Why hold a trial for a terrorist who has confessed?

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah, fuck due process!

Hey stupid these assholes are not protected under our constitution they have no right to due process. With a name like Kalam I doubt you've read our constitution. Educate yourself!

I don't know about you, but I like due process. And since he is in our custody, he gets a trial. Whether that be in a civilian court or military tribunal. I don't want the executive branch of our government to act as judge, jury and executioner.



"What do you call a government that breaks its own laws in times of crisis? A dictatorship."

You're showing your ignorance. Enemy comabatants or not guaranteed due process. Our constitution does not provide protection to every swinging dick in the world, by design it's meant to protect our ("we the people of the united states ") rights.

What laws are being broken? The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by Bush and then again signed by Obama in Oct. 2009 gives us lawful means of trying terrorist without subjecting them to our civil courts. These military tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, but that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that I mentioned above. So again I ask, what laws are being broken?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why? If going straight to execution based on any kind of information that seems
believable for teason or treachery is the new order of the day then why bother with a Bush/Cheney/Rove..etc trial? They won't be protected by the government forever.

You first have to provide evidence that Bush or Cheny committed any crimes. Of course you won't be able to do that. So why don't you just shut the fuck up about it until you can.

That's what a trial is for. Since we're forgoing the trial, no need for evidence, right? Besides, something tells me that if we waterboarded Bush and Cheney 183 times each, they'd confess.

Confess to what? I've seen no formal charges levied against either Bush or Cheney. So before you can even think of a trial there first has to be some type of charges levied against them and before any trial can begin evidence must be presented to a grand jury to determine whether there is enough evidence to indict.

Do I really need to school you on the law? Are or you just pretending to be stupid?

As for KSM there is evidence against him, the most damaging I would think would be the confession he made. Hell you idiots want to protect the fuckers that are wanting to kill you. Now how stupid is that?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah, fuck due process!

Hey stupid these assholes are not protected under our constitution they have no right to due process. With a name like Kalam I doubt you've read our constitution. Educate yourself!

I fail to see where the Constitution says it protection apply only to citizens. In the bill of rights the ammendments that deal with due process protections specifically say "people," "person," "accused." Why wouldnt the United States have to abide by the Constitution and its due process protections when its prosecuting foreigners?

The constitution protects all citizens on the United States. KSM is not a citizen. Notice the preamble begins with We the people of the United States, not we the people of the entire world.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," --Justice Scalia--

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would remove habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States” by a vote of 65–34. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially eliminates habeas corpus for any non-citizen.

 

[bodecea]

Hey stupid these assholes are not protected under our constitution they have no right to due process. With a name like Kalam I doubt you've read our constitution. Educate yourself!

I fail to see where the Constitution says it protection apply only to citizens. In the bill of rights the ammendments that deal with due process protections specifically say "people," "person," "accused." Why wouldnt the United States have to abide by the Constitution and its due process protections when its prosecuting foreigners?

The constitution protects all citizens on the United States. KSM is not a citizen. Notice the preamble begins with We the people of the United States, not we the people of the entire world.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," --Justice Scalia--

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would remove habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States” by a vote of 65–34. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially eliminates habeas corpus for any non-citizen.

So, according to you, a non-citizen arrested for a crime gets NO protections under the Constitution. Really? Is that a fact?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I fail to see where the Constitution says it protection apply only to citizens. In the bill of rights the ammendments that deal with due process protections specifically say "people," "person," "accused." Why wouldnt the United States have to abide by the Constitution and its due process protections when its prosecuting foreigners?

The constitution protects all citizens on the United States. KSM is not a citizen. Notice the preamble begins with We the people of the United States, not we the people of the entire world.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," --Justice Scalia--

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would remove habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States” by a vote of 65–34. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially eliminates habeas corpus for any non-citizen.

So, according to you, a non-citizen arrested for a crime gets NO protections under the Constitution. Really? Is that a fact?

