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.
My speakers are not connected. Can't listen to it, so not interested in watching without sound. I thought the quotes posted underneath the video were a verbatim transcript of what Obama said.
Then you would know no matter what happens they will be held indefinitely somewhere. So they are in fact guilty no matter what the outcome of a trial is. This is a show trial plain and simple.
Show trials never have not-guilty verdicts or even the possibility as such...
Anyway, this whole present debate is ridiculous since the administrations Neo-Right critics such as yourself, refuse to acknowledge the fact that had the previous administration not attempted to circumvent both the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Convention and the rule of law in general this nightmare legal tar baby wouldn't exist in the first place.
The Bush administration had two courses of action, either declare the detainees to be prisoners of war, or classify them as common criminals except in either case, be they POW's or common criminals the use of torture would have been precluded, so the administration invented a third course, designed not to remove these individuals from the battle field (especially seeing that precious few were captured there) or to bring them to justice.
The Administration's attempt at jury-rigging the system, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) in that the military commissions established by the administration did not meet the standards set by either the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) or the Geneva Convention.
Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war can be adjudicated as enemy combatants or unlawful enemy combatants. Under the Geneva Convention, enemy combatants may be tried under the UCMJ those adjudicated as unlawful enemy combatants are tried through the proper civilian court in which they are held. Of course in neither a military court or a civilian one, is evidence elicited through torture admissible.
In short, the much adored use of TORTURE has brought us to the present dilemma.
Now getting back to the issue of "show trials". It appears that the administration has chosen to adhere to the rule of law, unlawful enemy combatants, terrorist, will be tried in civilian court for those crimes as accorded by the Geneva convention, if failing to win a conviction in civilian court, there is nothing under either the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva convention which precludes the government from declaring such a defendant as being an "lawful" enemy combatant or a prisoner of war with all the rights and privileges afforded by the Geneva Convention. So, to compare the possibility of being placed at the risk of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or at the risk of their life, with confinement as a POW is more than a bit specious.
But this is the situation that the administration finds itself as a result of recent Court decisions and the attempts of the Bush administration to skirt the rule of law, and reliance upon torture.
My speakers are not connected. Can't listen to it, so not interested in watching without sound. I thought the quotes posted underneath the video were a verbatim transcript of what Obama said.
Well, that sure beats all to heck an attempt to deny the truth. I guess if you can't listen to it, you can't admit the truth.
Finding new ways everyday to hide heads in the sand.
Show trials never have not-guilty verdicts or even the possibility as such...
Anyway, this whole present debate is ridiculous since the administrations Neo-Right critics such as yourself, refuse to acknowledge the fact that had the previous administration not attempted to circumvent both the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Convention and the rule of law in general this nightmare legal tar baby wouldn't exist in the first place.
The Bush administration had two courses of action, either declare the detainees to be prisoners of war, or classify them as common criminals except in either case, be they POW's or common criminals the use of torture would have been precluded, so the administration invented a third course, designed not to remove these individuals from the battle field (especially seeing that precious few were captured there) or to bring them to justice.
The Administration's attempt at jury-rigging the system, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) in that the military commissions established by the administration did not meet the standards set by either the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) or the Geneva Convention.
Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war can be adjudicated as enemy combatants or unlawful enemy combatants. Under the Geneva Convention, enemy combatants may be tried under the UCMJ those adjudicated as unlawful enemy combatants are tried through the proper civilian court in which they are held. Of course in neither a military court or a civilian one, is evidence elicited through torture admissible.
In short, the much adored use of TORTURE has brought us to the present dilemma.
Now getting back to the issue of "show trials". It appears that the administration has chosen to adhere to the rule of law, unlawful enemy combatants, terrorist, will be tried in civilian court for those crimes as accorded by the Geneva convention, if failing to win a conviction in civilian court, there is nothing under either the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva convention which precludes the government from declaring such a defendant as being an "lawful" enemy combatant or a prisoner of war with all the rights and privileges afforded by the Geneva Convention. So, to compare the possibility of being placed at the risk of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or at the risk of their life, with confinement as a POW is more than a bit specious.
But this is the situation that the administration finds itself as a result of recent Court decisions and the attempts of the Bush administration to skirt the rule of law, and reliance upon torture.
Ahhh, once again logic.
Of course sanrene nor bigjon will be able to refute what you said in your above post, as it seems this information is so contrary to the rigid and narrow-minded beliefs of the far right wing, that to even acknowledge what you wrote would shatter their illusions......and they would have no clue what to "think" anymore........it's just not compatible with so many years of daily emails.
Show trials never have not-guilty verdicts or even the possibility as such...
Now getting back to the issue of "show trials". It appears that the administration has chosen to adhere to the rule of law, unlawful enemy combatants, terrorist, will be tried in civilian court for those crimes as accorded by the Geneva convention, if failing to win a conviction in civilian court, there is nothing under either the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva convention which precludes the government from declaring such a defendant as being an "lawful" enemy combatant or a prisoner of war with all the rights and privileges afforded by the Geneva Convention. So, to compare the possibility of being placed at the risk of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, or at the risk of their life, with confinement as a POW is more than a bit specious.
What would it matter if they're found not guilty and either held indefinitely or sent to some other country to be tried again or held indefinitely. This is a show trial and your assertion that it's not shows you don't understand that no matter what happens they will never go free. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If they have no ability to ever walk free again what is the purpose of putting them on trial in NY?
As to most of the other claims you make you're right. But MCA was brought into law and there is no reason to try them in NYC except for show.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 01-10-2010 at 11:43 AM..
What would it matter if they're found not guilty and either held indefinitely or sent to some other country to be tried again or held indefinitely. This is a show trial and your assertion that it's not shows you don't understand that no matter what happens they will never go free. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If they have no ability to ever walk free again what is the purpose of putting them on trial in NY?
As to most of the other claims you make you're right. But MCA was brought into law and there is no reason to try them in NYC except for show.
It is useless...their minds won't let them admit the truth because that would mean they agree that obama made a mistake. A big no-no.
Ahhh, clarifications are not allowed unless it's a former NYC mayor...... huh?
I gotta admit, that was a fair response
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.
