Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Link please. I have found no report of a confession, or an intent to use one if it did exist.The trial has not even started, how could a confession have already been introduced? End of discussion.Yet they did, which puts the burden of proof on them. 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?
Link please. I have found no report of a confession, or an intent to use one if it did exist.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?
And I know of many trials where there was no confession, so only in your fantasy world would a confession have to be entered into the record at the arraignment.
The trial has not even started, how could a confession have already been introduced? End of discussion.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.Yet they did, which puts the burden of proof on them. 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?
Again, just because he is talking does not mean that what he said will be used in court against him, they had all the evidence they need for a conviction before he was arrested. And I highly doubt if you know what was introduced at his arraignment or you would have linked to it.Link please. I have found no report of a confession, or an intent to use one if it did exist.
And I know of many trials where there was no confession, so only in your fantasy world would a confession have to be entered into the record at the arraignment.
I didn't say anything about a confession, I said the government claims to have pages of things he said since his arrest, and that they introduced this evidence at his arraignment. Want me to prove the government is claiming that he is talking, or will you accept that I saw it on ABC?
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?
Again, just because he is talking does not mean that what he said will be used in court against him, they had all the evidence they need for a conviction before he was arrested. And I highly doubt if you know what was introduced at his arraignment or you would have linked to it.Link please. I have found no report of a confession, or an intent to use one if it did exist.
And I know of many trials where there was no confession, so only in your fantasy world would a confession have to be entered into the record at the arraignment.
I didn't say anything about a confession, I said the government claims to have pages of things he said since his arrest, and that they introduced this evidence at his arraignment. Want me to prove the government is claiming that he is talking, or will you accept that I saw it on ABC?
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.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.
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.
And how exactly does that change the fact that they felt they had enough evidence to convict him already or they would not have arrested him in the first place? Therefore given that evidence, why would they have to introduce anything acquired after his arrest? You don't even know if anything regarding his previous crimes was even discussed after his arrest, they might only have been interested in future terrorist plans!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?
Again, just because he is talking does not mean that what he said will be used in court against him, they had all the evidence they need for a conviction before he was arrested. And I highly doubt if you know what was introduced at his arraignment or you would have linked to it.
Right, you said confession, Believe it or not, I am not responsible for what you said, here is what I said.
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.
Ask Turkey, I was not there.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?
And how exactly does that change the fact that they felt they had enough evidence to convict him already or they would not have arrested him in the first place? Therefore given that evidence, why would they have to introduce anything acquired after his arrest? You don't even know if anything regarding his previous crimes was even discussed after his arrest, they might only have been interested in future terrorist plans!Again, just because he is talking does not mean that what he said will be used in court against him, they had all the evidence they need for a conviction before he was arrested. And I highly doubt if you know what was introduced at his arraignment or you would have linked to it.
Right, you said confession, Believe it or not, I am not responsible for what you said, here is what I said.
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.
Link.And how exactly does that change the fact that they felt they had enough evidence to convict him already or they would not have arrested him in the first place? Therefore given that evidence, why would they have to introduce anything acquired after his arrest? You don't even know if anything regarding his previous crimes was even discussed after his arrest, they might only have been interested in future terrorist plans!Right, you said confession, Believe it or not, I am not responsible for what you said, here is what I said.
They presented the evidence from what he told them after his arrest as part of his arraignment, which tells me a lot more than it tells you.
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....
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.
Link.And how exactly does that change the fact that they felt they had enough evidence to convict him already or they would not have arrested him in the first place? Therefore given that evidence, why would they have to introduce anything acquired after his arrest? You don't even know if anything regarding his previous crimes was even discussed after his arrest, they might only have been interested in future terrorist plans!
They presented the evidence from what he told them after his arrest as part of his arraignment, which tells me a lot more than it tells you.
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.
So how many have been tried and convicted in Military Tribunals and how many in US Courts? Don't try to blame it on one of the most conservative courts in generations.
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.
So how many have been tried and convicted in Military Tribunals and how many in US Courts? Don't try to blame it on one of the most conservative courts in generations.
US courts do not have jurisdiction over prisoners of war, you really should pay attention.
No you didn't, you should stop lying.Link.They presented the evidence from what he told them after his arrest as part of his arraignment, which tells me a lot more than it tells you.
I already provided it, you should pay attention.
So how many have been tried and convicted in Military Tribunals and how many in US Courts? Don't try to blame it on one of the most conservative courts in generations.
US courts do not have jurisdiction over prisoners of war, you really should pay attention.
And yet, there are foreigners in US prisons who the government considers "terrorists". How many would that be? I don't think you know. How many were convicted by Military Tribunal? Bush had years to convict offenders. How many were convicted?
Can't you just admit you don't know and are too stupid to find out?
Absolutely.Rdean, 6 out of 6 that have been allowed to proceed is your answer, and some federal judge overturned one of those on a technicality.......Which has opened up others to use the same hole....
Now shut the fuck up this isn't the issue.
The issue is exactly what this federal judge did over turning the decision of the tribunal. Civilian courts should have nothing to do with military justice.
As Osama bin Ladens son-in-law, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, pleaded not guilty to conspiring to kill Americans in New York Federal Court today, Republicans in Congress were criticizing the Obama administration for prosecuting a suspected al Qaeda terrorist in a civilian court just about a mile from the 9/11 memorial built over Ground Zero.
Abu Ghaith has sworn to kill Americans and he likely possesses information that could prevent harm to America and its allies, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wrote in a statement. He is an enemy combatant and should be held in military custody.
Republicans Decry Obama?s Decision to Try Al Qaeda Suspect in Civilian Court - ABC News
------------------------------------
Are Americans becoming less susceptible to GOP terrorism? The ability of the GOP to scare Americans? I think this case might give us a clue.
So how many have been tried and convicted in Military Tribunals and how many in US Courts? Don't try to blame it on one of the most conservative courts in generations.
US courts do not have jurisdiction over prisoners of war, you really should pay attention.
And yet, there are foreigners in US prisons who the government considers "terrorists". How many would that be? I don't think you know. How many were convicted by Military Tribunal? Bush had years to convict offenders. How many were convicted?
Can't you just admit you don't know and are too stupid to find out?
