[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: GOP lawmaker introduces bill to ban terror trials from civilian courts and NYC GOP lawmaker introduces bill to ban terror trials from civilian courts and NYC By Jordan Fabian - 01/28/10 02:03 PM ET The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee on Thursday introduced legislation that would prevent the 9/11 terror trials from taking place in New York City.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who represents New York City suburbs on Long Island, told the Associated Press that his bill would cut off Justice Department funding for moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to civilian courts.
The Obama administration announced last year that it would hold a trial for so-called 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four others in civilian courts in Manhattan.
King and other Republicans have long opposed the trial, saying that it could pose a security threat to New York City and that the suspects do not deserve the legal protections of civilian courts.
While most Democrats believe that the suspected terrorists should be tried in civilian courts, some top Democrats have recently voiced opposition to their New York City location.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Thursday they should be moved as did New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D). "I am open for the trials to be moved to another appropriate place," Gillibrand said.
Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) also signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to move the trials.
The Obama administration has stood behind the trials and their location in lower Manhattan. It's not clear how much Democratic support King's bill could garner, since it is meant to prevent all civilian terror trials. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Perfect opportunity for bi partisanship that makes the nation safer, eliminates a propaganda win for al Qaeda, and saves the tax payers 2 BILLION DOLLARS per year related to the upcoming trial in NYC. Wanna bet Democrats don't jump at this opportunity? Nor the White House? If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #2. To: go65, Fred Mertz, Biff Tannen, mininggold, A K A Stone, Bickus Dickus (#0) (Edited) *15% of his constituents are unemployed...good job, Pete...(eye roll) *hypoerbole for the intellectually challenged...
#3. To: Badeye (#1) Cowering in fear sends the right message to Al Qaeda?
#4. To: go65 (#3) Cowering in fear? By trying enemy combatants in a military tribunal? How is that 'cowering in fear'? Its common sense, much better and cheaper security, and highly cost effective in comparision to Obama and Holder's ridiculous 'terrorist rights' insanity. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #5. To: war (#2) Too easy...I'll let it go...(chuckle) If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #6. To: go65 (#3) Cowering in fear sends the right message to Al Qaeda? Not one of the arguments against holding these trails extends to any reason beyond the visceral...
#7. To: Badeye (#4) Cowering in fear? By trying enemy combatants in a military tribunal? The problem with military tribunals is crafting a system that's fair. However, if you've already decided that folks are guilty and are just looking for a show-trial, then military tribunals could be useful. However, due to supreme court rulings there isn't much of a difference anymore in rules between a military tribunal and a federal courts. Meanwhile we've tried Ramsey Yusuf, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, Sheik Abdul-Rahman, and Tim McVeigh in civilian courts without much of a problem. This strikes me as another case of faux outrage. Nobody complained when Bush tried Reid and Padilla in civilian courts.
#8. To: go65 (#7) Or Zacharias Moussaoui who was part of KSM's conspiracy...
#9. To: go65 (#7) The problem with military tribunals is crafting a system that's fair. Really? Please explain in specifics what you think is 'unfair' about a military tribunal. I'm going to love reading your explanation, I just know it! If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #10. To: All (#9) Nobody complained when Bush tried Reid and Padilla in civilian courts. Padilla was a US Citizen, wasn't he? And wasn't Reid also a Brit Citizen? We do have a series of treaties regarding Brits and trials here...Padilla goes without saying due to his status (if I'm right about the US Citizen). The guy in question for the NYC trial has NO such treaties, nor is he an American citizen. He's an enemy combatant. But hey, you can argue with Feinstein about it as well as with me, right? If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #11. To: Badeye (#9) Really? Please explain in specifics what you think is 'unfair' about a military tribunal. Tell me the rules first.
#12. To: Badeye (#10)
I'm not sure what treaty you are referring to.
#13. To: go65 (#12) I'm not sure what treaty you are referring to. There were at least 9 Brits held in Gitmo for years. "Nine British citizens of Muslim background are in Guantánamo; they have proven to be a political liability for Prime Minister Tony Blair, as calls have been made in Parliament for their repatriation."
#14. To: go65 (#12) Guantánamo Bay prisoner's letter claims he was witness to murders Tania Branigan A British man held at Guantánamo Bay has alleged that he saw US soldiers kill two men in Afghanistan. Moazzam Begg, 36, who has been detained for 2 years without charge or trial, complains in the first letter from a serving inmate to describe severe mistreatment of having suffered "vindictive torture" and death threats, and implies that he has made a false confession. His lawyers said yesterday that they believed he had been held in solitary confinement at the US military base in Cuba because he had seen the killing. He has had no contact with fellow prisoners since his arrival almost 600 days ago. Although former detainees have alleged that they suffered extensive abuse and torture at Bagram in Afghanistan and Guantánamo, mail from the camp is heavily censored. It is unclear why the Pentagon has cleared a document which makes such strong allegations of abuse. Mr Begg's letter, which is labelled as a supplement to an earlier statement, was written in July and forwarded to his legal team earlier this week. He wrote it after learning that he would be given access to a lawyer. The American lawyer who subsequently visited him could be jailed if she disclosed their discussions. In his letter Mr Begg, who comes from Birmingham, said that he was a law-abiding Briton who had never met Osama bin Laden or joined al-Qaida or other paramilitary organisations. He was arrested by Pakistani agents at his home in Islamabad and handed over to the Americans, who held him at Bagram in Afghanistan for a year and transferred him to Guantánamo Bay in February last year. Mr Begg wrote: "During several interviews, particularly - though unexclusively - in Afghanistan, I was subjected to pernicious threats of torture, actual vindictive torture and death threats - amongst other coercively employed interrogation techniques." He described signing a statement in early February 2003 "under threats of long-term imprisonment, summary trials and execution", and added: "Interviews were conducted in an environment of generated fear, resonant with terrifying screams of fellow detainees facing similar methods ... "This culminated ... with the deaths of two fellow detainees at the hands of US military personnel, to which I myself was partially witness." Two deaths at Bagram airbase have been classified as homicides and the autopsies indicated "blunt-force injuries", but it is thought that Mr Begg is referring to separate incidents. The Pentagon said torture was prohibited at Guantá namo Bay and that all "credible allegations" of abuse were investigated, but would not elaborate on whether it considered Mr Begg's claims to be "credible".
#15. To: war (#14) I think badeye was just making things up.
#16. To: go65 (#15) That's a Stop The Fucking Presses!!! moment... /sarcasm
#17. To: go65 (#11) You suggest KSM won't get a fair trial up above. Now you ask me for the 'rules' for a military tribunal? (laughing) This is what happens when you blindly follow talking points, GO65. As Senator Feinstein, or Mayor Bloomberg. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #18. To: war (#16) Fuck off, Fraud. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #19. To: Badeye (#17) ou suggest KSM won't get a fair trial up above. We need to know the rules for a military tribunal before determining whether or not it's "fair". See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html
#20. To: go65 (#19) 'we' kemosabe? Nope. You, obviously. Again, you say it won't be a fair trail by military tribunal, but you admit you don't have a CLUE as to whats involved. Its exceedingly fair. Those of us that have knowledge on the topic know this. Those that don't, are leftwingers using talking points, as you did up above. Tsk, tsk, tsk...(chuckle) If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #21. To: Badeye (#20) 'we' kemosabe? Nope. You, obviously. Again, you say it won't be a fair trail by military tribunal, but you admit you don't have a CLUE as to whats involved. I said the problem with a tribunal is making it fair. So what rules do you propose that would make it fair?
#22. To: Badeye (#20) Its exceedingly fair. Those of us that have knowledge on the topic know this. Those that don't, are leftwingers using talking points, as you did up above. Would knowledge of non-existent treaties be part of what you are talking about?
#23. To: go65 (#21) So what rules do you propose that would make it fair? Maybe it's the witholding of exculpatory evidence tbat makes it fair?
#24. To: go65 (#22) Would knowledge of non-existent treaties be part of what you are talking about? [snicker]
#25. To: war (#23) Maybe it's the witholding of exculpatory evidence tbat makes it fair? That's the point - the USSC struck down the first Bush plan. The reality is that any viable military tribunal won't look much different from a civilian case, so why not just use the civilian system?
#26. To: go65 (#21) Military tribunals are exceedingly 'fair'. The suggestion that 'rules' needed to be made or added to what exists is absurd...if you are familiar with the topic. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #27. To: go65 (#22) We have treaties regarding how we will prosecute Brit citizens...going back a couple of centuries actually. Honestly, between this absurd thread, and the disgusting comment about the space shuttle disasters,....your better off talking to Fraud, GO65. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #28. To: Badeye (#27) We have treaties regarding how we will prosecute Brit citizens...going back a couple of centuries actually. Could you cite me just one of these treaties that you are talking about?
#29. To: Badeye (#26) Military tribunals are exceedingly 'fair'. The suggestion that 'rules' needed to be made or added to what exists is absurd...if you are familiar with the topic. Well again, the USSC tossed out Bush's tribunal proposal as being unfair. Did you miss that?
#30. To: go65 (#29) If you don't understand the difference between the circumstances specific to the case you are trying to cite, and this conversation...well, its okay, you've already admitted you don't know what your talking about in relation to military tribunals. So you oppose Feinstein and Jimmy Webb? Interesting. Smart money says this gets put back into a military tribunal, and that its held at Gitmo. btw, Gitmo isn't going to be closed. (laughing) If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #31. To: go65 (#29) C'mon there's double top secret proof for those of them who knows....
#32. To: Badeye (#30) btw, Gitmo isn't going to be closed. (laughing) Why shouldn't it be closed? I mean why do we have to keep prisoners on a foreign countries soil? Here is the answer. Because they want to do things that would be unlawful in this country. They want to be to coverup stuff.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32) If reporters, the Red Cross, lawyers for the prisoners were not allowed access on a routine basis, I'd agree with you AKA. Since thats not the case, I don't. If you see comments designed to distract from the article, you are informed the poster is out of ammo.... #34. To: Badeye (#30) If you don't understand the difference between the circumstances specific to the case you are trying to cite, and this conversation...well, its okay, you've already admitted you don't know what your talking about in relation to military tribunals. Again, the USSC threw out Bush's proposal for military tribunals. Again, what treaty do you keep referring to.
So you oppose Feinstein and Jimmy Webb? Interesting. Smart money says this gets put back into a military tribunal, and that its held at Gitmo. non-sequitur
btw, Gitmo isn't going to be closed. (laughing Non-sequitur. After all these years Badeye, some things haven't changed. You STILL throw stuff out without any basis in fact and still try and change the subject when cornered. Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality. #35. To: A K A Stone (#32) Why shouldn't it be closed? I mean why do we have to keep prisoners on a foreign countries soil? Here is the answer. Because they want to do things that would be unlawful in this country. They want to be to coverup stuff. What?? You mean you don't TRUST the government to always be right? Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality. #36. To: go65 (#35) What?? You mean you don't TRUST the government to always be right? More like I never trust the government to do the right thing.
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36) More like I never trust the government to do the right thing. I've always been fascinated that so many of those who call themselves "conservative" and who most complain about the government when it comes to social programs often have unlimited faith in the government when it comes to arresting, imprisoning, torturing people or carrying out military actions. Being a Republican means you get to choose your own reality. #38. To: go65 (#37) unlimited faith in the government when it comes to arresting, imprisoning, torturing people or carrying out military actions. Lets see. I think the government regularly violates peoples rights when arresting people. Such as the fourth. I am against torture. I think that we haven't had a legitimate war since world war 2. The congress doesn't declare them anymore.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|