11/28/2009 11:00:29 AM
^ Seriously, marko?
11/28/2009 7:14:57 PM
oh, i think it sums up the mentality and general grasp of reality held by the right-wing chickenhawks in this thread quite nicely.and the version starting at 4:10 is espeically well done.
11/28/2009 11:57:13 PM
now this is sweet. someone embed.http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/076041c13b/the-ballad-of-g-i-joe
11/29/2009 12:03:28 AM
Guantanamo Detainee Seeks Dismissal Of Charges, Cites TortureDECEMBER 1, 2009
12/3/2009 12:31:28 PM
12/3/2009 12:41:46 PM
^ Since they decided to forgo a military tribunal and bring Ghailani to New York for trial. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-563.html
12/3/2009 12:58:59 PM
^^ haha, since always.You realize that we have resident aliens, and foreign visitors that come to the US, that the constitution "applies" to.The constitution is a set of laws that describe how the government anyway, not really people, and there's nothing that prohibits the gov. from trying people in our custody for crimes against us. There are certain things though that the constitution does specifically enumerate as for citizens only (voting, political office, etc), but the right to a fair and speedy trial isn't one of those things the gov. is restricted to citizens only by the constitution.It's funny though how this blatantly idiotic talking point has spread throughout the right. It's like they are LOOKING for reasons to disregard what the spirit and sometimes letter of the constitution is saying.
12/3/2009 3:21:02 PM
^ You are a fucking fool. The al-Qaeda terrorist Ghailani, a Tanzanian, was captured in Gujrat, Pakistan, by Pakistani forces--how do you figure that he's "entitled" to anything? BTW, the following are the charges against this scumbag:
12/3/2009 4:07:34 PM
^ why are you responding to me? My post has no bearing on anything you posted.It is an unequivocally false statement that the constitution only applies to citizens, even given a loose interpretation of the word "citizen."
12/3/2009 5:03:16 PM
^ That's kinda the problem, though. Are these people subject to the U. S. constitution? They've not exactly been brought to U. S. soil, outside of being held in legal limbo in Guantanamo. Frankly I'd like to see that issue cleared up through these proceedings, so it's no longer a gray area created by the former administration.
12/3/2009 5:06:54 PM
^ military bases are considered "us soil."And being in our custody, there's nothing in the constitution that prohibits us from trying them. I don't even see why this would be a question either when the crime they're being tried for is against us.It wouldn't make sense for us to pick someone up from pakistan, and try them for crimes against China. We could detain them, then extradite them to China/Pakistan (whoever tries them). But that is not what we're doing.[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]
12/3/2009 5:10:11 PM
^ *shrug* I'd just like to see some definitive rulings from the judicial branch, so we can move on with our lives.
12/3/2009 5:13:23 PM
^ there has been a ruling on this actually (it's somewhere in this thread IIRC), but i'll see if I can dig it up...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._RumsfeldThis one gave habeas corpus (you know... from the constitution) to Gitmo detainees.This one, a NON RULING dicta: http://www.titleii.com/BardwellOLD/us_v_verdugo-u.txtsays that searches and seizures done by US agents but NOT on US soil aren't necessarily invalid if there is no warrant.[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 5:27 PM. Reason : ]
12/3/2009 5:14:03 PM
12/3/2009 9:44:00 PM
sigh.
12/3/2009 9:51:32 PM
12/4/2009 7:01:55 AM
hardly. I'm just commenting on moron bitching about righties trampling on the Constitution. It's clear the left does it, too, so why he would be concerned only about the right is absurd.
12/4/2009 7:35:44 AM
Hardly what? What you stated is exactly what "BUT BUSH DID IT" conveys--tu quoque.
12/4/2009 8:38:20 AM
NYPD Commish: Nobody Asked Us About Hosting the 9/11 Trials "The trial here will do nothing to diminish that threat level," Kelly saidDec 3, 2009
12/14/2009 2:44:40 AM
I'm sorry that he feels butthurt about it, but it's not his call.
12/14/2009 7:44:52 AM
12/14/2009 8:55:54 AM
Illegal aliens the get drunk and drive into someone are prosecuted here and have protections afforded to them by the constitution, no?
12/14/2009 11:15:57 AM
^^^ Commissioner Kelly never said it was his call; however, the security of the entire area surrounding the trial site is his responsibility.
12/14/2009 11:34:40 AM
Well, it looks like he gets to man-up and do his job then.
12/14/2009 1:40:28 PM
^ Sweet Jesus. It appears that Kelly and many others have been doing their jobs protecting New York. We don't need to make it an even bigger target by holding show trials there.
12/14/2009 1:44:25 PM
Call it an "appeal to numbers" if you want, but with only 3 convictions out of how many hundred for tribunals? And if you are worried about them skipping out due to a technicality then tribunals should be the last thing that you support. I'll take the success rate of federal courts any day in comparison. Besides, how is this going to be a "show trial" without cameras in the courtroom and the entire area pretty much on lockdown? This won't be like with OJ where folks just sit at home and watch the coverage on CourtTV all day.
