U.S Intelligence a real oxymorn w/ this Nigerian

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

excerpted from the article you linked:

There is a dispute over whether (and how) detaines may be incarcerated and tried. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey claimed that the Supreme Court's Hamdan ruling affirms that the United States is engaged in a legally cognizable armed conflict to which the laws of war apply. It may hold captured al Qaeda and Taliban operatives throughout that conflict, without granting them a criminal trial, and is also entitled to try them in the military justice system—including by military commission.[79]

The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has not required that neither members of al Qaeda nor their allies, including members of the Taliban, must be granted POW status. [5] However, the Supreme Court stated that the Geneva Conventions, most notably the Third Geneva Convention and Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (requiring humane treatment) applies to all detainees in the War on Terror. In July 2004, following Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—ruling the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine whether the detainees could be held as "enemy combatants".[80]

The ruling also disagreed with the administration's view that the laws and customs of war did not apply to the U.S. armed conflict with Al Qaeda fighters during the 2001 U.S. invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, stating that Article 3 common to all the Geneva Conventions applied in such a situation, which—among other things—requires fair trials for prisoners. Common Article 3 applies in "wars not of an international character" (i.e., civil wars) in a signatory to the Geneva Conventions—in this case the civil war in signatory Afghanistan. It is likely that the Bush administration may now be forced to try detainees held as part of the "war on terror" either by court martial (as U.S. troops and prisoners of war are) or by civilian federal court. However, Bush has indicated that he may seek an Act of Congress authorizing military commissions.

a military tribunal is what the geneva conventions state as the means of trial for combatants. nothing from the above belies anything i said, so thanks.
i went back and bolded the part about the supreme court and the 'war on terror'.

Yes, but notice the date on the above (it is old), and read far down below, further, about what we can and cannot do legally - the "final decisions", not the arguments of the time.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

My main point is simply that, although I (and I'm sure, 'Zig) would personally like to take the terrorists, tie them naked to stakes in the sun, and have them eaten by dogs slowly while alive, our judicial system since 9-11 has decided what we can and cannot do with them, legally.

actually, no-i wouldn't torture them. my visceral reaction at times is kill them, but i'm actually against the death penalty in most cases. i would, however, have volunteered to pull the trigger on bin laden myself.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

My main point is simply that, although I (and I'm sure, 'Zig) would personally like to take the terrorists, tie them naked to stakes in the sun, and have them eaten by dogs slowly while alive, our judicial system since 9-11 has decided what we can and cannot do with them, legally.

But what does this have to do with international outrage?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But what does this have to do with international outrage?

Nothing with the tangent you are off upon.

My point was only that what we can legally do with terrorists has already been decided, and that there was alot of publicity over those discussions and legal cases in the past eight years, on both a local and international level (other countries have caught terrorists, too)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

actually, no-i wouldn't torture them. my visceral reaction at times is kill them, but i'm actually against the death penalty in most cases. i would, however, have volunteered to pull the trigger on bin laden myself.

I'm a big death penalty person.

Being the flaming liberal that I am

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm a big death penalty person.

Being the flaming liberal that I am

I'm personally against the death penalty, except in the Military. These Islamic Terrorists should be shot on capture as illegal combatants, and then interrogated. If you are really against the death penalty then why aren't you screaming out against Obama's wide use of Drone Planes? Shouldn't the the bad guys be read their rights before being executed without a fair trial by a jury of their Islamic Terrorist peers?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nothing with the tangent you are off upon.

My point was only that what we can legally do with terrorists has already been decided, and that there was alot of publicity over those discussions and legal cases in the past eight years, on both a local and international level (other countries have caught terrorists, too)

Off tangent? Perhaps you should review the posts...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

If you are really against the death penalty then why aren't you screaming out against Obama's wide use of Drone Planes? Shouldn't the the bad guys be read their rights before being executed without a fair trial by a jury of their Islamic Terrorist peers?

I'm not against the death penalty. I am in favor of it. I love the use of the drones. As I've posted here before, I agree with the "send in the Inglorious Basterds" mindset.

[SOREHOOF]

I don't like the death penalty because I have lost all trust in the legal system.

[Riot]

Good point.

Just found this, and it outlines the false impressions of the differences between military and civilian methods regarding underwear bomber:

"GOP criticsm of Obama on underwear bomber way off base, says JAG"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_419203.html

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good point.

Just found this, and it outlines the false impressions of the differences between military and civilian methods regarding underwear bomber:

"GOP criticsm of Obama on underwear bomber way off base, says JAG"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_419203.html

Riot, I love ya, but my New Years Resolution was to not read any drivel from the Huff Poo Poo.

[Danzig]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34952712...more_politics/


The withdrawal of Southers' nomination was another setback for the TSA at a time when the government is still trying to answer questions from Congress about how a man was able to carry out a bombing attempt on Christmas Day on a Northwest Airlines flight found from Amsterdam to Detroit.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

its got to be dubya s fault..

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

its got to be dubya s fault..

yea and nothing to do w/the fact he lied to the Senate.

[Danzig]

read in todays paper about the questions being asked regarding charging this guy in civilian court. it seems some feel the decision was made hastily, and that perhaps he should have been held as a combatant by the military. guess we'll see how all that unfolds. not that it matters at this point....

[SOREHOOF]

I read the article Riot. Very interesting. I just think that the $$$$$$ it's going to cost to secure the "alleged" terrorist, The Notorious KSM, from NYC could be spent better somewhere else. Haiti comes to mind. Paying down the deficit would be an idea. Believe me they are more concerned with KSM's safety than that of the citizens. It' the politically correct thing to do.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

I read the article Riot. Very interesting. I just think that the $$$$$$ it's going to cost to secure the "alleged" terrorist, The Notorious KSM, from NYC could be spent better somewhere else. Haiti comes to mind. Paying down the deficit would be an idea. Believe me they are more concerned with KSM's safety than that of the citizens. It' the politically correct thing to do.

KSM should be killed and whoever kills him should get the medal of honor.

Actually, no, KSM should be paralyzed like the Ft Hood guy and kept in isolation the rest of his life. 2 pieces of bread and one cup of water every day til he dies. No reason to make a martyr out of him.

Instead we'll give him a platform to speak out against America right down the street from where he murdered 3,000 of us. Its one of the most disgusting decisions in our history.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Its one of the most disgusting decisions in our history.

Hardly. Bush made the same decision, multiple times, and it worked wonderfully in the past. Have you forgotten that?

No, Fed Court does NOT give a platform. Just like the other terrorists already tried and convicted in Federal court in the Bush administration. Federal trials don't have TV, the courtrooms are not open, the trial is not "in public".

Trying them in federal court treats them like a common scummy criminal with no publicity. And they are obviously asking for the death penalty.

Trying them in military court treats them like enemy warrior soldiers for jihad. Which makes them martyrs.