our prison system is so bad

The people who plan the 911 it or some of them and the people who help fund or aid it in other ways at least some of them are indeed in our hands see my posting concerning Gitmo or do your own google search.

Now as far as releasing them the likelihood of that happening is greatly increase by the act of turning them over to our "civil justice system".

Try then in a military court and hang them and get it over with.

You are once more playing a silly game and the readers here can pass their own judgments concerning your game playing.

Words can and do have more then one accepted meaning even legal terms and it is clear in the content both my meaning and the congress meaning of the term in question.

They are in our hands AFTER they helped plan the crimes.

They were NOT in our hands BEFORE. Since you are SURE you have evidence that these people were involved then there should be NO PROBLEM convicting them, don't you think?

A military tribunal is fine with me Bill, as long as it follows the rules which are very much the SAME as they are in the US criminal courts. The problem with your argument BIll is that under the UCMJ if they are found not guilty they would be released. So arguing that somehow charging them there makes it less likely for them to be released is complete hogwash.

What evidence will be presented in a military court that couldn't be used in a US criminal court? The correct answer is NONE.
Can the person appeal any conviction? Yes in BOTH courts.
Can the person appeal if the prosecution violates the law? Yes in BOTH courts.

Your argument is only sustained if you are arguing that the military courts will not follow judicial procedures they are required to by law.

I was only trying to help out by giving you a correct definition.

Feel free to keep misusing it and getting all up in arms over being corrected. I really don't care how you misuse words Bill. I was only trying to be helpful. You seem to have turned it into a personal attack on you.

Problems with chains of evidence and their treatments etc could get them walking free no matter how high the evidences of their guilt is as we both do know in our "civil court system".

You have even admitted to that fact in one of your postings, as that is just a price we will need to pay for our freedoms or some such nonsense.

Sorry this is an act of illegal war by non-citizens not an internal crime and those who committed it should have no access to our justice system beyond our military courts.

Oh parados also so it is your claim that if we released such person as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one of the main master minds of the 911 attack that would not be a clear and present danger to the US and it citizens in the future? You would need to have a crystal ball to predict that others of our citizens would be place in harm way as a result of such a stupid action?

A man who we would have had no problem with killing with a hell fire missile if we found him walking in say Pakistan and yet you wish to take the chance that a federal court will drop the charges due to problems with chain of evidence or the like?

Shaking my head at this nonsense.

I was only trying to help out by giving you a correct definition.

Feel free to keep misusing it and getting all up in arms over being corrected. I really don't care how you misuse words Bill. I was only trying to be helpful. You seem to have turned it into a personal attack on you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry but using the term "civil justice system" to cover the whole non-military justice system is not an incorrect used of the term and you repeating the claim is not going to make it so.

Bill RM wrote:

Re: parados (Post 3657849)
Oh parados also so it is your claim that if we released such person as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one of the main master minds of the 911 attack that would not be a clear and present danger to the US and it citizens in the future? You would need to have a crystal ball to predict that others of our citizens would be place in harm way as a result of such a stupid action?

A man who we would have had no problem with killing with a hell fire missile if we found him walking in say Pakistan and yet you wish to take the chance that a federal court will drop the charges due to problems with chain of evidence or the like?

Shaking my head at this nonsense.

****************************************************************

Bill RM is exactly correct. But Parados responds with a classic non-sequitur.

He will not answer Bill RM but rather floats a pile of bovine excrement when he posts in answer to Bill RM.

Parados' non-sequitur below:

Re: parados (Post 3657855)
I was only trying to help out by giving you a correct definition.

Feel free to keep misusing it and getting all up in arms over being corrected. I really don't care how you misuse words Bill. I was only trying to be helpful. You seem to have turned it into a personal attack on you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry but using the term "civil justice system" to cover the whole non-military justice system is not an incorrect used of the term and you repeating the claim is not going to make it so

*********************************************************************Parados is completely unresponsive to Bill RM because he could not answer Bill RM's post, so Parados( as he usually does obfuscated. He must have been listening to the confused obfuscations of Barack Hussein Obama.

Genoves thank for the support!

To be fair to Obama however he had been slowly backing away from some of the positions he had taken and so had the Democratic control congress.

The whole Gitmo/terrorists issue is not pretty or simple from either a moral or legal viewpoint but when you are fighting any war let alone this kind of a war that is the kind of things you must deal with.

In WW2 we needed to bomb French cities and sink French ships in harbor full of French sailors and we did things like place our own citizens in camps because we was not sure how loyal they would be in case of a possible invasion of the West Coast.

Frankly I would not wish Obama job on anyone and wish him luck on doing it.

You might want to go look at the term you actually used that I corrected and the definition that I listed that states civil court shouldn't be confused with the civil law justice system. Anyone is free to look at your post here...
http://able2know.org/topic/132597-2#post-3657617

Whatever parados however I am sure you would like to know that you are getting kind of boring on a subject that is a very minor side issue.

Bill RM wrote:

Re: parados (Post 3657849)
Oh parados also so it is your claim that if we released such person as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one of the main master minds of the 911 attack that would not be a clear and present danger to the US and it citizens in the future? You would need to have a crystal ball to predict that others of our citizens would be place in harm way as a result of such a stupid action?

A man who we would have had no problem with killing with a hell fire missile if we found him walking in say Pakistan and yet you wish to take the chance that a federal court will drop the charges due to problems with chain of evidence or the like?

Shaking my head at this nonsense.

****************************************************************

The position of Parados regarding "Principles"makes for great reading but does not really fit in all of the chaos of war.

What? Are we to be unprincipled?

Difficult decisions are made by military leaders every day. There are still some fuzzy minded left wingers who criticize President Truman, one of the best President of the last century, for dropping the Atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Note:

The only way anyone can judge Truman’s motives in dropping the atomic bomb is by analyzing the result of his decision. No one can know, even by reading his personal diary, the exact reasons he had for using the bomb. It was likely a combination of many: punishment, justification of cost, saving lives, and ending the war as quickly as possible. However, it is evident that in the “grand scheme of things” the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. About 105,000 Japanese lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this is a high number, the number who died in the American bombing raids on the six largest Japanese cities is far greater, about 250,000. Consequently, such a large number of deaths is by no means unprecedented. An invasion of Japan would possibly have cost between 250,000 and three million Japanese and American lives and ended the war four months later, at the very earliest. It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly. Truman’s motives, therefore, cannot be called into question in light of the results of his decision. At least in this case, the end justifies the means.
*********************************************************

IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS THE USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB SAVED LIVES.......

The used of the two atom bombs save millions upon millions of lives.

By our military estimates at the time the cost in Americans soldiers lives for an invasion of the home islands would had been in the range of a million men or more and the likely the number of Japanese’s lives would had been at least ten times that number.

The Japanese was planning on throwing untrained children, old people and women at us so you can pictures the results of so doing.

You would had been able to walk across the islands on the dead bodies.

As far as Truman deciding to used the bombs he was ask by the secretary of state or perhaps war I can not remember at the moment what he would reply at his impeachment hearing when ask why he allow the lost of a million men when he had have a mean to end the war and did not used it.

All in all it was a no brainier. Hell a lot of the people reading this thread now would not had existed if their grandfathers or fathers would had taken part in such an invasion.

genoves wrote:

Indeed, thay DID!

That 's obvious.





David

I only made a simple correction. You are the one that turned it into some huge issue about how you were correct.

As for the military tribunals, you still haven't told us what will happen with those found 'not guilty' by such a tribunal. Military courts closely resemble US criminal courts in that they follow the same procedures and can't sentence anyone found not guilty. As for those found guilty, they will have to serve their sentence somewhere in a military system. I just don't see much of a difference from the civilian criminal system if the tribunals are conducted properly.

The idea that our US prisons can't handle terrorists is laughable. We currently have over 300 terrorists serving sentences now according to some reports.

This one is probably one of the more famous ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef
Federal Prisoner number: 03911-000

I think charging terrorists in open courts would help eliminate terrorism.
The terrorist has 2 choices. He can admit he is a terrorist and be convicted by his own testimony or he can deny it and reveal to any would be followers that he does not have the balls to stand for what he believes in.

The idea that somehow all these terrorists are going to get off, puts them in the second category. I would suggest fewer people are going to follow those that can't stand up to the "great Satan" when asked to declare their principles.

What the hell are you talking about a terrorists in our court system can just stand silence.

And of course our prisons can handle them our courts on the other hand is another matter!

Second if the military courts are the same why do you care if we keep these assholes at Gitmo and try them there under a military court system?

You do not make any kind of sense at all.

Side note you had claimed you do not trust wikiped when it does not agree with you and yet you keep refering to it to back some of your claims. This is confusing to say the least!

In case you missed it BillRM.
Both the USSC and the military courts rejected the Bush kangaroo trials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/legislation/detainee010?opendocument

When done properly there will be no difference. The problem is the Bush administration tried to bypass the justice system and convict people without a proper trial.

Military tribunals should follow the same rules applied to US soldiers when it comes to evidence, witnesses, and judicial proceedings. If the tribunals follow those rules, I have no problem with them. So, let me ask again. If the tribunals find people not guilty, what do you propose we do with those people? Under UCMJ we can't keep them incarcerated. So we should have the exact same problem there as with US criminal courts. An inability to keep them under lock and key if there isn't enough evidence.


Wiki is a starting place. When wiki quotes a journalist, I don't consider that a valid source for the proper term for "civil courts" vs "civil justice." Nor do I consider a journalist the final say on what a court ruling says. When you look at the RULING itself the term "civil court" is NOT used which is why I posted a link to that ruling. The journalist was incorrect in the term's usage just as you were.

Oh Parados the story of the RAF German terror group might be fun for you to read about.

Their leadership was safety lock up in a nice and safe German prison when other terrorists hijack an airliner in order to demand their freedoms. This after a number of other killings/kidnapping all aim at freeing them.

After a number of deaths, the hijackers were kill and the remaining passengers free.

Now what is so very very funny about this story is after the freeing of the hostages all the RAF imprison members in the German prison just happen to decided to commit suicide together! One with a gun that he somehow manages to get a hold of in a high/maximum security prison!

You do what is needed to protect your citizens it would seem even in a European country that had been looking down on our handling of terrorists of late.

Principles be damn when you are dealing with mass murderers of your citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

Parados there is plenty of evidences that is not the problem the problem is not allowing some of that evidences to come before the court in the first place due to rules and safeguard never design to deal with foreign terrorists.

Oh well if all else fail we can always allow them to commit mass suicide sadly just before we inform them of happy news that they would be release shortly.

If it is good enough for our German allies how could it be wrong?

Come to think about it one way or another these mass murders will be deal with so I should/can relax over the matter.

Parados wrote:

Military tribunals should follow the same rules applied to US soldiers when it comes to evidence, witnesses, and judicial proceedings. If the tribunals follow those rules, I have no problem with them. So, let me ask again. If the tribunals find people not guilty, what do you propose we do with those people? Under UCMJ we can't keep them incarcerated. So we should have the exact same problem there as with US criminal courts. An inability to keep them under lock and key if there isn't enough evidence.

*******************************************************

As usual. Parados is totally confused.

Note:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK MAY 18, 2009 Obama's Military Tribunals


President Obama's endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that's just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday's announcement endorsing military commissions.


AP
White House officials insist that their tribunals will be kinder and gentler, stressing additional due-process safeguards for terrorists on trial for war crimes. But the debate that has convulsed the political system since 9/11 isn't about procedural nuances. It has been over core principles, with Democrats decrying a "shadow justice system" and claiming that "Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

The latter quote is from a speech by Senator Obama in 2007 denouncing "a legal framework that does not work." He also referred to the civilian criminal justice system and courts martial that Democrats then claimed, and many still claim, are the right venues for antiterror prosecutions. After the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision gave terrorists habeas rights, Mr. Obama again laid into the Bush Administration's "legal black hole" and "dangerously flawed legal approach," which "undermines the very values we are fighting to defend."

At least some people in the White House must now be embarrassed by their boss's switcheroo, though you can't tell from Friday's declaration. Part of the tribunal face-lift is that "the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel." Say what? Enemy combatants already have better access to attorneys -- white shoe and pro bono, no less -- than nearly every criminal defendant in America. Perhaps this means Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 90 Yemenis and the rest will now be able to choose lawyers from both Shearman & Sterling and Covington & Burling, instead of one or the other.

Another red herring is supposedly tightening the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Tribunal judges already have discretion to limit such evidence, and the current rules are nearly indistinguishable from those of the International Criminal Court. The sensible exceptions involve evidence obtained under combat conditions or from foreign intelligence services, which are left untouched by Mr. Obama's nips and tucks.

In any event, Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney -- and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again.