No Liberal will answer this.

[RetiredGySgt]

I have asked today and on other days before.

Since the Gitmo detainees that will be tried in open Federal Court had no basic Federally guaranteed rights how does one try them in court?

NO Miranda rights.

No right to a Lawyer before being interrogated

No Lawyer to argue for bail

No Lawyer at all

No right to a speedy trial.

Held with no basic criminal court rights at all.

THEN Holder, the Attorney General announces that even if the defendents are found not guilty or released because of all the violations they will be rearrested by the Military and held for Military Tribunals.

In other words NO presumption of Innocence at all, they are presumed guilty and if the Court disagrees it will be ignored.

How is this Justice? How is this even LEGAL.

Military Tribunals are legal because of long history and because the Supreme Court has ruled in these cases they can be used. Holder is going to ( with Obama's permission ) VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW and he is the SENIOR Legal advisor in the Country.

Explain how you can support this knowing all this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is Jillian?

Where is Rightwinger?

Where are all the dumb asses supporting this?

Afraid to be shown for the lying cowards you are?

Afraid President Obama and Holder are shown for liars and breakers of our very own Judicial System?

Come on Justify it, explain it.

 

[xotoxi]

Explain how you can support this knowing all this?

Why do you make the assumption that people support this?

I don't.

 

[kwc57]

I'm conservative. All I'll say is this.......if Bush hadn't been such a candyass and had handled the situation when HE was President, we wouldn't be in this position now.

 

[Ravi]

I'm conservative. All I'll say is this.......if Bush hadn't been such a candyass and had handled the situation when HE was President, we wouldn't be in this position now.

Yep. What a fucked up nightmare he pushed off onto the next administration.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm conservative. All I'll say is this.......if Bush hadn't been such a candyass and had handled the situation when HE was President, we wouldn't be in this position now.

Yep. What a fucked up nightmare he pushed off onto the next administration.

Taken care of BEFORE he left office, He was stopped 3 times by LIBERAL CANDY ASSES and it went to court. The Supreme Court finally heard it and ruled BEFORE he was out of offcie that tribunals were allowed.

You two can take your lying asses some where else.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have asked today and on other days before.

Since the Gitmo detainees that will be tried in open Federal Court had no basic Federally guaranteed rights how does one try them in court?

NO Miranda rights.

No right to a Lawyer before being interrogated

No Lawyer to argue for bail

No Lawyer at all

No right to a speedy trial.

Held with no basic criminal court rights at all.

THEN Holder, the Attorney General announces that even if the defendents are found not guilty or released because of all the violations they will be rearrested by the Military and held for Military Tribunals.

In other words NO presumption of Innocence at all, they are presumed guilty and if the Court disagrees it will be ignored.

How is this Justice? How is this even LEGAL.

Military Tribunals are legal because of long history and because the Supreme Court has ruled in these cases they can be used. Holder is going to ( with Obama's permission ) VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW and he is the SENIOR Legal advisor in the Country.

Explain how you can support this knowing all this?

Easy. You are misrepresenting most every thing.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Where is Jillian?

I've had this conversation with Jillian, and she doesn't support this. Especially the part about the detainees being held indefinitely anyway, regardless of the outcome of the trials gives her problems.

Or so I recall her saying. I may be wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Small little detail: KSM was tried before a military tribunal and plead guilty

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have asked today and on other days before.

Since the Gitmo detainees that will be tried in open Federal Court had no basic Federally guaranteed rights how does one try them in court?

NO Miranda rights.

No right to a Lawyer before being interrogated

No Lawyer to argue for bail

No Lawyer at all

No right to a speedy trial.

Held with no basic criminal court rights at all.

THEN Holder, the Attorney General announces that even if the defendents are found not guilty or released because of all the violations they will be rearrested by the Military and held for Military Tribunals.

In other words NO presumption of Innocence at all, they are presumed guilty and if the Court disagrees it will be ignored.

How is this Justice? How is this even LEGAL.

Military Tribunals are legal because of long history and because the Supreme Court has ruled in these cases they can be used. Holder is going to ( with Obama's permission ) VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW and he is the SENIOR Legal advisor in the Country.

Explain how you can support this knowing all this?

Easy. You are misrepresenting most every thing.

Provide evidence, I have HOLDER on National TV announcing just what I said.

