You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
<HR style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #606060; COLOR: #606060" SIZE=1 itxtvisited="1"> <!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->rest of the article can be found at the link
Justice Delayed
Holder’s friends in the al-Qaeda bar caused the trial delays he now criticizes.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Of all the infuriating aspects of the decision to transfer five 9/11 war criminals to civilian federal court, the one that grates most is the contention that the Obama administration is finally moving forward after “eight years of delay” — as Attorney General Eric Holder put it at his Friday press conference — during which the Bush administration managed to complete only three military-commission trials.
This is chutzpah writ large. The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.)
Almost from the moment President Bush authorized military commissions in 2001, this legion of litigators flooded the courts with habeas corpus petitions, contending that military detention and trials violated the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Geneva Conventions. In 2004, the al-Qaeda bar induced the Supreme Court, in Rasul v. Bush, to grant enemies a statutory habeas corpus right to challenge their military detention in civilian court. Congress tried to stop them by amending the habeas statute to divest the lower federal courts of jurisdiction in these lawsuits, but the al-Qaeda bar later persuaded the liberal bloc on the Court to ignore that amendment.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
__________________
And liberals are like dogs . They bark till everyone is annoyed.
Why would anyone want to read the rest of the article when the quote is enough to tell us it's 100 percent partisan bunk?
The lawsuits didn't cause the delays. It's the total opposite. The delays spawned the lawsuits. The U.S. military picked up people in foreign countries, threw them in prison without filing any charges, and proceeded to let them rot for 8 years. No charges filed, no lawyers, no explanations. Let me put it this way: If another country did that to one of our own, you'd be screaming about what a lawless dictatorship they were. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the detainess' right to Federal Court relief is a triumph of our Constitution and our long-held belief in due process under the law.
Why would anyone want to read the rest of the article when the quote is enough to tell us it's 100 percent partisan bunk?
The lawsuits didn't cause the delays. It's the total opposite. The delays spawned the lawsuits. The U.S. military picked up people in foreign countries, threw them in prison without filing any charges, and proceeded to let them rot for 8 years. No charges filed, no lawyers, no explanations. Let me put it this way: If another country did that to one of our own, you'd be screaming about what a lawless dictatorship they were. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the detainess' right to Federal Court relief is a triumph of our Constitution and our long-held belief in due process under the law.
That article was chutzpah writ large.
You've got to be kidding me!!!!!
If a US citizen decided to become an armed combatant against another nation and got detained, I would think that they "made there bed". What part of your brain is it that is so fried that you automatically think that they are 1), innocent and 2) a citizen of the US?
It's like the Canadian kid that naded two US soldiers, ended up in GITMO and all you bleeding-heart losers whined about his interrogations. You guys seem to think they deserve what a US citizen deserves.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motormouth
blowing up government buildings does not mean you don't love the country. The reasons for doing so does, however. Just a thought...
Evo VIII - AMS 2.3L Mivec Stroker, AMS GT3076, AEM Black, some bells, couple whistles - 432AWHP on pump
I find it amazing that people find it more important that some one spells a word right . Than what the person is actually is saying . If I get my point across whats the difference ? Im sure we can find mistakes in every ones posts . I tend to do it more often......big fcking deal . Well I guess its more importent to a few people . Mostly the ones that have ego problems and have to point them out to feel good about them selves for the day .
Have a good day Nate !
__________________
And liberals are like dogs . They bark till everyone is annoyed.
If a US citizen decided to become an armed combatant against another nation and got detained, I would think that they "made there bed". What part of your brain is it that is so fried that you automatically think that they are 1), innocent and 2) a citizen of the US?
It's like the Canadian kid that naded two US soldiers, ended up in GITMO and all you bleeding-heart losers whined about his interrogations. You guys seem to think they deserve what a US citizen deserves.
Are you aware that the U.S. has been releasing scores of detainees due to no incriminating evidence or no real threat posed by the detainee? Several months ago, the number was at 50 detainees released this year alone, and around 500 detainees released since 2002.
Why do you automatically assume they're guilty? In our legal system, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocense.
My position is simple. If we have the evidence, prosecute them. If we don't have it, get rid of them. Letting them rot in our dungeon for years without doing anything is simply unconstitutional and unethical.
And it's not about giving the detainees 'rights' as much as it's about putting some limits on our government's immense power. I happen to think it's exceedingly dangerous to give our government 1) the power to have unchecked and unlimited power over a class of people, and 2) the power to unilaterally define who belongs to that class. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agrees and is still willing to enforce the Constitutional due process limitations on our government.
I find it amazing that people find it more important that some one spells a word right . Than what the person is actually is saying . If I get my point across whats the difference ? Im sure we can find mistakes in every ones posts . I tend to do it more often......big fcking deal . Well I guess its more importent to a few people . Mostly the ones that have ego problems and have to point them out to feel good about them selves for the day .
Have a good day Nate !
Sorry if you got offended. I actually share many of your fiscal views. Proper grammer and spelling make it more difficult for the detractors to attack you. Its just common sense ... don't give them anymore ammo. If you take the time to spell check (firefox is great for this, which is why I hate works IE browsers) and proof read your posts they will actually have to attack your points and not your typing. I know its frustrating and childish, but hey ... they are lefties ... its what they do best.
disclaimer: I from here on out refuse to call anyone on the left a liberal as they do not want liberty ... they want daddy obama and momma pelosi to take care of everything for them ... because you know ... life is hard and stuff.
In our legal system, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocense.
Don't bring up our legal system when contributing to a conversation about terrorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skooly
My position is simple. If we have the evidence, prosecute them. If we don't have it, get rid of them. Letting them rot in our dungeon for years without doing anything is simply unconstitutional and unethical.
I have a similar position. However, you assume that the end-state is just. It's not. The people that this thread is about (Eric Holder's law firm) ensure that the goal is to remove all chance of any prosecution.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motormouth
blowing up government buildings does not mean you don't love the country. The reasons for doing so does, however. Just a thought...
Evo VIII - AMS 2.3L Mivec Stroker, AMS GT3076, AEM Black, some bells, couple whistles - 432AWHP on pump
Why would anyone want to read the rest of the article when the quote is enough to tell us it's 100 percent partisan bunk?
The lawsuits didn't cause the delays. It's the total opposite. The delays spawned the lawsuits. The U.S. military picked up people in foreign countries, threw them in prison without filing any charges, and proceeded to let them rot for 8 years. No charges filed, no lawyers, no explanations. Let me put it this way: If another country did that to one of our own, you'd be screaming about what a lawless dictatorship they were. The fact that the Supreme Court upheld the detainess' right to Federal Court relief is a triumph of our Constitution and our long-held belief in due process under the law.
That article was chutzpah writ large.
If these guys were picked up on a battle field, why would civilian law apply to them? Did we try captured german soldiers in our civilian courts after WW2? What about capture Vietcong, did we bring them to the states and try them in our civilian courts?
Here is what's going to happen with the defense attorney in court.
"Your honor, I move to dismiss on grounds that my clients were seized and arrested illegal without a warrant. The evidence obtained against them was obtained illegally, and again without a warrant. And further the evidence that the prosecution has obtained via interrogation was done so illegally."
Military != Police.
When the military "capture" someone, they don't follow proper custodial procedures.
Don't bring up our legal system when contributing to a conversation about terrorists.
Why? We should turn a blind eye to our Constitution just to satisfy some of our baser emotions?
Quote:
I have a similar position. However, you assume that the end-state is just. It's not. The people that this thread is about (Eric Holder's law firm) ensure that the goal is to remove all chance of any prosecution.
I'd say enforcing the Constitutional due process requirements is a just end-state.
Your anything-goes attitude towards detainees reminds me of the old expression: When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If these guys were picked up on a battle field, why would civilian law apply to them? Did we try captured german soldiers in our civilian courts after WW2? What about capture Vietcong, did we bring them to the states and try them in our civilian courts?
I'm no authority on the subject matter, but I think the detainees fall through the cracks of the UCMJ and various treaties because they're not uniformed soliders under color of a specific country. The captured soliders in the examples you raise may not have been tried in our criminal court system, but they did receive due process in their respective tribunnals.
I'm no authority on the subject matter, but I think the detainees fall through the cracks of the UCMJ and various treaties because they're not uniformed soliders under color of a specific country. The captured soliders in the examples you raise may not have been tried in our criminal court system, but they did receive due process in their respective tribunnals.
I've read a few articles about dissension from the JAG lawyers who were tapped to prosecute the cases. They also do not think it was a legitimate or legal use of the tribunal system. I'll see if I can find any of them.
Eric Holders law firm
