{BS} Not only closing Gitmo, trying confessed terrorists in Civil court.
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: Toyota Camry -- Speedometer not working... Will it fail smog?
Next: Are you really happy with your penis size?!
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 13 Nov 2009 16:00 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.11.13.15.54.55.454915(a)e86.GTS... > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:30:42 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.11.13.15.50.46.747384(a)e86.GTS... >>> All in the name of Political Correctness. >>> >>> Can someone tell me what is wrong with Guantanamo Bay? I don't see it. >>> Other than it's not 'Politically Correct', of course. >>> >>> Political Correctness is going to bring this country to it's knees, and >>> some idiots are cheering. >>> >>> I need to leave. Can someone suggest a country where people really are >>> free and are not guided by morons? >> >> >> Pretty much any country where boys like you can't vote. > > Why? Someone has to have some Common Sense, instaed of voting these > Politically Correct morons into office. You're correct. But since you still capitalize words for no reason at all, you have no common sense.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 13 Nov 2009 16:21 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.11.13.15.50.46.747384(a)e86.GTS... > All in the name of Political Correctness. > > Can someone tell me what is wrong with Guantanamo Bay? I don't see it. > Other than it's not 'Politically Correct', of course. > > Political Correctness is going to bring this country to it's knees, and > some idiots are cheering. > > I need to leave. Can someone suggest a country where people really are > free and are not guided by morons? > > I realize that your vast experience swapping motherboards has given you legal insights which the world should be in awe of, but there are other opinions which seem equally valuable. Federal Court is the Right Place James J. Benjamin Jr., a former federal prosecutor, is a partner in the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Despite claims by opponents of civilian trials that a military commission is more appropriate for 9/11 terrorist prosecutions, I believe the Southern District of New York is up to the task. I recently co-authored a study of the experience of federal courts in adjudicating terrorism cases. The data we collected shows that federal-court terrorism prosecutions have generally yielded just, reliable outcomes that have not undermined our national security. The list of convictions includes not only the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman in 1995, but also of Ramzi Yousef, Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid, to name just a few. Not all cases have been perfect, but the outcomes, by and large, have been accepted around the world and have consigned the convicted terrorists to spend many decades or the rest of their lives in the obscurity of federal prison. In the years since 9/11 the Justice Department has brought 119 federal court terrorism cases against 289 defendants, with a conviction rate of 91.1 percent. Although it would be naive to suggest that the 9/11 prosecutions will be simple or straightforward, there is good reason to believe that dedicated federal judges, working with prosecutors and defense counsels, can address and overcome the challenges that these prosecutions are certain to present. Observers like former Attorney General Michael Mukasey have argued that the federal courts cannot be trusted to safeguard sensitive evidence, citing the delivery to Osama bin Laden of a co-conspirator list that had been provided to the defense counsel in the Rahman trial in the mid-1990s. This episode, however, does not support a broad assertion that the courts cannot protect classified information. The record of the Rahman case indicates that the government did not seek to protect the co-conspirator list through a protective order or through the Classified Information Procedures Act. In fact, in our study, we found no examples of serious security breaches in cases where the act was invoked. If there were an intractable problem with classified information in terrorism cases, one would expect to have stronger examples than one from almost 15 years ago where, based on the public record, the government did not seek a court order restricting the information. Judge Mukasey has also cautioned about the risk of incarcerated defendants proselytizing in federal prison, but the Bureau of Prisons has a system of restrictive security measures for defendants who present special dangers. Prisoners who are subject to these measures are denied virtually all contact with the outside world and other prisoners. Violent terrorists clearly present a serious security challenge, but our justice system regularly handles the most violent members of society. It seems speculative at best to assert that terrorists, as a group, present a markedly greater security challenge for our prison system than murderers or hardened gang members, especially if the government acts wisely in designating prisoners to appropriate facilities. None of this is meant to say that federal court prosecutions are, by themselves, "the answer" to the problem of terrorism. Obviously not. As the 1990s taught us, an effective counterterrorism strategy must encompass vigorous military force, smart and tenacious intelligence gathering, and diplomatic efforts. But a sound counterterrorism strategy must also include a reliable, stable system for prosecuting accused terrorists when such prosecutions are appropriate in light of the evidence and the law. Based on the experience of the last 20 years, we should have confidence that federal courts are capable of playing a primary and not just a supporting role in those prosecutions.