Kangaroo court, US style

[kallend 2,027]

Any American who values justice should be embarrassed by this.

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten7-2008jun07,0,6316808.column

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Or thishttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25f_1211768105

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gawain 0]

So, I guess the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was a farce in your eyes too?

Where would you like these guys to be tried? The Hague? Think they'd get a fair trial in NYC or DC?

Let's see, and act of war, by individuals against a single nation, killing thousands.

I think you underestimate, again, the thoroughness and ability of America's Military Officers.

Frankly, I don't even know why a trial is being held for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he admitted to his involvement.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

So, I guess the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was a farce in your eyes too?

Where would you like these guys to be tried? The Hague? Think they'd get a fair trial in NYC or DC?

Let's see, and act of war, by individuals against a single nation, killing thousands.

I think you underestimate, again, the thoroughness and ability of America's Military Officers.

Frankly, I don't even know why a trial is being held for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he admitted to his involvement.

None of which, in any way whatsoever, contradicts the kangaroo nature of this process. We even admit obtaining "evidence" by torture.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

So, again I ask you: where, and how should these guys be tried? Should they even be tried?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

So, again I ask you: where, and how should these guys be tried? Should they even be tried?

The normal system of justice in the USA works very well.

If it pleases you to think that justice is being served at Gitmo, then fine.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riddler 0]

"because the only difference between a suicide and a martyrdom really is the amount of press coverage."

- Chuck Palahniuk

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

So, again I ask you: where, and how should these guys be tried? Should they even be tried?

The normal system of justice in the USA works very well.

If it pleases you to think that justice is being served at Gitmo, then fine.

The military falls under UCMJ, you believe they should be relinquished to civilian authority?

Let's try to reasonably project how that might play out:

Which civilian authority should they be released to? Federal prosecuters? NYC DA? PA DA? DC DA? VA DA?

Defense may ask for a change in venue...where might that end up being?

The prosecutors will attempt to apply facts while the self-represented will cite jibberish about the "great satan" or something thereabouts.

I agree that our justice system is the best there is, but I don't see how it applies to a military forum.

I believe that a real kangaroo court is risked if they are allowed a civilian trial. The terrorists are exploiting the very rights they have to try and destroy the system.

They didn't do that for the Balkans, post WWII. We did do that for Noriega, but he's in France now facing more time (I think or close to extradition). We also did it for WTC I, and that seemed to work fine too.

So, I see your advocacy for a civilian trial, but I do not believe justice is not being served in this situation either. The defendants will mock either process and I think the military tribunal is far better suited to deal with it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,027]

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

United States prosecutors?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the Constitution

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[n23x 0]

Quote

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

I suspect his response will be "brown?".

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Deisel 38]

Please don't overlook the facts of the case here. These people were all captured outside of US borders, by military forces engaged in a declared war. None of them has any right to be tried in a US courtroom.
The US government HAS NOT admitted to torturing anyone. This is an extrapolation made by many in the press. This is the old deal of if you say something enough eventually it becomes true. Admittedly, there could be an entirely seperate debate on the definition of torture, but this is exactly why torture has not been defined by the US.
This is exactly the appropriate forum for this. The fact that they are still alive is a testament to the rightness of the moral compass of those that captured them. I'm not so sure that my finger wouldn't have slipped.

D

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. Another LAME attempt at misdirection And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the ConstitutionWrong again

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

What are YOU saying sir kallend? (I really know but I want to see if you have the guts to
make a direct reply post)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ]

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. Another LAME attempt at misdirection And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the ConstitutionWrong again

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

What are YOU saying sir kallend? (I really know but I want to see if you have the guts to
make a direct reply post)

Don't weasel.

What exactly WAS the relevance of your comment about McVeigh's citizenship with respect to the Constitution? Looking in your mirror again?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ]

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. Another LAME attempt at misdirection And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the ConstitutionWrong again

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

What are YOU saying sir kallend? (I really know but I want to see if you have the guts to
make a direct reply post)

Don't weasel.

What exactly WAS the relevance of your comment about McVeigh's citizenship with respect to the Constitution? Looking in your mirror again?

Weasel?
You implied I said something. Where oh great one did I say that?

Look, just admit you got caught again and you will not look like a Clinton..............again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ]

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. Another LAME attempt at misdirection And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the ConstitutionWrong again

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

What are YOU saying sir kallend? (I really know but I want to see if you have the guts to
make a direct reply post)

Don't weasel.

What exactly WAS the relevance of your comment about McVeigh's citizenship with respect to the Constitution? Looking in your mirror again?

Weasel?
You implied I said something. Where oh great one did I say that?

Look, just admit you got caught again and you will not look like a Clinton..............again

Let me see if the record is intact. Oh yes, RUSHMC wrote "Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ] " as if it had some relevance to the discussion about being tried in a US court. Kindly explain the relevance, since US courts can try non-citizens.

Or were you just rambling on at random?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ]

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. Another LAME attempt at misdirection And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the ConstitutionWrong again

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

What are YOU saying sir kallend? (I really know but I want to see if you have the guts to
make a direct reply post)

Don't weasel.

What exactly WAS the relevance of your comment about McVeigh's citizenship with respect to the Constitution? Looking in your mirror again?

Weasel?
You implied I said something. Where oh great one did I say that?

Look, just admit you got caught again and you will not look like a Clinton..............again

Let me see if the record is intact. Oh yes, RUSHMC wrote "Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ] " as if it had some relevance to the discussion about being tried in a US court. Kindly explain the relevance, since US courts can try non-citizens.

Or were you just rambling on at random?

You are breaking this out of the context of what is constitutional. On purpose or otherwise I dont know.

So, let me ask it this way., under the constitution of the US, is a non US citizen, caught in some kind of military skirmish, due constitutional rights?

I am not asking what you think it should be, I am asking you what way is it today?

hppefuly this puts it all together and you might be able to keep up. It would help if you would stop trying to look in my mirror

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Deisel 38]

The question of constitutional protection is exactly what the Supreme Court is currently debating, concerning Gitmo. No offense but anything you guys come up with here will simply be opinions until we get a ruling from the MIB

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're being ridiculous again. They are accused of a crime in NYC, which last time I checked was a civilian jurisdiction.

It IS a kangaroo court.

The Feds did it correctly with Tim McVeigh.

Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ]

You are proving you do not understand the constitution or showing that you just do not agree with it. Which might it be?

Are you now claiming that US courts can only try US citizens. Another LAME attempt at misdirection And you reckon it's me that doesn't understand the ConstitutionWrong again

Here's a HINT. What was the nationality of the individual convicted of terrorism on January 30, 2003 at a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts?

What are YOU saying sir kallend? (I really know but I want to see if you have the guts to
make a direct reply post)

Don't weasel.

What exactly WAS the relevance of your comment about McVeigh's citizenship with respect to the Constitution? Looking in your mirror again?

Weasel?
You implied I said something. Where oh great one did I say that?

Look, just admit you got caught again and you will not look like a Clinton..............again

Let me see if the record is intact. Oh yes, RUSHMC wrote "Ah, timmy boy was a US Citizen.[/red ] " as if it had some relevance to the discussion about being tried in a US court. Kindly explain the relevance, since US courts can try non-citizens.

Or were you just rambling on at random?

You are breaking this out of the context of what is constitutional. On purpose or otherwise I dont know.

So, let me ask it this way., under the constitution of the US, is a non US citizen, caught in some kind of military skirmish, due constitutional rights?

I am not asking what you think it should be, I am asking you what way is it today?

hppefuly this puts it all together and you might be able to keep up. It would help if you would stop trying to look in my mirror

It is certainly constitutional for a US civilian court to try a non US citizen for a crime committed in the US (which is the case for the WTC attack); such trials happen every day. The issue is whether it is constitutional to deny non US citizens a trial in civilian court. And even if the Supremes say it's constitutional to have a tribunal, is it the right thing to do when the clearly constitutional civilian alternative exists? One wonders what exactly the Bush Administration is so afraid of about a trial in Federal Court like they gave the Shoe Bomber.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

It IS a kangaroo court.

followed by (emphasis mine):

Quote

It is certainly constitutional for a US civilian court to try a non US citizen for a crime committed in the US (which is the case for the WTC attack); such trials happen every day. The issue is whether it is constitutional to deny non US citizens a trial in civilian court. And even if the Supremes say it's constitutional to have a tribunal, is it the right thing to do when the clearly constitutional civilian alternative exists? One wonders what exactly the Bush Administration is so afraid of about a trial in Federal Court like they gave the Shoe Bomber.

So, by this logic, in a broad stroke, you have no faith in the abilities and attributes in our military, or the Supreme Court?

Are you ever happy (outside of times of flying your plane or skydiving that is)?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

It IS a kangaroo court.

followed by (emphasis mine):

Quote

It is certainly constitutional for a US civilian court to try a non US citizen for a crime committed in the US (which is the case for the WTC attack); such trials happen every day. The issue is whether it is constitutional to deny non US citizens a trial in civilian court. And even if the Supremes say it's constitutional to have a tribunal, is it the right thing to do when the clearly constitutional civilian alternative exists? One wonders what exactly the Bush Administration is so afraid of about a trial in Federal Court like they gave the Shoe Bomber.

So, by this logic, in a broad stroke, you have no faith in the abilities and attributes in our military, or the Supreme Court?

Are you ever happy (outside of times of flying your plane or skydiving that is)?

Just because it's LEGAL (which remains to be seen) doesn't mean it's RIGHT. Many protections in the federal court system are missing in military tribunals.

The whole thing stinks of rotten fish.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.