Posted on 10/17/2006 8:54:20 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 17, 2006
CONTACT: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider 202-226-7616 Pelosi Statement on Signing of Military Commissions Bill
Washington, D.C.– House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the military commissions bill that President Bush signed into law this morning:
“Democrats voted overwhelmingly to go to war in Afghanistan so that those responsible for the 9/11 attacks would be brought to justice. More than five years later, because of the failure of the Bush Administration to devise a legal process that could withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, not a single person who planned the attacks has been tried and convicted.
“That record of failure is unlikely to be improved by the military commissions bill President Bush signed today. Legal challenges to the bill may result in convictions being overturned, punishments being set aside, and justice being further delayed. In addition, because the bill allows the President to interpret the Geneva Conventions through executive order, it invites other countries to do the same, thereby weakening the international legal standards that have protected our troops for decades.
“Democrats want terrorists who kill Americans tried, convicted, and punished through a constitutionally sound process that will be upheld on appeal. That goal will not be achieved by the bill President Bush signed into law today.”
Just 2 heartbeats away from being President?????????????????????????? Crap a monkey!!!!
Does she know how to say anything new?
Weep on Nancy, you know why. Because most of them are dead!
There would be a coup before that happened.
Just wind her up and she repeats the same mantra day after day after day. Hey, Nancy! Put a sock in it!!
Only far too believeable. THIS is what the American Voters want? Either the Pollsters or the Voters are totally insane
“Democrats want terrorists who kill Americans tried, convicted, and punished through a constitutionally sound process that will be upheld on appeal. That goal will not be achieved by the bill President Bush signed into law today.”
This worked so well in thwarting the intentions of the 9/11 terrorists of finishing the job the 1993 terrorists failed to do.
IDIOTS!!!
Intelligence has shown that many attacks are planned within a small group (cell) and the intentions relayed to A-Q leaders. The leaders don't approve or disapprove the plan but only provide resources and establish timing guidelines.
Could it be, Ms. Pelosi that the persons who planned the attack haven't been captured, tried and convicted because they DIED in the attack????
What a FReeping moron.
I hope the "Teach Them A Lesson" 'conservatives with principles' will be happy with President Pelosi.
Democrat's support for the terrorist remain unwaivering.
It is a huge mistake to set up trials that can be overturned. This is war, this is not a criminal trial.
During a war, you take prisoners based on, not the violation of some point of law, but rather on the perception of threat. The perception of threat is by its nature subjective. During peace-time that would never be sufficient justification for an arrest, or where it is allowed it is usually limited to no more than 3 days.
During war, the perception of threat is all the justification you need to hold someone indefinitely, until hostilities are over, or until you have satisfied yourself that the detainee is no longer a threat if he ever was.
That is where a hearing could justifiably be employed, as a means of reviewing the detainee's status. If he is considered to be no threat, maybe he was a farmer who was scooped up during a raid, you let him go. If he was a threat, but no longer, or he was very cooperative, let him go. If he is likely to resume hostilities, you don't let him go. These are subjective decisions, based on experience and military judgement. Its not about guilt or innocence.
If he is considered a threat even after the war is over, or if he is a threat even in confinement, you hang him.
The hearing where he is formally sentenced would not be really about guilt or innocence, but rather about documenting the reasons you are going to hang him.
Saddam's trial, for example, is not a normal trial; his death is a forgone conclusion. He can never be allowed to go free, and he is a danger even in confinement, he is a symbol, and his existence invites attacks designed to free him.
He is not on "trial" in the normal sense. He will hang. The hearing is a means of documenting the reasons he will hang. But he must hang.
I don't see any evidence that Democrats understand any of this.
Dial 1-800-waaahaaa
That is idiotic. Nobody voted to "go to war" so people would be "brought to justice".
We went to war because the Taliban refused to turn over or fight against Al Qaeda. We went to war to REMOVE THE REGIME. And we did so. We also were killing a lot of terrorists, not "bringing them to justice". War is not a police action.
Well then, I'm glad I'm not a democrat. I want those terrorists dead. That eliminates the entire trials and appeals process. I'm tired of paying to coddle these barbarians with our legal system when they don't reciprocate with any legal system at all. To resolve the Geneva problem, we should affirm that the Geneva accords do not apply or provide any kind of protection to those who are not signatories thereto. The civilized world cannot apply civilized processes to those who don't accept them in their reciprocal actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.