Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but paid users have great benefits. Paid member benefits:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2024 SX, MX, and SMX series (regularly $30).
As for this interview, what do you think the lawyer is going to say? He is not going to say anything negative towards his client, he can't.
O'Reilly's badgering shows either how little he understands about law and a legal defense or it's all showmanship for his viewers who understand little about the law and a legal defense.
and for the record, that lawyer is a moron for going on that show or any show at all.
The Shop
Enemy Combatants v. "World Citizen": What are these guys and How do we handle them?
No, I'm not looking for a throwdown; but, there is a legitimate argument to be had and it needs to be based on our laws and our interpretation of "Who" is "Entitled" to “What" based on our laws.
For instance: I'm of the opinion that certain "inalienable rights" are held for the privilege of citizens of the U.S. Almost exclusively. While "flarider" has argued a more 'Global-Approach' that is more in-line with the Presidents.
It would be nice to see an opinion from the SCOTUS that addresses this more directly than what we've heard thus far.
Legally. Correctly. Justly.
Look, I simply give credit where it's due.
JAGs & the D.O.D. have the ability to be FAIR & JUST. Call me a fool.
That's what I believe.
That's the caveat, isn't it?
Kaczynski was a terrorist and he got legal rights
and even in a military court, the defendant has the right to representation
Stop thinking and talking on emotion and look at law
You don't see the difference?
Edit: Bana0401 beat me to it
I will admit the whole thing is a fucked up mess, and IMO, there is no "right or wrong" answer....both solutions are "wrong"
KSM engaged in his act against citizens, as a civilian, not as part of a military or country's service.
So why would you put him in a military court? There was no war at the time and no military involvement.
He is a civilian.
You put him in a civilian court, we now run into the problems of miranda, speedy trial, representation, disclosure and then coerced admissions via torture.
Both are fucked up situations in this instance.
It's a mess and a mess that should have been thought out better from the beginning rather than "we'll just detain them forever"
Pit Row
The crime was not committed against the military.
.When the Coast guard hauls in drug runners they are not prosecuted in a military court.
We were not attacked by a country on 9/11
Then there's the argument of whether or not they were "Endorsed" by Afghanistan via the DeFacto leadership of that country, at that time. A legitimate legal argument.
Or...
Since they were caught, as you stated, via "Military Action"...there's that argument.
Still...shoulda been dealt with at Gitmo...a LONG-TIME-AGO.
Larry, dude, you're on the loooooosin' end of that argument.
If someone commits a crime in my neighborhood I want them prosecuted in my neighborhood.
And there is no comparison between 9/11 and an act of war.
Thats where you neo's went wrong.
It's all valid and it's all been/currently is still...Being argued amongst the belt-way types and their ilk.
Was Al Qeada running Afghanistan at the time?
Is there an Afghan-connection? Maybe...dunno?
This isn't Crystal Clear by any means.
Furthermore: Do they deserve all the "Protections" due a U.S. Citizen? Or should this be handled via Tribunal since the Military caught them and has them in Custody?
#1, there is no "right" answer because both options have levels of wrong application
#2, Aliens who commit crimes are still afforded the same legal rights as citizens, look it up.
#3, There was no war at the time of the crime and no military involvement.
#4, The suspect is not a member of any army or in the service of any country. He (and his group) acted independently.
#5, Non-military citizens are not put on trial in military tribunals.
#6, The crime took place on US soil. Where or by whom a suspect is captured is irrelevant, otherwise all drug runners and smugglers caught by the USCG would be put on trial in military courts. The location of the act determines jurisdiction, not where the suspect is captured or by whom.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, their own lawyer said......."
Post a reply to: Terrorist Lawyer