Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunthr on February 07, 2002, 07:26:33 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,44750,00.html
At a time when the Al Quaida org is branching out and continuing to plot against innocents, the ABA wants to afford terrorists all the rights of American citizens, including public trial with examination of all evidence, the presumption of innocence, and the right to be represented by the DREAM TEAM of their choice.
Just how low can you go? Its about the money, the huge amount of terrorist organization resources that the lawyers thirst after. :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
these lawyers need to share the cinder blocks I'd have tied to the ankles of the terrorist for their "trials at sea" ...
amazin ain't it :(
-
It just prove that you live in a democratia who can't forget it's own rule just because you were hurt in you soil.
Not that I endorse what AlQ* has done nor I'm a supporter of lawyer but it's better to work this way (IMO).
YetAnotherPostWhichSoundedBet terInFrench :D
-
great and wise words IMO :
"Our system does not work, democracy does not live, unless we are willing to give the same rights to the worst of us as to the best of us"
better than my franglish ;)
-
As we say in spanish, those people deserve a good dose of democraCIA *wink* *wink*
-
I disagree with the story's headline. I don't think that the terrorists deserve U.S. Constitutional rights. They are not U.S. citizens.
Do the terrorists deserve to be treated fairly? Absolutely. I think the ABA is correct in having concern for due process. Forget about the Constitution. I think it is everyone's right, U.S. citizen or not, to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
-
I'm totally against granting US Constitutional rights to terrorists who are not US citizens.
I'm at a complete loss to explain why anyone would want to do that...
... unless you consider the money involved. Any terrorist case that would be tried in a US courtroom, defended by US criminal defense lawyers would be a million dollar case. Defense lawyers would be tripping all over themselves to get the cases... they would probably do it for free, just for the exposure.
Worse, it would be a public circus. Can you imagine the jury selection antics? Can you imagine Johnny Cockran holding up an Islamic headpiece - "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." ???
If summary judgement on a terrorist isn't done in the field, it should be done in a military tribunal according to established procedures.
.02
-
Straffo said:
"great and wise words IMO :"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our system does not work, democracy does not live, unless we are willing to give the same rights to the worst of us as to the best of us"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree completely, Straffo. Certainly, all men are created equal.
However, the American Lawyers make this statement to support their position that they should be able to defend terrorists, including foreign terrorists, in US courtrooms. There is a lot of money to be made there.
I believe that the terms "the worst of us" and "the best of us" taken from the above quote refer to American citizens, not foreign terrorists in a war against America's culture.
These lawyers have twisted those noble words to thier own purposes... $$$$$
-
No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Straffo said:
However, the American Lawyers make this statement to support their position that they should be able to defend terrorists, including foreign terrorists, in US courtrooms. There is a lot of money to be made there.
Really now? Who's paying? Last I checked, court-appointed lawyers aren't making all that much.
Originally posted by popeye
No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.
If this is the way the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, the ABA is right in taking this position.
-
QUOTE
No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.
- Popeye
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Popeye, I consider a military tribunal to be due process.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
However, the American Lawyers make this statement to support their position that they should be able to defend terrorists, including foreign terrorists, in US courtrooms. There is a lot of money to be made there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandman responded:
Really now? Who's paying? Last I checked, court-appointed lawyers aren't making all that much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandman, why do you think that accused terrorists would be represented by court appointed lawyers?
Don't you think Osama bin Laden might part with some of his wealth to obtain the best defense team money can buy? Say, Johhny Cockran, FL Bailey, et al?
If you think about it for a minute, you may realise that bin Laden may apply his wealth to the defense of any terrorist accused by the USA.
It is this wealth that the trial lawyers are after.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Popeye, I consider a military tribunal to be due process.
Ah... we get to the heart of the argument at last. :)
-
No mention of "citizens" in the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
There might be good reasons to deprive terrorists of due process, but lack of citizenship is not one of them.
It's called the US Constitution...not the World Constitution, or the Constitution of the Universe.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Doesn't look like it was established for terrorists.
-
Thats it mostly Sandman :)
The only mitigating factor here for this sorry position taken by the ABA is that their vote to take it was 286 to 147. That means there may be some lawyers with principles in the bunch.
-
Originally posted by Goth
We the People of the United States...
Doesn't look like it was established for terrorists.
So our domestic terrorists do qualify. Also have to be carefull with those for another reason - never know which one turns into another George Washington... ;)
miko
-
Ok miko, so I should have inserted the word foreign before terrorist. So sue me....but I'll just get one of those bleeding heart liberal lawyers to confuse you with your own twisted logic.
-
blindfold and a cig .. thats fair enough for me :)
-
Fortunately, the barbaric habit of lynching has passed out of fashion.
-
Military tribunals proposed by the administration to try foreign nationals accused of terrorism should offer the same rights guaranteed Americans – namely that defendants are presumed innocent and must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sounds like the ABA isn't opposed to tribunals. They just want to ensure the process is within the bounds of our law.
And IF Bin Laden had the complete lack of brains to hire an attorney, his funds would be immediately impounded, seized and traced.
-
"And IF Bin Laden had the complete lack of brains to hire an attorney, his funds would be immediately impounded, seized and traced."
Not if his attorney had anything to say about it. :)
Personally, I think the ABA is looking at how long the prosecution of terrorists will go on... and it will go on for quite some time. The representation of terrorists can add up to a huge amount of money. They don't want to be cut out of the process. They want to work their way in. They want the terrorists to be afforded the representation of the American lawyer of their choice. I hope I don't sound over-cynical here. This is what I truly believe.
From CNN:
"In comparing a military tribunal to a court-martial or civilian court:
-- A federal trial is generally open to the public, while a military tribunal may be closed. Advocates of the tribunal process say such a setting denies a public forum to the accused
-- A tribunal may be held in a different country, in a territory such as Guam or even on a U.S. naval ship.
-- Greater security can be imposed over what information is disclosed in a military tribunal as compared with a federal prosecution.
-- Like a court-martial, a military tribunal will be composed of military members, ostensibly only officer members and usually no fewer than five, the minimum number that can sit for a general court-martial.
-- Unlike a federal prosecution, a person tried by a military tribunal does not have the right to a jury trial.
-- A tribunal's finding of guilt or imposition of the death penalty does not have to be unanimous. In the case of a five-member panel, four of the members could vote guilty and impose the death penalty.
-- A death penalty may be imposed immediately."
-
this al quaida!!!!!?????
(http://216.121.131.167/al.jpg)
honestly, al is a sweet guy and a real stand up friend. i don't know what all this talk is about but you got the wrong guy.
how ya doin.
-
Originally posted by Goth
Ok miko, so I should have inserted the word foreign before terrorist. So sue me....but I'll just get one of those bleeding heart liberal lawyers to confuse you with your own twisted logic.
If anyone's logic is twisted it's yours. I agreed with you and even clarified a point for the audience which you have admitted you "should have inserted" yourself.
And you threaten to sick a liberal lawyer on me... :confused:
miko
-
erg...you must excuse me, work was getting to me and I was tired and dazed and confused and disoriented and and....but I'm all better now. Went back to re-read what you wrote miko and the dogs errr lawyers have been called off....nasty bunch that they are almost took my arm off they did.
-
I don't get it :confused: :confused:
How do you expect the other country to react if you have a law for your citizen and another for foreigner ?
What will you say if a country behave like that with Us Citizen ?
The fact it apply to Terrorists is not in question here IMO.
What will forbid you to put something like a yelow star on foreigners ?
-
I'm not an expert on military tribunals Straffo, but my understanding is this:
First of all, there is no question that the American President has the authority to use military tribunals. Congress authorized its use in certain situations long ago. There are precedents. For example, the Nurehmburg Trials (Adolf Eichmann, et al) were actually military tribunals.
The United Nations has no problem with tribunals. Their only requirement is that they be "fundementally fair."
The rationale behind this seperate form of "due process" is the acknowledgement that there are extraordinary circumstances that require a more summary form of judgement.
Some of the practical concerns before us now are security and protection of sensitive intelligence when dealing with terrorists.
It is true that the USA will not subject a US citizen to a military tribunal. This was made law long ago. However, I don't think that this is unique in the world. I'll bet that every country gives certain advantages to its own citizens that they do not extend to "foreigners". Is it fair? I don't know.
Did you know that Frenchmen were recently outlawed? Thats right, it is now against the law to be a French guy. The USA would like you, the great provider of obvious solutions, to be the first to participate in our Military Tribunal :p
.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I don't get it :confused: :confused:
How do you expect the other country to react if you have a law for your citizen and another for foreigner ?
What will you say if a country behave like that with Us Citizen ?
The fact it apply to Terrorists is not in question here IMO.
What will forbid you to put something like a yelow star on foreigners ?
Nothing new here. The U.S. has little interest in participating in an International Criminal Court (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ICC.asp) where everyone abides by the same set of rules.
Do as we say (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/intro/intro18.html) , damnit, not as we do. Funny what you can get away with when you have the biggest stick on the planet.
-
Do ya really think these guys could get a fair trial in a civil court, as opposed to a tribunal?
Joe American gets called for jury duty, he answers the questions asked by both sides and is deemed acceptable, so he's selected. Meanwhile Joe here has already decided that the "alleged terrorists" are already guilty.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Did you know that Frenchmen were recently outlawed? Thats right, it is now against the law to be a French guy. The USA would like you, the great provider of obvious solutions, to be the first to participate in our Military Tribunal :p
.
I know about the 2/3 frenchman involved I've trouble recognise them as French :( (as you have with your US taliban ...)
I just hope that they (as the other) will have a fair judgement (*)
(*) the fact that I hope they will be senteced to death as nothing to do with the fairness or not if the judgement :)
If the judgement is fair it's far than enought for me .That the only thing I want the outcome is another matter I don't want them to have another start for their lowly life.
Did I make my point clearer ?
-
Yes, I understand your point. I also hope that any judgement against individuals is fair and just.
I didnt know that any Frenchman was involved with Taliban... but I understand that eventually most Taliban are going to be freed.
Terrorists = those who surreptitiously carry out war against innocent civilians to strike terror for political goals...
:) Gunthr
-
oups ...
I just get that you were referencing that other post :) (*)
I though you were speaking of our 2/3 French taliban ...
(*) note to self : refrain for posting at 23:00 after a 5 hour drive ;)
-
Baaaa.... emotional knee jerk post. They're fate has already been decided by those in power. EOD.
xBAT