[speechlesstx]

The McVeigh trial was held in Denver ;the crime committed in Oklahoma City . Imagine that .

Nice work, I was trying to think of an example. Thanks.

[tomder55]

Protection against double jeopardy is a real guarantee. What Ex means is they will hold back some charges and keep prosecuting on different charges. Trial one through 3,000 they can make individual charges for every victim . Then they can make charges of conspiracy etc.

That is why they can hold trials ad infinitum . However ;how will that look to the world . How's that restoring our standing thingy working when that happens ?

[excon]

;how will that look to the world . How's that restoring our standing thingy working when that happens ?

Hello again, tom:

Let me see. The world is going to see us struggle to hold on to our principles. That's good. Without the trial, the world saw us as one who spoke with forked tongue. That's bad.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, tom:

Lemme see. The world is going to see us struggle to hold on to our principles. That's good. Without the trial, the world saw us as one who spoke with forked tongue. That's bad.

LOL, what part of guaranteeing the outcome - conviction or indefinite detention - while speaking of justice is not speaking with a "forked tongue?" My goodness ex, what if Bush and Gonzales had done that?

[tomder55]

The Israeli's kidnapped Eichmann and brought him to justice . How'd that work out for the Israeli world standing ? In your's and my eyes it may have been the correct thing to do. I assure you we hold a minority opinion on that . Many call it a show trial .

[excon]

LOL, what part of guaranteeing the outcome - conviction or indefinite detention - while speaking of justice is not speaking with a "forked tongue?" My goodness ex, what if Bush and Gonzales had done that?

Hello again, Steve:

Obama misspoke. He doesn't do that very often. But, our prosecutor is acting like EVERY other prosecutor in the world when he speaks about the conviction he's going to get...

What?? You never heard a prosecutor say that?? Dude!

excon

[speechlesstx]

Obama misspoke. He doesn't do that very often.

He misspeaks quite often just as he passes the buck quite often. He said he no part in this decision but he is the decider now, he handed off to Holder and said "don't look at me, it was his decision."

But, our prosecutor is acting like EVERY other prosecutor in the world when he speaks about the conviction he's going to get...

Not the same thing. It's entirely different to predict a conviction than it is to guarantee the outcome, conviction and punishment by the death penalty - or acquittal and detention anyway. You're not that dumb, ex, that IS an affront to our civil justice system and the world will see it exactly as such. You would have agreed with me under the previous administration and you know it.

[excon]

Not the same thing. It's entirely different to predict a conviction than it is to guarantee the outcome... You would have agreed with me under the previous administration and you know it.

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things.. I don't see that Eric Holder "guaranteed" a conviction. He did say that failure is not an option, and I agree with him... Given how he plans to prosecute KSM, I think his conviction can be all but guaranteed... Unless, you think he can be acquitted in 3,000 separate trials...

But, no matter what he said, or inferred, or even guaranteed (if he did), I got news for him. In OUR justice system, there ain't no guarantees...

Is THAT the part where we agree?

Look. Let's put your right wing money where your mouth is... I think they'll get a conviction in the first trial. You don't. Let's put up a dollar. I'll give you odds of 3,000 to 1 that he's convicted on the first go round. If, however, your right wing fears come to pass, at least you'll make a little bread.

excon

[tomder55]

John Gotti Jr is on his 4th trial in a slam-dunk case of racketeering .

[excon]

John Gotti Jr is on his 4th trial in a slam-dunk case of racketeering .

Hello again, tom:

If he's acquitted, let's hope the prosecutors have a few charges they held back.

As you argument relates to the KSM case, however, you don't think Gotti would be acquitted 2,999 times, do you?

excon

[tomder55]

Ex I have no doubt they will secure their "guarantee" . Nonetheless ;proclaiming it as such exposes the process as a show trial . As you well know ;the constitutional protections you would afford him already destroys the government's case . The fact is ;he is a war criminal and the proper place to try a war criminal is in a tribunal.

[excon]

Ex I have no doubt they will secure their "guarantee" . Nonetheless ;proclaiming it as such exposes the process as a show trial .

Hello again, tom:

And, why shouldn't the US put Jihad on trial? Why shouldn't we show them up to be the cowards they are? I asked before why you think that Democracy would LOSE in a show trial against Jihad. Isn't that why we have public trials - for SHOW? Isn't the idea to deter future law breakers from considering crime?? Isn't the idea to SHOW the world how our system of justice works??

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

And, why shouldn't the US put Jihad on trial? Why shouldn't we show them up to be the cowards they are? I asked before why you think that Democracy would LOSE in a show trial against Jihad. Isn't that why we have public trials - for SHOW? Isn't the idea to deter future law breakers from considering crime??? Isn't the idea to SHOW the world how our system of justice works???

excon

So you're saying that putting KSM on trial in NY isn't about law or about constitutional rights. It's about creating a political show trial. There's no legal precedent for it, it's just for show.

Glad to see that you're admitting it.

But I though that our goal in all this was to conduct a war against terrorism, not showcase our justice system by rigging the outcome of the trial, thus showing the entire world that there IS no justice in America.

Elliot

[tomder55]

A tribunal is also a public trial . Our system is based on the premise of a trial in front of a jury of peers.

There are no loyal American citizens who are peers to this scum illegal enemy combattant.

As I've said many times and I'm sticking to the premise ;The guarantee of constitutional protections to enemies of the country is something the founders would never agree to and they in fact made it clear that they crafted the Constitution for us exclusively . To grant them to enemies who are hell bent to militarily destroy the nation is to weaken the foundation that they were built on... yes a suicide pact .

Now both Holder and the President are supposedly schooled on these matters .They know what constitutional issues will arise from treating illegal combatants as common criminals and are pursuing this nonsense anyway. Wonder why I question their motives ? I posted the Cloward-Piven strategy when discussing the President's economic policies earlier today. Perhaps in it is also the rationale behind this decision;create a crisis that undermines American confidence in the system. Obama has complained about the lack of "positive guarantees" in the Constitution before. Maybe he see's this as a way to expidite it's destruction. And when it all comes crashing down the President like you will wring his hands and say. "It's Bush's fault" .

[excon]

As I've said many times and I'm sticking to the premise ;The guarantee of constitutional protections to enemies of the country is something the founders would never agree to and they in fact made it clear that they crafted the Constitution for us exclusively . To grant them to enemies who are hell bent to militarily destroy the nation is to weaken the foundation that they were built on ....yes a suicide pact .

Hello tom:

Given that you think the Constitution IS a suicide pact, it's apparent that you'd be willing to throw it overboard in favor of something else. Therefore, since you and I don't have the same allegiances, we couldn't agree on the solutions to ANY of our problems. And, we don't..

Tell me, what kind of system DO you have in mind?? Would anybody have any rights under a system like that? Probably not.

excon

[tomder55]

You are the one who would water it down by granting provisions and protections guaranteed to Americans, to enemies bent on destroying it ;not me .

[ETWolverine]

Tell me, what kind of system DO you have in mind??? Would anybody have any rights under a system like that? Probably not.

excon

There are plenty of people who are granted such rights under that system. They're called CITIZENS.

[excon]

You are the one who would water it down by granting provisions and protections guaranteed to Americans, to enemies bent on destroying it ;not me .

Hello again, tom:

So, when Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that "....we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....", his mention of ALL men, meant ONLY Americans? Is that what you'd have us believe?

Really. You believe, do you not, that the rest of the world doesn't have any such unalienable rights? They're ours and ours alone, to be coveted, and guarded with our lives. They're CERTAINLY not to be spread around. Is that what you believe?

Who, besides your right wing brethren, could believe such tripe? Tell me please, tom. When you talk about spreading democracy around the world, what kind of democracy are you talking about??

excon

[excon]

thus showing the entire world that there IS no justice in America.

Hello again, Elliot:

Sometimes you sound positively liberal.

excon

[tomder55]

Really. You believe, do you not, that the rest of the world doesn't have any such unalienable rights?

Of course I do . The Declaration is not the legal document of the nation. The Constitution is and in the preamble the Founders themselves restricted the parameters to "for us and our posterity ".