An open question...

Damocles said:
And if he appeals it goes directly to the circuit courts of appeals. Now the military tribunals do allow hearsay and a few other more lax rules, but the reality is it is a trial with rights and everything, including assigned lawyers.

The people saying Bush didn't do these ignore that he tried to use them, but was stopped at every turn by the same Congress that passed the Tribunal law. Challenges to the constitutionality were worked out, and near the end of his term Bush was able to try a few people using this method, but previous to that this was NOT AN OPTION for Bush.

If people think that Bush wouldn't have used these in such cases I think they are insane.

In short.

The Tribunals do not deny people their rights, saying so means you believe that Democrats would deliberately pass a law for Bush to sign that rejects rights to this group of people. The tribunals simply allow for no Miranda, some stronger questioning techniques (not waterboarding or torture) and hearsay evidence (due to the very real concern that eye witnesses are very hard to subpoena). Each and every person tried in this way has had an attorney assigned to them, their rights are protected including the right to appeal.
Click to expand...

But you talk out of both sides of your mouth... Miranda is a right! It is derived from the 5th Amendment.
 
Jarod said:
No, thats the point! He is just a lone coward, the type Al Queda preys on, dont give him the honor of calling him a military man.
Click to expand...
I don't honor any of theses terrorists, card-carrying Al Queda or otherwise. My point still stands.
 
Jarod said:
But you talk out of both sides of your mouth... Miranda is a right! It is derived from the 5th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Miranda is a ruling, the rights are still there, and this law passed constitutional muster when it was brought before the SCOTUS after it passed.

I speak directly. The SCOTUS ruled that this was constitutional because it protects the rights of those being tried. It is clear you don't like them, but you've been overruled.
 
Damocles said:
Miranda is a ruling, the rights are still there, and this law passed constitutional muster when it was brought before the SCOTUS after it passed.

I speak directly. The SCOTUS ruled that this was constitutional because it protects the rights of those being tried. It is clear you don't like them, but you've been overruled.
Click to expand...

Did the S.Ct rule that under the sole discretion of the President anyone can be tried under these rules?
 
Southern Man said:
No its not. Stop dancing.
Click to expand...


Here.... This should help you with understanding Jarod....

brick-wall-graffiti-generator.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top