Mr. T Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Putting terrorists on trial in NYC?: "On Cavuto this evening, Rudy Giuliani underscored the obvious. We tried prosecuting terrorists as criminals after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. It got us the second attack. What is it that the Obama doesn’t understand about the word “war?” How can he wish to inflict this nightmare on the families of 9/11 and the City of New York? Senator Sestack on Fox this morning was absolutely pathetic, meandering on about how we need to defend our “ideals” and therefore try terrorists as though they were American citizens gone wild. No we don’t. Foreigners who hate us so much they are willing to kill tens of thousands of indiscriminately at a clip need to be tried as enemies of our country not as ordinary perps. This decision coming on the heels of the collective blindness of Democrats and so-called liberals to the obvious fact that Major Hasan’s atrocity was an act of war sends a message to the rest of us that is both ugly and alarming: 0ur commander in chief and his lieutenants at Justice and Homeland Security present a danger to all of us unlike any we have ever faced from domestic sources. The days ahead are uncharted and will not be pretty." Full article Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Really stupid. Shows the incompetence of the Obama Administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 It's leftist self defeating politics. All that matters, is showing up the non-leftists. Doesn't matter that the trials will be a circus. It's a disgrace, and will end in disaster, I fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted November 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 These progressives just want to attack the previous administration with this dog and pony show, hoping that they can show that prisoners of war were mistreated. they must be fans of muslim/arab terrorists who continue to plan more killings of americans. th This is a sham, and what will be sad is if they get acquitted when they should hang. No trial provides a better basis for understanding the nature and causes of evil than do the Nuremberg trials from 1945 to 1949. Those who come to the trials expecting to find sadistic monsters are generally disappointed. What is shocking about Nuremberg is the ordinariness of the defendants: men who may be good fathers, kind to animals, even unassuming--yet committed unspeakable crimes. Nuremberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted November 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Who wants to be a juror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 ..... imagine that put CRIMINALS like MCVIEGH on trial.... so what we can deal with our own criminals but because these guys are from a foreign country we cant handle it.... whatever if some of you want to politicize this knock yourself out.... silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 ..... imagine that put CRIMINALS like MCVIEGH on trial.... so what we can deal with our own criminals but because these guys are from a foreign country we cant handle it.... whatever if some of you want to politicize this knock yourself out.... silly Comparing Mcviegh to the 911 attacks is insane. You know it. Quit being a dickhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Comparing Mcviegh to the 911 attacks is insane. You know it. Quit being a dickhead. He knows that. Lets all list the benefits OK? What'sd in it for us to let the asshole stage his little show and STILL convict? So Obama and Holder have already called the guy a murderer and a terrorist. HE'S BEEN WATERBOARDED A HUNDRED TIMES. And yes. He did it. So if you're a fan of his and he's convicted and killed do you think he got a fair trial? How shitty an attorney is the one who couldn't get any common crook freed on that????? Would any other asshole criminal NOT walk under those circumstances? They let OJ go because somebody had used the N word.. Or he does walk thanks to that. How do Obama and Holder look now? Are the lefties applauding as he flips off the jury on the way to the street? Or when he's railroaded? C'mon boys. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 "Miranda rights violated". "If the towers weren't really hit, you must acquit" Waterboarding, complaints (fabricated) about the stay at Gitmo... It all adds up to a leftist bash at the Bush admin, to distract from the Obamao Mafiao admin's corruption and failures. An America-selfdepricating fiasco to re-energize an angry leftist base. The #1 moron to be put on trial, admitted he did it, and demanded to be allowed to plead guilty to a military tribunal and be put to death. The terrorists should have faced a quiet military tribunal years ago. To give them miranda rights that they will have to consider to be violated from the gitgo, except that they are not entitled even Geneva Convention rights? It is: Pure anti-American sensationalism to hide their failures to solve any problem, to hide their failures, and to re-visit the Bush bashing that they think will make everythng all right. But I believe, their desperate cya and arrogant politics with no morals is already becoming their downfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 How about the right to a speedy trial? How long have these terrorists been detained? And sev remember Holder & Obama planned this whole charade for public opinion maybe it will help in the lefty polls, but remember a man cannot serve two masters. Progressive Democrats will want them freed and deman reparations with an apology while Americans will want a Public hanging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Comparing Mcviegh to the 911 attacks is insane. You know it. Quit being a dickhead. ok than, lets examine the simliarities.... both incidents were formented and planned by extremists groups that are not countries.... both hit government/economic symbolistic targets..... both used a TACTIC defined as terrorism....... both incidents individuals were caught........ so Mcviegh and his group whose government building bombing murdered people and the 9-11 where people were murdered...... sure sounds different to me.... O wait what about the former world trade center bombing..... you know with the van..... o than that was prosecuted in NY..... no issues there.... no those criminal precedents must never have happened..... Yes I am a "dickhead"..... thanks for the definition. What some of you want to politicize has precedent on more than one occasion as a judicial problem that now those who have some sort of political agenda dont want to admit..... If you really want we can go further back into history when airplanes were being hijacked and blown up... or embassies.... where are the military tribunals and invasions of countries?..... o wait those must not count..... sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Sev he means Mcviegh is white, he can't discern the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Come on, Sev, let's look at the differences. McVeigh was a home born violent activist of a political persuasion, acting mostly alone, until he got a few friends to help him, which they did, somewhat reluctantly?. He was an American citizen, and NOT PART of any kind of un-uniformed army battling our troops. The terrorists at Gitmo were/are ununiformed soldiers in a global terrorist war against American and Allied soldiers in the field of battle overseas, in a movement that has been growing for centuries. They have declared war on all those that oppose them. That's in the entire world. They number in the several thousands, or at least used to, until 9/11 and the Bush admins' decision to send our troops after them. Al quaida, the extremist "Muslim" terrorists are legitmately attacking the entire globe where non-Muslim societies dwell. Al quaida is a world wide terrorist movement. Your "similarities" argument is silly. "Superman wore a red and blue costume, so if Hillary Clinton wears those similar colors, then she is Superman". You know better, Sev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Cal whether it's 5 or 5000 criminals regardless of origin are criminals. The ideology that may drive them greed, religous, political, etc... You could say the italian/jewish mob during prohibition numbered in the thousands working with their Italian/ Sicilian/canadien partners were actively using destabilization and fear tactics against the u.s. This "war" is in the same context that drug dealors from Mexico are in with us.... The Mexican government is complicit on many levels and Americans are dying by the thousands every year... Yet we prosecute these major dealors when caught with our JUDICIAL system...... Just like we did with the first world trade center bombing.... Maybe the republicans should lobby to invade Mexico.... Wait no oil.... Nevermind... Or the many embassy bombings.... No oil there either or the Cole..... Silly and stupid to politicize this instead of demonstrating why our country is better.... We believe in the rule and prosecution of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 It's a military conflict - and the opponents are not uniformed, nor are they signees of the Geneva Convention Accords, they belong in a military tribunal. They do NOT have American's rights. Hell, Obama and his stupid Attorney General have come right out and SAID that they are so guilty, don't worry, they will get the death sentence. THAT sound like a civilian trial to you, Sev? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted November 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Maybe the republicans should lobby to invade Mexico.... Wait no oil.... Nevermind... Or the many embassy bombings.... No oil there either or the Cole..... Silly and stupid to politicize this instead of demonstrating why our country is better.... We believe in the rule and prosecution of the law. Mexico is rich with oil, and they are allies to the US and dont harbor terrorist. Sorry your cup does not hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Mexico is rich with oil, and they are allies to the US and dont harbor terrorist. Sorry your cup does not hold water. T..... Canada and Mexico have similar oil reserves.......... neither are any way near what the middle east has.... Cal actually I agree with you, the president nor the attorney general should not make assumptions in public. Cal no matter how much you want it to be this is not a military conflict between nations. This is a PR war at most with an ideology..... they are people who are committing criminal acts that are organized.... how many militias are in the U.S.? The KKK is an organization based on a ideology that its members and at the direction sometimes of the organization who commit crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 ok than, lets examine the simliarities.... both incidents were formented and planned by extremists groups that are not countries.... both hit government/economic symbolistic targets..... both used a TACTIC defined as terrorism....... both incidents individuals were caught........ so Mcviegh and his group whose government building bombing murdered people and the 9-11 where people were murdered...... sure sounds different to me.... O wait what about the former world trade center bombing..... you know with the van..... o than that was prosecuted in NY..... no issues there.... no those criminal precedents must never have happened..... Yes I know I am a "dickhead"..... I'm a know it all. What some of you want to politicize has precedent on more than one occasion as a judicial problem that now those who have some sort of political agenda dont want to admit..... If you really want we can go further back into history when airplanes were being hijacked and blown up... or embassies.... where are the military tribunals and invasions of countries?..... o wait those must not count..... sure. Al Queda is an organized Terrorist organization. It is identified as such by most civilized countries. They are not Timothy McVeigh's renting trucks and filling them with fertilizer. They are highly financed and supported by many muslems worldwide. Your pathetic attempt to make them into common criminals is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 But KKK, Black Panthers, militias - those are American citizens. The ragtag but heavily armed unofficial army that is all foreign members, gets it's members from several nations mostly, but it is a prolonged military conflict with the official militaries of our country and our allies. The Gitmo schmucks are all foriegn, Sev. They have absolutely no rights whatsoever as American citizens do. And that makes putting them in a civilian trial ludicrous. They cannot be legitimately convicted in a civilian court, because they are not American civilians, and as such, do not have American civilian rights, nor the legal rights under the USMJ, obviously. So, it's asinine to try them in a civilian court, when the rights American citizens MUST be accorded but they are NOT accorded. A crime is a crime - a relatively unique occurence, or serious of occurences (serial killer, etc.) Being non-American members of an international terrorist army fighting overseas as a permanent campaign is not a crime. It's a war. Sev - I would no more bring the Nazi butchers over here or to England, and serve them tea and cookies and get them a lawyer and Miranda rights and endless appeals than I would for the prisoners at Gitmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted November 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2009 Obama's attorney general does not know even basic law Mr. Holder the Attorney General was being cross-examined by Senator Graham of the Judiciary Committee, who posed a simple question: “If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?” The answer is so simple that even a 1L could get it (Of course, we have no time to say the whole phrase “first-year law student” in Law School, so we call them "1L"). The person in custody is entitled to a Miranda Warning at the moment of custody. Custody is defined as the moment when the party either is or feels he is not free to leave, because he is being detained by an officer of the law acting under the color of legal authority. The defendant must be informed of his Miranda Rights before any questioning, and must be reminded of them periodically, otherwise his testimony (including any evidence springing from his testimony) cannot be admitted as evidence in court. Got it? The question is “When do Miranda Rights attach?” The answer is: “At the moment of custody.” Holder flubbed the question. His answer was, “Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we –“ Wrong. Even the Asparagus Mascot of the William and Mary law school could tell you that. Even I, who graduated lower in class ranking than the Asparagus, Pocahontas and Tribe Guy put together, could tell you that. Mr. Graham again provided the correct answer: “Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.” So why could Mr. Holder, the Attorney General — a title that implies he wears a bicorn hat and waves a gold sword, commanding whole legions and battalions of Attorney Majors, Attorney Captains, and Paralegal Paratroopers — why could the Attorney General not answer a question any 1L could have aced? Mr. Graham also asked, “Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?” A standard question. Every law professor at some point asks every law student to cite the precedent to support his case. Mr. Holder’s answer: I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I’ve made -- Mr. Graham: “I’ll answer it for you. The answer is no.” I’d have to look at that? You mean you did not read the textbook, the outline, or the CrimLaw 101 Nutshell book? Don't have your notes ready, do you? Here I must quote what any prof from my school would have said. These are the words of crusty old Professor Kingsfield from THE PAPER CHASE. “Mister Holder, here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer.” I should also mention that Senator Graham served in the Judge Advocate General’s office – the JAG corps. GO NAVY! More Here & Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.