Terrorists being tried in Civil Courts
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
There is a link for a letter that is going to be sent to the President about not holding the trials of the terrorist in Civil Court, instead of the Military Courts. If you believe this is wrong the link is below for you to sign this letter.

http://www.thebravest.com/fdny.htm
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Is there something wrong with civil courts? I mean, other than that whole "presumption of innocence" thing....
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
These are terrorists, do you actually want them a block away from where the towers were, plus a lot of the evidence that they have will not be immicible into civil courts. This will also allow them to verbally torture the american people, by mocking what they did. There is a vast difference between civil courts and military courts.
This will give them a platform to once again sprew their hatred towards America, they dont deserve that right.
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
Just go to the link read the letter and if you feel you agree sign the letter. If not then it is your choice.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Bridgier wrote:
Is there something wrong with civil courts? I mean, other than that whole "presumption of innocence" thing....


For one, I am not fond of the idea that taxpayer money should be used to pay for a lawyer to defend someone is not a citizen who is charged with attacking this country.

I am also not fond of the notion that a civilian trial will potentially give him access to classified intelligence info, likely in the evidence against him, that can be leaked to other terrorist of the same ilk. If he is an enemy combatant, he should be tried in a military court, not a civilian court.

Yes there is something wrong with this.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (11/13/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Are they in our custody? Then they should be tried in our courts under our laws. Some of them are rather inconvenient, but as the basis for them are enshrined in that pesky constitution you all use as a replacement for cialis, then tough noogies.

Interesting how there's another thread that was started to defend the constitution against sockalisms, but here we have a thread were we apparently need to be defended against the constitution.

asshats.

Also:

mtpatriot wrote:
plus a lot of the evidence that they have will not be immicible into civil courts.


Then maybe we shouldn't have tortured it out of them in the first place - which would also seem to fly in the face of the oh so sacred constitution (hallowed be it's name), but what do I know, I'm a DFH, not a fine upstanding patriot.

asshats++;

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/13/2009)]
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
May I suggest you watch the news, try Fox news. Yes they have been in custody and still are in custody, currently at Guantonomo Bay. One of them being tried in civilian courts is the mastermind of 9-11. Again if you have a inkling to do so read the letter on the link provided if you agree with it sign it, if not then dont sign it. At least take 5 minutes to seek knowledge in order to make a decision.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
You've got to be a troll.

mtpatriot wrote:
One of them being tried in civilian courts is the mastermind of 9-11.


So? Have you so little faith in our American system of justice?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/13/2009)]
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
To be honest yes I dont have that much faith in our judicial system but that is not the point. They are terrorists, they dont have the right to be tried in civil courts, they dont have the right to have a platform against the American people. They need to be tried in Military Courts. Again read the letter before having an opinion.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
So you only support the constitution when it doesn't matter. Congratulations - you're a Real American Patriot.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
http://www.thebravest.com/fdny.htm

And it's civilian courts, not civil courts. And it's admissible, not immicible.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (11/13/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
but it might be imbecile.
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
Thank you for correction on my spelling it is appreciated. So forgive me had not had my 20 cups of coffee yet.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Bridgier wrote:
Are they in our custody? Then they should be tried in our courts under our laws.


Yes they are in our custody... originally as enemy combatants. Enemy combatants don't belong in civilian court.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
And the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants" either, right?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
mtpatriot wrote:
They are terrorists, they dont have the right to be tried in civil courts, they dont have the right to have a platform against the American people.


Why don't they have these rights?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Bob L said:
And the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants" either, right?


Unlike you, I am not an expert on the Geneva Convention (unless you are talking about the "convention" of agronomists that gather in Geneva, NE every Friday at Pizza Hut). I don't know whether they apply or not. I do know that terrorist should be tried in a military court and not in a civilian court.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Why?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
http://usmilitary.about.c...vaconv.htm

Geneva Convention

Article 84

A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war.

Let's try to keep the calls for impeachment to a minimum.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Bur Rickenhawk, your hero George W. Bush labeled these folks "enemy combatants," and asserted that they WERE NOT subject to the Geneva Convention.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Little late in the game for you to start agreeing with my argument on this topic.

That is unless you're trying to have it both ways.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Says the man trying to have it both ways.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Pointing out blatant hypocrisy doesn't require adopting either side of the argument.

"As president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions."

Heh. He's a war criminal by his own standard.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
So, when Eric Holder blows the convictions of these proxy "citizens" on technicalities and they walk out the door of the Federal Court House, will we have to let them on airplanes at JFK?

Just wondering......
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 12 years ago
The reason I would like to see them in civil court is they were making an attack against our freedoms, constitution and all the do process guaranteed under our laws. If we use their action to deprive them or anyone else of these rights, protections or do processes them their actions have won, they got what they wanted, reduced freedoms, liberties and protections from the law.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
[deleted]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Here's what former Air Force lawyer Morris Davis had to say regarding the civilian prosecution of the alleged terrorists:


In a preliminary report submitted to Mr. Obama in July, the Detention Policy Task Force recommended the approval of evaluation criteria developed by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. The task force stated its preference for trials in the federal courts, but added the decision would be based in part on "evidentiary issues" and "the extent to which the forum would permit a full presentation of the accused's wrongful conduct." A Washington Post editorial endorsed the proposal, arguing that there should be an alternative forum when a trial in federal court is "not an option because the evidence against the accused is strong but not admissible."