12/14/2009 1:52:17 PM
^ It's a show trial because everyone knows the terrorists are guilty--and they admitted it. The only thing that can come out of that trial are life sentences and/or jihadist rhetoric and/or a terrorist attack--none of which I find desirable.If we absolutely had to bring them to the United States for trial, why not bring them to a remote area? Why not hold the trial in a wing of a so-called supermax prison that so many here claim to love? Surely this would have satisfied the "rule of law" that many are flap-jawing about now, wouldn't it?
12/14/2009 1:58:37 PM
I do agree that this is a way of showing off the American judicial system and showing the rest of the world that we are civilized. Personally, I am rather fond of holding a Triumph. This would be especially true when (if) we ever catch bin Ladin. Parade his captured ass down Pennsylvania Ave while the crowd cheers and the president sits at the end of the road and gives the order for Osama to be strangled in front of everyone. But hey, we all can't have our way.
12/14/2009 2:06:36 PM
So, by your thought ALL trials where there's already ironclad evidence are just show trials?KSM could plead guilty, which would end any need for a trial. He probably won't, which is his right in our system. At that point they're going to have a trial.It's not a show trial unless the judge and jury aren't able to decide impartially based on the evidence at hand. No matter how many times you say it's a show trial, that doesn't make it true.[Edited on December 14, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]
12/14/2009 3:13:06 PM
12/14/2009 11:47:53 PM
Not really.
12/15/2009 12:16:46 AM
Anyway. . .to timswar:Do you even follow the news at all? From ABC News:Gitmo Detainees Intend to Plead Not Guilty in U.S. CourtNovember 23, 2009
12/15/2009 12:33:35 AM
12/15/2009 2:58:54 AM
12/15/2009 8:57:02 AM
What's so scary about a "show trial" anyway? For that matter, what exactly does a "show trial" even entail? All I've been able to gather is that it's a trial of obviously guilty defendants who will get to talk about, I don't even know, scary terrorist stuff? YIKES!
12/15/2009 9:33:18 AM
From Google:
12/15/2009 9:55:52 AM
Oh, so hooksaw is worried the trial may not be fair? That's admirable.
12/15/2009 10:03:00 AM
Indeed, I think we should all be concerned about that. A fair trial is the only way to get through this mess.But he's calling it a show trial before it's happened, which is presumptuous at best.
12/15/2009 10:32:16 AM
Obama: KSM will be convicted, executedNov. 18, 2009
12/15/2009 2:31:23 PM
From your link
12/15/2009 2:47:16 PM
^ Blah, blah, blather. Obama: KSM will be convicted, executedhttp://tinyurl.com/ygc7hhm
12/15/2009 2:49:41 PM
Obama is not a judge, his opinion on the matter is unimportant.Once again, we separate powers.It doesn't matter how many times you post what Obama said, it doesn't make it any more relevant.
12/15/2009 2:51:51 PM
^ And what branch of government is currently holding the terrorists? And what branch of government made the decision to put them on trial? And what branch of government could reverse this decision today?Careful now--this one revealed joe_schmoe to be an uniformed boob.
12/15/2009 2:59:15 PM
Obama's administration made the decision to take the fate of these terrorists out of his (via the military) direct control and put it in the hands of the judicial system.So, what you seem to be implying, is that Obama (who has stated his belief in the full guilt and suggested sentence) should take the decision out of someone else's hands and put it back into his directly?Or are you simply stating that he has the ability to, even though he doesn't seem to be wanting to use that ability.You're presuming a lot on things that haven't happened yet, and don't seem to be likely. I could just as easily assume that military tribunals would continue their current abysmal record of getting convictions. Or perhaps I could assume that failure to give these men a fair trial in a court of law would simply drive more and more people towards hating the United States which simply exacerbates the terrorism problem.But I haven't enjoyed making assumptions like that for a while.
12/15/2009 3:19:44 PM
^ Wow, it took you about 20 minutes of Googling furiously to come up with that trinket? In other words, you can't answer the questions honestly.And this. . .
12/15/2009 4:29:36 PM
12/15/2009 4:45:21 PM
^ Ask them. It's probably that the United States is "The Great Satan"--and our support of Israel.But, as I indicated, do the terrorists really need an excuse?
12/15/2009 4:57:33 PM
Even by hooksaw standards, this shit has gotten stupid.You're to have us believe that, just because Obama said so, a conviction and death penalty is a sure thing? That it's all a sham? There's no way they'll get anything less than death?Obama's got the judiciary in his back pocket, huh?No chance those statements are simply support for his Executive branch?----IT'S A TARP!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!1l-the-fuck-olIf the presiding judge said what Obama said, you'd have a point. Since the prosecution's boss said those things, you don't have a point.[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]
12/15/2009 5:19:56 PM
^ Do you honestly believe that 12 jurors (plus alternates) can be seated that will presume the admitted terrorists to be innocent until proven guilty? Show me those 12-plus and I'll show you some people who could possibly acquit the admitted terrorists.
12/15/2009 5:28:03 PM