Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 91 to 100 of 100
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    12,887
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 354 Times in 237 Posts
    Rep Power
    2115257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Except I think the judiciary is the forum, pending Awlaki himself having expressed a willingness for the courts to redress his grievance. He did not; and I think it stands to reason he was aware of his right to do so. He chose not to, for whatever reasons...
    You have to choose the courts review your case? Did the Unabomber choose to come in for redress? Did Eric Rudolph? You're not entitled to Due Process only if you "express willingness," you're entitled regardless. They should have determined the proper forum to try him, complete with review if necessary, in absentia if necessary even. If they could craft a memo to give themselves legal cover then I'm sure they could have devised a way to try him by military tribunal.
    An essential of Thatcherism:

    But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,024
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 271 Times in 147 Posts
    Rep Power
    1036451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by revelarts View Post
    You must have must scanned my reply, i was talking about the son. But Agreed Due process can't get lost in the shuffle even when on the surface it seem plain that a person is guilty.
    I hate to say it this way, Rev, but sometimes collateral damage happens in war, which is why so many people try to move their families and loved ones clear of it. Yes, we should be making certain Due process is done, but mostly with the war overseas, it's going to be getting done post mortem, as opposed to while they're still alive.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    29,962
    Thanks
    766
    Thanked 2,837 Times in 1,427 Posts
    Rep Power
    3039711

    Default

    Sure, Awlaki's son, innocent, wrong place at the wrong time - just happened to be cruising the town with known terrorists when a missile landed in their laps. Don't hang around with Al Qaeda and the likes and you'll have a better chance of avoiding incoming missiles.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,418
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked 194 Times in 135 Posts
    Rep Power
    2055894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    Right, or "stress positions", which is torture, possibly more mild torture, but it's fucking torture. I generally follow a simple guideline: If I am having to search for a more friendly term for what I'm doing, I probably shouldn't be doing it.

    Now, the Domestic AQ leaders clearly fall within Treason during a time of war, so they've got an automatic death penalty hanging even if we took them alive, so this is more about making certain that we're doing due diligence here.
    Damn you and your internal quote response.

    Internal affairs is outside of the police force? That'd be like saying the Justice Dept, led by Eric Holder, is outside the executive branch.
    To address the Judicial role, specifically as I see it being involved in this case-- I would say if the law enacted by Congress, ( the kill terrorist law, whatever) granted some unfettered power to the CIC,-- then the law is absolutely reviewable for being unconstitutionally vague; that's the tort, that the law failed, not how the executive branch failed to consult the Judicial Branch.
    The idea that the Judicial branch should assist in, or dictate how a law is carried into execution is blatantly in violation of the separation of powers.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,418
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked 194 Times in 135 Posts
    Rep Power
    2055894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    You have to choose the courts review your case? Did the Unabomber choose to come in for redress? Did Eric Rudolph? You're not entitled to Due Process only if you "express willingness," you're entitled regardless. They should have determined the proper forum to try him, complete with review if necessary, in absentia if necessary even. If they could craft a memo to give themselves legal cover then I'm sure they could have devised a way to try him by military tribunal.
    Technically, it wasn't the unabomber who sought redress, but the People. Do you think the war on terror consists of Obama throwing darts at a perp lineup? I'm sure there's a process; it's just not made public; because like many investigations confidential information is used that, if made public, would compromise both the investigation at hand, but a myriad of coextensive investigations as well. He had the right to confront his accuser, a trial by jury, to have the evidence presented to himself and his counsel-- but a trial in absentia would fail to fulfill these rights; and furthermore, it would compromise the ongoing investigations the President has been instructed by law to carry out-- its lose/lose.-- but the fix is simple, bring the man in for trial. But what costs should We incur to see this happen? Should we risk dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives to satisfy the rights of a man who expressed nothing but disdain for the US of A, including his rightful Constitutional protection? It seems to me the process well-afforded him what he was due. You could make a better case for cruel and unusual punishment than a violation of due process.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    12,887
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 354 Times in 237 Posts
    Rep Power
    2115257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Technically, it wasn't the unabomber who sought redress, but the People. Do you think the war on terror consists of Obama throwing darts at a perp lineup? I'm sure there's a process; it's just not made public; because like many investigations confidential information is used that, if made public, would compromise both the investigation at hand, but a myriad of coextensive investigations as well. He had the right to confront his accuser, a trial by jury, to have the evidence presented to himself and his counsel-- but a trial in absentia would fail to fulfill these rights; and furthermore, it would compromise the ongoing investigations the President has been instructed by law to carry out-- its lose/lose.-- but the fix is simple, bring the man in for trial. But what costs should We incur to see this happen? Should we risk dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives to satisfy the rights of a man who expressed nothing but disdain for the US of A, including his rightful Constitutional protection? It seems to me the process well-afforded him what he was due. You could make a better case for cruel and unusual punishment than a violation of due process.
    The people are seeking redress against Awlaki as well. Perp lineup? Conviction by memo not made public? I think a military tribunal can satisfy classified information. How would absentia fail to fulfill? Are you arguing against what I said or what you presume?

