Facetious
Moderated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y
:1orglaugh
Not to worry, I don't care for either of them.
:1orglaugh
Not to worry, I don't care for either of them.
Senator Lindsey Graham vs. U.S Atty Gen Eric Holder
- Thread starter Facetious
- Start date
Facetious
Moderated
And it hasn't even yet begun !
This thing is going to cost the taxpayers ! What if the trial lasts longer than a year, how much will that cost in security alone ?
And what is Obama doing already talking up penalty phase (death sentences) prior to the actual trials ? I agree with him, but even I know that that could cause problems during the trial(s) Zip it Mr president, otherwise, the trial will have to be relocated to the Haig :tongue: which "could be" Holder and Obama's intentions all along, start a precedent to have the world court hear cases that historically have been heard in U.S. military tribunals... maybe :dunno:
Another thing, how are the courts supposed to select a jury of peers for these guys ? They're foreign enemy combatants for khrist sake.
Uh ... mm Whhh uhhhh dont ask Eric Holder because from the way it sounds, he's learning as he goes.
I guess that Lindsey's past experience as a military prosecutor is paying off
Also, I like the Kucinich analogy. lol !
great points Facetious. If this happens, maybe more people will realize the President, no matter who it is, is a figurehead whose main job is to sell the objectives of those running the show from behind the scenes.
As I have typed before, I think the new president spends Inaugural Night in the White House knowing that, the next morning, he be going against much of what he campaigned on to carry out the directives of those in real power
I know, conspiracy nut. It's OK, I slept well
As I have typed before, I think the new president spends Inaugural Night in the White House knowing that, the next morning, he be going against much of what he campaigned on to carry out the directives of those in real power
I know, conspiracy nut. It's OK, I slept well
Didn't watch the vid but based on the comments I would just respond by saying, you don't hold the accused in perpetuity, you try the accused (that's what justice is about) irrespective of perceived costs...and you met out punishment accordingly (be it jail or otherwise).
Those rules don't change because of the criminal suspect.
KSM's trial and execution of sentence should be no different than that of the so called "Blind Sheik's", Moussaoui's, Megrahi's, etc.
All of this whining about bringing them here and trying them has no basis in precedent and are little more than political red herrings IMO.
Those rules don't change because of the criminal suspect.
KSM's trial and execution of sentence should be no different than that of the so called "Blind Sheik's", Moussaoui's, Megrahi's, etc.
All of this whining about bringing them here and trying them has no basis in precedent and are little more than political red herrings IMO.
jasonk282
Banned
I have had heard that Manson tried to used the newspaper which Nixon said that Manson was guilty as a way to try to get the trial moved but it failed. I think that might be a presedent for the judge to consider. It's also interesting that Holder's old law firm that he was partner in is doing the defending of KSM, can that not be seen as a conflict of intrest?And it hasn't even yet begun !
This thing is going to cost the taxpayers ! What if the trial lasts longer than a year, how much will that cost in security alone ?
And what is Obama doing already talking up penalty phase (death sentences) prior to the actual trials ? I agree with him, but even I know that that could cause problems during the trial(s) Zip it Mr president, otherwise, the trial will have to be relocated to the Haig :tongue: which "could be" Holder and Obama's intentions all along, start a precedent to have the world court hear cases that historically have been heard in U.S. military tribunals... maybe :dunno:
That's what i take for it too. He looked like a deer in headlight yesterday.
Not to mention the fact that he serves on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which is empowered with legislative oversight of the US military.I guess that Lindsey's past experience as a military prosecutor is paying off
Also, I like the Kucinich analogy. lol !
What is unprecedented is this grabbing of people and holding them for years without trials.There are no declared wars and these people are not members of an organized army or govt.Having them face military tribunals would be the unprecedented act by our govt.They need trials or need to be released,anything else goes against everything we are suppose to stand for, like justice and due process for anyone accused of a crime.
I like how some people didn't like the possibility of a trial, because technically it could merely give a chance, as incredibly small as it is in this case, for somebody not to be convinced. They want a process where somebody is going to be locked away no matter what. Doesn't that make a mockery of our entire system of justice and the principles it based on. They have a term for trials where the outcome is already predetermined. They are called shams. The whole purpose of a trial is to look objectively at the evidence and how strongly it points to the defendant’s guilt and then make determinations based off of that.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Actually, he was attempting to get a mistrial declared by exposing the jury to the newspaper headline. It didn't work and now Charlie is rotting in a cell in Vacaville.
KSM has already declared that he is ready to plead guilty and accept his sentence (death undoubtedly) before a military court. It would certainly seem to be much more economical and less sensationalistic to have him tried by a military court. At Nuremberg, all of the accused Nazi war criminals were tried by a military tribunal. Why wouldn't the Al-Qaeda terrorists be tried via the same process?
Technically, is the act of terrorism a civil crime or is it an act of war? I guess that is the question that would determine the venue....:dunno:
Here's an interesting article on the subject by Christopher Morris:
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/Resources/PhilForum/Terrorism/ChristopherMorris.html
It's an interesting question to debate. I tend to believe that it is a crime but I think it is a very fine line.
Once again, FOMM is a stoic voice of reason when emotions run very high on an issue like this. :thumbsup:
I would err on the side of caution and have everything not obviously an act of war be treated as a crime. Otherwise I could see the government someday trying to twist things that are treated as a crime today by the people here as "acts of war" in the future to better get around some restrictions and better circumvent human rights when it wants to.
I could also point out, for example, that people like Timothy McVeigh engaged in an act of terrorism and were tried just like other civilians that have committed crimes. Not many people were calling for it to be treated as an act of war back then.
Funny how Republicans only value the Constitution and the rule of law when it suits them. Don't want to pay taxes? Whine about the government not following the Constitution. But when the Constitution provides for trials for people Republicans don't like, well let's just get rid of it. That's why Republicans are such failures. They reek of hypocrisy. Thank God President Obama is restoring the rule of law. Our country is safer now than it's been for the past 8 years.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Good point. The ultimate argument to me would seem to center around a given that an act of war is something committed by a sovereign state and that a crime is committed by individuals or a group of individuals.
After giving it more thought, it's the right thing to do. He should be tried in an American criminal court of law.
Not to worry, I don't care for either of them.
Ditto. They're both dickholes.
jasonk282
Banned
The Constitution calles for a fair and speedy trial and a jury of your peers for american CITIZENS, Not a terrorist that is not an american citizen. Why are we granting him the same rights as our citizens? This is the problem that I have.
Also when and if the military ever capture another HVT(high Value Target) they are going to have to decide is he going to be tried in a civillian court or a military court, they by making it harder to intergoate and get intell from the people that they capture. If they want police to fight the GWOT then call the LAPD.
Wrong Jason. Just as a foreign national is subject to prosecution for violating our laws when they are in our jurisdictional borders, constitutional protects are extended to them when they are charged with crimes under our jurisdiction.
Two things though, the way the Bush administration sought to handle this was to label individuals captured on the battlefield enemy combatants and jail them offshore at various facilities around the world including GiTMO.
The question ultimately is what becomes of these people? Can you hold someone indefinitely without charge or trial and at what point is that state sponsored kidnapping?
jasonk282
Banned
Well that makes sence, thanks HM. So are they going to try him on over3,000 counts of murder? And considering that he is already saying that he is guilty how long will this actually take. He wants to be a maryter for Islam, giving him the death pentaly is something that he wants.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
Have mercenaries or spies ever faced military tribunals before? I wonder if the U.S. or Britain ever charged someone for fighting in the Spanish civil war.
Similar threads
