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

Aneirin -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 7:55:03 AM)
Fast Reply to no one in particular Personally I think America has a big problem with this issue, they have inadvertantly shot themselves in the foot, for they have a situation they cannot win, they have basically fucked up and fucked up big time, because the world is watching their every move, exspecially with regards to the GITMO situation, for it has dragged on too long. If there is concrete evidence or proof these detainees are guilty, then try them and take it from there. If there is nothing on them aside from circumstantial evidence, or hearsay, wtf are you doing, surely illegal imprisonment, let them go with a huge apology and recompense for their ardours. Either way it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you dont, it is a problem that needs resolving fast, the sooner the better, before world oppinion turns against the US. But, a better idea maybe, those that orcastrated the capture of all those at GITMO, haul their asses into the dock to answer questions, for it is they that have caused your problem, a problem, that the little people will feel more than anyone else, that is you, the common or garden US citizen who has no protection other than words. Call on your administration to sort it out, stop flapping lips and do something real for once, as this situation needs to be resolved to save further embarrassment.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 8:00:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail ok, here you go fellers: the authorization for use of military force: http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html the war powers act: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp From the War Powers Act: c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. No delcaration of war, just a response to national emergencies.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 8:04:17 AM)
WTF? Where you at, wilbur?????????? That is exactly what I am saying and all this war crimes and tribunals shit is moot. There aint no fuckin war, this is a criminal act against the United States. Sorta like the invasion of Iraq.... Now you are agreeing with me. Before you were disagreeing (read your fuckin post) it was right before the post you quoted. Ron

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 8:08:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail WTF? Where you at, wilbur?????????? That is exactly what I am saying and all this war crimes and tribunals shit is moot. There aint no fuckin war, this is a criminal act against the United States. Sorta like the invasion of Iraq.... Now you are agreeing with me. Before you were disagreeing (read your fuckin post) it was right before the post you quoted. Ron I am not agreeing with you. We are at war, it does not take a declaration of war to be at war. That is what the quoted part says. If you are maintaining that the attack on the WTC was not hostility against the US you are simply wrong. If you are saying it was not an act of war that is irrelevant, even though it was, since it was sponsored by foreign States.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 8:12:38 AM)
and we invaded Iraq, without cause, which was an act of war?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 8:47:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and we invaded Iraq, without cause, which was an act of war? It wasnt without cause, it was in response to continued violations of UN resolutions (amongst other reasons).

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 8:59:25 AM)
When did you call for the invasion of Isreal, Lebanon, North Korea, Turkey, Morroco, Armenia, Sudan, Cypress and Indonesia, with your fairmindedness? That's fucking lame. Regardless of Resolutions violations, there was no call for military intervention from the UN, we invaded Iraq without cause, and for no reason whatsoever, other than lies from Bush, and once they were found to be lies you supported that shit and all criminal acts arising from it.

Aneirin -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 9:18:37 AM)
With regards to the Iraq situation, I always felt this was highly suspicious given the events that transpired after, the invasion of Iraq

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 9:33:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Pat Buchanan: quote: Is America at war, or not? For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen? Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty. And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial. ... What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned? In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules. The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268 I can just see Obama's staffers reading Buchanan's article in the N.Y.Times or whatever. "Oh shit!" "Hey Boss, you'd better read this!"

slvemike4u -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 9:34:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail When did you call for the invasion of Isreal, Lebanon, North Korea, Turkey, Morroco, Armenia, Sudan, Cypress and Indonesia, with your fairmindedness? That's fucking lame. Regardless of Resolutions violations, there was no call for military intervention from the UN, we invaded Iraq without cause, and for no reason whatsoever, other than lies from Bush, and once they were found to be lies you supported that shit and all criminal acts arising from it. Thats not fair Ron......Willbeur covered the Bush lies...reread his post he clearly states we invaded in response to "continued violations of UN resolutions(amongst other reasons) So you see Willbeur has the Bush lies well covered...they fall under "amongst other reasons"

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 9:48:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail When did you call for the invasion of Isreal, Lebanon, North Korea, Turkey, Morroco, Armenia, Sudan, Cypress and Indonesia, with your fairmindedness? That's fucking lame. Regardless of Resolutions violations, there was no call for military intervention from the UN, we invaded Iraq without cause, and for no reason whatsoever, other than lies from Bush, and once they were found to be lies you supported that shit and all criminal acts arising from it. Thats not fair Ron......Willbeur covered the Bush lies...reread his post he clearly states we invaded in response to "continued violations of UN resolutions(amongst other reasons) So you see Willbeur has the Bush lies well covered...they fall under "amongst other reasons" Mike, Bush lied about "weapons of mass destruction." The "U.N." did have I believe 17 resolutions against Iraq. One should suffice. They're not very "resolute" about their "resolutions" are they? And it was of course wrong of Bush to try to enforce "U.N." resolutions. The "U.N." should enforce their own "resolutions." I can just see it now, that savage on t.v. getting a "trial" and in the Newspapers on the front page; "Four more "suspected" al qeada killed in drone attacks."

Mercnbeth -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 10:19:49 AM)
*Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?* Sanity, A few people sent me a link to this over the past 24 hours. Unfortunately for many the source, Pat Buchanan, distracts from the question. Exactly what you get on many of these threads from people who respond by avoiding the concept and/or question because it requires consideration of pragmatic reality who instead attack the source instead of having their faith associated dogma challenged. However I've yet to see a response to the questions. How does a trial in US criminal court occur when the accused was never Mirandized and/or questioned without legal representation? Getting beyond that, and I don't see how that can be reconciled, the presumption of innocence will require every security agency to disclose all the information they've gathered and the sources for that information. Any confession under US criminal statues that was obtained under duress will not be allowed. Whether any or all of the accused were water-boarded, the mere fact they were incarcerated, some 'kidnapped', would point to duress. The prosecutor would be free to call any and all of the accusers, including Joint Military Chief of Staff, the FBI and CIA Directors, and President Bush. "Are we at war?"; is a question that has evolved along the same lines of what is the difference between slave and submissive. One Administration can use a 'war' definition to rationalize another countries invasion. Another can announce it over or declare the end of the 'war' under similarly arbitrary, self serving rationalization. Pat Buchanan's question is specious in that regard. However it doesn't change the questions which point to the risks and or pragmatic consequences, present impacting but more concerning, precedent setting, of this trial. I haven't seen anyone from the Administration or from the legal industry pragmatically addressing any of them without at the same time shilling for whatever side of the argument they support. Have you? My solution would be to release them all and close Gitmo as was promised during the campaign and the first executive order signed. The damage a trail can do to the security of the country isn't worth the result. Why the US Prosecutor's office would expose themselves to this show is beyond my ability to rationalize. Apparently the brilliant folks that Obama has surrounded himself within his Administration determined that the Military tribunal model doesn't serve. Based upon the questions outstanding I need to be educated about how the US criminal code applies; let alone when and upon what Court decision the attack on 9/11 boils down to arson, maybe criminal mischief, or conspiring to tamper with the door going into the pilot's cabin on a commercial airline. I know the concept of 'thought policing' is near and dear to many who hold high office in the US, but is it possible to prove that any of these accused thought about attacking the US, and somehow their thoughts were brought to fruition by the actual perpetrators? Can't wait for the expert psychological testimony when we'll hear that their upbringing by parents, (religious fanatics?) who advocated a strict (radical?) adherence to the Koran, forced them into a life goal of "Killing the Infidels!" During some life regression under hypnosis I'd bet it would be found that they were all 'abused' as children. If the US only had universal free health care like all the "civilized" countries in the world they would have had access to ADD, ADHD, or Asperger Syndrome medication and 9/11 would never have happened. No. Seriously, lets not put ourselves though any of that. Send them on their way, apologize, give them a few million left over from the bail-outs as a parting gift, bow if appropriate, and move on. There is a world full of people the US hasn't apologized and bowed to that are waiting.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 10:30:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth However I've yet to see a response to the questions. How does a trial in US criminal court occur when the accused was never Mirandized and/or questioned without legal representation? Getting beyond that, and I don't see how that can be reconciled, the presumption of innocence will require every security agency to disclose all the information they've gathered and the sources for that information. Any confession under US criminal statues that was obtained under duress will not be allowed. Whether any or all of the accused were water-boarded, the mere fact they were incarcerated, some 'kidnapped', would point to duress. The prosecutor would be free to call any and all of the accusers, including Joint Military Chief of Staff, the FBI and CIA Directors, and President Bush. "Are we at war?"; is a question that has evolved along the same lines of what is the difference between slave and submissive. One Administration can use a 'war' definition to rationalize another countries invasion. Another can announce it over or declare the end of the 'war' under similarly arbitrary, self serving rationalization. Pat Buchanan's question is specious in that regard. However it doesn't change the questions which point to the risks and or pragmatic consequences, present impacting but more concerning, precedent setting, of this trial. I haven't seen anyone from the Administration or from the legal industry pragmatically addressing any of them without at the same time shilling for whatever side of the argument they support. Have you? I answered your questions Merc. Ron

Mercnbeth -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 10:54:09 AM)
quote: I answered your questions Merc. You posted: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 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. My questions concern "due process of law"; which, to my understanding, can not be applied retroactively. Either the accused were treated as a 'criminal', Mirandized, given legal counsel, or they weren't at the time of their incarceration. How can the Grand Jury excuse this exemption for however long its been since the accused were imprisoned and indite? Maybe you have a better insight, and I'm too dumb to get it. Help me out; address the questions and point to how what you've provided specifically applies and gives a practical reasoning for this trial to occur. Or more to my point, why a trial should occur versus immediate release if its determined that criminal statutes applied when they occurred 9/11/2001; but the accused were not given access to all the rules concerning presumption of innocence until now. If there was some other response you gave, sorry I missed it.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 11:08:07 AM)
because Miranda and speedy trial is not guarenteed by issues arizing from land or sea, which it did, which it says, and miranda is not going to be a problem unless this is a sanctioned 'police' action........what may cause issues is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which they may portray as a bill of attainder. My idea of one of the big legal issues. Ron

Mercnbeth -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 11:16:03 AM)
quote: because Miranda and speedy trial is not guarenteed by issues arizing from land or sea, which it did, which it says, and miranda is not going to be a problem unless this is a sanctioned 'police' action........what may cause issues is the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which they may portray as a bill of attainder. My idea of one of the big legal issues. To be clear let me restate what you said as I read it. Some of the statues pointed to criminal trail are in play, presumption of innocence, facing accusers, etc; but some, 'Miranda', are not? Who decided and will this à la carte application set precedent?

Moonhead -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 11:27:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and we invaded Iraq, without cause, which was an act of war? It wasnt without cause, it was in response to continued violations of UN resolutions (amongst other reasons). Then why was the invasion in defiance of the UN? There was a massive stink about that in 2003: if the UN actually had any powers to take action against anybody (which they don't in practice) Bush would have been shitting himself.

popeye1250 -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 11:27:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Shit Popeye if one was to listen to you one would think its all a matter of wanting to do it...and it shall be done. Do you really see the illegal immigration situation in this country is such black and white colors?.....do you think the only thing standing between us and an illegal free country is political will? No Mike I see it as dereliction of duty by our federal government. We have only 4.000 Ice Agents for the whole country! You can't tell me that Clinton, Bush and now Obama wearn't (aren't) aware of that fact. If we had 100,000 ICE Agents we could make a huge dent in the problem in 2-3 years. Along with closing that Mexican border which should have been done ten years ago. Again, when did it become "optional" to enforce our laws in Washington? And Ron, we don't have any shortage of high school dropouts and people walking around with worthless "degrees" to do those jobs. ("slaughtering turkeys and chopping lettuce") Nor any people on welfare who could be earning their keep. Seems like every waiter/waitress, bartender in this neck of the woods has some type of "degree" that they'll be paying for for the next 20 years. Do you guys up in Minnisotta have a shortage of high school dropouts? When my great grandfather Pat Mc Donough came to this country from Sligo, Ireland "welfare" was; "you don't work, you don't eat."

Moonhead -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 11:37:49 AM)
Well, Bush was a former Texan Governor, so there was no way in Hell he was ever going to take any action against employers who prefer to employ illegals than US citizens, or tighten up the border, was there? Not sure what Obama's excuse for doing fuckall is, though.

mnottertail -> RE: Free the Guantanamo Bay five! (11/17/2009 11:45:30 AM)
here are the snips from the US Constitution (and amendments (which is neither here nor there, they are part of the constituion)) that we constituionalists are concerned about seeing carried out lawfully in this matter: Article I. Section 9 - Limits on Congress The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. I believe there is no wheres the proof release me burden here. Article III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. This is why the trial is being held in New York, in my estimation. Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31[3] provides for the right against self-incrimination. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881(PDF), which informs them of the charges and their rights, and sign it. The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps require that all arrested personnel be read the "rights of the accused" and must sign a form waiving those rights if they so desire; a verbal waiver is not sufficient. The Miranda rule applies to the use of testimonial evidence in criminal proceedings that is the product of custodial police interrogation. Miranda right to counsel and right to remain silent are derived from the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, for Miranda to apply six factors must be present: Evidence must have been gathered. The evidence must be testimonial The evidence must have been obtained while the suspect was in custody The evidence must have been the product of interrogation. The interrogation must have been conducted by state-agents. The evidence must be offered by the state during a criminal prosecution. In fact, Merc, the Supreme Court considered that the FBI and the UCMJ methods of operation were the pattern for the miranda warning

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875