Senators to AG Holder: "Who decided bomber was civilian?"

[rbell]

Doggone good question!!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ights-to-accused-Detroit-bomber-82281457.html

Eric Holder is a danger to our country. He's apparently decided the "crotch bomber" from Christmas Day...a Nigerian, non-citizen, terrorist enemy combatant...

Now that this scum has been (unlawfully and wrongly) given rights afforded to US citizens, we will not know of any future al-Qaeda plans. He will be afforded discovery rights...which means al-Qaeda will gain knowledge of our strategies and plans. And finally...it means that with the right judge or jury (and who knows what kind of deals could be in the mix)...this guy could cut a deal, and not face the punishment he deserves.

If a single American loses his or her life due to Holder's incompetence (or corruption) on this issue, I think a trial for treason would be in order.

What an absolute idiot we have as our attorney general. This guy is either a raging moron, or he is a weirdbeard sympathizer.

 

[donnA]

how do non citizen terrorists get citizen rights. he is not the american people why does he have american people rights. a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what you call him.

 

[carpro]

Holder does nothing without Obama's approval.

 

[Matt Black]

Whoa, just back up there a bit! Was this guy in the military? No, which makes him a civilian. Is he a citizen of the US? No - but on what basis does this mean that he should not be afforded the due process of American justice? Or are you saying that only US citizens are eligible for US justice? Does that mean that if I commit a traffic violation next time I visit the US I should be treated differently from a US citizen? If so, would you be OK with being treated differently from a British citizen were you to visit the UK and commit a criminal offence there?

What are you actually saying here...?

 

[carpro]

He is an enemy combatant.

We have procedures in place to deal fairly with them.

Britons who come to America and get drunk, get in a fight, and kill someone are not enemy combatants, so they receive the full benefits of the American justice system.

If you can't see the difference , you are simply being simple.

 

[Steven2006]

I thought the right was a jury trial of ones peers. How does a non citizen captured in another country have any peers for a trial? The entire premise of a jury trial has little common sense.

It does get a little stickier if someone is arrested by police on our soil, but I don't believe that is the case here.

 

[rbell]

Whoa, just back up there a bit! Was this guy in the military? No, which makes him a civilian. Is he a citizen of the US? No - but on what basis does this mean that he should not be afforded the due process of American justice? Or are you saying that only US citizens are eligible for US justice? Does that mean that if I commit a traffic violation next time I visit the US I should be treated differently from a US citizen? If so, would you be OK with being treated differently from a British citizen were you to visit the UK and commit a criminal offence there?

What are you actually saying here...?

He didn't run a stop sign. He tried to blow up a plane. We're not talking about civil or criminal acts...we're talking about terroristic acts of war against US citizens...by one who is not a US citizen.

Our rule of law does not afford this person the same rights as a US citizen.

Follow me...a terrorist act by a non-citizen should never get citizen's rights.

That doesn't mean justice isn't served...it does mean, however, that taxpayers don't provide him a lawyer...that he doesn't get discovery rights...and the like.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

He didn't run a stop sign. He tried to blow up a plane. We're not talking about civil or criminal acts...

Really? So the criminal statute in the indictment doesn't cover this?

That doesn't mean justice isn't served...it does mean, however, that taxpayers don't provide him a lawyer...that he doesn't get discovery rights...and the like.

Then how the purgatory is he supposed to prepare a defence if he can't see the evidence against him?

 

[rbell]

Really? So the criminal statute in the indictment doesn't cover this?



Then how the purgatory is he supposed to prepare a defence if he can't see the evidence against him?

Wow...your philosophy, carried out in 1945, might have had us all speaking German or Japanese.

Why do I have to repeat this? He's not a citizen. He's an enemy combatant. He doesn't get constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

What is so hard to understand? This is basic, first-year civics here.

 

[targus]

Really? So the criminal statute in the indictment doesn't cover this?

He is allegedly a member of a terrorist organization and as such would then be an enemy combatant.

Should enemy combatants be considered civilian criminals simply because they do not have matching uniforms?

Then how the purgatory is he supposed to prepare a defence if he can't see the evidence against him?

