Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 14

Thread: Graham crushes Holder

  1. #1
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Graham crushes Holder

    For the record I am completely against giving these guys a trial in our court system and I thought Graham made some great points and Holder had no answer. I would like to know which enemy combatants have been mirandized on the battefield, I suspect none.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y

  2. #2

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    Were you also against having Richard Ried (shoe bomber) and the 20th hijacker, Zacarious Moussaoui, tried in the United States? Our justice system can handle these guys and it will provide more legitimacy to their eventual convictions. We have enough evidence to convict these guys without having to resort to their statements or admissions as a result of interrogations. I highly doubt President Obama and A.G. Eric Holder would be dumb enough to have trials for these criminals if there was any chance that they might be acquited.

    Here is a link with some more information/arguments (albeit somewhat biased) but good information nonetheless: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...vative-cowards.
    Last edited by Jacob311; 11-20-2009 at 11:32 AM.
    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
    -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    I am actually somewhat torn on this issue. Holder and some other Democrats (was watching one on TV) gave some pretty convincing arguments as to why they should be tried in civilian courts and not in military court. the one that really got me thinking was that since we didn't declare war on the group Al Queda they are not enemy combatants.

    My personal opinion is that they are enemy combantants and that for the security of this country they should be tried in military court.

    I think in this case the Obama administration really throught this through and had good arguments to back up their decision. Like i said I don't agree with it but they did make some good arguments.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob311 View Post
    Were you also against having Richard Ried (shoe bomber) and the 20th hijacker, Zacarious Moussaoui, tried in the United States? Our justice system can handle these guys and it will provide more legitimacy to their eventual convictions. We have enough evidence to convict these guys without having to resort to their statements or admissions as a result of interrogations. I highly doubt President Obama and A.G. Eric Holder would be dumb enough to have trials for these criminals if there was any chance that they might be acquited.

    Here is a link with some more information/arguments (albeit somewhat biased) but good information nonetheless: http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...vative-cowards.

    If the terrorist is an american citizen then they are entitled to their rights as an american, but I believe they should be tried for murder and treason. If they are not citizens and they commit terrorist acts I dont believe they are entitled to have any of the protections provided by the constitution nor are they covered by the geneva code since they are not a uniformed combatent. THe military has the ability to handle al of these cases. When Holder says that an aquitle is not an option and that no matter what the outcome these men will still be held captive, it maked the trial seem to be a farse and unfair.

    WHat is your opinion of mirandizing non-uniformed enemy combatants who attack America?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    Without question, this should go to military courts. Common sense would tell you that if the military has to go and find you from somewhere else in the world then they should hold the proceedings.

    But, since they are holding a civilian court for them, what happens when they are prosecuted? I would hope that they go into general population in whatever prison they are sent to. Bet you a dime to a donut that they get separated and treated differently than other prisoners. It hasn't happened yet, but I'll almost guarantee it.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    Without question, this should go to military courts. Common sense would tell you that if the military has to go and find you from somewhere else in the world then they should hold the proceedings.

    But, since they are holding a civilian court for them, what happens when they are prosecuted? I would hope that they go into general population in whatever prison they are sent to. Bet you a dime to a donut that they get separated and treated differently than other prisoners. It hasn't happened yet, but I'll almost guarantee it.
    I dont want them in Gen Pop. Those are fertile recruiting grounds.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    If the terrorist is an american citizen then they are entitled to their rights as an american, but I believe they should be tried for murder and treason. If they are not citizens and they commit terrorist acts I dont believe they are entitled to have any of the protections provided by the constitution nor are they covered by the geneva code since they are not a uniformed combatent. THe military has the ability to handle al of these cases. When Holder says that an aquitle is not an option and that no matter what the outcome these men will still be held captive, it maked the trial seem to be a farse and unfair.

    WHat is your opinion of mirandizing non-uniformed enemy combatants who attack America?
    So you disagree with President Bush's decision to try Richard Reid and Zaccarious Moussaui in the US court system. I think our justice system provided a clear example of what makes our country great. We can give a fair trial to non-us citizens, or "enemy combatants" as many would like to classify them, and obtain convications based upon solid evidence. I fail to see the problem with that. They are accused of terrorist acts, we arrest, convict, and punish them for their actions, all in a fair and transparent manner. Having them tried and convicted in military commissions may undermine the effect of their convictions because the commissions are viewed as highly suspect by many.

    Again, I don't think we have to mirandize non-uniformed enemy combatants. We should have enough information on them to convict them without resorting to their statements from interrogations.

    P.S. The Geneva Conventions need to be updated to deal with 21st Century military conflicts.
    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
    -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    I think they would get destroyed. Most prisons separate in ethnicity. But they all want the headlines. Just like the dude who beat Daumer to death. I believe that a white or black group (maybe even acting together) would find the first chance to beat them to death. Let's face it, even prisoners are Americans and a good beat down, until they die, is what they need.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default Re: Graham crushes Holder

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob311 View Post
    So you disagree with President Bush's decision to try Richard Reid and Zaccarious Moussaui in the US court system. I think our justice system provided a clear example of what makes our country great. We can give a fair trial to non-us citizens, or "enemy combatants" as many would like to classify them, and obtain convications based upon solid evidence. I fail to see the problem with that. They are accused of terrorist acts, we arrest, convict, and punish them for their actions, all in a fair and transparent manner. Having them tried and convicted in military commissions may undermine the effect of their convictions because the commissions are viewed as highly suspect by many.

    Again, I don't think we have to mirandize non-uniformed enemy combatants. We should have enough information on them to convict them without resorting to their statements from interrogations.

    P.S. The Geneva Conventions need to be updated to deal with 21st Century military conflicts.

    I heard today that all evidence obtained while they were in GITMO would no be admissible. Neither would any evidence or collected through water boarding nor would phone calls or letter they received or admissions made. The point was as Graham points out, that if they are given trial by our courts then they are privy to all of the constitutional rights that go along with it.

    President Roosevelt had a situation with German soldiers shedding their uniforms sneaking into the states in attempt to recruit and commit sabotage, he had them executed after they were found guilty by a private military tribunal, that Roosevelt requested.

    It is also my understanding that habeaus corpus applies to any detained person

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •