Liberal Judge Demonstrates Need For Military Tribunal (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

This is why terrorists must be treated as enemy combatants without right to counsel:

Last year, a New York jury found Lynne Stewart guilty of helping her former client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with his Egyptian-based terror group. This week, Judge John Koeltl -- appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 -- spurned the prosecution's request for a 30-year sentence and gave Stewart 28 months for being a terrorist's messenger. At Stewart's sentencing, the judge noted that the defendant's actions had not resulted in any deaths, as if that reconciles her treason. This lawyer will now go on to file endless appeals-one of the many constitutional rights Democrats are illiterately claiming applies to foreign terrorists.

In rejecting a 30-year sentence in favor of a 28-month sentence, the judge commended Stewart for her "public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation" for representing members of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. Only in the mind of a liberal could it be counted as a plus to have represented a variety of terrorists.

Idiocy like this can never be sold to the American voter, so liberals relentlessly try to bring the War on Terror to the one place where their ideas are not subject to democracy, hence, to the one place liberals thrive-the courts.

Lynne Stewart got her defense funded by liberal, George Soros, and her case ended up in the hands of a liberal judge…THAT’S the only way such a traitor could ever be released like this.

Conservatives have sought to keep terrorists out of the hands of unaccountable left-wing judges for this very reason and recently passed legislation to ensure it. Military tribunals worked well with American traitors like John Andre, and with Nazi saboteurs, but Democrats say: "we will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." Sen. Russ Feingold (D).


http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/16/stewart-blind-sheikh.html

 

[POLITICAL JEDI]

but Democrats say: "we will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." Sen. Russ Feingold (D).

Note to Democrats: It's still too soon to use "stain" as a metaphor for White House criticism. The "cum-stained" blue dress of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandel is just to fresh in conservative american's minds! :fueltofir

 

[shuamort]

Guilty until proved innocent? Gee, I hope any of our troops that get captured are treated the same way. :roll:

 

[Captain America]

I wonder if the passengers on the Titanic were screaming as loud as the GOP'ers as it sank?

:rofl

 

[ProudAmerican]

Guilty until proved innocent? Gee, I hope any of our troops that get captured are treated the same way. :roll:

a non issue since, if they are fortunate enough to be captured without first being shot in the head, they will have it sawn off within a day or two.

 

[GarzaUK]

Didn't you guys go through the criminal courts to get the 9/11 guy put behind bars for life? Why do not do the same for the ones in G-Bay???

85% of men in G-Bay were handed over by Afhan bounty hunters for cash. Not the greatest system in the world for catching terrorists. A bounty hunter could say anything.

 

[Diogenes]

Guilty until proved innocent? Gee, I hope any of our troops that get captured are treated the same way. :roll:

Lynne Stewart was proven guilty, and has no remorse for what she did. She should have received the full 30 years.

 

[POLITICAL JEDI]

Didn't you guys go through the criminal courts to get the 9/11 guy put behind bars for life? Why do not do the same for the ones in G-Bay???

85% of men in G-Bay were handed over by Afhan bounty hunters for cash. Not the greatest system in the world for catching terrorists. A bounty hunter could say anything.

Maybe because we can't afford to tie up our courts and burden our taxpayers with thousands of 5 year, 4 million dollar trials! Moreover, we can't afford to have "top secret" information presented at said trial thus released to the public (Much less the New York Times)

Can you post a valid link to the 85% of the terrorist in Gitmo being captured by Afghan bounty hunters?

 

[GarzaUK]

Maybe because we can't afford to tie up our courts and burden our taxpayers with thousands of 5 year, 4 million dollar trials! Moreover, we can't afford to have "top secret" information presented at said trial thus released to the public (Much less the New York Times)

Can you post a valid link to the 85% of the terrorist in Gitmo being captured by Afghan bounty hunters?

Why not? You have wasted billions of taxpayers money on this war.

My apologies it is actually 86% of detainees have been captured by Afgan warlords.

A report based on data supplied by the Defense Department showed that 86% of the prisoners were handed over by Afghan and other local bounty-hunters rather than as the result any American investigation or collection of intelligence.

http://domainhelp.search.com/reference/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp

Here is the actual report if you want to have some good reading material.
http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Guilty until proved innocent? Gee, I hope any of our troops that get captured are treated the same way. :roll:

No they're just decaptiated.

 

[shuamort]

No they're just decaptiated.

Wanh wanh wanh. If you're gonna be late with a lame joke make sure it isn't done already. :roll:

 

[ProudAmerican]

Wanh wanh wanh. If you're gonna be late with a lame joke make sure it isn't done already. :roll:

the fact that anyone could think its a joke is down right scary.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
the fact that anyone could think its a joke is down right scary.

It doesn't take much to scare you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Because of the Military Commission's Act, we have now been effectively stripped of our Bill of Rights. When you look at all the detention centers throughout the country that Halliburton has been building, one wonders if this new bill will begin the start of a new American Holycaust. Where people just start disappearing and you never hear from them again. It can happen with this new law. The government decides your status, when you go to trial and there is nothing anyone can do about it. No checks, no balances, just King George and a new American dictatorship.

 

[Billo_Really]

America is a country that was founded on the principle of "rule of law". So anyone that is in favor of this new bill and it's military tribunals, renounce your citizenship. Because it is un-American to treat people like they are guilty until innocence can be proven.

You f.ucking assholes keep saying, "these terrorists..." However, before they go through due process of law, you don't know who or what they are! You're locking up many innocent people that are being tortured and having there lives ruined that have committed no crimes and are not associated with terrorism in any way. If you think it is OK to crack a few eggs just so you can make this omlet, then go to f.ucking hell because you are lower than garbage!

And if stopping terrorism is so important to you, then how come you don't have the balls to do what it takes to end it? And that takes looking at ALL the reasons that enable the genesis of terrorism. But you won't do that, will you? You don't have the balls to look at yourself and think maybe your part of the problem. It is always easier to blame others. It's always "them". That's how a coward thinks.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

America is a country that was founded on the principle of "rule of law". So anyone that is in favor of this new bill and it's military tribunals, renounce your citizenship. Because it is un-American to treat people like they are guilty until innocence can be proven.

No you renounce your citizenship never in the history of this country have we allowed unlawful combatants civilian trial or afforded them Constitutional rights I'll turn your attention to the SCOTUSs Ex Parte Quirin decision in the case of German saboteurs who were captured and tried by military commission:

"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

So Billo there's your rule of law, why are you trying to destroy the foundations our country was built?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
No you renounce your citizenship never in the history of this country have we allowed unlawful combatants civilian trial or afforded them Constitutional rights I'll turn your attention to the SCOTUSs Ex Parte Quirin decision in the case of German saboteurs who were captured and tried by military commission:

WTF are talking about? The term "unlawful combatant" just came into being recently so Bush wouldn't be facing charges of Crimes against Humanity. Gonzales created the term so Bush wouldn't be charged with war crimes. So why don't you s.hit-can this "never before in history..." crap in regards to the new-age term "unlawful combatant".

Why do you have a problem with anyone, citizen or not, of having the right to ask why they are being incarcerated? Why don't we just go back to the dark ages and start burning people at the stake? What's wrong with someone knowing why they have lost their freedom?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
So Billo there's your rule of law, why are you trying to destroy the foundations our country was built?

The foundation of this country was founded on the principles of fairness and equality for all. It was founded on the "writ of habeas corpus" which goes back farther than our Constitution. It wasn't founded on using hearsay evidence and coerced testimony to put someone to death. It wasn't founded on no judicial oversight. These are not the principles this country was founded on.

What kind of human being are you?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

WTF are talking about? The term "unlawful combatant" just came into being recently

Umm no it didn't as the decision of the SCOTUS in the WW2 era Ex Parte Quirin clearly demonstrates:

U.S. Supreme Court

EX PARTE QUIRIN

317 U.S. 1 (1942)

Ex parte QUIRIN, Ex parte HAUPT, Ex parte KERLING, Ex parte BURGER, Ex parte HEINCK, Ex parte THIEL, Ex parte NEUBAUER. Nos. -- Original and Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-July Special Term, 1942​

"…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Why are you trying to destroy the foundations of this country and destroy the rule of law?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The foundation of this country was founded on the principles of fairness and equality for all. It was founded on the "writ of habeas corpus" which goes back farther than our Constitution. It wasn't founded on using hearsay evidence and coerced testimony to put someone to death. It wasn't founded on no judicial oversight. These are not the principles this country was founded on.

What kind of human being are you?

This country has never granted Habeas Corpus to unlawful combatants and has never even granted it to lawful combatants. Why are you trying to destroy the foundations of our country?

 

[ProudAmerican]

looks to me like TOT is the kind of human being that has his **** together.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
This country has never granted Habeas Corpus to unlawful combatants and has never even granted it to lawful combatants. Why are you trying to destroy the foundations of our country?

The only line in the Constitution regarding habeas corpus does not delineate between citizen or alien. And there is nothing you can read into it that would suggest that. Nor is there anything that would preclude you to deduce that. It clearly states the conditions for which it can be lawfully suspended. And alien isn't one of them. Read it and weep.

US Constitution:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

There's no rebellion, there's no invasion. That's the law!

I found this to be interesting. This is also in the Constitution regarding the powers of the legislative branch

US Constitution:
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

Which seems to differ from what was just passed in the Military Commission's Act. Now, if that bill signed into law states that no court shall have jurisdiction over the commission or tribunal or whatever you want to call it, that would indicate that it is superior to the Supreme Court. Which, according to the above, is un-Constitutional.

One last thing, why are you so against a person knowing why they are incarcerated? Why is it so important to withhold that information from them?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
looks to me like TOT is the kind of human being that has his **** together.

How the hell would you know?

 

[Diogenes]

America is a country that was founded on the principle of "rule of law". So anyone that is in favor of this new bill and it's military tribunals, renounce your citizenship. Because it is un-American to treat people like they are guilty until innocence can be proven.

You are confusing two separate issues: the "rule of law" that you cite applies to the relationship between the government and its citizens; the problem at hand is terrorists who recognize no law other than their own whim of the moment.

Thomas Sowell says it best in his Suicidal hand-wringing column last month:

When you enter a boxing ring, you agree to abide by the rules of boxing. But when you are attacked from behind in a dark alley, you would be a fool to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. If you do, you can end up being a dead fool.

Even with a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon and the prospect that its nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of international terrorists that it has been sponsoring for years, many in the media and in the government that is supposed to protect us have been preoccupied with whether we are being nice enough to the terrorists in our custody.

The issue has been brought to a head by the efforts of Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham to get us to apply the rules of the Geneva convention to cutthroats who respect no Geneva convention and are not covered by the Geneva convention.

If this was just a case of a handful of headstrong senators, who want us to play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while we are being kicked in the groin and slashed with knives, that would be bad enough. But the issue of applying the Geneva convention to people who were never covered by the Geneva convention originated in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Article III, Section II of the Constitution gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts, and Congress has specifically taken away the jurisdiction of the courts in cases involving the detention of illegal combatants, such as terrorists, who are not — repeat, not — prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention.

The Supreme Court ignored that law. Apparently everyone must obey the law except judges. Congress has the power to impeach judges, including Supreme Court justices, but apparently not the guts. Runaway judges are not going to stop until they get stopped.

In short, the clash between Senator McCain, et al., and the President of the United States is more than just another political clash. It is part of a far more general, and ultimately suicidal, confusion and hand-wringing in the face of mortal dangers.

The argument is made that we must respect the Geneva convention because, otherwise, our own soldiers will be at risk of mistreatment when they become prisoners of war.

Does any sane adult believe that the cutthroats we are dealing with will respect the Geneva convention? Or that our extension of Geneva convention rights to them will be seen as anything other than another sign of weakness and confusion that will encourage them in their terrorism?

... more ...

My answer to Sowell's question is a resounding "NO!"

 

[aquapub]

Didn't you guys go through the criminal courts to get the 9/11 guy put behind bars for life? Why do not do the same for the ones in G-Bay???

85% of men in G-Bay were handed over by Afhan bounty hunters for cash. Not the greatest system in the world for catching terrorists. A bounty hunter could say anything.

The liberal way: treat terror as a criminal matter..make a couple of arrests and do nothing about the organization behind the perps.

The conservative way: treat terror as a military matter..use the same military tribunals used by Washington, Lincoln, and every other administration in the history of this country for dealing with traitors, terrorists, and sabateurs.