 |
What an idiotic thing to say: "President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed as Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed: "Failure is not an option." Obama: Professed 9/11 mastermind will be convicted
Ah, the anointed one is sooooooooooo intelligent.
Yes George, he really is a dufus. Ex, says that's progress.
Hello again:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Come on, Steve... Trying him is two steps forward. Proclaiming him guilty is one step back.
In answer to your question, George, it didn't make any difference in the Charles Manson trial when Nixon said he was guilty too. Manson even held up the headline to the jury, emblazoned with Nixon's guilty proclamation. He still got convicted...
excon
As I said in the previous discussion, if they've picked NY based on a predicted outcome and won't release him even if he's found not guilty that would make this faux pas the 3rd step backwards wouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm sure they've got 100's of charges that they're holding in abeyance, that they could levy, and WILL if he's acquitted. He will NEVER see the light of day, your scare tactics notwithstanding.
I, for one, am a firm believer in our ability to convict people.
excon
PS> For a tough guy right winger, you sound pretty scared.
Pointing out the administration's mistakes and flip flops is a scare tactic? I thought that was doing the job the media should be doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Maybe you need to clean your ears. I'm not scared, I'm dumbfounded by this administration's incompetence... but then again that IS kind of scary.Quote:
PS> For a tough guy right winger, you sound pretty scared.
Excon,
The thing about trying terrorists and POWs in a civilian court is that that the rules of evidence are much stricter in the courts than they are in military tribunals. Under those evidentiary rules, the prosecution HAS NO CASE because KSM was never marandized, no warrants were issued, and little evidence was ever collected. What evidence WAS collected violate the rules of civilian courts.
The sole piece of evidence is his own confession, and that came after he was waterboarded, which thanks to you and people like you, is going to be thrown out by the courts, despite the fact that waterboarding isn't actually illegal.
This is going to be true of all the "100's of charges they're holding in abeyance".
So... unless you are going to throw out the civilian justice system rules of evidence, KSM is going to walk.
And if we DO decide to throw out those rules, why bother with this charade in the first place? Just try them in military tribunals where the evidentiary laws don't apply in the first place and these problems all go away.
This is what I have been saying to you for the past 8 years... the civilian justice system cannot be applied to POWs. The circumstances of criminal cases and POW cases are too different for the rules of one to apply to cases of the other. But you wouldn't listen.
Now the lib's chickens are coming home to roost... unfortunately it's the rest of us who are going to have to suffer because of it.
When the Dems lose their majorities in the House and Senate next year, there is going to be a reason for it, and this is just one of many.
Elliot
Obama showed very poor judgment with these comments and a lawyer of all people should know better. Their lawyers will now be able to argue that they won't be able to get a fair trial. It would be tragic to see them get off on a technicality.
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Well, it's like I told tom. If I had to choose between the legal arguments YOU make, and the ones our Attorney General makes, I'm going to go with him...
excon
Obama is no lawyer, friend. His passion is community organizing and he's going to eat those words many times before this trial is over. Come to think of it: he may be a witness for the defense. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by earl237
I'm looking forward to this AG fixing the messes his boss is making for the show trial, that may very well never take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Obama is tragically amazing; he conducts the office he holds as though he were on the playground, or Chicago ward politics. It ain't going to wash. I'm from Georgia and the most embarrassing POTUS of the USA is from here; I did not vote for him. Obama is going to replace Carter as the most incompetent of all presidents in our history. It's just a pattern of Democrat presidential politics: find the least known operative in the land, and push him/her as the greatest candidate. Bwe he he.
Like I said in the other thread, if he ever worked a courtroom he would plead "present."Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
I've been there, too; they don't ask whether you are 'present'; they ask whether you are 'ready'. We have too many laws and too many regulations; and too few people concerned about individual freedom and liberty. Perhaps the nation is waking-up to the challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Some one has to explain how this improves our world image (which the President professes to care so much about) by announcing a show trial and then assuring that not only will KSM be convicted ;but that the death penalty will be applied.
This where progressives say, Don't judge me by the outcome, but judge me by my intentions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,
I agree when we have a leader who misspeaks, it DOES diminish us in the eyes of the world...
But, the world should NOT misunderestimate us.
excon
Ex, Jonah Golberg has some more thoughts on how we're taking 2 steps forward with this...
No worries, right?Quote:
How the KSM Trial Will Undermine the Law [Jonah Goldberg]
The ACLU loves that we're bringing these guys to civilian courts. They should be careful what they wish for. From an e-friend and lawyer with very relevant government experience.
Dear Jonah,
It is a really bad idea to have a trial where the accused is so vile and dangerous no jury or judge would ever let them off. The saying “bad cases make bad law” is a cliché for a reason. The judge in the KSM case will bend over backwards to make sure KSM is convicted. The appellate courts will do the same. No one wants to be the guy who let him off. The problem with that is that they will make all kinds of screwy and destructive rulings justifying the use of government power that will then be precedence for other criminal cases. Some day when a guy gets convicted on a two bit federal charge thanks to the KSM rules that will no doubt result from this trial, we will have Eric Holder and his liberal and libertarian enablers to thank. KSM and his case is like a virus that should be isolated from the civilian justice system.
Not unlike the OJ Simpson case?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's apparent that Goldberg (and you) have NO CLUE how the federal courts work.. In fact, MOST of the people yelling about this have NO CLUE how the federal courts work..
I do.
Besides that, he's not suggesting, is he, that the federal judges will be "empathetic" towards the government?? Even the ones the dufus picked?? DUDE!
excon
Uh huh...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And what legal arguments has Holder made?
He can't even tell us why he's made the decision to try these guys in a civilian court. He hasn't given a legal argument for it. And when pushed yesterday by Lindsay Gramm, he couldn't explain the reasoning to Congress either. Nor could he explain why KSM might be tried in a civilian court but OBL might not. He couldn't explain his logic or his legal reasoning because he isn't using logic or legal reasoning.
So don't listen to MY reasoning. Listen to HOLDER'S reasoning... or lack thereof.
Elliot
What's funny ex is the 180 you've done since Obama was elected. A year ago you would have agreed with those concerns.
Let's assume that this is true. Let's assume for a moment that nobody on this board except you has a clue about how federal courts work.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What does that have to do with the fact that KSM's trial doesn't belong in a civilian court?
But, are you actually prepared to argue that you have more extensive knowledge of the civilian federal court system than a Constitutional Attorney and former White House legal advisor like Mark Levin? Or former Congressman and Constitutional Attorney John LeBoutillier? Or Senator and former attorney Lindsey Graham? Or any of the other attorneys and members of Congress who have given very strong arguments of why this is a BAD IDEA?
Sorry, excon, but your limited experience in the federal court system does not make you a legal expert, whereas these guys all are.
Elliot
He made that decision because he's a really smart guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
See that green "expert" tag beside my name?? Where's yours?
Are you saying that whomever can provide the longest list of believers is going to win this argument?? Is that what I've reduced you to? Poor righty.
excon
So, like Holder you're a really smart guy so we should just say "hey, he's a really smart guy so he must be right."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm glad you brought that up. It relates to Elliot's suggestion that I may NOT be an expert in the law...
But, here's the thing. Our founding fathers knew how to write stuff in short little sentences that even a 3rd grader could understand. The Constitution is only a couple pages. They wrote it that way on purpose so that even a regular guy like me, or Eric Holder perhaps, could understand it.
excon
It must not be that easy to read because there's all manner of morons out there that think it bans God from government and gives them the right to kill babies and a right to health care, but that's another thread.
So tell me what this means:
Quote:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Hello again, Steve:
It says that the towers once stood in the state of NY, and that's where he should be tried.
What do YOU think it says?
excon
Uh huh... so now you're an "expert" in the federal court system because AMHD labeled you an "expert".Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Got it.
If that's all you got...
And we've been through this before. I'm a Senior Member, meaning that my member is senior to yours... yours is just formerly pert.
Elliot
Didn't you say KSM was captured at home? Did he not plan the attacks from abroad? If we're treating this a law enforcement issue it says to me that he can be tried "at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Here's the relevant passage you provided:
"... such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed...."
The crime DID occur within a state. Consequently, the balance of the passage doesn't apply. Where he conspired, or where he was arrested are not relevant.
Now, I suppose the list of Constitutional experts Elliot provided are going to say the passage says something else... But, they can't fool me. I know how to read.
excon
OK, maybe I'm just being dumb today (no comments) but would that not depend on what they're going to charge him with? As far as I know they plan on charging him with "material support" which traditionally is a war crime and which was upheld in Hamdan as such.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Add Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 10 and Congress has the authority to decide where and how to try KSM. No?
Hello again, Steve:
I never heard of the crime "material support". If it's a war crime, they're not going to be charging him with that. I'll bet they charge with 3,000 counts of murder. Ok, 2,500 just in case they need the other 500 later.
Or, because it's federal, 3,000 counts of denying people their civil rights. Maybe they'll bring him to state court. I don't know. Do you?
excon
You've never heard of material support? It was one of the counts Hamdan was found guilty of. I don't know what they're going to do, but as I posted last it apparently doesn't matter because they have no plans for letting him go if he wins.
I do not believe you mean it to sound this way, but you are saying the USA is a nation of thugs. A man can be found innocent in a court of law and not allowed to walk out?? I've never seen that happen; haven't heard of it, either, unless during Prohibition.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Let me the first to introduce you to this well known phenomenon.
excon
Fine: your cite?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The McVeigh trial was held in Denver ;the crime committed in Oklahoma City . Imagine that .
To answer Steve's question ,Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.
It won't happen; but Congress could over ride the decision today if it wanted to by limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. In fact ;the Republicans should publicly announce that they have crafted such legislation with as much fanfare as they can muster.Let the nation know which Representative approves of this folly .
I absolutely mean it to sound that way. Look here and here and follow the links. Ex thinks if the first trial ends with acquittal they'll just keep charging him until one sticks, but that's not the rhetoric coming from the administration, which is if he's acquitted he will return to “preventive detention.”Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 PM. |