    The process did not grant him what he was due. If they can expend all of that time and energy they can certainly craft another method of handling the Awlakis of the world without tossing out the Constitution.
    An essential of Thatcherism:

    But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,418
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked 194 Times in 135 Posts
    Rep Power
    2055894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    The people are seeking redress against Awlaki as well. Perp lineup? Conviction by memo not made public? I think a military tribunal can satisfy classified information. How would absentia fail to fulfill? Are you arguing against what I said or what you presume?

    The process did not grant him what he was due. If they can expend all of that time and energy they can certainly craft another method of handling the Awlakis of the world without tossing out the Constitution.
    Its quasi-judicial, but I concede this would satisfy both sides of the argument.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Posts
    5,024
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 271 Times in 147 Posts
    Rep Power
    1036451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Damn you and your internal quote response.

    Internal affairs is outside of the police force? That'd be like saying the Justice Dept, led by Eric Holder, is outside the executive branch.
    To address the Judicial role, specifically as I see it being involved in this case-- I would say if the law enacted by Congress, ( the kill terrorist law, whatever) granted some unfettered power to the CIC,-- then the law is absolutely reviewable for being unconstitutionally vague; that's the tort, that the law failed, not how the executive branch failed to consult the Judicial Branch.
    The idea that the Judicial branch should assist in, or dictate how a law is carried into execution is blatantly in violation of the separation of powers.
    Really, so it's not judges who pass the death penalty in every single other court in our country? Instead, clearly we should trust the same two branches that are doing and envisioned it, and clearly having anyone outside that would just be crazy? Sorry, but that's not checked or balanced. There needs to be an outside review, and again, I say review, just like cop shootings are reviewed after the fact, but we do not trust investigations to the very people who carried out the shootings.
    "Government screws up everything. If government says black, you can bet it's white. If government says sit still for your safety, you'd better run for your life!"
    --Wayne Allyn Root
    www.rootforamerica.com
    www.FairTax.org

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In a house; two stories, suburban
    Posts
    7,418
    Thanks
    172
    Thanked 194 Times in 135 Posts
    Rep Power
    2055894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 View Post
    Really, so it's not judges who pass the death penalty in every single other court in our country? Instead, clearly we should trust the same two branches that are doing and envisioned it, and clearly having anyone outside that would just be crazy? Sorry, but that's not checked or balanced. There needs to be an outside review, and again, I say review, just like cop shootings are reviewed after the fact, but we do not trust investigations to the very people who carried out the shootings.
    In our country, sure. Was Alwaki in our country? No, he was in Yemen; and Yemen had already convicted him, in absentia, of inciting violence against foreigners iirc.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    12,887
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 354 Times in 237 Posts
    Rep Power
    2115257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    Its quasi-judicial, but I concede this would satisfy both sides of the argument.
    And Consitutional, and appealable to the judiciary.

    Quote Originally Posted by logroller View Post
    In our country, sure. Was Alwaki in our country? No, he was in Yemen; and Yemen had already convicted him, in absentia, of inciting violence against foreigners iirc.
    Why didn't Yemen take him out then? I can imagine that they brook no dissent.
    An essential of Thatcherism:

    But more importantly, she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •