DC Tom Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 I think the argument is that they don't have to be put on trial when the tribunal at Gitmo is available. Or that putting them on trial is illegal under the Geneva Convention. Apparently, though, the Geneva Convention was only meaningful as a means to bash the previous administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Gitmo needs to be closed. I have more faith in our judicial system and Constitution than you naysayers. Why should a foreign national engaged in a military activity not covered under international law be afforded full rights & privileges of the US legal system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Gitmo needs to be closed. I have more faith in our judicial system and Constitution than you naysayers. Is that the same system that ran the circus more commonly referred to as the OJ trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Too bad you equate those of us who believe in the rule of law and the Constitution as "hand wringers". I don't believe in your Taliban-style preference to just kill those in detention without a day in court. Previous terrorists like the blind sheik and Timothy McVeigh went through our judicial system without incident and were found guilty. Ah the beloved Tim McVeigh. Got Clinton a second term with a rental truck and some fertilizer. Not the same, to Me, as a world wide organization funded with billions of petro dollars and a avowed desire to destroy the West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Ah the beloved Tim McVeigh. Got Clinton a second term with a rental truck and some fertilizer. Not the same, to Me, as a world wide organization funded with billions of petro dollars and a avowed desire to destroy the West Well that and the fact he was a US citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Like Leahy said, "They committed a crime in America". So he thinks they are no longer combatants of war and the act of flying a jet into the twin towers, being it is in America, is under civil jurisdiction. So now we use the military to go to foreign lands to capture common !@#$ing criminals? (not sure, but is that legal?) "I think that Eric Holder, our Attorney General, is right; I think the president is right in holding the trials of these murderers in New York City,".... Leahy So much for them being involved in a heinous act of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Like Leahy said, "They committed a crime in America". So he thinks they are no longer combatants of war and the act of flying a jet into the twin towers, being it is in America, is under civil jurisdiction. So now we use the military to go to foreign lands to capture common !@#$ing criminals? (not sure, but is that legal?) "I think that Eric Holder, our Attorney General, is right; I think the president is right in holding the trials of these murderers in New York City,".... Leahy So much for them being involved in a heinous act of war. Leahy is a joke. Always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Very interesting. "The attorney general doesn't have the authority to mandate that the secretary of Defense turn somebody over to him and yield jurisdiction so that something that would have been done in a military setting is done in a civilian setting," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Very interesting. "The attorney general doesn't have the authority to mandate that the secretary of Defense turn somebody over to him and yield jurisdiction so that something that would have been done in a military setting is done in a civilian setting," Unless the Secretary of Defense caves to political pressure. Friggin Holder puts politics above protecting classified info and giving these guys a world stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Seeing this is a completely different war than the types of wars the Geneva Convention was designed for maybe we need to readdress it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 So now we use the military to go to foreign lands to capture common !@#$ing criminals? (not sure, but is that legal?) We invaded Panama to get one guy. So is it legal? Maybe not...but there's precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 We invaded Panama to get one guy. So is it legal? Maybe not...but there's precedent. HAHA...Tom I was waiting to see who was going to bring that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts