Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Get Terror Trials Out of Civilian Court
Topic Started: Jan 29 2010, 03:53 PM (1,414 Views)
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
Dumb or not, I believe it's Constitutionally required. You can't lock people up forever without proving your case somehow.

Any other reading shreds the language of the Constitution and makes a host of other "re-interpretations" of the plain language possible.


They weren't going to be locked up forever. They were going to be tried by military commission, a process that certainly seems fair enough for others according to the DoJ. The Supreme court upheld their constitutionality so they can be hardly described as "shredding the Constitution". I have heard no defensible reason for why they are not good enough for KSM and his cohorts.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 05:47 AM
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 05:36 AM
Then I guess you are asking me to take your word for the fact that you have heard a prosecutor (let alone an Attorney General) say in effect, "Don't worry folks, there is no possibility that he will be found not guilty and released".
When you talk about your bird, or places you've been, do I ask for citations?

Either you trust my word, or you don't. That's completely up to you.

As for what I've heard, I have never heard those exact words. I have heard prosecutors say "He will be convicted, and he will go to jail for the rest of his life." It's basically a statement of confidence in their case and in the justice of their position.
There certainly is something wrong with it when the purpose of having the trial in civilian court is to impress teh world on what a just, fair country of laws we have.

Jeezel pete.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 07:11 AM
Quote:
 
Dumb or not, I believe it's Constitutionally required. You can't lock people up forever without proving your case somehow.

Any other reading shreds the language of the Constitution and makes a host of other "re-interpretations" of the plain language possible.


They weren't going to be locked up forever. They were going to be tried by military commission, a process that certainly seems fair enough for others according to the DoJ. The Supreme court upheld their constitutionality so they can be hardly described as "shredding the Constitution". I have heard no defensible reason for why they are not good enough for KSM and his cohorts.
The Supreme Court got it wrong. I'm sure you're surprised to hear me say that.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mikhailoh
Feb 1 2010, 07:15 AM
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 05:47 AM
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 05:36 AM
Then I guess you are asking me to take your word for the fact that you have heard a prosecutor (let alone an Attorney General) say in effect, "Don't worry folks, there is no possibility that he will be found not guilty and released".
When you talk about your bird, or places you've been, do I ask for citations?

Either you trust my word, or you don't. That's completely up to you.

As for what I've heard, I have never heard those exact words. I have heard prosecutors say "He will be convicted, and he will go to jail for the rest of his life." It's basically a statement of confidence in their case and in the justice of their position.
There certainly is something wrong with it when the purpose of having the trial in civilian court is to impress teh world on what a just, fair country of laws we have.

Jeezel pete.
Again, at best, you are crying "Poor form!" But there's nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening about it.

And, again, what would you have had him say? Please be specific. If you're going to criticize him for saying what he said, do go ahead and tell us what he SHOULD have said.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
We should not expect the USAG to display 'good form'? Again, jeezel pete.

You second challenge is absurd.

(C'mon, gimme the IT sign .. I dare ya...)
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 07:22 AM
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 07:11 AM
Quote:
 
Dumb or not, I believe it's Constitutionally required. You can't lock people up forever without proving your case somehow.

Any other reading shreds the language of the Constitution and makes a host of other "re-interpretations" of the plain language possible.


They weren't going to be locked up forever. They were going to be tried by military commission, a process that certainly seems fair enough for others according to the DoJ. The Supreme court upheld their constitutionality so they can be hardly described as "shredding the Constitution". I have heard no defensible reason for why they are not good enough for KSM and his cohorts.
The Supreme Court got it wrong. I'm sure you're surprised to hear me say that.
They also ruled that indefinite detention without trial was within the law but I am sure you will disagree wth that as well.

So, I take it your position is that all enemy combatants detained by our military are entitled to civilian trials in our courts. To me, that has a potential of doing far more damage to our court system than mitary tribunals could do to our Constitution. Judges will have the choice of either creating new ways to allow trials to go forward without requiring the government to provide information compromising our intelligence sources and methods - which will become precedents for all other future civilian trials - or they will have to allow releasing into the public such information. As I said, dumb idea.

The Constitution requires due process. It is silent on the matter of military tribunals which are still due process or, at least, that is the way SCOTUS has ruled now and in the past.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mikhailoh
Feb 1 2010, 07:33 AM
We should not expect the USAG to display 'good form'? Again, jeezel pete.

You second challenge is absurd.

(C'mon, gimme the IT sign .. I dare ya...)
Well, if you can't say what he SHOULD have said, you have no basis for criticizing what he did say.

Unless you think you're a House Republican, and that you get to take free potshots without having to suggest anything.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 07:39 AM
Mikhailoh
Feb 1 2010, 07:33 AM
We should not expect the USAG to display 'good form'? Again, jeezel pete.

You second challenge is absurd.

(C'mon, gimme the IT sign .. I dare ya...)
Well, if you can't say what he SHOULD have said, you have no basis for criticizing what he did say.

Unless you think you're a House Republican, and that you get to take free potshots without having to suggest anything.
And the only reason you claim that it's absurd is because you know you can't do it.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 07:38 AM
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 07:22 AM
JBryan
Feb 1 2010, 07:11 AM
Quote:
 
Dumb or not, I believe it's Constitutionally required. You can't lock people up forever without proving your case somehow.

Any other reading shreds the language of the Constitution and makes a host of other "re-interpretations" of the plain language possible.


They weren't going to be locked up forever. They were going to be tried by military commission, a process that certainly seems fair enough for others according to the DoJ. The Supreme court upheld their constitutionality so they can be hardly described as "shredding the Constitution". I have heard no defensible reason for why they are not good enough for KSM and his cohorts.
The Supreme Court got it wrong. I'm sure you're surprised to hear me say that.
They also ruled that indefinite detention without trial was within the law but I am sure you will disagree wth that as well.

So, I take it your position is that all enemy combatants detained by our military are entitled to civilian trials in our courts. To me, that has a potential of doing far more damage to our court system than mitary tribunals could do to our Constitution. Judges will have the choice of either creating new ways to allow trials to go forward without requiring the government to provide information compromising our intelligence sources and methods - which will become precedents for all other future civilian trials - or they will have to allow releasing into the public such information. As I said, dumb idea.

The Constitution requires due process. It is silent on the matter of military tribunals which are still due process or, at least, that is the way SCOTUS has ruled now and in the past.
If we want to hold them, we should try them the same way we try other people we want to hold.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Of course I can. I was just trying to get you to give me the sign. YOu seemed pretty irascible this morning, but didn't rise to the bait. :lol:

The blatantly obvious thing he should have said was 'I have every confidence in the United States' justice system to try these defendants based on the evidence and the merits of their cases.'. Period.

Instead he just made this whole thing into a show trial circus. Way to go AG Holder.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
"I have every confidence in the United States' justice system to try these defendants based on the evidence and the merits of their cases."

That would have been greeted with uproarious laughter from every sector. :lol2:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Feb 1 2010, 07:45 AM
"I have every confidence in the United States' justice system to try these defendants based on the evidence and the merits of their cases."

That would have been greeted with uproarious laughter from every sector. :lol2:
Exactly. There's nothing he could have said that would not have been mocked by conservatives everywhere.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Mikhailoh
Feb 1 2010, 07:44 AM
Of course I can. I was just trying to get you to give me the sign. YOu seemed pretty irascible this morning, but didn't rise to the bait. :lol:

The blatantly obvious thing he should have said was 'I have every confidence in the United States' justice system to try these defendants based on the evidence and the merits of their cases.'. Period.

Instead he just made this whole thing into a show trial circus. Way to go AG Holder.
I don't have a sign for you, how about a picture?

Posted Image
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 07:55 AM
Frank_W
Feb 1 2010, 07:45 AM
"I have every confidence in the United States' justice system to try these defendants based on the evidence and the merits of their cases."

That would have been greeted with uproarious laughter from every sector. :lol2:
Exactly. There's nothing he could have said that would not have been mocked by conservatives everywhere.
Uh... No, that's not what I meant, sir.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Frank_W
Feb 1 2010, 08:13 AM
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 07:55 AM
Frank_W
Feb 1 2010, 07:45 AM
"I have every confidence in the United States' justice system to try these defendants based on the evidence and the merits of their cases."

That would have been greeted with uproarious laughter from every sector. :lol2:
Exactly. There's nothing he could have said that would not have been mocked by conservatives everywhere.
Uh... No, that's not what I meant, sir.
Well, then, YOU feel free to speculate as to what he could have said that would not have been met by either laughter or criticism.

Personally, I do think that Mik's choice would have been universally mocked.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Enemy combatants are not entitled to due process. They are not entitled to anything. Even if they are US citizens. Period.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Feb 1 2010, 09:11 AM
Enemy combatants are not entitled to due process. They are not entitled to anything. Even if they are US citizens. Period.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. No one has yet claimed that U.S. citizens aren't entitled to any rights under the Constitution.

Apparently, the Constitution means absolutely nothing to you.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 09:13 AM
Larry
Feb 1 2010, 09:11 AM
Enemy combatants are not entitled to due process. They are not entitled to anything. Even if they are US citizens. Period.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. No one has yet claimed that U.S. citizens aren't entitled to any rights under the Constitution.

Apparently, the Constitution means absolutely nothing to you.
Do you understand the rules of war, Quirt?

You do realize we are at war, don't you? You do realize that terrorism is an act against the United States, right?

Enemy combatants are not entitled to due process. They are entitled to what the military offers them. That is it. I'm not the one with a failure to understand the Constitution, you are.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 08:45 AM
Frank_W
Feb 1 2010, 08:13 AM
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 07:55 AM
Frank_W
Feb 1 2010, 07:45 AM
"I have every confidence in the United States' justice system to try these defendants based on the evidence and the merits of their cases."

That would have been greeted with uproarious laughter from every sector. :lol2:
Exactly. There's nothing he could have said that would not have been mocked by conservatives everywhere.
Uh... No, that's not what I meant, sir.
Well, then, YOU feel free to speculate as to what he could have said that would not have been met by either laughter or criticism.

Personally, I do think that Mik's choice would have been universally mocked.
Maybe so. But, unlike what he DID say, it could not have been rightfully interpreted as indicating a kangaroo court followed by a lynching.

You see conservatives rightfully don't care much for Holder. he's clearly a boob and quite possibly a corrupt one to boot. But that doesn't matter, because his own goal was to show the world, not conservatives, what a great place America is. And he flushed that goal right down the toilet with his own mouth.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Feb 1 2010, 09:16 AM
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 09:13 AM
Larry
Feb 1 2010, 09:11 AM
Enemy combatants are not entitled to due process. They are not entitled to anything. Even if they are US citizens. Period.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. No one has yet claimed that U.S. citizens aren't entitled to any rights under the Constitution.

Apparently, the Constitution means absolutely nothing to you.
Do you understand the rules of war, Quirt?

You do realize we are at war, don't you? You do realize that terrorism is an act against the United States, right?

Enemy combatants are not entitled to due process. They are entitled to what the military offers them. That is it. I'm not the one with a failure to understand the Constitution, you are.

The Constitution applies to citizens, whether you like it or not, and whether this sort of "war" was contemplated or not.

It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
"You have the right to remain silent. If you do not remain silent, what you say may be held against you in a court of law." That, to me, seems pretty clear. If I talk, I give up certain rights (like self-incrminiation).

"To qualify for the rights of prisoner of war, you must comply with the following: Uniform...etc." Seems pretty clear to me as well. If I don't obey those laws, I give up things as well.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Exactly. Waging war in civilian clothes does not make you a civilian.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
A citizen is a citizen. Period, end of sentence.

And since when did a treaty or a law supersede the Constitution?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 09:51 AM
A citizen is a citizen. Period, end of sentence.

And since when did a treaty or a law supersede the Constitution?
A person gives up the right to self-incrimination if he talks. Is that the Constitution being superseded?

A person gives up the right to certain legal benefits when he breaks the laws of war.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
QuirtEvans
Feb 1 2010, 09:51 AM
A citizen is a citizen. Period, end of sentence.

And since when did a treaty or a law supersede the Constitution?
Quote:
 
citizen n. person who by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or by going through the naturalization process has sworn loyalty to a nation. The United States has traditionally taken the position that an American citizen is subject to losing his/her citizenship if he/she commits acts showing loyalty to another country, including serving in armed forces potentially unfriendly to the United States, or voting in a foreign county. However, if the foreign nation recognizes dual citizenship (Canada, Israel, and Ireland are common examples) the U. S. will overlook this duality of nationalities.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/citizen
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply