Gen. Patraues Endorses Obama's Plan to close GITMO, end torture.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_207513.html

General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."


Will Cheney go on the attack against Gen. Patraeus? I doubt it.

WHAT? Who is this traitor? Does he not love our troops? Why is he sympathizing with the terrorists!?!

Oh wait. That's what board Repubs would be saying if a Dem said this. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_207513.html

General David Petraeus said this past weekend that President Obama's decision to close down Gitmo and end harsh interrogation techniques would benefit the United States in the broader war on terror.

In an appearance on Radio Free Europe on Sunday, the man hailed by conservatives as the preeminent military figure of his generation left little room for doubt about where he stands on some of Obama's most contentious policies.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."


Will Cheney go on the attack against Gen. Patraeus? I doubt it.

---

Petraeus was a pretty strong defender of the previous commander in chief's policies, and now, it seems, this one. Pretty sure he's not allowed to publicly refute the President's policies - and, obviously, it MUST be that way.

Also, in his statement, it sounds like he made sure, from the beginning, no one was tortured in Iraq, at least (maybe only in his area).

so the the chairman JCS. just being good soldiers,obeying the lead of the CiC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

WHAT? Who is this traitor? Does he not love our troops? Why is he sympathizing with the terrorists!?!

Oh wait. That's what board Repubs would be saying if a Dem said this. :)

---

No No No NO sir! Ya'll cannot throw this at the right after you guys tried to decimate Gen. Betrayus.

Quote:

---

.... And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

---

I want to know if Gen Patraeus ordered the Code Red.

It's a prison not a torture chamber but the dumbass radicals made this into a political issue so it's pretty easy for the general to say "close it" He does not want to put his troops in anymore danger than they already are.

Where does he want to put them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Where does he want to put them?

---

how about in a prison.

Joe, don't you know better than quoting the Huffington Post?

They are almost as bad as Common Dreams! They change the quote from the start:

Interview:

Quote:

---

RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention.

---

Huffington Post:

Quote:

---

I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention.

---

Although changing "it" to "us" is a small change, it is a change, and misrepresentation of the truth. They also leave out the question. Now they do put brackets around it, but still... doesn't that bother anyone else?

Transcript:

Transcript: RFE/RL Interviews U.S. Central Command Chief, General David Petraeus

Video:

RFE/RL Talks With U.S. General David Petraeus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

how about in a prison.

---

They're already in one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

how about in a prison.

---

They're already in one.

---

No shit.

What do the libtards think Gitmo is? If they want to remove them from a prison, what do they want to do with them? It was the liberal press that made GITMO a bad name. Maybe they did some 'harsh interrogation techniques" in the past, but now, it's nothing more than a tropical paradise prison.

How does it misrepresent the truth?

He says it helps the US mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and the overall struggle against violent extremists.

Somehow, you think that doesn't help "us" -- meaning the people involved in that struggle like Petraeus.

Explain how it is a misrepresentation to say that Petraeus thinks that people like Petraeus are helped by these actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No shit.

What do the libtards think Gitmo is? If they want to remove them from a prison, what do they want to do with them? It was the liberal press that made GITMO a bad name. Maybe they did some 'harsh interrogation techniques" in the past, but now, it's nothing more than a tropical paradise prison.

---

So why are you so determined to keep it open?

If it's just a prison -- prisons close and prisoners are transferred all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So why are you so determined to keep it open?

If it's just a prison -- prisons close and prisoners are transferred all the time.

---

Has an acceptable place yet been found? Please, where? Should we build a new one when where the are is just fine?

How about one that doesn't give then the extra rights granted to citizens in federal and state law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Has an acceptable place yet been found? Please, where? Should we build a new one when where the are is just fine?

---

There's a town in Montana that has an two year old, empty 400-bed prison. The city council already approved their being housed there.

Quote:

---

How about one that doesn't give then the extra rights granted to citizens in federal and state law?

---

Which extra rights? Be specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

There's a town in Montana that has an two year old, empty 400-bed prison. The city council already approved their being housed there.

---

That place does not meet the security requirements. May as well rebuild it from scratch.

Besides, the reason they want to use it is because they made a bad choice in building the Harding Detention Center.

It's a detention facility, not a high level prison! You should really check your pitiful sources.

From Hard-luck Montana town pushes to house Gitmo detainees:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US...owest1.cnn.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Which extra rights? Be specific.

---

You don't know? I'm not going to take the time. It's simple. At GITMO, they are shielded from some many laws that follow the constitution. In CONUS, they wouldn't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FaithInOne

No No No NO sir! Ya'll cannot throw this at the right after you guys tried to decimate Gen. Betrayus.

---

I didn't... don't look at me. Heck, I even worked for him... technically. Way way WAYYYYY down the chain. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That place does not meet the security requirements. May as well rebuild it from scratch.

You should really check your pitiful sources.

---

From your own linked article:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WC's pitiful source

Although the facility was intended to be used as a medium-security prison, Smith says it meets maximum-security criteria.

---

Quote:

---

You don't know? I'm not going to take the time. It's simple. At GITMO, they are shielded from some many laws that follow the constitution. In CONUS, they wouldn't be.

---

:lol

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Joe, don't you know better than quoting the Huffington Post?

They are almost as bad as Common Dreams! They change the quote from the start:

Interview:


Huffington Post:


Although changing "it" to "us" is a small change, it is a change, and misrepresentation of the truth. They also leave out the question. Now they do put brackets around it, but still... doesn't that bother anyone else?

Transcript:

Transcript: RFE/RL Interviews U.S. Central Command Chief, General David Petraeus

Video:

RFE/RL Talks With U.S. General David Petraeus

---

Honestly, WC, give me a break. They changed "it" to "us" and it's a misrepresentation?

Tell me how Petraeus saying that closing GTMO would have a positive affect on the war (it) is significantly different from saying it would have a positive affect on the United States (us).

Do you think that Petraeus meant that it would be beneficial to the war on terror, but it ULTIMATELY would end up harming the United States even moreso than its minimal benefits?

If so, he surely is a master at subliminal messaging.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Has an acceptable place yet been found? Please, where? Should we build a new one when where the are is just fine?

How about one that doesn't give then the extra rights granted to citizens in federal and state law?

---

That's the worst part about this. It is a US owned and operated facility, yet because it's not on US soil, people that we arrest are not granted any sort of rights.

Does that mean that we could just do whatever we wanted with the prisoners? Line them up, shoot them in the head? How about making them all put on a gay porno? :lol I mean, after all, what rights do they have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I didn't... don't look at me. Heck, I even worked for him... technically. Way way WAYYYYY down the chain. :)

---

I'm just kidding man :toast

I don't really have a problem with the closing and the prisoners being moved to U.S. jails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That's the worst part about this. It is a US owned and operated facility, yet because it's not on US soil, people that we arrest are not granted any sort of rights.

Does that mean that we could just do whatever we wanted with the prisoners? Line them up, shoot them in the head? How about making them all put on a gay porno? :lol I mean, after all, what rights do they have?

---

They aren't American citizens and they weren't arrested. What rights do you want to give them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

From your own linked article:

Quote:

---

Smith says

---

---

LOL...

LOL...

OK, someone said that.. Mighty fine fence they have there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Do you think that Petraeus meant that it would be beneficial to the war on terror,

---

No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.

---

There wouldn't be a controversy if Cheney hadn't gone down the wrong path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That's the worst part about this. It is a US owned and operated facility, yet because it's not on US soil, people that we arrest are not granted any sort of rights.

Does that mean that we could just do whatever we wanted with the prisoners? Line them up, shoot them in the head? How about making them all put on a gay porno? :lol I mean, after all, what rights do they have?

---

That is another large subject in itself. I'll leave it upon technicalities. Look at all the people set free who are obviously guilty of the crime, but released because of a technicality. How many of these terrorists do you want set free because of a technicality? One of which could be the eye witness was killed in action.

Does Miranda Rights apply? How many on the battlefield were given their Miranda Rights?

You really want all these people released on USA soil because of technicalities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.

---

You are misrepresenting the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Quote:

---

Although the facility was intended to be used as a medium-security prison, Smith says it meets maximum-security criteria.

---

---

So what, if so, maybe 12 prisoners can be accommodated with that criteria?

To qualify, it doesn't mean the 464 prisoner capacity can be all maximum security. It only means that part of the detention center has that criteria.

I can find so little on the place, but this is important, from the PDF I linked:

Quote:

---

Not being a correctional facility, the detention center is subject to the statutes governing detention centers. The Attorney General ruled in a December 2007 opinion that under the laws governing detention centers, the Two Rivers Detention Center cannot house out-of-state or federal felony offenders. The facility is unable to open because it has no contracts for the housing of inmates.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

So what, if so, maybe 12 prisoners can be accommodated with that criteria?

To qualify, it doesn't mean the 464 prisoner capacity can be all maximum security. It only means that part of the detention center has that criteria.

I can find so little on the place, but this is important, from the PDF I linked:

---

The town council was talking about modifying the prison, so it would probably house fewer -- but I believe they were talking of taking in 100 or so.

No reason to keep them all in one place.

And the PDF quote only applies to it's use as a state detention facility. If it becomes federalized, none of that would matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

No, I think he meant it would be beneficial in removing an item the liberals turned into a controversy.

---

You are misrepresenting the truth.

---

You have gone into typical loser mode, you chump.

When I said "I Think," that is CLEARLY MY OPINION!

Are you saying I am lying about my opinion?

LOL... You're such a loser...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You have gone into typical loser mode, you chump.

When I said "I Think," that is CLEARLY MY OPINION!

Are you saying I am lying about my opinion?

LOL... You're such a loser...

---

You are free to misrepresent any truth you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You are free to misrepresent any truth you like.

---

God, you are so stupid. How is my opinion a misrepresentation of the truth?

It is true I stated it as my opinion, or not?

OBL has turned the USA into nation of balless, paranoid scaredy-cats, aided and abetted by all-fear-all-the-time scare-mongering by the wrongies, epitomized by dickhead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So why are you so determined to keep it open?

If it's just a prison -- prisons close and prisoners are transferred all the time.

---

I know you didn't ask me this question but my 2 cents is it cost 200 million dollars is why I would keep it open. From all accounts these guys are not going anywhere there. No escapes so far. It's time we quit wasting money. There is a magnifying glass on this place. What ever differences people have on the treatment of these terrorist can be thrown out the window now. Use the facility for these types of prisoners. If you think there are some innocents in Gitmo write ur congressmen.

If Petraeus thinks it's a good idea, I think it's worth the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

They aren't American citizens and they weren't arrested. What rights do you want to give them?

---

I think they should have basic Constitutional rights if they are being held on a US facility, no matter where that soil is.

If the government feels otherwise, then they should specifically write up what rights are allowed to those detained off US soil, but under US jurisdiction. Not just make it up as they go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That is another large subject in itself. I'll leave it upon technicalities. Look at all the people set free who are obviously guilty of the crime, but released because of a technicality. How many of these terrorists do you want set free because of a technicality? One of which could be the eye witness was killed in action.

Does Miranda Rights apply? How many on the battlefield were given their Miranda Rights?

You really want all these people released on USA soil because of technicalities?

---

Yes. I'm also willing to release pedophiles who weren't read their Miranda rights, or killers whose investigation was handled improperly, or other cases in which the defendant is not given due justice.

I think America has the best justice system in the world, because we approach it as fairly as possible, by assuming innocence.

I do not think the founders meant that Americans should only assume innocence for fellow Americans, but for EVERY PERSON. It is the only way to fairly judge someone.

As such, I am willing to risk the security of lesser conviction standards in order to make sure that we tried, to the best of our ability, to prove that these people jailed deserve it.

I have that much faith in our criminal justice system.

Once a prisoner is transitioned from a wartime/battlefield setting to a controlled setting of detention, I feel that certain rights kick in. Those rights kick in because the person is no longer able to harm his handlers, as opposed to a battleground where you don't know what could happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

If Petraeus thinks it's a good idea, I think it's worth the cost.

---

:lol right!

Why the laughter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Yes. I'm also willing to release pedophiles who weren't read their Miranda rights, or killers whose investigation was handled improperly, or other cases in which the defendant is not given due justice.

---

WTF? You know they are guilty but you would release a child molestor and/or killer walk because of a legal technicality? That my friend is fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

WTF? You know they are guilty but you would release a child molestor and/or killer walk because of a legal technicality? That my friend is fucked up.

---

That's the rule of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Why the laughter?

---

Have you always agreed with the General?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That's the rule of law.

---

You would do the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Have you always agreed with the General?

---

Petraeus? Pretty much. You can run a search if you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

You would do the same?

---

Were I a sworn officer of the law or court?

Yeah -- that's what law is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Petraeus? Pretty much. You can run a search if you like.

---

I'll take ur word on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Were I a sworn officer of the law or court?

Yeah -- that's what law is about.

---

Not me. If everyone knows the guy/gal is guilty of murder, I would not give them a chance to kill again because they were not given their miranda rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Not me. If everyone knows the guy/gal is guilty of murder, I would not give them a chance to kill again because they were not given their miranda rights.

---

So what would you do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So what would you do?

---

What would I do to a killer? I would have the person killed right then and there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

What would I do to a killer? I would have the person killed right then and there.

---

Then you would go to prison as a killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Then you would go to prison as a killer.

---

Not in my scenerio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

WTF? You know they are guilty but you would release a child molestor and/or killer walk because of a legal technicality? That my friend is fucked up.

---

Obviously, you do not understand how the American justice system works.

People are ASSUMED innocent until guilty.

Do you think that we've managed to correctly put in jail EVERY pedophile? No. Some of them go free. Such is the price of justice.

OJ got off free due to a technicality. Don't like it? Bitch at the policemen who fucked up their work.

The reason the standards are so high is because you're determining the lives of people. We OUGHT to hold ourselves to the highest standards of justice, in order that we may be as assured as possible that we are fair and only put in jail the people who have committed the crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Not in my scenerio.

---

Right. Someone else would immediately kill you because you'd be a known killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

What would I do to a killer? I would have the person killed right then and there.

---

Ah, what a wonderful world it would be Jack. Where you would be free to kill whoever you were sure was guilty. And if you make a mistake... whoops! My bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Right. Someone else would immediately kill you because you were a known killer.

---

:lmao

You asked me what I would do. This is my story now. I would be ridding the world of murderers,child molestors, rapist and thieves. I would be the peoples Vigilante. I would be depicted as being a hero and retaliatory against wrongdoers.

What is stopping you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Ah, what a wonderful world it would be Jack. Where you would be free to kill whoever you were sure was guilty. And if you make a mistake... whoops! My bad.

---

no,no,no........ You said even if you knew the perosn was guilty of Child Molesting you would let them go. No if's or opinions, you said knew. That is fucked up.

"Yup the guy killed 20 people because the devil told him to do it, but we got to let him go, officer didnot read him his rights, oh well!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What is stopping you?

---

I would go to jail!!!

So in the real world, you would indeed let killers and child molesters off on legal technicalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

no,no,no........ You said even if you knew the perosn was guilty of Child Molesting you would let them go. No if's or opinions, you said knew. That is fucked up.

"Yup the guy killed 20 people because the devil told him to do it, but we got to let him go, officer didnot read him his rights, oh well!"

---

Reread it, putz. I said I'm willing to let pedophiles go. We all do, given the system of law we have.

We're all willing to accept certain things. Children will die in wars, yet we still have them. Innocent people will go to jail. Guilty people will be acquitted.

My point is that there's no way to KNOW someone was guilty unless you were physically involved with the situation. The only way to DETERMINE guilt is by giving them a trial.

