Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Unable to answer my very simple question Dixie?
KSM Trial Will Expose Liberal Idiocy!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You're a post away from going on ignore yourself. Don't push it.
You asked me some idiotic question about How many lanes does MSR Mobile have? I don't know, and I don't care, and it has nothing to do with the thread topic. Now go the fuck away, troll.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Yea well Dixie we know to you reich wingers the rule of law don't mean shit but to the rest of us bringing those responsible for 911 to justice by the rule of law is a very important principle. If you just don't get that well tough shit then. If you don't like living in a nation of laws then I suggest you go to some place like Somalia or Cuba where you won't have to tolerate something as idiotic and inconvenient as the rule of law.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
American laws apply to American citizens on American soil, not combative enemy persons captured in the field of battle at a time of war. Those persons are supposed to be tried by military tribunals, not civilian courts. If you don't like living in a country with common sense and any inkling of understanding about war, why don't you move to France?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's a moronic argument. You are simply saying that the US does not have to respect the human rights and due process due to any human being because they are not a US Citizen. That the US Government can do anything it wants to anyone who is not a US Citizen with out due process of law.
Not only is that a stupid notion it is a dangerous one as it guarentees that no other nation would respect our rights or provide us with due process of law within their nation. If we can do it to them, they can do it to us.
What you are suggesting Dixie is not the rule of law but the rule of the gun and knife.
In spite of the short commings it may have, most of us still prefer the rule of law.
He is suggesting the Taliban way! Fundamentalist don't differ by much!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's not what I said at all. Military tribunals operate with the same respect for human rights and due process as American courts. In some cases, military tribunals operate under a more stringent guideline than traditional US courts. Rule of law is very important, but American laws can't be enforced on foreign soil, therefore, we need another system to apply justice for those outside of our borders. This is why military tribunals were invented.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dixie, by definition military tribunals do not respect human rights or due process as an American civil courts do. If they did, then why would you oppose trying them in an American civil court room?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
American laws and rights apply to anyone on American soil, EVEN if they're illegal. You cannot circumvent this simply be stating that some random encounter is a "war" so you can try them however you like. For one thing, war was never declared. And you can't declare war against a concepts that will always be here like terrorism or drugs, only against other actual nations.
you are on ignore watermark, dixie can't see what you say unless i quote you like i just did right here
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Oh no. Please oh please dear lord, don't let Dixie *shudders* put me on his IGNORE LIST!
Listen fuck-o, I could give a shit less what list I'm on of yours. You've proven yourself a liar and a fraud. Anyone who did any sort of motherfucking work outside the wire in Iraq as been on MSR Mobile. It's the biggest highway in the region and the only way to reach pretty much anything.
Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
Justin Bieber is of the devil! (AND he's Canadian!)
Obfuscate
Powered By: Capitalism
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
GodDAMN, you're a moron. Almost none of the detainees were captured by US soldiers. In fact , for the vast majority of Gitmo detainees, the first US soldiers they saw were the Gitmo guards. All but a handful of the detainees were turned over to the US military by Afghan warlords for the $5,000 bounty, and we accepted them, no questions asked. BTW, the chief business f the Afghan warlords is he cultivation and distribution of opium and heroin. The only reason they can't be referred to as a drug cartel is that they lack the organization and coordination of effort that characterizes the South American cartels, but they move a shitload of smack, nonetheless. Many of the original detainees were released when it became apparent that they were victims of the competing warlords, who were settling scores and removing thorns from their paws by framing the competition and tuning them over to the US as terrorists.
KSM is the exception. We know what he did, although he was not captured on the field of battle. He was arrested in Islamabad by Pakistani authorities in March, 2003. Do you have any fucking idea what you're talking about? The other detainees weren't taken in battle either. That's one of the main purposes of the legal system, you stupid fuck. It's not about being wimpy liberals. It's about making sure we have the right guys. Imprisoning the wrong guy isn't just uncivilized, it's counterproductive. When you lock the wrong guy up, you stop looking for the guy who really did it, so he walks, but you mouth breathers don't consider that do you? You're too busy cheering on the torture of prisoners to bother yourselves with making sure we have the guilty parties to begin with.
Next mistake: there will be no TV coverage of this trial, as cameras are banned in federal courtrooms, nor will there be a circus when KSM goes from the holding cell to the courtroom, because the jail is across the street from the federal courthouse, and the two buildings are joined by an enclosed bridge. The marshals will walk him to the courtroom, and nobody will be able to see him or hear him, nor will he be allowed to rant from the witness stand.
Oh, and B TW, the liberals didn't fuck up this prosecution. The liberals weren't the ones who tortured him by waterboarding him 187 times AFTER he had already confessed. None of his admissions of guilt came after the awaterboarding started, so none of the evidence against him was tainted by prosecutorial misconduct.
Holy Jumping Jesus Christ, have you got your head permanently buried in your ass, or what?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Hmm... Never heard of MSR Mobile, I Googled it, and it appears to be a stage company, and maybe a road in Quebec. I was located off Hwy 11, just west of Baghdad. I can't tell you the names of the roads I traveled on, as I was always driven there by US Army personnel. Maybe one of the Canadians nicknamed Hwy 11 or something? In any event, I don't have to prove anything to you, I don't care if you don't believe me.
Since you are Waterhead's Gay Lover, I am tempted to put you on ignore just on general principle, but I will hold off on that for a bit and give you a chance. I feel sorry for someone who has to get fucked in the ass by Waterhead, you've suffered enough.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Wow... shot full of holes! Too bad, so sad!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Huh? "By definition?" What the fuck are you saying? Where is it "defined" that military tribunals are not subject to respecting human rights or due process? You're out of your goddamn mind, if you believe that. The military tribunal operates under the exact same rules and codes of justice as an American court.
The major differences between the systems are the federal judiciary's independence, rooted in the Constitution and lifetime appointments of judges, and the relaxed rules for admitting evidence in military tribunals.
Federal courts bar evidence obtained by coercion. And the new law regarding military commissions that President Barack Obama signed last month forbids evidence derived from torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. But the commissions still have rules that allow greater use of hearsay testimony and, in some instances, could permit the introduction of coerced testimony.
Military judges ultimately will decide what evidence can be admitted, but the new law allows statements made by defendants to be used even if they are not given voluntarily in certain circumstances, including in combat situations. Written witness statements, rather than live testimony that is subject to cross-examination, also can be admitted by military judges.
This last part is important here, because many of the cases against the detainees is based on testimony and statements from witnesses, who can't be flown to NY and put on the stand to testify. It's also important to note, these detainees have never set foot on American soil. They are not US citizens, and were captured thousands of miles away on foreign fields of battle. This is precisely why we established military tribunals, and they should be used in these instances. The ONLY reason they are not being used, is because liberal pinhead nitwits want to be jerks and do the opposite of what Bush suggested. THAT IS IT in a nutshell... you don't give a fuck about the safety and security aspects, you don't give a fuck if they are released or have their cases thrown out... you just wanted to do something opposite of what Bush wanted, because that gives you a sense of accomplishment.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
Yes, I know. I did shoot your lame argument full of holes, and that's too bad. What is sad is your deranged belief by simply inserting the word "LIE" into my post, you magically disprove it. So sorry, but the facts back my position. If the majority of the detainees were indeed captured on the battlefield, why did the Bush administration release most of them without trial or military tribunal? Capture on the battlefield never has required Miranda rights, and in fact, according to the Geneva Convention III, Protocol I, non-uniformed irregulars are considered legal combatants if they meet a few basic criteria, one of which is capture on the battlefield, in which case, they may not be tried for murder, and reading them Miranda rights is not only not applicable, but illegal. So you can't have it both ways. if they were captured on the battlefield of an international conflict, carrying arms openly, and fighting as a unit under a unit commander, they satisfy the criteria for legal combatants, must be treated as prisoners of war, and CANNOT be put on trial, CANNOT be tortured, harassed, humiliated, or kept in inhumane conditions. If they were captured on the battlefield, they are POWs. If they are turned over to authorities as terrorists, they are alleged criminals, and until they are shown to be guilty of criminal behavior beyond a reasonable doubt, must be accorded the rights of the accused. Either way, the Bushies broke the law, either mistreating POWs or violating the rights of the accused. What's sad is that you knew none of this and thought you could fight facts by merely insering "LIE" into the text of my post.
NONE of the detainees were handed over by the warlords for the bounty? 85% of the detainees were handed over to US authorities, NOT captured on the battlefield. As for the bounties, the following link is to a report by Seton Hall Unicversity Law School professor Mark Denbeaux: law.shu.edu/publications/.../guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf
KSM should be tried by a tribunal under the UCMJ? Based on what criteria? He meets exactly none of the Geneva Convention's criteria for protection as a POW, and is therefore to be treated as a mass murderer. There is no legal justification for trying KSM as a soldier, and a very conservative SCOTUS has ruled twice that accused terrorists must be tried in civilian courts.
It must really suck being you.