Reply With Quote
This is torture:
Water-boarding is not torture.
So Yoni and DarrinS are ignorant of the words in the Hamdan decision.
Not surprising.
This is torture:
Water-boarding is not torture.
Actually, I think it is PRECISELY because of what happened in the Moussaoui trial that we don't want the likes of a KSM in a civilian court.
You didn't answer my question.This is torture:
Water-boarding is not torture.
Whom did the founding fathers waterboard?
What precisely happened in the Moussaoui trial that threatened democracy as we know it?
Was there a terror attack at the courthouse?
Was Moussaoui acquitted?
Did Bush or Cheney say it was a mistake to try him in federal court?
Let me know PRECISELY what the issue is.
Is KSM an unlawful combatant?
If you don't remember all the crap that happened during the Moussaoui trial, you need to go do some reading and refresh your memory. That's not my responsibility.
Hamdan was. Guess you were ignorant of that as well.
Ah, the old "I don't really know what I'm talking about so I'll just act like I know and not actually say anything" routine.
We all know you are ignorant, Darrin. It's old news.
"Mr. Moussaoui got a fair trial. The jury convicted him to life in prison, where he will spend the rest of his life....I know that it's really important for the United States to stay on the offense against these killers and bring them to justice. And those are my thoughts about the Moussaoui trial."
George W. Bush
May 2006
If anyone is interested in seeing all the courtroom exhibits from the Moussaoui trial, they were posted online here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notable...aoui/exhibits/
It was the first time in history that the exhibits of a U.S. criminal trial were published online.
In which way the detainee doesn't fit the criteria?
They certainly fit to be tried in a civilian court as opposed to a military court...
In a whole host of ways. You tell me which convention you believe was violated by the enhanced interrogation of any of the al Qaeda or Taliban terrorists and I'll tell you how they don't fit the criteria.
Again, if laws were broken, where are the indictments?
The fact is, no laws were broken and this is all a bunch of Bush-hating rhetoric.
Again, I wonder if that Taliban guy Pakistan and the U.S. captured was Mirandized and provided an attorney.
Why can't you just tell us why they don't fit the criteria?
No need to further complicate the issue if it is so simple.
There is no telling if he will be brought to the US at all, is there? Doesn't Afghanistan have a government and a court system now?
Common Article 3 of Geneva.
So let's hear you explaination? Do you know why?
"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,..."
Are the Taliban or al Qaeda "High Contracting Parties?"
Was Iraq or Afghanistan? (I don't know the answer to this, maybe you do.) But, in either case, I'm not sure the enemy combatants aligned themselves with either government.
I also believe the armed conflict is of "an international character."
I made you an honest question to give you the opportunity to support your own claim. I don't see an answer.
So, you claim they're military detainees? I'd like a straight answer.
Despite what you think, under Hamdan Common Article 3 applies.
Are you familiar with the ruling, Yoni?
I do know why courts federal exist and why it was possible to safely and successfully prosecute and convict Moussaoui without reinventing the wheel.
It's simple: the Bush administration had a case against him and won in federal court.
The question now is why that suddenly isn't good enough for the underpants bomber when no one objected to the Moussaoui trial so vehemently back then.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ice/index.htmlMonday to 23 to 28 years in prison in Australia for stockpiling explosive chemicals and firearms for terrorist attacks on unspecified targets . . . .The men, aged 25 to 44, were found guilty last October on charges linked to preparing a terrorist act between July 2004 and November 2005." Previously: "LONDON - Three British Muslims accused of helping the suicide bombers who carried out the attacks on London’s transportation system in July 2005 went on trial on Thursday." "The trial of 29 people accused of involvement in train bombings that killed 191 people in March 2004 has opened in the Spanish capital, Madrid." "DENPASAR, Indonesia (CNN) -- The first suspect charged with the October 12 Bali bombings, which killed over 200 people, has gone on trial in an Indonesian court." "MUMBAI: The sole surviving gunman from last year's Mumbai attacks, a Pakistani national, on Monday pleaded guilty at his trial, admitting for the first time his part in the atrocity that killed 166 people."
Australia, England, Indonesia, Spain and India aren't afraid of trying terrorists. Why are we?
We weren't -- before there was a chance to score political points from that manufactured fear.
No one is afraid. I just don't want to pay 1 million per year to try that P.O.S. and, apparently, neither do Dems like Chuck Schumer and mayor Bloomberg.
I say we give him the choice between burning to death or jumping from a 100-story building.
How much money is saved using military tribunals?
I don't know, but I would think military tribunals are cheaper than Eric Holder's former lawfirm.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
