OBL's son in law caught and Obama wants to give him legal rights

[JakeStarkey]

figures, you can't back up your claims

how droll

FYI...not common knowledge and even if it was, it is YOUR duty to back up YOUR claim as you have often said to others. funny little dishonest double standard you have farkey.

You admitted so I don't have to. It is common knowledge. Common knowledge points, such as 'Yurt normally does not have a clue', are acceptable without cites.

 

[Wry Catcher]

figures, you can't back up your claims

how droll

FYI...not common knowledge and even if it was, it is YOUR duty to back up YOUR claim as you have often said to others. funny little dishonest double standard you have farkey.

Somethings are self evident. "The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient" is one of those. Gitmo has not.

 

[Yurt]

figures, you can't back up your claims

how droll

FYI...not common knowledge and even if it was, it is YOUR duty to back up YOUR claim as you have often said to others. funny little dishonest double standard you have farkey.

You admitted so I don't have to. It is common knowledge. Common knowledge points, such as 'Yurt normally does not have a clue', are acceptable without cites.

you're a liar. i never admitted it.

 

[Yurt]

figures, you can't back up your claims

how droll

FYI...not common knowledge and even if it was, it is YOUR duty to back up YOUR claim as you have often said to others. funny little dishonest double standard you have farkey.

Somethings are self evident. "The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient" is one of those. Gitmo has not.

he did not talk about gitmo. pay attention. further, we are talking specifically about the terrorists, not federal courts in general. the discussion and claim made by jake is that military tribunals are not effective compared to federal criminal courts.

i merely ask him to cite something to prove his claim and all he can do is lie and run away. can you back up his claim?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gitmo is relevant. That you say it is not is unimportant.

The president has the right under the Constitution to put them in federal court.

Prove his claim? Read Article II of the Constitution.

 

[Yurt]

You should realize that it is.

Anyone in American (NOT what he said) custody enjoys a great many rights provided by the Constitution.

so your contention is that the constitution applies to those waging war against us or conspiring to kill americans in another country?

can you cite the law that is applicable...thanks

Case law? I don't need to cite case law..it's in the Constitution.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

jake, you thanked this post, so do explain why you think the P&I clause is applicable here.

LOL

 

[Yurt]

Common humanity demands the prisoners of war and captured criminals will be treated according to law.

The tribunals have been slow, costly, and most inefficient. The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient.

Gitmo is relevant. That you say it is not is unimportant.

The president has the right under the Constitution to put them in federal court.

Prove his claim? Read Article II of the Constitution.

pay attention jake. i'm asking you to back up the claim that tribunals have been 1. slow, 2. costly, 3. most inefficient.

this is not about gitmo. now, are you going to back up your claims or run away like a two faced sissy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

figures, you can't back up your claims

how droll

FYI...not common knowledge and even if it was, it is YOUR duty to back up YOUR claim as you have often said to others. funny little dishonest double standard you have farkey.

Somethings are self evident. "The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient" is one of those. Gitmo has not.

he did not talk about gitmo. pay attention. further, we are talking specifically about the terrorists, not federal courts in general. the discussion and claim made by jake is that military tribunals are not effective compared to federal criminal courts.

i merely ask him to cite something to prove his claim and all he can do is lie and run away. can you back up his claim?

Gitmo denies the basic human right of Habeas Corpus as do Military Commissions; Since these "tribunals" as you call them occur in Cuba I thought the reference to Gitmo was self evident. It is unconscionable that we hold human beings in secure custody, deny bail, deny a formal arraignment and fail to explain to them the rights all criminal defendants receive upon their first appear in in any trial court in our country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Somethings are self evident. "The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient" is one of those. Gitmo has not.

he did not talk about gitmo. pay attention. further, we are talking specifically about the terrorists, not federal courts in general. the discussion and claim made by jake is that military tribunals are not effective compared to federal criminal courts.

i merely ask him to cite something to prove his claim and all he can do is lie and run away. can you back up his claim?

Gitmo denies the basic human right of Habeas Corpus as do Military Commissions; Since these "tribunals" as you call them occur in Cuba I thought the reference to Gitmo was self evident. It is unconscionable that we hold human beings in secure custody, deny bail, deny a formal arraignment and fail to explain to them the rights all criminal defendants receive upon their first appear in in any trial court in our country.

Yurt does not understand that his pay will lead to a fascist state that can lock any or all of us for no reason at all.

Yes, Gitmo as a barrier is self evident.

Yes, the federal courts work, as Yurt admits.

Yurts arguments are simply based on his anti-Obama hatred, nothing else.

Yes,

 

[Yurt]

Somethings are self evident. "The federal courts have proved sustainable, effective, and cost efficient" is one of those. Gitmo has not.

he did not talk about gitmo. pay attention. further, we are talking specifically about the terrorists, not federal courts in general. the discussion and claim made by jake is that military tribunals are not effective compared to federal criminal courts.

i merely ask him to cite something to prove his claim and all he can do is lie and run away. can you back up his claim?

Gitmo denies the basic human right of Habeas Corpus as do Military Commissions; Since these "tribunals" as you call them occur in Cuba I thought the reference to Gitmo was self evident. It is unconscionable that we hold human beings in secure custody, deny bail, deny a formal arraignment and fail to explain to them the rights all criminal defendants receive upon their first appear in in any trial court in our country.

amazing, you believe the geneva convention violates human rights. there no right right to h/c under the g/c.

you're confused.

 

[Yurt]

and of course jake still can't back up his claim

what a poser

 

[Yurt]

he did not talk about gitmo. pay attention. further, we are talking specifically about the terrorists, not federal courts in general. the discussion and claim made by jake is that military tribunals are not effective compared to federal criminal courts.

i merely ask him to cite something to prove his claim and all he can do is lie and run away. can you back up his claim?

Gitmo denies the basic human right of Habeas Corpus as do Military Commissions; Since these "tribunals" as you call them occur in Cuba I thought the reference to Gitmo was self evident. It is unconscionable that we hold human beings in secure custody, deny bail, deny a formal arraignment and fail to explain to them the rights all criminal defendants receive upon their first appear in in any trial court in our country.

Yurt does not understand that his pay will lead to a fascist state that can lock any or all of us for no reason at all.

Yes, Gitmo as a barrier is self evident.

Yes, the federal courts work, as Yurt admits.

Yurts arguments are simply based on his anti-Obama hatred, nothing else.

Yes,

now the liar admits i never admitted his claim. you're a dbag jake. saying the federal courts work, is not equal to admitting your claim.

and you wonder why so many people call you a liar, well, here is yet another example of you lying.

btw...what is my argument here. be specific and explain how is just your alleged (read lie) claim i hate obama (which i don't).

poor lying jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gitmo denies the basic human right of Habeas Corpus as do Military Commissions; Since these "tribunals" as you call them occur in Cuba I thought the reference to Gitmo was self evident. It is unconscionable that we hold human beings in secure custody, deny bail, deny a formal arraignment and fail to explain to them the rights all criminal defendants receive upon their first appear in in any trial court in our country.

Yurt does not understand that his pay will lead to a fascist state that can lock any or all of us for no reason at all.

Yes, Gitmo as a barrier is self evident.

Yes, the federal courts work, as Yurt admits.

Yurts arguments are simply based on his anti-Obama hatred, nothing else.

Yes,

now the liar admits i never admitted his claim. you're a dbag jake. saying the federal courts work, is not equal to admitting your claim.

and you wonder why so many people call you a liar, well, here is yet another example of you lying.

btw...what is my argument here. be specific and explain how is just your alleged (read lie) claim i hate obama (which i don't).

poor lying jake.

Yes, you admitted my claim, although you denied it before.

Yes, saying the federal courts work does confirm my claim.

As far as far right reactionary dirt bags and far lefties being unhappy with me telling the truth, their rage confirms my correctness.

Your continued hatred of this country, its narrative, and its leaders is despicable.

 

[Dante]

Bin Laden's son-in-law captured, charged in US with conspiring to kill Americans | Fox News

Obama is a retard. The son in law should be sent to Gitmo, and treated as a enemy combatant. He should be interrogated and US authorites should try and get intelligence from him to stop more terrorist attacks.

He shouldn't have the right to remain silent

We need intelligence information now. Instead Obama does the unintelligent

Why do you hate the US Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

CMike, Yurt, and the other anti-American reactionaries all hate the Constitution, which bars them with great penalties from acting like fascists, which is their true desire.

 

[Yurt]

CMike, Yurt, and the other anti-American reactionaries all hate the Constitution, which bars them with great penalties from acting like fascists, which is their true desire.

^ proof you're a troll and a fake ^

i am not anti american, nor do i hate the constitution.

i asked you to back up your claims and you act like like a *****. what a sore loser you are jake.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt does not understand that his pay will lead to a fascist state that can lock any or all of us for no reason at all.

Yes, Gitmo as a barrier is self evident.

Yes, the federal courts work, as Yurt admits.

Yurts arguments are simply based on his anti-Obama hatred, nothing else.

Yes,

now the liar admits i never admitted his claim. you're a dbag jake. saying the federal courts work, is not equal to admitting your claim.

and you wonder why so many people call you a liar, well, here is yet another example of you lying.

btw...what is my argument here. be specific and explain how is just your alleged (read lie) claim i hate obama (which i don't).

poor lying jake.

Yes, you admitted my claim, although you denied it before.

Yes, saying the federal courts work does confirm my claim.

As far as far right reactionary dirt bags and far lefties being unhappy with me telling the truth, their rage confirms my correctness.

Your continued hatred of this country, its narrative, and its leaders is despicable.

1. cite where i admitted it. a simple post # or link will suffice.

2. no it does not. for your claim is that tribunals are worse than federal court. saying that federal courts work, does not substantiate your claim they are superior in dealing with terrorists. stop being such a dishonest tool.

3. you are not telling the truth. you are a liar jake. thus, you are not correct. you can't even back up a simple claim you made. you're pathetic.

4. i hate this country? lmao. further proof you're nothing but a dumb troll and a liar. claiming i hate this country, its narrative and its leaders only proves you're a desperate tool who can't prove his claim, so you desperately try to smear me with false allegations.

what a loser.

