BCSbunk wrote:

jmog wrote: BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.

I have been paying very close attention.

I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.

When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.

Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Wouldn't a military base be considered part of the US?

jmog wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

jmog wrote: BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.

I have been paying very close attention.

I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.

When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.

Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.

Ok BCS, find me one situation we are currently in, from the economy, to Iraq, to Afghanistan, to this trial, to 9/11, to terrorist, to our foreign affairs, that this admin hasn't blamed even a little bit on Bush?

CharlieHog wrote: Sorry about that, not sure why the link isn't working. Here's the crux of the argument:

The foolhardiness of President Obama's decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 and four cohorts in civilian court grows ever clearer as the outlines of the proceedings take shape.

It is offensive that Obama gave his blessings to designating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his Al Qaeda crew as common criminals rather than as enemy combatants, perpetrators of the worst attack on American soil from abroad.

But that offense, high as it is, pales in comparison with the serious practical and legal consequences of hauling these avowed enemies of the nation into Manhattan Federal Court with all the rights and protections under the Constitution.

Such as Mohammed's right to rummage through the government's intelligence and investigative files for information that is purportedly useful to his defense - but will be more helpful to Al Qaeda operatives in the field.

(Oh, so that's what the CIA has been up to!)

Such as Mohammed's right to mount a defense that attempts to put the U.S. on trial for supposed human rights violations in the detention and interrogation of prisoners.

Such as Mohammed's right to act as his own lawyer even as he perverts protections he has been granted by making a circus of the trial.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_obamas_error_by_trial_civilian_justice_for_911_plotters_is_profound_dangerous_mi.html#ixzz0XEGjejPj

LJ wrote: On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.

BCSbunk wrote:

LJ wrote: On this forum, the burden of proof is on the person who claims a statement as fact.

Exactly, when Jmog claims that this administration has been ALL about blaming Bush it is his burden to prove that statement if someone should call him out on it.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: If you believe in our Constitution and Judicial system, you should have no problem with this. To me, it's that simple.

CenterBHSFan wrote: dwccrew,

Do we know where the thoughts to do the act originated? For example, if the original plans were inititated in another country, but further elaborated on in this country, which country, exactly, do we want to zero in on? Would that decision be politically motivated? Would that decision be a "statement"?

See, I don't think this is as cut and dried as some people, including myself, would like to think. That's why I continue to ask questions. Now, that doesn't mean that I've changed my mind and think it is a good idea to put the terrorists on trial in NY. I still think its a bad idea, but willing to learn more and keep an open mind.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

fish82 wrote: It was an act of war. Anyone thinking otherwise has a major malfunction.

dwccrew wrote:
It would, but the military court system is different than the US court system. Under the Constitution, the 9-11 suspects would be considered foreign combatants that committed acts against the US in the US. Therefore, under the US Constitution, they should be tried in a US court, not a military court.

The suspects accused of attacks on US troops in foreign lands should not be tried in US courts, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the military courts.

majorspark wrote: The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.

During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.

Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?

If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?

majorspark wrote: The question is this, were the attacks on 9/11 and act of war? To be handled under martial law. Or were they simple acts of a civilian criminal. To be handled in a civilian trial.

During war, martial law allows us to kill enemy operatives without trial. The laws protecting a civilian under the constitiution do not apply to enemy combatants engaging in warfare against the US.

majorspark wrote:Now if we are to try 9/11 attackers in civilian court under the protections of the US constitution. Which parts of the constitution will we throw out in order to let a conviction stand. Name one 9/11 attacker that was read their rights. Name one that was allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. They were subjected to interrogation methods not permited under civilian law. Name one piece of evidence that was collected with a seach warrant. Were their rights to a speedy trial violated. If we are to follow the constitution to the letter and these men will not admit their guilt how does a judge not throw everything we have on these guys out of court?

majorspark wrote:If FBI officers burst into your house in the middle of the night without a search warrant. Gathered evidence. Did not inform you of your rights. Refused your right to an attorney. Used coercive methods to get your admission of guilt. Locked you up for nearly seven years denying your right to a speedy trial. What should happen to you under our civilian laws under the constitution? Is this not exactly what happend to Kalid Sheik Mohammad?

Glory Days wrote: ^^^^^because i believe they were caught inside the US. for the example the last hijacker that didnt make the trip.