None Dare Call it Treason???

[OldRegular]

I dare call it treason! I have stated earlier and state again: I believe that it is borderline treason for Obama to bring these 5 terrorists to New York where they will be given the rights of American citizens.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I dare call it treason! I have stated earlier and state again: I believe that it is borderline treason for Obama to bring these 5 terrorists to New York where they will be given the rights of American citizens.

Old, I am not asking to argue, but simply curious about objection to location of the trail.

Why is it not right to try them in the States?

What country was the crime committed in?

What country has tried criminals in a country other than their own? For instance, even after WW II we tried the German generals, etc. in Germany.

Would it be objectionable for Spain to try terrorists caught there in the States or in, say, England?

On rights,

Are we a country of law or not?

 

[Johnv]

I see it both ways. If it's an act of military warfare, then I see the appropriateness of trying them in a military tribunal. If it's a criminal act committed on american soil, and therefore subject to the laws of where it occurred, then I see the appropriateness of trying them in the courts where they committed the crime.

Either way, they are going to be held accountable for their crimes, and will pay the price for thier actions.

 

[saturneptune]

I dare call it treason! I have stated earlier and state again: I believe that it is borderline treason for Obama to bring these 5 terrorists to New York where they will be given the rights of American citizens.

There is only one way to look at this. These were terrorists, not American citizens, not even enemy combatants of a state with some Geneva protections. They should have been shot years ago after a quick military tribunal. This question of bringing them to the United States and treating them like your local bank robber shows how far down the road of appeasement we have come. It is a disquisting policy, and yes, those who created the policy should be tried for treason, and while we are at it, add a charge of betraying the Contitutition and stealing daily from the American people.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

How is it appropriate to have a trial for someone who had already pleaded guilty ?

 

[Johnv]

How is it appropriate to have a trial for someone who had already pleaded guilty ?

A little off-topic here, but, having once worked in law enforcement for several years, I can tell you that nutcases plead guilty all the time to crimes they didn't commit or had only cursory involvement in. It's important to allow the evidence to decide a person's guilt, and not a guilty plea alone.

On the topic here, treason is defined as the action of a citizen to assist aforeign government in overthrowing the existing government. Allowing the aforementioned to be tried in New York doesn't categorically qualify as treason. It might qualify for many other things, but not treason.

 

[saturneptune]

Old, I am not asking to argue, but simply curious about objection to location of the trail.

Why is it not right to try them in the States?

What country was the crime committed in?

What country has tried criminals in a country other than their own? For instance, even after WW II we tried the German generals, etc. in Germany.

Would it be objectionable for Spain to try terrorists caught there in the States or in, say, England?

On rights,

Are we a country of law or not?

That is about the lamest post to date. What country was the "crime" committed in??? You have got to be kidding. It was not a crime, it was an act of war. We are a country of laws, rights, and freedom, to protect our citizens. Much to your dismay, we are not all under a one world government. We are a sovereign nation. By the way, your WW2 comparison is ridiculous, the Germans were tried by a military court. These terrorists are being afforded the protections under the US Constitution. The Germans were enemy combatants, and had some Geneva protections. This is not the case now.

Here is where George Bush was in error, and not the way you think. He should have brought these terrrorists before a tribunal within weeks or their capture, and upon being found guilty, shot immediately. This should have happened years ago, and we would not be debated this issue now thought up by the clowns in charge.

 

[rbell]

Old, I am not asking to argue, but simply curious about objection to location of the trail.

Why is it not right to try them in the States? THEY ARE NOT US CITIZENS!

What country was the crime committed in?THEY ARE NOT US CITIZENS!

What country has tried criminals in a country other than their own? For instance, even after WW II we tried the German generals, etc. in Germany.THEY ARE NOT US CITIZENS!

Would it be objectionable for Spain to try terrorists caught there in the States or in, say, England?THEY ARE NOT US CITIZENS!

On rights,

Are we a country of law or not?THEY ARE NOT US CITIZENS!

Good grief, what a stunning ignorance of our most basic laws.

 

[rbell]

On the topic here, treason is defined as the action of a citizen to assist aforeign government in overthrowing the existing government. Allowing the aforementioned to be tried in New York doesn't categorically qualify as treason. It might qualify for many other things, but not treason.

I disagree...especially if there's a tossing of the verdict on a technicality. Then, by all means it's treason, as it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Obama is violating his Oath of Office by doing this.

 

[Johnv]

I disagree...especially if there's a tossing of the verdict on a technicality. Then, by all means it's treason, as it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

That's big if, but you assume that: 1-such a technicality exists, and, 2-that such a technicality would not also exonerate a person in a military trial.

Obama is violating his Oath of Office by doing this.

That's a bit of a stretch. He's demanding that they be justly tried. I don't see a problem here. They committed a crime upon the People of New York, and they are going to face a trial according to the laws of the State of New York.

 

[just-want-peace]

I disagree...especially if there's a tossing of the verdict on a technicality. Then, by all means it's treason, as it gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Obama is violating his Oath of Office by doing this.

As much as I agree with you, the emphasized portion says that if this clause were truly enforced, no liberal (be it Rep., Dem., or Ind.) would ever complete his/her term in office, much less have a career in gov't.

 

[billwald]

Isn't the claimed excuse for American invasions around the world the intent to bring American freedom, American democracy, and American jurisprudence to the rest of the world? Iran citizens should have "constitutional rights" in Iran but not in the US? Are human rights not universal and portable?

 

[targus]

Isn't the claimed excuse for American invasions around the world the intent to bring American freedom, American democracy, and American jurisprudence to the rest of the world? Iran citizens should have "constitutional rights" in Iran but not in the US? Are human rights not universal and portable?

Constitutional rights of a particular nation are granted to persons under that constitution - not everyone in the world.

By your logic then you would be subject to the rights and limitations of every constitution in the world.

 

[hillclimber1]

This trial will give an enormous boost to terrorist recruitment.. These baddies can't wait for the promotion, they will get..

Treason..

 

[Bro. Curtis]

A little off-topic here, but, having once worked in law enforcement for several years, I can tell you that nutcases plead guilty all the time to crimes they didn't commit or had only cursory involvement in. It's important to allow the evidence to decide a person's guilt, and not a guilty plea alone.

But the president, and his attorney general, have declared him guilty, and stated he will recieve the death penalty. That is not the case with the nutcases you cite.

 

[Johnv]

But the president, and his attorney general, have declared him guilty, and stated he will recieve the death penalty.

It's not within the constitutional privilege of the POTUS or attorneys general to issue a summary judgement upon a person. There are a lot of folks here who oppose Obama trying to be a dictator. Those same people, therefore, should oppose Obama being a judge and jury over persons.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So I ask again...what is the purpose of this trial ? A president, an attorney general, and the defendant all agree on the guilt of the accused, and all agree on what the sentence should be.

 

[OldRegular]

Old, I am not asking to argue, but simply curious about objection to location of the trail.

Why is it not right to try them in the States?

Because they will be tried in a civilian court and given the same rights as a US citizen! They and the ACLU will put the country, President Bush, and the CIA on trial. That is the reason Obama is bringing them to this country and the reason I say it is borderline Treason. Actually public remarks by Obama and Holder may be sufficient for a judge to throw the case out.

They should be tried in a Military Court.

What country was the crime committed in?

The United States.

What country has tried criminals in a country other than their own? For instance, even after WW II we tried the German generals, etc. in Germany.

They were tried in a Military Court!

Would it be objectionable for Spain to try terrorists caught there in the States or in, say, England?

These terrorists were not caught in the United States so the question is irrelevant!

On rights,

Are we a country of law or not?

These men are illegal combatants and terrorists. Neither the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions apply to them. After they were interrogated they should have been tried and hung but we have become a nation of pansies!

 

[OldRegular]

I see it both ways. If it's an act of military warfare, then I see the appropriateness of trying them in a military tribunal. If it's a criminal act committed on american soil, and therefore subject to the laws of where it occurred, then I see the appropriateness of trying them in the courts where they committed the crime.

Either way, they are going to be held accountable for their crimes, and will pay the price for thier actions.

In WWII they would have been tried and shot as spies but we have become a nation of political correctness. These man should be tried in a Military court as illegal combatants. By bringing them to New York they will be given the same rights as a US citizen! As I noted earlier they and the ACLU will put the country, President Bush, and the CIA on trial. That is the reason Obama is bringing them to this country and the reason I say it is borderline Treason.

 

[OldRegular]

How is it appropriate to have a trial for someone who had already pleaded guilty ?

It is not appropriate but it gives Obama the opportunity to put this country, President Bush, and the CIA on trial before the world. And I realize this is the 3rd time I have posted this response.