OT Military v Civilian courts and 9/11 trials.
theget
I know this may seem like complete flame bait, but I am curious as to
how people here think
Would you prefer that the perpetrators of 9/11 be tried in military or
civilian courts and why?
If they are tried as civilians then 1) Do you think that every AQ, and
perhaps Taliban, member could be tried under Rico? 2) Do you think
that the defendants can claim that their right to a speedy trial was
lost?
If they are tried in a military court, then where should the trial be
held?
I've read that there are still going to be some military trials for
other people.
Theget
David / Amicus
Ray O'Hara
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15292-4B0...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
> Does Nuremberg set any kind of precendent to what should be done?
>
not in this case. Nuremberg was an international tribunal. this is a crime
involving the U.S. only and which happened in the U.S.
unlike the Repugnots I have faith in the U.S. Justice system and the
Constitution.
they will get a scrupulously fair and correct trial.
then they will either rot forever in prioson or get a lethal injection.
Assholes like Giulani was all for them being tried in NYC until some cynical
ratbastard decided it would make a nice issue to use to try to brand the
Dems as soft on terrorism.
D.F. Manno
<c27e84ba-8143-4c00...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I know this may seem like complete flame bait, but I am curious as to
> how people here think
>
> Would you prefer that the perpetrators of 9/11 be tried in military or
> civilian courts and why?
I think the tribunals called for under the Geneva Conventions to
determine the status of captured persons should be held, and then the
U.S. should proceed in accordance with the findings.
There's been too much irregular procedure already.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"I don't trust organized anything: teams, religions, corporations. People
in enterprise together consistently do two things: promulgate the enterprise,
no matter what, and protect miscreants in their midst." (Alfred Lubrano, author)
Martin Edwards
I'd like to see Jack McCoy get a tilt at them, but then again that is
fiction.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Anti Da Jack Mccoy Pro ADa Jack Mccoy
LMAO, I dont think the terrorist can have a trial in NYC like U.S,
citizens get I mean who in New York City are Peers of Terrorists lol
Holders a moron.
D.F. Manno
<744217b2-8aff-4ee2...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Anti Da Jack Mccoy Pro ADa Jack Mccoy <spider...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> LMAO, I dont think the terrorist can have a trial in NYC like U.S,
> citizens get I mean who in New York City are Peers of Terrorists lol
> Holders a moron.
Rudy Guiliani is a Pee-er when it comes to terrorists.
Michael Ejercito
> Does Nuremberg set any kind of precendent to what should be done?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in messagenews:15292-4B0...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > Does Nuremberg set any kind of precendent to what should be done?
>
> not in this case. Nuremberg was an international tribunal. this is a crime
> involving the U.S. only and which happened in the U.S.
> unlike the Repugnots I have faith in the U.S. Justice system and the
> Constitution.
> they will get a scrupulously fair and correct trial.
> then they will either rot forever in prioson or get a lethal injection.
>
Michael
David / Amicus
Maybe they could find people to be on the jury say with Musim sounding
names like Barack or Hussein?
theget
How does having a similar sounding name make someone a peer?
Theget
theget
> "David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in messagenews:15292-4B0...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > Does Nuremberg set any kind of precendent to what should be done?
>
> not in this case. Nuremberg was an international tribunal.
Why is its international nature relevant?
> this is a crime
> involving the U.S. only and which happened in the U.S.
But not every element of the crime transpired in the US. Some
elements happened in Afghanistan, perhaps other elements occurred
elsewhere. I think Saudi Arabia might be a place where some element
of crime occurred.
> unlike the Repugnots I have faith in the U.S. Justice system and the
> Constitution.
Do you think the Nuremberg tribunals were unjust? Do you object in
principal to military tribunals? Do you think that the events of 9/11
could be seen as waging aggressive war and deliberately targeting non-
combatants?
> they will get a scrupulously fair and correct trial.
Would you say that the treatment they've received so far at the hands
of the US has been fair and correct?
> then they will either rot forever in prioson or get a lethal injection.
I have no cites, but I've seen video of both Holder and Obama
suggesting, with complete certainty, that the outcome is going to be a
guilty verdict. Others have expressed doubt, suggesting that juries
are not predictable, and there may be legal issues that will not
support a conviction. I even saw one suggestion somewhere on the net,
perhaps tongue in cheek, that Obama's words might taint the jury pool.
I think I've seen Holder say that even if not convicted the defendants
would not be released. That leads me to wonder if a trial is a wise
move and what purpose it serves. It also makes me wonder on what
grounds he will continue to hold them.
> Assholes like Giulani was all for them being tried in NYC until some cynical
> ratbastard decided it would make a nice issue to use to try to brand the
> Dems as soft on terrorism.
Has anyone asked him why he changed his mind?
Is anyone making virtual wagers on how long, forget about the trial,
but on how long the pretrial motions will take?
Theget
David / Amicus
After the collapse of the Soviet Union I wanted a Nuremberg II to put
the Communists on trial for crimes against humanity!
David / Amicus
It was just a poor attempt at humor.
mike
found out more.
Someone asked a room full of ACLU members, "Who want to defend the 5
terrorists?", "Me! Me! Me!"
How come the Taliban and Al Qaeda do not have their own lawyers????
Mike
David Johnston
wrote:
Why would they want to hire a lawyer?
And how would they get the money into the country to hire one?
David / Amicus
Maybe as matter of principle? Maybe they do not recognize "western law"
only Sharia law?
theget
> Hello all,
> Would you prefer that the perpetrators of 9/11 be tried in military or
> civilian courts and why?
Replying to my own post with a little follow up.
Fox's senior judicial analyst has something to say about the military
vs. civilian courts for the Gitmo detainees.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano29-2009nov29,0,6594004.story
Theget
David Johnston
He's full of crap. Congress does not have to declare war for a state
of war to exist. The rules of war DO apply to rebellions and
insurgencies, despite the fact that they involve no declaration of
war. The idea that simply not declaring war, enables the United
States to invade and conquer foreign nations without regard to the
treaties concerning such things is idiotic.