timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
So what will be the results of him being found innocent?
The guy asked for a lawyer and to be taken to New York for trial when we captured him. I just do not see the point of giving away American rights to non-American attackers on our Country.
Many people have been found innocent when the Government thought they had a good case so this is a possibiliy, a lot of evidence can be set aside in a civilian court for even the appearance of bad collecting where in a military court less of the games are allowed.
So, if he is on American soil, and is found innocent, tell me, where does he go once we have to release him?
The guy asked for a lawyer and to be taken to New York for trial when we captured him. I just do not see the point of giving away American rights to non-American attackers on our Country.
Many people have been found innocent when the Government thought they had a good case so this is a possibiliy, a lot of evidence can be set aside in a civilian court for even the appearance of bad collecting where in a military court less of the games are allowed.
So, if he is on American soil, and is found innocent, tell me, where does he go once we have to release him?
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
Exactly snaf, when Obama gave away American rights and protections to men who are not Americans and who were waging war on America, well let's just say that it bothers me a great deal.
I can't think of a single positive thing that can come from giving away American rights to these war criminals but on the other hand, the list of harms are great and it even offers them a very good possibility of getting off where that was close to impossible under military tribunal.
They get 100 times the publicity.
They get the appearance of respectability.
They get full American rights to challenge and dismiss evidence in a civilian court that they can't do in the military tribunal.
Death penalty will not happen with the civilian court but was likely with the military tribunal and if you ask me, that is the biggest reason Obama will not allow them to be tried with the military tribunal, he does not want martyr deaths on his hands.
I can't think of a single positive thing that can come from giving away American rights to these war criminals but on the other hand, the list of harms are great and it even offers them a very good possibility of getting off where that was close to impossible under military tribunal.
They get 100 times the publicity.
They get the appearance of respectability.
They get full American rights to challenge and dismiss evidence in a civilian court that they can't do in the military tribunal.
Death penalty will not happen with the civilian court but was likely with the military tribunal and if you ask me, that is the biggest reason Obama will not allow them to be tried with the military tribunal, he does not want martyr deaths on his hands.
ImWithStupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
This was the very best question asked to Eric Holder and showed Holder was a political hack who was just working for the left on this...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y]YouTube - Senator Graham Questions Attorney General Eric Holder[/ame]
Given that, I have no admiration for Senator Graham.
Never has a non-uniform enemy of the US during a war has a spy, sabatour, etc... been treated as a soldier.
http://Off Topic Forum.com/on-topic-bs/37257-ap-source-gitmo-9-11-suspects-heading-to-ny-trial.html
Precedent is set. FDR did it right.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y]YouTube - Senator Graham Questions Attorney General Eric Holder[/ame]
Given that, I have no admiration for Senator Graham.
Never has a non-uniform enemy of the US during a war has a spy, sabatour, etc... been treated as a soldier.
http://Off Topic Forum.com/on-topic-bs/37257-ap-source-gitmo-9-11-suspects-heading-to-ny-trial.html
Precedent is set. FDR did it right.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
I watched several exchanges with him on the news and I have to say, Eric Holder looked like a complete dumbazz. He could not defend his possition further than "I" make the decision.........no dipsh!t, Obama made the decision and your the idiot he got to take some of the heat off him for that decision, the scapegoat.
This is a bad decision, and once again all the polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not want these attackers to be given American rights.
But the people will once again be completely ignored.
This is a bad decision, and once again all the polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not want these attackers to be given American rights.
But the people will once again be completely ignored.
Old Salt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2007
Just an observation:
When Bill Clinton was President, the complaint seemed to be that he let the polls control his decisions.
When other presidents' (not just Obama) decisions don't follow poll results, they're accused of not listening to the people.
When Bill Clinton was President, the complaint seemed to be that he let the polls control his decisions.
When other presidents' (not just Obama) decisions don't follow poll results, they're accused of not listening to the people.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
Old Salt said:
I don't think a President should 'blindly' follow polls becuase there can be a lot of manipulation involved in the process but you can't compare the kind of things happening now (tea parties for example) to the basic polls of Clinton's era.
People are a lot more energetic against things like cap and trade, and Government run healthcare, and giving terrorists from other Countries American rights.
timesjoke
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
After more consideration I have to say, Senator Graham made some very good points.
Under American laws everything said by the terrorists without maranda warnings and after what Obama has said was torture, is all inadmissable. A great deal of other evidence should also be eliminated because of more strict ruls of evidence gathering and if there is no clear chain of evidence records, it is not allowed.
I believe we are blurring the lines and it seems like Obama wants the military to behave the same as a local police force.
I still can't get past the idea of giving away American rights to people from other Countries who are at war with us, attacking us, killing our children as wrong.
Under American laws everything said by the terrorists without maranda warnings and after what Obama has said was torture, is all inadmissable. A great deal of other evidence should also be eliminated because of more strict ruls of evidence gathering and if there is no clear chain of evidence records, it is not allowed.
I believe we are blurring the lines and it seems like Obama wants the military to behave the same as a local police force.
I still can't get past the idea of giving away American rights to people from other Countries who are at war with us, attacking us, killing our children as wrong.
Similar threads
