The evidence against many of the alleged terrorist was obtained through extralegal means precluding the ability to bring the suspects to trial. The thought of them just getting off without sanction is abhorent, but the rule of law is sacrosanct, this puts us in a conundrum. The only remedy that I can offer is that since the conviction will be based on an inferior form of evidence, the punishment should also take a lesser form. I fear a life sentence will provoke further terrorism to free them
@disturbed5789 Unions are what stand between the American working class and the working conditions seen in Bangladeshi sweatshops. Unions don't "control politics" nearly as much as the corporate elites they fight. If unions really had as much control over the government as they do in your atrophied, tin-foil wrapped brain, corporations wouldn't be shipping their members' jobs overseas so that a 10 year old in Guatemala can get his arm chewed off in a machine for $1 a day.
@disturbed5789 Do you know who sucks up money? Corporations, and they give as thin a sliver of that money as they can manage to the people who actually do the work, the bulk of it goes to the con-man known as the CEO, so that he can buy mansions with Olympic sized swimming pools, and cover his trophy wife in shiny things and insanely expensive Italian dresses, and take the occasional trip to Bangkok to pay 4 transsexuals to pretend that his penis was a Formula I car and they were the pit crew.
Just let the military take care of it, bringing them here could cause more problems if, let's say, someone tries to shoot the terrorists and misses them, not that it would be right to hit them in the first place, and instead hits another person, officer, child, pregnant woman, any one. Or if someone tries to shoot people to try to free them (I know that is a stretch but you get my point).
where in the constitution does it say we apply the same rights granted to citizens to foreign enemies or combatants? Even our own marines don't get civilian trials. SO why should KSM?
@msterliz You need to watch more of this guys videos. You don't need to go any further than the bill of rights to see that most of the definitions say any person, not citizen. The concept of citizen wasn't even introduced until the 14th amendment.
The bill of rights applies to all persons, not citizens, try reading it some time you would be amazed.
@Zyworski Since we live in a post 14th amendment era, let's take it from there. If you read the amendment, it it explicit in granting its rights to "citizens" - not "people." I could elaborate on why KSM should not be tried in the US as civilian, but will keep it in the scope of your 14th amendment argument, which is flawed.
@msterliz I did read it and didn't ahve to get any further than section one before I ran into this, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Unless you can come up with a different interpretation of, "any person" I would venture to say that the 14th amentment embraces foreigners/any person. If it was all as cut and dried as you believe Bush and or Obama would have had him swinging from a rope a long time ago.
@Zyworski Here is the text. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
I think the first sentence makes it clear who this amendment covers. Was KSM "born or naturalized in the United States"???
@msterliz Nice job of defining who a citizen is, but it in no way negates the protections of the first 10 Amend's. Duncan v Louisiana; By a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, arguing that the right to a jury trial was fundamental and central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires states to honor requests for jury trials. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to a jury trial was fundamental.
@Zyworski I can see why a non citizen who gets arrested for a crime would get a trial - that seems fair to me - but this is something totally different, which is why I cited KSM as an example. The information in a military trial is not open to the public in contrast to a civilian trial. That means that our methods of capture, surveillance etc. would be made public. Do you think it is wise, given the nature of the war we are in, to divulge this information to the public?
@msterliz A: We didn't capture him the Pakistani ISI did. B: We didn't have a clue as to what we had until incriminating evidence was found on a hard drive in his posession, he was just brought in on a routine round-up. C: Our method of extracting information was to keep him naked for months, while interogated by female handlers, and to waterboard him 183 times. Our methods are now well knows and definitely not rocket science.
The bottom line is that we used torture to extract a confession.
@Zyworski All valid points in A,B and C, but not in the scope of this discussion, which I thought was about whether he should be granted a civilian jury trial. My point is that the nature of this trial is within the military arena and that the things discussed in the trial will touch on sensitive intel. I would prefer that intel stay out of the public light. I am no statist and believe in transparency, but there are some things I don't think we should know - at least not at this juncture.
The reason in-service marines don't get civilian trials is due to the fact that they are in the United States Armed Services, and as defined in the fifth amendmant are not granted that right when in-service during the time in which the offense for which they are accused of committing was committed.
Non-military persons, either foreign or domestic, are granted the fifth amendment rights due to the use of the term "person" and not "citizen".
While I generally agree with your criticisms of the right and of Obama's moves to the right, I'm offended by the question in this video that postulates an absolute relationship between upholding the constitution and civilian trials for detainees. As a lawyer and former USMC legal officer (not a JAG) with substantial experience in how courts martial work, I am comfortable that accused detainees would have adequate constitutional safeguards. But, as you say, I'd like to hear your opinion.
I would not like to see it in the middle of New York it is to close together. It should be in the courthouse in PA where the plane was crashed into the field.
@tiffanyatomic Why is it that closed-minded judgmentalists love to use baseless ad hominem attacks on a whole group of people? "Liberals" don't love protecting violent, hateful mass murderers; but you should appreciate that they will stand to uphold those same judicial freedoms they believe those violent, hateful mass murderers have - for you. If we waive the rights for one set of people, then we've paved a loophole for everyone else - guilty or not. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
bro their not citizens of the united states ....2 ways their government courts take care of the matter or military tribunal. Plus people don't trust a lawyer so good luck getting your point of view across.
Just where in the constitution, is the proviso for persons who declare war on our nation??
At most, these people should be turned over to the U. N. for trial as war criminals, as the Nazi's were after WW2. After all, we're paying billions upon billions per year to maintain the U. N., we should at least garner a modicum of use from all that wasted money.
Well that's a load of crap. Anybody can declare war on anything, as evidenced by our own governments "war on terror", or "war on drugs", or any other so called war we are waging on anything other than an actual country. Furthermore, it's certain members of the "nation" of Islam, that are the ones tat have declared war on us. Criminals, yes...war criminals.
So in a way you are perhaps correct, but its more indirect, I would say . The Constitution gives congress power to pass legislation that effects companies, but there is nothing explicit in the constitution regulating business practice.
I understand where youre going, yerk3, but really the Constitution is a document that explains the purpose of the three branches of government and what they are entitled to do. In other words, unless the constitution grants a branch of government the power to do something, said role or responsibility is reserved for the states and the people (per the 10th amendment).
2. I'm not American. It wouldn't really be democratic, would it? And my country is already the default position where international violators of human rights get treated in a fair, public trial (we don't have juries tough. Because seriously - juries? It's justice, not a beauty contest). So we're already there.
Did not this terrorist say that he was guilty. If so shoot him and go on to the next. Quit wating our time and money. They are not our country men They have no rights here on our land.
JohnWnay: Under what circumstances did he say he was guilty? A confession is not automatic proof that someone actually did the crime, and this applies even more if the confession was gained through torture. Confessions gained through torture were how the witch trials and the Inquisition were run. The Constitution doesn't say anything about treating "country men" differently from others, it grants those rights to all humans within our jurisdiction.
of course itll be more of the same...obama is bush with a tan...there is not a left or a right,theyre on the same dam tyranical team.just look at the national biometric identification card bill introduced by shummer,and grahm
Obama shouldn't do this. I'm of the opinon that these 'terrorists' are still people (thinking, living beings who's perception of life is different from ours) and are thus allowed the same civil-liberties as us; simply, if we don't give them a trial (if we deny them their human-rights), how are we different from 'them'? Isn't our war against terrorism meant to prove the strength of such rights? And it should be a FEDERAL trial, as LiberalViewer seems to also want.
they should be in a public trial, because i don't beleive the full story about the 9-11 incident as a fact and would like a public civilian trial too see if this guy really did it or not and what TRUE motivations he had, a military trial sounds more like a cover up trail and Fixed outcome of what they would like said and done...but no this wont be public because our government has a lot to hide and Hush hush about what really went down on 9-11
it was actually George Washington who created Military tribunals to try the British after the revolution. Military Tribunals are a absurd distortion of Habeas Corpus, like Ike said "beware of the military industrial complex"
Im reminded of what Thomas Jefferson said, I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
We need to be careful here, because what if someone labeled YOU a terrorist, would they then have the right to shoot you the moment you are captured? I think its a slippery slope, not protecting ones rights, because the next thing you know anyone disagreeing with the president could be labeled dangerous and then a terrorist and then your locked away without your constitutional rights. We dont need to worry, the judicial system will take care of Americas enemies.
The only standards to which we can hold the rest of the world are the ones that we can be said to uphold ourselves. As an American who loves his country I feel ashamed by the idea that our representative government would condone torture or withhold anyone's right to a fair trial.
I think he should try them in the civilian court system as more of a symbol...even if it's all smoke and mirrors, they should not be treated as enemies of the state but rather as violent criminals...to try them by the military makes them martyrs.
The president could issue an executive order designating May as Soviet History Appreciation Month and the ACLU would claim he was discriminating against Non-Soviet Communists.
That's one of the things with liberals-- no matter how liberal a president is, it just isn't enough for the true believers.
I find it hilarious that the better part of you ran down your mother's leg and ended up as a blood stain on the mattress in your Alabama trailer-park home.
retardsend: And where in the Constitution does it say that insurance companies have a right to take people's money, with the promise that they will help them out in case of a medical emergency, then turn around and let them die because it isn't profitable?
I think you may be incorrectly interpreting the purpose of our Constitution. The constitution exist to place limits on our government's power to do whatever it wants, not to tell companies how to do business.
PArbuckle18: Actually, the Constitution applies not only to the government, but to corporations and individuals as well. The goal is to put checks on the power of the powerful. If corporations become powerful, they need more checks and balances, they aren't magically better than the government.
As Senatory Kyl stated "It takes nothing away from President Obamas leadership as president of the United States to hold trials of many of the terrorist detainees in military commissions. In fact, doing so would reflect the views of the American people that these terrorists should be treated, first and foremost, as enemies of the United States."
How are meat inspectors or the SEC or the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department infringements on economic liberty???
If you want two football teams to have REAL competition, you lay down a few rules.
Without any rules at all, it would just be two "teams" coming out on the field and shooting at each other with assault rifles. How would that be football by any definition?
In order to *have* a free market, you need laws, prosecution of fraud, and transparency/accurate information.
They are infringements by definition. We do need the rule of law for the the free market system to function, that is agreed. We don't need agencies telling us we will go to jail for selling certain types of light bulbs.
Your confessions and admissions are refreshing! It's rare to see stupid people admit how ignorant or naive they are. I applaud you sir. Now go read up on the historical and philosophical tradition of "liberalism" so you won't be made fun of in the future (although that is probably not preventable).
When people commit horrific crimes, they are prosecuted, and then given life sentences or executed.
The only characteristic that distinguishes our system from Saddam Hussein's is that we actually give people the opportunity to present A DEFENSE even if they are obviously guilty, because you can't know whether or not they are guilty until they present a defense.
The short hand for that is "innocent until proven guilty".
False, because he also spoke about the right to defend oneself. The sole change here is that the criminal has to demonstrate that he is not guilty, instead of the other way around.
terrorists do not fall under the civil law They fall under the geneva convention! They are enemies of the republic and should be tried in a millitary court tribunal! None of this liberal crap they have rights!
Terrorists have no rights Especially Constitutional rights No wonder this country sails ass backwards! It's insane ideas like they have rights! Our enemies! The ones you want to free so they can kill more americans!
The sole point is to get them convicted, but doing so through the american people. Basically, you will have won! By doing this trial, you will bring the terrorists responsible for 9/11 in front of the judgement of the very people they harmed.
But instead, you wish to hide, which is just sad. Bring those murderers to justice and convict them. Show them that your ideals stand!
They do have rights. Because if you give a person the ability to take rights away, they could become much more dangerous than anything else. Terrorists probably don't deserve rights, but no person should be given the ability to take rights away.
Huzzawful: That is exactly the case. The same rights should apply to everyone, because they were put in place by the founding fathers, and it isn't up to us to take them away.
Anyone who wants Americans accused of a crime and held by a foreign government to be held without trial and then tortured should vote Republican in November.
Let's say BUSH or Clinton or Rice or any one of our (sisters/brothers) VETERANS were vacationing in a foreign land one day... and they get snatched up and taken to a secret prison ran by "the enemy"... there they are accused of "WAR crimes" and "terrorism"... What kind of trial would YOU like them to have? Or maybe you'd like them to have NO trial - or military tribunal? - since they are being accused of NON-Civil (WAR) crimes. Don't we want a "trial" for all human beings?
Hey Liberalassclown! why are you so concerned about these terrorists rights and less about what Obamageddon is doing with the patriot act that directly effects "We the people" rights??? and our Constitution applies to us! you commie rat bastard! not the rest of the world, try going to Europe and telling them our Constitution over rules there because you said so, what a dumb fuck, no wonder your not a public defender any more!
Did you honestly turn away from the Republican Party and change your party affiliation when they imposed the Patriot Act on us when the voters were reeling after 9-11?
HUH? So, whether or not you are guilty is not determined by PROOF, but rather what the crime was? So, if some one is accused of being a serial killer he/she gets a trial, but if someone gets accused of aiding a potential "Arab terrorist" that person does not get a trial? You don't think Charles Manson was a terrorist? Tim MacVeigh? Unibomber? BTK killer? Look up their motives (and intensive planning). It wasn't diff (if not far more) than what most ppl in GITMO are being accused of.
Of course these trials should be held in Federal Court! Security may be required, but the judge, jurors and court staff will be more than adequately ready, willing and able to make the process work effectively. Danger or cost be damned. In Ga 5 yrs ago, a superior ct judge, stenographer, deputy were murdered by escaped rapist who murdered a off duty federal agent. Violence can happen anywhere.
Obama's foreign policy is exactly the same as Bush's. He campaigned on a few things that sounded different but the reality is the same outcome regardless of which party is in office. I think the ACLU will attack Obama harder than they did Bush when all is said and done. He is turning out to be a lot more radical than anyone thought.
Because they don't come from your religion or race, Do you think they are evil spawns or something? I think most of what we do is hopefully good, but I don't think the money worshipers are up to any good. Stop them from controlling governments, hogging all natural resources, paying overseas people crap, and hide behind the Military Industrial Complex, then the radical minority leaders have no excuse to use to incite those poverty stricken abused people and the misinformed would stop attacking.
or if it where to happen in a federal court what protection would the jury need these questions are just as important as what court system or where the trial is held
the only problems i see with a non military court is one the finding a non biased jury and well let me just ask really how much evidence do they really have to convict
also let me ask these important questions one in ether court if they are seen as innocent what would that tell other groups who would want to commit such acts (*if they actually had any thing at all to do with said terror attacks), and what would be the reaction of groups that sympathize with these defendants*
Here's the big question of the day: Suppose KSM is declared innocent? What then? Are you and the rest of your liberal buddies gonna invite him to sit around the campfire, smoke a bowl and sing a song?
There are a mountain of reasons he could be found not guilty, one of them being that he was waterboarded during his imprisonment. If it's found that due process was not adhered to he will automatically be cleared.
You don't have to be a radical right winger to see that this is a bad, bad move.
Don't be stupid. No one wants him to be found not guilty but when you live in a society run on the rule of law you are taking a chance, however slim, that he'll be found not guilty. That is what separates us from them.If we turn our society into theirs then how are we better than they are? As an American I have faith in our system, although it has cracked at times it has yet to be broken. Maybe they shouldn't have waterboarded him but I don't believe his treatment will relieve him of his crimes.
..."all concerned with the protection of civil liberties," except the right to pray in public, own a gun, send their kids to private school... you know, those crap civil liberties only uneducated racists care about.
You "patriots" do more to endanger the lives of our soldiers and citizens than anyone I know.
The people are terrorists. They aer not natural citizens here. they came here and plotted within our own borferss and using our own resources to kill as many of us as possible. That was a military action and needs a military response which is what they got and what you and the progressives try to stop. You should be tried for treason.
The constitution doesn't say "naturalized citizens." It says "person."
We aren't trying to stop them from getting what they deserve. We are trying to make sure that justice is done, while at the same time protecting our sacred freedoms.
It also says "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." We're not at war?
Abraham Lincoln once said that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact." He said this after illegally suspending habeas corpus and personally ordering the arrest of political dissidents who were suspected of being Confederate spies.
Did he not defend something sacred? Wasn't justice finally done?
hmmm except of course these people are not terrorists they are SUSPECTED terrorists. They are currently innocent in the eyes of American law.
It is you and people like you that need to be tried for treason, you are basically saying that the US constitution is a load of crap and can only be applied selectivly. You fucking traitor!
if you had just stoped at your view that they should be tried in military courts you would have had a point that is worth discussing but when you said that anyone that disagrees with your view points is a traitor, well you can go fuck your self
Are you aware that what you write is unconstitutional? The US constitution grants these rights not to American Citizens but to ALL people under ALL circumstances. You are a traitor to the values your country was founded upon.
It was a criminal act and deserves to be prosecuted for what it was a crime. Your own description proves that. They plotted and using our own planes tried to kill as many people as possible. This does not describe a military action it describes a criminal act. Plus I for one completely agreed with going into Afghanistan because by sheltering these criminals the Taliban did commit an act of war. So Taliban-Enemies, Al-Qaeda-criminals.
I guess some people think our justice system is so weak that we can't handle trial of alleged terrorist. How sad the Radical Right Wing Sympathizers thinks we are so weak and yet they are the ones who worry about looking weak or making us appear weak in front of their choose enemy.
@JKEJulian ...... It's not about being able to handle it. It's about precedent in these situations. So, if you were defending one of your hero terrorists in civilian court would you not claim your client has been mistreated and should be freed? How about he was not mirandized? Some technicality in which a judge could dismiss a case. How about your client is entitled to be given classified info as part of his defense? Criminal courts has no place for this. History would agree with that statement.
I think you are making history up. John Adams, you know the second president, defended soldiers that shot Americans in the Boston Massacre. He did this to make sure they had a fair trial, it is a fact, not something made up to support someones belief. So, I think history will not back you up. But, hell what did John Adams know after all, he was only one of the founding fathers. Why do degrade this country, that you claim to love, by destroying it's founding tenets.
Almost drowning people and slapping them around will make them admit to anything just to stop the torture. Your hero Bush tried I don't know how many in courts and nobody fear those trials. If these greedy top 1% stop trying to take over grabbing all natural resources, pay overseas people crap and hide behind the Military Industrial Complex less people would hating us. People should be allow to worship but not force it on other. Not all Muslims are extremist but Right wingers would never know.
First and foremost get this straight-these terrorists are no ones heroes! Insinuating that by trying to defend the system that our country rests on that we are treasonous is stupid beyond belief. Seems to me we have more faith in this country than you do Bubba. All your flag waving means nothing if you don't defend the ideals our form of government was founded on. It makes you a faux patriot and a dumb ass.
@lionssmile ... yes, you are a defender of America alright! LOL
You assume that terrorists caught overseas who are non American citizens while we are at war against them are ENTITLED to the rights as if they are us citizens who stole a donut at a 7/11. So, your premise is wrong which means the other nonsense you spewed does not apply. There is nothing in the constitution to support your claim. In fact the 14th amendment cleary shows you are wrong. So try you rubbish on the less intelligent.
it uses the word citizen twice to describe citizenship then says the govt can't abridge the rights of citizens, then it twice uses the word person to say life, liberty, & property can't be deprived without due process.. Seems to harken more back to the idea that all humans have the right to be free from undue oppression, not that a fair trial is an entitlement program granted by a govt.
do they fight for a country? do they fight for a group of people out side of themselfs? to both no. can you call them an army if they don't one of these? if you cant call them an army what are they? international criminals maybe? so if they are criminals then we act like they are military is what you're saying. yes they are much worse than Mr. 7/11 donut but they are only criminals like him. they did worse thing but he isn't up for death like they are.
@kokofan50 ... Nice leap of logic there! LOL Anyone can play the leaping of logic game on any topic.
Clear thinking people however can deduce that we are at war as decided by a president and a congress. Just because there is no border defining an enemy doesn't mean anything. They are an organization set out to destroy this country. If you arn't smart enough to understand that, I'm not surprised. The FBI don't win wars in foreign lands my friend. You cry for their civil liberties, I don't.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
how does that prove anything. it doesn't say anything about how people in the case of fighting the US but aren't militsry should treted.
@kokofan50 .... Huh? Did you not comprehend what that says?
It doesn't say anything about aliens from other planets either, so what? It clearly states to be subject to US rights you would have to be a citizen. I know to liberals you only accept the constitution if you agree with it and ignore it when it doesn't, but how much clearer can that possibly be?
Your hero terrorists are not US Citizens, thus are not subject to our judicial system. Let me know if I need to draw you a picture.
@kokofan50 .... You just jump on extremes don't you? Military tribunals have been a part of American history nearly as long as America itself. How in the world could any normal person equate that to the mafia? Geez! The congress did vote on the war my friend or did you miss that? Read the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
i figgered military tribunals were part of the US's history. there is nothing worng with they as long as its something a civil hearing should do. the mob fits everything you said as to why we are fighting. if you can't give me better then you are wrong. i was making sure you know that only congress has that power not the pres.
kokofan50 ...... I am on the side of the constitution my friend. You only accept the constitution on the rare circumstances that you may agree with it. I just pointed out the 14th amendment to you and quoted from it on how clear as day it states what defines a US Citizen and you just blow it off and parse single words without comprehending the context of it. Your hero Bin Ladin is not subject to the rights of US Citizenship. He was not born in the US nor has he been naturalized.
you seam to to not be getting it all it it said it what rules you most fallow when you are a citizen and what makes you one you damn fascist. if some one stole something or did something to get a triale in the US they are under our laws even if they don't live here should we give them millitary triales thats works with whaat you said if not then why is bin ladin different
@kokofan50..... Show me where in the constitution it says anything close to that. Again, you think just because you want it a certain way then the hell with the constitution. You can't have it both ways. There's no language in the Constitution resembling what you wrote. Nothing.
So far I have the exact language in the constitution in my favor and you have nothing. Just a wish! I hope you arn't a lawyer! You clients would all get the death penalty! LOL
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
in that i see no where in it where it said a thing about people who are not citizens of the US. It saying that people who are citizens are supject to the laws and have the right of the US not a thing about people out side the US
with your logic we can try the mob with military curte. they run part of italy thet do lots of the same stuff the guys you want to be tried by the military. so shouldn't we do the samething to the mob? just so you know only congress has the pwer to say we're at war not the pres or even pres and congress together.
@kokofan50 .... I see, so quoting the US Constitution to a liberal is considered "twisting" the facts? LOL
I am quite sure that the constitution never gets in your way of your beliefs. However, that pesky document clearly shows you are wrong. Terrorists who are not US Citizens caught in foreign lands are NOT granted US constitutional rights. This is why we always tell liberals the constitution means what it says. It's liberals who try to twist it beyond recognition of it's original meaning.
the twisting is you trying to make the words say what you want they to. i know your side of this loves to call names and say that we are doing what you are doing so people think its us and not ypou but you need to learn when to fight and not like when you have nothing to fight with like now and your very bad try at using word that say nothing about what you are trying to force them to say say
@aSingleDallasGuy So how did we ever manage to try and imprison other terrorist in the past under other Presidents including Bush if you think our laws are so weak and they would be let go as you claim? Maybe they should be put them on trial in the International Court since our 14th Amendment may indicate only citizens or naturalize citizen get a fair trial here. Don't we stand for the rule of law rather than imprisoning people who are innocent or guilty without a trial like dictatorships do?
@JKEJulian ... This is about getting critical information from them. Liberals never answer this directly, but if a terrorists is captured with a map of NY City in his pocket and traces of nuclear materials on his person should he not be subjected to extraordinary methods to obtain when and exactly where a nuclear bomb may go off? If you say no, then your morals stink! You subject a million to death because you think you are moral? Nice morals you have. If you say, yes then welcome to sanity!
@aSingleDallasGuy What does "extraordinary methods" means? Wasn't Valerie Plame worked with the team under the company name of Brewster-Jennings in the Middle East in order to tracking down where groups were getting nuclear material from and who was financing these groups? They got information by befriending people in various countries until they got exposed in the media by conservative traitors. Interrogators during World War II got vital information from Nazi prisoners by play chess with them.
@JKEJulian .... I can't argue with any of your points. But you suggest that we have or can obtain intelligence on all things. Which of course is untrue. My point that your glossed by is that on occassions where life is in danger such as an imminent nuclear bomb explosing expected in which we do not know where or when that those we feel may know or should know this information should indeed be harshly treated to include water boarding or whatever else is necessary. To not would be morally inebt.
The terrorists are not citizens of our nation they never been to the United States,they get no constitutional rights Obama has yet to change course in Afghanistan or Iraq Obama is a closet conservative Obama fooled Liberal Viewer into voting Obama There is no change in foreign policy from BUSH to Obama ! HA HA!
Which constitution are you reading? These people are enemy combatants. If The Obamanation had them tried through any military means his poll numbers would go way up because he would have finally done something right. The present administration has all but already called them guilty anyway. It's amazing to me just how many so called "smart" people want these people to be tried as if they are American citizens. Such is the Religion of Liberalism though.
@Quantanthead Enemy combatants is a made up category, the real category is prisoners of war. I wonder how we ever survived trying prisoners of war in the past? If you are afraid our laws are so weak in this country, the prisoner should probably be tried in the International Court. I don't think we should be acting like dictatorships who imprison people for an indeterminate time whether they are innocent or guilty.
From what I understand, Obama is having difficulties with even getting somewhere. The opposition keeps sabotaging development despite the majority's wishes. Right now he's struggling so that both sides can come to some form of agreement and prevent stagnation.
I might be incorrect, but that's the way I've interpreted the current situation.
continued..." It is disheartening to consider more of the same; it is beyond the pale to see you may be worse all for the sake of Fox News. What other reason is there??"
Yes and yes. I used the ACLU site and added the following: "I agree with the ACLU ad that questions if you are acting like Bush on this topic. It is the right wing bloggers that ignore that Bush tried terrorists as you are but claiming that you are the weaker for doing so - in other words lying. Therefore, if you do deny them the same trial, well, it appears this will make you WORSE than Bush...
Difficult though it may be for me to agree with the ACLU (ever) and Liberal Viewer (these days) I have to say that the constitution MUST be followed to the letter in EVER Y criminal case in the USA. However, I would like to hear Liberal Viewer Esq.. explain why not a military tribunal vs open court in NYC? It is easy LV to just automatically side with the ACLU's position in EVERYTHING. Elaborate please on why you feel that way. I promise to keep an open mind *ahem*
@MissyEmmy22 .. ummmm, well considering it's the UNITED STATES Constitution would not one clearly conclude by legality it could only apply to US Citizens? After all how could any constitution supersede another country's constitution or laws as applied to their own citizens within their own borders? Is this not obvious to you? Why can the coast guard capture people from cuba, haiti, mexico, etc.. in the ocean trying to make shore on US land and they can deport them without US legal intervention?
@Posterkid317 LOL Another 5th grade comment! Geez, I thought you guys who love the ACLU consider yourselves smart? But if you were smart your thinking would not be so warped now would it? So, I never bought into the ACLU smart theory.
Please explain what "book" I should read so I would be at the level of your education? "Alice in Wonderland"? "Harry Potter"?
Let me pass along some reading advice for you. The US Constitution. Try it sometime. It's rather short but does have some big words.
Although I was eager to join in on the Youtube Discussion and Side with MissyEmmy22. I thought to myself why subject myself to endless vicious cycle typing of back and forth arguing over the constitution to get no where. I decided to stick with a casual 5th grade comment and go make myself a sandwhich Good day.
The evidence against many of the alleged terrorist was obtained through extralegal means precluding the ability to bring the suspects to trial. The thought of them just getting off without sanction is abhorent, but the rule of law is sacrosanct, this puts us in a conundrum. The only remedy that I can offer is that since the conviction will be based on an inferior form of evidence, the punishment should also take a lesser form. I fear a life sentence will provoke further terrorism to free them
Zyworski 1 year ago
Unions r stupid and control politics and they suck up money and care for each other
disturbed5789 1 year ago
@disturbed5789 Unions are what stand between the American working class and the working conditions seen in Bangladeshi sweatshops. Unions don't "control politics" nearly as much as the corporate elites they fight. If unions really had as much control over the government as they do in your atrophied, tin-foil wrapped brain, corporations wouldn't be shipping their members' jobs overseas so that a 10 year old in Guatemala can get his arm chewed off in a machine for $1 a day.
yerk3 1 year ago
@disturbed5789 Do you know who sucks up money? Corporations, and they give as thin a sliver of that money as they can manage to the people who actually do the work, the bulk of it goes to the con-man known as the CEO, so that he can buy mansions with Olympic sized swimming pools, and cover his trophy wife in shiny things and insanely expensive Italian dresses, and take the occasional trip to Bangkok to pay 4 transsexuals to pretend that his penis was a Formula I car and they were the pit crew.
yerk3 1 year ago
give em trials, they're gonna be found guilty anyway!
catman8155 1 year ago
Just let the military take care of it, bringing them here could cause more problems if, let's say, someone tries to shoot the terrorists and misses them, not that it would be right to hit them in the first place, and instead hits another person, officer, child, pregnant woman, any one. Or if someone tries to shoot people to try to free them (I know that is a stretch but you get my point).
Thatpyroguy 1 year ago
where in the constitution does it say we apply the same rights granted to citizens to foreign enemies or combatants? Even our own marines don't get civilian trials. SO why should KSM?
msterliz 1 year ago
@msterliz You need to watch more of this guys videos. You don't need to go any further than the bill of rights to see that most of the definitions say any person, not citizen. The concept of citizen wasn't even introduced until the 14th amendment.
The bill of rights applies to all persons, not citizens, try reading it some time you would be amazed.
Zyworski 1 year ago
@Zyworski Since we live in a post 14th amendment era, let's take it from there. If you read the amendment, it it explicit in granting its rights to "citizens" - not "people." I could elaborate on why KSM should not be tried in the US as civilian, but will keep it in the scope of your 14th amendment argument, which is flawed.
msterliz 1 year ago
@msterliz I did read it and didn't ahve to get any further than section one before I ran into this, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Unless you can come up with a different interpretation of, "any person" I would venture to say that the 14th amentment embraces foreigners/any person. If it was all as cut and dried as you believe Bush and or Obama would have had him swinging from a rope a long time ago.
Zyworski 1 year ago
@Zyworski Here is the text. Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
I think the first sentence makes it clear who this amendment covers. Was KSM "born or naturalized in the United States"???
msterliz 1 year ago
@msterliz Nice job of defining who a citizen is, but it in no way negates the protections of the first 10 Amend's. Duncan v Louisiana; By a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, arguing that the right to a jury trial was fundamental and central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires states to honor requests for jury trials. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to a jury trial was fundamental.
Zyworski 1 year ago
@Zyworski I can see why a non citizen who gets arrested for a crime would get a trial - that seems fair to me - but this is something totally different, which is why I cited KSM as an example. The information in a military trial is not open to the public in contrast to a civilian trial. That means that our methods of capture, surveillance etc. would be made public. Do you think it is wise, given the nature of the war we are in, to divulge this information to the public?
msterliz 1 year ago
@msterliz A: We didn't capture him the Pakistani ISI did. B: We didn't have a clue as to what we had until incriminating evidence was found on a hard drive in his posession, he was just brought in on a routine round-up. C: Our method of extracting information was to keep him naked for months, while interogated by female handlers, and to waterboard him 183 times. Our methods are now well knows and definitely not rocket science.
The bottom line is that we used torture to extract a confession.
Zyworski 1 year ago
@Zyworski All valid points in A,B and C, but not in the scope of this discussion, which I thought was about whether he should be granted a civilian jury trial. My point is that the nature of this trial is within the military arena and that the things discussed in the trial will touch on sensitive intel. I would prefer that intel stay out of the public light. I am no statist and believe in transparency, but there are some things I don't think we should know - at least not at this juncture.
msterliz 1 year ago
@msterliz
The reason in-service marines don't get civilian trials is due to the fact that they are in the United States Armed Services, and as defined in the fifth amendmant are not granted that right when in-service during the time in which the offense for which they are accused of committing was committed.
Non-military persons, either foreign or domestic, are granted the fifth amendment rights due to the use of the term "person" and not "citizen".
