Terror detainee largely acquitted

[LnGrrrR]

For a conservative, CC sure does trust the government alot when it comes to suspected terrorists.

[CosmicCowboy]

For a conservative, CC sure does trust the government alot when it comes to suspected terrorists.

I trust the Military one of a lot more than I trust Eric Holder.

[LnGrrrR]

1) Most of them are not US Citizens

What's your point? Do you think that people who aren't US citizens don't deserve the same court system Americans have? I thought the strength of our system of law was innocent before guilty... you know, one of the things that makes us "better" than other countries.

2) Most of them have never been to the United States

Point?

3) They are terrorists, not criminals.

If they're known terrorists, what's the point of having a trial? Oh wait, they're SUSPECTED terrorists. That's kinda the point of the trial, isn't it?

4) Their acts of terrorism were typically performed abroad.

Suspected acts.

5) They were typically captured by military (ours or others)

Except, of course, the multiple instances in which they were captured due to reasons like bounties, mistaken iden y, or various other reasons.

6) Because they were not captured by trained US law enforcement and mirandized like common US criminals so most legitimate evidence gathered is inadmissible under US criminal law.

So we should just try them with coerced evidence and things of that nature?

7) The trial becomes a ing joke when this evidence is not admitted.

I think you meant to say, the trial becomes a joke when this evidence IS admitted.

You know this sort of thing happens in the US too, right? Say a policeman raids a house without a warrant, and finds drugs. That may be inadmissible.

Of course, that's to prevent cops everywhere from randomly busting into houses... you know, limits on power and things like that. Conservatives usually prefer that.

[clambake]

I trust the Military one of a lot more than I trust Eric Holder.

thats not at all surprising.

[LnGrrrR]

I trust the Military one of a lot more than I trust Eric Holder.

I trust the military to do their job... drop bombs, fight bad guys, etc etc. Not to process criminals through a pseudo-justice system.

Heck, even many military members recognize what a farce the system is. A few have gotten out of the military and talked about how poor the trials are.

[ChumpDumper]

I will offer several reasons:

1) Most of them are not US Citizens
2) Most of them have never been to the United States
3) They are terrorists, not criminals.
4) Their acts of terrorism were typically performed abroad.
5) They were typically captured by military (ours or others)
6) Because they were not captured by trained US law enforcement and mirandized like common US criminals so most legitimate evidence gathered is inadmissible under US criminal law.
7) The trial becomes a ing joke when this evidence is not admitted.

Considering the hundreds of trials that have already taken place in federal courts and the convictions resulting therefrom, these reasons have little merit.

The joke is making up a completely different system of justice because one doesn't think the US system of justice is good enough or because one wants to cover up one up or another -- especially when the very novelty and arbitrary nature of the newly made up system can result in exactly the same kinds of exclusions of testimony or evidence of which folks claim to be afraid.

[ChumpDumper]

They are terrorists, not criminals.

Is terrorism a crime, CC?

Yes or no.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess all these people just must not trust the military...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ary_commission

[CosmicCowboy]

Is terrorism a crime, CC?

Yes or no.

Not according to the terrorists.

[Parker2112]

Is terrorism a crime, CC?

Yes or no.

turns on whether the "terrorism" is considered an act of war, doesnt it?

[LnGrrrR]

And hey, here's a quote from one of the guys who resigned...

http://www.truth-out.org/1110098

Frakt referenced an amendment South Carolina Republican Sen. Lyndsey Graham sought to insert into the bill. Graham commented that people who are terrorists don't deserve full cons utional rights. Colonel Frakt responded by charging that Graham "is clearly prejudging the cases and affording a presumption of guilt, not innocence. The Cons ution sets forth the minimum due process that we believe is necessary to ensure a fair trial. Why would we ever want to go below that?"

[ChumpDumper]

turns on whether the "terrorism" is considered an act of war, doesnt it?

Does it?

[LnGrrrR]

Not according to the terrorists.

So, if I walk into a postal service and declare that I am at war with all mailmen, then gun down a few, I should be thrown into GTMO? Good logic there.

[Parker2112]

absolutely. combatants aren't criminals.

[Parker2112]

So, if I walk into a postal service and declare that I am at war with all mailmen, then gun down a few, I should be thrown into GTMO? Good logic there.

we have laws to govern our citizens on our soil

[ChumpDumper]

Not according to the terrorists.

That was not a yes or no, CC.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

absolutely. combatants aren't criminals.

What makes one a combatant?

[LnGrrrR]

we have laws to govern our citizens on our soil

Jose Padilla would argue otherwise.

[jack sommerset]

The terrorist was found innocent on 200 charges plus and guilty on one. This was a failure.

[Parker2112]

What makes one a combatant?

what makes one a criminal? it means youve violated some stae/fed penal code. if you attack us forces abroad, you havent committed attemted murder.

[CosmicCowboy]

That was not a yes or no, CC.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

The acts of terrorists are criminal but the motivation to perform the acts is terror.

[Parker2112]

Jose Padilla would argue otherwise.

i cant speak to his case, but what i am stating is fact. Why was he considered a combatant?

[Parker2112]

for the record, just because a combatant comes onto US soil and commits his attack doesnt automatically provide him with right to due process. Evidently Padilla is a great example.

[ChumpDumper]

what makes one a criminal? it means youve violated some stae/fed penal code. if you attack us forces abroad, you havent committed attemted murder.

Would you consider KSM a combatant or a terrorist?

The acts of terrorists are criminal but the motivation to perform the acts is terror.

That isn't a yes or no.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

[CosmicCowboy]

Would you consider KSM a combatant or a terrorist?

That isn't a yes or no.

Is terrorism a crime?

Yes or no.

Reading comprehension issues? I specifically said the acts of terrorists are criminal acts. Terrorists perform criminal acts in order to terrorize.

See thread on TSA.