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.
Wish I could give you a rep point for that but the system won't let me. I'm appalled at how easily the OP can so easily dismiss the Constitution and the laws of this country.
Perhaps in your imagination this makes sense. But to most Americans, we prefer not to hold mock trials in kangaroo courts where admissions of guilt through torture is the status quo. I know the GOP love violence and seem to detest our judicial system, but they'll just have to get over it.
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.
Do you deny this?
The only ones engaging in a mock trial is obama and his AG, to find a way to appease the Left and try bush by proxy.
Wish I could give you a rep point for that but the system won't let me. I'm appalled at how easily the OP can so easily dismiss the Constitution and the laws of this country.
Our laws and rights under the criminal justice system don't apply to enemy combatants - they never have.
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.
Terrorist are NOT covered by any law foreign or domestic.
Semantics to avoid acting like America in lieu of some fascist dictatorship. We are a nation of laws, who will not lower our standards to those we are fighting. Furthermore, not everybody rounded up is a "terrorist", many stayed for years in Bush's little prisons before being sent home to their life as a goat farmer-totally innocent.
Once again, another angry GOPer who makes predictions and then argues against that.
Interesting...How is providing a prisoner of war with rights "jeopardizing the whole of America's security"? I'd love to hear it.
Because, as AG Holder stated, there are a few that have been merandized while the majority haven't.
As "a nation of laws", we must be consistent.
Why do some garner favorable attention over others?
As much of a problem I had with Clinton trying the Cole attackers through civilian courts, at least we weren't "at war" and they weren't considered combatants.
As another poster pointed out, NEVER in American history have we tried enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield of war, in civilian courts.
Why should we start now?
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?
That's it in a nutshell. Bush and Cheney changed the wording to avoid the GC and so they could do whatever the hell they wanted.
The GOP base seem to forget that Bush tried many in civilian court however:
Quote:
REALITY: The Bush administration tried several terrorist suspects in civilian court, including the shoe bomber and Moussaoui. Indeed, Zacarias Moussaoui was charged in civilian court, pled guilty and was sentenced (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2006%2F05%2F0 3%2Fus%2F03cnd-moussaoui.html%3Fscp%3D4%26sq%3Dzacharias%2520mous saoui%26st%3Dcse - broken link) by a jury to life in prison for his role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks after the jury declined to give him the death penalty, and shoe bomber Richard Reid -- who reportedly (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2003%2F01%2F3 1%2Fus%2Fthreats-responses-bomb-plot-unrepentant-shoe-bomber-given-life-sentence-for.html - broken link) claimed he was a member of Al Qaeda -- is serving a life sentence in a Colorado prison for "trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives concealed in his shoes" after being charged in civilian court and pleading guilty. Moreover, in May 2009, Slate.com reported (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fid%2F2219268%2F - broken link) that according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, "federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists."
As another poster pointed out, NEVER in American history have we tried enemy combatants, captured on the battlefield of war, in civilian courts.
Why should we start now?
My advice: You shouldn't listen to other posters who are wrong.
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.
