tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post2440840564461798896..comments2024-03-19T07:09:28.479-05:00Comments on Althouse: Lindsey Graham devastates Eric Holder.Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger245125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-31930137482375400102009-11-26T11:35:40.743-06:002009-11-26T11:35:40.743-06:00To those doing the Timothy McVeigh comparison, rem...To those doing the Timothy McVeigh comparison, remember Timothy McVeigh was a U.S citizen and entitled to rights and a trial in a U.S court. That cannot be said in this situation. These trials are being held in New York because of White House egos. Nothing more. To those that are so sure of conviction...two letters: O.J. Also, who would want to be on the jury? Who would put their life at risk for that???patihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12584076845517963813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90627821060739166022009-11-20T22:50:17.740-06:002009-11-20T22:50:17.740-06:001. It does not matter if al-Qaeda is a foreign sta...1. It does not matter if al-Qaeda is a foreign state or not. These people are non-citizens from many different foreign states, mercenaries against America in a common foreign state in which we are warring.<br /><br />2. Not sure I understand your second point.<br /><br />3. Sure, many laws have changed, but this is a discussion about the Constitution and what we think it meant, and we can divine many of the founders intentions by their actions and writings. The tribunal has been used EVER SINCE the Revolutionary War. It is not old and outdated.<br /><br />4. Your are correct in saying that the judicial has been trying foreign enemy combatants or terrorists in the past...in the form of tribunals. The Constitution says "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Tribunals are one of those ordained inferior courts. So, again I say the tribunals are a much better choice. <br /><br />As for habeas corpus, how is it that KSM has it if both the President and the attorney general have stated that if he was acquitted, he would remain in the custody of the state? If you are going to give him Constitutional rights, you have to give them all to him. It seems like a political decision to try him here because they are picking and choosing which rights they would give him. That's not the way the Constitution works. We are a nation under law not the arbitrary decisions of one man (Holder).<br /><br />5."...and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."<br /><br />This again is talking about dealings with those in foreign lands from an American citizen's point of view. It does not place our law over those of other countries. The US has no right or jurisdiction to force people of other countries to obey our laws. And since they cannot forced to be under our law, we also do not have the right or jurisdiction to afford them our rights under the Constitution. We don't have the rule over them. But in time of war or when they are on our soil we can prosecute them for acts committed.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04853235270790464088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91796570792350154662009-11-20T16:06:00.768-06:002009-11-20T16:06:00.768-06:001. al-Qaeda is not a state -- if al-Qaeda were act...1. al-Qaeda is not a state -- if al-Qaeda were acting under the authority of a state let us subdue that state ASAP as we did the Barbary Pirates who acted under the authority of the several Barbary Coast states.<br /><br />2. Unless al-Qaeda was part of our armed forces I don't see how Congress's power to regulate our land forces extends to it.<br /><br />3. The law of armed combat has changed dramatically since the Constitution was drafted. We can no longer rely on the customs and usages of that faraway day.<br /><br />4. Considering that the judiciary has been trying terrorists forever, though Congress could say that the judiciary could no longer try terrorists, I doubt the judiciary would put up with it. They've already demanded their right to habeas corpus.\<br /><br />5. At many points the Constitution maks it clear it applies to foreigners as well, <i>...and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.</i>former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-449254212563364532009-11-20T03:25:38.450-06:002009-11-20T03:25:38.450-06:00former law student,
Let's get to the most bas...former law student,<br /><br />Let's get to the most basic principle about the Constitution:<br /><br />The Constitution was written for citizens, not non-citizens. The Constitution gives citizens rights and our government guidelines to follow to maintain those rights. Being a citizen of the United States comes with privileges that non-citizens are not afforded under our Constitution.<br /><br />Look back to the war that those that wrote the Constitution experienced. Military tribunals were used as far back as the Revolutionary War by George Washington.<br /><br />Prisoners of war were not treated as citizens, but were held without trial, without rights. Taking care of them as we do today was not our concern. The only thing they could look forward to was a prisoner exchange, if they made it that far.<br /><br />Our legal system was not made for those enemy combatants, but for those U.S. citizens, under our law, who broke our law.<br /><br />As for KSM, he should be tried by military tribunal. <br /><br />They have worked effectively since the beginning of our country to punish those outside our country who would like to harm us. We are able to prosecute fairly without added security concerns or loss of sensitive intelligence. <br /><br />Holder's decision breaks grossly with that precedence.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04853235270790464088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17104519219149373672009-11-19T23:37:42.144-06:002009-11-19T23:37:42.144-06:00Under George Bush and Dick Cheney, Zacarias Moussa...<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101884.html" rel="nofollow">Under George Bush and Dick Cheney, Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in northern Virginia, near the Pentagon</a>. <br /><br />Where wer Huckleberry Graham, Ann Althouse and all the other right wing lemmings then? <br /><br />Why is it horrible and awful to have such a trial under Obama but it didn't elicit a peep under Bush? <br /><br />Hypocrites.AlphaLiberalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08711124490821422066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82637922394797971972009-11-19T22:22:51.878-06:002009-11-19T22:22:51.878-06:00First, Congress may define jurisdiction limits on ...First, Congress may define jurisdiction limits on the Supreme court. Although, there might be political and legal issues with a severe limitations of said jurisdiction.<br /><br />Second, Congress obviously sets jurisdiction limits on the lower courts and on military courts through the UCMJ.<br /><br />Moussaoui lives so who really knows whether he won or lost. However, our legal system won.<br /><br />And, regarding KSM and federal courts, Holder is setting the USA up to be hypocrites in the court of world opinion and in the eyes of our citizenry. Or, Holder is setting up a major restriction on the USA: Holder's view is that "the facts are such, you're guilty;" suffer little citizens. <br /><br />We are living in the hell of most interesting times of our own choosing; that sucks, big time.1775OGGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14855909337030182350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2989357682688433392009-11-19T21:51:46.461-06:002009-11-19T21:51:46.461-06:00Former Law Student Contradicts himself...
First h...Former Law Student Contradicts himself...<br /><br />First he says <br /><br />But it does vest the judicial power of the United States in the Judicial Branch, not in the Army.<br /><br />Then he correctly says that military judicial authority comes from Congress <br /><br />Nay, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the land and naval forces<br /><br />(that's where the UCMJ comes from)<br /><br />And further, Congress sets jurisdiction of all courts but the Supreme Court. Which is why the laws Congress passed should have been adhered to.<br /><br /><br /><br />Also, can one of the liberals please explain why the Massoui case is considered a success? <br /><br /><br />----Others objected to the degree to which the court and especially Judge Leonie Brinkema tolerated the bizarre and threatening courtroom behavior of Moussaoui.[2] Moussaoui expressed contempt for the trial and court by introducing legal motions deriding Judge Brinkema, surprised onlookers by electing to represent himself in court, and rankled federal prosecutors by requesting the presence of captured al-Qaeda members as witnesses in his case. During the course of the proceedings, Moussaoui admitted his guilt in various degrees, and to being a member of al-Qaeda.<br /><br />During the trial, Moussaoui initially stated that he was not involved in the September 11 attacks, but that he was planning an attack of his own. Some al-Qaeda members reportedly corroborated Moussaoui's statement to an extent, saying that he was involved in a plot other than September 11, but prosecutors believed that his story had no merit. On April 3, 2006, Moussaoui was found to be eligible for the death penalty. Before leaving the courtroom, he was reported to have shouted, "You will never get my blood. God curse you all!"[3] Later that month he withdrew his qualifications and again admitted guilt on all charges levied by the prosecution.<br /><br />On May 3, 2006, a jury decided against the death penalty for Moussaoui. The next day, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. As he was led out of the courtroom, Moussaoui clapped his hands and said, "America, you lost... I won."[<br /><br />Is it because a self-professed enemy of America was able to say "I won"?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333132048552751053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76910373078742372822009-11-19T21:37:09.133-06:002009-11-19T21:37:09.133-06:00Former Law Student----The difference between the w...Former Law Student----The difference between the would-be saboteurs in Quirin and al-Qaeda was that the would-be saboteurs were German nationals acting on behalf of Germany (with which we were at war) without anything identifying them as German military, while al-Qaeda are a bunch of thugs acting on their own.<br /><br /><br />Former Law student is assuming a fact not in evidence - that Al Queda members were acting on their own. Also, under the Geneva Convention, there is not a requirement for a state of war to be declared.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333132048552751053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6664729286327809642009-11-19T17:32:29.317-06:002009-11-19T17:32:29.317-06:00I see you're still struggling with the answer ...I see you're still struggling with the answer to the question posed earlier.<br /><br />Does Holder possess the Constutional authority to determine the proper venue for KSM to be put on trial? Yes or no?<br /><br />I suppose you're still trying to parse the question in such a fashion that you can refuse to answer it.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6206022855188893442009-11-19T17:29:13.707-06:002009-11-19T17:29:13.707-06:00If you can find your phrase in it, I will FedEx yo...<i>If you can find your phrase in it, I will FedEx you a left-over fun size Snickers bar.</i> <br /> <br /><br /><br />I don't recall saying that "my phrase" was in it. The absense of quotation marks on my part was a pretty big signal that I was not quoting the exact text.<br /><br />What I did do was correctly paraphrase what the text said - it says that Congress can restrict what the Supreme Court does and how it does it.<br /><br /><br />Or to give the exact cite, "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."<br /><br />Your wanting to be a pedant does not trouble me. Your being a poor excuse for one does.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28294836845369596562009-11-19T16:34:00.439-06:002009-11-19T16:34:00.439-06:001jpb: "Has anyone asked why the focus is on M...1jpb: "<i>Has anyone asked why the focus is on Miranda as a stumbling block rather than 183 water boardings which seem more like a mountain, in comparison?</i>"<br /><br />Yes, this is from way yesterday, so?<br /><br />I wanted to answer this clearly.<br /><br />Miranda is a symbolic reference to ALL the elements of the case and situation that do not conform to the protections afforded by our justice system.<br /><br />So it's not just Miranda rights, it's all rights afforded to the accused including the assumption of innocence, speedy trial, jury of peers, etc.<br /><br />And I am not at all reassured by the idea that I can be confident that there is no chance that this terrorist will go free. There really are some things more important and the integrity of our criminal justice system and Constitutional protections ARE more important than that man.<br /><br />If I had to choose, I'd put the guy in street clothes and let him off somewhere and consider that I got the much better end of the deal.Synovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01311191981918160095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75268174128304769822009-11-19T16:00:28.416-06:002009-11-19T16:00:28.416-06:00the full version is widely avalable online.
If yo...<i> the full version is widely avalable online.<br /><br /></i>If you can find your phrase in it, I will FedEx you a left-over fun size Snickers bar.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45967261059370964952009-11-19T14:48:31.435-06:002009-11-19T14:48:31.435-06:00The publisher left that sentence out of my copy of...<i>The publisher left that sentence out of my copy of the Constitution.</i> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />That seems to be a common problem with people on the left. We'd all get along much better if you didn't work from these abridged versions of the Constitution. FYI, the full version is widely avalable online.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11505165406619268202009-11-19T14:47:01.905-06:002009-11-19T14:47:01.905-06:00Yes, there's a certain pattern of refusal to a...Yes, there's a certain pattern of refusal to answer questions.<br /><br />The part I don't get still, though, is if MC President and his assistant already have declared KSM as not free-able and will be found guilty -- why have the trial? What is it going to accomplish?millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06288790458928188846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6534588612050494182009-11-19T14:44:14.299-06:002009-11-19T14:44:14.299-06:00Your question does not make sense as written.
...<i>Your question does not make sense as written. </i><br /> <br /> <br /><br />You understand the question perfectly, you simply pretend to be dumb so as to avoid answering it.<br /><br />Does Holder possess the Constutional authority to determine the proper venue for KSM to be put on trial? Yes or no?<br /><br />Btw, he obviously thinks he does possess at least the legal authority to do so.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79563006375373706872009-11-19T14:39:15.147-06:002009-11-19T14:39:15.147-06:00"International law is part of our law." ...<i>"International law is part of our law."</i> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Which has nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials. I'm sensing a pattern in your debating technique.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-36948156614054786792009-11-19T14:34:07.961-06:002009-11-19T14:34:07.961-06:00Subject to such exceptions and restrictons as Cong...<i>Subject to such exceptions and restrictons as Congress may make. I'm sure a frequent reader of the Constitution such as yourself remembers that passage.<br /><br /></i>The publisher left that sentence out of my copy of the Constitution.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86746672722460920582009-11-19T14:32:30.918-06:002009-11-19T14:32:30.918-06:00I think its remarkable that your responses to this...<i>I think its remarkable that your responses to this consist of answering some other questions entirely.<br /><br /></i>Your question does not make sense as written. Only you know what you're talking about. Kindly rephrase it if you want an answer. I've reached the limit of what guesswork can do.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-6658163015214527592009-11-19T14:31:38.219-06:002009-11-19T14:31:38.219-06:00Synova and the rest of you guys can take solace in...<i>Synova and the rest of you guys can take solace in the fact that either KSM will be convicted (and I'm sure he will) or Obama will be blamed for any other outcome.</i> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />The decision to to try KSM in criminal court has diddly to do with KSM. I'm sure that Obama and Holder are largely indifferent as to whether or not he's convicted. KSM is not the target here for the Dems.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81116881664741885222009-11-19T14:27:58.792-06:002009-11-19T14:27:58.792-06:00the UCMJ is unconstitutional?
