Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 155
  1. #51
    Mr Robinsons hood denizen Creepn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,965
    Damn man you wanna talk big smart ass game about politics but you cant reply to multiple quotes in a single post?

  2. #52
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    If Jurisdiction or venue is appropriate in another court then it should be carried out in the other Court. There is nothing in the cons ution that states that enemy combatants have the right to be given american rights and privileges and access to civilian courts. Please show me where it gives these rights in the cons ution.
    It's not complicated at all. A person is either a military personnel or a civilian.
    There's no third classification under the US Cons ution.
    Considering an 'enemy combatant' is not a military personnel, he's merely a civilian. You can call him/her whatever you want: "terrorist", "radicalized civilian", "enemy combatant", "unabomber", "freedom fighter", etc etc etc... it's still a civilian.

    No need to include it. Isn't it obvious that the 5th amendment is providing an exception during a time of war or public emergency when one might be deprived of life liberty and property without due process.
    Except that we're in no war (as stated in the US Cons ution, declared by Congress) and we're not in any public emergency that prevent access to courts or the Judicial system.

    Millitary tribunals have been used in every war this country has ever fought in. Like I said, Washington even used them before the cons ution. Lincoln, FDR, Jackson, Madison, McKinley, and so on.
    Military courts have been used to judge enemy soldiers. If you want to reclassify all these 'enemy combatants' into 'enemy soldiers' and run them through the military justice system, then I have absolutely ZERO problems with that. But just as long as the government insists on classifying them as non-military personnel, then they fall squarely into the civilian figure, which include full access to civilian courts.

    Law is changed all the time. The cons ution grants congress the power to clarify what it leaves out. What decades of jurisprudence am I taking a " " on?
    The one that treats citizens and non-citizens the same in front of justice. There's nothing "unclear" about due process, habeas corpus, discovery rules, etc etc etc.

    Should Ghalani (sp) get his trial thrown out for failure to give him a speedy trial? His attorney has filed a motion stating as much. Who is really making the cons ution?
    I see... "The end justifies the means"...
    Did the government sit on their ass for 10 years with enough evidence to convict this guy to life or the death penalty? Whose fault is it?

    It's really sad that people are willing to throw away our entire justice system simply because "Ghalani (sp) needs to be in jail". I would argue that when you submit to that, "Ghalani (sp)" effectively has won.

  3. #53
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    It's not complicated at all. A person is either a military personnel or a civilian.
    There's no third classification under the US Cons ution.
    Considering an 'enemy combatant' is not a military personnel, he's merely a civilian. You can call him/her whatever you want: "terrorist", "radicalized civilian", "enemy combatant", "unabomber", "freedom fighter", etc etc etc... it's still a civilian.


    Military courts have been used to judge enemy soldiers. If you want to reclassify all these 'enemy combatants' into 'enemy soldiers' and run them through the military justice system, then I have absolutely ZERO problems with that..
    Terms like unlawful combatants has been used for more than a century in the US judiciary and military literature. elbamba is completely right about the historical tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

    In any case, I doubt Axelrod will use the civil justice system to try criminals. I've already read articles saying that Holder was in his way out. The biggest difference between the Bush Administration and this one is that the formers were quicker understanding the political realities.

  4. #54
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    Terms like unlawful combatants has been used for more than a century in the US judiciary and military literature. elbamba is completely right about the historical tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin

    In any case, I doubt Axelrod will use the civil justice system to try criminals. I've already read articles saying that Holder was in his way out. The biggest difference between the Bush Administration and this one is that the formers were quicker understanding the political realities.
    I see you still have reading comprehension problems. Please quote where elbamba or I used the term 'unlawful combatant'?

    If we deem them able to stand trial in a military court, I already stated that I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, that's not what this administration (nor the previous one) want to do. Instead they came up with a middle-of-the-road thing that is a complete bas ization of our justice system.

  5. #55
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Post Count
    2,031
    It's not complicated at all. A person is either a military personnel or a civilian.
    There's no third classification under the US Cons ution.
    Considering an 'enemy combatant' is not a military personnel, he's merely a civilian. You can call him/her whatever you want: "terrorist", "radicalized civilian", "enemy combatant", "unabomber", "freedom fighter", etc etc etc... it's still a civilian.
    My problem with this is that the cons ution only addresses U.S. citizens as defined in the 14th amendment. The cons ution doesn not spell out a definition for non-citizens, but it certainly does for the definition of a U.S. citizen. You are a drawing a conclusion through your opinion of what is not stated in the cons ution and I can respect that, but there is certainly nothing in the cons ution to support you allegation of limiting all people to military or civilian.


    Except that we're in no war (as stated in the US Cons ution, declared by Congress) and we're not in any public emergency that prevent access to courts or the Judicial system.
    You are adding language that is not in the cons uion. I do not believe that the cons ution states that this exception is only applicable when the public emergency prevents access to the courts or Judicial system.

    Military courts have been used to judge enemy soldiers. If you want to reclassify all these 'enemy combatants' into 'enemy soldiers' and run them through the military justice system, then I have absolutely ZERO problems with that. But just as long as the government insists on classifying them as non-military personnel, then they fall squarely into the civilian figure, which include full access to civilian courts.
    There is nothing in the cons ution that supports this argument. Civilians have been tried in military courts for generations. Non-uniformed prisoners picked up on US soil have been tried by military courts.


    The one that treats citizens and non-citizens the same in front of justice. There's nothing "unclear" about due process, habeas corpus, discovery rules, etc etc etc.
    So you don't have one to show me.

    I see... "The end justifies the means"...
    Did the government sit on their ass for 10 years with enough evidence to convict this guy to life or the death penalty? Whose fault is it?
    Have you ever gathered evidence in a war zone? I guess we are not at war, so have you ever gathered evidence with people shooting at you? I will defer to the military that arrested him. Life isn't fair and neither is our justice system.

    It's really sad that people are willing to throw away our entire justice system simply because "Ghalani (sp) needs to be in jail". I would argue that when you submit to that, "Ghalani (sp)" effectively has won.
    We disagree on who should have access to what rights. If you, as an American citizen were facing a similar charge and were denied a speedy trial, PM me and I will represent you for free, you have my promise.

  6. #56
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    I see you still have reading comprehension problems. Please quote where elbamba or I used the term 'unlawful combatant'?
    I thought that when you said "A person is either a military personnel or a civilian. There's no third classification" you're denying the existence of a third classification in toto. Apparently, that's not the case.

    Instead they came up with a middle-of-the-road thing that is a complete bas ization of our justice system.
    Bar ization or not, as almamba argues, it's within the American tradition.

  7. #57
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Post Count
    2,031
    I prefer to be called the black almamba

  8. #58
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    I thought that when you said "A person is either a military personnel or a civilian. There's no third classification" you're denying the existence of a third classification in toto. Apparently, that's not the case.
    Academic chicken .

    You twit ElNono for failing to be an echo of you, and fail to note he emphasizes the neologism "unlawful enemy combatant", the objectively pertinent and correct designation. Your own "terms like" locution is perhaps too forgivingly vague and hazy. ElNono was correct, and you corrected him for it, hoping no one would notice you were wrong.

    What a bull ter.
    Last edited by Winehole23; 02-03-2010 at 09:47 PM.

  9. #59
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425

  10. #60
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    If you wanna be a big bull ter here, hey, be a big bull ter.

  11. #61
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    There's a long line in front of you.

  12. #62
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Qe te vaya purty nice.

  13. #63
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425

  14. #64
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425

  15. #65
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425

  16. #66
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    Winehole, you need to pull your together. You're starting to look like a nut-jobs with all these nonsensical one-liners.

    Academic chicken .
    Using the verbal form thought is academic chicken- ? You're weird...


    You twit ElNono for failing to be an echo of you, and fail to note he emphasizes the neologism "unlawful enemy combatant", the objectively pertinent and correct designation. Your own "terms like" locution is perhaps too forgivingly vague and hazy. ElNono was correct, and you corrected him for it, hoping no one would notice you were wrong.What a bull ter.
    Maybe. He stated that "an enemy is either a military personnel or a civilian, there's no third classification" (ipsis verbis). I suggested that wasn't always the case. I don't think the semantics are that important , although it seems he does.

    You think that unlawful enemy combatant is a neologism? Why so? The expression has been used in cons utional law for more than a few decades.

  17. #67
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Using the verbal form thought is academic chicken- ?
    If that is not totally incoherent and bad English to boot, yes.

    You admit your weakness right off the bat. Nice.

  18. #68
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    If that is not totally incoherent and bad English to boot, yes.

    You admit your weakness right off the bat. Nice.
    Yeah, floral games was also bad English. I really don't care for grammar nazis. What weakness? In any case, I hope you're now more familiar with the history of the expression "unlawful combatant".

  19. #69
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Yeah, floral games was also bad English. I really don't care for grammar nazis.
    My judgment was aesthetic, not technical. You're still guilty of bad English. Complaining about my faults doesn't change that.

  20. #70
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    .

  21. #71
    Veteran
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Post Count
    4,675
    As I've said, I hope you're now more familiar with the history of the expression "unlawful combatant". Thanks for your insightful contributions for the issue being discussed btw.

  22. #72
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Just keep ing that chicken, Ted.

  23. #73
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Anyway, you're full of it about the neologism. There is no class of prisoner in case law we could keep under the disclosed conditions. They had to pass special laws for all that, notably the MCA of 2006.

  24. #74
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Given that the government has already rushed to press post-MCA charges apparently unsupported by the law of war, the MCA’s limitations on both habeas and direct review seem to further reduce the likelihood that justice will be achieved by the Guantanamo trials.
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/annotatio...07/10/test.php

  25. #75
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    The USG has lost (last I checked) 30 of 38 habeas cases to date.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •