Federal Judge upholds new terror law

[Texsox]

These people are foreginers and terrorist suspects to boot and they were captured on foregin soil. They have no business in a U.S. civilian courtroom. PERIOD! If the left would stop holding up the process with their lawsuits these people could get their trial and we could be done with them one way or the other.

 

I'm fine with that, then give them Geneva convention rights, allow the Red Cross in, etc. and have military trials. Have civilians ever been tried in a military court?

 

If Americans were being held in a foreign country, and told they would not receive trials of any kind, that they could be locked up forever without contact with anyone, you would be ok with that?

[kapkomet]

I'm fine with that, then give them Geneva convention rights, allow the Red Cross in, etc. and have military trials. Have civilians ever been tried in a military court?

 

If Americans were being held in a foreign country, and told they would not receive trials of any kind, that they could be locked up forever without contact with anyone, you would be ok with that?

Yes, if said American kept company with folks who pledged his allegiance to killing innocents.

[Texsox]

Yes, if said American kept company with folks who pledged his allegiance to killing innocents.

 

How about the civilian who was working for a company in Russia setting up a radar system. He was using a GPS unit to lay out the tower, was arrested on suspicion if being a CIA spy. Should he have been locked up without any process? How about reporters covering these wars? They get picked up in the field and just locked up without Geneva protections or civilian trials?

 

Bottom line, the US is now saying we can lock someone up forever, without any trials, without Geneva protections. Never in our history have we done this. Is this the America way of life we are promoting around the world? Doesn't this sound like something a third world dictator would be doing?

 

We talk about justice and fairness. Of freedoms. If we are going to hold ourselves up as the bastions of freedoms and rights, we need to try these people in some court of law. Currently we have two classifications. Civilian and military, Pick one for them and lets go. Or seriously get busy and declare a third classification.

 

Some here want to think the same military that shot Pat Tillman is perfect and only picked up terrorists and couldn't possibly have made a mistake. That by being picked up they must be guilty. I don't trust our government that much. Let's get these people to trial, convict all that are guilty, and show the world that the American process works. Right now, by locking people up in black holes, condoning torture, we look like the people we are fighting against.

[NorthSideSox72]

How about the civilian who was working for a company in Russia setting up a radar system. He was using a GPS unit to lay out the tower, was arrested on suspicion if being a CIA spy. Should he have been locked up without any process? How about reporters covering these wars? They get picked up in the field and just locked up without Geneva protections or civilian trials?

 

Bottom line, the US is now saying we can lock someone up forever, without any trials, without Geneva protections. Never in our history have we done this. Is this the America way of life we are promoting around the world? Doesn't this sound like something a third world dictator would be doing?

 

We talk about justice and fairness. Of freedoms. If we are going to hold ourselves up as the bastions of freedoms and rights, we need to try these people in some court of law. Currently we have two classifications. Civilian and military, Pick one for them and lets go. Or seriously get busy and declare a third classification.

 

Some here want to think the same military that shot Pat Tillman is perfect and only picked up terrorists and couldn't possibly have made a mistake. That by being picked up they must be guilty. I don't trust our government that much. Let's get these people to trial, convict all that are guilty, and show the world that the American process works. Right now, by locking people up in black holes, condoning torture, we look like the people we are fighting against.

I agree with your points, Tex. But to be clear, we have done this before. WWII internments of Japanese comes to mind.

[Damen]

Yes, if said American kept company with folks who pledged his allegiance to killing innocents.

 

What if he didn't, but they said he did? You'll take the foreign government at their word?

[sox4lifeinPA]

well in Saving Private Ryan, Upham let the German go because he said it was unjust to kill him and then the german later shot Tom Hanks...our nation's greatest actor...so I think we should just kill them and worry about the guilt later.

 

but then again, Shakespeare in Love beat SPR for best picture... ick. stupid oscars.

[Texsox]

I agree with your points, Tex. But to be clear, we have done this before. WWII internments of Japanese comes to mind.

 

Actually that was Americans, which makes it even worse.

 

I understand the complexities involved here. They aren't a standing military in the classic sense, and they are committing their crimes on foreign soil. We have allowed courts in those countries to try their citizens for crimes committed in those countries. I don't like that solution. I don't like some international tribunal either. We have two court systems set up in America. I believe both can offer a fair and speedy trial. Some here don't trust our civilian courts to do the right thing, I hope then you don't trust them to kill anyone via capital punishment.

