Quote:Once again you prove yourself simply too stupid to understand when you're completely off the reservation.
Quote:It gets annoying ignoring your insults. I've laid out my side of the argument and in the last half dozen post you've only insisted I'm an idiot, stupid and hostile to reality for not agreeing with your argument that you have yet to build.
Here's a novel idea, stop with the pointless insults and make your argument. Or you can just keep trolling Merry Christmas.
Quote:It's all already been laid out for you.
The constitution and the amendments to it specifically use the word "citizen" in all instances that it legally applies.
Legally, in instances that a law specifies "persons" then it applies to all persons, not just Americans.
You are wrong, and you've been wrong for most of this thread, and you've ignorantly argued in spite of it.
Sorry, Eric, but if you don't want to be called a hostile ignorant, or idiot, then stop functioning as one and start accepting that I'm right, I've always been right, and you could learn some things from me if you gave yourself the opportunity to.
Quote:
<div>
<div>
<div>Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
</div>
</div>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me where that extends to acts of aggression on foreign soil by non-citizens. Teach me oh great one.
</div>
Quote:Should Execute them if found guilty
Quote:What part of all criminal prosecutions do you not get?
Essentially you're trying to extend wartime conventions onto people who weren't part of a nation at war with the USA.
A lot of these people were simply accosted in various areas that were considered battle zones even if they weren't actually even engaged in any combat, and for those that were part of the terrorist organization that planned and executed the 9-11 attacks, they're still merely criminals, not soldiers of a foreign nation.
Once again, what part of "ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS" are you not getting?
Quote:What part of all criminal prosecutions do you not get?Military Tribunal prosecutions are not the same as being captured by the city, county, state police or even the FBI or Federal agents, CRIMINAL prosecutions take place in the state where the crime occured. Military prisoners DO NOT enter the civillian CRIMINAL prosecution system, they enter into the MILITARY Tribunal system. Huge difference between the two.Military Tribunals are not governed by the constitution other than as found here "
Essentially you're trying to extend wartime conventions onto people who weren't part of a nation at war with the USA.
A lot of these people were simply accosted in various areas that were considered battle zones even if they weren't actually even engaged in any combat, and for those that were part of the terrorist organization that planned and executed the 9-11 attacks, they're still merely criminals, not soldiers of a foreign nation.
Once again, what part of "ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS" are you not getting?
Quote:Military Tribunal prosecutions are not the same as being captured by the city, county, state police or even the FBI or Federal agents, CRIMINAL prosecutions take place in the state where the crime occured. Military prisoners DO NOT enter the civillian CRIMINAL prosecution system, they enter into the MILITARY Tribunal system. Huge difference between the two.Military Tribunals are not governed by the constitution other than as found here "
Under the procedures, a defendant would receive many, but not all, of the due process protections guaranteed to a defendant in a U.S. civilian criminal court. The tribunal procedures guarantee the following due process protections:
Under the procedures, however, a person can be convicted in a commission trial by a two-thirds majority of the commissioners: Unanimous verdicts are not required. Evidence, including previous trial testimony and written statements, will be admissible if it tends to prove or disprove the case at hand. The exclusionary rule, which keeps illegally seized evidence out of a civilian criminal trial, does not apply. The procedures do not provide for appeals from a guilty verdict to civilian judges. They do, however, call for "reviews" of a verdict by a three-member panel selected by the secretary of defense. No verdict will be final until approved by the president or the secretary of defense" ... "
- An accused will be provided with defense counsel and can also have a lawyer of his or her own choosing, either a military or civilian attorney.
- The accursed will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
- An accused may refuse to testify during trial. The accused will have the right to obtain witnesses and documents necessary for the defense.
- A person accused may not be tried twice before a military commission for the same offense
- An accused will be allowed to negotiate and enter into a plea agreement.
On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a new military order in the war against terrorism. The order called for the secretary of defense to detain non-citizens accused of international terrorism. The order specifically applies to members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. But it also includes all those who have engaged in, aided, or conspired to commit international terrorist acts against the United States or its citizens. Those who knowingly harbor such individuals are also subject to the order. Under the order, the secretary is charged with establishing military tribunals (also called military commissions) to conduct trials of non-citizens accused of terrorism either in the United States or in other parts of the world.
A military tribunal, or commission, is different from a regular civilian criminal court. In a tribunal, military officers act as both judge and jury. After a hearing, guilt is determined by a vote of the commissioners. Unlike a criminal jury, the decision does not have to be unanimous." http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-...unals.html
Quote:
<div style="margin:0px;color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<div style="margin:0px;">
<div style="margin:0px;">Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
</div>
</div>
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">It's almost like you are trying to troll.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">How would this work smart guy would we make sure the enemy combatant has his fellow terrorist or alleged terrorist there to testify his side of the story? We could hold the trial in Iraq or maybe Syria where the crimes are committed? That would be ok sure, their governments wouldn't mind.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Better yet we need to make sure the soldiers fighting now have the ability to document a crime scene. It's almost laughable how you're attempting to compare a battle field to a crime scene. It exposes you as someone who only knows theory and has yet to experience life in the real world. There are so many vast differences between a crime scene and criminal prosecution to an enemy combatant captured in a foreign nation it's ludicrous to even continue discussing with you.
</div>
Quote:To sum you two up:
"Hey guys, it's cool, we called this police operation a war, therefore we can just lock people up in Guantanamo forever based on encountering them in the course of that police action which was justifed by an attack on NYC."
Seems to me that if the crime was in NYC and these guys are considered part of that criminal organization then they ought to be tried there.
Still, congratulations on obfuscating as best you could, I'm sure Dubya would be proud.
Quote:They where not detained on US Soil, they are not US citizens, therefor they are not given a criminal civilian trial. For such an intellectual you sure do struggle with this simple concept.
Quote:To sum you two up:It's not just NYC where the crimes are/were committed...Attacks have occured around the world at Embassys, military posts/bases, attacks on other countries such as Iraq/Aphaganistan Somalia etc.... The enemy combatants strike all over the world. It's not JUST about NYC, it's all about terrorist attacks wherever they happen and they are all grouped together as terrorist attacks which are deemed to be enemy combatants...some of the trials actually are happening in NYC as well...The other part of the NYC thing is, the plan was made outside of the US, and the terrorists came into the country with the intent to commit a terrorist act...Any thing deemed a terrorist act can be filed under an enemy combatant UNLESS they are a US citizen and then there are ways to deal with that as well
"Hey guys, it's cool, we called this police operation a war, therefore we can just lock people up in Guantanamo forever based on encountering them in the course of that police action which was justifed by an attack on NYC."
Seems to me that if the crime was in NYC and these guys are considered part of that criminal organization then they ought to be tried there.
Still, congratulations on obfuscating as best you could, I'm sure Dubya would be proud.
Quote:There is no nation the USA is at war with. These are not soldiers. The ONLY legal footing the USA has to arrest them at all is the terrorist act on NYC / the pentagon.
I'm unsurprised that you'd be unable to connect the dots.
Quote:There is no nation the USA is at war with. These are not soldiers. The ONLY legal footing the USA has to arrest them at all is the terrorist act on NYC / the pentagon.WRONG! They have attacked US bases in both Iraq and Aphaganistan and Embassies around the world. They are called enemy combatants BECAUSE they have no national affiliation which means they are arrested by the military not by civillian authorities and subject to militray laws and procedures
I'm unsurprised that you'd be unable to connect the dots.
Quote:Whatever the case, processing the people there an actually discovering their guilt is the first step.
Bush's legacy of war crime has gone on for long enough, time to close the Gitmo chapter.
Quote:Ignorance and hostility to reality.
Could you quote me the part of the constitution that says the rights within it are reserved only for citizens of the USA?
Quote:When someone from Russia or China visits the USA and commits a crime you think they don't get the same due process rights as an American?
Eric, I'm unsurprised that you'd lash out with idiotic hostility to the reality of the world, but you'd really have been better off just not posting than posting something as stupid as the above.
Quote:At some point, Bush's legacy becomes Obama's legacy.WE the people of the united states should be your first clue and the second should be "secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES"....It makes no mention of anyone other than "WE the people OF THE UNITED STATES" and "OURSELVES"
I don't believe there is a specific comment that makes it applicable to Americans only...
"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."
... but I'm curious how you'd define this? "To ourselves and our posterity".
What part of the process are you referring to? The initial arrest or court proceedings?
Quote:WE the people of the united states should be your first clue and the second should be "secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES"....It makes no mention of anyone other than "WE the people OF THE UNITED STATES" and "OURSELVES"
Quote:It's not just NYC where the crimes are/were committed...Attacks have occured around the world at Embassys, military posts/bases, attacks on other countries such as Iraq/Aphaganistan Somalia etc.... The enemy combatants strike all over the world. It's not JUST about NYC, it's all about terrorist attacks wherever they happen and they are all grouped together as terrorist attacks which are deemed to be enemy combatants...some of the trials actually are happening in NYC as well
Quote:There is no legal qualification for them to be categorized as enemy soldiers. They are not covered under the constitution because 1. they are committing acts of aggression on foreign soil and captured as enemy combatants by our military AND 2 are not United States citizens.
Quote:I think we're on the same page here. I was showing him where I believe it matches what I believe he's looking for. I think he's looking for something else.
Quote:Not relevant to whether these are criminal actions or war acts.
I already covered that citizenship is irrelevant. Now you go ahead and cite the parts of the constitution that you conclude your first assertion here on.