Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The folly of our boy King
Friday, November 19, 2010 12:17 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Ummm, what in my post leads you to believe I am condoning his crimes....please point it out to me. He is going to spend his life in prison...thats what should happen to someone like this and of course, since turnabout is fair play...why won't you answer my simple question Rap? 20 years for his part in the massacre. For the 1 count of conspiracy. He should have been put to death. I'm not playing this game of " show me where I condone his crimes ". This travesty of injustice is a direct cause of Obama and his justice dept. Deal w/ that issue, first.
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Ummm, what in my post leads you to believe I am condoning his crimes....please point it out to me. He is going to spend his life in prison...thats what should happen to someone like this and of course, since turnabout is fair play...why won't you answer my simple question Rap?
Friday, November 19, 2010 3:41 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote: Some legal experts warned that Wednesday's verdict damaged the argument for trying detainees in civilian courts. They said the case could make the Obama administration more selective in deciding which suspects to put on trial, because of the risk that someone branded dangerous by the government could be acquitted. "They really needed this case to go off without a hitch, to be a showcase. Instead, you have the opposite," said Aitan Goelman, a former federal prosecutor in New York now in private practice in Washington. "Civilian juries do screwy things," he said. "There's horse trading in jury verdicts." Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the verdict confirms that the Obama administration's decision to try Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts "was a mistake and will not work." "This case was supposed to be the easy one, and the Obama administration failed — the Gitmo cases from here on out will only get more difficult," he said in a statement. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j0d5CYTt7_X2dpBNNUwG5vi1scgg?docId=7fbb98e3a97344668fc0946ff437a15d
Friday, November 19, 2010 4:11 PM
CANTTAKESKY
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And yet, some still think he should be given all the rights and privileges in a U.S. court as an American citizen?
Friday, November 19, 2010 4:21 PM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Friday, November 19, 2010 4:35 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: Some legal experts warned that Wednesday's verdict damaged the argument for trying detainees in civilian courts. They said the case could make the Obama administration more selective in deciding which suspects to put on trial, because of the risk that someone branded dangerous by the government could be acquitted. "They really needed this case to go off without a hitch, to be a showcase. Instead, you have the opposite," said Aitan Goelman, a former federal prosecutor in New York now in private practice in Washington. "Civilian juries do screwy things," he said. "There's horse trading in jury verdicts." Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the verdict confirms that the Obama administration's decision to try Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts "was a mistake and will not work." "This case was supposed to be the easy one, and the Obama administration failed — the Gitmo cases from here on out will only get more difficult," he said in a statement. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j0d5CYTt7_X2dpBNNUwG5vi1scgg?docId=7fbb98e3a97344668fc0946ff437a15d Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani Born:circa 1974 (age 35–36) Zanzibar, Tanzania Ghailani wasn't an American citizen, and was instrumental in the murder of over 200 people, 12 of them American diplomats, and thousands more injured. He was caught in Pakistan, after a 8 hour gun battle, and not in the United States. And yet, some still think he should be given all the rights and privileges in a U.S. court as an American citizen? His crime wasn't armed robbery or check forgery, but participant in an act of great loss of life and the destruction of 2 U.S. Embassies.
Friday, November 19, 2010 4:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And yet, some still think he should be given all the rights and privileges in a U.S. court as an American citizen? We didn't give him a trial because he had the rights of an American citizen. We gave him a trial because he had rights as a human being. Do you think all humans should have certain rights, or should US citizens be the only ones in the world with "rights"? What do you think is fair and reflects our American values of how ALL human beings should be treated when accused of a crime? What do you think should happen to people we catch abroad that are accused of terrorism? Should they just be shot on the spot? Tortured for information, then shot? CTS ---- Arrogant and proud of it.
Quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...
Friday, November 19, 2010 4:49 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And yet, some still think he should be given all the rights and privileges in a U.S. court as an American citizen? We didn't give him a trial because he had the rights of an American citizen. We gave him a trial because he had rights as a human being. Do you think all humans should have certain rights, or should US citizens be the only ones in the world with "rights"? What do you think is fair and reflects our American values of how ALL human beings should be treated when accused of a crime? What do you think should happen to people we catch abroad that are accused of terrorism? Should they just be shot on the spot? Tortured for information, then shot?
Friday, November 19, 2010 6:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And yet, the government was completely unable to prove their case without resorting to torture. For the record, I think he should be given all the rights and privileges of a human being who's presumed innocent.
Friday, November 19, 2010 6:33 PM
Friday, November 19, 2010 6:54 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And he wasn't innocent, presumed or otherwise.
Friday, November 19, 2010 9:02 PM
Friday, November 19, 2010 10:33 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: And yet, the government was completely unable to prove their case without resorting to torture. For the record, I think he should be given all the rights and privileges of a human being who's presumed innocent.
Quote: And he wasn't innocent, presumed or otherwise.
