Another fine example of Osama, I mean Obama's, incompetence.
Our little prez would just LOVE to bend over and take it up the ass if he can be the popular girl at the prom.
In trying to 'honor history' and all that, they are going to give the terrorists a MILITARY TRIBUNAL....and he constantly references World War 2.
Did anyone forget to tell this doofus that the terrorists do NOT WEAR UNIFORMS, and are NOT an official army, representing a legitimate nation?
They are TERRORISTS. Hiding among the people in civilian clothes, killing innocent people and children, along with american soldiers, and most of them do not take orders.
How can you compare a no good shameful terrorist to a, say, a captured German solder in WW2? THERE IS NO COMPARISON.
Military tribunals for these s bags is a DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Really, we should just have a policy of taking terrorists out back and shooting them on the spot. And there really shouldn't be any checks or balances -- say, in the form of a neutral arbiter, to decide whether or not the accused is actually a terrorist.
When the government decides that MiamiHeat is a terrorist, immediate execution should be what follows.
you should move someplace safe.
Two points:
1. During the American Revolution, the American Patriots were a guerilla force (in many places) that defied the then-current laws of war, and were considered traitors, criminals and 'unworthy' of British military tribunals. We didn't see them as criminals or traitors or 'unworthy', but the conventional wisdom of the large military power most assuredly did.
2). Given your logic regarding the criminality of these guys, wouldn't it follow that they should ALL be tried in criminal courts, rather than military court tribunals? I am uncomfortable with trying any of these guys in civilian criminal courts, and have yet to be convinced that they deserve all of the rights of our jurisprudence style (if they get to look at all the evidence against them, if they had to be mirandized, if they get to speak at length in front of the courts) because they are not citizens of the US.
I am aware that lots of folks whom I respect on this forum believe that they should have the same rights as American citizens in the criminal courts. I still disagree with that. However, your logic suggests that they are criminals, not military, and should be...what? Summarily executed? If we do that are we not losing the thing that makes us different from them?
If these guys can be tried in criminal courts but not have all the rights (including Miranda, total access to evidence, etc.etc.) then I really don't care if they are tried in criminal or military courts. I just want them tried.
So you were just as outraged when Bush ordered military tribunals to try terrorists as well, weren't you?
You thought thought Bush was also an incompetent doofus who wanted to take it up the ass to be the popular girl at the prom, right?
Right?
Why take them out back? Why not just behead them on national TV... that'll show them!
Also the New York trials are NOT military tribunals. They are federal court trials.
Something Bush also did with terrorists.
Did you hate that too?
dam heat looks like you got dumped on you ing idiot
what would glen beck do at a time like this?
I say we set up a COMMITTEE of intelligence officials, with a new name and would only be formed when called upon and needed.
not a military tribunal. they don't deserve that. it would be an honor to be martyred like that for them. get all that publicity and treated as an actual 'combatant'
BULL .
They are de able human beings, who should be treated by a third arm of our laws.
A NEWLY formed committee for treating terrorists and other s bags like these, that do NOT fit a military tribunal OR a civilian criminal system.
This committee will look at all evidences, etc... and can hand out death penalties or sentences.
I don't know.. Miami heat may have gotten owned, but in doing so.. his point was magnified.
Not military tribunals but actual courtroom trials reserved for citizens???
That's idiotic.
Obama is trying to appease the nutter crowd.
Aren't they being tried in federal court?
EDIT - Oh, someone brought this up, sorry
..it'll be interesting to see how much torture comes into play in the trials....I'm sure the U.S. will convict or they would not have risked civilian trials otherwise, but the information received from torture may be inadmissable....
So, and let me get this straight, you're saying they should have no form of representation for their defense?
Does it matter? Obama has already said they are going to be convicted and Holder has said that the government will just find some way to keep them locked up if the court decides something they don't like.
Sadly, you're right. It's total bs. I just wanted to know if Heat could see the flaw in his reasoning.
The bolded part is a false statement.
Bush proved that.
I don't think it will be the same type of proceeding that most citizens receive at trial. My understanding is that the government can limit the amount of evidence that has to be revealed during discovery and during the trial. In other words, it's possible that the defendant never gets access to the primary pieces of evidence against him. Also, the defense counsel can be prohibited from questioning witnesses about classified information.
I think it will have the appearance of an actual trial, but without the due process and transparency of an actual civilian trial.
Bump for gtown.
bump, for fake victory.
I didn't even know you responded. You posted a whole 2 days later.
and in what way did bush prove what you said was false?
real question.
Your assertion that federal court trials are reserved for citizens is false.
It's no victory for me -- only failure for you.
so federal court trials were originally intended to try third world citizens for disputes that happened in other countries?
explain?
Weren't federal courts originally for citizens of this country? yes or no.
No chicken victories here, chump. You seem to claim them all the time?
Bush tried foreign citizens in US District Court.
Federal courts are not reserved exclusively for US citizens.
There is no victory for me, only failure for you.
But the subject is terrorist, or enemy combatants. Were they originally reserved for US courts?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
