Reply With Quote
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
Let Gov Perry take over they will all be dead by the end of the week.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
Don't forget that dubya and head refused or were unable resolve the detainees situation for 6+ years, exactly like they couldn't finish any of the they started.
At least Magic Negro's DoJ and military have gotten something moving towards a resolution, which has the Repugs scared less, along with their white-knuckle, ball-less fear of anything Muslim.
It is not clear to me why non-citizens (whether they committed an act of war or just criminal acts) should have the cons utional rights of an American citizen who stood accused of the same acts. Were the Spanish courts trying folks who were not Spanish? Were the British courts trying folks who were not British citizens? I honestly don't know the answer to those questions, but I would like to know.
I won't accuse anyone of bad faith in their position on this. It is genuinely troubling to me. I understand WH's position that not trying them at all anywhere looks fearful and cowardly. But I am concerned about the precedent that this sets for the future. While we are certain that these folks will be convicted and likely put to death, what about future situations where we know that some terrorist is guilty but we can't prove it to the standard demanded for U.S. citizens in criminal courts? What if we didn't mirandize these jerks? Can they get off on a technicality? Wouldn't that be absurd?
I think I really prefer the military tribunals on this, not unlike Nurembourg. If these are not crimes against humanity, I don't know what one would look like.
HAHAHAHA. This is great. Actually giving these terrorist a forum to continue to spread thier hate. Please Obama dems, keep this going.
what are you talking about dummy? what forum does it give them dummy?
You calling someone a dummy!!!!
It's called a courtroom you ing troll. They killed 3,000 innocent Americans. They should have been killed by now. Not giving a FORUM in a courtroom to allow these pigs to continue to spew their hate against our country.
"They killed 3,000 innocent Americans."
You Lie
ok you are a dummy. you do realize they are supposed to keep their mouths shut dummy. if they aren't called as witnesses then they keep quiet dummy. In other words they aren't going to open thier mouths at this supposed forum. dummy.
It's called a courtroom you ing troll. They killed 3,000 innocent Americans. They should have been killed by now. Not giving a FORUM in a courtroom to allow these pigs to continue to spew their hate against our country.
are your feelings going to be hurt if they say they hate america dummy?
Dude, you really are a ing dumb troll. They have lawyers that speak for them and if they want they can waive that right to a lawyer and represent themselves.
You know, talking to you is like talking to a 6 year old. You just spent the above paragraph spewing nonsense. The fact is the guilty s have a forum. You think they don't and you call someone dumb for telling you the truth. Then on top of it you ask me if my feelings will be hurt if they say they hate america. You ing dumbass. My feelings are hurt because they killed 3000 innocent people and our weakass leader is allowing these killers 8 years later to tell their pathetic reasons for murdering US citizens. You really are a ing dumb troll. But there are real folks out there that think like this troll. Good day .
"because they killed 3000 innocent people"
You Lie
Do you believe that all people have natural rights, or just Americans?
what about the families who want confront these thugs? shouldn't they have the right to do that? what about their hurt feelings? YOur feelings don't matter dummy.
And every time they yell they hate America, it automatically makes them guilty. And so then they will face the veredict of a jury. And then pay the price for what they did. Without televised beheadings or barbaric acts. And that day, we will have succeded. Because we didn't need to reduce ourselves to the s that they are in order to achieve justice. That day, we respected ourselves as a nation and started rebuilding our moral high ground.
I believe that all people have natural rights. I believe that those natural rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe that in THIS country, those rights include further rights to privacy, freedom of assembly and religion, speedy trial by peers, an ability to confront your accuser, etc. etc. One obtains these rights by virtue of citizenship in this country with our cons ution. Other people in other countries have different rights than our own, based on their own laws.
I DO NOT believe that those 'natural' ( or, 'everyman') rights include things like a miranda warning, or the guarantee of having an attorney present at any questioning. I am glad that as an American that I have those rights, but I am not sad that others in other countries do not have those rights, and I fail to see why a non-American in this country can lay claim to rights that are mine by virtue of my citizenship.
Thus, I do not believe that my 'cons utional' rights should be extended to those who commit crimes within my borders but have never accepted the responsibilities of citizenship under my cons utional republic.
responsibilities of citizenship? Being born in a certain location is a of a responsibility.
Board conservatives seem to be agitating for a two-tiered system of justice. First class courts and detention for citizens; second class courts and detention for non-citizens.
and seperate hearings to determine who is a citizen in order to classify him as belonging to one tier or the other before investigating and then prosecuting?
It's my firm belief that our justice system was designed to be as fair as possible, not just for Americans but for all.
