President and AG's mindless meaningless stupid decision to try al queda shit here

[Liability]

I realize the topic has finally gotten some attention.

Even the goofy Lindsay Goober Graham (that fictional middle name courtesy of Mark Levin) seems to have finally caught on a little as evidencef by his grilling of our douchebag Attorney General today.

But what the fuck? Let US discuss it.

As Levin has phrased it, so shall I. Under WHAT law shall we "try" these al qaeda shitballs in a U.S. Court of Law?

If it is U.S. Constitutional Law, then these shitballs are as good as freed, for we DID detain the vermin for a long period of time with no access to lawyers. We QUESTIONED the fuckers without lawyers. We got statements from the pussys without the benefit of legal counsel. The fuckstains GOT no Miranda warnings. Their statements were elicited by what the left already calls "torture" (even though it isn't torture); it was certainly under duress. Those statements MUST, in the ordinary course of things, be precluded from use as evidence ath the trial of the shitfuckers.

But wait! There's more!

They have by God (allah akbar) rights to DISCOVERY. Some of the intel that led to their being caught is (almost certainly) going to be that "classified intel" which The New York Times loves to publish. So, their lawyers are absolutely going to make discovery demands for those documents. The dilemma is then readily exposed. Does the government give criminal defendants the documents as the LAW usually requires (thereby giving classified intel TO the VERY fuckwads we most want to keep it away from) -- OR -- to AVOID giving classified intel to the very shitsuckers we most urgently want to avoid giving it to, should the Government refuse to give criminal defendants required discovery CONTRARY to their by God (allah akbar) Constitutional rights? Deprive them of their due process rights and the case might well have to get dismissed.

And what happens then? If some Court orders KSM released (i.e., the case dismissed), does the Government comply? If not, what IS the basis for holding him? If so, are we actually maintaining that the Islamofilth who killed so many civilians by targetting them in blatantly illegal acts of war should be "let go?"

The fucking Attorney General sounded like a goddamned bubbling moron today. Kudos to Graham. But what the fuck was he thinking and why does our idiot President not just FIRE Attorney General Holder?

Does the idiot man-child President not have enough fucking sense to fire the disastrously and utterly incompetent Attorney General? Holder HAS TO GO!

they were read miranda rights. they have/had lawyers and waterboarding was ruled not to be torture. you are quite dense, worse than even the other hannity rejects you tag along with

Moron (yes, blu, that menas you, you 'tard):
You have zero evidence that anybody ever read KSM his Miranda warnings, you liar.

Even if he HAD been read Miranda warnings, do you imagine that's "good enough" if (when he invokes his "right" to remain silent) he then gets waterboarded into making the inculpatory statement? Jeez are you stupid.

I don't believe that waterboarding qualifies as "torture," but even as non "torture," it certainly qualifies as compelling a person to speak, you shithead. That's kind of the whole point, in fact, ya turdbreath.

Not only is there effectively no way on Earth the statements made under duress are going to be ruled "admissible," that's not even the end of the problems. As I noted in the OP, there are OTHER huge stumbling blocks. They were HELD for a very motherfucking LONG time without contact with counsel. Did you ever fucking HEAR of due process, you schmuck?

This "case" (AS a criminal justice matter) is a clusterfuck from the word "go." That wouldn't normally be a problem since the reality is: it never actually WAS a criminal justice matter, you fucking imbecile.

 

[DavidS]

We arrest, try and lock up mass murders, serial killers, rapists, child mollesters and the most violent SOBs out there -- but we can't try a couple of terrorists because somehow these guys are more dangerous and violent than other common criminals why?

 

[Liability]

You know, as much as you people fear it, this trial is not a comment on Bush's torture policies. Any evidence given under torture is inadmissible in court.

It's funny though, if Bush, and you by your support, are so proud of our torture record, why do you fear it?

Your lie that waterboarding is "torture" is dismissed as just more of your BDS irrational bullshit propaganda.

I evinced no fear, either.

I am not in the least concerned that the trial would expose ANYTHING about President Bush even though that IS apparently the AG's actual agenda.

What I am concerned about is that the Islamofucks may well USE the mistake of pretending that this was ever a criminal justice matter as a way to obtain ANY intel we got from any of them. There is NO valid reason on Eart why we should enable them to do this. To do so is beyond imbecilic. It is so spectacularly stupid, in fact, that only a fucking liberal would even think of it.

 

[Liability]

We arrest, try and lock up mass murders, serial killers, rapists, child mollesters and the most violent SOBs out there -- but we can't try a couple of terrorists because somehow these guys are more dangerous and violent than other common criminals why?

What do the people in this DavidS propaganda list have in common:

mass murders, serial killers, rapists, child mollesters and the most violent SOBs out?

Every one of them -- the ones we arrest try and lock up all the time -- is a CRIMINAL.

Criminals are subject to detention, arrest, prosecution, trial and sentence all according to law and due process.

Warriors even illegal enemy combatants, by contrast, are not "due" any "trial" for "crimes," because what THEY do is not mere criminality, but acts of -- say it with me -- WAR.

DavidS consistently proves that he is too fucking stupid to breathe. But surely there have to be at least a few rational lib-types out there who can grasp this not exactly subtle distinction?

 

[asaratis]

If they are convicted in federal court, Obama can pardon them right before vacating the White House. Maybe he should be tried in a New York State Court.

2. Federal convictions only

Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those obtained in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President's pardon power extends to convictions obtained in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense. Accordingly, if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit this petition. Instead, you should contact the Governor or other appropriate authorities of the state where you reside or where the conviction occurred (such as the state board of pardons and paroles) to determine whether any relief is available to you under state law. If you have a federal conviction, information about the conviction may be obtained from the clerk of the federal court where you were convicted.

http://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm

 

[WillowTree]

If they are convicted in federal court, Obama can pardon them right before vacating the White House. Maybe he should be tried in a New York State Court.

2. Federal convictions only

Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those obtained in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President's pardon power extends to convictions obtained in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense. Accordingly, if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit this petition. Instead, you should contact the Governor or other appropriate authorities of the state where you reside or where the conviction occurred (such as the state board of pardons and paroles) to determine whether any relief is available to you under state law. If you have a federal conviction, information about the conviction may be obtained from the clerk of the federal court where you were convicted.

Pardon Information and Instructions

didn't these same asswipes attack the Pentagon on the same day? That seems to me to be an act of war and not a criminal offense but I can see where the libtards are coming from; they didn't hold Bill Ayers accountable for bombing government buildings either and neither did his bestest bud the moron in the wh.

 

[saveliberty]

Dear Mr. Holder,

Please be sure to NOT ask President Obama about the torture we currently out source. Your attempt to discredit President Bush will look pretty silly when it slips out we currently have other countries conduct the torture sessions, so we can say we don't do that any more. He didn't mention that did he? It is need to know and you didn't need to know.

Sincerely,
Laughing at you in MI

 

[Mike458877]

Dear Mr. Holder,

Please be sure to NOT ask President Obama about the torture we currently out source. Your attempt to discredit President Bush will look pretty silly when it slips out we currently have other countries conduct the torture sessions, so we can say we don't do that any more. He didn't mention that did he? It is need to know and you didn't need to know.

Sincerely,
Laughing at you in MI

LOL ............. oh brother, you hit it on the head there.

I love the liberal way, lets hide it, lets let someone else do it, then we can stand tall and mock others!

hahaha

Good post!

Mike

 

[saveliberty]

Don't look in files labeled Pakistan.

http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF195.htm

"In the rough and tumble international neighbourhood of South Asia, torture is endemic. Routine police work in countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka relies to a disturbing degree on torture to extract confessions rather than other more time consuming and expensive investigative or forensic techniques. Add to this norm of behaviour, legitimate national security crises such as the insurgencies in Sri Lanka and India, or precarious governments, such as the alternating military-civilian regimes in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the results are predictable. Military and paramilitary personnel regularly detain, torture, and sometimes execute suspected insurgents without legal process, and not surprisingly, insurgent groups also often employ similar illegal methods."

or Kurdistan: Iraq: Kurdistan Security Forces Torture Detainees | Human Rights Watch

For those of you who will undoubtedly want to deny the possibility.

 

[beowolfe]

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. A lot of you are just plain 'yella'. KSM and AQ attacked NY, DC, and PA. Where else should the trials be? Are you just so 'chicken' that you're afraid to have a trial???

 

[Liability]

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. A lot of you are just plain 'yella'. KSM and AQ attacked NY, DC, and PA. Where else should the trials be? Are you just so 'chicken' that you're afraid to have a trial???

We aren't yellow, you sub-moron. The POINT which jerkoffs like you studiously avoid (or are just too fucking stupid to even begin to grasp) is that "trials" are for mere (alleged) CRIMES.

The conduct of combatants -- even illegal, non-uniformed, vermin like al qaeda pussies -- is not a matter of "criminal justice," you fucking retard.

It is a matter of war.

God almighty, every time one of you libtards open your hideously stupid mouths, the imbecility flows out like water over Niagra Falls.

"Where should the trials be?"

Since there shouldn't BE any fucking "trials" at all, the only answer is "nowhere." A military tribunal would suffice more that adequately.