they engage in misconduct they are subject to the UCMJ which was authorized by CONGRESS, which is constitutionally mandated All this talk of the constitution being selective means that these young people who sacrifice themselves defending it are doing so for you and I just to cover the select few, which is not true. The constitution makes NO reference to citzenship as a requirement for it's protections and in fact it is VERY clear in several places , a few I have already mentioned that if your here in this nation, you are covered by it's protections. Why do you suppose one of the reason(s) the Bush Administration worked so hard to keep those terrorists at Gitmo in the first place.
Index & Legislative History of the UCMJ: Military Legal Resources (Federal Research Division: Customized Research and Analytical Services, Library of Congress)


One more thing worth mentioning here, while many see Military Tribunals as something new, I honestly suggest they please look back at this nations history and see that our nation has a long tradition of such Tribunals and to use them in the case of most of these terrorists is very consistant with our constitution and does not imply that the United States has abandoned the rule of law. If this were the case then the whole world would have to step up and accept that title as well, because many of those same nations who like to point that finger also, were more than happy to participate in International Military Tribunals at the end of WW2.

 

[Claudette]

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???

 

[Navy1960]

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???

What I am saying is this, The AG has said on many occasions that we are at War, and in times of War our nation has had a long tradition of Military Tribunals as a method by which these matters are addressed. What I am saying is that a Military Tribunal is wholly consistant with our constitution. It does not matter where they are picked up or where the act of war was committed, on the high seas, or even here, if it is an act of war or we are at war then these individuals are according to a long tradition afforded a Military Tribunal or Commission. What I was also addressing is this, a person be they citizen or non-citezen if they are in this nation they are according to the constitution and case law covered under it. Generally such matters as to the disposition of Military Tribunals have been the decision of the President of the United States with the approval of Congress. Congress being the body that has authorized the War in some shape or fashion. While it is not out of the the Presidents power to grant such civil trials, it is not the traditional method by wich this nation addresses such matters in wartime.