Republicans Decry Obama’s Decision to Try Al Qaeda Suspect in Civilian Court

[Jroc]

Americans generally do not give a crap about the guy being tried in NYC or tribunaled at Gitmo.

Just the way it is.

Polls: Majority want terror suspects tried in military courts


Washington (CNN) – A majority of Americans want terror suspects to be tried in military rather than civilian courts, according to two new national polls.

An ABC News/Washington Post survey released Wednesday morning indicates that 55 percent of the public would rather have suspects accused of taking part in the September 11 terrorist attacks tried in military tribunals rather than in the country's federal court system. That's a switch from last November, when the poll indicated that Americans were split.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll also released Wednesday morning, 59 percent want September 11 terror suspects tried in military courts, with 35 percent saying they should face trial in civilian courts. And nearly 7 out of 10 people questioned feel that terror suspects should not receive all of the constitutional protections afforded by a civilian trial

Polls: Majority want terror suspects tried in military courts ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5687306-503544.html

 

[SFC Ollie]

On the one hand, the administration has steadfastly defended its drone war – which rains sudden death on enemy combatants, American and non-American alike – as a necessary instrument in an ongoing military conflict against Al Qaeda.

In making this argument, the administration is extending Bush administration legal policy that was first implemented immediately after September 11, when the Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against those organizations responsible for the worst enemy attack on foreign soil in our nation’s history. In short, under international law, we have declared war.

But then the administration captured Abu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti member of Al Qaeda -- a member of Usama bin Laden’s family, no less -- and brought him to the United States for a civilian trial in a Manhattan courtroom one mile from Ground Zero. In fact, he’s already appeared in that courtroom to plead not guilty to charges of conspiracy to kill Americans.

Read more: The Obama Doctrine -- kill American terrorists overseas, try foreign terrorists in New York City | Fox News

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc's %s were taken 25 months ago. February 10th, 2010. You all can check it.

I doubt that he can get 1/2 of that now with the American growing hatred of neo-conservatism.

 

[S.J.]

Jroc's %s were taken 25 months ago. February 10th, 2010. You all can check it.

I doubt that he can get 1/2 of that now with the American growing hatred of neo-conservatism.

You doubt? How about some fucking proof instead of your opinion (which isn't worth shit)?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc's %s were taken 25 months ago. February 10th, 2010. You all can check it.

I doubt that he can get 1/2 of that now with the American growing hatred of neo-conservatism.

You doubt? How about some fucking proof instead of your opinion (which isn't worth shit)?

Then why worry about it, SJ, or you still mad because I booted your ass in the last several threads.

 

[S.J.]

Jroc's %s were taken 25 months ago. February 10th, 2010. You all can check it.

I doubt that he can get 1/2 of that now with the American growing hatred of neo-conservatism.

You doubt? How about some fucking proof instead of your opinion (which isn't worth shit)?

Then why worry about it, SJ, or you still mad because I booted your ass in the last several threads.

Then why don't you post some proof, asshole, instead of talking shit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Prove that he was tortured!

I think you are going to have to prove he wasn't given that, according to you, they had him for a month, and Turkey is pretty famous for using torture.

Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights

No YOU have to prove he was tortured, YOU are the one who said he was. I have no idea if he was tortured or not, there has been no credible report one way or the other. The onus is on YOU to prove YOUR claim.

Guess who else is going to say he was tortured. That is going to be the foundation of his legal stategy, and the government is going to be on the defense. That is why it is stupid to try people who were captured and interrogated overseas in US court.

 

[edthecynic]

I think you are going to have to prove he wasn't given that, according to you, they had him for a month, and Turkey is pretty famous for using torture.

Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights

No YOU have to prove he was tortured, YOU are the one who said he was. I have no idea if he was tortured or not, there has been no credible report one way or the other. The onus is on YOU to prove YOUR claim.

Guess who else is going to say he was tortured. That is going to be the foundation of his legal stategy, and the government is going to be on the defense. That is why it is stupid to try people who were captured and interrogated overseas in US court.

So far he has made no such claim, but if he does then he like YOU will have to PROVE it!!! I suspect he will be no more able to prove it than YOU have been so far!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No YOU have to prove he was tortured, YOU are the one who said he was. I have no idea if he was tortured or not, there has been no credible report one way or the other. The onus is on YOU to prove YOUR claim.

Guess who else is going to say he was tortured. That is going to be the foundation of his legal stategy, and the government is going to be on the defense. That is why it is stupid to try people who were captured and interrogated overseas in US court.

