TERRY MASON: U.S. WILL RUE BRING TERRORISTS HERE FOR TRIAL!

1. There will be attacks on the Courthouse by terrorists.
2. Hostages will be taken for trade for 9/11 terrorists.
3. The USA will be on trial by liberal defense lawyers. (Abu Gharib, waterborading, picking noses, etc...)

I rest my case.

The US Constitution. I rest my case.

Stephanie wrote:The US Constitution. I rest my case.

Thank you, Hamilton Butcher. Lt. Tragg, Homeland Security, begs to differ with you. But, Ron Paul Drake likes your chutzpah.

Sorry but the scare tactics no longer work on me.

Stephanie wrote:Sorry but the scare tactics no longer work on me.

Do you fly?

No, it's my greatest phobia, always has been.

Although.......there are a few people would swear I have a broom in my closet and a cauldron in my backyard! LOL

Stephanie wrote:Although.......there are a few people would swear I have a broom in my closet and a cauldron in my backyard! LOL

The Smiths?

Stephanie wrote:The US Constitution. I rest my case.

What part applies to foreign terrorist who attacked the United States?

The Constitution applies to anyone the government seeks to prosecute, Aaron. Our government ignores it and the nation and all Americans are in danger.

Stephanie wrote:The Constitution applies to anyone the government seeks to prosecute, Aaron. Our government ignores it and the nation and all Americans are in danger.

Stephanie wrote:Sorry but the scare tactics no longer work on me.

Ditto.

This is a military matter and should be held as such. These individuals should be tried in a military court of law utilizing the Geneva Convention and all other aspects of what applies to Military law.

It has no business in our courts and those responsible have no right to our constitution or any of it's protections.

The US can't have it both ways. They can't deny prisoners rights under the Geneva Conventions when it suits them and then use GC as an excuse to deny them rights under our Constitution.

Stephanie wrote:The US can't have it both ways. They can't deny prisoners rights under the Geneva Conventions when it suits them and then use GC as an excuse to deny them rights under our Constitution.

I say, "Don't take any prisoners. If you do, drain them of intelligence and then shoot them."

They're still human beings and we are a nation that has always believed a person is innocent until proven guilty. If we deny that basic right to some, it is only a matter of time before it is denied us all.

Stephanie wrote:They're still human beings and we are a nation that has always believed a person is innocent until proven guilty. If we deny that basic right to some, it is only a matter of time before it is denied us all.

Are you saying that Military Tribunals are unconstitutional? Unjust?

I'm not saying they do not deserve their day in court Stephanie. I'm saying that day is not in our judicial system and they do not deserve the rights granted under our Constitution.

What they deserve is a military tribunal in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Just because the last administration denied them those rights doesn't mean this one should do a 180 and grant them access to our judicial system.

The only thing that is going to be on trail in New York is the previous administration by the loon left, not these terrorist. Holder’s justice department knows that regardless of what is presented the verdict and the result will be the same for the terrorist.

Obama and company know s they can’t directly go after George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as the political fall out would be devasting so they are using this end around as a means to put their actions on trial in the court of public opinion.

I'm saying Congress never declared war. I'm saying our military and our government hasn't adhered to the Geneva Conventions. I'm saying that America should never take people prisoner and hold them indefinitely without filing charges and providing access to attorneys and we don't torture people. America, the country I love, doesn't engage in practices like extraordinary rendition.

Our country acted within the guidelines of United States law voted on and passed by Congress and either signed by the President or placed in law by overriding a Presidential veto.

Whether you approve of the methods or not, the terrorist who attacked this country have no legal right to our judicial court system or protections under our constitution.

Aaron,

When did Congress declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan? Did I miss it?

Our government arrested, tried, and convicted, the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993. They even went overseas to capture the so-called mastermind, arresting him in Pakistan. These terrorists were brought to justice and they received benefit of the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. It worked then, it will work now. The precedent has been set.

No amount of fear mongering can change the facts. We lived through this, Aaron. I'm talking about something that happened a hundred years ago, or even 50 years ago. I'm talking about events that unfolded in our nation within the past 15 years. You and I and Keli and Dick Cheney remember how our system of justice worked against Ramzi Yousef and the others involved in planning and carrying out the attack.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

When did Congress declare war on Iraq or Afghanistan? Did I miss it?

October 2002. As I recall you saying when the Iraq War Powers Resolution were first issued, you supported them and our President so there’s no way you missed it. Your advanced age might be assisting you in forgetting but Congress did vote for and authorize the use of force in Iraq.

You may not agree that is a declaration of war but until it is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the War Powers Act is the law of the land and as such, suffices as Congressional approval in place of a declaration of war. (On a personal note, I'm not so sure it would be declared unconstitutional as it does require Congress to discuss the merits of war and vote yea or nay on the use of our troops. The only way I see it being unconstitutional is that it would cede too much power to Congress as the President is the Commander in Chief of our military but that's another discussion)

Stephanie wrote:Our government arrested, tried, and convicted, the terrorists who bombed the WTC in 1993. They even went overseas to capture the so-called mastermind, arresting him in Pakistan. These terrorists were brought to justice and they received benefit of the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution. It worked then, it will work now. The precedent has been set.

I disagree. In 1993, President Clinton treated the bombing like a criminal act and responded accordingly and that was all well and good but it is certainly not the precedent for current circumstances.

President Bush treated the terrorist as enemy combatants and held them as such. They have been interrogated, questioned and even admitted guilt. If they are brought to trail, they can act as defendants, demand discovery (a constitutional right) and not only learn how they were captured, but in doing so, get a look at our entire national defense including detailed classified and national security information linking how our intelligence is gathered against Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.

In military commissions, which this administration has agreed to and has stated they will continue to utilize against other known terrorist, the terrorist have to accept a lawyer, said lawyer has to have a security clearance to see classified information and he cannot reveal it to the terrorist.

Once again, you might not agree but those are the facts, the cases are nothing alike thus precedent has not been set.

Stephanie wrote:No amount of fear mongering can change the facts. We lived through this, Aaron. I'm talking about something that happened a hundred years ago, or even 50 years ago. I'm talking about events that unfolded in our nation within the past 15 years. You and I and Keli and Dick Cheney remember how our system of justice worked against Ramzi Yousef and the others involved in planning and carrying out the attack.

I'm not fear mongering. I'm stating the facts as they are. The cases are not the same. First and foremost, Yousef wasn't a member of Al Qaeda and didn't act with the full support and planning of any known terrorist organizations at the time. He and two others acted alone and as such, the trial was the right way to go.

With Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other 4 planners, they didn't act in the bombing. They planned, financed and supported the terrorist attack and as such, are enemy combatants of the Untied States of America, not criminals.

As such, they do not deserve access to our civilian judicial court system, our constitution or our rights. And as the verdict has already been decided (Mohammad admitted guilt and ask to be put to death) this is nothing more then a 3 ring circus that will take years to carry out (discovery alone could take 5 years or more) and is nothing more then Barrack Obama's and Eric Holders making good on a campaign promise to give the far left anti-war loons of the Democratic Party justice by putting George Bush, Dick Cheney and the previous administration on trail.

If Mohammad and the other terrorist are to be tried, it must be under military commissions, which Congress lawfully voted on and which 2 Presidents have agreed is the correct manner in which to handle terrorist, not in our civilian courts.

If Holder insist on carrying out this charade, I believe the House of Representatives should pass articles of impeachment and the Senate should remove him from office.

Ha! You're what, a year younger than me? Wait, your day is coming...

The IWR was not a declaration of war. They are not the same thing, Aaron and you know that. I supported it in part because I didn't have a full understanding of what was being done, but also because I didn't have as much information available to me then as I do today. In fact, along with the rest of the American people, I was lied to.

President Bush treated the terrorist as enemy combatants and held them as such. They have been interrogated, questioned and even admitted guilt.

The Bush administration and the US military did not abide by the Geneva Convention. Admissions of guilt obtained through the use of torture are meaningless, Aaron. You say you're worried about classified information and discovery but what is far more likely to be learned by the world is what methods were used to extract these confessions.

I'd have to go and do some research on this subject, and right now I don't have the time (we're working on Colonial America here and have a couple of projects going on related to Colonial life) but I do not believe Yousef and the two men convicted with him were the only people convicted and sentenced related to the 1993 WTC bombing. There was a group tried sooner and sentenced to life in prison, I'm almost positive........I don't think this is a senior moment.

Your use of the word "if" to begin your final paragraph is compelling evidence to me that you're not interested in justice or the rule of law and that's a pity. Our government denies these rights to these men and you don't know who will be next. You and I, we're a couple of middle aged people who aren't likely to have to face the consequences of such a decision. It will be our children and our grandchildren who will truly have to deal with the outcome.

I value liberty most now, Aaron. I think it's come with age. When I was younger I would have answered security but I'm convinced I've learned a few things over the past few decades and the lesson I believe has been best taught is that without liberty there is no security. Without the protections of our Constitution there can be no liberty, Aaron and if our government so easily denies those rights to people they've held captive and tortured for years who will they deny those rights to next? Given the amount of public apathy I'd say pretty much anybody is fair game.

The IWR is as good as a Declaration of War, at least until the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional. As I said earlier, I don't think that would happen unless they deem it cedes too much power to Congress but I could be wrong. That is my opinion though.

As far as security goes, were this about an American citizen or in any way affected my rights or the ability of the government to infringe on my rights, I would be right up on the soapbox with you screaming at the top of my lungs to give them their day in court.

But it’s not. The problem is, our government can't deny these rights to these men because they NEVER had them in the first place. You can't take away something that was NEVER granted.

So I see no point in endangering the lives of the individual’s responsible for gathering intelligence or for putting our country at risk for these 5 men who have no right to the constitution or the liberties and rights that are derived from it.

As for justice, yes I am interested in seeing it done. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admitted in his military tribunal that he is guilty as charged and ask to be executed. I say let's grant him his wish and imho, that is justice. And if the other 4 want the same justice, let's give it to them as well.

What you're not getting though is this is not about doing what's right for these terrorist or about granting someone rights they never had.

This is about putting the previous administration and the 'methods used to extract these confessions' on trial and I just don't believe we as a country should do that.

If Eric Holder or Barrack Obama want to put GWB, DC, DR or any other administration official on trial for the 'methods used to extract these confessions' then let them have the gonads to do it directly.

Charge them each specifically and bring them to trial and let them have their day in court and allow them to face their accuser.

But what shouldn't be allowed to happen is that this administration is allowed to put on a circus under the guise of granting rights to people who never had them for the sole purpose of trying the previous administration.

And for the record, I'll be 44 a week from Sunday.

Stephanie wrote:I'm saying Congress never declared war. I'm saying our military and our government hasn't adhered to the Geneva Conventions. I'm saying that America should never take people prisoner and hold them indefinitely without filing charges and providing access to attorneys and we don't torture people. America, the country I love, doesn't engage in practices like extraordinary rendition.

Al Qaeda declared war agaisnt the US. If the US declared war against Al Qaeda--which country would that be against? Is Al Qaeda a signatory to the Geneva Conventions?

Stephanie wrote:I'm saying Congress never declared war. I'm saying our military and our government hasn't adhered to the Geneva Conventions. I'm saying that America should never take people prisoner and hold them indefinitely without filing charges and providing access to attorneys and we don't torture people. America, the country I love, doesn't engage in practices like extraordinary rendition.

Though the words Declaration of War doesn't appear, congress authorized the use of force in both Iraq and Afganistan. Both houses passed the resolutions by a substancial number. So, yes war was declared.

The reality of the situation is, we are at war. We can argue and debate why we find ourselves here in the situation at this time, but in the end that isn't going to get us anywhere, because we will still be right here, at war with muslim extremism.

The reality also is that we have a congress and a president who lack the wherewithal and courage to fight. Instead they are posturing and whining attempting to see what political advantage they can get from this.

I don't like where we find ourselves any more than you do, but here is where we are. We had better be demanding our leaders get off their butts and fight this thing to win. That means some ugly decisions are going to have to be made and the rules of engagement are going to have to change to allow the enemy to be killed. Additionally, if we don't want to do this again, our leaders need to worry far less about offending the muslim community and more about breaking the extremist will to fight.

Then and only then if we are successful, can we discuss why we ended up where we did and what we need to do to prevent it from happening again.

For the record I hate my isp.......

So let me see if I have this straight......you all agree that it is acceptable for people to be held for long periods of time without charges being filed against them? It's ok to imprison people (without filing charges in a timely manner) and deny them access to lawyers in addition to the judicial system? Torture is not only acceptable, but the information obtained through the use of torture is to be considered reliable and should be used as "evidence"?

Am I correctly understanding you guys?