Check out some similar questions!

ETWolverine · Nov 19, 2009, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

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 gonna go with him...

excon

Uh huh...

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

speechlesstx · Nov 19, 2009, 08:03 AM

What's funny ex is the 180 you've done since Obama was elected. A year ago you would have agreed with those concerns.

ETWolverine · Nov 19, 2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

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..

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.

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

speechlesstx · Nov 19, 2009, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

He can't even tell us why he's made the decision to try these guys in a civillian court.

He made that decision because he's a really smart guy.

excon · Nov 19, 2009, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Sorry, excon, but your limited experience in the federal court system does not make you a legal expert, whereas these guys all are.

Hello again, Elliot:

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

speechlesstx · Nov 19, 2009, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

See that green "expert" tag beside my name??? Where's yours?

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."

excon · Nov 19, 2009, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

He made that decision because he's a really smart guy.

Hello Steve:

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

speechlesstx · Nov 19, 2009, 08:51 AM

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:

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.

excon · Nov 19, 2009, 08:55 AM

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

ETWolverine · Nov 19, 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

See that green "expert" tag beside my name??? Where's yours?

Are you sayin that whomever can provide the longest list of believers is gonna win this argument??? Is that what I've reduced you to? Poor righty.

excon

Uh huh... so now you're an "expert" in the federal court system because AMHD labeled you an "expert".

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

speechlesstx · Nov 19, 2009, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by excon

It says that the towers once stood in the state of NY, and that's where he should be tried.

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."

excon · Nov 19, 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Didn't you say KSM was captured at home? Did he not plan the attacks from abroad? If we're treating this a 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."

Hello again, Steve:

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

speechlesstx · Nov 19, 2009, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by excon

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.

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.

Add Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 10 and Congress has the authority to decide where and how to try KSM. No?

excon · Nov 19, 2009, 04:42 PM

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

speechlesstx · Nov 19, 2009, 05:03 PM

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.

George_1950 · Nov 19, 2009, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

... 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.

excon · Nov 19, 2009, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by George_1950

I've never seen that happen; haven't heard of it, either

Hello again, George:

Let me the first to introduce you to this well known phenomenon.

excon

George_1950 · Nov 19, 2009, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, George:

Let me the first to introduce you to this well known phenomenon.

excon

Fine: your cite?

tomder55 · Nov 20, 2009, 04:28 AM

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 .

speechlesstx · Nov 20, 2009, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by George_1950

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.

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.”