Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Nov 23, 2009.
Thank God that Federal judges have control over courtroom decorum. Besides, their statements will make it even easier for a jury to convict them! I'm not scared of what they have to say, are you?
The real question is why you would reject a guilty plea to a military tribunal in favor of the risks associated with a New York trial.
I believe that Obama has a political motive here. Perhaps time will tell. Hopefully a peaceful revolt by the people will stop this charade as well as the Marxist Obamacare bill.
This is not the venue to prosecute these terrorists. They were captured in a time of war and should be tried in a military court.
Here is Oreilly talking to one of the terrorists attorney
I don't usually watch O'Reilly , but I accidently caught this interview last night.
He really nailed this detestable legal "weasel" to the wall.
What does "air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy" have to do with finding the truth about what they did?
The purpose, for them, is to use our civilian judicial process as yet another weapon against us. The purpose, for the lawyer, is to make a name for himself. The purpose, for the civilian courts, is to expand their own control. The purpose, for Obama and friends, is to stick it to Bush and friends. The purpose, for the media, is ratings and revenue.
The consequence for us is wasted time and money, more attention to the terrorist cause, and further corruption and weakening of justice system.
The risk is a venue that draws open access from terrorists and their supporters right in our front yard. It invites trouble. It will cost a tremendous amount of time and money to provide adequate security.
The proper venue for this case was and is a military tribunal - not a federal district court. That has worked well in the past and it should have this time.
How does any statement they make in this unconstitutional and farce of a court hearing make it any easier to convict them than "I am guilty"? This question is rhetorical of course.
If these people are military personnel then they should be tried under the UCMJ which includes the Geneva Convention.
If they are not military personnel then every person who leaves a pocket knife in his carry on luggage should get a military trial?
Is that what they are charged with? Leaving a pocket knife in their carry on luggage?
Good grief, what a monumentally stupid comparison.
Why is this even a question? They should have gone before a military tribunal within 30 days of arriving at Gitmo, and upon a finding of guilty, hung immediately. This should have been done years ago. The idea of a trial in New York is dispicable, but why are they still here to go to trial? There is plenty of blame to go around. Both this and the former government do not have clean hands in this, which is the same for most issues.
[Marv Albert] Yessss! And it counts! [/Marv Albert]
You're so far off I don't even know where to begin!
You are showing your naivete!
They are not military personnel. They are terrorists and should be treated as such! Hung!
I suspect questioning took longer than 30 days. But then they should have been tried and hung. But if you recall the democrats in Congress and the Supreme Court butted in!!
I'd suspect it would take more than 30 days to prepare a prosecution and defence for complex terrorism cases. And I recall the Republican controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Ah yes, the "alatide" defense. Everything is the fault of the Republicans...including any action taken by democrats.
If this KSM scumbag gets off on a technicality, the judge trying the case, and Barack Obama should be tried for violation of their oath of office at least...and treason at worst.