Depends on the crime. In this case we're discussing enemy combatants.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do we even need a confession?

We know they are terrorists, why not just execute them as soon as you catch them?

 

[HUGGY]

The point is not to put the terrorist on trial. The point is to put the Bush administration on trial for its authorization of waterboarding.

Why? If going straight to execution based on any kind of information that seems
believable for teason or treachery is the new order of the day then why bother with a Bush/Cheney/Rove..etc trial? They won't be protected by the government forever.

You first have to provide evidence that Bush or Cheny committed any crimes. Of course you won't be able to do that. So why don't you just shut the fuck up about it until you can.

What a twit. Faggy cowboy outfit or not you don't call shots dipshit. I'll shut the fuck up when I'm good and ready... and I'm not ready. There are no statute of limitations on murder..you should know that being an ex con. The charges on Bush and Cheney will never be too old to file. Even Rumsfeld may have war crimes charges seeing as how he sold Saddam the chemicals and the helecopter fittings for application on the Kurds.

You can be the retarded wannabe bully of the MB but that won't change the facts. We here up in Seattle think Texas is full of steers and queers or didn't you see "An Officer and a Gentleman"...it was filmed a few miles from where I sit right now. I believe the cows have already been accounted for.

 

[bodecea]

The constitution protects all citizens on the United States. KSM is not a citizen. Notice the preamble begins with We the people of the United States, not we the people of the entire world.

"War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," --Justice Scalia--

On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would remove habeas corpus for any person determined to be an “unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States” by a vote of 65–34. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially eliminates habeas corpus for any non-citizen.

So, according to you, a non-citizen arrested for a crime gets NO protections under the Constitution. Really? Is that a fact?

Depends on the crime. In this case we're discussing enemy combatants.

Ah, suddenly you are moving goal posts.

Let me ask you...are you even capable of an honest comment? Haven't seen one yet...so, wondering.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why? If going straight to execution based on any kind of information that seems
believable for teason or treachery is the new order of the day then why bother with a Bush/Cheney/Rove..etc trial? They won't be protected by the government forever.

You first have to provide evidence that Bush or Cheny committed any crimes. Of course you won't be able to do that. So why don't you just shut the fuck up about it until you can.

What a twit. Faggy cowboy outfit or not you don't call shots dipshit. I'll shut the fuck up when I'm good and ready... and I'm not ready. There are no statute of limitations on murder..you should know that being an ex con. The charges on Bush and Cheney will never be too old to file. Even Rumsfeld may have war crimes charges seeing as how he sold Saddam the chemicals and the helecopter fittings for application on the Kurds.

You can be the retarded wannabe bully of the MB but that won't change the facts. We here up in Seattle think Texas is full of steers and queers or didn't you see "An Officer and a Gentleman"...it was filmed a few miles from where I sit right now. I believe the cows have already been accounted for.

So you're accusing Bush and Cheny of murder. Good luck with making that stick, especially with no evidence.

No I never seen "An Officer and a Gentleman" sounds like a gay movie so there's no doubt you've seen it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So, according to you, a non-citizen arrested for a crime gets NO protections under the Constitution. Really? Is that a fact?

Depends on the crime. In this case we're discussing enemy combatants.

Ah, suddenly you are moving goal posts.

Let me ask you...are you even capable of an honest comment? Haven't seen one yet...so, wondering.

Not moving anything, the entire discussion was about trials for terrorist, specifically KSM.

Show me in any of my post where I wasn't honest.

 

[Liability]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession also quotes him saying he beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl with his "blessed" right hand, and held the head for everyone to see on a videotape which he said was available on YouTube.

The estimated cost of security for such a controversial proceeding as a civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was originally estimated at $75 million per year. Because of the extreme security measures required, and that the entire proceeding of pre-trial motions and trial could take years, the cost was recently put at $1 billion to try KSM in New York City and the plans were scuttled.

All this expense, plus a frightening security risk for any host city, for a radical Islamic enemy combatant who has confessed.


American Thinker Blog: Why hold a trial for a terrorist who has confessed?

Confessing is not the same as entering a plea of guilty. If a terrorist has to be held for a criminal trial (itself a huge mistake by the government) at all, his confession can be given in open court if he wants to just plead guilty. otherwise, despite the ALLEGED "confession," the guy get treated to the criminal law's presumption of inocence.

(Raising the additional question, "Why do guys like VP Biden repeatedly 'assure' us all that the defendants WILL be convicted"They are entitled to a criminal trial but not to due process? ?? Is that it? Does that actually make sense to any of our liberal pals?)

The real question is NOT "why a trial if a guy has confessed?" That happens all the time. The REAL question is why a criminal trial at all for an act of war?

 

[eots]

who are we at war with ?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

who are we at war with ?

Are you serious with that question?

 

[jillian]

I wonder what the O/P would confess to if he were waterboarded over 170 times.

*shrug*

 

[elvis]

I wonder what the O/P would confess to if he were waterboarded over 170 times.

*shrug*

starting the chicago fire and killing kennedy.

 

[Liability]

who are we at war with ?

* * * *

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

* * * *

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107

It is curious how id-eots missed that. It was in like ALL the papers.

 

[jillian]

I wonder what the O/P would confess to if he were waterboarded over 170 times.

*shrug*

starting the chicago fire and killing kennedy.

i bet he does look a little like Mrs O'Leary's cow.

 

[beowolfe]

Hey stupid these assholes are not protected under our constitution they have no right to due process. With a name like Kalam I doubt you've read our constitution. Educate yourself!

I don't know about you, but I like due process. And since he is in our custody, he gets a trial. Whether that be in a civilian court or military tribunal. I don't want the executive branch of our government to act as judge, jury and executioner.



"What do you call a government that breaks its own laws in times of crisis? A dictatorship."

You're showing your ignorance. Enemy comabatants or not guaranteed due process. Our constitution does not provide protection to every swinging dick in the world, by design it's meant to protect our ("we the people of the united states ") rights.

What laws are being broken? The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by Bush and then again signed by Obama in Oct. 2009 gives us lawful means of trying terrorist without subjecting them to our civil courts. These military tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, but that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that I mentioned above. So again I ask, what laws are being broken?

HAHAHAHA.... talk about ignorance!!

 

[Liability]

I don't know about you, but I like due process. And since he is in our custody, he gets a trial. Whether that be in a civilian court or military tribunal. I don't want the executive branch of our government to act as judge, jury and executioner.



"What do you call a government that breaks its own laws in times of crisis? A dictatorship."

You're showing your ignorance. Enemy comabatants or not guaranteed due process. Our constitution does not provide protection to every swinging dick in the world, by design it's meant to protect our ("we the people of the united states ") rights.

What laws are being broken? The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by Bush and then again signed by Obama in Oct. 2009 gives us lawful means of trying terrorist without subjecting them to our civil courts. These military tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, but that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that I mentioned above. So again I ask, what laws are being broken?

HAHAHAHA.... talk about ignorance!!

He was talking about ignorance. Yours. Lonestar happens to be correct.

 

[beowolfe]

You're showing your ignorance. Enemy comabatants or not guaranteed due process. Our constitution does not provide protection to every swinging dick in the world, by design it's meant to protect our ("we the people of the united states ") rights.

What laws are being broken? The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 signed into law by Bush and then again signed by Obama in Oct. 2009 gives us lawful means of trying terrorist without subjecting them to our civil courts. These military tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, but that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that I mentioned above. So again I ask, what laws are being broken?

HAHAHAHA.... talk about ignorance!!

He was talking about ignorance. Yours. Lonestar happens to be correct.

Well, we all know that you're as 'dumb as dirt', so I'll consider the source...