|
Author
|
Topic: Obama moving terrorist detainees to mainland US
|
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 11, 2009 07:29 PM
 
Originally the idea was rendition. Bush didn't want the detainees to have access to the courts. In order to accomodate that, you have to hold them outside of the United States. The Supreme Court repeatedly decided against the Bush Administration, and said that the detainees have the right to challenge their incarceration.IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 10:08 AM
Please list ALL the "logical" reasons terrorists detained at Gitmo should be tried in US criminal Courts...and if found guilty, incarcerated in US prisons.Go ahead, I dare you to come up with "logical" reasons to do this. IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 626
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 12:37 PM
"The Supreme Court repeatedly decided against the Bush Administration, and said that the detainees have the right to challenge their incarceration."that would be the supreme court PRE sotomayor, wouldn't it?! you know, that "blind" justice court we want to preserve. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 02:28 PM
That's a losing argument katatonic.The Supreme Court "DID NOT" say terrorists had to be tried in US criminal courts or that they must be imprisoned in US prisons. Now: "Please list ALL the "logical" reasons terrorists detained at Gitmo should be tried in US criminal Courts...and if found guilty, incarcerated in US prisons." IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 626
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 02:54 PM
i have at no point suggested that i thought they should...wherever did you get that idea? i merely said that we have prisons perfectly capable of holding them and that the bush administration has already released hundreds into the world at large which since they came from other places in the first place just gives them carte blanche to continue on their merry way.now please prove my quote wrong.you know, the one you MISquoted in my last post. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 03:06 PM
The Supreme Court said that the detainees could not be held indefinitely without any legal recourse. Congress then approved military tribunals, which also got thwarted by, yes, the dominantly Conservative Supreme Court.That's not a "losing argument," Jwhop. That's the series of events that have taken place. IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 04:17 PM
It is a losing argument to put forth the argument that a Supreme Court ruling is the logical reason terrorists should be tried and incarcerated in US prisons.The Supreme Court said no such thing. Now since you who approve of O'Bomber's brain dead reasoning haven't come up with a single logical reason for doing so, I ask again: "Please list ALL the "logical" reasons terrorists detained at Gitmo should be tried in US criminal Courts...and if found guilty, incarcerated in US prisons."
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 04:25 PM
quote:
It is a losing argument to put forth the argument that a Supreme Court ruling is the logical reason terrorists should be tried and incarcerated in US prisons.
She didn't assert such a thing when you called what she said a "losing argument." She wasn't arguing anything. She was merely pointing out that it was a dominantly Conservative court that made these decisions that gave detainees rights under the U.S. legal system. This continued asking for some logical reason is impractical. You don't like that they're coming here. Noted. The President has made a decision, and you're going to have to live with it regardless if you think it's illogical. End of story.
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 361
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 12, 2009 09:52 PM
Asking for some reasonable logical reasons to try terrorists in US criminal courts and imprison them, if convicted, in US prisons is hardly impractical.Making the decision to move terrorists out of a state of the art 200 million dollar facility, try them in Criminal Courts and house them in US prisons IS impractical as is defending the numb skull who made the decision for political reasons to appease the far left radical base of the demoscat party. So: "Please list ALL the "logical" reasons terrorists detained at Gitmo should be tried in US criminal Courts...and if found guilty, incarcerated in US prisons." Don't be so sure I'm going to have to live with O'Bomber's decision. Even Congressional demoscats are up in arms over the idea....and it's even more unpopular with US citizens. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 426
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted June 13, 2009 12:32 AM
That's true. It may not come to any of them being in prison here, or released here. That has yet to be seen. The latest is that some are being transferred to a Saudi terrorist rehabilitation center.IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