CollinRoche 1 year ago
While I generally agree with your criticisms of the right and of Obama's moves to the right, I'm offended by the question in this video that postulates an absolute relationship between upholding the constitution and civilian trials for detainees. As a lawyer and former USMC legal officer (not a JAG) with substantial experience in how courts martial work, I am comfortable that accused detainees would have adequate constitutional safeguards. But, as you say, I'd like to hear your opinion.
hss46 1 year ago
I would not like to see it in the middle of New York it is to close together. It should be in the courthouse in PA where the plane was crashed into the field.
dukee155 1 year ago
why is it that liberals love protecting violent, hateful mass murderers?
tiffanyatomic 1 year ago
@tiffanyatomic Why is it that closed-minded judgmentalists love to use baseless ad hominem attacks on a whole group of people? "Liberals" don't love protecting violent, hateful mass murderers; but you should appreciate that they will stand to uphold those same judicial freedoms they believe those violent, hateful mass murderers have - for you. If we waive the rights for one set of people, then we've paved a loophole for everyone else - guilty or not. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
oceanx 1 year ago
bro their not citizens of the united states ....2 ways their government courts take care of the matter or military tribunal. Plus people don't trust a lawyer so good luck getting your point of view across.
Gondus 1 year ago
Just where in the constitution, is the proviso for persons who declare war on our nation??
At most, these people should be turned over to the U. N. for trial as war criminals, as the Nazi's were after WW2. After all, we're paying billions upon billions per year to maintain the U. N., we should at least garner a modicum of use from all that wasted money.
xxxchaindrive 1 year ago
@xxxchaindrive the problem is that only NATIONS can declare war- they were (technically) criminals.
jenspice27 1 year ago
@jenspice27
Well that's a load of crap. Anybody can declare war on anything, as evidenced by our own governments "war on terror", or "war on drugs", or any other so called war we are waging on anything other than an actual country. Furthermore, it's certain members of the "nation" of Islam, that are the ones tat have declared war on us. Criminals, yes...war criminals.
xxxchaindrive 1 year ago 2
ME------------------------>> lol
USAFSmiley87 1 year ago
So in a way you are perhaps correct, but its more indirect, I would say . The Constitution gives congress power to pass legislation that effects companies, but there is nothing explicit in the constitution regulating business practice.
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
I understand where youre going, yerk3, but really the Constitution is a document that explains the purpose of the three branches of government and what they are entitled to do. In other words, unless the constitution grants a branch of government the power to do something, said role or responsibility is reserved for the states and the people (per the 10th amendment).
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
1. Yeah sure.
2. I'm not American. It wouldn't really be democratic, would it? And my country is already the default position where international violators of human rights get treated in a fair, public trial (we don't have juries tough. Because seriously - juries? It's justice, not a beauty contest). So we're already there.
philip1201 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nigahiga Commented My Channel Go LQQK!!
RobotCat123 1 year ago
Did not this terrorist say that he was guilty. If so shoot him and go on to the next. Quit wating our time and money. They are not our country men They have no rights here on our land.
JohnWnay 1 year ago
JohnWnay: Under what circumstances did he say he was guilty? A confession is not automatic proof that someone actually did the crime, and this applies even more if the confession was gained through torture. Confessions gained through torture were how the witch trials and the Inquisition were run. The Constitution doesn't say anything about treating "country men" differently from others, it grants those rights to all humans within our jurisdiction.
yerk3 1 year ago
@yerk3 KSM Human? Charles Manson Human?Ted Bundy human?Dalmer? Ted Kennedy? Seems he is a human. Still think he has no right to be among the living.
JohnWnay 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Johnway-"They are not our country men They have no rights here on our land."
that's weird. That' s just what Muslims fundies say. Which is how they justify terrorism.
Which might be a good reason to instead follow our values and laws and give people a fair trial and not torture them to get a confession.
I know I am being sentimental but I like to think there's a difference between my gov and fanatical terrorists.
booley 1 year ago
fuck obama
mcnabj 1 year ago
mcnabj: No, fuck YOU.
yerk3 1 year ago
of course itll be more of the same...obama is bush with a tan...there is not a left or a right,theyre on the same dam tyranical team.just look at the national biometric identification card bill introduced by shummer,and grahm
hefeltbad 1 year ago
Comment removed
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
would KSM have the right to sue for being tortured in civilian court?
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
Obama shouldn't do this. I'm of the opinon that these 'terrorists' are still people (thinking, living beings who's perception of life is different from ours) and are thus allowed the same civil-liberties as us; simply, if we don't give them a trial (if we deny them their human-rights), how are we different from 'them'? Isn't our war against terrorism meant to prove the strength of such rights? And it should be a FEDERAL trial, as LiberalViewer seems to also want.
variable2102 1 year ago 2
they should be in a public trial, because i don't beleive the full story about the 9-11 incident as a fact and would like a public civilian trial too see if this guy really did it or not and what TRUE motivations he had, a military trial sounds more like a cover up trail and Fixed outcome of what they would like said and done...but no this wont be public because our government has a lot to hide and Hush hush about what really went down on 9-11
MadMAn12gauge 1 year ago 2
FDR Democrat
Created the military tribunals to try Nazis as enemy combatants
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
it was actually George Washington who created Military tribunals to try the British after the revolution. Military Tribunals are a absurd distortion of Habeas Corpus, like Ike said "beware of the military industrial complex"
the3AMgenius 1 year ago
A military tribunal is a fair trial.
DaimothCL 1 year ago
JTeasdal: If you don't like democracy or rule of law, move to Kazakhstan. Have your tea party there.
yerk3 1 year ago
Im reminded of what Thomas Jefferson said, I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
We need to be careful here, because what if someone labeled YOU a terrorist, would they then have the right to shoot you the moment you are captured? I think its a slippery slope, not protecting ones rights, because the next thing you know anyone disagreeing with the president could be labeled dangerous and then a terrorist and then your locked away without your constitutional rights. We dont need to worry, the judicial system will take care of Americas enemies.
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
The only standards to which we can hold the rest of the world are the ones that we can be said to uphold ourselves. As an American who loves his country I feel ashamed by the idea that our representative government would condone torture or withhold anyone's right to a fair trial.
odge99 1 year ago
I think he should try them in the civilian court system as more of a symbol...even if it's all smoke and mirrors, they should not be treated as enemies of the state but rather as violent criminals...to try them by the military makes them martyrs.
ABSODEZ 1 year ago
didnt we learn anything from Law abiding citzen the system is broke we must bring it down so that it may be rebuilt and fixed haha
stanbearpig 1 year ago
The president could issue an executive order designating May as Soviet History Appreciation Month and the ACLU would claim he was discriminating against Non-Soviet Communists.
That's one of the things with liberals-- no matter how liberal a president is, it just isn't enough for the true believers.
Johnjwalt 1 year ago
I find it hilarious that the better part of you ran down your mother's leg and ended up as a blood stain on the mattress in your Alabama trailer-park home.
mjtanner 1 year ago
FUCK Obama.
englishhorndude 1 year ago
Double FUCK YOU!
mjtanner 1 year ago
Only if they uphold the US Constitution by refraining from passing Health Care.
You are also unpatriotic, as well as overweight. And the ACLU is a complete disgrace.
retownsend 1 year ago
retardsend: And where in the Constitution does it say that insurance companies have a right to take people's money, with the promise that they will help them out in case of a medical emergency, then turn around and let them die because it isn't profitable?
yerk3 1 year ago
I think you may be incorrectly interpreting the purpose of our Constitution. The constitution exist to place limits on our government's power to do whatever it wants, not to tell companies how to do business.
PArbuckle18 1 year ago 2
PArbuckle18: Actually, the Constitution applies not only to the government, but to corporations and individuals as well. The goal is to put checks on the power of the powerful. If corporations become powerful, they need more checks and balances, they aren't magically better than the government.
yerk3 1 year ago
The only good communist is a dead communist!
BeantownJim 1 year ago
Our enemies do not deserve american justice They deserve to be hung by the neck!
BeantownJim 1 year ago
As Senatory Kyl stated "It takes nothing away from President Obamas leadership as president of the United States to hold trials of many of the terrorist detainees in military commissions. In fact, doing so would reflect the views of the American people that these terrorists should be treated, first and foremost, as enemies of the United States."
IFlyAlone1 1 year ago
"civil liberties good, economic liberties bad" - I don't get liberals.
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
Jeff,
How are meat inspectors or the SEC or the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department infringements on economic liberty???
If you want two football teams to have REAL competition, you lay down a few rules.
Without any rules at all, it would just be two "teams" coming out on the field and shooting at each other with assault rifles. How would that be football by any definition?
In order to *have* a free market, you need laws, prosecution of fraud, and transparency/accurate information.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
They are infringements by definition. We do need the rule of law for the the free market system to function, that is agreed. We don't need agencies telling us we will go to jail for selling certain types of light bulbs.
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
Saying it that way is weird because your asking us to turn it around for conservatives anyway.
AntioFontaine 1 year ago
turn what around?
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
Economic liberties are bad when they conflict with civil liberties - which they usually do. It makes sense to me.
bjzinn01 1 year ago
so, the government should be able to take all your money, so long as you can write a song about it afterwards?
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
There is nothing liberating in economic policies that create monopolies.
PilgrimofTruth 1 year ago
Governments help create monopolies, and the government itself has monopoly power over a number of critical industries.
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
Sometimes economic liberties are bad. For example the current worldwide economic crisis might have been prevented if there were better laws.
theinsekt 1 year ago
Good for you. Publicly acknowledging your stupidity, ignorance, and all the things you "don't get" is not easy.
yupper99 1 year ago
You didn't get it.
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
Wow....didn't know you were -that- dumb....
yupper99 1 year ago
@yupper99
child
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
Your confessions and admissions are refreshing! It's rare to see stupid people admit how ignorant or naive they are. I applaud you sir. Now go read up on the historical and philosophical tradition of "liberalism" so you won't be made fun of in the future (although that is probably not preventable).
yupper99 1 year ago
petty child
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
@jeffmagic32
Haha...it amazes me you can even log on
Youtube when you care barely string
together more than 2 words together.
yupper99 1 year ago
What we are talking about is the American legal system here.
America IS out legal system. If right-wingers hate our legal system, they literally hate America.
America is not a race. It's not a place. It is an idea.
An idea right-wingers apparently find incomprehensible.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago 2
@ReliableInsider It was a place before it was an idea
Airborne75th 1 year ago
I realize that some conservatives don't understand law and this abstruse legal jargon is baffling to them.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
We have a justice system.
When people commit horrific crimes, they are prosecuted, and then given life sentences or executed.
The only characteristic that distinguishes our system from Saddam Hussein's is that we actually give people the opportunity to present A DEFENSE even if they are obviously guilty, because you can't know whether or not they are guilty until they present a defense.
The short hand for that is "innocent until proven guilty".
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
Comment removed
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
False, because he also spoke about the right to defend oneself. The sole change here is that the criminal has to demonstrate that he is not guilty, instead of the other way around.
AntioFontaine 1 year ago
terrorists do not fall under the civil law They fall under the geneva convention! They are enemies of the republic and should be tried in a millitary court tribunal! None of this liberal crap they have rights!
BeantownJim 1 year ago
Terrorists have no rights Especially Constitutional rights No wonder this country sails ass backwards! It's insane ideas like they have rights! Our enemies! The ones you want to free so they can kill more americans!
BeantownJim 1 year ago
Who the hell said they wanted them free?
The sole point is to get them convicted, but doing so through the american people. Basically, you will have won! By doing this trial, you will bring the terrorists responsible for 9/11 in front of the judgement of the very people they harmed.
But instead, you wish to hide, which is just sad. Bring those murderers to justice and convict them. Show them that your ideals stand!
AntioFontaine 1 year ago
They do have rights. Because if you give a person the ability to take rights away, they could become much more dangerous than anything else. Terrorists probably don't deserve rights, but no person should be given the ability to take rights away.
Huzzawful 1 year ago 2
Huzzawful: That is exactly the case. The same rights should apply to everyone, because they were put in place by the founding fathers, and it isn't up to us to take them away.
yerk3 1 year ago
fruitloops
BeantownJim 1 year ago
What we do on to others is what we are inviting others to do on to us.
UglyPlanet 1 year ago
@UglyPlanet
Exactly!
Anyone who wants Americans accused of a crime and held by a foreign government to be held without trial and then tortured should vote Republican in November.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
Are you under the misguided impression that this hasn't happened before?
Airborne75th 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let's say BUSH or Clinton or Rice or any one of our (sisters/brothers) VETERANS were vacationing in a foreign land one day... and they get snatched up and taken to a secret prison ran by "the enemy"... there they are accused of "WAR crimes" and "terrorism"... What kind of trial would YOU like them to have? Or maybe you'd like them to have NO trial - or military tribunal? - since they are being accused of NON-Civil (WAR) crimes. Don't we want a "trial" for all human beings?
UglyPlanet 1 year ago
Comment removed
UglyPlanet 1 year ago
Hey Liberalassclown! why are you so concerned about these terrorists rights and less about what Obamageddon is doing with the patriot act that directly effects "We the people" rights??? and our Constitution applies to us! you commie rat bastard! not the rest of the world, try going to Europe and telling them our Constitution over rules there because you said so, what a dumb fuck, no wonder your not a public defender any more!
Mrcharliebobo 1 year ago
@Mrcharliebobo
Did you honestly turn away from the Republican Party and change your party affiliation when they imposed the Patriot Act on us when the voters were reeling after 9-11?
Or are you being hypocritical?
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
You're saying that the Patriot act under Bush was bad, but now under Obamageddon its good?? who's the hypocrite? assclown
Mrcharliebobo 1 year ago
Comment removed
UglyPlanet 1 year ago
Comment removed
UglyPlanet 1 year ago
HUH? So, whether or not you are guilty is not determined by PROOF, but rather what the crime was? So, if some one is accused of being a serial killer he/she gets a trial, but if someone gets accused of aiding a potential "Arab terrorist" that person does not get a trial? You don't think Charles Manson was a terrorist? Tim MacVeigh? Unibomber? BTK killer? Look up their motives (and intensive planning). It wasn't diff (if not far more) than what most ppl in GITMO are being accused of.
UglyPlanet 1 year ago
Of course these trials should be held in Federal Court! Security may be required, but the judge, jurors and court staff will be more than adequately ready, willing and able to make the process work effectively. Danger or cost be damned. In Ga 5 yrs ago, a superior ct judge, stenographer, deputy were murdered by escaped rapist who murdered a off duty federal agent. Violence can happen anywhere.
jereuter01 1 year ago
Obama's foreign policy is exactly the same as Bush's. He campaigned on a few things that sounded different but the reality is the same outcome regardless of which party is in office. I think the ACLU will attack Obama harder than they did Bush when all is said and done. He is turning out to be a lot more radical than anyone thought.
sdfkjllshadflhadfshl 1 year ago
You should watch the videos of Bush debating foreign policy with Gore in 2000.
It's sickening... every president campaigns on a humble foreign policy, and none of them follow through.
Freethought42 1 year ago
THERE NOT FUCKING CRIMINALS PEOPLE!!!
These people planned to ATTACK the US!!
No they dont deserve the right to be tried in a federal court a MILITARY TRIBUNAL will work just fine sense it was an ATTACK on our homeland security
KarateChopWonder 1 year ago
Because they don't come from your religion or race, Do you think they are evil spawns or something? I think most of what we do is hopefully good, but I don't think the money worshipers are up to any good. Stop them from controlling governments, hogging all natural resources, paying overseas people crap, and hide behind the Military Industrial Complex, then the radical minority leaders have no excuse to use to incite those poverty stricken abused people and the misinformed would stop attacking.
JKEJulian 1 year ago
or if it where to happen in a federal court what protection would the jury need these questions are just as important as what court system or where the trial is held
henshinman 1 year ago
the only problems i see with a non military court is one the finding a non biased jury and well let me just ask really how much evidence do they really have to convict
also let me ask these important questions one in ether court if they are seen as innocent what would that tell other groups who would want to commit such acts (*if they actually had any thing at all to do with said terror attacks), and what would be the reaction of groups that sympathize with these defendants*
henshinman 1 year ago
Here's the big question of the day: Suppose KSM is declared innocent? What then? Are you and the rest of your liberal buddies gonna invite him to sit around the campfire, smoke a bowl and sing a song?
There are a mountain of reasons he could be found not guilty, one of them being that he was waterboarded during his imprisonment. If it's found that due process was not adhered to he will automatically be cleared.
You don't have to be a radical right winger to see that this is a bad, bad move.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
Don't be stupid. No one wants him to be found not guilty but when you live in a society run on the rule of law you are taking a chance, however slim, that he'll be found not guilty. That is what separates us from them.If we turn our society into theirs then how are we better than they are? As an American I have faith in our system, although it has cracked at times it has yet to be broken. Maybe they shouldn't have waterboarded him but I don't believe his treatment will relieve him of his crimes.
lionssmile 1 year ago
Do you know what the ruling is if there's any interruption of due process, as in the case of KSM? If there's any irregularity in the process?
Not guilty. Automatically.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
..."all concerned with the protection of civil liberties," except the right to pray in public, own a gun, send their kids to private school... you know, those crap civil liberties only uneducated racists care about.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
the trial might tell more then they want us to know
jct3636 1 year ago
hahahahahahahaha the aclu does not give a shit about america
sparky41684 1 year ago
that was random....
grendelee 1 year ago
Yes and yes.
vanuoa 1 year ago
Fair trials for all!
soulinite 1 year ago
YES AND YES!!!!
MRmattconnell 1 year ago
thought he confessed
cricketplus 1 year ago
You "patriots" do more to endanger the lives of our soldiers and citizens than anyone I know.
The people are terrorists. They aer not natural citizens here. they came here and plotted within our own borferss and using our own resources to kill as many of us as possible. That was a military action and needs a military response which is what they got and what you and the progressives try to stop. You should be tried for treason.
drhu 1 year ago
The constitution doesn't say "naturalized citizens." It says "person."
We aren't trying to stop them from getting what they deserve. We are trying to make sure that justice is done, while at the same time protecting our sacred freedoms.
waketherabble 1 year ago 3
It also says "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger." We're not at war?
Abraham Lincoln once said that the Constitution is not a "suicide pact." He said this after illegally suspending habeas corpus and personally ordering the arrest of political dissidents who were suspected of being Confederate spies.
Did he not defend something sacred? Wasn't justice finally done?
smiledammit24 1 year ago
@drhu
hmmm except of course these people are not terrorists they are SUSPECTED terrorists. They are currently innocent in the eyes of American law.
It is you and people like you that need to be tried for treason, you are basically saying that the US constitution is a load of crap and can only be applied selectivly. You fucking traitor!
evilreligion 1 year ago 3
if you had just stoped at your view that they should be tried in military courts you would have had a point that is worth discussing but when you said that anyone that disagrees with your view points is a traitor, well you can go fuck your self
deevolvedman 1 year ago
You are stupid. Terroism is not a military act. I suggest you find a dictionary "drhu"
facefullofcum 1 year ago
Terrorism is not strictly defined as military or non military.
mrbriscoe2001 1 year ago
Are you aware that what you write is unconstitutional? The US constitution grants these rights not to American Citizens but to ALL people under ALL circumstances. You are a traitor to the values your country was founded upon.
MrFalderal 1 year ago
It was a criminal act and deserves to be prosecuted for what it was a crime. Your own description proves that. They plotted and using our own planes tried to kill as many people as possible. This does not describe a military action it describes a criminal act. Plus I for one completely agreed with going into Afghanistan because by sheltering these criminals the Taliban did commit an act of war. So Taliban-Enemies, Al-Qaeda-criminals.
lionssmile 1 year ago
I guess some people think our justice system is so weak that we can't handle trial of alleged terrorist. How sad the Radical Right Wing Sympathizers thinks we are so weak and yet they are the ones who worry about looking weak or making us appear weak in front of their choose enemy.
JKEJulian 1 year ago 4
@JKEJulian ...... It's not about being able to handle it. It's about precedent in these situations. So, if you were defending one of your hero terrorists in civilian court would you not claim your client has been mistreated and should be freed? How about he was not mirandized? Some technicality in which a judge could dismiss a case. How about your client is entitled to be given classified info as part of his defense? Criminal courts has no place for this. History would agree with that statement.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
I think you are making history up. John Adams, you know the second president, defended soldiers that shot Americans in the Boston Massacre. He did this to make sure they had a fair trial, it is a fact, not something made up to support someones belief. So, I think history will not back you up. But, hell what did John Adams know after all, he was only one of the founding fathers. Why do degrade this country, that you claim to love, by destroying it's founding tenets.
1011myname 1 year ago 3
Almost drowning people and slapping them around will make them admit to anything just to stop the torture. Your hero Bush tried I don't know how many in courts and nobody fear those trials. If these greedy top 1% stop trying to take over grabbing all natural resources, pay overseas people crap and hide behind the Military Industrial Complex less people would hating us. People should be allow to worship but not force it on other. Not all Muslims are extremist but Right wingers would never know.
JKEJulian 1 year ago
First and foremost get this straight-these terrorists are no ones heroes! Insinuating that by trying to defend the system that our country rests on that we are treasonous is stupid beyond belief. Seems to me we have more faith in this country than you do Bubba. All your flag waving means nothing if you don't defend the ideals our form of government was founded on. It makes you a faux patriot and a dumb ass.
lionssmile 1 year ago
@lionssmile ... yes, you are a defender of America alright! LOL
You assume that terrorists caught overseas who are non American citizens while we are at war against them are ENTITLED to the rights as if they are us citizens who stole a donut at a 7/11. So, your premise is wrong which means the other nonsense you spewed does not apply. There is nothing in the constitution to support your claim. In fact the 14th amendment cleary shows you are wrong. So try you rubbish on the less intelligent.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
it uses the word citizen twice to describe citizenship then says the govt can't abridge the rights of citizens, then it twice uses the word person to say life, liberty, & property can't be deprived without due process.. Seems to harken more back to the idea that all humans have the right to be free from undue oppression, not that a fair trial is an entitlement program granted by a govt.
d3p3ch3mod3 1 year ago
do they fight for a country? do they fight for a group of people out side of themselfs? to both no. can you call them an army if they don't one of these? if you cant call them an army what are they? international criminals maybe? so if they are criminals then we act like they are military is what you're saying. yes they are much worse than Mr. 7/11 donut but they are only criminals like him. they did worse thing but he isn't up for death like they are.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 ... Nice leap of logic there! LOL Anyone can play the leaping of logic game on any topic.
Clear thinking people however can deduce that we are at war as decided by a president and a congress. Just because there is no border defining an enemy doesn't mean anything. They are an organization set out to destroy this country. If you arn't smart enough to understand that, I'm not surprised. The FBI don't win wars in foreign lands my friend. You cry for their civil liberties, I don't.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
how does that prove anything. it doesn't say anything about how people in the case of fighting the US but aren't militsry should treted.
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 .... Huh? Did you not comprehend what that says?
It doesn't say anything about aliens from other planets either, so what? It clearly states to be subject to US rights you would have to be a citizen. I know to liberals you only accept the constitution if you agree with it and ignore it when it doesn't, but how much clearer can that possibly be?
Your hero terrorists are not US Citizens, thus are not subject to our judicial system. Let me know if I need to draw you a picture.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
sorry but trying to twist it so you can back up what you want is not going to work when you are fight what it says
kokofan50 1 year ago
@kokofan50 .... You just jump on extremes don't you? Military tribunals have been a part of American history nearly as long as America itself. How in the world could any normal person equate that to the mafia? Geez! The congress did vote on the war my friend or did you miss that? Read the 14th Amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Case closed!
