Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
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.
Obama and holder will be holding the very definition of a show trial. If these guys are miraculously acquitted for some reason, they will never walk free.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Quote:
This decision was overruled, however, in 1987, the Court emphasizing the ‘‘plain language’’ of Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, 35 and not directly addressing any possible limitation stemming from the language of the Fifth Amendment. 36 ‘‘The requirements of the Constitution are not violated
where . . . a court-martial is convened to try a serviceman who was
a member of the armed services at the time of the offense
charged.’’ 37 Even under the service connection rule, it was held
that offenses against the laws of war, whether committed by citizens
or by alien enemy belligerents, could be tried by a military
commission. 38
Quote:
All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled
to its protection, including corporations, 399 aliens, 400 and presumptively
citizens seeking readmission to the United States, 401 but
States as such are not so entitled. 402 It is effective in the District
of Columbia 403 and in territories which are part of the United
States, 404 but it does not apply of its own force to unincorporated
territories. 405 Nor does it reach enemy alien belligerents tried by
military tribunals outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States. 406
Quote:
A closely divided Court has ruled that in time of war
the deportation of an enemy alien may be ordered summarily by
executive action; due process of law does not require the courts to
determine the sufficiency of any hearing which is gratuitously afforded
to the alien. 445
Quote:
In In re Yama****a, 450 the majority denied a petition for certiorari and petitions for writs of habeas corpus to review the conviction of a Japanese war criminal by a military commission sitting in the Philippine Islands. It held that since the military commission, in admitting evidence to which objection was made, had not violated any act of Congress, a treaty, or a military command defining its authority, its ruling on evidence and on the mode of conducting the proceedings were not reviewable by the courts. Again, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 451 the Court overruled a lower court decision, which in reliance upon the dissenting opinion in the Yama****a case, had held that the due process clause required that the legality of the conviction of enemy alien belligerents by military tribunals should be tested by the writ of habeas corpus.
Quote:
Without dissent, the Court, in Hiatt v. Brown, 452 reversed the
judgment of a lower court which had discharged a prisoner serving
a sentence imposed by a court-martial because of errors whereby
the prisoner had been deprived of due process of law. The Court
held that the court below had erred in extending its review, for the
purpose of determining compliance with the due process clause, to
such matters as the propositions of law set forth in the staff judge
advocate’s report, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain conviction,
the adequacy of the pre-trial investigation, and the competence
of the law member and defense counsel.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Null and void.
I'll take the GPO and Supreme Court decisions over your internet educated guesses... and no you gets no sticky.
Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
Back when this war began, people were captured on the battlefield and the Bush administration decided not to call them POW's. Instead, they created a new classification called "enemy combatant." By their own admission, this was to prevent the prisoners from falling under the rules of the Geneva Conventions, other treaties, the Constitution and our own law.
Why? Because they wanted to torture these guys (oops...I mean...use "enhanced interrogation" techniques.). So, the first step having been taken by dreaming up a new name for them, they got their in-house "lawyers" to come up with a legal justification for doing so. In other words, a legal theory which would allow them to get around the law and the Constitution. Fortunately for them, their toadies such as John Yoo, Bybee and Alberto Gonzales were more than willing to accommodate them.
Armed with this Potemkin Village of legally shakey theory, they opened GITMO, created a chain of secret CIA prisons, practiced extraordinary rendition and began interrogating the prisoners in the deepest secrecy.
Unfortunately for them, there were some legal scholars who believed the legal theory they hid behind was wrong and they began working to get the whole process into the Courts. They eventually succeeded and the Courts ruled that much of it WAS illegal.
Uh, oh. What now? Oh, they had another plan...they'd get their friends in Congress to re-write the rules for military commissions which would allow them to essentially keep right on doing what they were doing.
But, once again, some legal scholars said, "Not so fast there, Bub." And, the Courts agreed again.
Next move? Stonewall the whole thing until the new President takes office, which they did.
Then...when the new President decides to try them in criminal court because the actions of the previous administration left him little choice, criticize him for making America un-safe and infer that he's part of the enemy. Wait for the rabid supporters to pick up on that theme and carry it to discussion forums where they can blame the new administration because the "confessions" obtained illegally by the previous administration aren't admissible in court.
Is that about right?
Great explanation and description!
My guess is that the OP will never try to respond to your post.....what could she say?
I agree. We are not fighting a standing army of a nation.
We are fighting a radical religious group funded by many other nations covertly. They have no country they call home, they have no true recognized leader. They have cells or sects or groups scattered throughout the world. Can you recognize any of them on sight like you would military in uniform ?
Call it the War on Terror but it's not like any other war we fought.
We're sending our military in to fight nameless, faceless insurgents who look and act and mingle with the common citizens. The terrorists do not fight like an army does in war. Their tactics are different and they have no qualm blowing up innocent citizens. They do not honor rules of engagement in war because they do not have to yet we do.
We are fighting against an entity that does not play by the rules and that is why we can never win.
We capture one of them and we follow our rules of the legal system.
They capture one of us and they behead them on TV for all to see.
IMHO we need to change tactics. Bring home the military and engage in covert operations instead. Build up those forces that perform covert operations and then go in and fight this war.
Or we could help build competent governments in which the people of said country determine its course of action and determine whether they want peace or war. Which goes to one of my favorite sayings that has held true in almost all recent democracies, "a people free to choose, will always choose peace", and we see that as our allies are extremely weary -- even in the face of growing terrorism, to even wage a war. It'll take an act of 9-11 proportions on their soil to make them understand. Without such an action you can be sure that Americans too would have never voted to go to war with a country that wasn't supporting such acts.
You're a participant whether you like it or not. You'd like to sit here and enjoy your right to practice, or not practice, religious activities but would you be afforded the same rights under Sharia Law? You can't place yourself above the law and turning your head to look away from an enemy that has declared war on you is folly.
Or we could help build competent governments in which the people of said country determine its course of action and determine whether they want peace or war. Which goes to one of my favorite sayings that has held true in almost all recent democracies, "a people free to choose, will always choose peace", and we see that as our allies are extremely weary -- even in the face of growing terrorism, to even wage a war. It'll take an act of 9-11 proportions on their soil to make them understand. Without such an action you can be sure that Americans too would have never voted to go to war with a country that wasn't supporting such acts.
When you get freedom handed to you it doesn't seem to work out.
It has to be earned by the people themselves. Then they will cherish it and guard it.
You just can't invade a country, overthrow the government, put "your guy" in place and call it a democracy. It just doesn't work that easy.
Obama and holder will be holding the very definition of a show trial. If these guys are miraculously acquitted for some reason, they will never walk free.
Disagree with you. Time will determine which of us is correct. Btw, how many cases have you tried recently?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