Stop and think about that for a moment. In effect, it means that the standard of justice for each detainee will depend in large part upon the government's assessment of how high the prosecution's evidence can jump and which evidentiary bar it can clear.

The evidence likely to clear the high bar gets gold medal justice: a traditional trial in our federal courts. The evidence unable to clear the federal court standard is forced to settle for a military commission trial, a specially created forum that has faltered repeatedly for more than seven years. That is a double standard I suspect we would condemn if it was applied to us. . . .


You stalinistic bastards are pissed because you're not going to get your show trials. That's pretty pathetic.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/13/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
Show trials! What a laugh.

No cameras in Military Courts. There will be plenty of cameras on these guys now, so you can all weep big salty tears over how that dirty rotten bastard, Dick Cheney poured water up their noses.

I do hope hope they have to show the people jumping from the top of the Trade Center though. Those folks didn't get any "do process".

Oh, by the way, Stalin is your guy, Bridgier. He's a Lefty. Remember?
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
[deleted]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
I'm sorry Jim: You stalinistic authoritarian bastards are pissed because you're not going to get your show kangaroo trials.

Does that make you feel better? And Due Process is what makes us American. Maybe you should read that constitution instead of just wanking to it.

Stalin's not MY guy... I'm an Anarcho-syndicalist through and through.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/13/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 12 years ago
Does that make you one of us?

http://www.conservativepa...group.org/
Top
supporter
Posted by Jim Brady (+425) 12 years ago
At ease, "Buck". He's a two-bit socialist with a fifty-cent name for it.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Jim Brady wrote:
I do hope hope they have to show the people jumping from the top of the Trade Center though. Those folks didn't get any "do process".


Jim, I'm surprised that when you repeated that, it didn't trigger the mc.com partisan grambot.

But you're dead on point about who's really running the show trials.

Bridgier, what you're saying is that by ignoring the Geneva convention designed to prevent Show Trials, you're preventing Show Trials.

Cute.

Here's what you can take to the bank. One acquittal and release will end many political careers, including the guy in charge. The trials your guy chooses to prosecute will only be the ones they're sure they can convict, making these shams every bit the Show Trial you claim to be better than.

For every other case, where things are a bit murkier, your guy will be happy to pop a squat on whomever's do process as long as necessary to ensure his political future.

Every trial you're clamoring for will be a show trial. They're not going to acquit KSM. They can't. If they do, your guy will be forced to intervene and hang 'em high FDR style anyway. A show trial by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, fwiw, I'm really enjoying the train-wreck your guys are standing in line for. The risk of one acquittal seems a high price to pay for a few goosebumps on the arms of the choir members.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (11/13/2009)]
Top
Posted by hilinetransplant (+129) 12 years ago
OMG! buck. wow.
Top
Posted by hilinetransplant (+129) 12 years ago
You guys are wayyyyyy to out there, yikes.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Just ignore Buck. He's the kid who was always shouting "Look at me, Mommy! Look at me. Look, look, look at me!"
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14950) 12 years ago
Bridgier wrote:
You stalinistic bastards are pissed because you're not going to get your show trials. That's pretty pathetic.


What are you talking about? The whole reason for moving to a civilian court is to put the last administration on trial. It is all for show! In many ways this will not be about what the terrorist did to 3000 fellow Americans, but about getting even with and prosecuting Bush and Cheney.

What is pathetic is that terrorists who have confessed to the crime with which they are being charged are being afforded the same rights and privileges as citizens. That is outrageous.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Maybe Wendy could help us out here.

Wendy, what are the chances that any normal suspect who was ever waterboarded while in police custody would actually still get convicted for the crime?

I'd also venture to guess Khalid might've missed out on the Miranda reading during his original detention. Couldn't that be used as grounds for dismissal? Or at least wouldn't it mean anything he said during detention could get tossed out?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (11/13/2009)]
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Wendy Wilson wrote:
Just ignore Buck. He's the kid who was always shouting "Look at me, Mommy! Look at me. Look, look, look at me!"

You don't think Buck might be making a point at the expense of our resident wingnuts, Wendy? I'm not surprised that Jimbo failed to miss it. But you, Wendy? C'mon ...

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (11/14/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Hey Rickenhawk:

Maybe we shouldn't have tortured people.

Did you ever consider that?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Yeah, it was way more humane when we send 'em to Jordan or Egypt to be dealt with in a more medieval fashion (aka never to be seen or heard from again)

The rule of the game once again... no camera, no foul. Or maybe we should call it MSNBCompassion
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Rickenhawk's playing with strawmen again. *yawn*
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
I didn't miss it, Brian. I just tire of the constant crudeness and profanity. I think Buck overdoes it sometimes. But that's just me.