Quote: I'd love for you to explain to the family members of the dead and the wounded survivors just how comfy you are w/ the kangaroo court justice which was given out. He should have been tried in a military court, as precedent has dictated that such terrorists ( not mere 'criminals ), and then executed.
Quote: Don't really understand the confusion over all this. It's really quite simple.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 2:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: He should have been tried in a military court, as precedent has dictated that such terrorists ( not mere 'criminals ), and then executed.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:29 AM
KANEMAN
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: You go ahead, its pretty clear looking at this thread which of us has the intelligence here, and Im sure you think it is you. You are quite welcome to that opinion. Enjoy your delusions, I've had my fun here, and now I know better than to try and use reason against u. You are clearly immune to it, since you cant recognize it. Since you havent once made a single comment that has any validity, I'm finished with this thread...I'ma go back to doing a little bit of work b4 lunch now.[/QUOTE I'm lost. Correct me if I'm wrong..I believe your "intelligent" debate is asking "what is wrong with this guy getting life in prison, via criminal courts?" He has not received life in prison. There I Won. Now, onto the POINT. This whole thing is a disaster. I said it back when holdershmolder came up with and defended this idea. This guy should have been put to death. He is a terrorist who killed hundreds. I am sure AUrapts point(missed by the lesser brains among us) is we should not be taking a chance with our criminal system on things like this. Too many things can go wrong, see OJ simpson, and the outcome is to important to our national security. I won't even bring up the absurdity of giving these "killers of Americans" our rights through citizenship.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 3:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And he wasn't innocent, presumed or otherwise. Yeah, F**K the legal system our founding fathers created, it sucks. If they seem guilty, they ARE. AU, you disappoint me in your dismissal of, oh, whatever... kill 'em, kill 'em all!!!! We NEED to feel better, so WE MUST TERMINATE, WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!!
Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I wonder if your feigned indignation on display here would be very much different if your loved ones had died in those blasts.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:10 AM
Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:18 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: This guy was guilty of a whole lot more than conspiracy to destroy a federal building.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:20 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Yeah, Chrissy, you've told this bit before, and I'm not in the least bit swayed. The inability of some to come to grips of what Islamo Jihadists say and do does not concern me. This guy was guilty of a whole lot more than conspiracy to destroy a federal building. You've got no problem putting Timothy McVeigh to death, right ? Why not this guy? Because he's black ? Because you perceive him to be an oppressed minority ? What the hell is it ?
Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:29 AM
Saturday, November 20, 2010 5:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: The death penalty has never/ will never bes about "undoing" the deaths of those killed. That's a completely inane and empty argument. It's about punishment and deterrence.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Not speaking for Chris, but for myself, *MY* problem with putting this guy to death hinges entirely on the problem of tainted evidence, the fruit of the poisoned tree. He may well have done this. But we lost the ability to convict him of it when we in essence "pistol-whipped" a confession out of him. Want a better verdict? Be a better cop.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:06 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: It's about punishment and deterrence.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:13 AM
Quote: 1) It absolutely does not work as deterrence.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 6:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: 100% of those put to death never commit any more crimes in this world , ever again. Deterrence ? Absolute, complete and undeniable.
Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:16 AM
Saturday, November 20, 2010 8:20 AM
Saturday, November 20, 2010 11:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: 1) It absolutely does not work as deterrence. 100% of those put to death never commit any more crimes in this world , ever again. Deterrence ? Absolute, complete and undeniable. " I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "
Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:26 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote: how comfy you are w/ the kangaroo court justice which was given out. He should have been tried in a military court, as precedent has dictated that such terrorists ( not mere 'criminals ), and then executed. Don't really understand the confusion over all this. It's really quite simple.
Quote:Aside from the constitutional and legal questions raised about military tribunals, controversy has arisen over their use. Even before the proposed procedures were issued, criticism came from both the right and the left of the political spectrum. The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, editorialized that, "The president and his men (and women) should think again" and abandon the plan for the tribunals. The Cato Daily Dispatch, a libertarian journal, cited a constitutional scholar who called tribunals, "law on the fly" for their and secrecy and lack of due process. The Washington National Office of the American Civil Liberties Union decried the tribunal plan as further evidence of "the government's increasing willingness to circumvent the Bill of Rights."
Quote:Please cite for us all the numerous terrorists that have been tried by the U.S. in military courts and then executed. Hell, for that matter, run down the list of suspected terrorists that have been detained, then list how many have been tried by military tribunals, and list their sentences.
Quote:Prosecutors had sought a 30-year sentence for the Yemeni driver after his conviction on charges of giving support to al-Qaida. Hamdan’s trial resulted in a split verdict—the military jury acquitted him of conspiracy and returned a guilty verdict only on the charge of material support for terrorism. The jury of six military officers handed down a sentence of 5 ½ years behind bars. With time already served, Hamdan - who was apologetic in court and thanked the jurors - could be out in mere months.
Quote: Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.[5] Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007
Quote: A military jury on Sunday gave teen terrorist Omar Khadr a 40-year prison sentence for killing an American commando in Afghanistan, but the sentence was merely symbolic — the United States already had agreed to limit Khadr's prison time to eight years, and Canada last week said it would allow Khadr to serve the bulk of his sentence there.
Quote:Many conservative critics rely on a presumption that a military response is always the toughest available option, but even former Bush administration officials say these conservatives’ faith in military commissions is misplaced. The facts are clear: Criminal courts are a far tougher and more reliable forum for prosecuting terrorists than military commissions. A consistent line running through these conservative attacks as well as other recommendations to avoid the criminal justice system—that lawyers interfere with intelligence interrogation—is also taken for granted but is equally erroneous. Detainees have the same access to attorneys in military commissions and even when held without charge. Interrogation continues after a detainee meets with an attorney, and the record of recent terrorism investigations demonstrates that interviews with terrorists who have attorneys have produced “an intelligence goldmine.” Military commissions have never handled a single case of murder or attempted murder and have doled out shockingly short sentences to terrorists—even to a close associate of Osama bin Laden. Two of the three individuals convicted in military commissions are already out of prison living freely in their home countries of Australia and Yemen. The only person convicted in a military commission that remains in jail is Ali al-Bahlul. Bahlul was Al Qaeda’s top propagandist and video maker and was charged with soliciting murder and material support for terrorism. Bahlul, however, only received his life sentence after he boycotted the entire trial process and was convicted without mounting a defense. The most surprising feature of the military commissions is their leniency. The lesson to defendants seems to be to participate in your defense and you will be set free. There are some analogous cases in the criminal justice system to compare the length of sentences in the two forums. The allegations against David Hicks in a military trial were quite similar to those leveled against John Walker Lindh—the so-called American Taliban—in a criminal court, while comparable charges to the material support for terrorism conviction for Salim Hadman can also be found in criminal courts. Hicks pleaded guilty to the charge of material support for terrorism with the underlying allegations that he trained at an Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and that he was an armed participant in numerous engagements with American and Northern Alliance forces. Lindh pleaded guilty to serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons. Hicks received a nine-month sentence while Lindh got 20 years. Even if all of the time Hicks served prior to his plea bargain is counted, his total time in custody was only six years, less than one-third of the sentence Lindh received. Hamdan was convicted of providing material support for terrorism for being Osama bin Laden’s chauffer. In 2006, Ali Asad Chandia was convicted in a criminal court of material support for terrorism for driving a member of Pakistani extremist group Lashkar-e-Taibi from Washington National Airport and helping him ship packages containing paintball equipment back to Pakistan. Hamdan received a five-month sentence while Chandia got 15 years. Even if all of the time Hamdan served prior to his conviction in a military commission is counted, his total time in custody would be only eight years. At most, Osama bin Laden’s driver got a little more than half the sentence from a military commission that a criminal court doled out to someone for driving a low-level Pakistani extremist. One of the reasons interrogations in the criminal system are so successful is that a defendant facing a trial has a strong incentive to cooperate with the government in exchange for a reduced sentence or better conditions of confinement. Two recent examples are Mohammed Babar who led investigators to break up terror plots in the United States and Britain, and three Somali-Americans who helped break up a recruiting network in Minneapolis after pleading guilty. Mohammed Babar was arrested in 2004 and quickly pled guilty in connection with plots to bomb financial building in the United States and London. In exchange for a lighter sentence Babar has become a “supergrass,” testifying in the trials of suspected terrorists in Britain and Canada, as well as providing U.S. officials detailed knowledge of Al Qaeda plans and training camps in South Waziristan, Pakistan. Babar’s plea agreement required him to give evidence to any U.S. agency at any time, but also carried the extra stipulation that if he ever gave false information the deal would be revoked and he would likely get life imprisonment. Federal law enforcement officials uncovered a network of Somali nationals in Minneapolis that were recruiting and training Somali-Americans to fight on behalf of the Islamist movement Al Shabaab in their native country. The investigation has so far led to eight indictments and a wide-ranging investigation into a network of at least 20 individuals that had been recruited to fight in Somalia. The extent of the network was only discovered with the assistance of three cooperating witnesses that had been recruited. These three ultimately pleaded guilty to related charges but still aided investigators.
Quote: You want a lively debate of the theoretical, where as i'm dealing with reality here
Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:33 PM
Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:36 PM
Sunday, November 21, 2010 3:27 PM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:100% of those put to death never commit any more crimes in this world , ever again. Deterrence ? Absolute, complete and undeniable.
Sunday, November 21, 2010 4:30 PM
Monday, November 22, 2010 4:29 AM
Monday, November 22, 2010 4:36 AM
BLUEHANDEDMENACE
Monday, November 22, 2010 4:37 AM
Monday, November 22, 2010 8:54 AM
Quote:It's about punishment and deterrence.
Quote:100% of those put to death never commit any more crimes in this world , ever again. Deterrence? Absolute, complete and undeniable.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL