911 terrorists to be tried in NYC

[CurveLight]

So, we now put war criminals through our civilian court system?

As I said in another thread. Anything to increase the power of this administration.

A military tribunal is the venue these people need to be tried under.

Didn't we deny them the rights of prisoners of war?

How can we try them in military court?

Catch 22....they aren't given POW rights because they are not considered military. Then, when it's time to try them, they're not civilian?

SCOTUS has already ruled some of the GC rules for POW does apply to them.

 

[WillowTree]

If I knew, I would be more than happy to tell you. However, can you answer my question?

your answer lies in the answer to my question. DUmmie

How do you figure that? Did we declare war on someone or not? Forensic evidence gathering is generally NOT done by the POTUS, nor any members of Congress who must agree with any Declaration of War by the USA?

was it a crime scene or a battlefield? DUmmie!

 

[WillowTree]

your answer lies in the answer to my question. DUmmie

How do you figure that? Did we declare war on someone or not? Forensic evidence gathering is generally NOT done by the POTUS, nor any members of Congress who must agree with any Declaration of War by the USA?

was it a crime scene or a battlefield? DUmmie!

Here let me answer for you. Now that the pussies called libtards are in dc, it is a crime scene.. just like when clinton bubba whas in charge,, next!

 

[Darkwind]

So, we now put war criminals through our civilian court system?

As I said in another thread. Anything to increase the power of this administration.

A military tribunal is the venue these people need to be tried under.

Didn't we deny them the rights of prisoners of war?

How can we try them in military court?

Catch 22....they aren't given POW rights because they are not considered military. Then, when it's time to try them, they're not civilian?

They are not American civilians. They committed acts of war. They did not violate any criminal code in the United States because when they committed their crimes, they were not IN the United States.

There is ample evidence and significant precedence for using Military Tribunals. What is it that the left does not like about a Military court of law?

 

[theHawk]

Looks like the Hussein agenda is already working. Start a show trial to appease the liberal wing nut base.

 

[amrchaos]

This whole thing stinks. We have a supposed confession from KSM after he was waterboarded 183 times in one month. Still, five years after that they had not been taken to trial. Eight years after that day we are now just putting them on trial? Here's a simple question: How could there have been enough evidence days after 9E to justify invading a whole other country yet not enough evidence to convict even EIGHT YEARS later?

Of course the American haters among us have already decided these guys are guilty so their voices are as useless as they are whiny. But for the rest of us, how can we endorse this trial which is suspect while also not calling for prosecution of those who committed torture?

Let's get real.

The point of using enhanced interrogation on the scumbag rat bastard was NOT to get admissible "evidence" for some criminal justice system "trial." The POINT of using such techniques on the bastard was to GET information. Period. End of ******* story.

If anyone (not saying that you do, necessarily, Curve) actually believes that anything said by the Islamist bastard which we obtained as a result of using "enhanced interrogation" on him is in ANY way going to be usable as evidence against him at some stupid "trial," then perhaps we can discuss your purchase from me of a large bridge in Kings County, NYC, at a very reasonable price.

When his defense attorneys demand the production of "discovery" materials from the Government, and the Government tries to demur on the ground of "classified state secret" or some such basis, riase your hands if you think a judge is going to agree with the government!

Failing that, the government will either have to share our military intelligence secrets with the guy who masterminded the 9/11/2001 attacks against us -- OR -- they will have to respectfully decline the demand for "discovery" which will result in

(a) motions to dismiss the case against the defendant and/or
(b) motions to preclude the USE of any such "evidence" or RELATED MATERIAL against the defendant (which, when coupled with the suppression of pretty much everything the guy ever SAID, is likely to unermine the ability of the prosecutors to mount a prosecution).

Why on Earth we would do this to ourselves remains a huge mystery.

None of it is or should ever have been deemd "necssary." But it all flows from the misbegotten ignorant belief that this was ever a "criminal justice" matter.

Well, the **** it was. It never was. It still isn't.

President Obama is just a ******* imbecile.

Translation:After you tortured the bastards, you should have shot them--not have a media party demonstrating how "tough" you are!!

But many people think waterboarding is not torture. So evidence collected under duress can be admitted--yeah right.

 

[WillowTree]

Looks like the Hussein agenda is already working. Start a show trial to appease the liberal wing nut base.

San Francisco will be dancing in the streets again..

 

[Vel]

Hate the American Judicial system, do you?

Since when do we try war criminals in a civilian court?

War criminals? Did we declare war on someone? When did this occur?

Ask the Whitehouse. They seem to think we're at war with Al Qaeda
*************************

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times


"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

 

[theHawk]

So, we now put war criminals through our civilian court system?

As I said in another thread. Anything to increase the power of this administration.

A military tribunal is the venue these people need to be tried under.

Didn't we deny them the rights of prisoners of war?

How can we try them in military court?

Catch 22....they aren't given POW rights because they are not considered military. Then, when it's time to try them, they're not civilian?

They aren't military which makes them enemy combatants. Thus they get military tribunals.

Of course, the Hussein has since then abandoned the term "enemy combatant", instead they are calling them all "detainees".

 

[WillowTree]

Since when do we try war criminals in a civilian court?

War criminals? Did we declare war on someone? When did this occur?

Ask the Whitehouse. They seem to think we're at war with Al Qaeda
*************************

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times


"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

that was beforecode pink got them by the nutz

 

[bodecea]

Since when do we try war criminals in a civilian court?

War criminals? Did we declare war on someone? When did this occur?

Ask the Whitehouse. They seem to think we're at war with Al Qaeda
*************************

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times


"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

I wonder when the Constitution was amended to allow the President to declare war.

 

[bodecea]

War criminals? Did we declare war on someone? When did this occur?

Ask the Whitehouse. They seem to think we're at war with Al Qaeda
*************************

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times


"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

that was beforecode pink got them by the nutz

Code Pink is in control now? Isn't that odd...just the other day, someone said that Code Pink seems rather quiet these days.

 

[VaYank5150]

your answer lies in the answer to my question. DUmmie

How do you figure that? Did we declare war on someone or not? Forensic evidence gathering is generally NOT done by the POTUS, nor any members of Congress who must agree with any Declaration of War by the USA?

was it a crime scene or a battlefield? DUmmie!

BOTH, asshat. It was a crime to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq in the first place as we had not declared war on them, nor were they an imminent threat to us. Get it?

 

[bodecea]

Looks like the Hussein agenda is already working. Start a show trial to appease the liberal wing nut base.

San Francisco will be dancing in the streets again..

Sometimes I really have to scratch my head as to where you get your random comments from.

 

[WillowTree]

Ask the Whitehouse. They seem to think we're at war with Al Qaeda
*************************

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times


"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

that was beforecode pink got them by the nutz

Code Pink is in control now? Isn't that odd...just the other day, someone said that Code Pink seems rather quiet these days.

code pink is left of hell right? well, that's where the messiah gets his orders! see? the war in Afghanistan was "a war worth fighting." before it wasn't... Kerry on.

 

[Vel]

War criminals? Did we declare war on someone? When did this occur?

Ask the Whitehouse. They seem to think we're at war with Al Qaeda
*************************

White House: 'War on terrorism' is over - Washington Times


"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

I wonder when the Constitution was amended to allow the President to declare war.

Looks to me like it was Congress that declared war. Let's quit playing semantics, shall we?

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Does anyone think this action will give our military a "take no prisoners" approach?
Does anyone think this will increase our chances of more "foreign terrorists" attacks?
Does anyone think this will increase our chances of attacks by "domestic terrorists"?
Is this a legal decision or a political decision?

Yes.
No.
No.
Political....it will turn into an ACLU witch hunt against the CIA...just wait for the shit to hit the fan whan they subpoena interrogation memos etc...
and then ONE technicality and the fuckers WALK!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WillowTree]

How do you figure that? Did we declare war on someone or not? Forensic evidence gathering is generally NOT done by the POTUS, nor any members of Congress who must agree with any Declaration of War by the USA?

was it a crime scene or a battlefield? DUmmie!

BOTH, asshat. It was a crime to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq in the first place as we had not declared war on them, nor were they an imminent threat to us. Get it?

No,, I don't get it. that's libtard thinking.. I don't do libtard thinking.. errrr drinking. I thought they were picked up and detained in Afghanistan... see" it was "a war worth fighting" before it wasn't.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

How do you figure that? Did we declare war on someone or not? Forensic evidence gathering is generally NOT done by the POTUS, nor any members of Congress who must agree with any Declaration of War by the USA?

was it a crime scene or a battlefield? DUmmie!

BOTH, asshat. It was a crime to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq in the first place as we had not declared war on them, nor were they an imminent threat to us. Get it?

You ******* stupid ass *****......the CONGRESS PASSED A LAW AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ!!!!! Ge that through your thick ******* skull would you????!!!!

 

[Darkwind]

was it a crime scene or a battlefield? DUmmie!

BOTH, asshat. It was a crime to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq in the first place as we had not declared war on them, nor were they an imminent threat to us. Get it?

You ******* stupid ass *****......the CONGRESS PASSED A LAW AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ!!!!! Ge that through your thick ******* skull would you????!!!!

Don't worry about it. It was pure deflection from the fact that there is no precedent for trying war crimes in a civilian court. International law has already recognized that our deposing of a financier of terrorism was legal. There never was a criteria for 'imminent threat' in Congress' authorization to use force.