Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Obama now plans to hold detainees indefinitely without trial. He's basically Bush.

  1. #16
    Elite Member Mel1973's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cuntopia
    Posts
    42,972

    Default

    *sharpens stick*
    Kill him.
    Kill her.
    Kill It.
    Kill everything... that IS the solution!
    П(_)П
    twitchy molests my signature!

  2. #17
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Obama isn't perfect, but he is so much better than Bush.

  3. #18
    Elite Member Air Quotes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    14,068

    Default

    So f'in disappointing.
    "A true whore just loves her life." - Sluce

  4. #19
    Super Moderator twitchy2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Milliways
    Posts
    55,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ur_next_ex View Post
    If The Comment You Made (Obama's Bascially Bush) was Not So Ignorant and Stupid, It Would be Laughable To The Point of Buckets of Tears. Obama is as Far From Bush as Mars is From The Sun. The Decision to Detain Them Had To Do With How Releasing Them Would Be The Equivilent To Bringing a Plaugue of War directly Upon The United States. These are Prisiners who are VERY Unhappy and Releasing Then Would cause 1000 More Problems Than It Could Ever Solve.
    !. ditch the purple
    2. normal sized font please
    3. Stop FUCKING Capitalizing Words Which DO Not require IT
    4. I'm not even reading what ever shit that is until it looks normal, so no comments on the content.
    "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention," Heather Heyer's facebook quote.

  5. #20
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ur_next_ex View Post
    If The Comment You Made (Obama's Bascially Bush) was Not So Ignorant and Stupid, It Would be Laughable To The Point of Buckets of Tears. Obama is as Far From Bush as Mars is From The Sun. The Decision to Detain Them Had To Do With How Releasing Them Would Be The Equivilent To Bringing a Plaugue of War directly Upon The United States. These are Prisiners who are VERY Unhappy and Releasing Then Would cause 1000 More Problems Than It Could Ever Solve.
    This is a Kanye-level rant.

  6. #21
    Elite Member ana-mish-ana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,200

    Default

    ^^ And he would be so devastated with this travesty of grammer

  7. #22
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    .. grammar...
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #23
    Elite Member Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    citizen of the world
    Posts
    5,444

    Default

    I'm really trying to get my brain around this military commissions system. I explained the background here:
    U.S. may revive Guantanamo military tribunals
    U.S. may revive Guantanamo military tribunals

    As far as what the defendant's rights are, I found a really informative press briefing on the new military commissions rules on the Dept. of Defense's website from 2007:
    Among other things, the [Military Commissions] manual provides:
    • discretion by and deference to independent military judges, who will serve as presiding officials and who will ensure fairness;
    • an independent defense function to represent defendants zealously and protect against even the appearance of unlawful influence or conflict of interest;
    • the presumption of an accused innocence, and the requirement that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt
    • a jury system comparable to that used in general courts-martial;
    • a requirement that the accused be provided, in advance, evidence to be introduced against him or her at trial;
    • prohibition against admitting classified evidence outside the presence of the accused;
    • a reasonable opportunity for the accused to obtain evidence and witnesses
    • formal rules of evidence, consistent with federal and courts-martial practice, with those exceptions required to be consistent with the Military Commissions Act of 2006;
    • safeguards to protect the rights of confrontation, protection from self-incrimination, and to protect most common law evidentiary privileges
    • suppression of statements obtained by torture or in violation of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
    • a requirement that the prosecution provide exculpatory evidence to an accused consistent with federal and courts-martial practice
    • a thorough, comprehensive and independent appellate system.
    • An accused will have access to the Court of Military Commission Review, the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
    In conclusion, the department believes that the Manual for Military Commissions implements the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in which Congress and the president, acting together, established the most comprehensive legal framework for the prosecution of war criminals in U.S. history.

    I mean we do have court members who will be commissioned officers. There must be a minimum of five court members, and that is very comparable. In fact, five is the minimum number in a military court-martial.

    The military judge will be as qualified as any military judge. In fact, they will be military judges who are certified to practice as military judges in our court-martial system, and they will be the same people who will be presiding over these proceedings.

    The accused has all of the rights that I laid out, which are very much the same as they would be in a court-martial.
    Q: One of the questions -- or the criticisms that gets raised quite often is use of hearsay in evidence. And I understand the Pentagon's wish to be able to include hearsay from American officers who aren't present. But one of the criticisms I've heard is that there is an attempt to include hearsay testimony from maybe the people that handed over the prisoners in the first place, many of whom were paid an amount of money to hunt down those people and turn them over. So there's a question of, you know, them having a financial interest in testifying to a person's guilt as opposed to maybe a military officer's honor.

    MR. DELL'ORTO: Well, first of all, the statute provides for the admissibility of hearsay evidence to take into account, I think, the unique conditions under which evidence will be obtained on the battlefield. And so we are in accordance with the statute in doing that. Certainly both sides having the opportunity to admit hearsay levels the playing field, if you will, on that particular issue, but both sides, again, will be able to attack the credibility of the witnesses or the reliability of that evidence. And the only evidence that will be submitted before the members ultimately will be evidence that the judge determines to be reliable and probative.

    Q: The Military Commissions Act said in the case of coerced evidence that was obtained before the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act the judge determined what could be admitted. How does this -- what are the rules that you're laying out today, and how does that clarify or guide judges' actions?
    GEN. HEMINGWAY: Well, there's a clear prohibition against evidence that was obtained by torture. If the judge finds that, the evidence simply doesn't come in. Other than that, the evidence must comport with the Military Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. And what was provided in that act was that information had to be excluded if it was obtained by cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. Now, if it was obtained prior to that time, the judge has to make an independent finding that it is nevertheless reliable evidence (sic) [a reliable statement].

    So you've really got three issues that could possibly be facing the judge. Number one, if it was torture, it stays out. If it's a violation of the Detainee Treatment Act, it stays out. If it's before that, the judge has to make an independent determination as to the reliability of the evidence (sic) [statement].

    GEN. HEMINGWAY: Anything that's admitted has to be shown to the defense team.

    Q: What about top-flight evidence? What are the standards for using substitutes or proxies for top-flight evidence?
    GEN. HEMINGWAY: Well, that's a determination to be made by the trial judge, whether or not the trial judge, looking at both the classified evidence and the substitute, finds that it is a reasonable substitution. And that's a question of fact for the trial judge to make.

    Q: So just so I understand this correctly, there's the potential that evidence could be used against a defendant that the defendant never has the opportunity to see --
    MR. DELL'ORTO: No.
    GEN. HEMINGWAY (?): No.

    MR. DELL'ORTO: That potential does not exist at all. It's -- that evidence, although the judge might see it, would never be introduced into the courtroom if he, the judge, was not satisfied that there was an adequate substitute -- unclassified substitute for the classified evidence.

    Q: Will the prosecuting lawyers be civilian lawyers, military lawyers, a mix?
    GEN. HEMINGWAY: The statute authorizes both. And some cases will be military lawyers; some will be a mix.

    Q: And is there an appeal process allowed?

    GEN. HEMINGWAY: Certainly. Yeah, that's provided by statute. Mr. Dell'Orto made reference to the Court of Military Commission Review. You have the appeal from there to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and from there to the Supreme Court of the United States. So you've got Article III court review now for the process, which was one of the significant suggestions of those who fell in the critics category before.
    DefenseLink News Transcript: DoD Press Briefing on New Military Commissions Rules

    Admittedly, I'm still learning about this, but that all seems pretty fair and in line with the traditional set-up of court marshal and military justice system.

  9. #24
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    ^Thanks for that info, Cali. That spells it out a little more.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: November 10th, 2008, 06:08 PM
  2. Barack Obama basically makes fun of John McCain's lies
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 20th, 2008, 08:03 PM
  3. Bush caves, gives GITMO detainees Geneva Convention protection
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 11th, 2006, 09:05 PM
  4. Bush basically comes out and says abortion will be illegal.
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 24th, 2006, 12:21 AM

Posting Permissions

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