Rick,

I have no idea how waterboarding and lack of Miranda rights will affect the trial of these guys. It certainly would be crucial in a regular criminal trial. But this isn't a regular criminal trial and there may be legal procedures that apply of which I'm unaware. It'll be interesting, that's for sure.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Your sudden interest in human rights is very touching Rick.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
As is your newfound respect for grey area

http://www.telegraph.co.u...tinue.html

Wendy Wilson wrote:
It certainly would be crucial in a regular criminal trial.


Seems to me if our courts operate outside of normal procedure in only these cases, what you have, in effect, is a show trial. How can it be argued that these guys have a right to full constitutional protection, but then that those protections don't work the same way for them?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (11/14/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Ruh roh. Looks like someone wasn't telling the truth.



The allure of the show trial was just too great.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Keepin' em in his own backyard.

White House: IL prison eyed for Guantanamo inmates
http://news.yahoo.com/s/a...ison_obama
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Rick has always cared about the welfare of the good citizens of Oceania...
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
Yup. Some of the detainees stand a good chance of being tried and released. Just because you've been charged and held doesn't make you guilty of those charges. So there is no doubt someone will 'walk.' Nothing wrong with that; just shows the system works.

And I have no doubt that this will upset some of the folks here. Again, I have no doubt that if the siyuation was reversed and they were charged and tried, they would want all the 'protections' our system offers.

You have to try and remember: You are not the jury and I'm damn sure you dont know all the facts.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Hey, I know Bruce. Maybe every soldier should be sent out into the field with a corresponding Jury of 12. Every time he takes aim, he should wait for the unanimous approval of 12 before firing.

We could put them in orange suits with "Jury Members" written on the front and back.

That way the Taliban would know not to shoot those guys. They're just there to determine guilt or innocence.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/h...357953.stm

Hey, this guy's a citizen... and yet (from what I'm told) the Obama administration is apparently denying him his constitutional rights!

How can that be?
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Nuke everybody.

There, problem solved.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Bridgier wrote:
Rick has always cared about the welfare of the good citizens of Oceania...




WHOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!



That's just the sound of Bridgier's reference going over the head of the Rickenhawk.


HA HA HA HA HA HA
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
So you are implying that all our troops are felons to be? Long trip on a short limb for you.. I dont recall that being present at the crime is a requirement for jury duty. In fact, I believe that would excuse you from jury duty.
Again, where is the evidence that all the detainees are terrorists and committed crimes? If there is let it speak for itself in an open court trial. What is your fear of that? Truth?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Bruce Helland wrote:
So you are implying that all our troops are felons to be? Long trip on a short limb for you.. I dont recall that being present at the crime is a requirement for jury duty. In fact, I believe that would excuse you from jury duty.


Bruce, I don't think you get what I'm saying. There are alternatives on the battlefield other than taking prisoners. What kind of Constitutional protection are we offering the ones that get shot, or knocked out via drone? (Or whisked away to Egypt, no questions asked)

Should we have a jury present for every missile launch? Should we wait for twelve angry men every time someone pulls a trigger?

What I'm saying is you're applying an insane standard that could never, ever work in a war. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, at least as it applies in civilian courts, cannot be adequately done in a war zone.

As Rudy Giuliani put it, our civil system is designed to let guilty people go free even if there's a shred of doubt. You simply can't do that with these people. It's a fantasy.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Hey Bridgier, every one of the accused American Citizens from the Abu Ghraib scandal went through a military trial.

Did they have fewer rights than a foreign prisoner?

Or does the MSNBCompassion only turn on when KO calls a code red?
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
This issue was decided in Boumediene v. Bush, a 5-4 judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in June of last year. Caterwauling about it now seems moot.

http://www.supremecourtus...6-1195.pdf
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Don't get me wrong, Joe. It's going to be fun. We'll either get to watch such perversion of precedent and constitutional court protections that it guarantees convictions (the show trial option)... Or we'll all watch as the acquittals roll in, which will force the executive to ignore Boumediene for the sham that it is and hold detainees in spite of it.

To some extent, they're already doing that. Otherwise they'd just release all the current detainees to federal court. I mean I'm not sure, under this new standard, that its constitutional to hold people indefinitely until the day (if ever) you feel you have enough evidence to convict them in court.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
I'm not so qualified as to dismiss a SCOTUS decision as a "sham".

What error in legal judgment, in your opinion, was made by the Court causing you to question its decision in Boumediene v. Bush?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I'm not so sure you can use the term legal judgement in so far as the tribunal of 5 decided to use their seats to create new law rather than judge it as written.

But they have overturned the entire precedent of history itself, and in practical effect made it impossible to legally hold a POW.

A position so obviously nutty, I used the word sham exactly as intended.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
5-4 Supreme Court decisions are only valid when RICKENHAWK agrees with them.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
So what you're saying Rick, is that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution?
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Derf Bergman wrote:
So what you're saying Rick, is that only U.S. citizens are protected by the Constitution?


I would think that would be obvious Derf. I don't believe the Constitution applies to non-citizens.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
Rick Kuchynka wrote:
I'm not so sure you can use the term legal judgement in so far as the tribunal of 5 decided to use their seats to create new law rather than judge it as written.


To which new law are you referring, Rick?

Rick Kuchynka wrote:
But they have overturned the entire precedent of history itself, and in practical effect made it impossible to legally hold a POW.


And which historical precedent has been overturned?

Further, you're aware that a prisoner of war and the protections afforded him are narrowly defined under the Third Geneva Convention, aren't you? I ask because you've repeatedly applied that term here to a large group of detainees whose status is currently unknown, reinforcing the correctness of the Supreme Court's arguments leading up to Boumediene v. Bush.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Kyle L. Varnell wrote:
I would think that would be obvious Derf. I don't believe the Constitution applies to non-citizens.


You're kidding, right?

Let's just look at this for instance:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (amendment 8)


This only applies to citizens? So, for instance, you're saying it's okay to torture suspected criminals as long as they're not citizens. That the law is only for some people and not for others?

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (11/15/2009)]
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Derf Bergman wrote:
You're kidding, right?


No.
Top
Posted by Kyle L. Varnell (+3745) 12 years ago
Derf Bergman wrote:
That the law is only for some people and not for others?


Actually Derf I must correct myself. The Constitution applies to NEITHER citizens nor non-citizens.

The Constitution applies to the United States Government. It is what tells the Government what it can and cannot do.

[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (11/16/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Rick Kuchynka wrote:
Hey Bridgier, every one of the accused American Citizens from the Abu Ghraib scandal went through a military trial.

Did they have fewer rights than a foreign prisoner?


Well... since the foreign prisoners never enlisted in the US military....

Since you've got all the answers Rick, what do YOU think should be done?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/16/2009)]
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Kyle L. Varnell wrote:
The Constitution applies to the United States Government. It is what tells the Government what it can and cannot do.


To citizens? And it can do whatever it pleases to non-citizens? Really?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Eeehee.

http://thehill.com/homene...ased-in-us

Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder...

"I've looked at the evidence. I've considered the problems that these cases present. And I am quite confident that we're going to be successful in the prosecution efforts," he told reporters.

"If I was concerned about the forum not leading to a positive result or if I had a concern -- a different concern, you know, we would perhaps be in a different place," he continued. "But the reality is -- and I want to be as assuring as I can -- that based on all of my experience and based on all of the recommendations and the great work and the research that has been done, that I am quite confident that the outcomes in these cases will be successful ones."


Or in other words, if victory in the show trial wasn't guaranteed, they'd just take care of it some other way.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Further, you're aware that a prisoner of war and the protections afforded him are narrowly defined under the Third Geneva Convention, aren't you? I ask because you've repeatedly applied that term here to a large group of detainees whose status is currently unknown, reinforcing the correctness of the Supreme Court's arguments leading up to Boumediene v. Bush.

Funny...

Hey, this monster knew about something terrible that was going to happen so we waterboarded him to get him to talk.

HEY, you can't waterboard him! What about the GENEVA CONVENTIONS? (feign indignance)

He deserves his day in Federal Court!

Uh, doesn't that violate the Geneva Conventions?

Geneva Schmeneva! Get that man Robert Shapiro's number!


But there's one gaping problem in your argument. I don't need Geneva to argue for a military trial. That's the way it's always been done, even before Geneva. And it's the only way it makes sense to do it.

You're the ones who invoked Geneva and then revoked it when inconvenient. My pointing that out doesn't imply that I'm invoking it myself.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Rick Kuchynka wrote:
And it's the only way it makes sense to do it.


Did you forget "to me?" It just makes sense TO YOU, Rick. "I think," "I feel," "I believe." If you were aware of the existence of these phrases we might listen to you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Derf, after all this time, it's still like you don't even know me.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
Yes Rick I missed your 'point.' Usually its because you fail to make a point with your statements. Address an issue instead of waltzing around and that may change.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Interesting how quickly he moved past the whole "torture" part of his little fantasy above.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Let me break down the administration's plan for you Bruce.

1. Prosecute a few show trials in Federal Courts to air all sorts of unsavory Bush-era behind-the-scenes stuff, and 'wink wink' protect the 'Constitutional Rights*' of Foreign enemies detained on foreign soil

2. Venue shop the detainees who they don't think could be convicted in a federal court to an evil military court instead.

3. Continue to hold indefintely those they don't think they can get convicted


*Constitutional Rights as reserved for category 1 detainees (those most easily convicted)

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (11/16/2009)]
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
Rick Kuchynka wrote:
But there's one gaping problem in your argument. I don't need Geneva to argue for a military trial. That's the way it's always been done, even before Geneva. And it's the only way it makes sense to do it.


Actually, you do need Geneva to argue for a military trial because the U.S., along with 193 other nations, is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. So, unless you intend to dishonor your word and abandon international law supporting the humane treatment of your own prisoners of war by switching your compliance with those treaties on and off at whim, then you're bound by their terms.

Further, the U.S. military is tethered to a higher standard than Geneva by way of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Adherence to both the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ is all that separates our actions against detainees in Guantanamo from the actions of the Nazis against the Jews in eastern Europe.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Further, the U.S. military is tethered to a higher standard than Geneva by way of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

But the Obama administration has already decided (when politically favorable) that it will set both Geneva and the UCMJ aside in favor of a civil federal court.

So let the impeachment of the war criminal begin!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
You truly are a facile little monster Rick.

The whole point of keeping them in Guantanamo was so that we could treat them in ways that might not be in keeping with the spirit or the letter of the Constitution. You can dance back and forth between "enemy combatants" or "prisoners of war", but the crux of the problem is that we tortured people for eight years (including children) and now we have to do something with them.

I'm not happy with Obama's solution. I liked Bush's even less. I'll take the half-loaf, but I'll hope to get the whole one eventually.

But please quit pretending that this means anything to you other than a chance to sneer at the current administration.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
You may be right, Rick. But how would anyone reading this forum know that?

You've reached another incendiary conclusion for yourself. Yet you've not shared your argument that would allow the rest of us to arrive there with you. We have your assertions that a judgment by the Supreme Court is a sham and that President Obama is a war criminal. We have your contempt for the Geneva Conventions and, therefore, international law. And we have little smiley faces at the end of your posts.

We have no logical streams of thought leading us to your conclusions. We have no premises for your arguments. You've provided no facts to form even the thinnest support for anything you've said so far.

I'd appreciate more intellectual honesty from you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Here's the key to Rick's posts Joe: NotBush == Bad. Everything else is mere details and sophistry.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Oh no he DI'INT!
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I was really trying to figure out where you guys were coming from, and then it occurred to me...

You're taking everything I'm saying seriously. Most of my more outlandish stuff (especially the emoticon clad) is a kind of running parody I've got going of the utter insufferability we've witnessed over the last 8 years.

Maybe if you guys had only communicated a few years ago that all Bush needed to do to solve the sticky detainee problem was stage a couple dog-and-pony show trials followed by some ChINO (Change in Name Only), he would have addressed your concern.

Then again, if we really cut through to the truth of it, we all know that had Bush done what Obama's doing, you'd be pointing to it as more evidence of Bush the war criminal.

http://blog.newsweek.com/...uilty.aspx

'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty

I guess that's what happens when you take your idea of Constitutional Justice from the guy who thought pardoning Marc Rich was a great idea.

I will say though it is interesting to watch, with two snaps of the partisan fingers, team Truth to Power becoming every bit the bumnuzzlers they always accused the opposition of being.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (11/19/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Wow.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/art...52624.html

As Morris Davis, a retired military prosecutor, argued the other day in The Wall Street Journal, under the administration's plan, "the standard of justice for each detainee will depend in large part upon the government's assessment of how high the prosecution's evidence can jump and which evidentiary bar it can clear." Detainees will get a "fair trial" in civilian court only if their conviction is assured. By implication, that suggests that detainees who go before military commissions will get an unfair trial. Presumably the administration would deny this and say the commission trials will be fair too. But if so, why is such a trial not good enough for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?

The answer seems to be that the administration is conducting a limited number of civilian trials of high-profile terrorists for show, so as to win "credibility" with the international left. These trials will differ from an ordinary show trial in that the process will be fair even though the verdict is predetermined. But people who wrongly think that either military commissions or detention without trial are unjust will not be satisfied with some detainees getting civilian trials--unless, of course, they are simply eager to be impressed by Barack Obama.


Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5094) 12 years ago
Rick:

You're really an idiot.

(Note the absence of an emoticon)
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
The funny thing is, nobody on this site is making the arguments that Rick claims we're making.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Let's see...

But please quit pretending that this means anything to you other than a chance to sneer at the current administration.

Bridgier, subtract 2 years, look in mirror. Enjoy.

You've argued that these guys have a RIGHT to a civil trial over and over and over again. Now we have one show trial where Holder and Obama pre-guarantee convictions and death penalties. But only for some. Others will get something different, depending on how easy they are to prosecute. Where's the equal protection? Or is that Constitutional right for citizens only?

Even worse, from the Isikoff article above...

What would happen, Cornyn asked, if a federal judge were to decide that Mohammed had been denied his constitutional rights-such as not being advised of his Miranda rights (to be represented by a lawyer)-and orders the Justice Department to let him go?

"We have taken the view that the judiciary does not have the ability [to] require us to, with people who are held overseas, to release them," Holder said.


New precedent... Miranda rights, attorneys, etc not required if what you're accused of is really really bad?

Anywho if they win their 'Guaranteed' conviction, you're going to proclaim justice is served. If for some reason they lose, Holder's pre-denying the court even has the authority to do anything about it.

And in your mind this is a positive step. By what definition is this not a show trial? How is a military trial less constitutional then a civil trial where the administration says, "Either you'll be convicted and executed or we'll just ignore the verdict."

The irony is you're undermining everyone's civil liberties with this political corruption of the judiciary. This kind of case doesn't belong anywhere near a courthouse (or meddling politicians).

Which is exactly why Geneva is written the way that it is. I'm told "We'll show the world we're better." I think we're showing them the opposite.
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago


Watch Holder's ears smoke. Derrrrrrrr.

"I don't know I'd have to look at that?"

You mean he's been all the way through this process... determining how to legally handle this situation, and he's unable to answer this very simple question of precedent?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
And read what I've written in this thread. I feel the same way today that I did two years ago. Civil trials for all.

That's the frustrating thing about this - no matter what anyone actually says, you assume whatever you want and argue from there.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (11/20/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Sorry, Bridgier.

I'm just surprised that you'd see "We'll run a few kangaroo trials for the Bridgiers of the world, then just keep it how it is" as an improvement.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
And thus you prove my point. Learn to read.
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 12 years ago
It is interesting how many of you assume those going to trial are guilty in direct contradiction to rights guaranteed by the Constitution. After depriving these individuals of freedom for up to seven years without an access to do process, maybe it is time to step up and be the moral leaders of the world that we profess to be and grant them right in full view of the world and show all the other nations how freedom and democracy work. Anything less is lowering ourselves to terrorist, dictators and communist levels of morality making us the shame of the moral world instead of it's leader.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
All good points that Rick will ignore in a 500 word screed that will look much like the following:

blah blah blah clinton blah blah war-criminal blah blah show trial blah liberal blah blah two-years ago blah blah clinton blah blah geneva conventions blah blah clinton blah clinton

Or words to that effect.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
Wow, how did I miss this thread? After reading through the posts, all I can offer is this;

All you sumb*tches who want these terrorists tried in civil courts in New York City need to volunteer for the jury pool. Yeah, yeah. I know. You don't live in the New York jury pool domain, but go with it.

Once you find yourself seated on that jury and on http://english.aljazeera.net/ 24/7, don't expect any sympathy when legions of radical muslims follow the very personal fatwa decrees issued by radical muslim imams with orders to carry jihad into the neighborhoods of each and every one of you who are sitting in that jury box dispensing justice.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
It's amazing to find so many adults who apparently haven't got past the bedwetting stage.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
Heath, why do you choose to live in fear?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
Because that's how authoritarians establish dominance over one another.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
Rick Kuchynka wrote:
By what definition is this not a show trial?


No disagreement with that characterization. The current circus and procession of straw men led by the elephants in Congress is a flamboyant exercise in showmanship. There is only one definition of relevance, however, that of prisoner of war found in Geneva Convention III, Article 4.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.n...1e004a9e68

The Bush administration wasn't happy with the prescription in Geneva for detainees not meeting the POW definition so it trumped up a new category of detainee, the "unlawful enemy combatant", who could be detained, indefinitely, interrogated, and tortured without a writ of habeas corpus - despite the fact that 80% of these detainees were turned over by Afghan warlords from the most corrupt of regimes.

Not to be outdone by the Executive, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in order to codify the term "unlawful enemy combatant" and alter the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

In Boumediene v. Bush, which overturned the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the Supreme Court determined that all Guantanamo detainees not determined to be prisoners of war by a competent military tribunal are afforded the protection of the U.S. judicial system.

So, the process is:
a. A competent military tribunal determines whether a detainee meets the GCIII-protected status of prisoner of war or the unprotected status of combatant or a civilian.
b. If the detainee is determined to be a prisoner of war, he is entitled to the protections of GCIII and a military trial.
c. If the detainee is determined to be a combatant or civilian, he is afforded the constitutional protections of the U.S. judicial system.

In three cases brought against Guantanamo detainees, one was settled in a plea bargain and two were dismissed. Meanwhile, 193 prosecutions have successfully been waged in federal court.

What are you so afraid of?
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1284) 12 years ago
Here's the deal as I see it. Maybe you could argue that these defendants deserve all the rights afforded a US citizen under the Constitution. Maybe you could argue that In the eyes of world opinion this is the only way to proceed. Maybe you could argue that we have the best legal system in the world and given a chance it will triumph over this or any other evil. All worthy arguments, none of which I agree but never the less something to consider.

What I don't understand is why we have chosen this path. This path will make NYC the center of a 50-100 million dollar dog and pony show. It will certainly open the people of NYC up to a higher chance of reprisal from terrorist interests. More than likely it will provide our enemies access to certain secrets that they do not have now through discovery and testimony. So considering all of the negatives why don't we just accept KLM's guilty plea, spend $1.12 on a bullet, and send him to his God and his virgins.

Seems to be a better choice for all concerned.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
Bruce,

I don't live in fear. Rather, preparedness.

My first thought wasn't, "jurist jihad," but since no one else brought it up, there was an obvious opening.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
there was an obvious opening.


For your douche-nozzle...
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Steve, read up on the world's long history of Show Trials. A Day in Court does anything but guarantee justice.

Stalin was a master of setting up predetermined court proceedings.

And it's funny to hear the continued lamentations of delayed justice from the same people who've been working night and day in court trying to delay the military proceedings that were already happening.

Joe, that's a nice writeup. Now what evidence do you have that it isn't anything more than a figment of some long lost bureaucrat's imagination?

If the process of determination of civil/military is so cut and dried, how does it reconcile with...

1. The fact that the decision on whether KSM should be tried civilly or militarily was apparently left completely up to Eric Holder.

2. The fact that Eric Holder has stated he has the future option of determining himself whether other detainees will get civil or military proceedings.

3. The fact that Eric Holder testified that where he decides people should be tried will be based on where he's "most likely to obtain justice for the American people."

4. The fact that Eric Holder has reserved the right to continue to hold a detainee, even if acquitted in federal court, in order to pursue 'alternative' justice instead.

Now from your theoretical flowchart, it looks as though a tribunal should have decided on civil vs military. But from what we've witnessed, it looks like in reality Eric Holder IS the flowchart.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (11/20/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
And one of the most infuriating things to come out of all this... watch the Graham video.

He asks what the guys in the field should do if they catch a high-level guy. He used Osama as an example.

He asked whether Osama should be given his Miranda rights and afforded all the protections of a civil arrest.

The Attorney General of the United States basically answered with an "I dunno"

Now if the Attorney General doesn't feel comfortable knowing what to do in that case, how confusing must it be for the guys out in the field? They're not allowed to hedge their bets and avoid the question.

This administration owes them an explanation of what standard they're going to be held to before they make any more arrests. I'm sure they're not holding their collective breath.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
Those seem like fair questions, Rick, though I don't fully agree with the characterization of Attorney General Holder's response to Sen. Graham's question. Holder refers to "our protocol" as a determinant as to whether bin Laden's trial would be held by military commission or in federal court.

The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General have worked out a protocol between the Pentagon and the Dept. of Justice based upon multiple factors when deciding which venue will be used for trial.

The short answer to the series of questions you've posed may be found below, excerpted from the Attorney General's Nov. 13th press conference:

In each case, my decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced in July. Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors - including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated - that must be considered. In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee.

It is important that we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions. Just as a sustained campaign against terrorism requires a combination of intelligence, law enforcement and military operations, so must our legal efforts to bring terrorists to justice involve both federal courts and reformed military commissions. I want to thank the members of Congress, including Senators Lindsay Graham, Carl Levin and John McCain who worked so hard to strengthen our national security by helping us pass legislation to reform the military commission system.

We will continue to draw on the Pentagon's support as we bring cases against the alleged 9-11 conspirators in federal court. The Justice Department has a long, successful history of prosecuting terrorists for their crimes against our nation, particularly in New York. Although these cases can often be complex and challenging, federal prosecutors have successfully met these challenges and have convicted a number of terrorists who are now serving lengthy sentences in our prisons. And although the security issues presented by terrorism cases should never be minimized, our marshals, court security officers, and prison officials have extensive experience and training dealing with dangerous defendants, and I am confident they can meet the security challenges posed by this case.


http://blogs.usdoj.gov/bl...8#more-348
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
But it's a big leap from "a tribunal decides" to now "Holder was following the protocol they established."

Which is it?

And if it's an established protocol, how does this make sense...

First, he noted, Congress has already barred any Guantánamo detainees from being released inside the United States. But then, pressed again about what would happen "if one of these terrorists" in the future were found not guilty or given a short sentence, Holder agreed that the Justice Department would still retain the authority to lock them up as enemy combatants.

"I certainly think that under the regime that we are contemplating, the potential for detaining people under the laws of war, we would retain that ability," Holder said.


He seems to be saying they can choose either/or... or even both. Even with the same person. If they fail on the civil level they can fall back on the military option.

That totally doesn't jibe with your explanation of civil/military justice being a matter of established protocol. I'm not doubting that they've put out a protocol. I can't see any reasonable evidence though that if there is a fixed protocol, they're bothering to follow it.
Top
Posted by Bruce Helland (+586) 12 years ago
Heath, how have you prepared for these anticipated terrorist attacks? What do you know that our beloved Department of Homeland Security doesnt? Please for the greater good inform us..
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
I missed something here, Senator Graham. But where did the 9/11 attacks take place? And who were the 5 detainees arrested by?

(Sorry, Wendy. By whom were the 5 detainees arrested?)

[This message has been edited by Derf Bergman (11/20/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
I'm not sure about the other ones.

But KSM was snatched in Pakistan.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17321) 12 years ago
So, in response to mtpatriot's exhortations, I read the letter.....although it took some rather annoying redirection to get to that point.

After reading it, I elected not to sign it.

Because, after contemplation, I thought that, of the Guatanomo detainees:

American citizens should be tried in civilian courts.

Foriegn citizens should be tried in military courts.

Seems simple enough to me.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 12 years ago
Derf,

How about this: Who arrested the 5 detainees?
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
Maybe this will help:

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The crime of the five USS Cole saboteurs facing the military commission was committed in Yemen. The crimes of the 9/11 conspirators facing trial in federal court occurred in NY, DC, and PA. Five go one way and five go another.

The 9/11 defendants will be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, since none of them were hijackers. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is silent on the charge of conspiracy. Therefore, federal court is the only venue in which to successfully prosecute the maximum capital offense.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Bridgier - as ever, you remain Goofus to Rick's Gallant.


Source: http://www.thismodernworld.com

You un-American bastard, you.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Thanks, Wendy!

Who arrested the 5 detainees who will be tried in New York?


