Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Un-American again (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=416497)

  • Nov 18, 2009, 08:13 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I've yet to be shown by you or anyone else how KSM, an enemy of the state responsible for acts of war against the country, being tried in a military court at Gitmo is unconstitutional.

    Hello again, Steve:

    I don't know how you missed it, but the dufus tried for 7 years to do it, and he failed...

    Time and again, government allegations against the detainees failed to withstand even the most minimal judicial scrutiny to which the 2008 Supreme Court ruled detainees are constitutionally entitled. The Government has now lost roughly 28 out of 33 habeas corpus hearings brought by detainees since the Supreme Court's ruling, often before some of the most right-wing, executive-branch-deferring judges in the country, and they've found there is no credible evidence to support the government's accusations.

    So, the tribunals as they were set up, were INDEED, unconstitutional.

    excon
  • Nov 18, 2009, 08:49 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    So, the tribunals as they were set up, were INDEED, unconstitutional.

    In May Obama said he was for these tribunals. Military commissions "are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered."

    In September he vowed to continue indefinite detentions using Bush era laws.

    The question of KSM seems to hinge on basically one point, whether he is an "enemy combatant.' I think he would qualify.
  • Nov 18, 2009, 09:00 AM
    excon

    Hello again, Steve:

    When it's broken as badly as it was, you can't fix it all at once. All you can do is take baby steps. That's what this is. However, small they are, they're steps in the RIGHT direction.

    excon
  • Nov 18, 2009, 09:35 AM
    tomder55

    Sounds like that Billy Joel song 'We didn't start the Fire' .
    Quote:

    George W. Bush inherited a recession. He also inherited the Iraq no-fly zones, a Middle East boiling after the failed last-minute Clintonian rush for an imposed peace, an intelligence community wedded to the notion of Saddam's WMD proliferation, a Congress on record supporting "regime change" in Iraq, a WMD program in Libya, a Syrian occupation of Lebanon, Osama bin Laden enjoying free rein in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, a renegade Pakistan that had gone nuclear on Clinton's watch with Dr. Khan in full export mode, and a pattern of appeasing radical Islam after its serial attacks (on the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, U.S. embassies, and the U.S.S. Cole).
    In other words, Bush inherited the regular "stuff" that confronts most presidents when they take office. What is strange is that Obama has established a narrative that he, supposedly unlike any other president, inherited a mess.

    At some point, Team Obama might have at least acknowledged that, by January 2009, Iraq was largely quiet; Libya was free of WMD; Syria was out of Lebanon; most of the al-Qaeda leadership had been attrited or was in hiding; a homeland-security protocol was in place to deal with domestic terror plots; European governments were mostly friendly to the U.S. (unlike during the Chirac-Schröder years); and the U.S. enjoyed good relations with one-third of the planet in China and India.

    What Bush Inherited, and What He Left Left Behind - Victor Davis Hanson - The Corner on National Review Online=
  • Nov 18, 2009, 10:26 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Lemme see if I understand you righty's. What Obama really wants to do is put Bush and Cheney on trial, and is willing to let KSM go in order to do so...

    I just heard Karl Rove tell Hannity that very thing... It's absolutely the stupidest thing I've ever heard...

    I saw the segment, Rove said no such thing. Not even close. I guess that's why you haven't furnished the quote yet.
  • Nov 18, 2009, 10:49 AM
    speechlesstx

    Get this, in China Obama said KSM would be '"convicted" and had "the death penalty
    applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case.'


    Quote:

    He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.
    Isn't Obama a lawyer? How much more of a 'dufus' can this guy be? Yep, the Obama administration is taking "steps in the RIGHT direction."
  • Nov 18, 2009, 10:58 AM
    tomder55

    I doubt if he ever stepped into a court house as a lawyer.
  • Nov 18, 2009, 10:59 AM
    speechlesstx

    No, he would plead "present."
  • Nov 18, 2009, 11:02 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Isn't Obama a lawyer? How much more of a 'dufus' can this guy be? Yep, the Obama administration is taking "steps in the RIGHT direction."

    Hello again, Steve:

    Two steps forward, one step back = progress.

    excon
  • Nov 18, 2009, 11:18 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Two steps forward, one step back = progress.

    Um, all I'm seeing are steps backward.
  • Nov 19, 2009, 05:32 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    Plus, I know you think these rights give bad people certain advantages, and it does... But, they are NOT the get out of jail free cards you purport them to be, or we wouldn't be the worlds largest jailer. And, of course, we are.

