Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson - Correct on GITMO

[Fishking]

Here is one area where I agree with nominee Judge Jackson. Those at GITMO deserved representation in court and they cannot be some kind of kangaroo secret military court. That's now how our legal system is supposed to work. Anything done in the dark is a breeding ground for corruption and the violations of human rights and dignity. It's likely that I oppose her position on many other things but this is not one of them.

Supreme Court pick Jackson fights back against GOP criticism over sentencing, Gitmo defense

www.msn.com

Jackson defended her representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks as a federal public defender and later as a private attorney who filed several friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of outside organizations. Some critics, including the National Republican Committee, blasted out news releases that accused Jackson of "defending terrorists."

Jackson described her work for the detainees as serving the constitutional requirement that criminal defendants receive legal representation.

“We couldn’t let the terrorists win by changing who we were fundamentally, and what that meant was that the people who were accused by our government of having engaged in actions related to this, under our constitutional scheme, were entitled to representation – are entitled to be treated fairly,” she said. “That’s what makes our system the best in the world.”

 

[Cordelier]

Here is one area where I agree with nominee Judge Jackson. Those at GITMO deserved representation in court and they cannot be some kind of kangaroo secret military court. That's now how our legal system is supposed to work. Anything done in the dark is a breeding ground for corruption and the violations of human rights and dignity. It's likely that I oppose her position on many other things but this is not one of them.

Supreme Court pick Jackson fights back against GOP criticism over sentencing, Gitmo defense

www.msn.com

Jackson defended her representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks as a federal public defender and later as a private attorney who filed several friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of outside organizations. Some critics, including the National Republican Committee, blasted out news releases that accused Jackson of "defending terrorists."

Jackson described her work for the detainees as serving the constitutional requirement that criminal defendants receive legal representation.

“We couldn’t let the terrorists win by changing who we were fundamentally, and what that meant was that the people who were accused by our government of having engaged in actions related to this, under our constitutional scheme, were entitled to representation – are entitled to be treated fairly,” she said. “That’s what makes our system the best in the world.”

I agree completely... and I've never gotten the argument of the opponents that trying these individuals would risk disclosure of classified information. We've had the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) on the books for over 40 years now to minimize that risk... and if there are any deficiencies in that act where it comes to trying GITMO defendants, we've had 20 years to make CIPA airtight. Want to take a guess who introduced CIPA way back in 1979?

 

[Rich2018]

She's a liberal, so naturally the Republicans don't want her.

 

[Glitch]

Here is one area where I agree with nominee Judge Jackson. Those at GITMO deserved representation in court and they cannot be some kind of kangaroo secret military court. That's now how our legal system is supposed to work. Anything done in the dark is a breeding ground for corruption and the violations of human rights and dignity. It's likely that I oppose her position on many other things but this is not one of them.

Supreme Court pick Jackson fights back against GOP criticism over sentencing, Gitmo defense

www.msn.com

Jackson defended her representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks as a federal public defender and later as a private attorney who filed several friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of outside organizations. Some critics, including the National Republican Committee, blasted out news releases that accused Jackson of "defending terrorists."

Jackson described her work for the detainees as serving the constitutional requirement that criminal defendants receive legal representation.

“We couldn’t let the terrorists win by changing who we were fundamentally, and what that meant was that the people who were accused by our government of having engaged in actions related to this, under our constitutional scheme, were entitled to representation – are entitled to be treated fairly,” she said. “That’s what makes our system the best in the world.”

No, she was not right. She is, in fact, a supporter of terrorism - like all Democrat filth.

The reason GITMO was used in the first place was specifically because it was not within the borders of the US, and therefore the US Constitution does not apply. Nobody "deserved" a damn thing, because there were no constitutional protections for anyone at GITMO. They could be held indefinitely and never be charged with any crime.

There is no "constitutional requirement" outside the borders of the US. The US Constitution doesn't apply. If a judge doesn't already know this fact then they are incompetent and shouldn't be in a position of authority.

 

[Cordelier]

No, she was not right. She is, in fact, a supporter of terrorism - like all Democrat filth.

The reason GITMO was used in the first place was specifically because it was not within the borders of the US, and therefore the US Constitution does not apply. Nobody "deserved" a damn thing, because there were no constitutional protections for anyone at GITMO. They could be held indefinitely and never be charged with any crime.

There is no "constitutional requirement" outside the borders of the US. The US Constitution doesn't apply. If a judge doesn't already know this fact then they are incompetent and shouldn't be in a position of authority.

Actually, his "compromise" was in response to one of your posts, not the troll.

It is also a common tactic among leftist filth to offer to stop infringing on some of your rights, if they can infringe on your other rights. Even that "compromise" is a lie, because they have absolutely no intention of stopping their infringements. This is what makes them filth.

It also presumes that the individual is being honest. One thing we know for a fact, leftist filth are never honest about anything. It is a symptom of their psychosis.

Fantasyland is your ridiculous "compromise."

"Let's seize their rights, and then offer them back as a 'compromise' so we can infringe on even more rights." <--- Only leftist filth could be this stupid.

First, Trump is a RINO in the truest sense of the term, and not even remotely "far right." Trump is leftist filth, one of your ilk. He was a life-long NYC Democrat that only became a Republican in 2012 so he could run for President on the GOP ticket in 2016.

I presume the Tucker you are referring to is the one on Fox News. I haven't watched TV or cable since 2006. I can't get either in the boonies of Alaska. So I have no idea what his views might be. I just see a few of his YouTube videos in passing, I don't watch them.

Seriously? You are going to cite a fanatical extremist leftist organization that is steeped in hatred for all things American as your source for claiming a group of conservative Ivy-league lawyers are a hate organization? Do you even understand the concept of reality?

It is a well established fact that anyone who disagrees with leftist filth, even in the slightest, are automatically branded "racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, white supremacist, misogynist, and deplorable." Which means leftist filth have absolutely no credibility and they are the true bigots of this nation, nobody else.

Tell that to President Wilson who involved the US in WW I because of the fake Zimmerman telegram. Pretending Germany wanted Mexico to invade the US in order to keep the US out of the war in Europe was about as laughable as LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin lie, or Polk's lie about Mexico attacking the US when it was actually the US attacking Mexico.

Leftist filth Democrats will always lie if it means they get an opportunity to kill more Americans.

I could go on and on... the search I did on the word "filth" in your posts yields 10 pages of results.

You seem to have an inordinate and pathological fixation on that particular word. Have you ever taken the time to examine the root causes of your evident psychological distress?

 

[Fishking]

No, she was not right. She is, in fact, a supporter of terrorism - like all Democrat filth.

The reason GITMO was used in the first place was specifically because it was not within the borders of the US, and therefore the US Constitution does not apply. Nobody "deserved" a damn thing, because there were no constitutional protections for anyone at GITMO. They could be held indefinitely and never be charged with any crime.

There is no "constitutional requirement" outside the borders of the US. The US Constitution doesn't apply. If a judge doesn't already know this fact then they are incompetent and shouldn't be in a position of authority.

Sorry, but having black sites stashed around the world to get around our own laws is bullshit. Further, it's not really about what the prisoners "deserve" so much as what we should do as a country and what we represent.

 

[Fishking]

She's a liberal, so naturally the Republicans don't want her.

Well, I might not want her either, but I agree with her on this subject.

 

[Glitch]

I could go on and on... the search I did on the word "filth" in your posts yields 10 pages of results.

You seem to have an inordinate and pathological fixation on that particular word. Have you ever taken the time to examine the root causes of your evident psychological distress?

I accurately describe the left as "filth," because it is shorter than continuously typing "pieces of shit." However, you can consider them to be synonymous in my case.

There is nothing inordinate about using an appropriate adjective. The fact that leftists are directly responsible for more than 100 million deaths alone during the 20th century is one of the things that makes them "filth" / "pieces of shit." The fact that these leftist "filth" / "pieces of shit" continue their mass murders today, as Democrat Governors Cuomo, Murphy, Wolf, and Newsom demonstrated when they intentionally slaughtered tens of thousands of Americans by Executive Order.

The fact also remains that leftist "filth" / "pieces of shit" have killed more Americans throughout US history than all the foreign wars the US has ever fought - combined. So I can think of no better adjective to describe the left.

 

[Cordelier]

I accurately describe the left as "filth," because it is shorter than continuously typing "pieces of shit." However, you can consider them to be synonymous in my case.

There is nothing inordinate about using an appropriate adjective. The fact that leftists are directly responsible for more than 100 million deaths alone during the 20th century is one of the things that makes them "filth" / "pieces of shit." The fact that these leftist "filth" / "pieces of shit" continue their mass murders today, as Democrat Governors Cuomo, Murphy, Wolf, and Newsom demonstrated when they intentionally slaughtered tens of thousands of Americans by Executive Order.

The fact also remains that leftist "filth" / "pieces of shit" have killed more Americans throughout US history than all the foreign wars the US has ever fought - combined. So I can think of no better adjective to describe the left.

I see.... and you feel that your efforts to dehumanize people who hold different opinions than your own should allay concerns about your mental well-being?

 

[Glitch]

Sorry, but having black sites stashed around the world to get around our own laws is bullshit. Further, it's not really about what the prisoners "deserve" so much as what we should do as a country and what we represent.

It may be bullshit, but it is legal. The jurisdiction of the US Constitution only extends to the borders of the US, and no further. We did the same thing in first Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, WW II, WW I, and in every other foreign conflict where we took prisoners. POW camps, which is effectively what GITMO is (yes, Public Law 107-40 is still in effect), are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution because they are not within the borders of the US.

 

[American]

Here is one area where I agree with nominee Judge Jackson. Those at GITMO deserved representation in court and they cannot be some kind of kangaroo secret military court. That's now how our legal system is supposed to work. Anything done in the dark is a breeding ground for corruption and the violations of human rights and dignity. It's likely that I oppose her position on many other things but this is not one of them.

Supreme Court pick Jackson fights back against GOP criticism over sentencing, Gitmo defense

www.msn.com

Jackson defended her representation of Guantanamo Bay detainees after the Sept. 11 attacks as a federal public defender and later as a private attorney who filed several friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of outside organizations. Some critics, including the National Republican Committee, blasted out news releases that accused Jackson of "defending terrorists."

Jackson described her work for the detainees as serving the constitutional requirement that criminal defendants receive legal representation.

“We couldn’t let the terrorists win by changing who we were fundamentally, and what that meant was that the people who were accused by our government of having engaged in actions related to this, under our constitutional scheme, were entitled to representation – are entitled to be treated fairly,” she said. “That’s what makes our system the best in the world.”

Those sum'bitches don't know anything about human rights, nor would they respect yours. They would send in a toddler wearing a bomb-belt to kill you.

 

[Glitch]

I see.... and you feel that your efforts to dehumanize people who hold different opinions than your own should allay concerns about your mental well-being?

It is leftist filth who do the dehumanizing, remember the 100+ million they killed in the last century. I'm merely using the appropriate adjective that best describes them.

You should also read the forum rules about making personal insults.

 

[Fishking]

Those sum'bitches don't know anything about human rights, nor would they respect yours. They would send in a toddler wearing a bomb-belt to kill you.

And? Does that mean we should use toddler bombs as well?

 

[American]

And? Does that mean we should use toddler bombs as well?

No, it's this thinking of extending human rights to those who are clueless as to what they are.

 

[Fishking]

It may be bullshit, but it is legal. The jurisdiction of the US Constitution only extends to the borders of the US, and no further. We did the same thing in first Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, WW II, WW I, and in every other foreign conflict where we took prisoners. POW camps, which is effectively what GITMO is (yes, Public Law 107-40 is still in effect), are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution because they are not within the borders of the US.

We did lots of ****ed up stuff during various wars. It doesn't mean they should be applauded. So far as it being legal, there are lots of things that are legal that we shouldn't do as a matter of policy. It's like saying that since drinking is legal you should be an alcoholic. Like, no...you shouldn't. Same thing here.

I also don't trust our government not to abuse the power of offshoring black sites as a matter of policy. You think that power won't be expanded to include others?

 

[Fishking]

No, it's this thinking of extending human rights to those who are clueless as to what they are.

It doesn't matter what they know or not. It's what we know.

 

[Glitch]

As long as Public Law 107-40 remains in effect, the war against terrorism will continue and GITMO will remain open. Only Congress has the authority to close the POW camp at GITMO when they repeal the law, however, the President can inform Congress that the war against terrorism has ended and their declaration of war is no longer necessary.

 

[American]

It doesn't matter what they know or not. It's what we know.

I wouldn't want to go crazy with that, like liberals do.

 

[Credence]

Simply: As a democracy and defender of human rights, even the lowest scum on the earth is guaranteed legal representation in a US Court.

 

[Cordelier]

It is leftist filth who do the dehumanizing, remember the 100+ million they killed in the last century. I'm merely using the appropriate adjective that best describes them.

You should also read the forum rules about making personal insults.

As tempting as it is to put this post in my signature... I'm not going to, because you are in a dark place right now, and I'd just like to encourage you seek whatever help you need to make both your life better, but also the lives of the people around you. That's an honest, heart-felt statement on my part, but take it for however you feel it's worth.

 

[Glitch]

We did lots of ****ed up stuff during various wars. It doesn't mean they should be applauded. So far as it being legal, there are lots of things that are legal that we shouldn't do as a matter of policy. It's like saying that since drinking is legal you should be an alcoholic. Like, no...you shouldn't. Same thing here.

I also don't trust our government not to abuse the power of offshoring black sites as a matter of policy. You think that power won't be expanded to include others?

What are you suggesting - That we bring every prisoner we take in every foreign war we fight back to the US in order to give them protection under the US Constitution that they never had in the first place?

POW camps remain in operation in or as close to the country where the war is occurring, where ever it is practical, for the duration of the war. POWs are not typically charged with a crime, although they can be. POWs are released back to the country where they were taken after the war is declared over. As I have already pointed out, the war against terrorism declared by Congress on September 18, 2001 remains in effect to this day.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, she was not right. She is, in fact, a supporter of terrorism - like all Democrat filth.

The reason GITMO was used in the first place was specifically because it was not within the borders of the US, and therefore the US Constitution does not apply. Nobody "deserved" a damn thing, because there were no constitutional protections for anyone at GITMO. They could be held indefinitely and never be charged with any crime.

There is no "constitutional requirement" outside the borders of the US. The US Constitution doesn't apply. If a judge doesn't already know this fact then they are incompetent and shouldn't be in a position of authority.

14th Amendment includes this "... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Try again?

 

[rahl]

I accurately describe the left as "filth," because it is shorter than continuously typing "pieces of shit." However, you can consider them to be synonymous in my case.

There is nothing inordinate about using an appropriate adjective. The fact that leftists are directly responsible for more than 100 million deaths alone during the 20th century is one of the things that makes them "filth" / "pieces of shit." The fact that these leftist "filth" / "pieces of shit" continue their mass murders today, as Democrat Governors Cuomo, Murphy, Wolf, and Newsom demonstrated when they intentionally slaughtered tens of thousands of Americans by Executive Order.

The fact also remains that leftist "filth" / "pieces of shit" have killed more Americans throughout US history than all the foreign wars the US has ever fought - combined. So I can think of no better adjective to describe the left.

 

[CaughtInThe]

No, she was not right. She is, in fact, a supporter of terrorism - like all Democrat filth.

Alex Jones has nothing on you.

 

[rahl]

It may be bullshit, but it is legal. The jurisdiction of the US Constitution only extends to the borders of the US, and no further. We did the same thing in first Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, WW II, WW I, and in every other foreign conflict where we took prisoners. POW camps, which is effectively what GITMO is (yes, Public Law 107-40 is still in effect), are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution because they are not within the borders of the US.

lol, nope

https://assets.corporatecompliance.org/Portals/1/691_0_us_jurisdictionabroad.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1337373