Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move

[chanel]

Yes, but had he gone the military court route, that too would have been legal. This was a political decision - not a legal one.

 

[Sinatra]

Yes, but had he gone the military court route, that too would have been legal. This was a political decision - not a legal one.

Exactly correct.

And now the question is WHY would they risk the many pitfalls of a civilian court trial?

That has yet to be answered with any semblance of reasonable conclusion...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes, but had he gone the military court route, that too would have been legal. This was a political decision - not a legal one.

No - it would not have.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But even without public opinion backing them, the LAW supports Obama's decision.

Mr Obama is actually FOLLOWING the law. I know that's a pretty difficult concept for former Bush supporters to wrap their head around, but that's what is happening here.

Very true

The LAW supports a military court as well, and for good reason...

Actually, it does not.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Steven G. Calabresi, one of the country’s most prominent conservative legal scholars, Tuesday defended the Obama administration’s decision to try Sept. 11 terror suspects in New York and took his fellow conservatives to task for their criticism...

Calabresi, a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society, said “Obama has lived up to his oath of office by scheduling these trials before a life-tenured judge and jury.”

“… No Article III court or jury – no constitutional power to punish. It is a simple question of the separation of powers – something I had thought conservatives believed in passionately.”

“This ought not to be a very controversial proposition,” he said."
Leading conservative backs N.Y. trials - Fred Barbash - POLITICO.com

 

[Sinatra]

Yes, but had he gone the military court route, that too would have been legal. This was a political decision - not a legal one.

Exactly correct.

And now the question is WHY would they risk the many pitfalls of a civilian court trial?

That has yet to be answered with any semblance of reasonable conclusion...

,,,

 

[Sinatra]

RealClearPolitics - Eric Holder's Grave Mistake

 

[bodecea]

"Steven G. Calabresi, one of the country’s most prominent conservative legal scholars, Tuesday defended the Obama administration’s decision to try Sept. 11 terror suspects in New York and took his fellow conservatives to task for their criticism...

Calabresi, a co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society, said “Obama has lived up to his oath of office by scheduling these trials before a life-tenured judge and jury.”

“… No Article III court or jury – no constitutional power to punish. It is a simple question of the separation of powers – something I had thought conservatives believed in passionately.”

“This ought not to be a very controversial proposition,” he said."
Leading conservative backs N.Y. trials - Fred Barbash - POLITICO.com

This will be ignored.

 

[chanel]

Didn't someone post a video of Obama saying he wanted a miltary trial? Gee isn't he a constitutional scholar?

 

[Jay Canuck]

[SIZE=+1]Pigboy Blows a Fuse - Again[/SIZE]
Link
Excerpt:
Attorney General Eric Holder said he would put some 9-11 terrorists on trial.
Limbaugh called the decision a "disgusting travesty perpetuated here by Barack Obama." Over the next few minutes, Limbaugh said the decision to bring terrorists to trial was solely "to satisfy the rabid, radical, far left that hates this country; that hates George W. Bush; that hates the U.S. military." Limbaugh opposed the use of lawyers; several times he branded them as leftist and Marxist. Although he came from a family of lawyers, he disregarded Constitutional guarantees that require even the most heinous of criminals to be assured their rights, including the right to be represented by an attorney. While erroneously claiming that terrorists have no rights, Limbaugh also objected to providing the defendants "fairness," because in what he called the "new America," fairness is something created by "a bunch of radical leftists." He claimed that the defendants didn't even deserve lawyers because, in the world of Rush Fairytale Logic, the lawyers would use the courts to attack the United States. He attacked the federal judiciary, claiming, "There are a bunch of radical leftists on our federal bench," all of whom apparently, if you believed the Mouth That Roared, are governed by such mundane and useless rules like—well— the Constitution of the United States. What Limbaugh didn't say, possibly because the facts didn't agree with his own distorted version of reality, is that there are more conservative judges than liberal judges in the federal judiciary.

 

[Ravi]

Why isn't that fat toad in prison himself?

 

[Jay Canuck]

well he's not in prison because he had lawyers to defend him when he was brought up on drug charges..... a little ironic...no?

 

[Sinatra]

Didn't someone post a video of Obama saying he wanted a miltary trial? Gee isn't he a constitutional scholar?

I remember something along those lines as well...

 

[Political Junky]

Didn't someone post a video of Obama saying he wanted a miltary trial? Gee isn't he a constitutional scholar?

I remember something along those lines as well...

Then post it.

 

[Andrew2382]

Didn't someone post a video of Obama saying he wanted a miltary trial? Gee isn't he a constitutional scholar?

I remember something along those lines as well...

Then post it.

ok

Video shows Sen. Obama thought a military tribunal was fine for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Speaking of military tribunals, we went back into the video archives and found this C-SPAN tape below. Holder might want to watch it.

It contains his boss, Barack Obama, a brief member of that same Senate, in 2006 stating that a military tribunal was a perfectly fine way of handling such dangerous individuals as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Obama said the fight against terrorism was "an extraordinarily difficult war" where terrorists could plot undetected from within our own borders.

The freshman Illinois senator was defending a legislative amendment and pointed out that a military tribunal for Mohammed seemed just fine to him.

"The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's gonna have counsel. He's gonna be able to present evidence to rebut the government's case.... I think we will convict him. And I think justice will be carried out."

 

[Sinatra]

I remember something along those lines as well...

Then post it.

ok

Video shows Sen. Obama thought a military tribunal was fine for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Speaking of military tribunals, we went back into the video archives and found this C-SPAN tape below. Holder might want to watch it.

It contains his boss, Barack Obama, a brief member of that same Senate, in 2006 stating that a military tribunal was a perfectly fine way of handling such dangerous individuals as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Obama said the fight against terrorism was "an extraordinarily difficult war" where terrorists could plot undetected from within our own borders.

The freshman Illinois senator was defending a legislative amendment and pointed out that a military tribunal for Mohammed seemed just fine to him.

"The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's gonna have counsel. He's gonna be able to present evidence to rebut the government's case.... I think we will convict him. And I think justice will be carried out."

Well done...

 

[Vast LWC]

Then post it.

ok

Video shows Sen. Obama thought a military tribunal was fine for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Speaking of military tribunals, we went back into the video archives and found this C-SPAN tape below. Holder might want to watch it.

It contains his boss, Barack Obama, a brief member of that same Senate, in 2006 stating that a military tribunal was a perfectly fine way of handling such dangerous individuals as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Obama said the fight against terrorism was "an extraordinarily difficult war" where terrorists could plot undetected from within our own borders.

The freshman Illinois senator was defending a legislative amendment and pointed out that a military tribunal for Mohammed seemed just fine to him.

"The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's gonna have counsel. He's gonna be able to present evidence to rebut the government's case.... I think we will convict him. And I think justice will be carried out."

Well done...

I fail to see what the significance of that is.

As a Senator, he would not have been involved in decisions about where to try terrorists, and would not have done any intense research on the subject.

He obviously changed his mind upon reviewing the case in full.

As any wise man would.

 

[Andrew2382]

yes, cause why would a senator do any intense research on anything...

He obviously saw significance since he made a fucking speech about it on the senate floor.

you partisan fucking hack...you can't even get his cock out of your throat even when he shows his own hypocrisy

 

[Meister]

ok

Video shows Sen. Obama thought a military tribunal was fine for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Speaking of military tribunals, we went back into the video archives and found this C-SPAN tape below. Holder might want to watch it.

It contains his boss, Barack Obama, a brief member of that same Senate, in 2006 stating that a military tribunal was a perfectly fine way of handling such dangerous individuals as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Obama said the fight against terrorism was "an extraordinarily difficult war" where terrorists could plot undetected from within our own borders.

The freshman Illinois senator was defending a legislative amendment and pointed out that a military tribunal for Mohammed seemed just fine to him.

"The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's gonna have counsel. He's gonna be able to present evidence to rebut the government's case.... I think we will convict him. And I think justice will be carried out."

Well done...

I fail to see what the significance of that is.

As a Senator, he would not have been involved in decisions about where to try terrorists, and would not have done any intense research on the subject.

He obviously changed his mind upon reviewing the case in full.

As any wise man would.

That's it?
It's never been done in American history, but this is the change your banking on?
Military combantants caught on foreign soil have always been tried with a military tribunal. Have you ever thought....why?
Have you ever thought about how they will distinguish who will have a tribunal, and who will have civilian trial, and who will make that decision?

 

[EriktheRed]

Rudy Blasts Obama's Idiotic Move

Rudy who?