NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(Texsox @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 05:27 PM) Are the conservatives who are requesting quicker trials also being hypocrites? If we truely want to spread democracy around the world, then we need to allow our system to pass or fail, just like at home. No. How is demanding swift justice being hypocritical? You are the ones complaining about these people being there so long without trial yet you delay the process again and again. The proper way to deal with terrorists and suspected terrorists who are not American citizens was set forth by the Supreme Court in the 1940's as I clearly outlined in the Gitmo thread from the other night. What is the problem with going with a clearly defined precedence? Why is it so important to afford people who are trying to destroy our country and kill our citizens rights they are not entitled to? Edited June 16, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 05:34 PM) No. How is demanding swift justice being hypocritical? You are the ones complaining about these people being there so long without trial yet you delay the process again and again. The proper way to deal with terrorists and suspected terrorists who are not American citizens was set forth by the Supreme Court in the 1940's as I clearly outlined in the Gitmo thread from the other night. What is the problem with going with a clearly defined precedence? Why is it so important to afford people who are trying to destroy our country and kill our citizens rights they are not entitled to? They're innocent until proven guilty. You don't just get to throw out the Constitution when we're scared of a possible threat. Jose Padilla has been in a cell for years waiting to be even charged with a crime. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that he must be charged and tried. The DoJ is still fighting that on appeal and he is still in a prison. How is waiting years upon years for a f***ing trial the least bit Constitutional? Gitmo is under US jurisdiction and as the Milligan case clearly shows, you can't have military tribunals for people arrested under criminal law when civilian courts are functioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 Haven't read the thread but it seems that Durbin's comments have been taken out of context a smidge, just another byproduct of the divisive talking heads news channels. They get to beat this to death for a few days as talking points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 16, 2005 Share Posted June 16, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 05:18 PM) Horrible examples with OJ and MJ. As I'm so fond of saying, if you have big money in Cali you can buy your own justice. For the last time. WE ARE TRYING TO TRY THESE PEOPLE!!!! We have military commissions set up to deal with these people and it is YOUR SIDE which is stopping that process from going forward with your legal challenges. It's extremely hypocritical of the left to whine about these people being there without trial when they themeslves are holding up the process. :rolly Secret closed door tribunals (completely flying in the face of Milligan) where defendants have no access to counsel or due process rights. That sounds so Constitutional to me Nuke, you can't break this on a left/right continuum. Mel Martinez, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Bill Kristol, etc. have joined the ranks of supporting the Constitution over mere party loyalty. These secret military tribunals are anti-thetical to the Constitution as is the holding of suspects in Gitmo (a.k.a US jurisdiction according to the SC) for years without charges, access to counsel or family. If one is in US jurisdiction, then US criminal law applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 05:50 PM) They're innocent until proven guilty. You don't just get to throw out the Constitution when we're scared of a possible threat. Jose Padilla has been in a cell for years waiting to be even charged with a crime. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that he must be charged and tried. The DoJ is still fighting that on appeal and he is still in a prison. How is waiting years upon years for a f***ing trial the least bit Constitutional? Gitmo is under US jurisdiction and as the Milligan case clearly shows, you can't have military tribunals for people arrested under criminal law when civilian courts are functioning. Padilla is the exception not the rule. As far as I know Padilla, Hamdi and that other jackass who got sent up for 20 years whose name escapes me at the moment are the only American citizens that are in that position. Yes, they should get due process under the constitution because they are American citizens. The Supreme Court ruled in 1942 that illegal enemy combatants WHO ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS such as Nazi sabetours or Islamic extremists, have NO rights under the constitution and are not entitled to trial in the civillian court system. Whether or not someone is an American citizen is the key discriminator here and if it's ok for you and your cohorts on the left to deny a hearing to foregin combatants in Guantanamo with your silly legal challenges then I say its ok for the Government to proceed with appeals designed to get the courts to see things their way regarding people like Padilla and Hamdi and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 05:57 PM) Secret closed door tribunals (completely flying in the face of Milligan) where defendants have no access to counsel or due process rights. That sounds so Constitutional to me Nuke, you can't break this on a left/right continuum. Mel Martinez, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Bill Kristol, etc. have joined the ranks of supporting the Constitution over mere party loyalty. These secret military tribunals are anti-thetical to the Constitution as is the holding of suspects in Gitmo (a.k.a US jurisdiction according to the SC) for years without charges, access to counsel or family. If one is in US jurisdiction, then US criminal law applies. Milligan applies to U.S. citizens, not foreginers captured in combat against our troops. Stop trying to lump in U.S. citizens with foreginers. The Supreme Court has already validated the military tribunals in the form the Bush Administration wants to use them so saying they are entitled to treatment under U.S. law is wrong. When the Supreme Court reverses itself then you have a point. Until then you are totally and completely wrong. Edited June 17, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 06:10 PM) Milligan applies to U.S. citizens, not foreginers captured in combat against our troops. Stop trying to lump in U.S. citizens with foreginers. The Supreme Court has already validated the military tribunals in the form the Bush Administration wants to use them so saying they are entitled to treatment under U.S. law is wrong. When the Supreme Court reverses itself then you have a point. Until then you are totally and completely wrong. Nuke, the thing is that the DoJ is not saying where these people are coming from at all. The government will not say where the detainees at Gitmo are coming from saying "Well, just trust us." And as a person who proclaims to be a small government conservative, I would peg you as one of the people who would be at the very least apprehensive about the policies of government to secretly arrest and detain a person with no end in sight with no timetable for bringing charges or giving them access to counsel or family. Given the track record of government in general for decades (Palmer Raids, COINTELPROs, etc.), it isn't too far to suggest that perhaps the government's activities are less than noble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 06:42 PM) Nuke, the thing is that the DoJ is not saying where these people are coming from at all. The government will not say where the detainees at Gitmo are coming from saying "Well, just trust us." And as a person who proclaims to be a small government conservative, I would peg you as one of the people who would be at the very least apprehensive about the policies of government to secretly arrest and detain a person with no end in sight with no timetable for bringing charges or giving them access to counsel or family. Given the track record of government in general for decades (Palmer Raids, COINTELPROs, etc.), it isn't too far to suggest that perhaps the government's activities are less than noble. To say there are more American citizens at Gitmo ( if I'm reading your statement right ) and the government is hiding their nationality from us is purely speculation on your part. Once again. These people at Gitmo are those who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and they are set to be tried by military commissions, as the Supreme Court ruling of 1942 specifies they should be, and your side of things is stopping that from happening. It is YOU who deny these people a day in court not us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Personally I didn't think he was saying that the U.S. was holding U.S. citizens at Gitmo, I read it as him saying the government is giving us no information at all about those people and saying that we should trust the government when it says that they're all bad. But given the fact that the government has explicitly declared that it does not need to tell us who those prisoners are, what their crimes are, or even where they come from, there's nothing you could do to disprove a claim that they were holding a U.S. citizen there (or for that matter, in one of those secret facilities run by the CIA into which people like Khalid Muhammad have disappeared). In fact, I'd say that speculating that there are U.S. citizens at Gitmo is no more idle than speculating that everyone at Gitmo is guilty or speculating that the U.S. will give them a fair trial. Without genuine proof and some sort of open procedure, everything both sides say is just idle speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 06:48 PM) and your side of things is stopping that from happening. It is YOU who deny these people a day in court not us. And it's all Clinton's fault for letting 9/11 happen I hope by 'your side of things' you only mean people against Guantanamo not liberal, because this has become a much more complex issue than that. And please explain how people against how Gitmo is run are delaying court procedures, I'm not following. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sec159row2 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 a few points to note on this nonsense... and none of this justifies what is going on... just some notes... 1. Does anyone know what happens in cook county jail??? I'd rather be at gitmo.. 2. These prisoners have more freedom to practice their "cult" ( I can't refer to what they worship as a religion) in gitmo than they would if they were on the other side of the island in havana... 3. They are not holding the afgan boys choir, or bagdad symphony orchestra these are individuals who have sworn an oath to kill us... when they are let go they will return to kill us... 4. IMO these individuals forfeit any human right when they pay homage to al queda... Janet Reno would have just torched the whole cult... 5. And it is nice to see the california and florida members agreeing/defending/supporting these comments from Durbin, 'cause YOU DON"T VOTE HERE!!!! the democratic party in illinois is in deep do-do... the democrats in Chicago are going, if it hasn't already started, to chop up the Daley empire so bad and all the RED to Chicago's south will not put up with Durbin. 6. if you support durbin you had better move here soon.... :banghead :banghead :banghead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 07:32 PM) And it's all Clinton's fault for letting 9/11 happen I hope by 'your side of things' you only mean people against Guantanamo not liberal, because this has become a much more complex issue than that. And please explain how people against how Gitmo is run are delaying court procedures, I'm not following. I've already explained it in this thread and others and this is the last time I plan on doing it. The proper way to deal with enemy combatants is to try them before military commissions. This has been validated by the Supreme Court back in 1942 and has not been overturned or reversed since then. The ACLU and Amnesty and all these other whining leftist hypocrites whine and complain about people being held there without a trial yet they continue to deny them a day in court by throwing up legal challenges to the military commission process effectively halting it in its tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 07:37 PM) a few points to note on this nonsense... and none of this justifies what is going on... just some notes... 1. Does anyone know what happens in cook county jail??? I'd rather be at gitmo.. 2. These prisoners have more freedom to practice their "cult" ( I can't refer to what they worship as a religion) in gitmo than they would if they were on the other side of the island in havana... 3. They are not holding the afgan boys choir, or bagdad symphony orchestra these are individuals who have sworn an oath to kill us... when they are let go they will return to kill us... 4. IMO these individuals forfeit any human right when they pay homage to al queda... Janet Reno would have just torched the whole cult... 5. And it is nice to see the california and florida members agreeing/defending/supporting these comments from Durbin, 'cause YOU DON"T VOTE HERE!!!! the democratic party in illinois is in deep do-do... the democrats in Chicago are going, if it hasn't already started, to chop up the Daley empire so bad and all the RED to Chicago's south will not put up with Durbin. 6. if you support durbin you had better move here soon.... :banghead :banghead :banghead Yeah, badmouth Durbin but don't badmouth the soldiers in the FBI report detailing the abuses. And Sec, if they're so guilty then perhaps the government can charge them or even begin trials. I mean, since there is so much evidence. Saddam had torture chambers set up too for people that were looking to attack him. Just because the thinly veiled threat of attack is there does not justify inhumane conduct. Certain good aspects of Gitmo do not completely block out the bad. There are abuses going on -- I don't care how many Congressmen want to parade the menus in front of us there. If we want our soldiers who are captured any possibility of surviving, the abuses at Gitmo make that much more difficult. As Wonkette put it: All this bruhaha about the conditions at Gitmo. Look, the detainees have never been denied fruit. Water, maybe, trials, definitely. But they've got more fruit than Miami Beach. Also, apparently, a beautiful view. Yesterday Sen. Jeff Sessions, R- Ala., "expressed impatience at Democrats who called for more legal rights for detainees. He said the newly constructed facility at Guantanamo was on 'a beautiful site' and 'would make a magnificent resort.'" Of course! A resort! With, uhm, very late check-out: "As for the detainees held there, 'some of them need to be executed,' Sessions said." We look forward to the t-shirts: "My daddy went to Gitmo and all I got was this lousy t-shirt because he's dead now." And if liberal Dick Durbin is too liberal for you to be a critic of Gitmo, how about arch conservative Bill Kristol? He stated that many of the JAGs in the military, many senior members of the National Security Council and the Defense Department are upset with the handling of Gitmo and treatment of detainees in general. He went on to say "Do we think that we need to hold people outside of US jurisdiction to run the war on terror? Why can't they be at the base in South Carolina or Texas?" He went on to state that the rules that apply in US jurisdiction would be perfectly adequate for holding "terrorists" also saying that we have terrorists in US jails and are doing alright holding them there. The whole reason they were at Gitmo, Kristol stated, was that the US wanted to keep these people out of US jurisdiction but the Supremes ruled that it is in US jurisdiction so there is no reason to keep detainees there. It is good to know that there are Americans who will readily say "Whatever you say government! We'll believe you! You obviously have our good at heart and are doing everything to safeguard that!" because obviously the government of the United States has never done anything criminal **cough COINTELPRO, Watergate, Palmer Raids etc. cough** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 08:37 PM) 2. These prisoners have more freedom to practice their "cult" ( I can't refer to what they worship as a religion) in gitmo than they would if they were on the other side of the island in havana... 5. And it is nice to see the california and florida members agreeing/defending/supporting these comments from Durbin, 'cause YOU DON"T VOTE HERE!!!! the democratic party in illinois is in deep do-do... the democrats in Chicago are going, if it hasn't already started, to chop up the Daley empire so bad and all the RED to Chicago's south will not put up with Durbin. :banghead :banghead :banghead Sec159, if you don't mind, please clarify point 2: is it just radical Islamic fundamentalism you refuse to elevate to the status of a religion or all of Islam? As for defending Durbin the person, I for one am doing no such thing. I'm defending the statements made by an elected official that have been twisted to make it sound like he said something he did not. It could have been Durbin, Daffy Duck, or anyone else, and I don't care if he's from Illinois or Idaho or whether he is red, blue, or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 07:52 PM) Sec159, if you don't mind, please clarify point 2: is it just radical Islamic fundamentalism you refuse to elevate to the status of a religion or all of Islam? As for defending Durbin the person, I for one am doing no such thing. I'm defending the statements made by an elected official that have been twisted to make it sound like he said something he did not. It could have been Durbin, Daffy Duck, or anyone else, and I don't care if he's from Illinois or Idaho or whether he is red, blue, or whatever. Islamic fundies who preach "death to America" and the like pervert what is really a peace loving religion. Those who pervert a religon as they do certainly qualify as a cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sec159row2 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 07:52 PM) Sec159, if you don't mind, please clarify point 2: is it just radical Islamic fundamentalism you refuse to elevate to the status of a religion or all of Islam? As for defending Durbin the person, I for one am doing no such thing. I'm defending the statements made by an elected official that have been twisted to make it sound like he said something he did not. It could have been Durbin, Daffy Duck, or anyone else, and I don't care if he's from Illinois or Idaho or whether he is red, blue, or whatever. these people don't practice Islam... A religion that says it is OK to kill whoever some mullah tells you to kill is not a religion... it is a cult... or the US government.. Edited June 17, 2005 by sec159row2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 07:40 PM) I've already explained it in this thread and others and this is the last time I plan on doing it. The proper way to deal with enemy combatants is to try them before military commissions. This has been validated by the Supreme Court back in 1942 and has not been overturned or reversed since then. The ACLU and Amnesty and all these other whining leftist hypocrites whine and complain about people being held there without a trial yet they continue to deny them a day in court by throwing up legal challenges to the military commission process effectively halting it in its tracks. Nuke, the DoJ has never brought charges at all against most of these detainees at all so it is difficult to try them without bringing charges. Not to mention this little gem from Quirin: The Supreme Court said, in cases challenging trial by military tribunals convened by President Roosevelt during and after W.W. II that "neither {the President's] Proclamation nor the fact that they are enemy aliens forecloses consideration by the courts of petitioners' contentions that the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutionally enacted forbid their trial by military commission." Gitmo is US jurisdiction so the applications of Odah vs US apply and a writ of habeas corpus can be given to every inhabitant of Gitmo then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 08:55 PM) Islamic fundies who preach "death to America" and the like pervert what is really a peace loving religion. Those who pervert a religon as they do certainly qualify as a cult. You'll get no argument out of me; precisely as you say, the extremists have twisted a peaceful, faith to their own ends. I only want to know where 159 is coming from because the breadth of sweep of his statement was unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 08:56 PM) these people don't practice Islam... A religion that says it is OK to kill whoever some mullah tells you to kill is not a religion... it is a cult... or the US government.. Thank you. I was concerned you were dismissing the entire Muslim faith outright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 (edited) QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 07:59 PM) Nuke, the DoJ has never brought charges at all against most of these detainees at all so it is difficult to try them without bringing charges. Not to mention this little gem from Quirin: The Supreme Court said, in cases challenging trial by military tribunals convened by President Roosevelt during and after W.W. II that "neither {the President's] Proclamation nor the fact that they are enemy aliens forecloses consideration by the courts of petitioners' contentions that the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutionally enacted forbid their trial by military commission." Gitmo is US jurisdiction so the applications of Odah vs US apply and a writ of habeas corpus can be given to every inhabitant of Gitmo then. Nice try APU. Their Habaes Corpus claims were DENIED by the Supreme Court. The Court holds: (1) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by the order of the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the President is authorized to order tried before a military commission. (2) That the military commission was lawfully constituted. (3) That petitioners are held in lawful custody, for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged by writ of habeas corpus. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied.... T But dont take my word for it. Its right at the top of the freekin document. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...law/quirin.html Edited June 17, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 08:14 PM) Nice try APU. Their Habaes Corpus claims were DENIED by the Supreme Court. The Court holds: But dont take my word for it. Its right at the top of the freekin document. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...law/quirin.html http://movies.crooksandliars.com/foxnewssu...e_050612-01.wmv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 08:17 PM) http://movies.crooksandliars.com/foxnewssu...e_050612-01.wmv How is that discussion relevant in any way at all to legal precedents which dictate what should be done with these people? They're arguing about venue and notice how nobody asserted that these people actually have constitutional rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 06:34 PM) Why is it so important to afford people who are trying to destroy our country and kill our citizens rights they are not entitled to? Because you just rejected innocent until proven guilty. The cornerstone of our legal system. If we are going to export the American way of life, shouldn't we be following it and showing the world it works? Or are you proposing that innocent until proven guilty does not work and that Napoleonic justice of guilty until proven innocent is a better system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 07:48 PM) To say there are more American citizens at Gitmo ( if I'm reading your statement right ) and the government is hiding their nationality from us is purely speculation on your part. Once again. These people at Gitmo are those who were captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan and they are set to be tried by military commissions, as the Supreme Court ruling of 1942 specifies they should be, and your side of things is stopping that from happening. It is YOU who deny these people a day in court not us. Terrorists do not use battlefields, uniforms, traditional command and control structure. That's what makes this such a moral and ethical dilemma. Once again Nuke, we are all Americans. The US and Them rhetoric is exactly what makes the GOP Talking Network so effective. It's sad you have accepted and embraced it so willingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2005 -> 08:55 PM) Islamic fundies who preach "death to America" and the like pervert what is really a peace loving religion. Those who pervert a religon as they do certainly qualify as a cult. One point Nuke and I can agree on Although we could probably trace this back to Martin Luther who perverted Catholicism to start his cult.* *just pointing out defining cult is nearly impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.