 

[JakeStarkey]

now the liar admits i never admitted his claim. you're a dbag jake. saying the federal courts work, is not equal to admitting your claim.

and you wonder why so many people call you a liar, well, here is yet another example of you lying.

btw...what is my argument here. be specific and explain how is just your alleged (read lie) claim i hate obama (which i don't).

poor lying jake.

Yes, you admitted my claim, although you denied it before.

Yes, saying the federal courts work does confirm my claim.

As far as far right reactionary dirt bags and far lefties being unhappy with me telling the truth, their rage confirms my correctness.

Your continued hatred of this country, its narrative, and its leaders is despicable.

1. cite where i admitted it. a simple post # or link will suffice.

2. no it does not. for your claim is that tribunals are worse than federal court. saying that federal courts work, does not substantiate your claim they are superior in dealing with terrorists. stop being such a dishonest tool.

3. you are not telling the truth. you are a liar jake. thus, you are not correct. you can't even back up a simple claim you made. you're pathetic.

4. i hate this country? lmao. further proof you're nothing but a dumb troll and a liar. claiming i hate this country, its narrative and its leaders only proves you're a desperate tool who can't prove his claim, so you desperately try to smear me with false allegations.

what a loser.

1. already answered, so dimissed because anyone can read above

2. tribunals have been very slow, very expensive, very inefficient: you admitted it

3. because I tie you up in knots with empirical facts is not lying, podjo

4. ad hom and lying and smearing with false accusation is what a reactionary wing nut like your resorts to when he gets his ass kicked.

 

[Yurt]

Yes, you admitted my claim, although you denied it before.

Yes, saying the federal courts work does confirm my claim.

As far as far right reactionary dirt bags and far lefties being unhappy with me telling the truth, their rage confirms my correctness.

Your continued hatred of this country, its narrative, and its leaders is despicable.

1. cite where i admitted it. a simple post # or link will suffice.

2. no it does not. for your claim is that tribunals are worse than federal court. saying that federal courts work, does not substantiate your claim they are superior in dealing with terrorists. stop being such a dishonest tool.

3. you are not telling the truth. you are a liar jake. thus, you are not correct. you can't even back up a simple claim you made. you're pathetic.

4. i hate this country? lmao. further proof you're nothing but a dumb troll and a liar. claiming i hate this country, its narrative and its leaders only proves you're a desperate tool who can't prove his claim, so you desperately try to smear me with false allegations.

what a loser.

1. already answered, so dimissed because anyone can read above

2. tribunals have been very slow, very expensive, very inefficient: you admitted it

3. because I tie you up in knots with empirical facts is not lying, podjo

4. ad hom and lying and smearing with false accusation is what a reactionary wing nut like your resorts to when he gets his ass kiced.

1. you have never answered where i said it. simply cite the post jake. you haven't yet, why are you so afraid to do so?

2. i never admitted it. i ASKED you to prove your claim. which you have not.

3. look in the mirror jake.

4. i told the truth against your defamatory statements about me. you made a claim(s) about me and because you can't back it up, you made another derogartory claim about me.... and i am resorting to ad homs and lying and smearing....

LMAO

you're a funny loser jake. i like you for entertainment purposes only. you simply cannot be take seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. cite where i admitted it. a simple post # or link will suffice.

2. no it does not. for your claim is that tribunals are worse than federal court. saying that federal courts work, does not substantiate your claim they are superior in dealing with terrorists. stop being such a dishonest tool.

3. you are not telling the truth. you are a liar jake. thus, you are not correct. you can't even back up a simple claim you made. you're pathetic.

4. i hate this country? lmao. further proof you're nothing but a dumb troll and a liar. claiming i hate this country, its narrative and its leaders only proves you're a desperate tool who can't prove his claim, so you desperately try to smear me with false allegations.

what a loser.

1. already answered, so dimissed because anyone can read above

2. tribunals have been very slow, very expensive, very inefficient: you admitted it

3. because I tie you up in knots with empirical facts is not lying, podjo

4. ad hom and lying and smearing with false accusation is what a reactionary wing nut like your resorts to when he gets his ass kiced.

1. you have never answered where i said it. simply cite the post jake. you haven't yet, why are you so afraid to do so?

2. i never admitted it. i ASKED you to prove your claim. which you have not.

3. look in the mirror jake.

4. i told the truth against your defamatory statements about me. you made a claim(s) about me and because you can't back it up, you made another derogartory claim about me.... and i am resorting to ad homs and lying and smearing....

LMAO

you're a funny loser jake. i like you for entertainment purposes only. you simply cannot be take seriously.

1. you are not in charge of this discussion. you have been answered above.

2. you admitted it by saying fed courts, above, worked. you never have shown they are illegal. in fact, Article II give the pres all the power he needs to use either tribunal or fed court system. you simply disagree with the means, not his power.

3. look in the mirror, Yurt.

4. my claim about you cannot be unproven. you cry when you are retaliated with the same means that you use.

5. you are that type of reactionary that would turn our country into a SA pleasure palace with your types in charge.

6. you continue your tailspin into complete fail.