I just noticed something

[bendog]

PS

"I think that they will see that I'm not guilty of the crime they've (accused) me of doing," he said. "They'll just let me go."






Watch this video


Mom fights for release of son from Mexico

Yet there's no guarantee that will happen.

After a judge started and then quickly suspended a hearing Wednesday after Tahmooressi fired his attorneys, a Mexican judicial source said his next court hearing will be June 4. But his mother, Jill Tahmooressi, said the next hearing is still weeks away, as it will take time for the new attorney to be briefed.

Until then, at least, Tahmooressi's days are going "by pretty slow."

But at least he's not being -- as he puts it -- "abused" any more, something he credits in part to the attention his case has gotten in the media and among politicians.

"Since I got media coverage, and people I guess realized that I'm not dangerous," Tahmooressi said, "it's been pretty relaxed and not so bad -- after the first month."

Prison authorities denied the abuse allegations and said he is being treated well.
U.S. Marine tells of abuse in Mexican prison, but says he's hopeful - CNN.com

From your OWN link TK!

 

[DriftingSand]

With all of this controversy over Bowe Bergdahl swirling around, I've heard people saying that we shouldn't leave him behind. Well, no, I agree to a point. But when the man you're fighting for is guilty of desertion, of aiding and abetting the enemy; you cannot in good conscience release 5 dangerous war criminals for another criminal. Let's face it. Bergdahl is no hero. Not one iota. He abandoned his comrades, and in doing so got a number of them killed in a search mission on his behalf. He should be court martialed under Article 85 of the UCMJ for desertion.

But what I've also noticed here is that a certain few have accused Republicans of "wanting to leave a soldier behind." All while Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexican jail being tortured and beaten. So, why is it in one instance that people wish to leave a soldier behind while another sits and waits in jail for his country to come to his aid? Why are liberals ignoring Tahmooressi? What I've noticed here is a double standard. Our president is willing to fight for a traitor, but not for a loyal soldier who fought for his country sitting in a jail in Mexico. I'm glad Bergdahl is back home, but why did the president negotiate for his release and not that of Tahmooressi? What the heck is going on here?

Interestingly, most of the Libs want to leave Tahmooressi in the Mexican jail for "breaking their laws" while they don't seem to have any problem at all with the fact that Bergdahl is responsible for the deaths of several American soldiers. So he's guilty of breaking a greater law than making a wrong turn with a couple of guns in the trunk.

 

[Peach]

He needs to be deported to the US, TOMORROW.

 

[bendog]

I'm not a dem, but I want the marine to have access to counsel and fair, impartial court hearing to determine whether there's really some question of his intending to violate Mexican law. He's had both, and managed to fck it up TWICE. But, he'll get another. Like other Americans who are arrested on weapons charges, if it appears he's simply a screw up, Mexico will send him back. If there's something else Obama or the DOS CAN do, they should. But a Mexican in our country would get pretty similar treatment.

The comparison to Afghan Bob is NOT that America is not doing something it could do. Afghan Bob didn't have any right to counsel or a fair hearing. I dunno if Obama should have traded the prisoners for him. But he did to get the fool back. The comparison is posters who say Obama should have done all he could for the wandering marine and not for Afghan Bob. That's inconsistency.

 

[Peach]

The guy tried to escape which makes the likelyhood of an early release improbable

WH petition to free Marine Tahmooressi from Mexico prison reaches 100K online signatures | Fox News

He said he was handcuffed and taken to prison and that his treatment worsened when he tried to escape.

Our massive financial input in Mexico better make it more probable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Okay. I have examined both sides of this situation, albeit probably making an idiot of myself in the process. It may appear to some of you as me taking sides in the issue, but it is my way of taking in information and investigating facts. I realize my methodology is a bit unorthodox, but it is not the subject of this post.

My take is this: it is great to get the man back home. It is wonderful that he is back with his family. We should never leave anyone behind. But there is evidence that he deserted, however until he is tried (if at all) under the UCMJ, the evidence means little to nothing at this point, even if it seemed to me as a foregone conclusion. There are questions that need to be answered about his father and a controversial tweet he made on May 31 as well. I don't understand why his father spoke in Pashto in the Rose Garden for fear his son may have forgotten how to speak English.

I have questions as to why Obama would trade five of the most dangerous Taliban terrorists for one person as well. Such a trade, I believe, is improper during a time of war. It concerns me that he may have broken the law in conducting this trade. I fear he has legitimized the Taliban as some sort of 'power broker' in that area of the world. I can't really jump to any conclusions just yet. Until the proper hearings and proceedings take place, I can't say one way or another as to his innocence or guilt.