If the evidence of that trial is insufficient due to a procedural miscue (for instance, let's say that he admits something to the cops, but it isn't allowed in court due to the cops forgetting to read him his rights), and he goes free, well, he goes free.

That's the price we pay to secure our liberty. Some killers and pedophiles will go free, because we assume innocence before guilt. EVERYONE that believes in the American system of government does so, knowingly or unknowingly.

Additionally; your hypothetical case makes no sense. If a person was not read his Miranda rights, the only thing inadmissible in court would be a self-confession. The prosecution could still use the evidence at the crime scene, eyewitness testimony, etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Reread it, putz. I said I'm willing to let pedophiles go. We all do, given the system of law we have.

We're all willing to accept certain things. Children will die in wars, yet we still have them. Innocent people will go to jail. Guilty people will be acquitted.

My point is that there's no way to KNOW someone was guilty unless you were physically involved with the situation. The only way to DETERMINE guilt is by giving them a trial.

If the evidence of that trial is insufficient due to a procedural miscue (for instance, let's say that he admits something to the cops, but it isn't allowed in court due to the cops forgetting to read him his rights), and he goes free, well, he goes free.

That's the price we pay to secure our liberty. Some killers and pedophiles will go free, because we assume innocence before guilt. EVERYONE that believes in the American system of government does so, knowingly or unknowingly.

---

I read what you wrote. No need for name calling. You said what you said and I disagree with you. Because a officer did not read the guilty pedophile his rights I would not let him go. I wouldn't let him rape another kid on a legal technicality. That's fucked up. Good news for you....Our country laws agree with you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Additionally; your hypothetical case makes no sense. If a person was not read his Miranda rights, the only thing inadmissible in court would be a self-confession. The prosecution could still use the evidence at the crime scene, eyewitness testimony, etc etc.

---

:lol My made up story does not make sense!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Obviously, you do not understand how the American justice system works.

---

Do u?

Quote:

---

OJ got off free due to a technicality. Don't like it? Bitch at the policemen who fucked up their work.

---

OJ didn't get let off on a legal technicality. A jury found him innocent. If you are going to make such bold statements get ur facts straight.

Not following the rule of law? That's some sweet sweet judicial activism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

I read what you wrote. No need for name calling. You said what you said and I disagree with you. Because a officer did not read the guilty pedophile his rights I would not let him go. I wouldn't let him rape another kid on a legal technicality. That's fucked up. Good news for you....Our country laws agree with you!

---

He's not GUILTY until he's found guilty by a court of law. Him not being read his rights would not preclude the court from using OTHER EVIDENCE.

However, it would prevent them from using a sworn admission.

Do you understand why it's important that EVERY person be treated equally, or as equally as possible under the law?

It's not the POLICE'S job to determine who's guilty or not. I'm not sure if you're aware of history, but there is a REASON for separation of the three branches. If you don't like it, then you don't like American government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Do u?

OJ didn't get let off on a legal technicality. A jury found him innocent. If you are going to make such bold statements get ur facts straight.

---

Yes, the jury found him innocent. However, it was mostly due to the screwup of the LAPD and how they handled the evidence. Do you not consider that a 'technicality'? I mean, so what if they mishandled some evidence, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

:lol My made up story does not make sense!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too funny.

---

Usually hypothetical cases are supposed to be taken somewhat seriously, or it defeats the purpose of stating said hypothetical case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

WTF? You know they are guilty but you would release a child molestor and/or killer walk because of a legal technicality? That my friend is fucked up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Not me. If everyone knows the guy/gal is guilty of murder, I would not give them a chance to kill again because they were not given their miranda rights.

---

I would like to kill them myself. However, we are a nation of laws. We have to let them go. That doesn't mean they wont be closely watched...

The differences with those at GITMO is they don't fall under federal or state jurisdiction, unless we bring them to the states. The rules will shift to their favor, because of laws like Miranda and the technicalities. they deserve a Military tribunal, as outlined in the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

they deserve a Military tribunal, as outlined in the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Where please, counselor?

