That's your opinion. The SC has ruled otherwise.
Sorry, precedent completely destroys your hysterics.
That's your opinion. The SC has ruled otherwise.
Yep. And, I bet the Supreme Court eventually gets fed up with this nonsense, too.
Please explain how they would find trying terror suspects for black letter federal offenses "nonsense."
Be specific.
Possible. How much would you bet?
You might care to read up on Geneva Conventions.
The Geneva Conventions don't grant him a trial in an American Courtroom.
How is this any different from the Ramzi Yousef trial for the Bojinka plot?
Did you complain about that 14 years ago?
The Geneva Conventions apply to stateless, non-uniformed terrorists? Link?
Well, is he a combatant or a criminal? I thought you were arguing that he was a combatant.
I thought you were arguing that stateless terrorists were covered under the Geneva Convention.
Well if you count them as criminals, you know, people who should be tried under federal courts, then Geneva wouldn't apply. Some people seem to want to treat them under a different status though.
No, but the discretion of the criminal system is good enough for me, and for the time being, habeas review is still in effect.
If at all possible, prosecute em all in the manner of common criminals.
(Exceptional penalties breed exceptional martyrs.)
At this point the oranges are stale. We already squeezed em. in indict them for crimes or let them go.
So we agree that we should try terrorist suspects in court, right? Good.![]()
Are you talking to yourself?
Well, you ran away from the question, so I guess so.
He is not a conservative. He is a republican. Just like bd is a democrat and not a liberal.
We know jack.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)