    When Adolph Eichmann had a public trial, a holocaust didn't ensue. Nazism didn't rise again. The public trial, in fact, put a period on it...
    Had some time yesterday to research the Eichman trial . I'll leave the issue of his being kidnapped aside for the moment . He was tried by a 3 judge panel and not a jury of his peers . The evidentiary rules don't appear to be as strict there .

    In fact ; by all appearances ;if that is the standard for civilian trials ,then the Israeli system resembles the military commission system (which has also been confirmed constitutional throughout American history )that I support as the proper venue to try KSM and the 9-11 conspirator's cases. (ht Elliot for his assistance in my research)
  • Nov 19, 2009, 08:09 AM
    excon

    Hello again, Righty's:

    I want to know something... Did the terrorists want to kill us a month ago?? Do they want to kill us MORE now? If KSM comes to NY, are they going to want to kill us double down triple fantasticly more??

    How do you want to kill somebody, and want to kill them more, and then even more?? I don't get it.

    Cause if the terrorists really didn't want to kill us a month ago, but NOW they do, why was I taking my shoes off for the last 8 years? And, since NOW they REALLY want to kill us, what else are we going to have to take off?

    You're not saying that security should remain the same, are you?? Things have changed, right. I mean they want to kill us MORE!!

    excon
  • Nov 19, 2009, 08:40 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Righty's:

    I wanna know something.... Did the terrorists want to kill us a month ago??? Do they want to kill us MORE now? If KSM comes to NY, are they gonna want to kill us double down triple fantasticly more???

    How do you want to kill somebody, and want to kill them more, and then even more??? I don't get it.

    Cause if the terrorists really didn't want to kill us a month ago, but NOW they do, why was I taking my shoes off for the last 8 years? And, since NOW they REALLY want to kill us, what else are we going to have to take off?

    You're not saying that security should remain the same, are you??? Things have changed, right. I mean they want to kill us MORE!!!

    excon

    Every single word you have written here is correct. Trying KSM isn't going to make anyone hate us more than they already do. So what you are saying is 100% correct.

    And it has NOTHING to do with the fact at hand... that KSM's trial doesn't belong in a civilian court because he is a POW not a criminal. Therefore, if there is to be a trial at all, it should be in a MILITARY VENUE.

    Tell me, excon, using your own argument, if we were to try KSM in a military court, would it make the world hate us more? Would it make those who hate us want to kill us more than they do now? If KSM is tried in a military court, "are they gonna want to kill us double down triple fantasticly more???"

    Why are you so against trying him in the venue in which he truly belongs?

    Elliot
  • Nov 19, 2009, 08:50 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Why are you so against trying him in the venue in which he truly belongs?

    Hello again, Elliot:

    Actually HE wants to be tried as a combatant. It'll make him SHINE in the Arab world as a fighter who martyred himself...

    But, he's NOT a combatant. He never picked up a gun. He wasn't captured on the battlefield. He was captured at home. He's a civilian slime ball, and it's a civilian court where he should be tried.

    Besides that, if the show trial that you're so afraid of becomes a battle between Jihad and Democracy, why do you think Democracy would lose?? Don't you like it here?

    excon
  • Nov 19, 2009, 08:54 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    He's a civilian slime ball, and it's a civilian court where he should be tried.

    So because he was captured at home he didn't commit acts of war against the United States?
  • Nov 19, 2009, 09:05 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    So because he was captured at home he didn't commit acts of war against the United States?

    Hello again, Steve:

    Yes, he committed an act of war. Fortunately for us, it also happens to be a crime. The dufus TRIED to try him in a military court, but he FAILED. You do understand, that if the decider hadn't failed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Good thing we have a backup plan.

    I'd ask if you have another alternative, but I know your alternative is to let him rot in gitmo forever... THAT, my friend, would cause a never ending Jihad against us, but you'll NEVER understand that.

    excon
  • Nov 19, 2009, 09:13 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Elliot:

    Actually HE wants to be tried as a combatant. It'll make him SHINE in the Arab world as a fighter who martyred himself...

    But, he's NOT a combatant. He never picked up a gun. He wasn't captured on the battlefield. He was captured at home. He's a civilian slime ball, and it's a civilian court where he should be tried.

    Besides that, if the show trial that you're so afraid of becomes a battle between Jihad and Democracy, why do you think Democracy would lose??? Don't you like it here?

    excon

    Uh huh... and going back to your argument about Eichmann, he was captured in front of his home in Argentina. He never lifted a gun either. He just gave the orders. But he was tried as a WAR CRIMINAL anyway, not a "civillian slime ball".

    Can you please show me the legal precedent or SCOTUS ruling for your argument that if a war criminal or POW is captured in his home instead of the field of battle, he should therefore be tried as a civillian criminal and not a war criminal?

    BTW, just for your information, he wasn't captured in his home. He was captured at a terrorist safehouse in Rawalpindi, Pakistan owned by Ahmed Abdul Qudoos. (As a side note, Qudoos is a microbiologist who was apparently working on biological weapons for AQ before his capture).

    Elliot
  • Nov 19, 2009, 09:40 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Can you please show me the legal precedent or SCOTUS ruling for your argument that if a war criminal or POW is captured in his home instead of the field of battle, he should therefore be tried as a civillian criminal and not a war criminal?

    Hello again, Elliot:

    We've had this conversation MANY times in the past, and I'm sure we'll have it MANY times again...

    POW's are tried or released AFTER hostilities have ceased... When the dufus declared that the war on terror will NEVER end, that meant that we have to decide what we're going to do with the POW's, because we can't keep them FOREVER. You think we can. You're wrong.

    Besides, if they were POW's, the right wing Supreme Court would NOT have given them habeas corpus rights, but they did. So, I guess even the Supreme Court has doubts about whether we can keep them FOREVER...

    Face it, Elliot. The decider decided wrong. We're going to close Gitmo, and restore our American principles. I don't know why that bothers you... Yes, I do... People who want to keep people locked up forever WITHOUT a trial, aren't very American in the first place.

    excon
  • Nov 19, 2009, 10:14 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    We're gonna close Gitmo, and restore our American principles.

    He's still working on that...
  • Nov 19, 2009, 10:56 AM
    speechlesstx

    By the way, Obama was FOR a military trial of KSM before he was against it. I guess he was un-American before he wasn't.
  • Nov 19, 2009, 12:19 PM
    speechlesstx

    Ex, your 'steps forward' argument is getting harder and harder to defend, even Newsweek sees through that.

    'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

    Quote:

    Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

    Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

    At least that's the way the system usually works.
    Yep, two steps forward. How's that restoring our standing in the world thing going to look now?
  • Nov 19, 2009, 04:32 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    At least that's the way the system usually works.Yep, two steps forward.... How's that restoring our standing in the world thing gonna look now?

    Hello Steve:

    No, it isn't. It works the way I said it does. If he's acquitted of ONE charge, they'll charge him again, and then again, and even again if they have to... I'm telling you, he will NEVER walk the streets again, no matter what the email you received said.

    What makes you think the system is fair? It ISN'T fair. It's biased toward the prosecutor. If it wasn't how come we got more people in jail than that evil old China who has, what, 10 times as many people as we do?

    excon
  • Nov 19, 2009, 05:04 PM
    speechlesstx

    It wasn't an email, it was Newsweek - no friend of conservatives - I made that clear.
  • Nov 23, 2009, 08:02 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

    Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
    The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.
    Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
    Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said. "Their assessment is negative," he said.
    My Way News - Lawyer: 9/11 defendants want platform for views
  • Nov 23, 2009, 08:39 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:

    And, that should scare us how?

    excon
  • Nov 23, 2009, 08:53 AM
    tomder55

    Scare us ? No . But they should not be given this platform.
  • Nov 23, 2009, 08:54 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    And, that should scare us how?

    excon

    So you think that it's OK that POWs get a forum to vent their political and religious hatreds and justifications for mass murder.

    And here I thought that the purpose of giving them a trial was to deliver justice, not political propaganda.

    In point of fact we COULD give them a fair trial without giving them such a forum by using the military tribunal system. But now we know that your goal for this trial isn't justice, it's political venting against the USA. That's why you're fighting so hard to justify this nonsense.

    Elliot
  • Nov 23, 2009, 09:01 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    No. But they should not be given this platform.

    Hello again, tom:

    I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed, the defense lawyer's wishes notwithstanding. Judges run those courts with an iron hand.

    They'll be allowed to defend themselves on the charges - nothing more. As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that the prosecution will bring charges that don't relate to one's views. Therefore, one's views won't be allowed.

    excon
  • Nov 23, 2009, 09:15 AM
    tomder55
    Yes and I know that regardless of the iron fist defendants motives are part of the process. I know in the Manson trial his motives were explored by both prosecution and defense.Time Magazine described his statement at the end of the trial as :90 minutes of extraordinary sermonizing about himself and society in general .

    I saw the transcripts of the Berrigan and Chicago 8 trials and at the end their motivating factors were well understood.
  • Nov 23, 2009, 09:19 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed, the defense lawyer's wishes notwithstanding. Judges run those courts with an iron hand.