Even Bush wanted to close GITMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Where please, counselor?

---

It doesn't specify "military tribunal" but it does make way for "tribunals."

In Article 1, section 8, under Congressional Powers:

Quote:

---

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

---

Then there are also the courts that can be established by the president. In Wiki under Article I and Article III tribunals

Quote:

---

Article II tribunals

The least common, and most controversial category are Article II tribunals, so called as they emanate from either the powers granted to the President of the United States in Article II of the Constitution or from the inherent authority of the President as head of state and commander in chief. Article II tribunals lack direct appeal channels to Article III courts, unless specifically granted by Executive Order, but their decisions may be attacked collaterally by habeas corpus actions. Article II tribunals have often been established under the President's authority (which may or may not be delegated), and pursuant to his responsibility, as Commander in Chief to maintain order and justice in military occupied territories and insular possessions. The High Court of American Samoa, whose judges and justices are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, is an example of an Article II tribunal, as were military tribunals prior to 2006, and was the United States Court for Berlin.

---

Now technically, a tribunal can be any type of a court. Maybe even a Star Chamber.

You see, as long as civil protections are not granted to those picked up on the battlefield, congress or the president can authorize a military tribunal. It wouldn't need to allow for the same legal maneuvering lawyers often use. Maybe I'm wrong about the laws changing if they are brought to CONUS. Afterall, the fifth amendment reads:

Quote:

---

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

---

Accounting for war actions, maybe the federal and state laws also don't apply. That I don't know one way or the other. I know it's easier to conduct a military tribunal outside the state or federal jurisdiction, without someone attempting to challenge its legitimacy.

One Man. One Mission.

http://blogs.amctv.com/future-of-cla...sh-Posters.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I would like to kill them myself. However, we are a nation of laws.

---

No shit. Someone said what they would do and why the law is there and I said what I would do and why the law should be changed.

If everybody knows someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt,eye witnesses,forsenic,video's, confessions there is no way in hell I would let them go because they were not read their miranda rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

No shit. Someone said what they would do and why the law is there and I said what I would do and why the law should be changed.

If everybody knows someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt,eye witnesses,forsenic,video's, confessions there is no way in hell I would let them go because they were not read their miranda rights.

---

Great... but, AFAIK, that situation would never happen. Thanks for being against a situation that would never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Great... but, AFAIK, that situation would never happen. Thanks for being against a situation that would never happen.

---

You are weird. "Thanks" you sound like a fucking loser. Didn't mommy tell you never to say never. And dumbass, OJ was not let go on a technicality. You can try to spin that bullshit all you want in that little fucking head of yours but you are dead wrong. Have some humility and just shut the fuck up. You want to be Johnny Law and have no morals to do what is right , thats ur deal but don't act like a douche because I would do what is right thing.

what's the right thing that you would do, Jack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

what's the right thing that you would do, Jack?

---

Well Clam, I am glad u asked that. My sister is coming down to visit me and my family. Her 9 year old son wants to play soccer in the fall but he is thinking he will not be good enough to play because it's been 2 years since he has been on a team. This summer I put him in this soccer summer camp for 2 weeks and I put together a indoor team he can play on as well. I will coach him and work with him to try to get him up to par with the other kids back in Virginia when fall rolls around.

don't forget the messy monkey clean monkey routine.

thats my favorite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

don't forget the messy monkey clean monkey routine.

thats my favorite.

---

:lmao Never say bad monkey or good monkey

But to answer ur question ..... If the decision was up to me I would not let a child molestor walk because he was not read his miranda rights. That simple. Not talking about laws or if there was even a small chance he was innocent. Some say let the guy walk period. I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

:lmao Never say bad monkey or good monkey

But to answer ur question ..... If the decision was up to me I would not let a child molestor walk because he was not read his miranda rights. That simple. Not talking about laws or if there was even a small chance he was innocent. Some say let the guy walk period. I disagree.

---

Who's saying that? I'm saying that certain evidence would not be permissible due to technicalities. I've said 10 times over that OTHER evidence would still be permissible.