Terror detainee largely acquitted

[Galileo]

Terror detainee largely acquitted

The first former Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court was found guilty on a single conspiracy charge Wednesday but cleared on 284 other counts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/17/AR2010111707280.html

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

What's so funny?

[Winehole23]

I don't find the USG's rate of failure funny at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

They couldn't use his very detailed confession because of where and how he was arrested and detained. Bullshit.

[boutons_deux]

dubya and dickhead's fuckups live on. In dickhead's shovel-ready case, they'll live on longer than him.

Gitmo has/is costing how many 100 of $Ms?

how many tried and convicted?

Apart from dickhead's lies, how many times would America have been destroyed, or attacked, without the tortured info from Gitmo and other American gulag sites?

OBL's chauffeur is one dangerous mofo. :lol

[jack sommerset]

Nice job Barry.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nice job Barry.

the guy faces a minimum of 20 yrs in prison? What's your problem?

[CosmicCowboy]

the guy faces a minimum of 20 yrs in prison? What's your problem?

Not bad for killing a couple of hundred people.

[ChumpDumper]

They couldn't use his very detailed confession because of where and how he was arrested and detained. Bullshit.


Nice job Barry.You mean nice job, Bushie.

[CosmicCowboy]

You mean nice job, Bushie.

I wasn't aware that the decision to try him in a US Civil Court was Bush's. Military tribunals have different rules of evidence and as I understand it, under these circumstances were available to be used.

[Galileo]

I wasn't aware that the decision to try him in a US Civil Court was Bush's. Military tribunals have different rules of evidence and as I understand it, under these circumstances were available to be used.

In military tribunals, verdicts are determined by political effect, rather than by whether the defendant is innocent or guilty.

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't aware that the decision to try him in a US Civil Court was Bush's. Military tribunals have different rules of evidence and as I understand it, under these circumstances were available to be used.Depends on what they dream up as the rules of evidence for that tribunal.

A greater percentage of defendants have gone free after being tried in the recent tribunal system. This guy is not going free.

[LnGrrrR]

They couldn't use his very detailed confession because of where and how he was arrested and detained. Bullshit.

Yeah, it's a shame we can't use forced confessions to convict people.

[LnGrrrR]

I wasn't aware that the decision to try him in a US Civil Court was Bush's. Military tribunals have Kangaroo court rules of evidence and as I understand it, under these circumstances were available to be used.

Fixed it for you.

Any court which doesn't allow people to see the evidence against them makes a mockery of the legal system.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sooo....you guys say he couldn't have gotten a fair trial in a military court?

[ChumpDumper]

Sooo....you guys say he couldn't have gotten a fair trial in a military court?I'm saying the conviction record of terror suspects by the tribunal system is much worse in a much smaller total number of cases.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm saying the conviction record of terror suspects by the tribunal system is much worse in a much smaller total number of cases.

So your preference for civilian trials is strictly based on your desire for them to get more convictions and harsher sentences?

[LnGrrrR]

Sooo....you guys say he couldn't have gotten a fair trial in a military court?

I would argue that the military trials, while technically legal, are not "fair" and should not represent an American form of justice/legal system.

[ChumpDumper]

So your preference for civilian trials is strictly based on your desire for them to get more convictions and harsher sentences?No, your assumption is false, just as the assumption that military tribunals will automatically result in more convictions than civilian trials is false.

[CosmicCowboy]

I would argue that the military trials, while technically legal, are not "fair" and should not represent an American form of justice/legal system.

So when Obama's justice department folds like a cheap lawn chair and tries KSM in a military tribunal you aren't gonna like it?

[CosmicCowboy]

No, your assumption is false, just as the assumption that military tribunals will automatically result in more convictions than civilian trials is false.

But Chumpdumper says civilian trials get more/harsher convictions than military tribunals, and Chumpdumper prefers civilian trials. Now Chumpdumper says he doesn't want more/harsher convictions for terrorists.

:wtf

If thats not correct this is a good opportunity for chumpdumper to set the record straight on what Chumpdumper wants.

[ChumpDumper]

But Chumpdumper says civilian trials get more/harsher convictions than military tribunals, and Chumpdumper prefers civilian trials. Now Chumpdumper says he doesn't want more/harsher convictions for terrorists.

:wtf

If thats not correct this is a good opportunity for chumpdumper to set the record straight on what Chumpdumper wants.CosmicCowboy makes a lot of false assumptions.

This is a good opportunity for CosmicCowboy to start over and simply read without making a lot of false assumptions.

I cannot help CosmicCowboy with his failure to understand. CosmicCowboy needs to help himself.

[ChumpDumper]

Simply put, I have not been presented with a good reason why terror suspects should not be tried in civilian courts as they have been for well over a decade.

[LnGrrrR]

So when Obama's justice department folds like a cheap lawn chair and tries KSM in a military tribunal you aren't gonna like it?

Nope. Our court systems has tried terrorists before, successfully. We can uphold our values of a fair legal system AND keep ourselves safe. We don't have to pick one or the other.

[CosmicCowboy]

Simply put, I have not been presented with a good reason why terror suspects should not be tried in civilian courts as they have been for well over a decade.

I will offer several reasons:

1) Most of them are not US Citizens
2) Most of them have never been to the United States
3) They are terrorists, not criminals.
4) Their acts of terrorism were typically performed abroad.
5) They were typically captured by military (ours or others)
6) Because they were not captured by trained US law enforcement and mirandized like common US criminals so most legitimate evidence gathered is inadmissible under US criminal law.
7) The trial becomes a fucking joke when this evidence is not admitted.

[LnGrrrR]

For a conservative, CC sure does trust the government alot when it comes to suspected terrorists.

[CosmicCowboy]

For a conservative, CC sure does trust the government alot when it comes to suspected terrorists.

I trust the Military one HELL of a lot more than I trust Eric Holder.

[LnGrrrR]

1) Most of them are not US Citizens

What's your point? Do you think that people who aren't US citizens don't deserve the same court system Americans have? I thought the strength of our system of law was innocent before guilty... you know, one of the things that makes us "better" than other countries.


2) Most of them have never been to the United States

Point?


3) They are terrorists, not criminals.

If they're known terrorists, what's the point of having a trial? Oh wait, they're SUSPECTED terrorists. That's kinda the point of the trial, isn't it?


4) Their acts of terrorism were typically performed abroad.

Suspected acts.


5) They were typically captured by military (ours or others)

Except, of course, the multiple instances in which they were captured due to reasons like bounties, mistaken identity, or various other reasons.


6) Because they were not captured by trained US law enforcement and mirandized like common US criminals so most legitimate evidence gathered is inadmissible under US criminal law.

So we should just try them with coerced evidence and things of that nature?


7) The trial becomes a fucking joke when this evidence is not admitted.

I think you meant to say, the trial becomes a joke when this evidence IS admitted.

You know this sort of thing happens in the US too, right? Say a policeman raids a house without a warrant, and finds drugs. That may be inadmissible.

Of course, that's to prevent cops everywhere from randomly busting into houses... you know, limits on power and things like that. Conservatives usually prefer that.

[clambake]

I trust the Military one HELL of a lot more than I trust Eric Holder.

thats not at all surprising.

[LnGrrrR]

I trust the Military one HELL of a lot more than I trust Eric Holder.

I trust the military to do their job... drop bombs, fight bad guys, etc etc. Not to process criminals through a pseudo-justice system.

Heck, even many military members recognize what a farce the system is. A few have gotten out of the military and talked about how poor the trials are.

[ChumpDumper]

I will offer several reasons:

1) Most of them are not US Citizens
2) Most of them have never been to the United States
3) They are terrorists, not criminals.
4) Their acts of terrorism were typically performed abroad.
5) They were typically captured by military (ours or others)
6) Because they were not captured by trained US law enforcement and mirandized like common US criminals so most legitimate evidence gathered is inadmissible under US criminal law.
7) The trial becomes a fucking joke when this evidence is not admitted.Considering the hundreds of trials that have already taken place in federal courts and the convictions resulting therefrom, these reasons have little merit.

The joke is making up a completely different system of justice because one doesn't think the US system of justice is good enough or because one wants to cover up one fuckup or another -- especially when the very novelty and arbitrary nature of the newly made up system can result in exactly the same kinds of exclusions of testimony or evidence of which folks claim to be afraid.

[ChumpDumper]

They are terrorists, not criminals.Is terrorism a crime, CC?

Yes or no.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess all these people just must not trust the military...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_resignations_from_the_Guantanamo_military_ commission

[CosmicCowboy]

Is terrorism a crime, CC?

Yes or no.

Not according to the terrorists.

[Parker2112]

Is terrorism a crime, CC?

Yes or no.

turns on whether the "terrorism" is considered an act of war, doesnt it?

[LnGrrrR]

And hey, here's a quote from one of the guys who resigned...

http://www.truth-out.org/1110098



Frakt referenced an amendment South Carolina Republican Sen. Lyndsey Graham sought to insert into the bill. Graham commented that people who are terrorists don't deserve full constitutional rights. Colonel Frakt responded by charging that Graham "is clearly prejudging the cases and affording a presumption of guilt, not innocence. The Constitution sets forth the minimum due process that we believe is necessary to ensure a fair trial. Why would we ever want to go below that?"

[ChumpDumper]

turns on whether the "terrorism" is considered an act of war, doesnt it?Does it?

[LnGrrrR]

Not according to the terrorists.

So, if I walk into a postal service and declare that I am at war with all mailmen, then gun down a few, I should be thrown into GTMO? Good logic there.

[Parker2112]

absolutely. combatants aren't criminals.

[Parker2112]

So, if I walk into a postal service and declare that I am at war with all mailmen, then gun down a few, I should be thrown into GTMO? Good logic there.

we have laws to govern our citizens on our soil

[ChumpDumper]

Not according to the terrorists.That was not a yes or no, CC.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

absolutely. combatants aren't criminals.What makes one a combatant?

[LnGrrrR]

we have laws to govern our citizens on our soil

Jose Padilla would argue otherwise.

[jack sommerset]

The terrorist was found innocent on 200 charges plus and guilty on one. This was a failure.

[Parker2112]

What makes one a combatant?

what makes one a criminal? it means youve violated some stae/fed penal code. if you attack us forces abroad, you havent committed attemted murder.

[CosmicCowboy]

That was not a yes or no, CC.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

The acts of terrorists are criminal but the motivation to perform the acts is terror.

[Parker2112]

Jose Padilla would argue otherwise.

i cant speak to his case, but what i am stating is fact. Why was he considered a combatant?

[Parker2112]

for the record, just because a combatant comes onto US soil and commits his attack doesnt automatically provide him with right to due process. Evidently Padilla is a great example.

[ChumpDumper]

what makes one a criminal? it means youve violated some stae/fed penal code. if you attack us forces abroad, you havent committed attemted murder.Would you consider KSM a combatant or a terrorist?


The acts of terrorists are criminal but the motivation to perform the acts is terror.That isn't a yes or no.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

[CosmicCowboy]

Would you consider KSM a combatant or a terrorist?

That isn't a yes or no.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

Reading comprehension issues? I specifically said the acts of terrorists are criminal acts. Terrorists perform criminal acts in order to terrorize.

See thread on TSA.

[ChumpDumper]

for the record, just because a combatant comes onto US soil and commits his attack doesnt automatically provide him with right to due process. Evidently Padilla is a great example.What attack did Padilla commit?

[LnGrrrR]

i cant speak to his case, but what i am stating is fact. Why was he considered a combatant?

Look it up on wikipedia if you want to know. :) Roughly, if the "war on terrorism" is everywhere, then a "combatant" can be anywhere as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Reading comprehension issues? I specifically said the acts of terrorists are criminal.Great, I'm glad you agree that acts of terror are crimes and that terrorists are criminals and can be prosecuted as such.

[LnGrrrR]

The acts of terrorists are criminal but the motivation to perform the acts is terror.

Technically, the motivation to perform acts is usually political in nature. The way they perform those acts is through the tactical usage of terror.

[LnGrrrR]

for the record, just because a combatant comes onto US soil and commits his attack doesnt automatically provide him with right to due process. Evidently Padilla is a great example.

You need to read up on him a little better.

[CosmicCowboy]

Great, I'm glad you agree that acts of terror are crimes and that terrorists are criminals and can be prosecuted as such.

Personally, I'd be OK with them just interrogating them for info at Guantanamo and then just feeding them to the sharks. Or just shoot them in Pakistan where they catch them. Fuck em.

[Parker2112]

Would you consider KSM a combatant or a terrorist?


for a court to decide


What attack did Padilla commit?

does guilt require carrying an act to its logical end?

[Parker2112]

You need to read up on him a little better.

Why?

[LnGrrrR]

Personally, I'd be OK with them just interrogating them for info at Guantanamo and then just feeding them to the sharks. Or just shoot them in Pakistan where they catch them. Fuck em.

For a conservative, you sure don't care much about the rule of law, or the whole "innocent before guilty" thing. Which, you know, is somewhat a bedrock for American's system of law. One might even call it a foundation of America.

Unless, you know, you're brown and worship Allah.

[ChumpDumper]

Personally, I'd be OK with them just interrogating them for info at Guantanamo and then just feeding them to the sharks. Or just shoot them in Pakistan where they catch them. Fuck em.Yes, it's clear you don't believe in the American system of justice.

That's fine for you.

I do believe that there are some instances regarding battlefield captives that would be purely military affairs, but trying to act like KSM is such a case is disingenuous and ultimately cowardly.

[Parker2112]

the rule of law, or the whole "innocent before guilty" thing

doesnt apply to combatants. thought that part was over with?

[ChumpDumper]

for a court to decideCop out.




does guilt require carrying an act to its logical end?So you are walking back from saying Padilla committed an attack.

Good idea.

[Parker2112]

Yes, it's clear you don't believe in the American system of justice.

That's fine for you.

I do believe that there are some instances regarding battlefield captives that would be purely military affairs, but trying to act like KSM is such a case is disingenuous and ultimately cowardly.

who made the decision to treat him as such?

[ChumpDumper]

who made the decision to treat him as such?Cowards.

[LnGrrrR]

Why?

Here's your first clue. Padilla is an American citizen. Yeesh, for someone as concerned about civil liberties as you, you seem to know depressingly little about his case.

[Parker2112]

Cop out.



So you are walking back from saying Padilla committed an attack.

Good idea.

Judge/jury much? Where is that American spirit? What qualifies you to decide?

[LnGrrrR]

doesnt apply to combatants. thought that part was over with?

Would you care to show where the America rule of law doesn't apply to combatants?

[Parker2112]

Here's your first clue. Padilla is an American citizen. Yeesh, for someone as concerned about civil liberties as you, you seem to know depressingly little about his case.

does that mean he cant conduct operations for another force inside, as a co-conspirator?

[ChumpDumper]

Judge/jury much? Where is that American spirit? What qualifies you to decide?You don't believe I am free to form an opinion?

Why do you hate freedom?

[Parker2112]

Would you care to show where the America rule of law doesn't apply to combatants?

If you knew enoough about crim law, I wouldnt have to.

Ask yourself this: why cant we jail a man who steals in mexico?

But why CAN we jail the same man if he attacks US forces in Mexico

[LnGrrrR]

does that mean he cant conduct operations for another force inside, as a co-conspirator?

Are you losing your own train of thought?


for the record, just because a combatant comes onto US soil and commits his attack doesnt automatically provide him with right to due process. Evidently Padilla is a great example.

So... Padilla didn't "come onto US soil". He was born here.

He didn't "commit an attack".

So... not really a "great example", is he?

[Winehole23]

The US government has lost 2/3 of Gitmo habeas reviews so far.

That means the government cannot even show good cause for the original detentions, much less for indefinite incarcerations and <enhanced questioning>

[Parker2112]

You don't believe I am free to form an opinion?

Why do you hate freedom?

Dont you believe I am free to believe that without the due process you hold so highly, any judgment is a useless exercise?

Evidently not.

[ChumpDumper]

does that mean he cant conduct operations for another force inside, as a co-conspirator?So he could be tried using a federal treason statute.

OK.

[Parker2112]

Are you losing your own train of thought?



So... Padilla didn't "come onto US soil". He was born here.

He didn't "commit an attack".

So... not really a "great example", is he?

he sounds like a great example. Has due process been applied? yes or no.

Answer: sounds like a combatant to me.

[ChumpDumper]

Dont you believe I am free to believe that without the due process you hold so highly, any judgment is a useless exercise?

Evidently not.Why is it useless?

There is no way to decide such a status without asserting one has a status.

[Parker2112]

So he could be tried using a federal treason statute.

OK.

does he meet the required elements, Judge Chump?

[Parker2112]

Why is it useless?

There is no way to decide such a status without asserting one has a status.

useless to me.

[Parker2112]

I trust the courts. Why do you hate the rule of law, Chump?

[Winehole23]

he sounds like a great example. Has due process been applied? yes or no.Padilla was tried and convicted in a Federal courtroom.

Please catch up.

[ChumpDumper]

he sounds like a great example. Has due process been applied? yes or no.

Answer: sounds like a combatant to me.Would you say the following applies to Padilla?


whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treasonYes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

I trust the courts. Why do you hate the rule of law, Chump?I do trust the federal courts. That's why I feel the great majority of terror cases can and have been tried there.

[Parker2112]

newsflash: 1. I couldnt remember the facts surrounding padilla, 2. I dont know the topic of conversation, 3. I dont know what the OP is, 4. I decided early on that I was going to play this out and see how long I could dance.

Two takeaway points: 1. without a refresh, my number is now up. and 2. Chump's approach to debate is a circle jerk that can be mastered by tin-foilers, and requires little to no actual knowledge or skill.:lol

[ChumpDumper]

newsflash: 1. I couldnt remember the facts surrounding padilla, 2. I dont know the topic of conversation, 3. I dont know what the OP is, 4. I decided early on that I was going to play this out and see how long I could dance.Yes, you were "just kidding."


Two takeaway points: 1. without a refresh, my number is now up. and 2. Chump's approach to debate is a circle jerk that can be mastered by tin-foilers, and requires little to no actual knowledge or skill.:lolSorry it exposed you. I'd be trying to make excuses as well if I were you.

[Parker2112]

Yes, you were "just kidding."

Sorry it exposed you. I'd be trying to make excuses as well if I were you.

not at all. I told you from the start I didnt know shit about Padilla. I entered the fray to practice your drunken monkey/ask questions till exhaustion technique. I proved that it works.

You must have honed that shit over years, Chump. Its pretty damn good, actually. It definitely has its place on a political debate forum.

It helped that you guys didnt know how to delineate criminal law from the acts of an enemy combatant.

Or did you, drunken monkey?:lol (Im sure you did, you just wouldnt reveal your hand. Your pretty good chump)

[Parker2112]

I trust the courts. Why do you hate the rule of law, Chump?


:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Winehole23]

It helped that you guys didnt know how to delineate criminal law from the acts of an enemy combatant.You didn't explain it either but stood firm on fiat.



("Do as I say not as I do")

[ChumpDumper]

not at all. I told you from the start I didnt know shit about Padilla. I entered the fray to practice your drunken monkey/ask questions till exhaustion technique. I proved that it works.

You must have honed that shit over years, Chump. Its pretty damn good, actually. It definitely has its place on a political debate forum.

It helped that you guys didnt know how to delineate criminal law from the acts of an enemy combatant.

Or did you, drunken monkey?:lol (Im sure you did, you just wouldnt reveal your hand. Your pretty good chump)The only thing one can get from that post is you still dont' know what you are talking about .

My questions are not meant to exhaust. Sorry you find simple questions so exhausting. Must be difficult for you.

[jack sommerset]

"A federal jury convicted Ahmed Ghailani of one count of conspiracy to destroy U.S. property..."

Sounds like he spray painted the statue of liberty

[Winehole23]

20 years to life. The system works.

[jack sommerset]

20 years to life. The system works.

Bullshit

[ChumpDumper]

BullshitWhy is it bullshit?

[Winehole23]

Ghailani was convicted and must go to prison for a long time. How is that a failure?

[Parker2112]

The only thing one can get from that post is you still dont' know what you are talking about .

My questions are not meant to exhaust. Sorry you find simple questions so exhausting. Must be difficult for you.
you old drunken monkey you :wakeup

[Parker2112]

You didn't explain it either but stood firm on fiat.



("Do as I say not as I do")

fiat happens.

[jack sommerset]

You two jerk each other off some more. He is a terrorist that helped attacked a US embassy and killed hundreds of innocent people. Barry and Holder pulled him out of his military jail to show how great our US court system is and fully expected this man to be convicted on all the charges brought before this murdering bastard. They failed. He was aquitted on all charges except conspiracy to destroy some US property. Give it a rest.

[Winehole23]

...

[ChumpDumper]

You two jerk each other off some more. He is a terrorist that helped attacked a US embassy and killed hundreds of innocent people. Barry and Holder pulled him out of his military jail to show how great our US court system is and fully expected this man to be convicted on all the charges brought before this murdering bastard. They failed. He was aquitted on all charges except conspiracy to destroy some US property. Give it a rest.He is going to get at least 20 years, probably much more.

If he is given a life sentence, how would that result be any different from a life sentence for another charge?

Please be specific and stop fantasizing about us.

[jack sommerset]

He is going to get at least 20 years, probably much more.

If he is given a life sentence, how would that result be any different from a life sentence for another charge?

Please be specific and stop fantasizing about us.

I'm disgusted by the thought of you two jacking each other off.

Justice was not served. She turned her eyes away from the murders of over 200 people and are telling the likes of you and the rest of the world "Well, we got him for 20 years to life on destroying some property" Barry and Holder failed.

[CosmicCowboy]

He is going to get at least 20 years, probably much more.

If he is given a life sentence, how would that result be any different from a life sentence for another charge?

Please be specific and stop fantasizing about us.

The guy rented the truck and bought the explosives. Hundreds were killed and maimed.

If you think justice has been served by Holders guys getting their ass kicked on 200+ murder counts and only getting a cheesy vandalism charge to stick then we will just have to disagree on this one.

[Winehole23]

Too bad the abusive conditions of Ghailani's detention queered so much of the evidence against him, huh?

[CosmicCowboy]

Too bad the abusive conditions of Ghailani's detention queered so much of the evidence against him, huh?

Yeah, a bullet in the back of the head and SSS would have been more appropriate.

[Winehole23]

POW conditions would've been much more appropriate than that IMO.

My own personal preference is to prosecute them all.

[Winehole23]

I'm disgusted by the thought of you two jacking each other off.You're the one having the thought. Have you pondered that?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm disgusted by the thought of you two jacking each other off.Why do you think about it so much? I mean you think about men having sex with each other all the time and describe it in graphic detail. Why?


Justice was not served. She turned her eyes away from the murders of over 200 people and are telling the likes of you and the rest of the world "Well, we got him for 20 years to life on destroying some property" Barry and Holder failed.Actually it's telling the rest of the world we didn't have to make a kangaroo court to convict this terrorist. It's not like we were going to let him go scott free like those cleared in military trials have been. If anything, this conviction at least gives a veneer of legitimacy to his continued imprisonment, which was a fait accompli.


The guy rented the truck and bought the explosives. Hundreds were killed and maimed.

If you think justice has been served by Holders guys getting their ass kicked on 200+ murder counts and only getting a cheesy vandalism charge to stick then we will just have to disagree on this one.Yes, I believe in the American system of justice and you do not.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes, I believe in the American system of justice and you do not.

Obnoxiously sanctimonious and overly simplified. Another Chump special.

[ChumpDumper]

This is what you said you believe.
Yeah, a bullet in the back of the head and SSS would have been more appropriate.Or was that "just jokes"?

[LnGrrrR]

he sounds like a great example. Has due process been applied? yes or no.

Answer: sounds like a combatant to me.

Define what a combatant is, then. Your original criteria doesn't seem to fit his case.

[Winehole23]

Obnoxiously sanctimonious and overly simplified. Another Chump special.Actually it's not too uncommon.

Think of where you're posting, CC, and then of who you are. You resemble this remark.

[LnGrrrR]

It helped that you guys didnt know how to delineate criminal law from the acts of an enemy combatant.


You didn't prove that you knew anything about it; you merely asserted you did. Feel free to point out the relevant clauses of the Geneva Conventions and/or US common law to make your point though.

[jack sommerset]

A bullet to the head would have been better than this bullshit.

[LnGrrrR]

You two jerk each other off some more. He is a terrorist that helped attacked a US embassy and killed hundreds of innocent people. Barry and Holder pulled him out of his military jail to show how great our US court system is and fully expected this man to be convicted on all the charges brought before this murdering bastard. They failed. He was aquitted on all charges except conspiracy to destroy some US property. Give it a rest.

If all of this information is well-known, how come we weren't able to produce the required evidence?

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, a bullet in the back of the head and SSS would have been more appropriate.

Conservatives! Always fighting back against Big Government for the little guy! Always mindful of excessive executive power! Protector of the Rule of Law!

[jack sommerset]

Why do you think about it so much? I mean you think about men having sex with each other all the time and describe it in graphic detail. Why?


Your gayness is all over this forum.



Actually it's telling the rest of the world we didn't have to make a kangaroo court to convict this terrorist. It's not like we were going to let him go scott free like those cleared in military trials have been. If anything, this conviction at least gives a veneer of legitimacy to his continued imprisonment, which was a fait accompli.

Actually it's not. It does continue to shows we have weak and stupid leadership. Barry and Holder failed. You know this. They got the guy on one of the charges they brought against him and failed on the hundreds of others. You keep thinking they did a great job and the world is a better place to live in because of their decision. I'm sure you cheered when the verdicts came down you sick fucker.

America failed all those victims and their families from all over the world. This guy is not going down for the murder of all those innocent people but for destroying some property.

[jack sommerset]

If all of this information is well-known, how come we weren't able to produce the required evidence?

Why don't you quit playing politics for moment. The guy is guilty of a hell of alot more than destroying some property. He helped killed hundreds of innocent people.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually it's not. It does continue to shows we have weak and stupid leadership. Barry and Holder failed. You know this. They got the guy on one of the charges they brought against him and failed on the hundreds of others. You keep thinking they did a great job and the world is a better place to live in because of their decision. I'm sure you cheered when the verdicts came down you sick fucker.


Being stupid and weak is getting rid of our strongest asset, our American ideals. Any shitty-ass dictator-led country can produce convictions with torture.

If he did all this stuff, where's the proof? If it's marred by advanced interrogation... well, there's a reason why we don't allow that kind of stuff in courts, because it produces bogus results.

[LnGrrrR]

Why don't you quit playing politics for moment. The guy is guilty of a hell of alot more than destroying some property. He helped killed hundreds of innocent people.

He probably is. He's probably a despicable scumbag, who (if I believed in it) would rot in Hell.

But I don't know that for sure. I haven't reviewed the evidence. And for the jury that DID review the evidence, they apparently didn't have enough proof either.

[ChumpDumper]

Your gayness is all over this forum.Actually, your thoughts of and graphic descriptions of gay sex are all over this forum.

Why?



Actually it's not. It does continue to shows we have weak and stupid leadership. Barry and Holder failed. You know this. They got the guy on one of the charges they brought against him and failed on the hundreds of others. You keep thinking they did a great job and the world is a better place to live in because of their decision. I'm sure you cheered when the verdicts came down you sick fucker.I don't know what kind of job they did. I did not watch the trial as it took place. Did you? Tell us all what it was like.


America failed all those victims and their families from all over the world. This guy is not going down for the murder of all those innocent people but for destroying some property.You didn't tell us all how a life sentence for this charge would be such a different result from a life sentence from a different charge.

You must be too busy thinking about men having sex.

[ChumpDumper]

He probably is. He's probably a despicable, who (if I believed in it) would rot in Hell.

But I don't know that for sure. I haven't reviewed the evidence. And for the jury that DID review the evidence, they apparently didn't have enough proof either.That's how courts work.

Even military tribunals.

[LnGrrrR]

That's how courts work.

Even military tribunals.

Per most conservatives, there seems to be no need for courts. They are always assured of all GTMO detainees' guilt; having a trial just wastes unnecessary time and money. (And God forbid, may even find them not guilty! Can't have that happening!)

[ChumpDumper]

Per most conservatives, there seems to be no need for courts. They are always assured of all GTMO detainees' guilt; having a trial just wastes unnecessary time and money. (And God forbid, may even find them not guilty! Can't have that happening!)Hey, they got 4000 US servicemen and women killed on a hunch. It's obvious they just want to feel tough by proxy.

[ElNono]

BTW, what fucked up the case for the prosecutor was that they couldn't use a key witness testimony since that person was shipped to couple of secret prisons and his testimony was presumed to have been obtained through torture, which obviously makes it unusable in a court of law.

You can thank the Bushies for that one.

[jack sommerset]

What a bunch of fuck ups we have in here. This is not tv's Perry Mason, Mattlock or whatever delusional world some of you guys live in. This is not a game nor should be some political game you chose sides to be on. This guy helped kill over 200 people. Some seem to miss that entire point .

Some of you creeps are worried about some massive killer rights just makes me sick. He gave them up. This is the dude who blew people up. He gets nothing. Most people and I mean like 95% of the world would fucking destroy this guy right there on the spot. Barry is a fucking prick and decided to waste a bunch more money and show the world just how fucking dumb he really is.

Barry puts him on a civilian trial where the laws are bit different. Civilians deciding what obvious is a military matter. Fucking crazy ass mother fucking civilians. The guy blew up a freaken US embassy in Africa killing hundreds of people from all around the world and one dude on the jury decides this guys fate and says he is innocent. That's it. I would say I was shocked but this what we said would happen if you put some freaks fate in the hands of 10-12 random people plucked from thin air.

One freaken guy and some of you are cool with this. In fact some of you freaken love it.The terrorist is found guilty on 1 freaken charge out of hundreds and some of you jump up and down as if justice was served. Some of you want to blast Bush, our military, our laws, our politics but defend a murderer. Fucking sad.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your gayness is all over this forum.




Actually it's not. It does continue to shows we have weak and stupid leadership. Barry and Holder failed. You know this. They got the guy on one of the charges they brought against him and failed on the hundreds of others. You keep thinking they did a great job and the world is a better place to live in because of their decision. I'm sure you cheered when the verdicts came down you sick fucker.

America failed all those victims and their families from all over the world. This guy is not going down for the murder of all those innocent people but for destroying some property.

so tell us how many more years he could serve if tried in a military tribunal? What is it going to be? 248 life sentences as opposed to one? 800 yrs vs 80?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey, they got 4000 US servicemen and women killed on a hunch. It's obvious they just want to feel tough by proxy.

I heard they were still translating the documents?

[ChumpDumper]

What a bunch of fuck ups we have in here. This is not tv's Perry Mason, Mattlock or whatever delusional world some of you guys live in. This is not a game nor should be some political game you chose sides to be on. This guy helped kill over 200 people. Some seem to miss that entire point .

Some of you creeps are worried about some massive killer rights just makes me sick. He gave them up. This is the dude who blew people up. He gets nothing. Most people and I mean like 95% of the world would fucking destroy this guy right there on the spot. Barry is a fucking prick and decided to waste a bunch more money and show the world just how fucking dumb he really is.

Barry puts him on a civilian trial where the laws are bit different. Civilians deciding what obvious is a military matter. Fucking crazy ass mother fucking civilians. The guy blew up a freaken US embassy in Africa killing hundreds of people from all around the world and one dude on the jury decides this guys fate and says he is innocent. That's it. I would say I was shocked but this what we said would happen if you put some freaks fate in the hands of 10-12 random people plucked from thin air.

One freaken guy and some of you are cool with this. In fact some of you freaken love it.The terrorist is found guilty on 1 freaken charge out of hundreds and some of you jump up and down as if justice was served. Some of you want to blast Bush, our military, our laws, our politics but defend a murderer. Fucking sad.Nice meltdown, jack.

Too bad trying such cases in federal courts has been normal practice, with a very high success rate. The only thing you are actually angry about is the inadmissibility of evidence gained through torture.

Your legal argument is less than compelling, counselor.

[ElNono]

That's how the criminal system of justice works jack. You need to prove what you allege. And you need to do it without coercing people to say what you want them to say, instead of saying what they really know. If you rather live in an authoritarian country with kangaroo courts, China will always have room for the likes of you.

The kind of judicial transparency displayed in this case is what gives this country the moral high ground to claim to be the good guys. Because you might want to call it collateral or whatever else, but the life of thousands of innocent people were ended in the name of being the good guys getting rid of the bad guys.

But that you don't think about. You spend your time thinking about those sleazy moslems daring to threaten your couch, beer and big screen TV lifestyle. There's nothing to prove, they're the bad guys because the government says so.

Which is actually ironic, if not flat out hilarious.

The same government you rail against that's incapable of doing anything right is the same government you're advocating to trust when it comes to identifying who the bad guys are. That's just goes to show the depth of your analysis of this situation.

[jack sommerset]

You guys are a riot. You care more about how a terrorist is treated than the people they kill. In this case, the hundreds of people he murdered in cold blood. Innocent people from all over the world. You fools want to make the arguement that this guy was tortured, that the USA is bad. I could careless if he was but in this case, this terrorist, they didn't do shit to him. All the evidence points to him killing all those people. He was found guilty for blowing up the building but who gives a fuck about the people in the there he killed. Lets pretend blowing up a building has nothing to do with killing hundreds of folks inside.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of you guys want the guy set free. It does sound like you want the USA punished for having kept this terrorist in Gitmo forgetting he is a mass murderer. 3 people were so called tortured at Gitmo. He wasn't one of them.

They got the right guy. You do know that. 20 years is nothing for what he did. Thats 30 days a life he helped kill. I hope we are all together in 10-15 years when he walks out on more trumped up bullshit then and only then some of you will admit this was a bad idea. Lets hope when he does get out, he doesn't do this again.

[ElNono]

All the evidence points to him killing all those people.

What evidence is that, jack?

[ElNono]

And BTW, the go free or not free matters, but the means in which you get there also matters.
It's not just the end that's important, but also the means.

All I wish is that he got a fair trial and that he's being convicted based on solid, factual evidence. In other words, that justice has been served.

[ChumpDumper]

You guys are a riot. You care more about how a terrorist is treated than the people they kill. In this case, the hundreds of people he murdered in cold blood. Innocent people from all over the world. You fools want to make the arguement that this guy was tortured, that the USA is bad. I could careless if he was but in this case, this terrorist, they didn't do shit to him. All the evidence points to him killing all those people.Thanks for showing you have no understanding of the case or any reading comprehension skills. No one asserted the defendant himself was tortured.


He was found guilty for blowing up the building but who gives a fuck about the people in the there he killed. Lets pretend blowing up a building has nothing to do with killing hundreds of folks inside.Thanks for showing you don't know the burden of proof required in murder cases.


It wouldn't surprise me if some of you guys want the guy set free. It does sound like you want the USA punished for having kept this terrorist in Gitmo forgetting he is a mass murderer. 3 people were so called tortured at Gitmo. He wasn't one of them. Thanks again for proving you have absolutely no understanding of what is being discussed here and are only venting your female hysterics in between your gay male fantasies.


They got the right guy. You do know that. 20 years is nothing for what he did.Thanks for confirming your ignorance of the possible sentence.
I hope we are all together in 10-15 years when he walks out on more trumped up bullshit then and only then some of you will admit this was a bad idea. Lets hope when he does get out, he doesn't do this again.I hope you will have come out by then and have a nice man in your life.

[jack sommerset]

Thanks for being you.

[jack sommerset]

What evidence is that, jack?

That's rich. He was found guilty for blowing up the building. I guess you think they were all killed by natural causes. You guys should stop being so fucking stupid.

[ElNono]

That's rich. He was found guilty for blowing up the building. I guess you think they were all killed by natural causes. You guys should stop being so fucking stupid.

He was acquitted of the murder charges. Do you have evidence that they jury didn't?

[CosmicCowboy]

He was acquitted of the murder charges. Do you have evidence that they jury didn't?

Are you not familiar with the case as far as what was and was not technically allowed into evidence?

[LnGrrrR]

So, CC, do you think that courts should start allowing evidence obtained by torture? Witness testimony? Where should we draw the line?

Also, surprisingly no comment about the military attorneys that have quit due to the setup of the military tribunals.

[jack sommerset]

He was acquitted of the murder charges. Do you have evidence that they jury didn't?

No need for anymore evidence genius. He helped blow up a building, there are people in the building, they died. He is a murderer. You're insane to think any different.

You are happy he got a fair trial is disingenuous. I firmly believe you know this guy murdered those people. I also believe you are glad he is in jail. I also believe you are happy he got away with the verdict of murder because he was held in gitmo. I also believe this is politically driven or trolling on your part. I also believe you are being naive that he will never get out of jail because of that ridiculously insane verdict.

It's disturbing you want to argue that he did not murder those people. Those people were innocent and died for no reason but for your own political agenda or trolling you don't want to admit that America got the right guy. Your fair trial found the guy guilty of blowing up a building with hundreds of people dying because of it. But you don't want to connect this fact. You want to be a dildo and play stupid. Those poor people and their families and friends should have justice. That justice should have been a guilty verdict for the senseless killing of those people and not just blowing up the building that lead to thier violent deaths.

[CosmicCowboy]

So, CC, do you think that courts should start allowing evidence obtained by torture? Witness testimony? Where should we draw the line?

Also, surprisingly no comment about the military attorneys that have quit due to the setup of the military tribunals.

I think that that the pendulum has swung a little too far to the left as far as what is and is not admissible in civil trials.

As for the military attorneys I don't have enough facts to decide right/wrong. Just because they were "military" attorneys it doesn't mean they didn't have a political ax to grind.

[LnGrrrR]

No need for anymore evidence genius. He helped blow up a building, there are people in the building, they died. He is a murderer. You're insane to think any different.

Shouldn't you be complaining then about the juror who thought otherwise?


You are happy he got a fair trial is disingenuous. I firmly believe you know this guy murdered those people. I also believe you are glad he is in jail. I also believe you are happy he got away with the verdict of murder because he was held in gitmo. I also believe this is politically driven or trolling on your part. I also believe you are being naive that he will never get out of jail because of that ridiculously insane verdict.

Jack, has anyone here said that they're happy about that? What about people like child rapists that get off because the police screwed up?

No one likes that. However, we understand that we must abide by the rule of law... that's the only fair way to do it.

You want to change the law for this case, but you can't just do that. You can't pick and choose where to apply the rules. It has to be across the board.

Our court system is set up so that if you're accused of something like murder, then the evidence better be very solid.

As Benjamin Franklin said, it is better to let 5 guilty men go free, then imprison one innocent.

Does that mean that sometimes people that are guilty slip through the cracks? Sure does, and it sucks. But that's the best way to ensure that we prevent tyranny, by ensuring strict demands on the prosecutors in our legal system.

[jack sommerset]

Shouldn't you be complaining then about the juror who thought otherwise?


I have and much more concerning the civilian trial

Jack, has anyone here said that they're happy about that? What about people like child rapists that get off because the police screwed up?

No one likes that. However, we understand that we must abide by the rule of law... that's the only fair way to do it.

You want to change the law for this case, but you can't just do that. You can't pick and choose where to apply the rules. It has to be across the board.

Our court system is set up so that if you're accused of something like murder, then the evidence better be very solid.

As Benjamin Franklin said, it is better to let 5 guilty men go free, then imprison one innocent.

Does that mean that sometimes people that are guilty slip through the cracks? Sure does, and it sucks. But that's the best way to ensure that we prevent tyranny, by ensuring strict demands on the prosecutors in our legal system.

Sorry buddy, they got the right guy. I'll just repeat myself if I continue.

[LnGrrrR]

Sorry buddy, they got the right guy. I'll just repeat myself if I continue.

They probably did. And it sucks that they couldn't prove it enough for all the jury to find him guilty.

But that's the way the world works. Innocent people sometimes get jailed, and lots of guilty people go free. It sucks, but you can't change the system without screwing up a helluva lot more.

[ElNono]

Are you not familiar with the case as far as what was and was not technically allowed into evidence?

Yes, and pointed it out earlier.

[z0sa]

What a joke.

[Winehole23]

What joke?

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry buddy, they got the right guy. I'll just repeat myself if I continue.

Reaffirming your idiocy was never a roadblock for you before.

[ChumpDumper]

So, CC, do you think that courts should start allowing evidence obtained by torture?
I think that that the pendulum has swung a little too far to the left as far as what is and is not admissible in civil trials.So you long for the days when evidence obtained by torture was admitted into civil trials?

When was that?

[ChumpDumper]

You are happy he got a fair trial is disingenuous. I firmly believe you know this guy murdered those people. I also believe you are glad he is in jail. I also believe you are happy he got away with the verdict of murder because he was held in gitmo. I also believe this is politically driven or trolling on your part. I also believe you are being naive that he will never get out of jail because of that ridiculously insane verdict.You are aware that he could have been imprisoned indefinitely even if he had been acquitted of all charges, right?

No, you aren't.

Did you have a similar meltdown when detainees tried in military courts were acquitted and actually set free by the military?

No, you weren't. Your meltdowns are politically motivated.

[ElNono]

No need for anymore evidence genius. He helped blow up a building, there are people in the building, they died. He is a murderer. You're insane to think any different.

It's not me jack. It's the law. That's why there are a multitude of charges for cases like this one: first degree murder, second degree murder, accessory to murder, etc.

He was tried, evidence presented, he had a chance to defend himself, and finally a decision was made by an independent jury.

Again, it's the means that's just as important as the end result.

[ElNono]

And I didn't argue that he didn't murder those people. I argued that I did not see the evidence on murder charges and neither did you.

An independent jury did and they concluded whatever they concluded looking at it.

You're not the first person not to like a verdict. You probably won't be the last either.

[jack sommerset]

You are aware that he could have been imprisoned indefinitely even if he had been acquitted of all charges, right?

No, you aren't.

Did you have a similar meltdown when detainees tried in military courts were acquitted and actually set free by the military?

No, you weren't. Your meltdowns are politically motivated.

Your homosexuality is not. That's the good news.

You're a faggot and a butthurt one at that. ElNoNo is a big boy, perhaps thats why you run to his side. You like the chubbys.

[ElNono]

And last, what you 'firmly believe' is irrelevant. People are tried and convicted on factual evidence, not moral latitudes or hearsay.

[ChumpDumper]

You're a faggot and a butthurt one at that. ElNoNo is a big boy, perhaps thats why you run to his side. You like the chubbys.There you go with your fantasies again.

You like to think about men having sex and that's why you post about it all the time.

You also completely stop talking about the topic and just continue with your homosexual thoughts. You are clearly obsessed. If you would like to discuss the topic further like a man without a prissy little meltdown in every post, please do so.

The choice is yours, princess.

[jack sommerset]

And last, what you 'firmly believe' is irrelevant. People are tried and convicted on factual evidence, not moral latitudes or hearsay.

So not true, it's obviously very relevant to you.

Again


No need for anymore evidence genius. He helped blow up a building, there are people in the building, they died. He is a murderer. You're insane to think any different.

[jack sommerset]

There you go with your fantasies again.

You like to think about men having sex and that's why you post about it all the time.

You also completely stop talking about the topic and just continue with your homosexual thoughts. You are clearly obsessed. If you would like to discuss the topic further like a man without a prissy little meltdown in every post, please do so.

The choice is yours, princess.

Tss, tss, your man claws are drawn and ready to scratch out someones eyes. You go , tinkerbell!

[ChumpDumper]

It's obvious you don't know the burden of proof in murder trials. Here it was not met beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Winehole23]

People are tried and convicted on factual evidence, not moral latitudes or hearsay.In this forum they are tried and convicted on much flimsier evidence. Daily.

[ChumpDumper]

Tss, tss, your man claws are drawn and ready to scratch out someones eyes. You go , tinkerbell!I see you chose to continue the meltdown.

I'm not surprised.

[ElNono]

So not true, it's obviously very relevant to you.

I'm merely educating you on a centuries-old system of justice that's used in this country. A system that works, contrary to your claims. That's the relevancy.

You should be proud this guy received a just and fair trial. It's exactly what makes America great.


Again

Again, he was tried an acquitted of those charges by an independent jury.
Again, you're not the first person being butthurt over the outcome of a trial, you probably won't be the last.

[ElNono]

In this forum they are tried and convicted on much flimsier evidence. Daily.

Agreed. Then again, the consequences are not the same as in a court of law.

[Winehole23]

http://blogs.families.com/media/tinkerbell1.jpg


Go, Tinkerbell!

[jack sommerset]

It's obvious you don't know the burden of proof in murder trials. Here it was not met beyond a reasonable doubt.

