http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/11/holders_decision_is_embarrassi.html
...
First, Holder’s Senate testimony on the trials added to public concerns instead of allaying them. He was unprepared for obvious questions. What would happen if the terrorists were acquitted? “Failure is not an option,” said Holder, in violation of the principle of due process -- a response Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) properly called “ludicrous.” Could he point to a single case in U.S. history in which an enemy combatant caught on the battlefield was tried in civilian court? Holder answered that he’d “have to look at that” -- confirming he had not. How could he argue that a conviction would be best assured by a civilian court when Mohammed had already attempted to plead guilty to a military commission? Holder couldn’t answer. Would Osama bin Laden, if caught, need to be read his Miranda rights by U.S. soldiers? Holder said “it would depend.”
...
Originally posted by sh76No.
What??
If I fly to Paris and blow up the Eiffel Tower, killing 117 people, the French are required to deport me back to the US before sentencing under international law?
Where did you pick up this little nugget?
If you do such a deed, France will either put you on trial and then extradite you, hand you over to the Hague or find you guilty, imprison you and then release you as a citizen.
Originally posted by zeeblebotKSM is not an "enemy combatant" nor was he captured on a battlefield so Graham's question is irrelevant. If someone was captured on a battlefield and subsequent investigation led to the conclusion that they had committed crimes prosecutable in a US court, I see no logical reason why that court wouldn't be able to try them.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=778156
...
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) in a Judiciary Committee hearing last week asked Attorney General Eric Holder a question that the nation's top cop could not answer. Graham asked: "Can you give me a case in United States history where a[n] enemy combatant caught on a battlefield w General," Graham stated. "I'll answer it for you. The answer is 'no.'"
...
I have no idea why right wingers are anxious to promote terrorist killers to an equivalent status with regular soldiers.
Originally posted by shavixmirBut what if my sentence is life imprisonment. France will make me a citizen and then put me in French prison for life?
No.
If you do such a deed, France will either put you on trial and then extradite you, hand you over to the Hague or find you guilty, imprison you and then release you as a citizen.
In any case, I'd still like a source for this assertion of law that you made that a country may not imprison a non-citizen.
Originally posted by sh76Find it your bloody self, if you don't believe me.
But what if my sentence is life imprisonment. France will make me a citizen and then put me in French prison for life?
In any case, I'd still like a source for this assertion of law that you made that a country may not imprison a non-citizen.
Oh come on - there are plenty of foreign nationals imprisoned in foreign countries: the British man (Kevin Shields) imprisoned in Bulgaria alleged to have attempted to murder a barman in a brawl (eventually returned to the UK to serve some of his sentence, but most certainly not because his imprisonment in Bulgaria was 'illegal'😉; another British man (kevin Cooke) in prison in Barbados after admitting drug trafficking offences; another British man (Michael Johnstone) imprisoned - again in Barbados- for having sex with his hypnotherapy patients; a British man (Christer Aggett) in a Swedish jail for infecting 2 young women with HIV; a British couple (Michelle Palmer and Vince Acors) sentenced to a term in a Dubai jail for having sex on a beach; a British man (John Lloyd) imprisoned in Ghana for having homosexual sex.
It happens all the time to people from around the world and governments do not object and demand the return of their nationals on the basis that to try and punish nationals outside their home countries is 'illegal'.
Show us the international law, shav, show us the law!
Originally posted by zeeblebothttp://a12iggymom.vox.com/library/post/obama-caught-lying-again-ksm-to-get-full-militry-trial.html
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13851852
Fair trial
Public Forum Letter
Updated: 11/23/2009 03:14:50 PM MST
Let me get this straight. President Barack Hussein Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both say that they want to have the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attack and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees tried in a U.S. criminal court be ...[text shortened]... berties Union should be all over this one. Let's see what happens.
Steve Williams
Sandy
Originally posted by utherpendragon"obama-caught-lying-again" according to your URL. And yet you don't present it properly? Just a link? Wow.
http://a12iggymom.vox.com/library/post/obama-caught-lying-again-ksm-to-get-full-militry-trial.html
One wonders how many hours of one's life one ought to expend on engaging such shoddy, careless, usually dishonest, half-heartedness.
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell, to be fair:
http://a12iggymom.vox.com/library/post/obama-caught-lying-again-ksm-to-get-full-militry-trial.html
1) That's what probably would have happened under the bill had he not been elected and changed the policy which, as President, he has the right to do.
2) He was explaining that KSM would get the rights of a military trial in that clip. He wasn't saying that KSM would not get any MORE rights than that; just that he wouldn't get less.
Originally posted by zeeblebotthat wasn't torture, it was enhanced interrogation, plus there is a lot of evidence against him.
the govt tortured him. what happens to an inmate in Podunk, USA, who was tortured by the local police, after the judge finds out? will the judge throw out the case based on violation of the defendant's rights?
and why do you think the outcome is predetermined?
OJ was SO guilty ....
Originally posted by no1marauderwell, he is "enemy combatant" he is a member of al-qaida, an organization that happens to be at war with america.
KSM is not an "enemy combatant" nor was he captured on a battlefield so Graham's question is irrelevant. If someone was captured on a battlefield and subsequent investigation led to the conclusion that they had committed crimes prosecutable in a US court, I see no logical reason why that court wouldn't be able to try them.
I have no idea w ...[text shortened]... gers are anxious to promote terrorist killers to an equivalent status with regular soldiers.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut remember, this was under an administration that created its own reality and whose apologists follow suit, where 'torture' became 'enhanced interrogation' and an ill-defined 'movement' became much the same as a country. Law schmaw...
It is impossible for an organization to be "at war" with a country in a legal sense.