Every day there is another disaster Obama and his team are creating. Putting 911 terrorist on trial in NY is just the latest. What happens if they get off on technicality. How many years is this going to drag on?!  What a circus this is going to be. God I can't wait till the grownups are back in charge.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AC1S720091113

So you fear that our justice system isn't fair?

Does that mean they could be found innocent in one system and guilty in the other? Is this a Schrodinger's cat mystery, or is one or the other system flawed in some way?

When there's a difference between the justice of the military court and the justice of our civil courts, there is surely something wrong somewhere...

Originally posted by Vemoi

Every day there is another disaster Obama and his team are creating. Putting 911 terrorist on trial in NY is just the latest. What happens if they get off on technicality. How many years is this going to drag on?!  What a circus this is going to be. God I can't wait till the grownups are back in charge.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AC1S720091113

"grownups are back in charge."  Are you referring to people like good ol' GW Bush?  Because, if you are... I'd first laugh my ass off at you.

I would only go along with your outlandish claims IF we can put good ol' GW on trial for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity for instigating the Iraq invasion with fearmongering tactics and incomplete intelligence.  Many of thousands have died all thanks to good ol' GW wanted to try and keep the oil safe and to show his daddy that he could do what his daddy couldn't... get Suddam Husein.  And, along with the multitude of Iraqis that have died in this unnecessary war, the American people have also suffered due to the multi-billion dollar costs of the Iraq invasion and the thousands of American soldier deaths.  Not to mention the many deaths of other country's soldiers as well due to the American inasion of Iraq.

Until we can actually try good ol' GW Bush, you're hatred of Obama will have to wait and simmer for a long time.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

So you fear that our justice system isn't fair?

Does that mean they could be found innocent in one system and guilty in the other? Is this a Schrodinger's cat mystery, or is one or the other system flawed in some way?

When there's a difference between the justice of the military court and the justice of our civil courts, there is surely something wrong somewhere...

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

So you want to send them to the Hauge and have them tried there? Because under the articles, that is where they are tired...and I'm sure the guys at GITMO would love that over a trial in the US. That is something the US has been dodging for a long time.

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

 

So you want to send them to the Hauge and have them tried there? Because under the articles, that is where they are tired...and I'm sure the guys at GITMO would love that over a trial in the US. That is something the US has been dodging for a long time.

As long as they maintain the death penalty as the ultimate price if found guilty on conspiracy to commit thousands of murders as an unlawful act of terrorism sure. That will make the Europeans feel better about the situation so maybe they would whine less about the wars and the United States in general. Giving them  the same constitutional rights as American citizens is an affront. They of all people have not earned that right.

I don't think some of them can technically be trialed as war criminals.  Terrorism has been considered a domestic problem before 9/11.  I think trialing them in New York City is a huge mistake considering they are suspected of being behind 9/11.  Its a little unfair not only to them, but to the people of the city.  The Timothy McVeigh trial happened in Denver for comparison.

Originally posted by Cleffy

I don't think some of them can technically be trialed as war criminals.  Terrorism has been considered a domestic problem before 9/11.  I think trialing them in New York City is a huge mistake considering they are suspected of being behind 9/11.  Its a little unfair not only to them, but to the people of the city.  The Timothy McVeigh trial happened in Denver for comparison.

True. They are going to have a real hard time finding unbiased New Yorkers to sit on that Jury. They probably would have been better off with a military tribunal at gitmo.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

 

So you want to send them to the Hauge and have them tried there? Because under the articles, that is where they are tired...and I'm sure the guys at GITMO would love that over a trial in the US. That is something the US has been dodging for a long time.

As long as they maintain the death penalty as the ultimate price if found guilty on conspiracy to commit thousands of murders as an unlawful act of terrorism sure. That will make the Europeans feel better about the situation so maybe they would whine less about the wars and the United States in general. Giving them  the same constitutional rights as American citizens is an affront. They of all people have not earned that right.

Ah, so you want to cherry pick terms and conditions as to their trial under the Geneva rules. Don't call them POW's, which gives them certain rights, but find the rules that can find them guilty and prosecute under that. Also, Geneva Rules are something US soldiers fall under, are we ready for them to face trial in The Hauge as well?

Its amazing how scared people are of our own Judicial system and that they are more concerned with revenge over actual justice.

Originally posted by Cleffy

I don't think some of them can technically be trialed as war criminals.  Terrorism has been considered a domestic problem before 9/11.  I think trialing them in New York City is a huge mistake considering they are suspected of being behind 9/11.  Its a little unfair not only to them, but to the people of the city.  The Timothy McVeigh trial happened in Denver for comparison.

If they want to move it to another city I would be fine with that. If they are too scared of an actual trial, well thats another story.

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

 

So you want to send them to the Hauge and have them tried there? Because under the articles, that is where they are tired...and I'm sure the guys at GITMO would love that over a trial in the US. That is something the US has been dodging for a long time.

As long as they maintain the death penalty as the ultimate price if found guilty on conspiracy to commit thousands of murders as an unlawful act of terrorism sure. That will make the Europeans feel better about the situation so maybe they would whine less about the wars and the United States in general. Giving them  the same constitutional rights as American citizens is an affront. They of all people have not earned that right.

 

Ah, so you want to cherry pick terms and conditions as to their trial under the Geneva rules. Don't call them POW's, which gives them certain rights, but find the rules that can find them guilty and prosecute under that. Also, Geneva Rules are something US soldiers fall under, are we ready for them to face trial in The Hauge as well?

Its amazing how scared people are of our own Judicial system and that they are more concerned with revenge over actual justice.

Your talking about the same group that executed the Nazis. I don't have to cherry pick they have the death penalty. As far as the U.S. soldiers chances are they would end up with a lighter sentence than they would get for comitting war crimes than being tried under the UCMJ.

I'm not scared of our justice system I think it is a great affront that these murders be accorded the same constitutional rights that actual U.S. citizens are accorded. That is my problem. I think by giving them constintutional rights in their trial we are pissing on the 9/11 dead.

Personally I think anything less than a firing squad if found guilty  is a betrayal to the 9/11 dead.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Your talking about the same group that executed the Nazis. I don't have to cherry pick they have the death penalty. As far as the U.S. soldiers chances are they would end up with a lighter sentence than they would get for comitting war crimes and being tried under the UCMJ.

I'm not scared of our justice system I think it is a great affront that these murders be accorded the same constitutional rights that actual U.S. citizens are accorded. That is my problem. I think by giving them constintutional rights in their trial we are pissing on the 9/11 dead.

Personally I think anything less than a firing squad if found guilty  is a betrayal to the 9/11 dead.

The Nazis committed mass genocide. Apples and oranges to 9/11.

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Your talking about the same group that executed the Nazis. I don't have to cherry pick they have the death penalty. As far as the U.S. soldiers chances are they would end up with a lighter sentence than they would get for comitting war crimes and being tried under the UCMJ.

I'm not scared of our justice system I think it is a great affront that these murders be accorded the same constitutional rights that actual U.S. citizens are accorded. That is my problem. I think by giving them constintutional rights in their trial we are pissing on the 9/11 dead.

Personally I think anything less than a firing squad if found guilty  is a betrayal to the 9/11 dead.

 

The Nazis committed mass genocide. Apples and oranges to 9/11.

Corpses are corpses. You have pretty much earned death after the first two or three. In the case of the Nazis it was a shame they could only kill them once.

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

 

So you want to send them to the Hauge and have them tried there? Because under the articles, that is where they are tired...and I'm sure the guys at GITMO would love that over a trial in the US. That is something the US has been dodging for a long time.

As long as they maintain the death penalty as the ultimate price if found guilty on conspiracy to commit thousands of murders as an unlawful act of terrorism sure. That will make the Europeans feel better about the situation so maybe they would whine less about the wars and the United States in general. Giving them  the same constitutional rights as American citizens is an affront. They of all people have not earned that right.

Just like good ol' GW Bush?  I mean, he instigated the Iraq war when we had no reason to be there in the first place.  Thus, his actions ended in the murder of thousands of Iraqi's.  All for what?  Hunting Osama Bin Laden, the one who took responsibility for the 9/11 bombings, was the whole purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan.  Yet, there were no reports that Osama Bin Laden was even in Iraq.  Yet, good ol' GW decided with incomplete intelligence reports to use fearmongering against Congress, the people of the US, and the UN to instigate an invasion of Iraq, which was the cause of the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's (many innocent civilians).  Sounds pretty much what you stated in the highlighted portion.

 Wow.....just....wow.

The whole point is to show that we're better than them.  We will give them a fair trial and show the world that we are above them.

Get the hell out of here.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 The whole point is to show that we're better than them.  We will give them a fair trial and show the world that we are above them.

I agree, I'm all for the fair trial. Some here seem to fear it.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

 

So you want to send them to the Hauge and have them tried there? Because under the articles, that is where they are tired...and I'm sure the guys at GITMO would love that over a trial in the US. That is something the US has been dodging for a long time.

As long as they maintain the death penalty as the ultimate price if found guilty on conspiracy to commit thousands of murders as an unlawful act of terrorism sure. That will make the Europeans feel better about the situation so maybe they would whine less about the wars and the United States in general. Giving them  the same constitutional rights as American citizens is an affront. They of all people have not earned that right.

Just like good ol' GW Bush?  I mean, he instigated the Iraq war when we had no reason to be there in the first place.  Thus, his actions ended in the murder of thousands of Iraqi's.  All for what?  Hunting Osama Bin Laden, the one who took responsibility for the 9/11 bombings, was the whole purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan.  Yet, there were no reports that Osama Bin Laden was even in Iraq.  Yet, good ol' GW decided with incomplete intelligence reports to use fearmongering against Congress, the people of the US, and the UN to instigate an invasion of Iraq, which was the cause of the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's (many innocent civilians).  Sounds pretty much what you stated in the highlighted portion.

You make it sound like Bush was on a campaign of Mass Genocide.  Lets look at the facts behind Iraq Death rates to confirm your statement.

In the US the Death Rate is 8.37/1000, in Iraq the Death Rate is 5.03/1000.  The total Civilian Casualties in Iraq since 2003 has been estimated between 90k-102k.  The population of Iraq is 31 million.  That's 17k casualties yearly for a death rate of 0.54/1000 which is less the the amount of deaths caused by Accidents in the US.

Since 2003 the death rate in Iraq has dropped from 5.8/1000 to 5.03/1000.  You stand a greater chance of dying in the US then you do in Iraq.

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Sabiancym

 The whole point is to show that we're better than them.  We will give them a fair trial and show the world that we are above them.

 

I agree, I'm all for the fair trial. Some here seem to fear it.

Human rights should not be deprived of an individual by cause of their alleged crimes until they are found guilty.

Military courts have a tendency to overlook human rights in favor of scape goats to feed to the bloodthirsty masses. Do we want to feed the masses an empty meal, or do we want to show the world we're more than bloodthirsty "infidels"? If found guilty, it would have at least been a fair trial.

This is as much an international diplomatic issue as it is a domestic one.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by BaronJuJu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Yes indeed. War criminals should not be given constitutional rights and tried as civilians. They should have been tried as war criminals under the articles of the Geneva Convention.

 

So you want to send them to the Hauge and have them tried there? Because under the articles, that is where they are tired...and I'm sure the guys at GITMO would love that over a trial in the US. That is something the US has been dodging for a long time.

As long as they maintain the death penalty as the ultimate price if found guilty on conspiracy to commit thousands of murders as an unlawful act of terrorism sure. That will make the Europeans feel better about the situation so maybe they would whine less about the wars and the United States in general. Giving them  the same constitutional rights as American citizens is an affront. They of all people have not earned that right.

Just like good ol' GW Bush?  I mean, he instigated the Iraq war when we had no reason to be there in the first place.  Thus, his actions ended in the murder of thousands of Iraqi's.  All for what?  Hunting Osama Bin Laden, the one who took responsibility for the 9/11 bombings, was the whole purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan.  Yet, there were no reports that Osama Bin Laden was even in Iraq.  Yet, good ol' GW decided with incomplete intelligence reports to use fearmongering against Congress, the people of the US, and the UN to instigate an invasion of Iraq, which was the cause of the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's (many innocent civilians).  Sounds pretty much what you stated in the highlighted portion.

 

You make it sound like Bush was on a campaign of Mass Genocide.  Lets look at the facts behind Iraq Death rates to confirm your statement.

In the US the Death Rate is 8.37/1000, in Iraq the Death Rate is 5.03/1000.  The total Civilian Casualties in Iraq since 2003 has been estimated between 90k-102k.  The population of Iraq is 31 million.  That's 17k casualties yearly for a death rate of 0.54/1000 which is less the the amount of deaths caused by Accidents in the US.

Since 2003 the death rate in Iraq has dropped from 5.8/1000 to 5.03/1000.  You stand a greater chance of dying in the US then you do in Iraq.

So, you actually have the audacity to claim that since good ol' GW Bush had the US invade Iraq that it acceptable because anyone stand a "greater chance of dying in the US then you do in Iraq"?  Seriously?

I guess, to you, it doesn't matter that if Congress hadn't listened to Bush's fearmongering and denied the invasion of Iraq, we wouldn't have had those losses of soldiers' lives that we currently do for this unnecessary war.  Also, those loss of Iraqi lives would not have been due to the US invasion.  Not to mention we wouldn't have spent all that billions of dollars on this invasion, which you all Conservatives complain constantly about spending of our government.

... I guess this proves that Bush-supporters will do and say anything to defend their crooked savior.

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

Originally posted by Cleffy

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

First, the highlighted portion.  Do you have any proof to back that up that statement?  Or, are you just pulling this saintification of good ol' GW while spewing more Democrat hate from your arse?  I'm leading for the latter.

Second, this further validates my statement that Bush supporters will do and/or say anything to defend their failed savior.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Cleffy

Not really supporting the war, just pointing to the facts that after the War in Iraq the amount of civilian deaths in the country decreased.  You are trying to paint George W. Bush on the same level as Stalin or Hitler, yet he is a much larger humanitarian then any Democrat in Congress right now.  The way I see it, it happened might as well make a positive outcome out of a negative.

First, the highlighted portion.  Do you have any proof to back that up that statement?  Or, are you just pulling this saintification of good ol' GW while spewing more Democrat hate from your arse?  I'm leading for the latter.

 

Second, this further validates my statement that Bush supporters will do and/or say anything to defend their failed savior.

I personally thought Bush was to far to the left with his no child left behind and medicare part D crap (both entitelment programs you lefities should have loved), but in this case I would have to agree with Cleffy. Most of you lefties that compare Bush to Hitler and Stalin have no clue what kind of body count those gents generated (you should try reading more).Hitler was good for about 20 million, and Stalin was good for upwards of 80 million. Bush? He might have been good for like 30k. The math just doesn't add up. Lincoln was good for over a million just because he ran and got elected. How evil do you think he is? Roosevelt was good for several million, and JFK/LBJ easily tops Bush's body count with Vietnam. Now you can excuse Roosevelt's bodycount by saying his actions also liberated tens of millions, but then so did Bush's. Each decision a President is forced to make has both positive and negative ramifications if the positive outweighs the negative they are hailed as brilliant heroes if the other away around then they become failures. Unfortunately in Bush's case the heavly biased media has tried to twist a low number of casulties (as far a war goes, or if you want another comparision more people were murdered in D.C. each year than were every lost in Bush's wars) into a horror that simply doesn't exist. This was done to try to sway the American public to their point of view so that we would elect more leftists. Even today I watched a dem strategiest trying to blame Bush for the failure of Obama's porkuluss to keep unemployment under 10%. Bush has been gone almost a year now, and Obama promised us Porkuluss would keep unemployment under 8%. At what point does Obama and his followers take responsibility for their own failures?

In closing Bush the evil one himself scorge of the planet earth and the greatest satan (just ask hugo chavez)  to walk this earth since Hitler/Stalin was one of the best friends Africa ever had.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7831460.stm

www.watchblog.com/republicans/archives/004621.html

Impeach, eh?

Remind me, what laws did he break?

Bush has called for increasing aid to Africa from $3 billion to $30 billion during his Presidency that has saved millions of people from Malaria.  He has changed education to increase competition in public education, and has increased the level of public education the US now recieves.  He was successful in preventing any terrorist on American Soil, something that happened several times in the previous administration killing thousands.  He also went after 2 corrupt regimes that had been responsible for much larger death tolls then were attributed to being casualties in the Iraq Rebuilding.  You can't forget nearly all the casualties were caused by terrorist activities, not from US soldiers or operations.  Can you imagine what the casualties would have been if Bush just ditched Iraq?

Originally posted by Cleffy

Bush has called for increasing aid to Africa from $3 billion to $30 billion during his Presidency that has saved millions of people from Malaria.  He has changed education to increase competition in public education, and has increased the level of public education the US now recieves.  He was successful in preventing any terrorist on American Soil, something that happened several times in the previous administration killing thousands.  He also went after 2 corrupt regimes that had been responsible for much larger death tolls then were attributed to being casualties in the Iraq Rebuilding.  You can't forget nearly all the casualties were caused by terrorist activities, not from US soldiers or operations.  Can you imagine what the casualties would have been if Bush just ditched Iraq?

Ha yeah that's one way to look at Iraq and the education system. I'm sure many people would disagree about education level being increased. Also, the US soldiers being there indirectly cause pressure and possible harm to civilians.

If we never were in Iraq none of these casualties would of happened. You paint Bush in a very good light, he wasn't that good at all.