The slip of the tongue by obama

reply to post by Seiko


I can't speak for any one else.That's what bothers me, he should not be afforded the right of being innocent until proven guilty .HE IS NOT ONE OF US!He is our enemy it is the ultimate hypocrisy to give him the same rights as the people his god has commanded him to kill.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by genius/idoit]

reply to post by CX


Eric Holder isn't worried about it. Again, he knows that any jury in the country will convict him, no matter how flimsy the evidence may or may not be. As I said earlier, you won't find an impartial jury to hear this case and that's why its nothing more than a dog and pony show. Granted, I think he's almost certainly guilty, but I still think its a joke.

reply to post by December_Rain


Thank you. You just taught me something AND made me realize something. I see your point now. If they used a Military Tribunal then he could be seen as a POW instead of enemy combatant. If considered a POW then Bush could be found to have violated the Geneva Conventions for "torturing" a POW.

So by giving him a civil trial as an enemy combatant, Obama is actally helping Bush and Cheney by keeping the terrorists classified as enemy combatants and thus not under the protections of the Geneva conventions. Well I must say that is pretty big of Obama.

Thanks for helping me see the bigger picture.

reply to post by genius/idoit

He is our enemy it is the ultimate hypocrisy to give him the same rights as the people his god has commanded him to kill.

Prove this. Don't just accept it.

We must always be vigilant to the process of law. This is a civilian court, all due process and rights should be afforded.

reply to post by HotSauce


He does not qualify for P.O.W. status

To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, terrorists, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies do not qualify. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, do not necessarily wear an issued uniform nor carry arms openly, yet captured combatants of this type have sometimes been granted POW status. The criteria are generally applicable to international armed conflicts. In civil wars, insurgents are often treated as traitors or criminals by government forces, and are sometimes executed. However, in the American Civil War, both sides treated captured troops as POWs, presumably out of reciprocity, though the Union regarded Confederacy personnel as separatist rebels. However, guerrillas and other irregular combatants generally cannot expect to simultaneously benefit from both civilian and military status.

Definition from wikipedia

reply to post by Seiko


They will prove it. They have tons of evidence against the man.

I see geniuses point. It is war and are we supposed to try every terrorist we have a gunfight with and prove they really are a terrorist?

[edit on 18-11-2009 by HotSauce]

reply to post by Seiko


wow...some people know no boundaries


This just goes to prove that the only people who ever claimed Obama was a messiah, a God, perfect, or a savior, are the very people out there opposed to his presidency.

Can't defeat him any other way than to make crap up.

This thread is a prime example of just that.

reply to post by Seiko


See above post for clarification.I am not a lawyer.The people who are in charge of this are and are purposefully ignoring the law for political reasons.

reply to post by Snarf


What are you talking about?What did Seiko make up?

reply to post by Snarf


Are you refuting that obama said these words? I also quoted eric holder. This is not obama bashing, this is about a show trial.

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by genius/idoit

 

He is our enemy it is the ultimate hypocrisy to give him the same rights as the people his god has commanded him to kill.

Prove this. Don't just accept it.

We must always be vigilant to the process of law. This is a civilian court, all due process and rights should be afforded.

Being from london, we saw this from irish people being charged for bombimgs etc.... What happens is that the police just accused any innocent irish person,a nd they where locked up for years, and guess what the trial was wrong and they where innocent.

Do any of you know whats it like to be accused of something and never done anything. How horrible it must be to come into this world, and people just make stuff up to to accuse and sentence you and you did nothing.

All you americans, have already lost your country who think these people are already guilty. I am from london, but i know from what happened to irish people who in effect where just in the same position as these people, where sent down and they did nothing as time proved.

Like i said earlier we do not know if the people did anything and to take the word of corrupt government is a downward spiral.

Would you believe it if bush told you these all are terrorists, or cheney?

America has already gone, and why do you people think you deserve the constitution, when you do not give those rights to those you accuse, is beyond me.

America is a dream that long since sailed, and your peoples apathy towards the prisoners shows this.

[edit on 11/18/2009 by andy1033]

reply to post by andy1033


We're not all apathetic. Please don't count us out just yet. There are many americans who would stand for the right to a fair and impartial trial.

This thread and some of the replies demonstrates that we can't even have a rational conservation about the rule of law without being accused as apologists or partisans.

"So what do you think the motive is for creating a new trial of the century?"

To reinforce into the simple-minded and brainwashed populace who the "guilty" parties were for 911. Before people start becoming more and more skeptical, let's bring the reputable and respected (cough, cough) justice system into the equation to seal the deal.

Let's first torture the guy, then stage this dog and pony show trial and then we'll do away with him via capital punishment. The masses will then rejoice and all will be well again in Simple-Minded, USA. Due to thier lack of intelligence and objective thinking, Americans love to eat this crap up by the bucket load.

This garbage reminds me of the old school yard coin toss, heads I win, tails you lose.

Originally posted by genius/idoit
reply to post by HotSauce

 

He does not qualify for P.O.W. status

Actually he is qualified for P.O.W Status under Geneva Convention Article 4 Section 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 4.1.6 which US is associated with.

* Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
o 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
o 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
+ that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
+ that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
+ that of carrying arms openly;
+ that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
o 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
o 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
o 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
o 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
o 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
* Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Also please note this paragraph below

The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[2]

Both the articles are from source: Third Geneva Convention

[edit on 18-11-2009 by December_Rain]

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I don't think they have to reinforce the idea that Terrorists were behind 911. It was obvious from when the first plane hit.

The only peopple that don't believe that just sit around trying to make up another way that those evil PTB did it.

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by Snarf

 

Are you refuting that obama said these words? I also quoted eric holder. This is not obama bashing, this is about a show trial.

This is just another way to go after the Bush Administration and the CIA.
George W. Bush tortured me at GITMO!
Let the circus begin.
Of course KSM will be found guilty.
-Jury Nullification -
Forget the evidence. Send a message. - Guilty -


[edit on 18-11-2009 by Eurisko2012]

reply to post by December_Rain


Where do you see KSM in that?

HA!! This guy may have had a hand in this plan but he is NOT the mastermind of these attacks. Those people are in Washington DC! This trial truly is a joke and this guy is a PATSY!

reply to post by genius/idoit


Where don't you see KSM? You gave a source stating he is not eligible for POW status, I just reiterated that under Geneva Convention he is eligible for POW Status. US is signatory to the law thus bound by it, however GW Bush & Rumsfield chose to ignore the law. The whole article clearly defines the conditions who can/should be under the status of POW. Also it specifically mentions GW Bush 'unlawfull combatant' status and states it contradicts the law of Geneva Conventions.

Yes Seiko, this is going to be a show trial. Obama follows in George W. Bushes footsteps.

For those, who believe: “All accusations the government makes against Muslims shall be deemed true, even if they're made in secret and without being tested by any court”. Watch out! Perhaps you are the next to be accused. We can already see, how the definition of terrorist is expanded. More than 1.000.000 names are already on the terror watch list. – Ah, you are not on it. So no problem . Those people will surely deserve it. This is exactly the mindset, which enabled Nazi-Germany.

Anyone arguing for denying him a fair trial and due process, should read the accusations made against KSM.

Accusations, based on confessions KSM gave, while being waterboarded 183 times. His s ons (7 and 9 years old) were locked in dark boxes filled with insects. KSM had to hear the screams. Under torture he confessed to 31 major plots. Was he really plotting like a James Bond villain, or did he just give confessions to stop the torture? And, where are his sons now? Are they still kept as hostages to force KSM to give another confession in court? Do you really want to know the truth?

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thomas Pain

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]