    They'll be allowed to defend themselves on the charges - nothing more. As a matter of fact, it's highly likely that the prosecution will bring charges that don't relate to one's views. Therefore, one's views won't be allowed.

    excon


    So... you think that the defense attorney isn't going to ask "So why did you do this," and then let KSM rant on in answer to the question?

    You think that this isn't going to become a forum for Fundamentalist Islamic hatred?

    Then you are an even bigger fool that I gave you credit for.

    But not by much.

    Elliot
  • Nov 23, 2009, 09:24 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    You think that this isn't going to become a forum for Fundamentalist Islamic hatred?

    Hello again, Elliot:

    And, if it is, that should scare us HOW? Do you actually think that when democracy puts jihad on trial, jihad will win??

    Dude!

    excon
  • Nov 23, 2009, 09:28 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Elliot:

    And, if it is, that should scare us HOW? Do you actually think that when democracy puts jihad on trial, jihad will win???

    Dude!

    excon

    And here, I thought the purpose was to put KSM on trial for his crimes, not to put "jihad" or "democracy" on trial.

    Just goes to show, one more time, that your goal isn't justice or upholding the Constitution. It's politics and ideology.

    So please drop the talk about defending the Constitution, because you have now proven SEVERAL times in this thread that that isn't your goal.

    Elliot
  • Nov 23, 2009, 09:41 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    I'm not sure you understand what happens in federal court. They are NOT platforms. The witnesses will be able to respond to questions, and nothing more. No political statements will be allowed

    You mean like in the Moussaoui trial?
  • Nov 23, 2009, 09:46 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Just goes to show, one more time, that your goal isn't justice or upholding the Constitution. It's politics and ideology.

    Hello again, Elliot:

    We hold public trials in this country for SHOW. That's why they're public. Are they public to send a message? Yes.

    Are they public, just for the sake of being public, and for no other reason as you assert?? Dude. Why would you think that if JUSTICE wasn't the goal, we'd want to show it to the world?

    Is all of this news to you? Dude!

    excon
  • Nov 23, 2009, 10:23 AM
    speechlesstx

    The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is not too pleased with Holder's decision:

    Quote:

    November 20, 2009

    The Honorable Robert M. Gates
    Secretary of Defense
    U.S. Department of Defense
    Washington, D.C. 20301

    The Honorable Eric H. Holder
    Attorney General of the United States
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Washington, D.C. 20530

    Dear Sirs:

    One week ago today, you announced that the Attorney General, in consultation with Secretary Gates, had determined that the United States government will prosecute in the Southern District of New York five detainees who are currently detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are charged in military commissions with conspiring to commit the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. These detainees are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. You also indicated your intention to withdraw pending military commission charges against these detainees, once federal charges are brought against them.

    The decision to terminate the prosecution of these self-confessed terrorists in military commissions, transfer them to the United States, and bring them into a federal courthouse for trial raises many serious questions which I would like you both to address in a full committee briefing on December 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM. We would be willing to accommodate a classified briefing, upon request, due to the nature of the information that may need to be discussed.

    As you know, the recently enacted Military Commission Act of 2009, which my colleagues and I carefully drafted, is a vast improvement over the previous military commission system by curing many of the legal infirmities of the latter. The new law ensures that hard fought convictions stick and are not overturned on appeal due to these structural deficiencies. I and many others, including the President, have argued that strengthened military tribunals are an appropriate forum to try detainees for law of war violations, such as those perpetrated against us in this country eight years ago. I am interested to know how the decision was made to take these detainees out of the military system and into federal court, how the July 20, 2009 protocol, “Determination of Guantanamo Cases Referred for Prosecution,” for making this decision was applied in these particular cases, the procedural status of the five detainees who will remain in the military commissions system, the location of future military tribunals, and the budgetary and other implications of these decisions. As a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue.

    I look forward to engaging with you on this critical topic in the full committee briefing to ensure that justice is served and preserved. I expect that the full committee briefing will also help define the scope of a subsequent full committee public hearing.

    Should you have any questions concerning this request, please have your staff contact the committee at 202-225-4151.

    Very truly yours,


    IKE SKELTON
    Chairman
    He wants to drag him before the committee to explain why he chose to ignore the legislation "carefully drafted" by he and his colleagues for just such cases, contrary to the President's own assertion that military tribunals were appropriate and wants to know where he's headed next. A Democrat controlled Congress drafted the military commission legislation that would pass SCOTUS' muster and Obama blessed it. It's not just us "cowards" pushing back, ex... Holder's got some explaining to do.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:56 PM.