How would being tried under a military court system prevent him from preparing a defense?

Question - do you see no value in protecting secrets of the system that operates to protect us against future terrorist attacks - both the persons doing the work and the means by which they do it?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

He is allegedly a member of a terrorist organization and as such would then be an enemy combatant.

Should enemy combatants be considered civilian criminals simply because they do not have matching uniforms?

If they attack a military target, then military commissions are the proper venue. If a civilian target is attacked, then a United States District Court is the proper venue. It's not that complicated.

How would being tried under a military court system prevent him from preparing a defense?

It doesn't, but not allowing the Defendant to confront evidence does.

Question - do you see no value in protecting secrets of the system that operates to protect us against future terrorist attacks - both the persons doing the work and the means by which they do it?

Yes, but there are ways for the Court to protect government secrets. In this case, there is enough evidence to try the defendant without using classified evidence. There is physical evidence as well as a large number of eyewitnesses. The indictment doesn't even mention terrorism, although I'm sure that will be brought up if the case goes to trial.

 

[targus]

If they attack a military target, then military commissions are the proper venue. If a civilian target is attacked, then a United States District Court is the proper venue. It's not that complicated.

So if a terrorist cell is trained, financed and equiped by a foreign government, but not a member of a military - and then come to the US and detonate a homemade nuclear bomb in the financial district of New York...

... you would say that since a civilian target was attacked then they should be charged in the United States District Court - being the proper venue and all ?

 

[just-want-peace]

After the Mass election, I had hoped for better from the libs on this board, but the (0) kool aid must still be active in the blood stream.

Wonder how many more will have to be killed (or attempts thereof) before "terrorism" is taken seriously by liberals?

We dodged a bullet with this guy, and now the bleeding hearts want to give him a second chance.

Thank God (literally) that these (not printable) were not in power in 1941!!!!!!

The FBI, or whoever nailed him after landing, should have just sent him straight to allah, then & there, to his 72 virgins; but then we would not have seen the utter idiocy of this (for lack of a more suitable term) administration!!

(Topics like this make me think that LAWYERS ought to be illegal!!:smilewinkgrin

 

[carpro]

If they attack a military target, then military commissions are the proper venue. If a civilian target is attacked, then a United States District Court is the proper venue. It's not that complicated.

Baloney. That lame brained reasoning has been pulled out of thin air. There is no constitutional nor statutory basis for it whatsoever.

Making war on civilians makes one an enemy combatant and is just as much an act of war as making war on only military targets. I can think of a few million examples that could tell you how stupid your reasoning is.

Ludicrous and lame.:laugh:

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Baloney. That lame brained reasoning has been pulled out of thin air. There is no constitutional nor statutory basis for it whatsoever.

Making war on civilians makes one an enemy combatant and is just as much an act of war as making war on only military targets.

Ludicrous and lame.:laugh:

Only problem is they are not part of a military. Why are you so mean-spirited and angry all the time?

 

[rbell]

You're going to get passionate responses on any thread like this.

Reason? Because it is a direct blow to our national security.

Also, because it takes a mortal enemy of our country, and gives him aid and comfort. That's a very serious issue.

 

[targus]

Only problem is they are not part of a military. Why are you so mean-spirited and angry all the time?

Then how about an answer to my question posted above in post #12?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Then how about an answer to my question posted above in post #12?

I'm going to have to do some research on that. I'll get back to you by tomorrow morning. I've got some work to do for my college classes and I have to go apply for a job. Once I'm done with that I'll get back with you.

 

[carpro]

Only problem is they are not part of a military.

Doesn't matter. They are enemy combatants , and as such, have no protection under the Geneva convention.

The would have been shot by all parties during WWII because they made war out of uniform. FDR would have already had him in front of a firing squad or hung.

 

[Bob Alkire]

Doesn't matter. They are enemy combatants , and as such, have no protection under the Geneva convention.

The would have been shot by all parties during WWII because they made war out of uniform.

So true. When a government supports you and pays your way, you were called military combatant out of uniform.

FDR would have already had him in front of a firing squad or hung.

He still wanted to give in to Stalin and give half the world to him. I didn't care for FDR.