But it remains imperative that we get any American believed to be in the hands of our enemies home. There is no excuse for leaving him/her there to possibly die at their hands. Whatever it is he has done, we will inevitably find out. We cannot take for granted the reports we hear on TV, or what some politician or another says happened. In fact, in my judgement, I feel that we must wait for Bergdahl's side of this story before we jump to any conclusions.

It is only proper in this situation to sit and wait patiently for the facts of the matter to out themselves. And just as a side note, if we truly don't leave anyone behind, then it is only fair to mention Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who is imprisoned in Mexico as I speak. It is only fair that his country fight for him as much as it did for Bergdahl. But until then, objectivity is key.


MODERATION NOTE::

This is the beginning of the 2nd Thread..
The 2 were merged and I will supply a note at current
thread point to direct folks to this Post #166 as a 2nd
starting point..

flacaltenn

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ahh yes. Renouncing citizenship does not absolve him of the crimes he committed against the US. But even still, when he is tried, he won't have his constitutional rights. In effect, he is stateless. He lacks the protection of any government. Therefore, he has no rights anywhere.

So, if we wanted to, we could have captured him and executed him on the spot, not only for his desertion, but treason.

Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens?

Are Constitutional rights "inalienable" and from god, or are they just figments bestowed only on citizens by various governments?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you're saying Tahmooressi committed a crime? Well yeah according to you he did.

If you're unable to address what I actually say, just say so. Making up stories about what I supposedly said makes you look dishonest and pathetic.

It has been explained to you over and over again that he made a wrong turn and was prevented from returning due to a lack of proper signage.

Wake me when your evasions end, will you?

Actually, it isn't outrage. It's more of... "you're a hypocrite" than anything else. Bergdahl has deserted his country, renounced his citizenship, and possibly aided the enemy, now he's worth more attention and resources than a Marine. So... perhaps it is a little bit of outrage after all.

We're consistent. We didn't suddenly feign shrieking outrage over one new case of a very old thing, that of Americans being imprisoned in foreign countries, often unjustly. In contrast, you're wildly inconsistent, only discovering your phony outrage when it made for a convenient way to hate Obama.

So, as usual, consistency points and moral high ground to the liberals, while the brazen partisan shill award goes to Templar.

You are the least of all to lecture me on partisanship, mammoth. Oh he who obsesses over his rep count. Be gone.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So you're saying Tahmooressi committed a crime? Well yeah according to you he did. It has been explained to you over and over again that he made a wrong turn and was prevented from returning due to a lack of proper signage.

Actually, it isn't outrage. It's more of... "you're a hypocrite" than anything else. Bergdahl has deserted his country, renounced his citizenship, and possibly aided the enemy, now he's worth more attention and resources than a Marine. So... perhaps it is a little bit of outrage after all.

You're sure that Tahmooressi is innocent and sure that Bergdahl is guilty. That is what makes you a hypocrite.

lol, if Obama had gotten the guy out of Mexico instead of getting Bergdahl the RWnuts would be complaining about that.

Wow.

Tahmooressi is innocent. He had no intent of being in Mexico or to illegally smuggle weapons across the border. But he's being treated like he committed an act of war. He is being beaten and abused by Mexican authorities.

Bergdahl is guilty. You have a man who deserted his country, left a note to his fellow comrades, settled his affairs, renounced his citizenship, took a few select items with him and left. The evidence points to guilt. When we get him home, there is no signs of abuse or maltreatment.

If Obama had gotten both men out subsequently, then I wouldn't be raising such a fuss, now would I?

According to the Mexican authorities, Tahmooressi is not "innocent". He's being held because he broke Mexican law.

According to our legal system, Bergdahl is not "guilty" until it's been proven in a court of law (or a military court martial).

You aren't in a position to offer judgement in either case, since you clearly don't have enough information on either situation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahh yes. Renouncing citizenship does not absolve him of the crimes he committed against the US. But even still, when he is tried, he won't have his constitutional rights. In effect, he is stateless. He lacks the protection of any government. Therefore, he has no rights anywhere.

So, if we wanted to, we could have captured him and executed him on the spot, not only for his desertion, but treason.

Ah, so you're back to claiming that prisoners can be summarily executed without any judicial procedure...

lolol

Well, I'm going by legal procedure, not by your liberal worldview, Carbine. A stateless person has no rights, not under any UN Convention, not under any government. So, technically he can be summarily executed. Article 85 calls for death for desertion during wartime, and treason can call for death or 5 years imprisonment. A Judge could refuse to take his case for a lack of jurisdiction. So it could be ultimately left to a military tribunal, in which case he could be executed for his transgressions.

So, you think I'm simply ranting my head off huh? Actually not.

You said he could be captured and executed ON THE SPOT.

