Kalid Sheikh Mohammed

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 16 2007, 02:10 PM) [snapback]406975[/snapback]</div>

Why do you say that? By what standard are you saying that a justice system must allow counsel at a probable cause hearing?

Do they even have probable cause hearings in France, for instance? Is their legal system not "fair and respectable"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 16 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]407095[/snapback]</div>

In the United States, the accused is entitled to be represented by counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings. The courts have held that is whenever he or she is present in the courtroom. That right does not apply to a grand jury hearing, unless the suspect is called as a witness in which case he or she may consult with counsel outside the grand jury room. That right is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment:

I am not am expert on the French legal system. To the best of my knowledge, an investigating judge must first find sufficient evidence to prosecute a case before a defendant in a criminal action can be brought to trial.

A quick Google search led me to this web page:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 16 2007, 02:19 AM) [snapback]406641[/snapback]</div>

That was my take, too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 16 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]406729[/snapback]</div>

I edited my earlier post because a part was left out. Specifically this part . . .

Do you call your weatherman a liar when he forecasts rain and none comes?

I'm sure you could produce many many quotes to support what you believe and it would indeed be a waste of time because all your quotes would be after the fact and have no basis in fact. How about producing facts like I did that support your position before the event? I'll consider those but they don't exist. Quotes after the fact are as useless as tits on a boar hog.

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 16 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]406729[/snapback]</div>

The person who types the most wins? Zen are you naive are you completely ignorant of copy n' paste? :lol:

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Mar 16 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]406729[/snapback]</div>

I can't begin to count the number of times you and your ilk have weaseled out of supporting your factless statements with this excuse when challenged. Typical. . . :lol:

Wildkow

* emphasis supplied

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Mar 16 2007, 08:48 PM) [snapback]407245[/snapback]</div>

The constitutionality of the military courts has been upheld numerous times. It is another system of justice. The current court has upheld the (now) current hearings of the detainees; the Administration was told they must hold the hearings, but the format and specific methods used are OK. There is nothing unconsititutional in the manner in which KSM was handled.

Our civilian courts, with the impartial judge and the burden being on the prosecution, are designed to protect the powerless against the powerful state. If we err on the side of the accused, well perhaps its better that a thousand guilty men go free rather than a single innocent man be incarcerated. But I can't support that sentiment when you have a man accused of mass murder; the "poisoned fruit" approach to evidence means guilty people go free. Guilty terrorists should not go free.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 17 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]407470[/snapback]</div>

Yes, the military courts are constitutional. However, unlike in these special tribunals, the accused in the military courts has the right to be represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. The probable cause hearing has repeated been deemed to be a critical stage by the United States Supreme Court.

I found it quite interesting that rationale used by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a two to one ruling, to justify its conclusion that the Federal District Courts did not have the authority to hear challenges by the Guantanamo detainees was that the de facto control that the United States exercises over Guantanamo does not rise to the level of sovereignty. I guess the appellate court has ceded jurisdiction over the detainees to the Cuban courts.

FindLaw.com - Federal Appeals Court Upholds the Jurisdiction-Stripping Provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 17 2007, 02:01 AM) [snapback]407289[/snapback]</div>

Missed the point, as usual. It doesn't matter how many times or how many facts are supplied to you and a small number of other posters. They are the same facts, over and over, that are treated the same way, over and over. You dismiss, ignore, twist, deny and distract once facts are supplied. So no, I will not supply you again with what has already been supplied just so that you can ignore them once more. Do your own homework and consider your sources.

Stooping to insults does not strengthen your position nor your credibility, btw.

And, "you and your ilk"? If you think you know me by a few posts, I truly feel very sorry for you.

 

Based on this piece by Paul Craig Roberts' (Reagan's asst Sec of the Treasury), releasing the confession may not have been very smart,

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts03172007.html

"Reading responses of BBC listeners to Mohammed's confession reveals that the rest of the world is either laughing at the US government for being so stupid as to think that anyone anywhere would believe the confession or damning the Bush regime for being like the Gestapo and KGB."

 

There were some good letters in my Saturday newspaper. Put it this way, we're a little skeptical of the "confessions" arising from America's offshore torture chambers:

And of course, by treating him in this way, the US have pretty much blown any chance of ever having him properly convicted. Certainly publically releasing the confession prejudices any possible future case.

Here's the Los Angeles Times

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 17 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]407470[/snapback]</div>

That depends on whether kangaroo courts that admit evidence gained by torture falls within what the constitution allows. In any case, I can only hope the US constitution has not become an instrument of torture. But the judicial treatment prior to the civil war of slavery probably suggests otherwise.

Christians for torture today, and christians for slavery 150 years ago sound remarkably similar.

This entire mockery fails the sane human being test, but try telling that to a rightard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Mar 19 2007, 02:56 PM) [snapback]408584[/snapback]</div>

Zencruiser do you or do you not call your weatherman a liar when he forecasts rain and none comes? No one that I have asked that question to has yet answered, it must be a really hard question.

Wildkow

 

So other countries news reports are saying that the world is either laughing at the US or damning them because of the release of the confession...

Yeah, i think i'll support bush and his cronies now that the entire world sees how they're willing to completely ignore US law and morals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 20 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]408870[/snapback]</div>

I know you have trouble with simple reasoning, so read the following verrrry slowly, until you get it:

Christians who supported slavery, did not do anything to abolish it. Same with Nazism etc. I did not say *all* christians supported slavery, or that all christians support torture today. I said the justifications are similar in the groups that did then, and do now.

It is hilarious that you rant against 'islamofascism', but ardently support americafascism. Keep on barking, doberman.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Mar 20 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]409091[/snapback]</div>

You know, you're slandering me when you call him that. Don't make me come over there and eat that delicious looking kitty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Doberman @ Mar 20 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]409099[/snapback]</div>

ROFL !

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Mar 20 2007, 03:51 AM) [snapback]408823[/snapback]</div>

Or so inane as to be unworthy of an answer.

But you just go right on thinking you thought up a "really hard question"... :wacko: