From Cuba to Illinois for US prisoners?

[Revmitchell]

You're the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. Besides, I've already provided evidence. Maybe one day you'll open your eyes and stop being willfully ignorant.

Alright I will post it again:




But it is also plain that Congress long ago agreed to the president's power to convene military commissions (under U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 821). In addition, the president has inherent constitutional power as commander-in-chief to convene such tribunals, an argument acknowledged by Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone in a 1942 opinion. (Stone, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, declined to set aside the military trial and execution of German saboteurs who had entered the U.S. to destroy war plants.) The president is also authorized by statute to write rules of procedure and proof for military commissions, and to decide whether or not it is "practicable" to adopt the ordinary rules of common law and evidence.



http://www.law.yale.edu/news/3297.htm

 

[carpro]

You're the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on you. Besides, I've already provided evidence. Maybe one day you'll open your eyes and stop being willfully ignorant.

Your "evidence" is useless. It's not even remotely about the same legal question.

A judge would laugh you out of court if you tried to use your "evidence" as precedent for this case.

The reverends case is on target and pertinent to the current question.

 

[Revmitchell]

...........................

 

[rbell]

For the third time, most of the rights in the Constitution are not limited to citizens. I have "check[ed] out the 'United States Constitution'" as well as relevant case law. I have and still am in the process of studying it quite extensively. Let me ask you this, should the Constitutional rights pertaining to criminal prosecution apply to criminal defendants who are legal permanent residents who are accused of committing crimes in the United States? I want to know how far you're willing to go with this.

I'm willing to go as far as the Constitution does...which obviously, you have decided to ditch in favor of "one-world" views.

Fortunately, my view preserves the idea of our national sovereignty...yours does not.

In a nice way, I'm trying to say, you're full of it, alatide.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

...........................

Your case is dealing with acts of war, not terrorism. If a person is captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, then hold them as a POW until the end of hostilities. If they committed a war crime, then put them before a military tribunal. If, like KSM, they committed a terrorist act and were not captured on the battlefield, then the Department of Justice should present the case to a Federal Grand Jury and if an indictment is returned, the defendant(s) should be tried in United States District Court.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your case is dealing with acts of war, not terrorism. If a person is captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, then hold them as a POW until the end of hostilities. If they committed a war crime, then put them before a military tribunal. If, like KSM, they committed a terrorist act and were not captured on the battlefield, then the Department of Justice should present the case to a Federal Grand Jury and if an indictment is returned, the defendant(s) should be tried in United States District Court.

Interesting, why did you not quote the post with the case law I presented since that post is most relevant.

1. You have presented no such case law

2. The case law I presented was in relation to an act of terrorism

3. The case law you listed thus far has no context in relationship to what we are talking about.

4. You have presented no case law that makes a differentiation between terrorism and acts of war. They are in fact one and the same asis presented in the case law I posted.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

1. You have presented no such case law

2. The case law I presented was in relation to an act of terrorism

3. The case law you listed thus far has no context in relationship to what we are talking about.

4. you have no case

Did you even listen to the interview I posted earlier that goes over the legal theory behind this?

 

[Revmitchell]

Did you even listen to the interview I posted earlier that goes over the legal theory behind this?

Did you even read the case law I provided? And you need to go read post 14. And why did you not quote the pot with the case law

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Did you even read the case law I provided? And you need to go read post 14

Do you treat Democrats in your church like this? I don't normally talk about politics too much at church, but those who know me know where I stand. And you know what, we get along just fine as we worship and serve God together. I even have Republican friends. What I'm getting at is this- are you like this in real life or just over the Internet?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you treat Democrats in your church like this? I don't normally talk about politics too much at church, but those who know me know where I stand. And you know what, we get along just fine as we worship and serve God together. I even have Republican friends. What I'm getting at is this- are you like this in real life or just over the Internet?

What are you talking about? I have done nothing but respond to your questions. But you need to go back and look at your own posts 5 & 40. And you need to address my post with the case law

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you treat Democrats in your church like this? I don't normally talk about politics too much at church, but those who know me know where I stand. And you know what, we get along just fine as we worship and serve God together. I even have Republican friends. What I'm getting at is this- are you like this in real life or just over the Internet?

So you are still on the board at 12:56 viewing the index baptistboard.com but have failed to respond to me who is curious as to your implication. You need to resolve this.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

So you are still on the board at 12:56 viewing the index baptistboard.com but have failed to respond to me who is curious as to your implication. You need to resolve this.

My implication is you're being very rude and thick-headed. It's fine that you don't agree with me but you seem like you're incapable of even understanding opposing arguments. You've called me an idiot, implied that I hate America, called me a "libbie" even though I have very conservative positions on guns, abortions, civil liberties, and gay marriage, and called me a liberal parrot who can only repeat what I'm told.

 

[Revmitchell]

My implication is you're being very rude and thick-headed. It's fine that you don't agree with me but you seem like you're incapable of even understanding opposing arguments. You've called me an idiot, implied that I hate America, called me a "libbie" even though I have very conservative positions on guns, abortions, civil liberties, and gay marriage, and called me a liberal parrot who can only repeat what I'm told.

You are a liberal whether you want to admit it or not. Supporting Obama's health care is very extreme and very liberal. Liberals do not like the way this country was founded. You all want to change the very foundations hence Obama care. I never called you and idiot, and you consistently repeat the DNC and media matters talking points. In the previous post where I provided one single word "idiots" if I had wanted to refer to you I would have quoted you.I was referring to the op not you. Which was made clear by the use of the plural on the word idiot. I am interested to know why you wait until this far out into the thread to bring it up. And you need to respond to my post where I provided relevant case law contrary to what you have done.