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

[Contumacious]

Once again retard the SUPREME COURT approved the use of Military tribunals for them, what part of that are you incapable of understanding?

Son-of-a-bitch.

Did they waterboard you too?!?!?!

.

To bad they did away with electro-shock therapy. You might find a couple of sessions might be of some benefit.

Electro-shock therapy is alive and well


Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), also known as electroshock, is a well-established, albeit controversial, psychiatric treatment in which seizures are electrically induced in anesthetized patients for therapeutic effect. Today, ECT is most often used as a treatment for severe major depression which has not responded to other treatment,[1] and is also used in the treatment of mania (often in bipolar disorder), catatonia and schizophrenia. It was first introduced in the 1930s[2] and gained widespread use as a form of treatment in the 1940s and 1950s; today, an estimated 1 million people worldwide receive ECT every year,[3] usually in a course of 6–12 treatments administered 2 or 3 times a week.

.

 

[WillowTree]

Well let's take a vote.. New Day and all.. Have you given it any thought???

the AG says


WE will try you.


We will find you guilty



We will execute you


but




even if somehow you are acquitted we will never let you go???



that's what you are defending?



and you bitched cause Bush held them for seven years,, and yer talking forever if acquitted???? No ain't that a hoot n a holler! HYPOCRITES

 

[Liability]

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.

Navy:

I completely agree that the Constitution "covers" aliens as it pertains to certain rights. For example, if I as a citizen get accused of a crime, I have a right to atrial by jury where the government is obliged to prove my case by comeptent evidence, in a fair proceeding and to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I am also entitled to the assistance of a lawyer, I have the right to remain silent OR to speak if I am so inclined. If I elect to remain silent, my silence is not admissible as evidence against me. Etc.

If Forggie La Frenchman, citizen of France, guest here in the United States, were to get accused of the very same crime, he too would get EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE RIGHTS.

So far, then, we agree, I take it.

As a citizen, I have a right to cast my vote for Congressperson, Senator and the elector for my choice for President.

Forggie La Frenchman? Nope.

On SOME levels, then, MY Constitutional rights are mine SOLELY because I am an American CITIZEN. And I am confident that you agree with me to this point.

After plowing thorugh several of your lengthy posts (and trust me when I tell you that this is not a criticism), I am not entirely clear on YOUR position on the question of whether or not YOU BELIEVE that a terrorist who has engaged in the plotting, planning or who has somehow assisted in the commission of terrorists acts against the United States, her interests and her people is deserving of a "trial" in our civilian courts of criminal justice.

 

[Contumacious]

First Mr Obama decided to stop the Supreme Court approved , Military Tribunals which had already begun.

Then the administration picked out the worst of the group to have their dog & pony show in NYC.

And precedence has been set for the Military tribunals time and time again.

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

Again, why use an Article I Tribunal when there are Article III tribunals ready and available?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[Liability]

First Mr Obama decided to stop the Supreme Court approved , Military Tribunals which had already begun.

Then the administration picked out the worst of the group to have their dog & pony show in NYC.

And precedence has been set for the Military tribunals time and time again.

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

Again, why use an Article I Tribunal when there are Article III tribunals ready and available?!?!?!?!?

.

Article III "tribunals" are not "tribunals," exactly. They are COURTS OF LAW.

They (at the trial level) preside over TRIALS!

In the context in which we have been speaking, the question is: criminal trial or civil trial?

It is obviously not a civil trial. We aren't suing them for money damages. Accordingly, what YOU and your idiot ilk STILL persist in claiming is that it is a "Criminal" trial. Criminal trials, however, are designed to try cases where criminal defendants are charged with CRIMES.

The Islamoshit that committed or planned or endorsed or aided or plotted the 9/11/2001 terrorist ATTACKS were not committing mere "crimes." They were committing ACTS OF WAR.

WE do not try warriors in criminal court for acts of war (except in very special cases not applicable here).

We do not compel criminal defendants to speak to us. When we do, the information obtained is tainted and may not be used against them. Criminal defendants are entitled to see the evidence against them including a broad range of discovery material which -- in this case -- we cannot rationally provide to these "accused" individuals. Shall we deny criminal defendants of due process? Are they entitled to some OTHER form of due process? If so, in what form; and why would it be that they are then entitled to a CRIMINAL TRIAL in one of our CIVILIAN Courts of CRIMINAL JUSTICE?

You guys cannot even define what RULES we go by as it pertains to these terrorists.

And your confusion and grunting inarticulate responses are not entirely your own fault. They stem from the BASIC problem with your PREMISE. You wish to suck in air and blow it out at the same instant in time. If these shitfuckers are mere criminals, then by our normal notions of due process, they have been held already too long to be tried, their "admissions" or "confessions" or "statements" have to be thrown out of court for a variety of obvious reasons. We MUST give them discovery even if we consider it to be a massively stupid national security problem to give THEM of all people such military intelligence. We must do all of these things AND MORE or we are NOT actually holding them to the same legal standards we accord to mere criminals.

So what are we doing? Why are we doing it? What are WE supposedly showing the world about us if we are being such massive hypocrites as to pretend that we have to give them a fair criminal trial but we have no plan to hold them to the same standards that justice requires in all criminal cases? Is it true that they ARE going to be convicted for sure? PRE-ordained is it? How is THAT consistent with ANY notion of a FAIR trial? Is it our way to presume guilt? And if they happen to GET acquitted because we are prpeared to treat them with a realc concern for due process, then we have to RELEASE THEM, right? IS that something you actually think we SHOULD do for guys who have already acknowledged what they did to America?

God help us. Save us from "lib" thinking.

 

[WillowTree]

why use courts at all if yer never gonna set em free?

 

[Raynestorm]

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....

.

However, the Constitution only applies inside the US. We can't legally apply it to people that aren't citizens.

One could also argue that, since we're at war with terrorists, they don't have to be tried in civilian courts.

"Due process" does not neccessarily mean civilian courts.

 

[SFC Ollie]

First Mr Obama decided to stop the Supreme Court approved , Military Tribunals which had already begun......

The military commission, a tribunal neither mentioned in the Constitution nor created by statute,

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 548 U.S. 557, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (U.S. 06/29/2006)

The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, also known as HR-6166, was an Act of Congress signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Act's stated purpose was "To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

Nice try but you lose.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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?

Military Tribunals are normally closed to the public.

 

[WillowTree]

No person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.











even if acquitted we will not let them walk free!

















oxyfuckingmoron

 

[Meister]

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....

.

I keep asking questions, and the libs refuse to answer them.

1. Do all military combatants get civilian trials?

2. If not, who decides which ones get a tribunal, and which ones get a civilian trial?

3. Does the military have to marandize all militants on the battlefield, in expectation of a civilian trial?

I'll just start with these three for you, C. I will be waiting patiently for your response.

 

[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....

.

I keep asking questions, and the libs refuse to answer them.

1. Do all military combatants get civilian trials?

2. If not, who decides which ones get a tribunal, and which ones get a civilian trial?

3. Does the military have to marandize all militants on the battlefield, in expectation of a civilian trial?

I'll just start with these three for you, C. I will be waiting patiently for your response.

As I noted with great surprise the other day, even Lindsay Graham had the insight to put those questions to our lackluster nitwit Attorney General. And Attorney General Holder flummfered and looked EXACTLY like the un-thought-out jackass he is.

No. Not all military combatants get civilian trials. Holder is giving (on the ground of some amoprphous "protocol") SOME terror supects military type tribunals and OTHER terror suspects (like KSM) CRIMINAL TRIALS in civilian Courts.

Apparently, it is the Attorney General who "decides" who gets which type of "tribunal," and he hinted at the use of some alleged "protocol" to make such deisions, but has not yet shared that alleged "protocol" with America. Of course, in fairness, I don't see our Main Stream Media exactly asking for it, either.

And our illustrious Attorney General has not yet (at least so we have seen) determined WHETHER OR NOT those captured as terror suspects (in this effort we must not call a war on terror) must get Miranda warnings.* The military officials out in the zone of danger will apparently be obliged to make such "calls" without guidance. Sure hope they went to law school. No wait. That wouldn't help them, come to think of it. Law is concerned with recognizable rules, laws and procedures applied in a consistent and predictable way to accord suspects FAIRNESS. Nope. Law school wouldn't help the miliatry commanders out at all.

_______________
* I have YET to see anybody in the Administration explain WHY we would wish to tell a captured terror suspect, illegal enemy combatant, that he has the RIGHT to REMAIN SILENT if it is our objective to question/interrogate him to get him to reveal crucial information that might prevent the other terrorist filth from killing OUR troops or innocent civilians.... Why WOULD we deem that a rational thing to do?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

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????

Are you really this stupid? Seriously? No one who voted for him has a problem with trying people accused of wrongdoing. Instead of being outraged for the last six years that people were being imprisoned on the say so of the governement... without evidence, without charges, you morons are complaining they're going to have a trial. If the right was interested in military tribunals, they would have occurred during the last admin. They didn't because the admin didn't want to charge people or be accountable. They only commenced the military tribunals when they were told by the Court that they couldn't do NOTHING.

