Skip to comments.
Thompson: Due process for bin Laden
Yahoo News/ The Associated Press ^
| 09/10/2007
| JIM DAVENPORT
Posted on 09/10/2007 3:02:19 PM PDT by plain old dave
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-136 next last
To: plain old dave
First of all, it is obvious that if binny is still alive (and the jury is still out on that), his guards will not let him be taken alive (if possible). If we do catch him, Due Process means a “secret prison” and water sports... then Gitmo.
LLS
101
posted on
09/10/2007 4:57:24 PM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
To: Tailgunner Joe
That is what you, I and the Bush Administration think, but the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise... quite incorrectly in my opinion.
LLS
102
posted on
09/10/2007 5:09:09 PM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
To: plain old dave
How much good could a good man do, if a good man would ban YOU !?
103
posted on
09/10/2007 5:09:42 PM PDT
by
b9
("Fred... doesn't suffer fools and he has the guts and the microphone to say what I think" ~ Samwise)
To: Tailgunner Joe
How about a frying hot bacon oil enema?
LLS
104
posted on
09/10/2007 5:12:54 PM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
To: codercpc
Fred knows well of the SCOTUS decision (he was a US Attorney) covering this... and he also knows that binny will never make it to our shores... and there is DUE PROCESS under the UCMJ. There are secret prisons in countries where UCMJ does not apply (we, acting only in an observer capacity). He gets Due Process under UCMJ when he arrives at Gitmo (Military Tribunal).
Fred would be advocating an illegal action if he were to say otherwise. We are a Nation of Laws... even when those Laws are wrong... and ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse under the Law. It really is that simple.
LLS
105
posted on
09/10/2007 5:21:51 PM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
To: plain old dave
Just as Saddam had and the Nazis....
106
posted on
09/10/2007 5:28:12 PM PDT
by
Fred
(Democrat Party - "The Nadir of Nihilism")
To: LibLieSlayer
I realize all of that, yet I admit when I read the story my first thought brought back Deans comments from 3 years ago, and the outrage here over his remarks. Plus, this is not the first time that the Thompson campaign has had to redefine his statements. Yet I still never heard of interrogation being part of "due process"
I absolutely do not think this is a campaign ending blunder, but I think Fred should think of a better way to phrase his answer for the next time it comes up. Even though UCMJ and civilian justice are two totally separate things, the phrase "due process" instantly makes me think of a trial by jury (like Dean talked about), so even though he didn't mean that, if I thought it I am sure others did too. And let's face it, people read headlines, not full articles, and without reading this full article it will be misinterpreted.
To: plain old dave
it is all a matter of the process that is due.
seriously.
There is a significant difference between what process is given to an enemy soldier in time of war vs a mere criminal.
The clintons consider islamic terorists a mere criminal issue.
108
posted on
09/10/2007 5:50:15 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Tailgunner Joe
Its a legal argument. Thompson is the one who interjected the law into this debate, in true lawyer fashion. Bin Laden does not deserve due process of law. Sure he does. Of course, many factors affect the level of process a person is due to receive. When we capture Bin Laden, I think we should undertake sufficient process to confirm that the guy we captured is actually the guy we're looking for and not some impostor or look-alike.
109
posted on
09/10/2007 6:05:18 PM PDT
by
supercat
(Sony delenda est.)
To: codercpc
He is a past US Attorney... he thinks like an attorney... he is a Federalist due to his education of the law... and you must dissect his remarks understanding this. If you read on in the statement, he clarifies his thinking on it... but you must read and absorb the entire statement... and not some other agenda parsing his words.
LLS
110
posted on
09/10/2007 6:31:10 PM PDT
by
LibLieSlayer
(Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
To: jdm
seems we have new registers who are either deaniacs, paulists, or guiliani viral advertisers.
111
posted on
09/10/2007 6:43:02 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: counterpunch
You’re right about the definition of due process. It does not necessarily imply the due process granted to citizens under the constitution.
112
posted on
09/10/2007 7:53:29 PM PDT
by
RJS1950
(The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
To: plain old dave
Had we caught Hitler he would have gotten due process as well. It’s what differentiates us from our enemy.
113
posted on
09/10/2007 8:01:05 PM PDT
by
Cacique
(quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
To: plain old dave; timpad; TBarnett34; MeekOneGOP; PetroniDE; Lady Jag; mhking; glock rocks; ...
It is better to humiliate the bum alive then to kill him off to make him a martyr. The intelligence value alone is priceless
Now, how does it feel to be ozone fried kitty chow?
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
114
posted on
09/11/2007 5:55:22 AM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: darkwing104
troll activity is on the rise
115
posted on
09/11/2007 6:03:22 AM PDT
by
GQuagmire
(Giggety,Giggety,Giggety)
To: plain old dave
116
posted on
09/11/2007 6:05:30 AM PDT
by
JRios1968
(Faith is not believing that God can. It is knowing that God will. - Ben Stein)
To: plain old dave
Point against Fred.
Gotta disagree, emphatically. Osama bin Laden needs to be caught and killed. His wives need to found and killed. His children need to be found an killed. Their spouses and children need to be found and killed.
No trials. No mercy. No second chances.
117
posted on
09/11/2007 6:09:05 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(Rudy Guiliani: If his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
To: GQuagmire
Look for more today...I suspect the mods will be quite busy
118
posted on
09/11/2007 6:14:41 AM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
Comment #119 Removed by Moderator
To: plain old dave
Awww, you’ve been zotted.
120
posted on
09/11/2007 6:25:56 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(WE WILL NEVER FORGET!!!!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-136 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson