Do Suspected Terrorists Have Rights to Trials? - John Coughenour

[evanmarkfilms]

haha. yes, allowing mass murderers and rapists to go free really doesn't matter... after all, the world is full of these people anyway... no worries. Its just another mass murderer or rapist! woo hoo!

[garsnic100]

i think they sould do what they do to us .... cut there fucking heads off!!!!!,rape their women and eat their children, bomb the desert right of the fuckin map son, only if i were prez... vote garsnic i'll get the job done. fight fire with fire.. westerners are to soft now adays we care about the feelings of people that are trying to kill us!!!! KILL USSSS dumb asses..

[Demetrenos]

"Do Suspected Terrorists Have Rights to Trials? "

He admitted under torture that he was guilty.

No trial needed. He is guilty!

Accusations and torture can do the job.

Why waste money on a trial?

Just kidding.

[321roomi321]

@variablast can u change ur name to "holocaust is bullcrap" in america ?!?! or "America is israel's Bitch"

[zaneshark]

I must apologise for the sudden outburst Variablast! I was not paying much attention to the names of those who had left comments as I was to what had been written. So it was not until after I had posted my coment that I saw that I was "lashing out" at a friend of mine. I was like, DAMN! I've just begun argueing with a dude I am prescribed to. With that said I take back my short speech! Good day bro!

[zaneshark]

@variablast So you are a US citizen! Who fucking gives a shit! How does that benefit you? What kind of special priviliges do you obtain from being a US citizen that non- US citizens don't get? But Go ahead and keep living in the ignorant bubble of self delusion if you want!

[3Angela]

This judge is another traitor who thinks the "rights" of terrorists, which he has pulled out of thin air, are more important than the lives of American citizens. He is so bad even the 9th Circuit has rebuked him. He is a disgrace to the bench. It if were up to him, many more of us would be dead.

[ananiasacts]

@3Angela, What exactly are you saying?  That torture is okay? That holding people in offshore prisons explicitly to circumvent our constitution is a good idea? Are you honestly that stupid? Do you know what the word hypocrisy means?

[doutonight]

Everyone has equal rights, terrorist or not. Thats the definition of right. What you want to do is change rights to privileges, ones that only you would have. That is pure discrimination. But hey, it worked well in nazi germany and soviet russia

[zaneshark]

Why doesn't anyone mention the fact that US constitutional rights were intended to apply only for US citizens?

Most of these terrorists on trial are not US citizens and hence are not supposed to enjoy the same constitutional privilages that US citizens are supposed to have.

[justicecallicles]

"Why doesn't anyone mention the fact that US constitutional rights were intended to apply only for US citizens?"

They probably don't mention it because they don't believe it.

Precedent supporting non-citizen constitutional rights, such as for speech and trial, is thorough and plenty. Denial of these rights is a radical position which goes against everything we know about our founder's intent and the natural rights philosophies which influenced them.

[zaneshark]

@justicecallicles Granted that this is the case, what makes US citizenship important? The ability to fill out a job application and vote? But even legal US citizens are having a hard time finding permanent employment. So US citizenship does not even grant the US citizen job security. It is relatively worthless.

[ananiasacts]

I'm sort of disappointed with Google for not getting involved in Obama's, Open Government Directive (a must read if you're never seen it. Just 1 page.) It should be helping us build a map of our nations' economy. There should be a "google economy" very much like google earth--designed to help you explore the global economy. How well, for example, does each politicians vote correspond to the money they received? 100% would mean they always voted in line with the wishes of their largest donors.

[scpotts101]

very well said, Judge Coughenour

[chrisose]

The best yardstick for figuring out what the correct course of action should be is to look at what the Bush administration did and do the exact opposite.

[gasttheplast]

yes, A good man !

5 stars...

[TheJamesPope]

I like this guy

five stars.

[smhussain62]

Are we just living in a bubble? The comments here are all supportive. Does that indicate that the people who watch ForaTV are people like me? Should I make a greater effort to engage with republicans?

The last time I did that, the woman concerned told me she wasn't uncaring because no liberal she knows had organised a free Christmas dinner for 200 elderly people. I would've been impressed if they hadn't all been white, wealthy, Christian republicans. Very charitable.

[itsabomberscope]

"Do Suspected Terrorists Have Rights to Trials"

Yes by definition a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. A non trial with a suspect is an indication of bias.

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

"Yes by definition a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. A non trial with a suspect is an indication of bias."

Damned right, otherwise they are being treated as guilty, period. Given the conservative mentality of 'shoot now and cover up later', the US runs the risk of becoming a fully fledged fascist state.

[drgoodvibesxxx]

Honestly i think it already has. I hate to say it but the US now is a fully fledged police state.

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

What makes you say that?

Did Habeus Corpus get reinstated?

[Valstein0]

@drgoodvibesxxx

Do you even understand what a police state is? Don't be silly. Does the government tell you what to wear when you wake up, what to eat for dinner, what career to strive for, whether you can go to the gym or not. Our government is NOTHING like a police state. To say that is completely silliness.

[Finiras]

@Valstein0 police state has no exact definition, it can simply mean oppressive government

[Valstein0]

@Finiras

Even with it's loosest definition, our country is nothing like a police state. They need to interfere with your personal, private, social, economic, and political lives to even touch on the definition of a police state. Bitch about the government, I know I do. But it's not a police state.

[Finiras]

the definition you just pulled out of your ass has no merit. almost all governments meddle in all of those, and the US is pretty much the worst in that regard as far as first world countries go.

[Valstein0]

@Finiras

No, I pulled the definition out of a pre-college level World History class I had a few years ago. A police state is a totalitarian regime, who does not allow political dissent, interferes with the public and private lives of it's citizens, and makes up laws in order to serve the executive. Unless that class took place in my ass, that is surely not the place I pulled it from.

[ananiasacts]

@drgoodvibesxxx, Police states don't have pot dispensaries.

[Finiras]

retard, pot can be just like any other medication with side effects

[ananiasacts]

@Finiras, Except that there is no opportunity for pharmaceutical industry to profit from it. That's a rather large difference in my opinion.

[Finiras]

so you're saying that because some assholes cant profit from it, it should be illegal? aside from the fact that pharmaceutical companies could profit from it by growing the weed on a large scale, and screw around with its properties by genetically altering it to make it a more profitable product.

[ananiasacts]

@Finiras, no, the opposite. I'm saying that it is illegal because there's no way for pharma firms to profit from it. I think you're just wrong about them being able to do a better job of growing it. Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma." Or Joel Salatin's book "Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal." Having our government label something as safe is practically a guarantee that it isn't.

[TABOOVSKNOWLEDGE]

Thats a fact, Jack!

[zoticus1]

Its insane that we as Americans even debate this nonsense.

EVERYONE has a right to a trial!

After all this is not Soviet Russia

[l8rthen]

zoticus, agreed that all in America have a right to a trial. Good ref to Soviet Russia, unfortunately.

[Improbable0possible]

@variablast That whole argument has no point to it. How odd.

[garvess]

Well thats a pretty big blanket statementent.

Well I am proud of the world!

[garvess]

Amen

[ananiasacts]

@variablast, I think you're proud of the intent of our democracy, our nation and it's people, as am I. But you don't sound very proud about some of the stuff our government is up to. I am definitely not proud of our exploitive foreign policy, nor a great many of the deeds of prior administrations. I'm not proud of the way Americans mix religion and politics, it makes us appear to be theocrats to other nations. And I don't believe in patriotism itself. Partitioning the planet is a fools errand.

[l8rthen]

@ananiasacts , in UR one world govt, who makes the decisions how to spend a nation's resources?

[ananiasacts]

@l8rthen, a meta-government. Ordinary people, networked together in such a way where they form an advisory board that sets the agenda for all nations to follow. That's what I think will emerge from the web. Cyberspace just seems like a better place resolve our differences; where our looks, age, sex, and race doesn't color what we're heard to say. Where our ideas must grow their own fins to sink or swim. Political capital is a currency well suited to be spent in cyberspace.

[Efferts]

It's also cheaper (usually free) & faster to be read here, too.

[ananiasacts]

@variablast, Sorry. I had just read the most recent of your posts and interpreted it to mean that you were proud of America. Whoops.

[mitchnesbitt]

i find it funny that he says that we are a leader for human rights, and yet he justified torture

[winterstellar]

No, exterminate the vermins: )

[Improbable0possible]

@variablast You do not shape your nation, big business shapes your nation.

You and I share ideals, however the majority of your nation, does not. If Obama was a progressive you'd have a better healthcare system, you'd be out of Afghanistan, he'd be giving the people of Guantanamo a trial, he wouldn't have given the banks the bail out.

Obama has been a failure, and as a lefty i'm disgusted. The left of the world saw hope, like much in life that has proven to be false hope.

[ananiasacts]

@variablast, I couldn't tell what you meant to say. Do you think it's okay to torture people? Or to hold them in offshore prisons explicitly to avoid our own laws? I think it totally destroys our credibility as a nation and should be unconscionable.

[kevintype]

@ananiasacts - About one hour ago, Variablast very clearly and strongly stated opposition to torture. Did you simply not bother to read that comment, or did you actually fail to understand it?

[Improbable0possible]

@variablast What America is and stand for, are negatives. Your nation has a lot of rhetoric, and this is all it is.

Also, I wouldn't blame the GOP, your democratic party has done an equally disgusting job.

[thunderpants10]

you tell em

[vistavision2]

This whole issue of Terrorists is the EFFECT of US & wests double standards,aka hypcrisy , supporting a regime that is 100% contravention to UN Chartered course of UNAG 181 two states & its UNSC 242 modalities for resolution; AND this same regime's systemic contravetnion to Laws of Armed Conflict whcih have crossed the threshold into PON VI (c) Crimes Against Humanity .

More double standards of now denying US Constitutional protections to protect Israeli War Criminals is criminal itself

[vistavision2]

Lets establish an UN ICC War Crimes Tribunal for the Israali-Palestine conflict where precepts of International Law/LOAC & established facts are appllied EQUALLY to all whom violate Laws of Armed Conflict.

Who should fear equitable application of LOAC in War Crimes Tribunal? ONLY its violaters aka war criminals.

US Consitution has International Treaty obligations to UN Charter & LOAC.

[officialusa]

Judge John C. Coughenour is right on!!!

[CharBroiled04]

Of course I want to support the ideal that everyone should be treated by the same rules. I WANT to say that terrorists from Guantanomo, for example, should have a trial just like any other with the same rules. And the judge makes a good point, that if we can't convict someone because of the way we went about obtaining evidence from them (i.e. torture) or we can convict but it's merely embarrassing to the United States... then so be it. We shouldn't use those methods or take the embarrasment.

[CharBroiled04]

@CharBroiled04,

However... there's one issue he did not address. What about the circumstances in which releasing certain pieces of evidence jeopardize current operations in motion?

If we must present all information we have on a captured terrorist, and must do so PUBLICLY (as opposed to just to that defendant and his legal team), it's like playing poker with your hand exposed.

I'm all for giving terrorists or "enemy combatants" or whatever free, fair trials. But must they be public?

[Aaberg123]

As little as I like slippery-slope arguments, not having a public trial (though knowing they're in use today), jeopardize the right of a just trial to a large extent.

The state has an incentive to win their case, and if they can do so with no oversight, they are more inclined to fake with the results.

[purplecharger88]

Not really there are a lot of high profile trials that are often made not open to the public. Even then the courts and the trial were found to be fair and just.

[Aaberg123]

What do you mean by "open to the public"?

Public does not mean televised, if that was your point.

[Aaberg123]

Idealistic, but on a point that needs to be so. Kudos.