It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Feroz Ali Abbasi was ejected from his September hearing because he repeatedly challenged the legality of his detention.
“I have the right to speak,” Abbasi said.
“No you don’t,” the tribunal president replied.
“I don’t care about international law,” the tribunal president told Abbasi just before he was taken from the room. “I don’t want to hear the words ’international law’ again. We are not concerned with international law.”
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Originally posted by LA_Maximus
and they would turn the court into a media circus....each trial for each terrorist lasting for months! We don't have time for this CRAP!.....after WW II we hanged the Nazis and moved on.
Give em a quick trial and Hang em.
Maximu§
Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Why should we oblige by International Law?
We're at war here.
American laws serve us fine. ACLU lawyers will make mince-meat out of any evidence shown and they can call witness's that are not available (soldiers) and they would turn the court into a media circus....each trial for each terrorist lasting for months!
We don't have time for this CRAP!.....after WW II we hanged the Nazis and moved on.
I can already picture the college demonstrations supporting the terrorists on trial...I can even picture the signs they will be waving....."Free Mohammed"..."Abdul is a real Hero"..."Death to America"
Give em a quick trial and Hang em.
“You believe anyone that gives you any information,” detainee Mohammed Mohammed Hassen, who was arrested in Pakistan, said, objecting to his tribunal. “What if that person made a mistake? Maybe that person looked at me and confused me with someone else.”
The unclassified evidence against Hassen, 24, was that a senior al-Qaida lieutenant had identified his picture as that of someone he might have seen in Afghanistan.
The tribunals also had access to classified evidence that the detainees were not allowed to see, a key reason a federal judge said in January that there were constitutional problems with the tribunals. An appeals court is considering that issue.
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, never the less?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practising law somewhere.
The U.S. can stop practicing these international laws if we choose to. They are agreements like someone said, if we don't like them anymore we don't have to follow them.
If they cease to be in our interest, then we should disregard it.
The U.S. can stop practicing these international laws if we choose to
Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
Also on a more relevant point, what exactly is this tribunal supposed to do? determine guilt or innocence? or has it some other purpose, because if it does then i could understand the tribunal president said, international law might have no relevance to the proceedings that are taking place, whatever they may be.
Of course you can, as can everyone else. Where though, does it leave you?
Western nations have formed themselves as a moral "father figure" of international politics, a self created illusion made for the sole purpose of keeping, or creating, international stability.