Can't have it both ways... they are either POW's. entitled to all rights under the Geneva Convention...

or they are criminal defendants entitled to appropriate due process.

And no matter how many times nutters like you try to justify it, we had no problem trying the terrorist blind sheikh or timothy mcveigh.

nutbar...

And his lawyer for aiding his cause, something apart from her responsibility as the Sheikh's lawyer. The system worked extremely well in all circumstances, both before and after his trial and conviction. It was a credit to our system.

Andrew C. McCarthy on Lynne Stewart on National Review Online

andthis is interesting:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed : Unsolved Mysteries - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime


McVeigh's trial is a little different, but the evidence seems to show that nearly everything he did was in the United States.

As a US Citizen, I prefer transparency in all things to do with the upcoming trial.

I don't like the idea of us summarily executing anyone, most especially so just to placate bigots.

 

[Intense]

Here is an interesting Perspective, in Part. From 2004

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE
ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
09-02-2004
2. REPORT TYPE
FINAL
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
5b. GRANT NUMBER
in the Global War on Terrorism
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
MAJ Scott Reid, USA
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
Paper Advisor (if Any): CDR Burton Waltman
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER
Joint Military Operations Department
Naval War College
686 Cushing Road
Newport, RI 02841-1207
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES A paper submitted to the faculty of the NWC in partial satisfaction of the
requirements of the JMO Department. The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and
are not necessarily endorsed by the NWC or the Department of the Navy.
14. ABSTRACT
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various enemy forces they are likely to
encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for
their unlawful acts under domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in September 2001,
the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by
virtue of their membership in the enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether they are lawful or unlawful
combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and
entitled to specific privileges while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable latitude
in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to encounter both lawful and unlawful
combatants. This paper explains what the difference is and why it matters.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Terrorism; combatants; POWs; detain
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER
OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Chairman, JMO Dept
a. REPORT
UNCLASSIFIED
b. ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED
c. THIS PAGE
UNCLASSIFIED 30
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area
code)
401-841-3556
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
Newport, R.I.
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
By
Scott Reid
MAJ, U.S. Army
A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the
requirements of the Department of Joint Maritime Operations.
The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by
the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.
Signature: ___________________
9 February 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Part I: Jus ad Bellum – Justifying the Use
of Armed Force Against Terrorists ------------------------------------------------ 2
A. The Significance of Engaging Terrorists
As Enemies Instead of Criminals ---------------------------------------------------- 2
B. Authority to Use Military Force Against Terrorists ----------------------------- 2
Part II: Jus in Bello – Examining the Rules That Apply
to Al Qaeda and Taliban Forces as Enemy Combatants ----------------------- 3
A. The Privileges of Lawful Combatancy --------------------------------------------- 3
B. The U.S. View: Al Qaeda and Taliban
Are Unlawful Combatants ----------------------------------------------------------- 4
C. Al Qaeda Members Are Always
Unlawful Combatants ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4
D. Taliban Forces Are Unlawful Combatants
Because of Their Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------ 5
1. The Geneva Conventions Apply to the Taliban ------------------------------ 5
2. The Taliban Failed to Qualify As Lawful
Combatants Eligible for POW Protections ------------------------------------ 7
a. Wearing emblems and carrying arms --------------------------------- 8
b. Failure to conduct operations in accordance
with the laws and customs of war --------------------------------------- 10
c. A cautionary note ---------------------------------------------------------- 10
E. Rules Governing Detention ------------------------------------------------------------ 11
1. Conditions of Internment ----------------------------------------------------------- 11
2. Repatriation --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3. The President’s Military Order
– Authority to Detain “Certain Non-Citizens” ----------------------------------- 12
4. Challenging Detention ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13
a. In Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- 13
b. Geneva POW Convention -- Article 5 Tribunals ------------------------ 14
F. Lawful Combatants Receive Greater Due Process
if Charged With a Crime ------------------------------------------------------------------ 15
Conclusion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Abstract
TERRORISTS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS
An Analysis of How the United States Applies the Law of Armed Conflict
in the Global War on Terrorism
Commanders need to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to the various
enemy forces they are likely to encounter while combating terrorism. Historically, terrorists
have been regarded as bandits and held criminally responsible for their unlawful acts under
domestic law. However, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in
September 2001, the U.S. decided to engage transnational terrorists in armed conflict. As
enemy combatants, terrorists may be lawfully killed by virtue of their membership in the
enemy group rather than their individual conduct.
If a nation’s armed forces harbor or support terrorists, the facts will determine whether
they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are protected under the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and entitled to specific privileges
while captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights. The President has considerable
latitude in identifying, detaining, and punishing them.
As U.S. forces engage terrorists and the states that harbor them, we should expect to
encounter both lawful and unlawful combatants. This paper explains what the difference is
and why it matters.
1
INTRODUCTION
The recent activities of transnational1 terrorist organizations have transcended the realm
of mere criminality. For more than a decade, the Al Qaeda terror network has repeatedly
attacked U.S. citizens, property, and military interests, to wit: the World Trade Center in
1993, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the U.S.S. Cole in a Yemeni port
in 2000, and the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has
been characterized by one observer as a “modern army” with combat power, considerable
financial resources, decentralized command and control, and operational reach into all the
nations of the world.2 The President has responded to Al Qaeda’s asymmetric attacks with
military force, which perversely elevates the status of these terrorists from criminals to
enemies.3 When the Taliban government of Afghanistan persisted in providing Al Qaeda
with a safe haven, it became our enemy as well.4
Military commanders need to understand how the laws of armed conflict apply when
terrorists are treated as enemy combatants. Using Operation Enduring Freedom as an
analytical model, this paper demonstrates the legal advantages of treating terrorists as
enemies while highlighting the distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants. Part I
sets forth the legal framework for using armed force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and
explains the advantages of treating terrorists as enemy combatants instead of criminals. Part
II analyzes the Bush Administration’s decision that neither Al Qaeda nor Taliban forces are
lawful combatants, focusing on the criteria for lawful combatancy and the rules regarding
detention and punishment. Careful study reveals that transnational terrorists will always be
unlawful enemy combatants, but the issue is fact-dependent with regard to the armed forces
of states that support terrorism...............

