Republicans Decry Obama’s Decision to Try Al Qaeda Suspect in Civilian Court

[SFC Ollie]

I guarantee you reactionaries and libertarians will oppose Obama if he reverses himself on this tomorrow.

One, the Constitution is better fulfilled with use of the courts.

Two, the trial process will be much faster.

Three, you weirdoes will simply complain period.

How is that? the supreme court gave it's blessings to the tribunals. They started the tribunals 4 years ago and Obama stopped them. So why is the trial process any faster? because Obama wants it to be.

The system is set up but Obama thinks he knows better. And Jake you better hope he doesn't turn fast, you'll break your nose.....

If he reverses himself tomorrow i will wonder just what game he's playing.........

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ollie, go back and study tribunals and courts, and stop acting stupidly. It is SCOTUS that has repeatedly slowed down the tribunals, not Obama.

You have your head so far up neo-con butt your ears don't show.

Don't play stupid games.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So far he has made no such claim, but if he does then he like YOU will have to PROVE it!!! I suspect he will be no more able to prove it than YOU have been so far!

I suggest you learn how the legal system works. In criminal cases the defendant is not required to prove anything, all he has to do is sit there and keep his mouth shut.

But if he does open his mouth to claim he was tortured, then he, like YOU, has to PROVE it. YOU opened YOUR big mouth, therefore YOU have to PROVE it.

Still not how it works. One of the thing the government supposedly has is all the things he has said after he was arrested. That puts the burden of proof on them, they have to prove that he was read his rights, voluntarily waved them, and that he was not coerced in order to use that evidence in court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution is set up to handle such cases. No mention is made in it of tribunals.

If we followed the constitution federal courts wouldn't be trying him in federal court because federal courts do not have jurisdiction over what he is accused of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Trying enemy combatants in US Criminal Court, an idea so so so stupid and lacking in legal foundation, only Obama could have thought of it

Your objections are dismissed in #64.

Its going to be fun watching the Criminal defense ask for discovery on our Intel methods and sources

Ain't that the truth. I wonder how they are going to handle background checks on the jury for the top secret intel the need to see in order to actually convict him.

 

[rdean]

Plain and simple, Obama has stopped the legal military tribunals from doing their job as blessed by both the US Congress and the United States Supreme Court. There is no denying this.

The tribunals should have already been pretty much wrapped up by now. Why have they little experience? because they haven't been permitted to do their jobs.

It is asinine to bring enemy combatants into the US and try them with all the rights and privileges of an American citizen when we have the tribunals already to go in Gitmo.......

But the Obamabots are all lined up to kiss his ass again.

So uh, Sarge, I'm curious. How many terrorists have Military Tribunals charged and convicted compared to the "courts"? Do you know? You better know. If you're making the point, you better have a point. Your credibility is on the line.

 

[rdean]

I guarantee you reactionaries and libertarians will oppose Obama if he reverses himself on this tomorrow.

One, the Constitution is better fulfilled with use of the courts.

Two, the trial process will be much faster.

Three, you weirdoes will simply complain period.

How is that? the supreme court gave it's blessings to the tribunals. They started the tribunals 4 years ago and Obama stopped them. So why is the trial process any faster? because Obama wants it to be.

The system is set up but Obama thinks he knows better. And Jake you better hope he doesn't turn fast, you'll break your nose.....

If he reverses himself tomorrow i will wonder just what game he's playing.........

They had years under Bush. And do you have proof Obama stopped them? Or is it another delusion?

So tell us. How many terrorists have been charged and convicted in a Military Tribunal since 9/11 compared to how many are in civilian courts.

Make it good. Before you lose all credibility.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Plain and simple, Obama has stopped the legal military tribunals from doing their job as blessed by both the US Congress and the United States Supreme Court. There is no denying this.

The tribunals should have already been pretty much wrapped up by now. Why have they little experience? because they haven't been permitted to do their jobs.

It is asinine to bring enemy combatants into the US and try them with all the rights and privileges of an American citizen when we have the tribunals already to go in Gitmo.......

But the Obamabots are all lined up to kiss his ass again.

So uh, Sarge, I'm curious. How many terrorists have Military Tribunals charged and convicted compared to the "courts"? Do you know? You better know. If you're making the point, you better have a point. Your credibility is on the line.

Congress created the tribunals, modeled them after the Nuremberg courts, yet providing the defendants with more rights and protections for those rights, than they would have if they had been tried in Nuremberg, and the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional, forcing them to start over. In other words, according to the modern Supreme Court the Nuremberg trials were unconstitutional.

Think about that for a while.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Ollie, go back and study tribunals and courts, and stop acting stupidly. It is SCOTUS that has repeatedly slowed down the tribunals, not Obama.

You have your head so far up neo-con butt your ears don't show.

Don't play stupid games.

Please, You better go look. Yes they slowed them down and made congress pass some new legislation dealing with them.

Check the Military Commissions act of 2006 and it's revision in 2009.

Obama has held them up ever since, and several had already started with guilty pleas....

 

[SFC Ollie]

Plain and simple, Obama has stopped the legal military tribunals from doing their job as blessed by both the US Congress and the United States Supreme Court. There is no denying this.

The tribunals should have already been pretty much wrapped up by now. Why have they little experience? because they haven't been permitted to do their jobs.

It is asinine to bring enemy combatants into the US and try them with all the rights and privileges of an American citizen when we have the tribunals already to go in Gitmo.......

But the Obamabots are all lined up to kiss his ass again.

So uh, Sarge, I'm curious. How many terrorists have Military Tribunals charged and convicted compared to the "courts"? Do you know? You better know. If you're making the point, you better have a point. Your credibility is on the line.

The point is that the supreme court put it's blessings on the Military Commissions act of 2006 and the revised 2009.

There have been multiple hold ups, some due to this being new and unique, some by the prosecution, some by the defense and even some by the judge. But it was Mr Obama who put a strangle hold on it wanting to bring them all to NYC.

Let the Commissions do their job and send any more captured over seas down to Gitmo to join them. They do not belong in NY.

 

[Trajan]

A Jordanian security official confirmed that Abu Ghaith was handed over last week to U.S. law enforcement officials under both nations' extradition treaty. He declined to disclose other details and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported that Abu Ghaith was caught on his way to Kuwait, shortly after leaving Turkey.

The newspaper said that Abu Ghaith was taken into custody more than a month ago at a luxury hotel in in Ankara, the Turkish capital. But Turkish officials decided he had not committed any crime in Turkey and released him, the newspaper reported.

In Ankara, Turkish officials refused to confirm Abu Ghaith's deportation or his capture in Jordan to The Associated Press. U.S. intelligence officials in Washington and New York also declined to confirm details.

Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama Bin Laden's Spokesman And Son-In-Law, Captured By CIA


______________________________________________________


Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, has been "cooperating" and has already revealed "key intelligence" about the current status, personnel and finances of al Qaeda even before he was secretly spirited to New York City, U.S. officials told ABC News today.

snip-


Lawmakers and other U.S. officials revealed today that Ghaith had been moved to New York sometime last week after being captured in Turkey in January and then transferred to Jordanian custody. Although he had spent years in Iran, officials said he was part of an al Qaeda senior management council that continued to be in contact with al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and played a role in the transfer of personnel and money through Iran.

Osama bin Laden's Son-in-Law Captured, Flown to NYC - ABC News




so, why was he first allowed to leave then picked up again by the Turks only to be deported? Did they do that on their own? If they had no beef with him as to their laws why would they grab him? or were they asked to by the US?

And if so, why was he sent to Jordan? If you look at the second link, he apparently 'cooperated' ...Did he give up this "key intelligence" did he do this voluntarily?



Was this a case of Extraordinary Rendition where in though we never actually ( as far as we know) have him in our grasp, we asked those that did have him to send him to a place like Jordan where he would be interrogated outside appropriate overwatch, absent Americas values and outlook vis a vis harsh interrogation, torture? and if so, will obama answer for it? I thought we didn't do this anymore?

 

[edthecynic]

I suggest you learn how the legal system works. In criminal cases the defendant is not required to prove anything, all he has to do is sit there and keep his mouth shut.

But if he does open his mouth to claim he was tortured, then he, like YOU, has to PROVE it. YOU opened YOUR big mouth, therefore YOU have to PROVE it.

Still not how it works. One of the thing the government supposedly has is all the things he has said after he was arrested. That puts the burden of proof on them, they have to prove that he was read his rights, voluntarily waved them, and that he was not coerced in order to use that evidence in court.

No it doesn't! They don't have to bring up any of that in court, they have all the evidence used to make the arrest in the first place. If they didn't already have the evidence they could not have made the arrest nor provide the evidence to convince another country to extradite him.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was he? Or not? Why does it matter, Frank? Do you support the jihadists if you are defending them?

Hey Jakeass, I said they belong in a Military Tribunal.

Stop lying.

Tell us if he was read his Miranda warning or not, and tell us why you think that is important.

His confession is inadmissible if he was not Mirandized.

You knew that, right?

 

[Trajan]

But if he does open his mouth to claim he was tortured, then he, like YOU, has to PROVE it. YOU opened YOUR big mouth, therefore YOU have to PROVE it.

Still not how it works. One of the thing the government supposedly has is all the things he has said after he was arrested. That puts the burden of proof on them, they have to prove that he was read his rights, voluntarily waved them, and that he was not coerced in order to use that evidence in court.

No it doesn't! They don't have to bring up any of that in court, they have all the evidence used to make the arrest in the first place. If they didn't already have the evidence they could not have made the arrest nor provide the evidence to convince another country to extradite him.

so ed, do yo think the US pressured Turkey to turn him over to Jordan?

 

[edthecynic]

Hey Jakeass, I said they belong in a Military Tribunal.

Stop lying.

Tell us if he was read his Miranda warning or not, and tell us why you think that is important.

His confession is inadmissible if he was not Mirandized.

You knew that, right?

Is pleading not guilty a confession?

 

[edthecynic]

Still not how it works. One of the thing the government supposedly has is all the things he has said after he was arrested. That puts the burden of proof on them, they have to prove that he was read his rights, voluntarily waved them, and that he was not coerced in order to use that evidence in court.

No it doesn't! They don't have to bring up any of that in court, they have all the evidence used to make the arrest in the first place. If they didn't already have the evidence they could not have made the arrest nor provide the evidence to convince another country to extradite him.

so ed, do yo think the US pressured Turkey to turn him over to Jordan?

Ask Turkey, I was not there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But if he does open his mouth to claim he was tortured, then he, like YOU, has to PROVE it. YOU opened YOUR big mouth, therefore YOU have to PROVE it.

Still not how it works. One of the thing the government supposedly has is all the things he has said after he was arrested. That puts the burden of proof on them, they have to prove that he was read his rights, voluntarily waved them, and that he was not coerced in order to use that evidence in court.

No it doesn't! They don't have to bring up any of that in court, they have all the evidence used to make the arrest in the first place. If they didn't already have the evidence they could not have made the arrest nor provide the evidence to convince another country to extradite him.

Yet they did, which puts the burden of proof on them. End of discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tell us if he was read his Miranda warning or not, and tell us why you think that is important.

His confession is inadmissible if he was not Mirandized.

You knew that, right?

Is pleading not guilty a confession?

It is almost impossible to plead guilty at arraignment, the court will not normally accept a plea at that point unless the defendant had an attorney before he was arrested. In fact, federal courts don't even ask for a plea.

 

[edthecynic]

Still not how it works. One of the thing the government supposedly has is all the things he has said after he was arrested. That puts the burden of proof on them, they have to prove that he was read his rights, voluntarily waved them, and that he was not coerced in order to use that evidence in court.

No it doesn't! They don't have to bring up any of that in court, they have all the evidence used to make the arrest in the first place. If they didn't already have the evidence they could not have made the arrest nor provide the evidence to convince another country to extradite him.

Yet they did, which puts the burden of proof on them. End of discussion.

The trial has not even started, how could a confession have already been introduced? End of discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it doesn't! They don't have to bring up any of that in court, they have all the evidence used to make the arrest in the first place. If they didn't already have the evidence they could not have made the arrest nor provide the evidence to convince another country to extradite him.

Yet they did, which puts the burden of proof on them. End of discussion.

The trial has not even started, how could a confession have already been introduced? End of discussion.

Because they entered it into the record at arraignment, as they are required to be both law and the rules of the court if they intend to use it.

Do you know anything about how courts works, or are you basing all of your arguments on having watched Law and Order once?