 

[bendog]

For God's sakes, is TK now actually arguing FOR killing US citizens with no Due Process? My, how conservative.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ahh yes. Renouncing citizenship does not absolve him of the crimes he committed against the US. But even still, when he is tried, he won't have his constitutional rights. In effect, he is stateless. He lacks the protection of any government. Therefore, he has no rights anywhere.

So, if we wanted to, we could have captured him and executed him on the spot, not only for his desertion, but treason.

Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens?

Are Constitutional rights "inalienable" and from god, or are they just figments bestowed only on citizens by various governments?

Good question. The Constitution applies to Government treatment of US citizens. As I have read, I cannot find any clause in the constitution that we are to grant non-citizens any constitutional rights. We have law that says they must be naturalized before they can enjoy protections of the US Government. I've read supreme court decisions saying we should anyway, but they violate the essence of the 14th Amendment.

So, by strict legal interpretation, Constitutional rights can only be bestowed by a government on it's own citizens. Philosophically, they are granted by God as inalienable rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For God's sakes, is TK now actually arguing FOR killing US citizens with no Due Process? My, how conservative.

Sure, then you can explain why Obama killed Anwar Al Awlaki without his due process rights. My, how liberal of you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have questions as to why Obama would trade five of the most dangerous Taliban terrorists for one person as well.

Because the detainees haven’t been convicted of ‘terrorism,’ they’ve not been found guilty of committing any crime against the United States nor planning to do the same.

Indeed, given the fact that the detentions have always been illegal, the five should have been released long ago whether an American soldier was returned or not; where releasing the detainees is in compliance with the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ohhh.... I just remembered something else. Since he did renounce his citizenship, he has no Constitutional rights. We are not legally obligated to grant him due process under the law.

I guess the guy in Mexico shouldn't expect to have any rights down there either.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ahh yes. Renouncing citizenship does not absolve him of the crimes he committed against the US. But even still, when he is tried, he won't have his constitutional rights. In effect, he is stateless. He lacks the protection of any government. Therefore, he has no rights anywhere.

So, if we wanted to, we could have captured him and executed him on the spot, not only for his desertion, but treason.

Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens?

Are Constitutional rights "inalienable" and from god, or are they just figments bestowed only on citizens by various governments?

Good question. The Constitution applies to Government treatment of US citizens. As I have read, I cannot find any clause in the constitution that we are to grant non-citizens any constitutional rights. We have law that says they must be naturalized before they can enjoy protections of the US Government. I've read supreme court decisions saying we should anyway, but they violate the essence of the 14th Amendment.

So, by strict legal interpretation, Constitutional rights can only be bestowed by a government on it's own citizens. Philosophically, they are granted by God as inalienable rights.

You know that's complete nonsense, right?

Non-citizens are protected within our legal system with the same constitutional rights as citizens. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of our government, not just citizens.

 

[NLT]

I have questions as to why Obama would trade five of the most dangerous Taliban terrorists for one person as well.

Because the detainees haven’t been convicted of ‘terrorism,’ they’ve not been found guilty of committing any crime against the United States nor planning to do the same.

Indeed, given the fact that the detentions have always been illegal, the five should have been released long ago whether an American soldier was returned or not; where releasing the detainees is in compliance with the law.

Why hasn't your president released them then. He has had 6 years to do so?

 

[NYcarbineer]

For God's sakes, is TK now actually arguing FOR killing US citizens with no Due Process? My, how conservative.

Sure, then you can explain why Obama killed Anwar Al Awlaki without his due process rights. My, how liberal of you.

Was he a prisoner? Was he in custody?

What right not to be killed does an enemy of the US, in time of war, have, actually?

 

[bendog]

I agree TK. Though I'd add holding the 5 guys was only justified by our needing to have troops there to eradicate al queda. The nation building is a fool's errand.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're sure that Tahmooressi is innocent and sure that Bergdahl is guilty. That is what makes you a hypocrite.

lol, if Obama had gotten the guy out of Mexico instead of getting Bergdahl the RWnuts would be complaining about that.

Wow.

Tahmooressi is innocent. He had no intent of being in Mexico or to illegally smuggle weapons across the border. But he's being treated like he committed an act of war. He is being beaten and abused by Mexican authorities.

Bergdahl is guilty. You have a man who deserted his country, left a note to his fellow comrades, settled his affairs, renounced his citizenship, took a few select items with him and left. The evidence points to guilt. When we get him home, there is no signs of abuse or maltreatment.

If Obama had gotten both men out subsequently, then I wouldn't be raising such a fuss, now would I?

According to the Mexican authorities, Tahmooressi is not "innocent". He's being held because he broke Mexican law.

According to our legal system, Bergdahl is not "guilty" until it's been proven in a court of law (or a military court martial).

You aren't in a position to offer judgement in either case, since you clearly don't have enough information on either situation.

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.