Obama criticized for plan to try 9/11 plotters

**Potemkine** · 11-15-09, 07:57 PM

Not to mention the fact that IF KSM gets the full protection of COTUS, we would have denied his 6th and 8th amendment rights, there-by allowing ANY attorney, no matter how stupid, to get the case dismissed. Once that happens, the 5th comes in preventing double jeopardy. Not to mention the fact that he is to be tried in the state and district in which the crime was committed compliments of the 6th. But where is that? In downtown Manhattan for the twin towers, or in D.C. for the Pentagon? As far as I am aware, they are holding the case in federal court in Manhattan. But because of the rights granted by COTUS....its open and shut in his favor. FUCK THAT.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 11-15-09, 09:04 PM

If 9-11 was just a criminal act, then thats what he has coming to him. Full constitutional protection and all the fluff it brings with him. Who am I to protest, as long as his rights are protected.

(Wonder if they mirandized him ?)

**rock_lobster** · 11-15-09, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

THEY CANT DO SHIT ABOUT IT.

Pahahaha, says the party that has a clean majority in the Congress and still can't get shit passed.

And contrary to what you believe and contrary to what your tiny, shit starting brain thinks, some of us don't agree with Obama's decision simply because we feel they aren't correct...not because we feel like hassling someone from the left. You're smarter than that Jason.

And by the way, I've spent the last eight years with people bush hassling me...so I'm going to make the next 4 years for you liberals some happy ones and keep at you. Especially you Jason...you're just so damn cute when you bash the right.

**Consultant** · 11-16-09, 12:34 AM

I see the same ppl here trying to pigeonhole eachother into the same corners to the same result...mindless blathering.

This is like every other waste of thread in this off-topic area.

yet......sigh.....i am compelled.

The analogies are getting out of hand...Timothy McV.? Seriously? He was a US Citizen, thus, he had guaranteed protection in our courts, from our laws, under our constitution.

Then I see somebody makes the ignorant claim about them not being soldiers in an army, thus, cannot be held in military tribunals....thats the problem with terrorists...they carry no flag, they wear no uniform, so they cannot be treated as an every-day military prisoner....but that does not mean we have to put them in our legal system.

Say they are put to death......what gives the Unites States of America (or, specifically, the State of NY) the right to prosecute and execute a non-citizen? Seriously?

If some proponent of this course of action could please enlighten me.

Anybody in favor of this action answer these questions.

1. Are non-citizens of the US guaranteed rights under the Constitution? (If yes, cite the section and quote me that shit.)

2. Were the actions of 9/11 acts of war against the US or civil criminal acts against individual citizens.

3. Does the US or the State of NY or IL have the right to punish these individuals should they be convicted?

4. What will be the repercussions from these individuals home countries should we end up executing their citizens? Will our standing in the world be improved?

5. Would the middle east at large opinion of us be different if we killed some of their sons or if we let a broader body like the UN deal with them?

Understand...I am not in favor, nor have I ever been in favor of holding these people indefinantly, it is a waste of money and time and effort that needs to be spent working our way up the food chain to the people giving the orders. We have a bunch of petty street dealers in jail while the big bosses hide in caves and plot the next big attack.

I believe the following and would love to be PROVEN wrong with legal precedent or constitutional verse.

1. The COTUS is for citizens, not for foreign born enemy combatants.

2. The US and the State of NY do not have the right to punish or kill foreign citizens, captured in foreign countries.

leave your pithy emotional arguments at the door. This is about fact and what is right and wrong under the law. If I am wrong, legally, fine.

At that point I would argue that this is unwise in how it makes us look to the rest of the world. Imagine...the recruiting material this will give.

The US - the State of NY directly executing terrorists? They will hold up the headlines and use them as recruitment tools for a whole new generation of terrorists.

And save me your stuff about Bush and the last 8 years doing more damage. This is a new day, we have a new president, with a new mission of rebuilding relations. He must learn from the past mistakes and do better, that is what he promised, that is why he was elected.

And another thing...spare us all the johnny justice - "it doesnt matter who does it, as long as it's done" - talk. It does matter. We are a nation - nay, a WORLD of laws. We can't misapply our laws unto foreign citizens.

**triggerhappy2005** · 11-16-09, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Consultant

I believe the following and would love to be PROVEN wrong with legal precedent or constitutional verse.

1. The COTUS is for citizens, not for foreign born enemy combatants.

It is a fact that non US citizens have constitutional rights while in the US, especially when it comes to being tried for a crime.

Here is PROOF if you really need it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localne...deputysex.html

Also, these rights are inalienable which means no laws can be passed to curtail these rights and they are afforded to all people in this country. These rights are considered human rights.

More proof:

The following is taken from National Lawyers Guild website:

http://www.nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_english.htm

I. What rights do I have?

Whether or not you're a citizen, you have these constitutional rights:

The Right to Remain Silent. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every person the right not to answer questions asked by a police officer or government agent.

The Right to be Free from "Unreasonable Searches and Seizures". The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect your privacy. Without a warrant, police or government agents may not search your home or office without your consent, and you have the right to refuse to let them in. They can enter and search without a warrant in an emergency. New laws have expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance. It is possible that your e-mail, cell and other telephone calls, and conversations in your home, office, car or meeting place are being monitored without your knowledge.

The Right to Advocate for Change. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of groups and individuals who advocate changes in laws, government practices, and even the form of government. However, the INS can target non-citizens for deportation because of their First Amendment activities, as long as it could deport them for other reasons.

Note the italics of the last statement. We are all aware that INS is not actively pursuing every illegal immigrant in this country but clearly they can single out individuals who are engaged in exercising their rights.

The legal protections afforded by the constitution do not apply to simple deportation proceedings.

Once again from http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/

But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In conclusion, while in this country, illegal immigrants are covered by all the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Exercising those rights may subject them to deportation because of their alien status. Additional laws apply if the illegal immigrant is suspected of being a terrorist but that is not the subject I am attempting to address.

When illegal entry is treated as a matter of criminal law, instead of being expelled through an administrative proceeding, those accused have the right to a jury trial and all the rules of evidence apply. The government is burdened with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Imagine the cost and the caseload.

**BruceBloodMaster** · 11-16-09, 07:05 AM

This is Too Funny............ where in the hell in NYC are you going to find an Impartial Jury ?? !! Or in the country for that matter ?? I just Hope that these knuckleheads don't get off on some Legal Technicality or someone is gonna hang !

**Consultant** · 11-16-09, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Consultant

I believe the following and would love to be PROVEN wrong with legal precedent or constitutional verse.

1. The COTUS is for citizens, not for foreign born enemy combatants.

It is a fact that non US citizens have constitutional rights while in the US, especially when it comes to being tried for a crime.

Here is PROOF if you really need it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localne...deputysex.html

Also, these rights are inalienable which means no laws can be passed to curtail these rights and they are afforded to all people in this country. These rights are considered human rights.

More proof:

The following is taken from National Lawyers Guild website:

http://www.nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_english.htm

I. What rights do I have?

Whether or not you're a citizen, you have these constitutional rights:

The Right to Remain Silent. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every person the right not to answer questions asked by a police officer or government agent.

The Right to be Free from "Unreasonable Searches and Seizures". The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect your privacy. Without a warrant, police or government agents may not search your home or office without your consent, and you have the right to refuse to let them in. They can enter and search without a warrant in an emergency. New laws have expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance. It is possible that your e-mail, cell and other telephone calls, and conversations in your home, office, car or meeting place are being monitored without your knowledge.

The Right to Advocate for Change. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of groups and individuals who advocate changes in laws, government practices, and even the form of government. However, the INS can target non-citizens for deportation because of their First Amendment activities, as long as it could deport them for other reasons.

Note the italics of the last statement. We are all aware that INS is not actively pursuing every illegal immigrant in this country but clearly they can single out individuals who are engaged in exercising their rights.

The legal protections afforded by the constitution do not apply to simple deportation proceedings.

Once again from http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/

But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In conclusion, while in this country, illegal immigrants are covered by all the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Exercising those rights may subject them to deportation because of their alien status. Additional laws apply if the illegal immigrant is suspected of being a terrorist but that is not the subject I am attempting to address.

When illegal entry is treated as a matter of criminal law, instead of being expelled through an administrative proceeding, those accused have the right to a jury trial and all the rules of evidence apply. The government is burdened with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Imagine the cost and the caseload.

Ok, so illegal immigrants or non-citizens otherwise occupying the USA have some rights.

Does being detained at GITMO constitute being "in the US?"

**deathgodusmc** · 11-16-09, 07:28 AM

I voted yes but the answer isn't really as simple as yes or no. Essentially most of these guys are enemy combatants, captured by the military, held on a military base. If anything they are subject to military law.

If it were one of our guys in another country and were captured doing the exact same thing we would be subject to there laws and the trail would be held by there military. It would not be in a civilian court there either.

I for one (not that i really want to) think there is a chance in hell anyone coming out of that base is going to get a fair trial just about any where in a civilian court in this country and farthest from a fair trial would be in New York. That is just asinine to assume that they would.

Maybe Obamas plan doesn't really include a fair trial but more of seeing if someone is going to off these assholes before they even get in the court room. If someone is dedicated to a cause motivated by revenge, hatred, fear, take your pick of motivators it simply does not matter how much protection is around someone is getting shot.

When someone is like that they essentially are a suicide bomber with the exception they aren't out to hurt anyone aside from the target. They don't care about the outcome as long as the other person is dead.

In this situation that leaves thousands of people in question of what their intentions could be if the trial is in New York or any where around it for that matter. Not a smart move in my book. If he is so set on the trial being in the continental United States I would be thinking more of Quantico or Cherry Point. At least those are secure areas.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-16-09, 07:39 AM

First I guessed i missed where people were saying they aren't enemy combantants. That is simply not true you do not need a government nor a flag to fly around you to be an enemy combatant. I copied and pasted this part because i wasn't going to type it all out for you.

Enemy Combatant

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

This even outlines that these individuals would be be an unlawfull enemy combatant. It even exsplains for those that did not know these people can be held without trial for the "duration" of the conflict. Of which is still going on. On top of which we are not held to the geneva convention for the treatment of these people.

Those choose to fight a war like this. We did not ask them to come do it. So i for one say fuck them. You reap what you soe.

**deathgodusmc** · 11-16-09, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Consultant

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Originally Posted by Consultant

I believe the following and would love to be PROVEN wrong with legal precedent or constitutional verse.

1. The COTUS is for citizens, not for foreign born enemy combatants.

It is a fact that non US citizens have constitutional rights while in the US, especially when it comes to being tried for a crime.

Here is PROOF if you really need it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localne...deputysex.html

Also, these rights are inalienable which means no laws can be passed to curtail these rights and they are afforded to all people in this country. These rights are considered human rights.

More proof:

The following is taken from National Lawyers Guild website:

http://www.nlg.org/resources/kyr/kyr_english.htm

I. What rights do I have?

Whether or not you're a citizen, you have these constitutional rights:

The Right to Remain Silent. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every person the right not to answer questions asked by a police officer or government agent.

The Right to be Free from "Unreasonable Searches and Seizures". The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect your privacy. Without a warrant, police or government agents may not search your home or office without your consent, and you have the right to refuse to let them in. They can enter and search without a warrant in an emergency. New laws have expanded the government's authority to conduct surveillance. It is possible that your e-mail, cell and other telephone calls, and conversations in your home, office, car or meeting place are being monitored without your knowledge.

The Right to Advocate for Change. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of groups and individuals who advocate changes in laws, government practices, and even the form of government. However, the INS can target non-citizens for deportation because of their First Amendment activities, as long as it could deport them for other reasons.

Note the italics of the last statement. We are all aware that INS is not actively pursuing every illegal immigrant in this country but clearly they can single out individuals who are engaged in exercising their rights.

The legal protections afforded by the constitution do not apply to simple deportation proceedings.

Once again from http://www.slate.com/id/1008367/

But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

In conclusion, while in this country, illegal immigrants are covered by all the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Exercising those rights may subject them to deportation because of their alien status. Additional laws apply if the illegal immigrant is suspected of being a terrorist but that is not the subject I am attempting to address.

When illegal entry is treated as a matter of criminal law, instead of being expelled through an administrative proceeding, those accused have the right to a jury trial and all the rules of evidence apply. The government is burdened with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Imagine the cost and the caseload.

Ok, so illegal immigrants or non-citizens otherwise occupying the USA have some rights.

Does being detained at GITMO constitute being "in the US?"

Gitmo is soveirgn US soil but it is not a civilian section. It is a military base subject to military law. Democracy does not exsist. Thus the rules do not apply.

Just in case people are confused about who is affected by our constitution. Of which these people are not.

The Constitution of the United States

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.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.