Posted on 11/15/2005 3:22:43 PM PST by Valin
So I presume you are admitting you lied? BTW, I have no intention of looking up the Ryder report.
Court may suspend "War on Terror" trials, but then it would be only appropriate to extend War On Terror captures & firing squads.
I do not like "flaming" Freepers, but your post goes beyond the Pale!
You do not know what you write about and I question anyone who would say you are reasoned and thoughtful. Those qualities require an education and ability to sort through propaganda versus truth. You have neither.
PS: I do not respond to those who do not know what WAR means! EOM!
Or in a Southern Sherrif voice
"Damndest case of suicide I have ever seen"
BTTT
Considering that enemy captured out of uniform are not due the rights of prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, one wonders why there are any trials at all.
Stop capturing them and simply kill them instead.
Oh my God! How disgusting.
That's exactly what this intervention will lead to, just as all the 'due process' and 'exclusionary rule' bull---- in the 60's lead to more perjury from LEO's, falsified lab evidence, and a grotesque expansion of charges even for minor offenses so that defendants could be coerced into pleading to a lesser offense.
You would think, being judges, that they would have figured out the Law of Unintended Consequences by now. But nahhh, as long as they can feel good about being members of the liberal country club, who cares.
My guess is we will get a 5-4 decision allowing tribunals to stand but eviscerating the nature of the process by adding so many 'due process' protections and appeal rights that they might as well all stand for 10 year long trials like the 1993 WTC bombers did. Justice Worked! (but only because the defendants didn't die of old age first).
When is Bush going to a grow a pair and tell the courts to f--- off?
Empty the base. Send them all to Iraq.
Never. Nobody is going to stand against the juggernaut.
"Um, not so much. The TOP Nazis had trials. The vast majority of Nazis were not tried. And particularly nasty Nazis of lower rank were often taken from British POW camps and executed. Without, I might note, benefit of a trial at all."
I have not heard much about that - thank you.
"Ok - I didn't think what I read was what you meant! LOL Thanks for the clarification. I just do NOT what activist judges trying to apply foreign law (read: Breyer) to screw this up."
And thanks for asking instead of assuming..we have enough problems with misinterpreting our own laws without dragging other people's into it.
Hear hear.
ROFL!!!!
Since the courts now make the law can we just shut down the US Senate?
http://www.answers.com/tribunal&r=67
"tri·bu·nal (trī-byū'nəl, trĭ-) pronunciation n.
1. Law.
1. A seat or court of justice.
2. The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.
2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.
3. Something that has the power to determine or judge: the tribunal of public opinion."
But you are right they were called tribunals at Nuremberg. They were public though and there were specific charges and legal representation.
But you do make a good point about the war being over.
Where is the Willy Pete when you need it
Interesting.
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.