Further explain how any sane Judge can even hold a trial when none of the safeguards provided a defendant existed for these men.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Small little detail: KSM was tried before a military tribunal and plead guilty

Which Obama STOPPED and prevented from finishing.

 

[kwc57]

I'm conservative. All I'll say is this.......if Bush hadn't been such a candyass and had handled the situation when HE was President, we wouldn't be in this position now.

Yep. What a fucked up nightmare he pushed off onto the next administration.

Taken care of BEFORE he left office, He was stopped 3 times by LIBERAL CANDY ASSES and it went to court. The Supreme Court finally heard it and ruled BEFORE he was out of offcie that tribunals were allowed.

You two can take your lying asses some where else.

The Bush administration made the decision to consider the detainees "enemy combatants" as opposed to "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions. This allowed them more wiggle room in how they treated the detainees as well as what the detainees were entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. It also opened a whole new can of worms as they were in uncharted territory.........and long story short.......here we are today. Rather than follow thru on further decisions, he let things ride as they were with no tribunals or trials and left it for the next President to solve. Like Obama's solution or not, Bush could have handled it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Put that up your "lying ass" and smoke it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yep. What a fucked up nightmare he pushed off onto the next administration.

Taken care of BEFORE he left office, He was stopped 3 times by LIBERAL CANDY ASSES and it went to court. The Supreme Court finally heard it and ruled BEFORE he was out of offcie that tribunals were allowed.

You two can take your lying asses some where else.

The Bush administration made the decision to consider the detainees "enemy combatants" as opposed to "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions. This allowed them more wiggle room in how they treated the detainees as well as what the detainees were entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. It also opened a whole new can of worms as they were in uncharted territory.........and long story short.......here we are today. Rather than follow thru on further decisions, he let things ride as they were with no tribunals or trials and left it for the next President to solve. Like Obama's solution or not, Bush could have handled it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Put that up your "lying ass" and smoke it.

You are either to stupid to know what you just said is not true or you are a liar. Which is it?

Bush had Tribunals start BEFORE he left office and Obama ordered them stopped. In fact KSM plead Guilty in such a tribunal.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Further explain how any sane Judge can even hold a trial when none of the safeguards provided a defendant existed for these men.

Very easily. He throws out any and all evidence that is "fruit of the poisoned tree."

If the prosecution is wise, they won't even attempt to use any of it to start with.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Further explain how any sane Judge can even hold a trial when none of the safeguards provided a defendant existed for these men.

Very easily. He throws out any and all evidence that is "fruit of the poisoned tree."

If the prosecution is wise, they won't even attempt to use any of it to start with.

Leaving NO evidence at all. EVERY THING those men ever said was without the safe guards of Federal Courts.

Further how does a Judge even agree to take the case when he has already been told by the Attorney General of the United States that no matter the verdict the men will be retained in Military custody?

 

[kwc57]

Taken care of BEFORE he left office, He was stopped 3 times by LIBERAL CANDY ASSES and it went to court. The Supreme Court finally heard it and ruled BEFORE he was out of offcie that tribunals were allowed.

You two can take your lying asses some where else.

The Bush administration made the decision to consider the detainees "enemy combatants" as opposed to "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions. This allowed them more wiggle room in how they treated the detainees as well as what the detainees were entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. It also opened a whole new can of worms as they were in uncharted territory.........and long story short.......here we are today. Rather than follow thru on further decisions, he let things ride as they were with no tribunals or trials and left it for the next President to solve. Like Obama's solution or not, Bush could have handled it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Put that up your "lying ass" and smoke it.

You are either to stupid to know what you just said is not true or you are a liar. Which is it?

Bush had Tribunals start BEFORE he left office and Obama ordered them stopped. In fact KSM plead Guilty in such a tribunal.

Look jackass........what the fuck took Bush so long to decide to shit or get off the pot? Spin it however you desire, but Bush was President and CiC for 8 years. Had he done the job when it needed doing, we wouldn't be here today with Obama making bad decisions in his place. That isn't too hard for a reasonable person to understand. You are reasonable......aren't you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Bush administration made the decision to consider the detainees "enemy combatants" as opposed to "prisoners of war" under the Geneva Conventions. This allowed them more wiggle room in how they treated the detainees as well as what the detainees were entitled to under the Geneva Conventions. It also opened a whole new can of worms as they were in uncharted territory.........and long story short.......here we are today. Rather than follow thru on further decisions, he let things ride as they were with no tribunals or trials and left it for the next President to solve. Like Obama's solution or not, Bush could have handled it and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Put that up your "lying ass" and smoke it.

You are either to stupid to know what you just said is not true or you are a liar. Which is it?

Bush had Tribunals start BEFORE he left office and Obama ordered them stopped. In fact KSM plead Guilty in such a tribunal.

Look jackass........what the fuck took Bush so long to do anything? Spin it however you desire, but Bush was President and CiC for 8 years. Had he done the job when it needed doing, we wouldn't be here today with Obama making bad decisions in his place. That isn't too hard for a reasonable person to understand. You are reasonable......aren't you?

He tried and faced 3 DIFFERENT court cases to BLOCK his use of tribunals. He could not use them until AFTER, in 2008, the SUpreme Court ruled he could. And he was blocked by the Democrats and the Liberals.

I am starting to understand just how fucking stupid you really are. You do not know basic information about this and continue to spout off untruths left and right, when shown they are untrue you make more shit up.

So I REPEAT, are you just AMAZINGLY STUPID? Or are you just an out right liar?

 

[Wry Catcher]

RSG,
Those held in Cuba and other foreign countries have not enjoyed the benefits of habeas corpus for years. What the Obama Adminstration inherited from the Bush Administration is a mess. We should all agree on that one issue.
Those who believe in liberty and freedom are appalled that our nation has held persons suspected of crimes (?) or military action (?) or plots (?) against the United States for years without having charges filed against them.
Your question posits specifics which an unbiased person must ask why now? Why didn't you object, loudly and often, to the denial of basic human rights (not Constitutional Rights) years ago?
Why weren't those held in Cuba advised of their rights (see Magna Carta and The Rights of Man) and tried by a military tribunal years ago?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RSG,
Those held in Cuba and other foreign countries have not enjoyed the benefits of habeas corpus for years. What the Obama Adminstration inherited from the Bush Administration is a mess. We should all agree on that one issue.
Those who believe in liberty and freedom are appalled that our nation has held persons suspected of crimes (?) or military action (?) or plots (?) against the United States for years without having charges filed against them.
Your question posits specifics which an unbiased person must ask why now? Why didn't you object, loudly and often, to the denial of basic human rights (not Constitutional Rights) years ago?
Why weren't those held in Cuba advised of their rights (see Magna Carta and The Rights of Man) and tried by a military tribunal years ago?

They were properly held and the LACK of trials falls squarely on the Democrats and the Liberals that fought for 6 years to prevent Tribunals. That is right, 6 YEARS. Bush faced 3 different court challenges when he tried unsuccessfully to hold tribunals earlier.

Tribunals are legal and proper and meet all the requirements as STATED by the US SUPREME COURT. You want to blame someone for why they were held for YEARS? Blame the dumb asses that forced it to go to the Supreme Court and delayed those Tribunals at least 2 times.

I notice you IGNORED the questions and the facts that our current President has sided with his Attorney General in allowing show trials that will have no legal meaning since if the men are not found guilty they will be returned to military Control and not released.

 

[rdean]

I have asked today and on other days before.

Since the Gitmo detainees that will be tried in open Federal Court had no basic Federally guaranteed rights how does one try them in court?

NO Miranda rights.

No right to a Lawyer before being interrogated

No Lawyer to argue for bail

No Lawyer at all

No right to a speedy trial.

Held with no basic criminal court rights at all.

THEN Holder, the Attorney General announces that even if the defendents are found not guilty or released because of all the violations they will be rearrested by the Military and held for Military Tribunals.

In other words NO presumption of Innocence at all, they are presumed guilty and if the Court disagrees it will be ignored.

How is this Justice? How is this even LEGAL.

Military Tribunals are legal because of long history and because the Supreme Court has ruled in these cases they can be used. Holder is going to ( with Obama's permission ) VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW and he is the SENIOR Legal advisor in the Country.

Explain how you can support this knowing all this?

How did the Bush administration proudly handle the case of terrorist Richard Reid?

How did the Clinton adminstration handle the case of the first bombers at the WTC?

Where are all those terrorists now?

How many have actually been convicted at a military tribunal since 9/11?

Answer those questions and you will answer all your questions.