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA422754&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/reid.pdf

 

[Intense]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE, et al.
Petitioners, Civil Action No. 04-cv-1166 (RJL)
v.
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, et al.
Respondents.
PETITIONERS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING THE
IMPLICATIONS OF AN “ENEMY COMBATANT” DETERMINATION

http://www.pegc.us/archive/In_re_Gitmo_II/boumediene_supp_20081031.pdf

 

[concept]

The terrorists that attacked the Cole are getting Military Tribunals.

So why is Holder/Obama giving KSM and the others a trial here?


The answer is, as is usual with these dopey libs, political. Political grandstanding and a chance to prosecute Bush policy.

Get your frogmarch boots on and meet me under the big tent. The circus is about to begin.

 

[Contumacious]

Well again,, let's take fact and hit you idiots right squarely between your crossed little eyeballs.


holder bolder said "Even if they are acquitted they will not be set free." and that's the kind of justice you libtards will sell your souls for. Spit hark Spit.

That was the policy at KGB " Heads we win, tails you lose".

.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Well again,, let's take fact and hit you idiots right squarely between your crossed little eyeballs.


holder bolder said "Even if they are acquitted they will not be set free." and that's the kind of justice you libtards will sell your souls for. Spit hark Spit.

That was the policy at KGB " Heads we win, tails you lose".

.

Face it "C", there are those in our country who would have been extremely comfortable in the Soviet system, and their familiy, "friends," and neighbors would have suffered mightily for it.

 

[Liability]

Well again,, let's take fact and hit you idiots right squarely between your crossed little eyeballs.


holder bolder said "Even if they are acquitted they will not be set free." and that's the kind of justice you libtards will sell your souls for. Spit hark Spit.

That was the policy at KGB " Heads we win, tails you lose".

.

Face it "C", there are those in our country who would have been extremely comfortable in the Soviet system, and their familiy, "friends," and neighbors would have suffered mightily for it.

The irony meter just fucking exploded.

The thing contessa nonetoosharpa and confusedatious just "criticized" is EXACTLY what is happening by virtue of the show-type-trials being foisted on us by the Obama Administration /Holder tag team idiocy team.

YOU liberoidals are the ones setting up this silly "trial." But in DOING so your fearless leaders are "assuring" the public by TELLING the world in effect that there is no danger the "trial" will be fair.

How DO we "showcase" our genuinely superior judicial process by promising NOT to dare use it?

I dunno.

Ask Eric Fucking Douchebag Holder.

 

[Intense]

Well again,, let's take fact and hit you idiots right squarely between your crossed little eyeballs.


holder bolder said "Even if they are acquitted they will not be set free." and that's the kind of justice you libtards will sell your souls for. Spit hark Spit.

That was the policy at KGB " Heads we win, tails you lose".

.

Face it "C", there are those in our country who would have been extremely comfortable in the Soviet system, and their familiy, "friends," and neighbors would have suffered mightily for it.

Yeah, Soon We won't have to wonder Anymore, Comrade. Libs marching to the Tolitarian Drum.