The founders did not want to create a system of justice just for "us"; they crested the system the way the did because it was the right thing to do. And nowhere did they explicitly deny non-US citizens.
If the American system of justice is the best in the world, why are we afraid of using it? Why is it acceptable to have such lowered standards for a certain group of suspects?
If these guys are the worst of the worst, then we should have evidence to back it up. (Ive said before I'm ok with secret courts headed by judges that don't have a conflict of interest.)
right-wingers here are promoting American "exceptionalism" where Americans are better and different than other human beans (well, especially Euro-American citizens).
"inalienable rights" was meant to be inalienable for Americans? for all human beans?
The undigested poison pills of the dubya/ head/rummy Reign of Error continue to distract and poison US life.
I do not accept that a position that says that American cons utional rights, which go BEYOND the inalienable human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are necessarily the automatic rights of every human being on the fafe of the earth, just because we, in this country, enjoy them.
Based on some of the logic utilized in this thread, it would seem to me that we should also open our voting to anyone in the world. I mean, we have virtually universal suffrage for the vote in this country. It was not always the case, inasmuch as we developed from a male-land-owning class of voters to one that now includes those who own nothing, women and people of all races. I consider that a positive development for our country. We do not, however, allow non-citizens to vote in our elections. We don't even allow citizens who have committed certain felonies to vote in our elections.
So it is not the case that we do not put limits on what are our cons utional rights when it comes to non-citizens. My position is that the full panoply of legal rights in a court of law may be comparable to voting. i.e., if you are not a citizen, you don't have access to all the same rights that I do.
Please do not accuse those that differ with you on this to be cowardly or 'afraid'. That is beneath all of us.
Counterfactual. The onus should be on you to show why our system of justice should ins ute second class courts and jails, instead of having one system of justice for everyone.
In criminal courts the life and liberty of alien defendants are no less at hazard than those of citizens: why should they receive any less protection?
If the sword of law threatens to separate men from their life and liberty, why don't the procedural niceties that protect life and liberty rise also to the level of natural law?
Having a second class system of justice is contrary to over 200 years of American custom, and it makes us look like hypocrites.
You haven't even made the case that American criminal procedure needs to change EVAY, just that there is a logical argument that non-citizens needn't enjoy the law's protections when they are fully exposed to its hazards. Good luck with that.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-16-2009 at 01:00 PM.
so if Manu gets popped for DWI he can be held indefinitely without bail or a hearing because he's not a citizen? is that what you want, EVAY? for manu to be held forever with no notice of the charges against him? and you call yourself a spurs fan. pffft.
If memory serves, some of the original WTC bombers were tried and convicted domestically -- as far as I know they weren't citizens. If that's right, there is at least precedent to hang this on, even if it doesn't clarify your questions re: justification or process.
Just speculating, I'd say trying them in US courts does two things; 1) lessens the likelihood that a terrorist will be released back to his native land and suffer fewer -- or no -- consequences for his crime there, and; 2) serve as a symbolic band-aid (covering the last administration's terrorist-recruiter's wet-dream of a policy) showing that our government is superior and more just than the one Jihadists propose. Regarding #2, I can't help but feel it's too little, too late.
Also regarding #2, I know people like Whott will complain that this represents some form of appeasement. I would disagree with that position because we aren't talking about strategy between two sovereign nations, in which concessions might be taken as signs of weakness. Instead we're talking about making it harder for extremists to recruit new members -- we aren't, after all, going to change any Jihadists minds with our policies, but if we can give them less to work with as far as comporting ourselves within the letter of our laws and ideals is concerned, the movement stops being able to hang on our hypocrisy and dies like any other death cult.
This "war" can't be won on a battlefield when the enemy hides among the innocent -- the only way we eliminate the threat is to win hearts and minds (along with some surgical wet-work, if need be).
Actually, WH, my position is that American criminal procedure does not need to change. It just does not need to apply to these cases. Take, for instance, the trials of the war criminals in Japan and Nurembourg after WWII. Those individuals had SOME of the rights and priveleges that attend American court procedure, but not all of them. It wasn't considered a 'second-class' system of justice, but it was taken on its own merit.
I will not accept that a system of justice that is not identical to our own is necessarily 'second-class'. Nor am I proposing that the folks in question here receive 'second-class' justice.
I would further suggest that reliance on '200 years of American custom' ignores the trials of the accused war criminals in virtually every war we have been in. They were not tried in criminal courts in American cities.
I guess I am making, in my own mind at least, a distinction between the 'terror' suspects and some poor schmuck from some foreign country who gets picked up here for robbing a bank or something. I'm afraid I really don't believe that an act of war should be tried in criminal courts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