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Nov 2009 12:13 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:21:02 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.11.13.15.50.46.747384(a)e86.GTS... >> All in the name of Political Correctness. >> >> Can someone tell me what is wrong with Guantanamo Bay? I don't see it. >> Other than it's not 'Politically Correct', of course. >> >> Political Correctness is going to bring this country to it's knees, and >> some idiots are cheering. >> >> I need to leave. Can someone suggest a country where people really are >> free and are not guided by morons? >> >> >> > I realize that your vast experience swapping motherboards has given you > legal insights which the world should be in awe of, but there are other > opinions which seem equally valuable. > > > Federal Court is the Right Place > James J. Benjamin Jr., a former federal prosecutor, is a partner in the > law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Despite claims by opponents of > civilian trials that a military commission is more appropriate for 9/11 > terrorist prosecutions, I believe the Southern District of New York is up > to the task. You really are an idiot, aren't you? These are self-admitted militant terrorists. As such they are triable by Military law. Not in a civillian court. Never mind posting more garbage from yet a different Politically Correct Educated Fool. Just because they don't wear uniforms doesn't mean they aren't the enemy. All this is being done in the name of Political Correctness. Absoultely NO other reason. This crew in Washington right now is more concerened with the appearance of impropriety than anything else, and are kowtowing to lesser authorities because it's the Proper thing to do. They shouldn't be allowed to run Amtrak, let alone the United States of America.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 13 Nov 2009 12:14 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:00:53 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.11.13.15.54.55.454915(a)e86.GTS... >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:30:42 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.11.13.15.50.46.747384(a)e86.GTS... >>>> All in the name of Political Correctness. >>>> >>>> Can someone tell me what is wrong with Guantanamo Bay? I don't see it. >>>> Other than it's not 'Politically Correct', of course. >>>> >>>> Political Correctness is going to bring this country to it's knees, >>>> and some idiots are cheering. >>>> >>>> I need to leave. Can someone suggest a country where people really are >>>> free and are not guided by morons? >>> >>> >>> Pretty much any country where boys like you can't vote. >> >> Why? Someone has to have some Common Sense, instaed of voting these >> Politically Correct morons into office. > > > You're correct. But since you still capitalize words for no reason at all, > you have no common sense. Ooooh! Good comeback! Cut me to the quick there, Joey. Er, joey. Putz.
From: Mike Hunter on 13 Nov 2009 17:25
I believe it would be to our advantage if our troop would conform to the Geneva convention edicts. They should shoot and kill any combatant, not in uniform, and any terrorist intending to kill civilians within the county, as a spy.. That would end the debate. "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.11.13.17.13.35.143371(a)e86.GTS... > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:21:02 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.11.13.15.50.46.747384(a)e86.GTS... >>> All in the name of Political Correctness. >>> >>> Can someone tell me what is wrong with Guantanamo Bay? I don't see it. >>> Other than it's not 'Politically Correct', of course. >>> >>> Political Correctness is going to bring this country to it's knees, and >>> some idiots are cheering. >>> >>> I need to leave. Can someone suggest a country where people really are >>> free and are not guided by morons? >>> >>> >>> >> I realize that your vast experience swapping motherboards has given you >> legal insights which the world should be in awe of, but there are other >> opinions which seem equally valuable. >> >> >> Federal Court is the Right Place >> James J. Benjamin Jr., a former federal prosecutor, is a partner in the >> law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Despite claims by opponents >> of >> civilian trials that a military commission is more appropriate for 9/11 >> terrorist prosecutions, I believe the Southern District of New York is up >> to the task. > > You really are an idiot, aren't you? > > These are self-admitted militant terrorists. As such they are triable by > Military law. Not in a civillian court. > > Never mind posting more garbage from yet a different Politically Correct > Educated Fool. > > Just because they don't wear uniforms doesn't mean they aren't the enemy. > All this is being done in the name of Political Correctness. Absoultely NO > other reason. > > This crew in Washington right now is more concerened with the appearance > of impropriety than anything else, and are kowtowing to lesser authorities > because it's the Proper thing to do. > > They shouldn't be allowed to run Amtrak, let alone the United States of > America. > > > |