RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five!

RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 1:57:34 PM)
even in the middle of cogent debate with neocons actual fact is ignored in favor of dogma. I ain't out a goddamn thing. LOLOLOL Ron

luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 5:54:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Easier just to kill them when you find them. Another fine example of your level of patriotism....you would have our country take the "easy" and expediant path....while rejecting the very path the Founding fathers laid out for us......hint it is to be found in the Constitution. Servant suggests we simply "cap" them where we find them....are you guys for real....do you realise we are supposed to be a Nation-State....not a branch of the Gambino crime family. I'm really starting to wonder which side some of you people are on.... On this issue Wilbur and I are on Obama's side. Just kill these fuckers whernever we find them. Blow them to shit from drones above the clouds. I would rather we didn't kill thier families and neighbors at the same time, but you have to take that up with Obama.

luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 5:57:40 PM)
Mnot, you never did make a cogent argument as to why the 6th amenment rights would not apply to them. You just called it gay.....

Sanity -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/18/2009 6:26:07 PM)
Shockingly, the following excerpts are from an article at the NPR Website: quote: Would U.S. Need To Read Bin Laden His Miranda Rights? In one of the highlights of Wednesday's Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, attempted to put Holder on the spot with the question: would U.S. officials need to Mirandize Osama bin Ladin if it captured him, including telling the al Qaeda leader that he had the right to remain silent? Holder essentially said no, not necessarily. It would depend on the tack the U.S. government decided to take after capturing the terrorist leader. Graham clearly wasn't persuaded by Holder's answer. The exchange started with Graham stumping Holder with a question one would have thought the attorney general would have been prepared for: SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court? ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made -- GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. HOLDER: Well, I think -- GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why. [...] GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice? HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely. GRAHAM: Where would you try him? HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...] GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture? HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we -- GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/would_us_need_to_read_bin_lade.html

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 9:35:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Mnot, you never did make a cogent argument as to why the 6th amenment rights would not apply to them. You just called it gay..... Uck, yawn, yawn. utter nonsense. you can't follow plain english certainly the 6th amendment would apply to them, in my estimation. As well as many other constitutional articles, and geneva convention and caselaw and precedents. The red interpretations that you put behind each sentence are profundly imbicilic, and do not in any way have any basis in case law and precedent. I pointed this out to you, but you are not one to dwell on fact, or on any advanced form of reasoning and couldnt follow the argument against one of your miscieved dogmas. Photographs can be used as evidence, and spooks dont have to be outed since the crime is against the people of the united states, and they are the accuser and undercover spooks can testify in sealed conditions, and testimony can be redacted in form and in camera. Ron

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 9:47:44 AM)
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. I would like to see the actual codified law stating this, anyone have the statute? Ron

luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 10:59:56 AM)
Laws are made through Court precedent also Mnot, and you know that. perhaps the end result of this will be the overturning of Miranda v Arizona, and Police will be allowed to use warrantless investigations, and unlimited force in criminal matters in the future. I guess this will also eliminate the Posse Comitus act, and the millitary will be allowed to engage in civilian law enforcement in the future. seems like a really bad idea to me, but apperantly Obama and the left want it, And elections do have consequences.....

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 11:07:02 AM)
Uck, Well, this is all angels dancing on the head of a pin at the moment, since I am unaware of any of these folks filing briefs claiming they haven't been Mirandized, and it seems back in March Obama said that many have under his admin, and that many had under the Bush admin. So.......(but that is partially a 5th and partially a 6th issue) Anyway, the defendants are gonna have a fuck of a road to hoe to convince anyone that they haven't been Mirandized. Ron

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 11:10:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Laws are made through Court precedent also Mnot, and you know that. perhaps the end result of this will be the overturning of Miranda v Arizona, and Police will be allowed to use warrantless investigations, and unlimited force in criminal matters in the future. I guess this will also eliminate the Posse Comitus act, and the millitary will be allowed to engage in civilian law enforcement in the future. seems like a really bad idea to me, but apperantly Obama and the left want it, And elections do have consequences..... Yep elections have consequences, as such none of the silly little ideas you bandied about will come to pass :)....At least not till the next time this country elects a Bush type Pres with a Cheney type puppet master as VP.....till then have no fear, Miranda will stand!

luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 11:13:22 AM)
If Miranda stands, KSM walks. If he gets civilian "Due Process".

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 11:16:59 AM)
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1385Prev \| Next § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. ---------------------- this is the posse comitatus act codified and current as of June 2009. Scarey, ya think? ShiiiiiiiiTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT! I should think the authorization for military force handed down should cover this little bit. I don't see any trouble here...Unless GW is serving two years incommunicado and thats why we aint heard from him. LOL

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 11:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg If Miranda stands, KSM walks. If he gets civilian "Due Process". Cool with you if i remind you of this post after he is convicted?

luckydawg -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 11:36:01 AM)
Absloutly Slave mike. I am not always correct, but I always stand by what I write, unlike so many here.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 12:53:44 PM)
FR This exchange brands Holder as a liar, incompetent or both. More importantly it makes it absolutely clear that the move to a NY Federal trial is politically motivated and has nothing to do with where a conviction can best be achieved: "SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court? ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made -- GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no. " Incompetent? Virtually every lawyer in every field of law will tell you that the very first thing they do when deciding on a legal course of action is to check precedent. If he never did, he's a fool. Liar? Do you really believe that he didn't know the answer to this, or that the answer wasn't a good one so he avoided it? Politcally motivated? Both of those alternatives point to the political motivation. Obama told him the answer he wanted, and Holder implemented it. How do we know that? Because John Ashcroft points out that Holder has no legal authority to override the military and remove a case from military to civilian trial. Only the military or Obama can do that. Ie despite his answer that "Its my decision", it isnt.

Moonhead -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 1:15:13 PM)
Like they're going to get close enough to bin Laden in the first place for his Miranda to be an issue.

Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 4:51:11 PM)
Who is this Miranda chick everyone keeps on about. Is she cute and available ?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 4:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Who is this Miranda chick everyone keeps on about. Is she cute and available ? Shes about 107 and wears fruit piled on her head (rotten fruit by now, I would expect).

Politesub53 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 4:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Who is this Miranda chick everyone keeps on about. Is she cute and available ? Shes about 107 and wears fruit piled on her head (rotten fruit by now, I would expect). Just my type then. [;)]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/19/2009 4:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Who is this Miranda chick everyone keeps on about. Is she cute and available ? Shes about 107 and wears fruit piled on her head (rotten fruit by now, I would expect). Just my type then. [;)] Its the fruit the got you, eh?

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/20/2009 2:35:49 AM)
Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer in an op-ed piece in todays NY Daily News writes decrying the Obama Administrations decision to try the terrorists in civilian court....."And now its self proclaimed architec,Kahlid Shaikh Mohammed,has been given by the Obama Administration a civilian trial in New York.Just as the memory fades,9/11 has been granted a second life-and KSM a second act."9/11,The Directors Cut "narration by KSM" Putting aside for a minute whether or not one agrees with the decision to try these men in civilian court....put aside the decision to hold the trial in New York...put everything aside save for the statement that "Just as the memory fades"...is he kidding me...whose memory has faded?....whose memory,specifically of those that watched that morning unfold live will ever fade? The memory of seminal events does not fade...people of a certain age can still recall where and how they heard JFK was shot....or MLK...and Bobby.No one who watched,no one who was living in New York,or anywhere else within sound/sight of a TV that morning will ever forget those sights. Memory fades my ass!

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875