The John Adams Project

[Intense]

John Adams is known for having defended the British Soldiers who were involved in the Boston massacre. Even though he was American, he believed they deserved a fair trial and proper representation. He was despised by Bostonians who wanted to lynch them.

Adams got the soldiers off

What Adams did is Noble. Speaking Your Conscience, whether Others agree with You or not, is Noble. Outing CIA Agents is Not Noble. It is Despicable. It is aiding and abetting the Enemy.


AIDING AND ABETTING (AGENCY) - The guilt of a person in a criminal case may be proved without evidence that he personally did every act involved in the commission of the crime charged. The law recognizes that, ordinarily, anything a person can do for himself may also be accomplished through direction of another person as an agent, or by acting together with, or under the direction of, another person or persons in a joint effort.

So, if the acts or conduct of an agent, employee or other associate of the person are willfully directed or authorized by the person, or if the person aids and abets another person by willfully joining together with that person in the commission of a crime, then the law holds the person responsible for the conduct of that other person just as though the person had engaged in such conduct himself.x Notice, however, that before any person can be held criminally responsible for the conduct of others it is necessary that the person willfully associate himself in some way with the crime, and willfully participate in it. Mere presence at the scene of a crime and even knowledge that a crime is being committed are not sufficient to establish that a person either directed or aided and abetted the crime.

"Aiding And Abetting" Defined & Explained

aiding and abetting, a familiar term in criminal law meaning the advising, counseling, procuring, or encouraging another to commit crime.
One accused of such acts cannot be guilty thereof unless the person aided committed a crime.
21 AM J2d Crim L ss 119. If guilty, the one aiding and abetting is himself liable as a principle, et seq ss 122.

52nd Street ought to take note, given his posts advocating a military coup.

Outing CIA Operatives is a Felony.

 

[WillowTree]

We need a word to describe lying partisan hyperbole
Bullshit works.

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

More Bullshit. A defense lawer protects the rights of the defendent, and in our system of law every accused is affored rights. Many foreign nationals have been tried, convicted and sentenced (some executed) by our courts - all defended by counsel.
You're too partisan - and maybe too stupid - to see the forest, and by calling anyone who disagrees with your narrow world view loaded names ("marxist!") you simply lack credibilty.
Post something that's not utter bullshit and maybe your words would be more significant than a blank page.

not worrying whatsoever what you take as credibility,, I speak what I mean. and what I mean is your leftist buddies the aclu mean to free these terrorist and you support it wholeheartedly,, that makes you a freak in my opinion, and anti american freak. pithy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

More Bullshit. A defense lawer protects the rights of the defendent, and in our system of law every accused is affored rights. Many foreign nationals have been tried, convicted and sentenced (some executed) by our courts - all defended by counsel.
You're too partisan - and maybe too stupid - to see the forest, and by calling anyone who disagrees with your narrow world view loaded names ("marxist!") you simply lack credibilty.
Post something that's not utter bullshit and maybe your words would be more significant than a blank page.

You left out that these are not only 'foreign nationals', but they are enemy combatants pulled off the battlefield during a time of war.

We are at war right? After all? The lot of you libs want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and have said as much, and therefore admit we are engaged in a WAR.

This whole scenario is going to jeapordize our security and you know it.

And the goal if not to try the previous administration, is to set these perpetrators free.

"We are at war right?". Are we?

"War, a state of activity in which a nation prosecutes its rights or its claims by force of arms. 56 AM J1st ss12. An armed struggle or contest by force carried on for any purpose between two or more NATIONS or STATES exercising at least de facto authority over persons within a given territory and commanding an ARMY prepared to observe the laws of war. 56 AM J1st ss 2."

Blacks Law Dictionary, Second Edition. pg. 1358

 

[Wry Catcher]

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

Of course defense lawyers try to find their clients not guilty. Talk about stating the obvious.

But you seem to support this:

1. Torture as an American policy
2. Not providing counsel to the accused
3. If providing counsel, provide counsel that doesn't try to help their clients


You're not too keen on our American Justice System....just remember that if you are ever accused (unjustly or not) of anything.

and you support setting the terrorist who murdered 3000 of your fellow Americans free. I think I can sleep better than you. I would never set them free. but we gonna sit here and watch you dumbfucks do it.

I sleep well, and I support no such thing. You seem to support a system of justice as exists in Iran today, me, I like our system with all its faults just fine.
I suspect you're too scared and too filled with hate to think rationally, as I said, I pity you.

 

[Navy1960]

I have a basic question to ask here, do people believe that a person engaged in armed conflict captured on the battlefield in any conflict is subject to American Law? It does seem to boil down to the difference between are people captured on the battlefield by US Military forces or handed over to the US Military a civilian matter, or a military matter. I have another observation, given the fact that many believe this is a civilian matter and people are under the impression that we fight wars with "American Values" , I wonder then if those same values were in play when Harry Truman made the final decision to drop the Atomic bomb(s) on Japan. The bottom line here, war is a brutal, disgusting, and nasty enterprise. If a nation chooses to engage in it , then they do so knowing that. Forgive me, while I understand that some moral value structure is important in the prosecution of war it should not be the guiding factor in the decision making. If the nations morals are so demanded both on it's soldiers and those they are fighting, then in order to keeps it's own people safe it's best not to engage in war in the first place if your not willing to accept that war is going to result in brutality in order to lead to victory. That is a sad fact of war. the only time you win a war really, is when you have averted one.

Those who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and are accused of crimes against those nations will be tried in military tribunals. Their status is fuzzy as to whom has juristiction

Those who are accused of crimes against US citizens on 9-11 on US Soil should be tried in US courts. The juristiction is clear. They did the crime here...they face justice here

How then do you explain Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who planned the attack on the USS Cole a US Navy ship in Yemen. Was this crime a civilian crime subject to American civlian judicial review? Further if you start to use that logic when it is applied to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any other group or nation that plans and executes and attack on American soil not subject to acts of war, but rather subject to criminal codes. To expand on that, then you have a jurisditional matter to consider then, if the attack was a mere murder done so in NYC and because these people are subject to constitutional protections, then how is this not a state matter? Given that, is this not the Tate of N.Y.s responsibility to then issue arrest warrants rather than engage in combat? Do you think that these people would find themselves in capativity at all should the U.S. have started down the path of this being a civilian matter in the first place? Let's say for example North Korea decides to shoot an ICBM at L.A. one day , do we then try the North Korean Govt. in our courts according them all the rights under the constitution? I suppose one has to draw a line between an Act of War and a criminal Act.





TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

So are not these terrorist organizations military forces of any origin?

 

[rightwinger]

you should just say it... it won't hurt your slogan really is "FREE THE TERRORIST" we understand you anti american thinking. yes we do and you can poke your thumb in the survivors eyes too.

We need a word to describe lying partisan hyperbole
Bullshit works.

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

Yes...that is why they are called defense lawyers

Its all part of the judicial system in civilized societies. Which system do you advocate?

The Taliban?

 

[WillowTree]

We need a word to describe lying partisan hyperbole
Bullshit works.

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

Yes...that is why they are called defense lawyers

Its all part of the judicial system in civilized societies. Which system do you advocate?

The Taliban?

.

I root for the Military tribunal same way the SCOTUS does, I never root for the terrorists the way you America haters do. never.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

Of course defense lawyers try to find their clients not guilty. Talk about stating the obvious.

But you seem to support this:

1. Torture as an American policy
2. Not providing counsel to the accused
3. If providin
g counsel, provide counsel that doesn't try to help their clients


You're not too keen on our American Justice System....just remember that if you are ever accused (unjustly or not) of anything.

and you support setting the terrorist who murdered 3000 of your fellow Americans free. I think I can sleep better than you. I would never set them free. but we gonna sit here and watch you dumbfucks do it.

willow's REAL NAME is GOD, and HE KNOWS EVERYTHING!!!!!

 

[Intense]

Are We at War???????

al-Qa'ida (The Base)
Qa‘idat al-Jihad
Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places
World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
Islamic Salvation Foundation
Usama bin Laden Network

Al-Qa'ida is multi-national, with members from numerous countries and with a worldwide presence. Senior leaders in the organization are also senior leaders in other terrorist organizations, including those designated by the Department of State as foreign terrorist organizations, such as the Egyptian al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya and the Egyptian al-Jihad. Al-Qa'ida seeks a global radicalization of existing Islamic groups and the creation of radical Islamic groups where none exist.

Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.

Description

Established by Usama Bin Ladin in the late 1980s to bring together Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Helped finance, recruit, transport, and train Sunni Islamic extremists for the Afghan resistance. Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic” and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries–particularly Saudi Arabia. Issued statement under banner of “the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders” in February 1998, saying it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens—civilian or military—and their allies everywhere. Merged with Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al-Jihad) in June 2001.

Activities

In 2003, carried out the assault and bombing on 12 May of three expatriate housing complexes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed 20 and injured 139. Assisted in carrying out the bombings on 16 May in Casablanca, Morocco, of a Jewish center, restaurant, nightclub, and hotel that killed 41 and injured 101. Probably supported the bombing of the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 5 August that killed 17 and injured 137. Responsible for the assault and bombing on 9 November of a housing complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed 17 and injured 100. Conducted the bombings of two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, on 15 November that killed 23 and injured 200 and the bombings in Istanbul of the British Consulate and HSBC Bank on 20 November that resulted in 27 dead and 455 injured. Has been involved in some attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2002, carried out bombing on 28 November of hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killing 15 and injuring 40. Probably supported a nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia, on 12 October that killed about 180. Responsible for an attack on US military personnel in Kuwait, on 8 October, that killed one US soldier and injured another. Directed a suicide attack on the MV Limburg off the coast of Yemen, on 6 October that killed one and injured four. Carried out a firebombing of a synagogue in Tunisia on 11 April that killed 19 and injured 22. On 11 September 2001, 19 al-Qaida suicide attackers hijacked and crashed four US commercial jets, two into the World Trade Center in New York City, one into the Pentagon near Washington, DC, and a fourth into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, leaving about 3,000 individuals dead or missing. Directed the 12 October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 US Navy members, and injuring another 39. Conducted the bombings in August 1998 of the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed at least 301 individuals and injured more than 5,000 others. Claims to have shot down US helicopters and killed US servicemen in Somalia in 1993 and to have conducted three bombings that targeted US troops in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992.

Al-Qaida is linked to the following plans that were disrupted or not carried out: to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila in late 1994, to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines in early 1995, to bomb in midair a dozen US trans-Pacific flights in 1995, and to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Also plotted to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations in late 1999. (Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial.) In December 2001, suspected al-Qaida associate Richard Colvin Reid attempted to ignite a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight from Paris to Miami. Attempted to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane with a surface-to-air missile as it departed the Mombasa airport in November 2002.

Strength

Al-Qaida probably has several thousand members and associates. The arrests of senior-level al-Qaida operatives have interrupted some terrorist plots. Also serves as a focal point or umbrella organization for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, some members of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.

Location/Area of Operation

Al-Qaida has cells worldwide and is reinforced by its ties to Sunni extremist networks. Was based in Afghanistan until Coalition forces removed the Taliban from power in late 2001. Al-Qaida has dispersed in small groups across South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East and probably will attempt to carry out future attacks against US interests.

External Aid

Al-Qaida maintains moneymaking front businesses, solicits donations from likeminded supporters, and illicitly siphons funds from donations to Muslim charitable organizations. US and international efforts to block al-Qaida funding has hampered the group’s ability to obtain money.

al-Qa'ida (The Base) / World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders / Usama bin Laden

 

[WillowTree]

Bullshit too

newp! it's not, the truth will give you a black eye. this is just one more disaster Americans are going to hate obamalama for.. just one more reason

Most Americans are not filled with hate - its obvious you are; I pity you.

call me whatever, but you asswipe liberals will fight to the death for the right to murder innoncent infants and fight to the death to free terrorists who also murdered innocents.. and you call me full of hate.. well more power to ya bud

 

[The T]

I have a basic question to ask here, do people believe that a person engaged in armed conflict captured on the battlefield in any conflict is subject to American Law? It does seem to boil down to the difference between are people captured on the battlefield by US Military forces or handed over to the US Military a civilian matter, or a military matter. I have another observation, given the fact that many believe this is a civilian matter and people are under the impression that we fight wars with "American Values" , I wonder then if those same values were in play when Harry Truman made the final decision to drop the Atomic bomb(s) on Japan. The bottom line here, war is a brutal, disgusting, and nasty enterprise. If a nation chooses to engage in it , then they do so knowing that. Forgive me, while I understand that some moral value structure is important in the prosecution of war it should not be the guiding factor in the decision making. If the nations morals are so demanded both on it's soldiers and those they are fighting, then in order to keeps it's own people safe it's best not to engage in war in the first place if your not willing to accept that war is going to result in brutality in order to lead to victory. That is a sad fact of war. the only time you win a war really, is when you have averted one.

Those who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and are accused of crimes against those nations will be tried in military tribunals. Their status is fuzzy as to whom has juristiction

Those who are accused of crimes against US citizens on 9-11 on US Soil should be tried in US courts. The juristiction is clear. They did the crime here...they face justice here

How then do you explain Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who planned the attack on the USS Cole a US Navy ship in Yemen. Was this crime a civilian crime subject to American civlian judicial review? Further if you start to use that logic when it is applied to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any other group or nation that plans and executes and attack on American soil not subject to acts of war, but rather subject to criminal codes. To expand on that, then you have a jurisditional matter to consider then, if the attack was a mere murder done so in NYC and because these people are subject to constitutional protections, then how is this not a state matter? Given that, is this not the Tate of N.Y.s responsibility to then issue arrest warrants rather than engage in combat? Do you think that these people would find themselves in capativity at all should the U.S. have started down the path of this being a civilian matter in the first place? Let's say for example North Korea decides to shoot an ICBM at L.A. one day , do we then try the North Korean Govt. in our courts according them all the rights under the constitution? I suppose one has to draw a line between an Act of War and a criminal Act.





TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

So are not these terrorist organizations military forces of any origin?

Thanks for drawing the line. It should now be clear to most what is going on here.

 

[Intense]

I have a basic question to ask here, do people believe that a person engaged in armed conflict captured on the battlefield in any conflict is subject to American Law? It does seem to boil down to the difference between are people captured on the battlefield by US Military forces or handed over to the US Military a civilian matter, or a military matter. I have another observation, given the fact that many believe this is a civilian matter and people are under the impression that we fight wars with "American Values" , I wonder then if those same values were in play when Harry Truman made the final decision to drop the Atomic bomb(s) on Japan. The bottom line here, war is a brutal, disgusting, and nasty enterprise. If a nation chooses to engage in it , then they do so knowing that. Forgive me, while I understand that some moral value structure is important in the prosecution of war it should not be the guiding factor in the decision making. If the nations morals are so demanded both on it's soldiers and those they are fighting, then in order to keeps it's own people safe it's best not to engage in war in the first place if your not willing to accept that war is going to result in brutality in order to lead to victory. That is a sad fact of war. the only time you win a war really, is when you have averted one.

Those who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and are accused of crimes against those nations will be tried in military tribunals. Their status is fuzzy as to whom has juristiction

Those who are accused of crimes against US citizens on 9-11 on US Soil should be tried in US courts. The juristiction is clear. They did the crime here...they face justice here

How then do you explain Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who planned the attack on the USS Cole a US Navy ship in Yemen. Was this crime a civilian crime subject to American civlian judicial review? Further if you start to use that logic when it is applied to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any other group or nation that plans and executes and attack on American soil not subject to acts of war, but rather subject to criminal codes. To expand on that, then you have a jurisditional matter to consider then, if the attack was a mere murder done so in NYC and because these people are subject to constitutional protections, then how is this not a state matter? Given that, is this not the Tate of N.Y.s responsibility to then issue arrest warrants rather than engage in combat? Do you think that these people would find themselves in capativity at all should the U.S. have started down the path of this being a civilian matter in the first place? Let's say for example North Korea decides to shoot an ICBM at L.A. one day , do we then try the North Korean Govt. in our courts according them all the rights under the constitution? I suppose one has to draw a line between an Act of War and a criminal Act.





TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

So are not these terrorist organizations military forces of any origin?

These are Illegal Combatants, subject to Military Law. My response to any other answer, would to Draft All of the Layers and Judges, and deploy them immediately to the Front Lines. They should be included in Every Patrol, maybe on point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I have a basic question to ask here, do people believe that a person engaged in armed conflict captured on the battlefield in any conflict is subject to American Law? It does seem to boil down to the difference between are people captured on the battlefield by US Military forces or handed over to the US Military a civilian matter, or a military matter. I have another observation, given the fact that many believe this is a civilian matter and people are under the impression that we fight wars with "American Values" , I wonder then if those same values were in play when Harry Truman made the final decision to drop the Atomic bomb(s) on Japan. The bottom line here, war is a brutal, disgusting, and nasty enterprise. If a nation chooses to engage in it , then they do so knowing that. Forgive me, while I understand that some moral value structure is important in the prosecution of war it should not be the guiding factor in the decision making. If the nations morals are so demanded both on it's soldiers and those they are fighting, then in order to keeps it's own people safe it's best not to engage in war in the first place if your not willing to accept that war is going to result in brutality in order to lead to victory. That is a sad fact of war. the only time you win a war really, is when you have averted one.

Those who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and are accused of crimes against those nations will be tried in military tribunals. Their status is fuzzy as to whom has juristiction

Those who are accused of crimes against US citizens on 9-11 on US Soil should be tried in US courts. The juristiction is clear. They did the crime here...they face justice here

How then do you explain Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who planned the attack on the USS Cole a US Navy ship in Yemen. Was this crime a civilian crime subject to American civlian judicial review? Further if you start to use that logic when it is applied to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any other group or nation that plans and executes and attack on American soil not subject to acts of war, but rather subject to criminal codes. To expand on that, then you have a jurisditional matter to consider then, if the attack was a mere murder done so in NYC and because these people are subject to constitutional protections, then how is this not a state matter? Given that, is this not the Tate of N.Y.s responsibility to then issue arrest warrants rather than engage in combat? Do you think that these people would find themselves in capativity at all should the U.S. have started down the path of this being a civilian matter in the first place? Let's say for example North Korea decides to shoot an ICBM at L.A. one day , do we then try the North Korean Govt. in our courts according them all the rights under the constitution? I suppose one has to draw a line between an Act of War and a criminal Act.





TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

So are not these terrorist organizations military forces of any origin?

For those interested in more detail, please see this link:
US CODE: Title 18,CHAPTER 113B—TERRORISM

 

[Wry Catcher]

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

Yes...that is why they are called defense lawyers

Its all part of the judicial system in civilized societies. Which system do you advocate?

The Taliban?

.

I root for the Military tribunal same way the SCOTUS does, I never root for the terrorists the way you America haters do. never.

More and more bullshit.

 

[Intense]

We need a word to describe lying partisan hyperbole
Bullshit works.

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

Yes...that is why they are called defense lawyers

Its all part of the judicial system in civilized societies. Which system do you advocate?

The Taliban?

The obligation of Defense Lawyers is to, in Their role, maintain the Integrity of the Court, the Process, in Criminal Proceedings. These are acts of War, in Violation of International Law, and Our Law.

 

[The T]

Those who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and are accused of crimes against those nations will be tried in military tribunals. Their status is fuzzy as to whom has juristiction

Those who are accused of crimes against US citizens on 9-11 on US Soil should be tried in US courts. The juristiction is clear. They did the crime here...they face justice here

How then do you explain Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who planned the attack on the USS Cole a US Navy ship in Yemen. Was this crime a civilian crime subject to American civlian judicial review? Further if you start to use that logic when it is applied to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any other group or nation that plans and executes and attack on American soil not subject to acts of war, but rather subject to criminal codes. To expand on that, then you have a jurisditional matter to consider then, if the attack was a mere murder done so in NYC and because these people are subject to constitutional protections, then how is this not a state matter? Given that, is this not the Tate of N.Y.s responsibility to then issue arrest warrants rather than engage in combat? Do you think that these people would find themselves in capativity at all should the U.S. have started down the path of this being a civilian matter in the first place? Let's say for example North Korea decides to shoot an ICBM at L.A. one day , do we then try the North Korean Govt. in our courts according them all the rights under the constitution? I suppose one has to draw a line between an Act of War and a criminal Act.





TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

So are not these terrorist organizations military forces of any origin?

These are Illegal Combatants, subject to Military Law. My response to any other answer, would to Draft All of the Layers and Judges, and deploy them immediately to the Front Lines. They should be included in Every Patrol, maybe on point.

Nice idea. Not only are they subject to Military Law? They are NOT subject to Geneva Convention Accord for they wear no recognized military uniform. They are lucky they were put in GTMO in the first place IMHO.

 

[Intense]

How then do you explain Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri who planned the attack on the USS Cole a US Navy ship in Yemen. Was this crime a civilian crime subject to American civlian judicial review? Further if you start to use that logic when it is applied to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or any other group or nation that plans and executes and attack on American soil not subject to acts of war, but rather subject to criminal codes. To expand on that, then you have a jurisditional matter to consider then, if the attack was a mere murder done so in NYC and because these people are subject to constitutional protections, then how is this not a state matter? Given that, is this not the Tate of N.Y.s responsibility to then issue arrest warrants rather than engage in combat? Do you think that these people would find themselves in capativity at all should the U.S. have started down the path of this being a civilian matter in the first place? Let's say for example North Korea decides to shoot an ICBM at L.A. one day , do we then try the North Korean Govt. in our courts according them all the rights under the constitution? I suppose one has to draw a line between an Act of War and a criminal Act.





TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331Prev | Next§ 2331. Definitions

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and
US CODE: Title 18,2331. Definitions

So are not these terrorist organizations military forces of any origin?

These are Illegal Combatants, subject to Military Law. My response to any other answer, would to Draft All of the Layers and Judges, and deploy them immediately to the Front Lines. They should be included in Every Patrol, maybe on point.

Nice idea. Not only are they subject to Military Law? They are NOT subject to Geneva Convention Accord for they wear no recognized military uniform. They are lucky they were put in GTMO in the first place IMHO.

Shooting Them on the Spot would have been Justified.

 

[The T]

These are Illegal Combatants, subject to Military Law. My response to any other answer, would to Draft All of the Layers and Judges, and deploy them immediately to the Front Lines. They should be included in Every Patrol, maybe on point.

Nice idea. Not only are they subject to Military Law? They are NOT subject to Geneva Convention Accord for they wear no recognized military uniform. They are lucky they were put in GTMO in the first place IMHO.

Shooting Them on the Spot would have been Justified.

Agreed. And alot of that happened during WWII when Nazis donned Civilian clothing to meld into the civilian population.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

newp! it's not, the truth will give you a black eye. this is just one more disaster Americans are going to hate obamalama for.. just one more reason

Most Americans are not filled with hate - its obvious you are; I pity you.

call me whatever, but you asswipe liberals will fight to the death for the right to murder innoncent infants and fight to the death to free terrorists who also murdered innocents.. and you call me full of hate.. well more power to ya bud

YOU SAID THAT SCOTUS IS RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT AND WHAT THEY SAY GOES.

Quote: Originally Posted by WillowTree

anti american because the SCOTUS already ruled in favor of the military tribunal,, you are trampling all over the rights of AMERICANS by thumbing your ass at the SCOTUS that's what marxists do

YOU SAID THAT SCOTUS IS RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT AND WHAT THEY SAY GOES. There is no other way to interpret your words. What SCOTUS RULES IS RIGHT!!!


That means that by your own words, you believe in abortion, that it is a right, and that it cannot be changed. YOU then are a supporter of killing the pre-born.

Now, are YOU anti-american, a hypocrite, or a marxist? Or all three at once? Why are you "thumbing your ass at the SCOTUS"?

I guess it is hard to make up your mind since you don't really seem to have one.

 

[WillowTree]

oh really? what do you think the defense lawyers are trying to do if not set them free asswipe,, and you are rooting for the win.

Yes...that is why they are called defense lawyers

Its all part of the judicial system in civilized societies. Which system do you advocate?

The Taliban?

The obligation of Defense Lawyers is to, in Their role, maintain the Integrity of the Court, the Process, in Criminal Proceedings. These are acts of War, in Violation of International Law, and Our Law.

If you watched the OJ trial you learned once and for all, defense lawyers don't give a shit about truth or justice, defense lawyers want their clients freed and screw the American people and the victims of 9-11 and that's what the left wing is celebrating today the possibility their terrorist friends will be free finally. FREE.