Civilian trials... Maybe not

Civilian trials... Maybe not (Full Version)

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

Message

TheHeretic -> Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 9:26:53 AM)
White House may switch to military trials for 9/11 suspects Does it inspire much confidence when this administration fiddle-farts about for months before going with what conservatives were saying all along?

truckinslave -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 9:29:27 AM)
With the Congress moving to block funding of civilian trials, maybe they thought getting out ahead of it was less damaging politically.

Musicmystery -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 9:33:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic White House may switch to military trials for 9/11 suspects Does it inspire much confidence when this administration fiddle-farts about for months before going with what conservatives were saying all along? No. I can understand picking battles. This really seems more caving. I like that Democrats talk and consider (in the sense that they famously disagree among themselves), but I've always agreed that at the end of the day, make a decision and follow through--not blindly, but with certainly able in anticipation of opposition. I'm with those who think the Dems in Congress, and the President, need to grow stiffer spines. As for the conservative position---it's hysterical reaction, not thought. It has nothing to do with either Justice or the Constitution (or at least Constitutional principles). It sends a dangerous xenophobic, myopic message to the world. There's no real reason not to use the criminal courts. The military angle was a Bush ploy to circumvent the Constitution. And it has nothing to do with being soft or letting people off. If we've got evidence, haul it out and convict them.

Moonhead -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 9:34:28 AM)
Plenty of them have stiff spines. Sadly, it's just the lunatic right element of the party who are pissed off that they aren't in charge.

popeye1250 -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 11:45:45 AM)
YahooNews had an article a few days ago about one of the GTMO savages who was released and is now leading those savages in Afganistan. We're either at war or we're not.

Moonhead -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 11:50:37 AM)
You're not at war. I don't think America has actually declared war on a foreign nation since Korea. That's a part of what leads to the current legal problems, along with the whole "illegal detention" thing, of course.

Musicmystery -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 11:57:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 YahooNews had an article a few days ago about one of the GTMO savages who was released and is now leading those savages in Afganistan. We're either at war or we're not. If you can neatly draw the lines in the swamp that is Afghanistan, you should contact the Pentagon.

AnimusRex -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 11:59:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 YahooNews had an article a few days ago about one of the GTMO savages who was released and is now leading those savages in Afganistan. We're either at war or we're not. So a guy who was imprisoned and tortured for years, without trial or charges, ends up being bitter and hateful and wanting to stick it to the government that did this to him? How remarkably odd.

Moonhead -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 12:03:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 YahooNews had an article a few days ago about one of the GTMO savages who was released and is now leading those savages in Afganistan. We're either at war or we're not. So a guy who was imprisoned and tortured for years, without trial or charges, ends up being bitter and hateful and wanting to stick it to the government that did this to him? How remarkably odd. [sm=biggrin.gif] Who'd have expected that? He must hate Freedom.

luckydawg -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 12:33:42 PM)
There is a real reason not to use the civilian courts. We have talked about this many times in here. In civilian courts you get a plethora of rights, which would either expose agents and methods of gathering intell or eliminate much of the evidence. The same sort of evidence Obama uses to simply kill people (along with bystanders) via predator attacks. THere is a difference between riding in a plane and being the Pilot.

mnottertail -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:01:08 PM)
or not as has been repeatedly quoted you from law, precedent and supreme court guidelines. It is only an armchair feelgood shithouse lawyer thingie. Oh, the military has guns and can protect us, they dont have to follow the contsitution, oh, our constitution is not good enough to try terrorists, only criminals...(what are terrorists, if not criminals?) oh, the security would cost to much to hold the trial (yes, virginia, in the military it is free for the same security that is buried in our biggest budget outlay) simply an out of sight and out of mind issue........not HERE in my backyard!!!! whatever.

luckydawg -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:08:24 PM)
Actually it was never quoted from law precedent or SC court guidlines. everything you babbled was 100% incorrect, and Tazzy was quoting/citing NON CRIMINAL (deportation hearings) which have no bearing on the case in front of us. You teaching realone, how to insult and change the subject with insults, while declaring you won, yammering about your "backyard!!!! whatever". Not a bit of difference between you and realone, when it comes to debate.

mnottertail -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:18:24 PM)
you lying motherfucker, I quoted from no less than the supreme court decision. you haven't backed one fucking thing you've ever said you coward, lying pretending sockpuppet. http://www.collarchat.com/m_2995888/mpage_4/key_caselaw/tm.htm#3004860 (this is one of them) trouble is you coward, the fucking posts are so easily retrieveable that only sockpuppets, cowards and lying pretending fuckheaded sockpuppets such as yourself would lie and pretend that they arent.

mnottertail -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:27:40 PM)
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html heres a few that the bush administration tried in civilian court...see if you can tell me who was outted because of this. anyone? what counterintelligence agencies are now flensed open like the leviathan? sockpuppet? coward? liar? pretender?

AnimusRex -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:36:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg In civilian courts you get a plethora of rights, which would either expose agents and methods of gathering intell or eliminate much of the evidence. And courts have wide discretion in being able to hide any sensitive "state secrets" from public view, even in a public trial. The government has prosecuted people in sensitive espionage cases once or twice; its not like this whole notion of rights and courts and trials was invented yesterday.

luckydawg -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:38:04 PM)
Yeah that is the case you are so confused about you thought that the informer was an undercover buyer. when that was pointed out to you, you started your cowardly sockpuppet diversion. (just like realone) when caught absoluty, you switch to insults adn trying to divert the conversation. Please anyone reading along. Follow his link, and keep reading. You use gems like' "The invalid assertion that the 6th amendment requires our revealing the entire clandestine sources of the united states is easily dismissed out of hand. " When I never commented in anyway about "reavealing the entire clandestine sources of the US" just the ones related to the case at hand. Just boring realone troll tactics. "Held: In the circumstances of this case, failure of the court to require disclosure of the identity of the informer was reversible error. Pp. 353 U. S. 54-66. " What do you think a reversable error is you dumb motherfucker? "reversible error n. a legal mistake at the trial court level which is so significant (resulted in an improper judgment) that the judgment must be reversed by the appellate court. A reversible error is distinguished from an error which is minor or did not contribute to the judgment at the trial. (See: reversal)" Your so fuckign stupid, your cite agrees with me. read it slow. Failure of the court to require disclousuer of the identity of the informer was a legal mistake at the trial court level which is so significant that the judgement must be reversed.

mnottertail -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:42:54 PM)
no, that is a clip that was later in the posting proved false in its entirety (as it was only your misinformed opinion) and I did not think or not state that the informer was an undercover buyer, that is the lying pretending coward in you (in fact if you read the entire case had the informant been the undercover buyer there would have been no reversible error). so, on to the next cite in line, (since you haven't a leg to stand on in that one) and the outted informants were in accordance with the 6th amendment as you interpret it (and nobody else does)? (you need not put them in alphabetical order)

luckydawg -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:42:56 PM)
Hmm, so because some cases have evidence gathered outside of clandestine sources, and can be openly prosecuted, all cases can be? Thats just dumb. Are you really that stupid Mnot? And just like realone, you only get general. Animus do you have a paticular case you want to examine

mnottertail -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:44:42 PM)
sure, our constitution provides for it, you should learn it sometimes, start with giving it a quick read. previous cites regarding such things as child molesters and so on under special rulings, as Ihave cited from the law (and tazzy did which was what your cowardice was about).

luckydawg -> RE: Civilian trials... Maybe not (3/6/2010 1:48:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail no, that is a clip that was later in the posting proved false in its entirety (as it was only your misinformed opinion) and I did not think or not state that the informer was an undercover buyer, that is the lying pretending coward in you (in fact if you read the entire case had the informant been the undercover buyer there would have been no reversible error). so, on to the next cite in line, (since you haven't a leg to stand on in that one) and the outted informants were in accordance with the 6th amendment as you interpret it (and nobody else does)? (you need not put them in alphabetical order) Its ok Mnot, everyone who looks can see you were talking about the undercover buyer in the case. You were correct. there was a trial where an important witnesses was kept secret. But it was ruled a reversable error by the USSC. So since you look rather dumb now. you go into jibberish, just like realone does. And what is this mysterious clip you are refering to???

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875