 

I believe the least wrong, or best correct venue, is a military court. But they should also be given the same protections any other enemy is given and the same I would demand of a foreign country holding Americans.

[kapkomet]

How about the civilian who was working for a company in Russia setting up a radar system. He was using a GPS unit to lay out the tower, was arrested on suspicion if being a CIA spy. Should he have been locked up without any process? How about reporters covering these wars? They get picked up in the field and just locked up without Geneva protections or civilian trials?

 

Bottom line, the US is now saying we can lock someone up forever, without any trials, without Geneva protections. Never in our history have we done this. Is this the America way of life we are promoting around the world? Doesn't this sound like something a third world dictator would be doing?

 

We talk about justice and fairness. Of freedoms. If we are going to hold ourselves up as the bastions of freedoms and rights, we need to try these people in some court of law. Currently we have two classifications. Civilian and military, Pick one for them and lets go. Or seriously get busy and declare a third classification.

 

Some here want to think the same military that shot Pat Tillman is perfect and only picked up terrorists and couldn't possibly have made a mistake. That by being picked up they must be guilty. I don't trust our government that much. Let's get these people to trial, convict all that are guilty, and show the world that the American process works. Right now, by locking people up in black holes, condoning torture, we look like the people we are fighting against.

We actually want to try these folks since they were picked up in "battle" as a military tribunal, but our friends in Congress won't let that happen. It seems people forget that.

[Texsox]

We actually want to try these folks since they were picked up in "battle" as a military tribunal, but our friends in Congress won't let that happen. It seems people forget that.

 

Which is dumb, but not extending Geneva to them is also stupid. One or the other while we figure out a third group.

[Balta1701]

We actually want to try these folks since they were picked up in "battle" as a military tribunal, but our friends in Congress won't let that happen. It seems people forget that.

Yeah, Damn that Republican Congress, I always knew it hated America!

 

More seriously, this is actually not the real issue. The Supreme Court itself, if I understood the Hamdan ruling correctly, also had no problem with the concept of using military tribunals to try these guys, but the problem comes about with the specific way the Bush Administration wants to try them.

 

They want to try them on a charge that really doesn't exist, in courts where the defendents have virtually no representation, barely if ever hear the charges against them, have almost no right to prove their innocence, where the Judge and Jury are appointed by the same civilian in the Defense Dept, and where the defendents have no right to appeal whatsoever.

 

That was the system Mr. Bush tried to build, and that was the system the Supreme Court threw out in the Hamdan case. The issue is not whether military tribunals are appropriate or not, and to keep saying that only obscures the facts. The issue is whether the trials can be held in a purely unfair system that violates treaties signed by Congress, not whether it should be in military or civilian courts.

[kapkomet]

Yeah, Damn that Republican Congress, I always knew it hated America!

 

More seriously, this is actually not the real issue. The Supreme Court itself, if I understood the Hamdan ruling correctly, also had no problem with the concept of using military tribunals to try these guys, but the problem comes about with the specific way the Bush Administration wants to try them.

 

They want to try them on a charge that really doesn't exist, in courts where the defendents have virtually no representation, barely if ever hear the charges against them, have almost no right to prove their innocence, where the Judge and Jury are appointed by the same civilian in the Defense Dept, and where the defendents have no right to appeal whatsoever.

 

That was the system Mr. Bush tried to build, and that was the system the Supreme Court threw out in the Hamdan case. The issue is not whether military tribunals are appropriate or not, and to keep saying that only obscures the facts. The issue is whether the trials can be held in a purely unfair system that violates treaties signed by Congress, not whether it should be in military or civilian courts.

Yes, the Republicans screwed up on this. There's a way that this can be done that complies with laws... they've said as much, so go get it done that way, so everyone can move on.

[Balta1701]

Yes, the Republicans screwed up on this. There's a way that this can be done that complies with laws... they've said as much, so go get it done that way, so everyone can move on.

But again, that way is not the way the Bush administration has been willing to accept.

[Texsox]

Yes, the Republicans screwed up on this. There's a way that this can be done that complies with laws... they've said as much, so go get it done that way, so everyone can move on.

 

While that may git'r done for this group, the US and the International community of normal countries needs to devise a system that works for these people. I don't like having their home countries try them, I don't trust countries that house and train terrorists. (Duh) I don't like giving them the same respect a true military person deserves (although it's as close as we have under current laws), and I don't believe civilian courts have the scope to handle this. So we need another option and it needs to be written into the current treaties we have around the world.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, the Republicans screwed up on this. There's a way that this can be done that complies with laws... they've said as much, so go get it done that way, so everyone can move on.

 

But again, that way is not the way the Bush administration has been willing to accept.

 

And so, even if this Democrat Congress can find its way to pass a law regarding the future of these people (which seems unlikely), Bush would likely veto anyway. This the sort of issue where Bush could choose to be the "uniter" instead of the "decider", and find a way to get the military tribunals he wants with the basic protections that Congress would likely want.

 

 

I crack myself up.

[Texsox]

And so, even if this Democrat Congress can find its way to pass a law regarding the future of these people (which seems unlikely), Bush would likely veto anyway. This the sort of issue where Bush could choose to be the "uniter" instead of the "decider", and find a way to get the military tribunals he wants with the basic protections that Congress would likely want.

 

 

I crack myself up.

 

Yet, that is exactly what makes the most sense to me. Why is it we can't take the best of both parties and do something right?

[southsider2k5]

Yet, that is exactly what makes the most sense to me. Why is it we can't take the best of both parties and do something right?

 

Because one side won't move from their "hugs not Jihad" platfom, and the other won't move off of "kill em all and let God sort em out." because they know they will be blasted for changing their minds.

[Texsox]

Because one side won't move from their "hugs not Jihad" platfom, and the other won't move off of "kill em all and let God sort em out." because they know they will be blasted for changing their minds.

 

Oh, I'm so blind Oh, I'm blind

I wasted time Wasted, wasted, all too much time

Walkin' on the wire, high wire

But I must let the show go on

Baby, I wish you'd help me escape

Help me get away

Leave me outside my address

Far away from this masquerade

'Cause I've been blind Oh, so blind

I wasted time Wasted, wasted, all too much time

Walkin' on the wire, high wire

But I must let the show go..

I must let the show go..

I must let the show go on

[kapkomet]

Because one side won't move from their "hugs not Jihad" platfom, and the other won't move off of "kill em all and let God sort em out." because they know they will be blasted for changing their minds.

 

"hugs not Jihad". Nice.

[Balta1701]

Because one side won't move from their "hugs not Jihad" platfom, and the other won't move off of "kill em all and let God sort em out." because they know they will be blasted for changing their minds.

So, wait a second, now you're implying that the ability for a politician to change their mind, to be flexible, to adapt to a situation, to do something that could be described by a particular type of footwear is not the most evil, heinous, terrible, awful, bad, sadistic thing in the world?

 

Holy ****.

 

[kapkomet]

So, wait a second, now you're implying that the ability for a politician to change their mind, to be flexible, to adapt to a situation, to do something that could be described by a particular type of footwear is not the most evil, heinous, terrible, awful, bad, sadistic thing in the world?

 

Holy ****.

 

In all seriousness, that's what's wrong with our political system, on both sides, in a nutshell.

[YASNY]

While that may git'r done for this group, the US and the International community of normal countries needs to devise a system that works for these people. I don't like having their home countries try them, I don't trust countries that house and train terrorists. (Duh) I don't like giving them the same respect a true military person deserves (although it's as close as we have under current laws), and I don't believe civilian courts have the scope to handle this. So we need another option and it needs to be written into the current treaties we have around the world.

 

Now this makes sense. Of course, it doesn't currently exist and probably never will.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe its because we have too many bleeding heart liberals on the bench ... people like that jerk in Vermont that gave a child rapist probation.

Are you sure you aren't talking about that Republican Missouri Judge?

 

Why must your viewpoint always be in black and white?

[YASNY]

Are you sure you aren't talking about that Republican Missouri Judge?

 

Why must your viewpoint always be in black and white?

 

My viewpoints are my viewpoints. You don't like them, don't read them. As for this judge, he's a scumbag too. The dude in Vermont, I didn't bother to try and find out which party he represented because it doesn't matter. They both should be off the bench.

[santo=dorf]

Little testy for you?

 

As for this decision, this goes against the Constitution and our freedom, something the terrorists HATE about America.

 

Therefore if you support this decision, you're kissing the terrorists' asses.

 

Using this narrow logic makes so much sense!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Little testy for you?

 

As for this decision, this goes against the Constitution and our freedom, something the terrorists HATE about America.

 

Therefore if you support this decision, you're kissing the terrorists' asses.

 

Using this narrow logic makes so much sense!

 

 

There you go again trying to apply the Constitution to FOREGINERS. That is NON-CITIZENS, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AMERICANS!!!!

 

 

Do you think people dont notice when you make insane statements like that?