So is Obama a Muslim?
- Thread starter snafu
- Start date
timesjoke
Active Members
Well good, we can agree on that much and so when a person makes a mistake in judgement, do you think their opinions or biases can be part of that decision? There must be "SOME" reason Obama is ordering something to be done that has never been done before.....right?
To me each of us Americans "earn" our rights, we not only pay the taxes that go to pay for our rights but we have lost countless lives in the forming and defense of our way of life to earn what we have.
In what way did the 9/11 terrorists "earn" American judicial rights?
Chi
New member
"Never", that word again and used incorrectly again. TJ fyi, since 2001 alone, 195 terrorists have been convicted in civil courts vs a measly 3 in the military courts. Hm, I wonder which odds are better....
Here's a sampling of 1995 alone: Terrorism in the United States
You still think the same way?
ImWithStupid
New member
"Never", that word again and used incorrectly again. TJ fyi, since 2001 alone, 195 terrorists have been convicted in civil courts vs a measly 3 in the military courts. Hm, I wonder which odds are better....
Here's a sampling of 1995 alone: Terrorism in the United States
You still think the same way?
I'd be willing to bet that not one of those 195, and I know none of your samples, were enemy combatants caught by the military.
All of those were law enforcement actions. There is a difference.
timesjoke
Active Members
IWS already covered it, none of your examples originated in another Country as an enemy combatant. This will be the very first time an enemy combatant on foreign soil was given full American judicial rights when they were not entitled to them."Never", that word again and used incorrectly again. TJ fyi, since 2001 alone, 195 terrorists have been convicted in civil courts vs a measly 3 in the military courts. Hm, I wonder which odds are better....
Here's a sampling of 1995 alone: Terrorism in the United States
You still think the same way?
edit to add:
KSM has already admitted to his actions so under a military tribunal he is already guilty before the first comment is made. Under civilian courts his confession is not admissable and nothing he has ever said while captured can be used against him........they will have a more difficult time convicting him than you might think.
Chi
New member
Incorrect. And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by the Pakistani ISI and our CIA not the military.
IWS didn't cover anything as pointed out above. And if it's harder than I think, how have the civil courts managed to convict so many more terrorists than the military courts? I don't really care which court tries KSM as long as he is prosecuted and convicted to the fullest extent. Why do you?
ImWithStupid
New member
I guess you decided to ignore the rest of my post. KSM was not caught during law enforcement actions. He wasn't even caught by a law enforcement agency
No different than **** spies caught by the OSS in WWII. Non-uniformed enemy combatants don't even have rights covered by the Geneva Convention.
He went from CIA custody to the US Military custody. All of the ones you exampled were from law enforcement actions and should be in civilian criminal courts. KSM shouldn't.
Chi
New member
IWS - Please back up what you just claimed ("He went from CIA custody to the US Military custody.") First you said that the difference was that he was caught by the military. Now you are saying that he should be tried by the military courts because he was handed to the military by the CIA, when I pointed out that you were wrong in saying that he was caught by the military.
The CIA is a civilian agency, as are law enforcement agencies. And even beyond all of that, again, why do you, TJ and other alarmists care about which court that terrorist is tried at as long as he is prosecuted to the fullest extent??
Chi
New member
Agghhh...I HATE going in circles. Please keep in mind what has already been discussed. Again, the odds are better if this guy is tried in a civilian court. That should matter the most.
You and TJ and whoever else thinking Obama is a Muslim, pandering to Muslims, a wolf in sheep's clothing, etc. are not substantiated facts and just your opinions. Which you of course have a right to have, but are nothing more than that nor change the facts.
snafu
New member
No the odds are not better if he's tried in a civilan court or federal court. He was going to be shot after the conviction in a tribunaral anyway. Now they can throw out his confession. They can also bring into court ways of interogation and how we collect intellagence. this is a threat to naitonal security bringing this into a federal court.
ImWithStupid
New member
Well he went from the secret CIA prison, to Gitmo. Gitmo is a military base and controlled by the military.
I never said he was caught by the military. I said none of your examples were, and went on to say they were caught by law enforcement agency action.
The CIA is not a law enforcement agency of the Federal Government. In fact the part that participated in catching KSM was connected to the DoD.
None of these guys should set foot in an American prison. They are unlawful enemy combatants and should not qualify for the formal rules of evidence or discovery a civilian criminal court will allow them.
This will compel the government to turn over classified information to KSM's team.
Here is one very good reason...
Lynne Stewart Ordered To Prison For Passing Information Between Suspected Terrorists
This will help make my point...
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/Memo_t
bama%3A_Detainees_Are_Not_Soldiers%2C_They_Are_the_Weapons_in_This_War/2716/
timesjoke
Active Members
Chi, IWS is covering this very well, your trying to blur the difference between civilian law enforcement and military actions. KSM has always been kept in the DoD and military custody, he was never moved to the civilian sector or held by civilian law enforcement, there is your difference you were looking for.
There cannot be a "better" chance for conviction Chi, KSM has already admitted guilt, under a military trial, his admission of guilt is allowed and you have an instant guilt finding.
Under a civilian system, his admissions of guilt and everything that followed are not allowed.
Only in the civilian system is there a good possibility of these men being found innocent because most of the evidence could be tossed out as fruit of the tainted tree.
There cannot be a "better" chance for conviction Chi, KSM has already admitted guilt, under a military trial, his admission of guilt is allowed and you have an instant guilt finding.
Under a civilian system, his admissions of guilt and everything that followed are not allowed.
Only in the civilian system is there a good possibility of these men being found innocent because most of the evidence could be tossed out as fruit of the tainted tree.
ImWithStupid
New member
I don't remember that argument.
Pretty sure I wasn't involved.
I know I argued greatly about his agenda and qualifications, but I don't think I argued about his chance of being elected President (it's an election, not a contest, never mind in this case it was a popularity contest) kinda like how one does not "win" the Congressional Medal of Honor (not Medal of Freedom as some people cough Obama cough , don't know the difference)
timesjoke
Active Members
IWS, that was just too funny my friend, and brutal too, lol.
Even in the early days I said Hillary would win easily but when Obama started getting the "religious" following with people passing out just looking at him and such I knew he had a great chance to beat Hillary and once he had the nomination of his party, I knew he would win even though I hoped he would not.
What I "DID" say was he was faking.
I predicted he would turn his back on his centrist promises and become the radical liberal/socialist I knew he truly was but the people could not see because of the masterful "hollywood" campaign Obama ran.
Not even a full year in office and all the promises of transparancy and "change" are tossed in the garbage. Obama has become the purely partisan politician that he complained about during his campaign that was ruining Washington and he was going to work for eliminating.
Obama won because of the independents and centrists who believed he was going to be a completely different kind of politician, a different kind of President who would bring people together........suckers. Those same middle ground Americans who gave him the Presidency are now unhappy with him and Democrats in general because of their dashed hopes.
I was most likely banned during that exchange because I had always said it was the Liberal's contest to loose with all the bad feelings Bush attached to any people who would carry the Republican nomination.
Even in the early days I said Hillary would win easily but when Obama started getting the "religious" following with people passing out just looking at him and such I knew he had a great chance to beat Hillary and once he had the nomination of his party, I knew he would win even though I hoped he would not.
What I "DID" say was he was faking.
I predicted he would turn his back on his centrist promises and become the radical liberal/socialist I knew he truly was but the people could not see because of the masterful "hollywood" campaign Obama ran.
Not even a full year in office and all the promises of transparancy and "change" are tossed in the garbage. Obama has become the purely partisan politician that he complained about during his campaign that was ruining Washington and he was going to work for eliminating.
Obama won because of the independents and centrists who believed he was going to be a completely different kind of politician, a different kind of President who would bring people together........suckers. Those same middle ground Americans who gave him the Presidency are now unhappy with him and Democrats in general because of their dashed hopes.