So far he has made no such claim, but if he does then he like YOU will have to PROVE it!!! I suspect he will be no more able to prove it than YOU have been so far!

I suggest you learn how the legal system works. In criminal cases the defendant is not required to prove anything, all he has to do is sit there and keep his mouth shut.

 

[edthecynic]

Guess who else is going to say he was tortured. That is going to be the foundation of his legal stategy, and the government is going to be on the defense. That is why it is stupid to try people who were captured and interrogated overseas in US court.

So far he has made no such claim, but if he does then he like YOU will have to PROVE it!!! I suspect he will be no more able to prove it than YOU have been so far!

I suggest you learn how the legal system works. In criminal cases the defendant is not required to prove anything, all he has to do is sit there and keep his mouth shut.

But if he does open his mouth to claim he was tortured, then he, like YOU, has to PROVE it. YOU opened YOUR big mouth, therefore YOU have to PROVE it.

 

[Annie]

Theoretically bombing US citizens on US soil that the government 'believes' are engaged in terrorism is OK. Trying foreigners that have made multiple videos calling for wholesale killing of US citizens with less than due process, well not exactly less, just not in civilian courts, rather military, is not OK.

So the bin Laden's get more protection, meaning get to live, while theoretically Americans could die.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You doubt? How about some fucking proof instead of your opinion (which isn't worth shit)?

Then why worry about it, SJ, or you still mad because I booted your ass in the last several threads.

Then why don't you post some proof, asshole, instead of talking shit?

The latest proof is more than 25 months ago. Much has changed. I do believe that most Americans don't care where he is tried, although I prefer he be tried at sea, convicted, executed, and then tossed overboard.

 

[Jroc]

You doubt? How about some fucking proof instead of your opinion (which isn't worth shit)?

Then why worry about it, SJ, or you still mad because I booted your ass in the last several threads.

Then why don't you post some proof, asshole, instead of talking shit?

Jake's opinion is proof in his own mind

 

[JakeStarkey]

Answered in #52 above.

 

[Jroc]

Answered in #52 above.

The last time this issue was debated was two years ago, this same issue just popped up again. Those polls are as accurate as we have. When the new ones come out then we can post them, until then your meaningless personal opinion comments are worthless , why even post it? Because your original comment was proven to be incorrect

 

[JakeStarkey]

Answered in #52 above.

The last time this issue was debated was two years ago, this same issue just popped up again. Those polls are as accurate as we have. When the new ones come out then we can post them, until then your meaningless personal opinion comments are worthless , why even post it? Because your original comment was proven to be incorrect

My comments are as meaningful as anyone else's, Jroc. The polls are out of date. I suspect that public opinion has swung in favor of civilian courts, particularly since the rejection of liberal neo-conservatism. Trying the suspects in civilian courts is the conservative option, not military tribunals.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Trying the suspects in civilian courts is the conservative option, not military tribunals.

What?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution is set up to handle such cases. No mention is made in it of tribunals.

 

[Jroc]

Answered in #52 above.

The last time this issue was debated was two years ago, this same issue just popped up again. Those polls are as accurate as we have. When the new ones come out then we can post them, until then your meaningless personal opinion comments are worthless , why even post it? Because your original comment was proven to be incorrect

My comments are as meaningful as anyone else's, Jroc. The polls are out of date. I suspect that public opinion has swung in favor of civilian courts, particularly since the rejection of liberal neo-conservatism. Trying the suspects in civilian courts is the conservative option, not military tribunals.

Who cares what you suspect. if a poll was taken asking Americans if al-quieda terrorists should be captured brought to the U.S., given constitutional rights, and tried in civilian courts, would you be in favor of this? Most would reject such stupidity, as those polls already suggest

 

[JakeStarkey]

The last time this issue was debated was two years ago, this same issue just popped up again. Those polls are as accurate as we have. When the new ones come out then we can post them, until then your meaningless personal opinion comments are worthless , why even post it? Because your original comment was proven to be incorrect

My comments are as meaningful as anyone else's, Jroc. The polls are out of date. I suspect that public opinion has swung in favor of civilian courts, particularly since the rejection of liberal neo-conservatism. Trying the suspects in civilian courts is the conservative option, not military tribunals.

Who cares what you suspect. if a poll was taken asking Americans if al-quieda terrorists should be captured brought to the U.S., given constitutional rights, and tried in civilian courts, would you be in favor of this? Most would reject such stupidity, as those polls already suggest

Since my opinion is as good as most, certainly better than yours, I am not worried about your concerns. The Constitution trumps your concern if the administration wants to use federal courts because they work faster and bring quicker justice.