Cheney;" Yeah, I did it"

[Yonivore]

Well, as long as he can manufacture justifications for avoiding treaty obligations, laws, and cons utions -- and rationalize them in conversations with standup comedians -- I suppose he's an asset.

Tell me, FWD; Bush-haters have had control of the executive and legislative branches for over a year now. Why isn't anyone facing criminal charges?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

the mass murdering terrorists were killed along with everyone else on 9/11 you moron.

'cause 19 equates 2800+ deaths.

you moron.

i want to punsih and shame all of those who lied to the country about the need to go to war with Iraq.. they are responsible for 4,000 + dead GIs..

so i guess you're adding obama to that list for afghanistan.

[ChumpDumper]

I see you are repeating the latest aired liberal talking points...

The Shoe Bomber was Mirandized before anyone knew the extent of his attempted crime. It was days later that more was known.

I see you are repeating the latest Republican excuse for Cheney's hypocrisy.

Dude tried to blow up a plane. Did they not know that at the time?

He still was never put into the military justice system. Even after everything was known.

Ever.

Maybe they just never knew?


Please give me an example of a terror suspect caught on American soil during Bush's term that was not mirandized.

[boutons_deux]

"Why isn't anyone facing criminal charges"

Nobody has any balls. The after-taste of the trauma what the Repugs and Starr did to Clinton still lingers.


Clinton was double-crossed by the Bush 41 Repugs when he agreed not to go after them for their crimes. Fat lot of good that did Clinton.

Also, America LOVES to believe and promote the myths that it can do no wrong, is "exceptional" among peoples, so they don't want to expose the common, crimes of the plutocracy to the world. In fact, America is pretty much a total fantasy land these days.

[ChumpDumper]

Please tell me why Bush and Cheney tried Moussaoui in federal court.

Explain the "clear thinking" behind that decision.

[Wild Cobra]

I see you are repeating the latest Republican excuse for Cheney's hypocrisy.

Dude tried to blow up a plane. Did they not know that at the time?

He still was never put into the military justice system. Even after everything was known.

Ever.

Maybe they just never knew?


Please give me an example of a terror suspect caught on American soil during Bush's term that was not mirandized.

I haven't advocated changing anything for the panty bomber either. It's a waste of time now since so much news was out about him. Any plans and locations he knew, will be changed now. There are plenty of witnesses to put him away for life.

What are you laughing at anyway? Your stupid assumption?

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't advocated changing anything for the panty bomber either. It's a waste of time now since so much news was out about him. Any plans and locations he knew, will be changed now. There are plenty of witnesses to put him away for life.

What are you laughing at anyway? Your stupid assumption?

Now I'm laughing because you agree with me and are acting like you don't.



The show bomber was mirandized four times.

By the Bush/Cheney administration.

Clear thinking!

[Wild Cobra]

Please give me an example of a terror suspect caught on American soil during Bush's term that was not mirandized.

You seem to claim Cheney has control over what Law Enforcement does on the spot.

Are you claiming they all placed a call to Cheney to get his instructions?

[ChumpDumper]

You seem to claim Cheney has control over what Law Enforcement does on the spot.

Are you claiming they all placed a call to Cheney to get his instructions?

I am claiming Bush and Cheney certainly can issue policy directives through the DoJ and FBI regarding terror suspects.

They and you are certainly claiming that Obama can do the exact same thing now.

More hypocrisy.

Just tell me which terror suspects apprehended under Bush in the US were not mirandized.

Should be easy for you.

[FromWayDowntown]

Tell me, FWD; Bush-haters have had control of the executive and legislative branches for over a year now. Why isn't anyone facing criminal charges?

So are you saying that the absence of criminal prosecution is proof that there was no wrongdoing? That the absence of criminal prosecution demonstrates that these "justifications" for ignoring the law are somehow proof that they were legally sound?

How exactly does that logic apply to those who are being detained by our forces without facing any charges? And where, exactly, does the notion of prosecutorial discretion go in your (apparently) binary view of the legalities of Yoo's arguments?

[ChumpDumper]

Any takers?

Please tell me why Bush and Cheney tried Moussaoui in federal court.

Explain the "clear thinking" behind that decision.

[elbamba]

Geneva and the UN Convention against torture were signed as treaties. They are US law. Some definitions matter more than others.

Subsequently passed statutes can overturn treaties to govern U.S. law. (i.e. Patriot Act).

Whether it is the right thing to do is another argument.

[ChumpDumper]

Presidents can torture when we're at war.

They can do anything illegal during war, John Yoo said so.

Obama can do anything right now and Yoni can't say anything -- or else he is a traitor.

[elbamba]

Geneva and the UN Convention against torture were signed as treaties. They are US law. Some definitions matter more than others.

Any takers?

Because he was captured in the U.S.A. by the FBI and NSI if I am not mistaken. I believe it was in Minnesota or one of the Dakotas.

[ChumpDumper]

Because he was captured in the U.S.A. by the FBI and NSI if I am not mistaken. I believe it was in Minnesota or one of the Dakotas.

But Cheney is claiming that the underpants bomber shouldn't be tried in federal court, and he was captured in the US.

It doesn't matter how one is arrested, there is nothing I can see stopping a tribunal from having jurisdiction if the administration wants it. The shoe bomber was in FBI custody in the US and a tribunal was an option.

During a Jan. 16, 2002, news conference announcing charges against Reid, Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked whether he “consider[ed] using a military tribunal in prosecuting [Reid].” Ashcroft replied: “I think people were alert, and that created a factual basis for the kind of court case that we've alleged. I did confer with the Department of Justice — pardon me, with the Department of Defense and with their general counsel — and they had no objection to our proceeding in this matter.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html

[Winehole23]

...

[Winehole23]

Subsequently passed statutes can overturn treaties to govern U.S. law. (i.e. Patriot Act).

So it would seem, but the Supreme Court ruled subsequent to the MCA of 2006 that Geneva Common Article 3 does apply to unlawful enemy combatants.

[Winehole23]

Also, the Eighth Amendment forbids the federal government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, the Eighth Amendment forbids the federal government from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.

I think that refers to things like "the rack." I wouldn't apply it to today's understanding of "cruel and unusual." Make sure you know what it meant then.

[ChumpDumper]

I think that refers to things like "the rack." I wouldn't apply it to today's understanding of "cruel and unusual." Make sure you know what it meant then.

Whom did the founding fathers waterboard?

[Winehole23]

@WC: Google "evolving standards of decency". Originalism is more argumentative than dispositive, and just look at the text: it restricts the actions of the federal government without any reference to persons at all.

[Wild Cobra]

Say what you want. Cruel and unusual punishment, defined by my daughter, would be taking away her cell phone. The viewpoints of a "living cons ution" to be interpreted at a whim, are not my beliefs. I believe in interpreting the spirit of it, not the changing social standards.

[elbamba]

But Cheney is claiming that the underpants bomber shouldn't be tried in federal court, and he was captured in the US.

It doesn't matter how one is arrested, there is nothing I can see stopping a tribunal from having jurisdiction if the administration wants it. The shoe bomber was in FBI custody in the US and a tribunal was an option.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html

I am not here to argue for Cheney. He can claim whatever he wants. Technically, the underpants bomber was caught in the air, I am not sure where they were flying but I am sure that it was not an American airline. I don't know enough about jurisdiction to give you an answer. I can tell you it would be a great law school test question.

You are wrong with respect to whether it matters where you get arrested. If I get arrested by the the KCPD, they cannot take me to San Antonio to be tried. Breaking the law in KS might not be the same as breaking the law in Texas (i.e. different highway speeds).

The cons uion is clear that a state has jurisdiction to convict a person that the state apprehends within its boarders.

[ChumpDumper]

I am not here to argue for Cheney. He can claim whatever he wants. Technically, the underpants bomber was caught in the air, I am not sure where they were flying but I am sure that it was not an American airline. I don't know enough about jurisdiction to give you an answer. I can tell you it would be a great law school test question.

Richard Reid was also caught in the air on a flight from Paris after meal service, although it was an American airline. Obviously both were charged with US crimes.

You are wrong with respect to whether it matters where you get arrested. If I get arrested by the the KCPD, they cannot take me to San Antonio to be tried. Breaking the law in KS might not be the same as breaking the law in Texas (i.e. different highway speeds).

The cons uion is clear that a state has jurisdiction to convict a person that the state apprehends within its boarders.

That has nothing to do with federal vs. military jurisdiction over terrorism suspects. State laws and prosecutions are not being discussed.

[DarrinS]

yep. Particularly when the detainee doesn't fit the un criteria of a person eligible for convention protections.

Words matter; emotions, not so much.

+1