Nay, Article I, Se...<i>the UCMJ is unconstitutional? </i><br /><br />Nay, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the land and naval forces<br /><br /><i>Were the Nuremberg trials unconstitutional, too?<br /><br /></i>"International law is part of our law."former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-51071606101600735662009-11-19T14:20:29.414-06:002009-11-19T14:20:29.414-06:00I could not parse that sentence in any way that ma...<i>I could not parse that sentence in any way that made much sense. The Constitution does not spell out the powers of the Attorney-General.</i> <br /> <br /> <br /><br />The claim made was that Holder does not have "the constitutional authority to determine the venue regarding KSM". <br /><br />I think its remarkable that your responses to this consist of answering some other questions entirely. In fact your own answer <i>seems</i> to be that Holder does not have the constitutional authority to determine the venue regarding KSM! So why not just say that?<br /><br /><br /><i>But it does vest the judicial power of the United States in the Judicial Branch</i> <br /> <br /> <br />Subject to such exceptions and restrictons as Congress may make. I'm sure a frequent reader of the Constitution such as yourself remembers that passage.<br /><br /><br /><i>Finally, in a criminal case, venue is proper in the place where the crime occurred.</i> <br /> <br /><br /> <br />Yes, I know you are expert at begging the question. Regardless of what you may think, and what Obama and Holder may really believe, the Dems are at least <i>pretending</i> to believe that 9/11 was an act of war and not some mere burglary gone awry. Holder said as much in his testimony.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58320957613716835932009-11-19T14:08:24.855-06:002009-11-19T14:08:24.855-06:00fls,
So you believe the UCMJ is unconstitutional?...fls,<br /><br />So you believe the UCMJ is unconstitutional? Were the Nuremberg trials unconstitutional, too?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16517956537865658903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-90775245714280237062009-11-19T13:56:57.244-06:002009-11-19T13:56:57.244-06:00Your response evaded that point. I could not parse...<i> Your response evaded that point.</i> I could not parse that sentence in any way that made much sense. The Constitution does not spell out the powers of the Attorney-General. But it does vest the judicial power of the United States in the Judicial Branch, not in the Army. Finally, in a criminal case, venue is proper in the place where the crime occurred. Therefore I do not see how Holder would be exceeding his Constitutional authority by specifying the venue in which KSM would be tried.former law studenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15196697206046544350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73802184384486423042009-11-19T13:41:15.703-06:002009-11-19T13:41:15.703-06:00What was the devastating part? He seemed to be foc...<i>What was the devastating part? He seemed to be focused on Miranda. My guess is that if the prosecution has a case that can hold up even though the guy was water boarded more than 150 times, Miranda is not likely a serious issue by comparison.</i> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />It might help if you watched the clip, which has nothing to do with reading KSM his Miranda rights.flenserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10123639350604605006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-33100485950240747332009-11-19T13:33:33.415-06:002009-11-19T13:33:33.415-06:00This just gets better and better. According to By...This just gets better and better. According to Byron York's article in <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Did-Holder-stiff-Senate-on-Justice-Dept-lawyers-who-defended-jihadis-70442797.html" rel="nofollow">The Examiner</a> later in the hearing Senator Grassley asked Holder for "The names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf?"<br /><br />Our Attorney General said he would consider it. He claimed reluctance based on questions of attorney-client privilege.<br /><br />So I'm wondering a) can he even claim to provide a fair trial with such staff, b) is he setting KSM up for total reversal and vindication in higher courts, and c) has he spent so long in a culture of intimidating his enemies that he no longer even considers right and wrong?Christyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12623422545436294378noreply@blogger.com