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
i figgered military tribunals were part of the US's history. there is nothing worng with they as long as its something a civil hearing should do. the mob fits everything you said as to why we are fighting. if you can't give me better then you are wrong. i was making sure you know that only congress has that power not the pres.
kokofan50 1 year ago
kokofan50 ...... I am on the side of the constitution my friend. You only accept the constitution on the rare circumstances that you may agree with it. I just pointed out the 14th amendment to you and quoted from it on how clear as day it states what defines a US Citizen and you just blow it off and parse single words without comprehending the context of it. Your hero Bin Ladin is not subject to the rights of US Citizenship. He was not born in the US nor has he been naturalized.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
you seam to to not be getting it all it it said it what rules you most fallow when you are a citizen and what makes you one you damn fascist. if some one stole something or did something to get a triale in the US they are under our laws even if they don't live here should we give them millitary triales thats works with whaat you said if not then why is bin ladin different
kokofan50 1 year ago
@aSingleDallasGuy The bill of rights grants rights to 'persons' not citizens. The framers were very clear on that.
TheMobocracy 1 year ago
@kokofan50..... Show me where in the constitution it says anything close to that. Again, you think just because you want it a certain way then the hell with the constitution. You can't have it both ways. There's no language in the Constitution resembling what you wrote. Nothing.
So far I have the exact language in the constitution in my favor and you have nothing. Just a wish! I hope you arn't a lawyer! You clients would all get the death penalty! LOL
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
in that i see no where in it where it said a thing about people who are not citizens of the US. It saying that people who are citizens are supject to the laws and have the right of the US not a thing about people out side the US
kokofan50 1 year ago
with your logic we can try the mob with military curte. they run part of italy thet do lots of the same stuff the guys you want to be tried by the military. so shouldn't we do the samething to the mob? just so you know only congress has the pwer to say we're at war not the pres or even pres and congress together.
kokofan50 1 year ago 2
@kokofan50 .... I see, so quoting the US Constitution to a liberal is considered "twisting" the facts? LOL
I am quite sure that the constitution never gets in your way of your beliefs. However, that pesky document clearly shows you are wrong. Terrorists who are not US Citizens caught in foreign lands are NOT granted US constitutional rights. This is why we always tell liberals the constitution means what it says. It's liberals who try to twist it beyond recognition of it's original meaning.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
the twisting is you trying to make the words say what you want they to. i know your side of this loves to call names and say that we are doing what you are doing so people think its us and not ypou but you need to learn when to fight and not like when you have nothing to fight with like now and your very bad try at using word that say nothing about what you are trying to force them to say say
kokofan50 1 year ago
@aSingleDallasGuy So how did we ever manage to try and imprison other terrorist in the past under other Presidents including Bush if you think our laws are so weak and they would be let go as you claim? Maybe they should be put them on trial in the International Court since our 14th Amendment may indicate only citizens or naturalize citizen get a fair trial here. Don't we stand for the rule of law rather than imprisoning people who are innocent or guilty without a trial like dictatorships do?
JKEJulian 1 year ago
@JKEJulian ... This is about getting critical information from them. Liberals never answer this directly, but if a terrorists is captured with a map of NY City in his pocket and traces of nuclear materials on his person should he not be subjected to extraordinary methods to obtain when and exactly where a nuclear bomb may go off? If you say no, then your morals stink! You subject a million to death because you think you are moral? Nice morals you have. If you say, yes then welcome to sanity!
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
@aSingleDallasGuy What does "extraordinary methods" means? Wasn't Valerie Plame worked with the team under the company name of Brewster-Jennings in the Middle East in order to tracking down where groups were getting nuclear material from and who was financing these groups? They got information by befriending people in various countries until they got exposed in the media by conservative traitors. Interrogators during World War II got vital information from Nazi prisoners by play chess with them.
JKEJulian 1 year ago
@JKEJulian .... I can't argue with any of your points. But you suggest that we have or can obtain intelligence on all things. Which of course is untrue. My point that your glossed by is that on occassions where life is in danger such as an imminent nuclear bomb explosing expected in which we do not know where or when that those we feel may know or should know this information should indeed be harshly treated to include water boarding or whatever else is necessary. To not would be morally inebt.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
OJ Simpson.
smiledammit24 1 year ago
Shut up you manipulating bastard
KarateChopWonder 1 year ago
yes correct people
Posterkid317 1 year ago
My answer is I would waterboard osama as would many other from the NYPD OR NYFD and guess why?
STILLNAKEDBULLWINKLE 1 year ago
so, if osama bin laden is captured tomorrow, would you give him miranda rights and a jury trial as would an americian citizen?
STILLNAKEDBULLWINKLE 1 year ago
The terrorists are not citizens of our nation they never been to the United States,they get no constitutional rights Obama has yet to change course in Afghanistan or Iraq Obama is a closet conservative Obama fooled Liberal Viewer into voting Obama There is no change in foreign policy from BUSH to Obama ! HA HA!
patriotisnot 1 year ago
@patriotisnot
So you're saying anyone visiting the US that isn't a US citizen has no human rights? Isn't that, oh I dunno... fucking insane bronze age bullshit?
I won't argue that Obama seems to be just status quo when it comes to foreign policy.
439613 1 year ago
Which constitution are you reading? These people are enemy combatants. If The Obamanation had them tried through any military means his poll numbers would go way up because he would have finally done something right. The present administration has all but already called them guilty anyway. It's amazing to me just how many so called "smart" people want these people to be tried as if they are American citizens. Such is the Religion of Liberalism though.
Quantanthead 1 year ago
@Quantanthead Enemy combatants is a made up category, the real category is prisoners of war. I wonder how we ever survived trying prisoners of war in the past? If you are afraid our laws are so weak in this country, the prisoner should probably be tried in the International Court. I don't think we should be acting like dictatorships who imprison people for an indeterminate time whether they are innocent or guilty.
JKEJulian 1 year ago
From what I understand, Obama is having difficulties with even getting somewhere. The opposition keeps sabotaging development despite the majority's wishes. Right now he's struggling so that both sides can come to some form of agreement and prevent stagnation.
I might be incorrect, but that's the way I've interpreted the current situation.
Erklon 1 year ago
continued..." It is disheartening to consider more of the same; it is beyond the pale to see you may be worse all for the sake of Fox News. What other reason is there??"
timmmahhhh 1 year ago
Yes and yes. I used the ACLU site and added the following: "I agree with the ACLU ad that questions if you are acting like Bush on this topic. It is the right wing bloggers that ignore that Bush tried terrorists as you are but claiming that you are the weaker for doing so - in other words lying. Therefore, if you do deny them the same trial, well, it appears this will make you WORSE than Bush...
timmmahhhh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Difficult though it may be for me to agree with the ACLU (ever) and Liberal Viewer (these days) I have to say that the constitution MUST be followed to the letter in EVER Y criminal case in the USA. However, I would like to hear Liberal Viewer Esq.. explain why not a military tribunal vs open court in NYC? It is easy LV to just automatically side with the ACLU's position in EVERYTHING. Elaborate please on why you feel that way. I promise to keep an open mind *ahem*
BRolands 1 year ago
with all due respect. if you worked in the justice system you may have a different opinion about believing in the justice system 100%. remember OJ?
scarletohara2008 1 year ago
Yeah, didn't President Obama just re-authorize the "Patriot Act"? Good luck, Liberalviwer.
sapofgold 1 year ago 2
@MissyEmmy22 .. ummmm, well considering it's the UNITED STATES Constitution would not one clearly conclude by legality it could only apply to US Citizens? After all how could any constitution supersede another country's constitution or laws as applied to their own citizens within their own borders? Is this not obvious to you? Why can the coast guard capture people from cuba, haiti, mexico, etc.. in the ocean trying to make shore on US land and they can deport them without US legal intervention?
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
God read a book please your comments need to stop because i utterly disagree
Posterkid317 1 year ago
@Posterkid317 LOL Another 5th grade comment! Geez, I thought you guys who love the ACLU consider yourselves smart? But if you were smart your thinking would not be so warped now would it? So, I never bought into the ACLU smart theory.
Please explain what "book" I should read so I would be at the level of your education? "Alice in Wonderland"? "Harry Potter"?
Let me pass along some reading advice for you. The US Constitution. Try it sometime. It's rather short but does have some big words.
aSingleDallasGuy 1 year ago
Although I was eager to join in on the Youtube Discussion and Side with MissyEmmy22. I thought to myself why subject myself to endless vicious cycle typing of back and forth arguing over the constitution to get no where. I decided to stick with a casual 5th grade comment and go make myself a sandwhich Good day.
Posterkid317 1 year ago