Is there an answer out there?
Top
Posted by Steve Allison (+981) 12 years ago
If a country wants to be a moral leader they can NOT assume guilt, they can NOT imprison for years without due process and they can NOT torture to get confessions. There is nothing wrong with "show trails". They give the rest of the world a chance to see the quality of your legal system. Yes Stalin run them and the world saw his non-justice legal system. If one runs fair legal trails granting both sides their legal rights, the world will see the true value of democracy and the freedoms it guarantees.
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
They are not American Citizens, and they were arrested by the military on foreign soil. Think there were a few that were arrested in Iraq, and or maybe Afganastan. So yes they need to face Military Court. None were arrested on American soil. Hope that answers the questions. The letter referenced was asking for signatures NOT to have the trials in New York.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
Don't pretend like you care where they're from or what they're called, mtpatriot (lowercase, name withheld).

Be honest - you'd rather skip any form of trial altogether.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 12 years ago
Get a rope. Bring back Montana style vigilante justice.
Top
Posted by Chuck Schott (+1284) 12 years ago
Steve A. doesn't it kind of take the whole "right to a fair trial" thing out of the picture when the President and the prosecution have guaranteed a conviction and a death sentence

Not that I don't agree or applaud the assessment they made it's just I worry that this is the kind of thing that could influence the trial if a good attorney wants to apply the law.

No matter where you come down on this issue you have to agree letting any of these people off on a technicality or a legal loop hole would be wrong.
Top
Posted by Derf Bergman (+584) 12 years ago
Here are the answers to my question as to where the crimes were committed and who arrested the terrorists. The answers were provided by Joe Whalen and mtpatriot.

The crimes of the 9/11 conspirators facing trial in federal court occurred in NY, DC, and PA.

and they were arrested by the military on foreign soil


Seems to me it's pretty straight forward. The crimes took place in the U.S. They were arrested and not captured. Seems to me they belong in court, especially in New York state where about 99% of all terrorist trials lead to conviction.
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
Brian Reed, you are right, they dont deserve a trail. They plead guilty when they thought they were going to be going in front of the military tribunal, but now they are going to plead not guility and they have also stated they will shout propaganda and sprew hate about the american people. Yes we are all big kids who can take it, but what about some compassion to those that really lived it in New York, or those families who lost loved ones. They dont belong on american soil. Would you really want to be on the jury for that one? Not only that but once again will state the cost to the taxpayers is estimated upwards of over 75 million dollars that you and I get to pay for. They should have let them plead guilty and then taken them out and shot them. They had no compassion for the people they killed or their families, why should they have compassion and be given rights of americans when they are not even american and hate americans. Just to set it straight I stated they were arrested, but actually I think it was captured.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
mtpatriot wrote:
Brian Reed, you are right, they dont deserve a trail.

Nothing you wrote after this really matters, now does it?

Simply put, you don't hold the United States of America to as high a standard as I do.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago


Ironically enough, the talking points in this comic mirror the things a coworker of mine said last week when we were discussing this topic.
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
Obviously I hold higher standards than some. Here is a fact for you. They pled guilty at Gitmo, the last time I checked when someone pleads guilty they give up their rights for a trial. So should they go to trial, no. When someone pleads guilty do they deserve a platform? Not in my book.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9194) 12 years ago
I bet if I tortured you for seven years, there'd be no end to the things you'd plead guilty to.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4943) 12 years ago
Did they plead guilty because they were guilty or because they were tortured?? That is the question of the century thanks to the Bush administration...Everything else pales in comparison IMO...
Top
Posted by mtpatriot (+76) 12 years ago
My my are you hopeful?
Top
supporter
Posted by Rick Kuchynka (+4463) 12 years ago
Bridgier, I think only KSM was waterboarded, yet all 5 hoped to plead guilty together.

Or was it just the innate Gulagatry of the place that drove them to it?

Joe, really what this all comes down to is whether you view 9/11 as an act of war or a simple crime.

It's ludicrous to suggest that a civilian target equals a civilian crime. You have no precedent to back that view. We can go over the case of the war criminal FDR again if you like

But the plain fact of the matter is that most war crimes are committed against civilian targets, not military ones.

What you say should be done is unprecedented. If that's what you want, that's fine. Just don't pretend like this brand new invention is the only legal solution.

I don't believe you can handle an act like 9/11, by foreign agents bent on the destruction of the United States, in the same fashion you handle a south side liquor store robbery gone wrong.

There are different concerns at stake.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+612) 12 years ago
"My Country...Right or Wrong" sounds too much like "My Mother...Drunk or Sober". Most of us would prefer that she were sober.

Do your homework, then we'll talk.
Top
Posted by Brian A. Reed (+6014) 12 years ago
mtpatriot (lowercase, name withheld) -

No, you really don't. You advocate a lynch mob mentality, which is as un-American as one can get. You may think that the United States doesn't need to hold itself to the highest standard possible, but I sure as hell do.

They WANT to be martyrs. Why give them what they want? If they want to die, fine. But let's do it OUR way, not theirs. Why prove correct those who believe that the United States is a nation of hypocrites when it comes to the law and freedoms we exhalt?

And patriot (lowercase, name withheld), TRUE patriots - like the signers of the Declaration of Independence - didn't hide behind a nickname. They cared enough about their cause to put themselves at risk to be executed for treason.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (11/26/2009)]
Top