Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Gitmo is where captured terrorist should be tried and when found guilty should be incarcerated.

in principal i can agree with you,but shouldn't that be if not when

i mean in the interest of fairness

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Trying enemy combatants in civil courts enables them to demand the disclosure to them of what our government uses to defend us and how they use it to defend us.

No, it doesn't. Federal courts can seal information whenever it is determined to be a national security risk.

Quote:

Enemy combatants tried in civil courts are innocent until proven guilty. They can obtain dismissal of charges, if our military decides to withholds any information, the combatants can convince the judge they need to defend themselves.

They are innocent until proven guilty, but so should be ALL people, regardless of their crime. It's just the right thing to do.

The odds of the judge dismissing the trial b/c of national security evidence are zero. You apparently don't realize that this isn't the first trial of a terrorist that has gone on - there are procedures for this stuff.

Quote:

Further, there is great danger from non-captured terrorist combatants to the welfare of neighborhoods in which such civil trials are held. So the cost of protecting such neighborhoods will be increased tremendously.

What a joke. Where is your evidence for this, Ican? Can you point out a single 'neighborhood' which has received terrorist attention thanks to a trial which was held there?

Quote:

Gitmo is where captured terrorist should be tried and when found guilty should be incarcerated.

Can't keep people in a place you're going to close down.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@djjd62,

OK, djjd62!

Gitmo is where captured terrorist should be tried and IF found guilty should be incarcerated.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Gitmo SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED AND is where captured terrorist should be tried and IF found guilty should be incarcerated.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN a single DOMESTIC 'neighborhood' IN WHICH TERRORISTS WHO WERE NOT CAPTURED DOMESTICALLY WERE TRIED DOMESTICALLY.

Cyclo, WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT the odds, of the judge dismissing the trial BECAUSE of national security evidence BEING WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE ACCUSED TERRORIST, are zero?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Gitmo SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED AND is where captured terrorist should be tried and IF found guilty should be incarcerated.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN a single DOMESTIC 'neighborhood' IN WHICH TERRORISTS WHO WERE NOT CAPTURED DOMESTICALLY WERE TRIED DOMESTICALLY.

Cyclo, WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT the odds, of the judge dismissing the trial BECAUSE of national security evidence BEING WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE ACCUSED TERRORIST, are zero?

My evidence is the fact that it has not happened in the past and I have a hard time seeing a Federal judge dismiss a case over State Secrets - as I said before, this is hardly the first time such a thing will have come up, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I am guessing it may never happen because more sensible people will demand it, but if it somehow happens, the whole thing will end up being an absolute farce and fiasco, and will adequately explain why it was dumb.

Let's see..
This list kind of makes your statement look dumb okie..

Richard Reid
Ramzi Yousef
Jose Padilla
Mahmud Abouhalima
Khalid Duhham Al-Jawary
Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman
Ahmed Mohammad Ajaj
Mohammed A. Salameh
John Walker Lindh

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Trying enemy combatants in civil courts enables them to demand the disclosure to them of what our government uses to defend us and how they use it to defend us.

That has to be one of the silliest things you have ever said, ican.

A defendant or his lawyer is entitled to information used to charge him with a crime. Any lawyer in the case will have security clearance before they get anything secret. The defendant won't be able to use a lawyer without security clearance if he wants to see secrets. They will NOT get information on how we defend ourselves because it won't be relevant. The guy has been in jail for how many years? The crime occurred almost 10 years ago. Information relevant will be outdated when it comes to security and defense.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Which only goes to FURTHER undermine your argument since you can't show how and why Clinton's failure to lower taxes increased revenues quicker than Reagan's tax cut.

Reagan reduced the maximum income tax rate from 70% to 33%.

Bush41 reduced the maximum tax rate to 31%

Clinton increased the maximum income tax rate to 39.6%.

Clinton's increase of federal receipts was more a continuing consequence of Reagan's huge reduction in maximum tax rate than it was a consequence of Clinton's tax increase.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Clinton's increase of federal receipts was more a continuing consequence of Reagan's huge reduction in maximum tax rate than it was a consequence of Clinton's tax increase.

Wrongo! This is an unsupportable assertion on your part and a very common lie used by Republicans to try and defend the fact that Reagan's performance wasn't as good as Clinton's.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You kill me ican..

On one hand you argue that the democrats are to blame if they don't rescind the policies of a previous administration.

Now you argue the democrats don't get credit if they do rescind the policies of a previous administration.

Your logic is way out there.

1 Reply

@parados,

you forgot timothy mcveigh

of course he might be a hero to some of the right

0 Replies

One of the most compelling reasons I've seen for a military tribunal over a civil trial is that the Obama administration has prejudiced any chance of a fair trial in criminal court by the remarks of various officials that KSM is guilty. Won't his lawyers bring that up and ask that the case be dismissed?

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

One of the most compelling reasons I've seen for a military tribunal over a civil trial is that the Obama administration has prejudiced any chance of a fair trial in criminal court by the remarks of various officials that KSM is guilty. Won't his lawyers bring that up and ask that the case be dismissed?

Probably; but the judge will not simply dismiss the case based on discussions of guilt in the media.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Would be interesting, though, no? They might have to call in both Holder and Gibbs to explain their remarks.

Where do you think they'll try him?

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Would be interesting, though, no? They might have to call in both Holder and Gibbs to explain their remarks.

Where do you think they'll try him?

New York. But I wouldn't bet on either Holder or Gibbs testifying.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh my. CNN is reporting John Murtha passed away today.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

That isn't much of an argument Irishk

1. The person has to ask for a jury trial
2. The defense has to show that an impartial jury can't be found. While the statements may make it difficult, I can think of at least 2 people on here that won't be swayed by any statements by Obama or his administration.

1 Reply

@parados,

Or, the burden will be on the prosecution to show the remarks aren't prejudicial. Could be challenging for them.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

I suppose you could rewrite US law, but I doubt the courts will.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I wrote: Clinton's increase of federal receipts was more a continuing consequence of Reagan's huge reduction in maximum tax rate than it was a consequence of Clinton's tax increase.

Cycloptichorn" wrote:

Wrongo! This is an unsupportable assertion on your part and a very common lie used by Republicans to try and defend the fact that Reagan's performance wasn't as good as Clinton's.

Wrongo!
Cyclo, this assertion of yours is an unsupported assertion.

Maybe the following will help you support your assertion. Then again, maybe it won't.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
TABLE 1.1 SUMMARY OF BUDGET RECEIPTS OUTLAYS SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS 1789-2012 (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
…
YEAR " FEDERAL RECEIPTS "%CHANGE PER TERM
…
1976 " 379,292 --
1977 -- 355,559 CARTER
1978 -- 399,561
1979 -- 463,302
1980 -- 517,112 -- +36.3
1981 "- 599,272 REAGAN
1982 "- 617,786
1983 "- 600,562
1984 "- 666,486 -- +28.9
1985 "- 734,088
1986 "- 769,215
1987 "- 854,353
1988 "- 909,303 -- +36.4
1989 "- 991,190 BUSH 41
1990 "- 1,032,094
1991 "- 1,055,093
1992 "- 1,091,328 -- +20.2
1993 "- 1,154,471 CLINTON
1994 "- 1,258,721
1995 "- 1,351,932
1996 "- 1,453,177 -- +33.2
1997 "- 1,579,423
1998 "- 1,721,955
1999 "- 1,827,645
2000 "- 2,025,457 " +39.4
2001 "- 1.991,426 BUSH 43
2002 "- 1,853,395
2003 "- 1,782,532
2004 "- 1,880,279 -- -7.2
2005 "- 2,153,859
2006 "- 2,407,254
2007 "- 2,540,096
2008 "- 2,662,474 -- +41.6

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know