A man convicted for blowing up a building that caused the deaths of hundreds of people is beyond reasonable doubt that he is a murdering/terrorist. That verdict was insane, to think any different makes you one fucking idiot.

[jack sommerset]

I'm merely educating you on a centuries-old system of justice that's used in this country. A system that works, contrary to your claims. That's the relevancy.

You should be proud this guy received a just and fair trial. It's exactly what makes America great.



Again, he was tried an acquitted of those charges by an independent jury.
Again, you're not the first person being butthurt over the outcome of a trial, you probably won't be the last.

LOL. I couldn't get past the merely educating me line. You girls have fun.

[ElNono]

That verdict was insane, to think any different makes you one fucking idiot.

Or clueless about how the justice system works.

[ChumpDumper]

A man convicted for blowing up a building that caused the deaths of hundreds of people is beyond reasonable doubt that he is a murdering/terrorist. That verdict was insane, to think any different makes you one fucking idiot.Nah, the burden of proof for murder is quite high. I'm sure all you know of this trial is what you read in this thread, the rest being your gut reaction. That's not how trials work, to think that is how trials work is insane and makes you one fucking idiot.

[ElNono]

LOL. I couldn't get past the merely educating me line. You girls have fun.

Bye jack. Come back when you want to resume your education.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL. I couldn't get past the merely educating me line.True, you cannot be educated. Ignorance is your armor. That and your latent homosexuality are really all you have in life.


You girls have fun.Go find a nice man to have sex with.

[z0sa]

What joke?

That's the problem. It isn't a joke. "It" being a more than one thing, actually. This piece of shit terrorist getting all the evidence thrown out. Our supposedly freedom, democracy loving defenders torturing, forcing confessions, and causing the evidence to both surface and get thrown out. The disgusting amount of politics transparent in our justice system.

Better to laugh than cry.

[Winehole23]

(Have you seen the NYT torture euphemism generator?)

[z0sa]

(Have you seen the NYT torture euphemism generator?)

"Heightened truthfinding assessments" is my favorite thus far.

[Yonivore]

I haven't followed this thread and have been away from the computer for a couple of days.

All I have to say is, so much for Obama's stupid experiment.

[LnGrrrR]

"Heightened truthfinding assessments" is my favorite thus far.

Ha! Nice one.

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't followed this threadNo shit.

Since when is putting criminals on trial an experiment?

[Winehole23]

9/11 changed everything. Due process is considered quaint.

[LnGrrrR]

If it was important, Yoni would have linked to it without reading it.

[Yonivore]

9/11 changed everything. Due process is considered quaint.
The guy was from another country, captured during a firefight in Pakistan for bombing buildings in Kenya and Tanzania. Bringing him to the United States to stand trial was stupid.

He's not due any process.

[ChumpDumper]

The guy was from another country, captured during a firefight in Pakistan for bombing buildings in Kenya and Tanzania. Bringing him to the United States to stand trial was stupid.

He's not due any process.Sorry, precedent completely destroys your hysterics.

[Winehole23]

He's not due any process.That's your opinion. The SC has ruled otherwise.

[Yonivore]

That's your opinion. The SC has ruled otherwise.
Yep. And, I bet the Supreme Court eventually gets fed up with this nonsense, too.

[ChumpDumper]

Yep. And, I bet the Supreme Court eventually gets fed up with this nonsense, too.Please explain how they would find trying terror suspects for black letter federal offenses "nonsense."

Be specific.

[Winehole23]

Possible. How much would you bet?

[LnGrrrR]

The guy was from another country, captured during a firefight in Pakistan for bombing buildings in Kenya and Tanzania. Bringing him to the United States to stand trial was stupid.

He's not due any process.

You might care to read up on Geneva Conventions.

[Yonivore]

You might care to read up on Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions don't grant him a trial in an American Courtroom.

[ChumpDumper]

The Geneva Conventions don't grant him a trial in an American Courtroom.How is this any different from the Ramzi Yousef trial for the Bojinka plot?

Did you complain about that 14 years ago?

[CosmicCowboy]

You might care to read up on Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions apply to stateless, non-uniformed terrorists? Link?

[Winehole23]

Hamdan.

[LnGrrrR]

The Geneva Conventions apply to stateless, non-uniformed terrorists? Link?

Well, is he a combatant or a criminal? I thought you were arguing that he was a combatant.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, is he a combatant or a criminal? I thought you were arguing that he was a combatant.

I thought you were arguing that stateless terrorists were covered under the Geneva Convention.

[jack sommerset]

You girls have fun.


Boy, did I ever. I sucked a black guys cock out by the road stop near my place. He squirted his white creamy man juice all over my face and I scooped up what I could with my tongue. Yummmmmmmmy :) I loves me a glory-hole. I'm in such a delicious mood!!

[LnGrrrR]

I thought you were arguing that stateless terrorists were covered under the Geneva Convention.

Well if you count them as criminals, you know, people who should be tried under federal courts, then Geneva wouldn't apply. Some people seem to want to treat them under a different status though.

[ChumpDumper]

I just posted yet another gay fantasy I had about a male poster here. It had nothing to do with the topic. I can't think about the topic with all the gay fantasies running around in my head.

[ElNono]

:dramaquee

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/28/129011982482247254.jpg

[Winehole23]

The Geneva Conventions don't grant him a trial in an American Courtroom.No, but the discretion of the criminal system is good enough for me, and for the time being, habeas review is still in effect.

If at all possible, prosecute em all in the manner of common criminals.




(Exceptional penalties breed exceptional martyrs.)

[Winehole23]

At this point the oranges are stale. We already squeezed em. Fuckin indict them for crimes or let them go.

[jack sommerset]

I hate america, lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!!!

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/pakistan.us.drones/story.quetta.afp.gi.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I hate america, lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!!!

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/22/pakistan.us.drones/story.quetta.afp.gi.jpg

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/attachments/just-fun/30719d1264362731-priceless-priceless.jpg

[LnGrrrR]

So we agree that we should try terrorist suspects in court, right? Good. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

So we agree that we should try terrorist suspects in court, right? Good. :lolAre you talking to yourself?

[LnGrrrR]

Are you talking to yourself?

Well, you ran away from the question, so I guess so.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

For a conservative, CC sure does trust the government alot when it comes to suspected terrorists.

He is not a conservative. He is a republican. Just like bd is a democrat and not a liberal.

[ElNono]

I hate america, lalalalalalalalalalala!!!!!!!

We know jack.

[ElNono]

Do you keep around pictures of people burning the flag jack?

[ElNono]

BTW, you ran away before answering the question, jack... are you proud that this guy had a fair trial?