Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Guantanamo trials to go ahead despite court ruling

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 June 2008
UNITED States attorney general Michael Mukasey today insisted military trials of foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay would go ahead despite a ruling by the US Supreme Court.
The court ruled yesterday that the detainees have constitutional rights and can appeal to civilian courts.

And lawyers for two of those due to go on trial – an alleged September 11 2001 plotter and Osama bin Laden's former driver – said they would use the ruling to argue that charges against their clients should be dismissed.

But Mr Mukasey said the ruling would not affect the Guantanamo trials.

Some 270 men are held at Guantanamo, on suspicion of terrorism.

Navy Lt Cmdr Brian Mizer said he would try to stop the first scheduled war crimes trial, to start on July 14, by arguing that his client was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

He is defending bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan.

"The entire legal framework under which Mr Hamdan was to be tried has been turned on its head," Lt Cmdr Mizer said.

The ruling could have consequences for the five alleged September 11 conspirators, who were arraigned at Guantanamo last week.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 June 2008 12:00 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Carolyn 1,

13/06/2008 13:04:48
The SCOTUS has OVERTURNED the constitution, and congress, and the justice department.

For the first time in history a terrorist or enemy of the US has the same constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States.

Isn't this just freakin' wonderful?

With the most civil liberties guaranteed to us by law, the US is the freest nation in the world, and now are our enemies are too.

If an immigrant can't get a work visa to move here, try terror, it's easier than swimming or hiding in a cargo hold. Already we have hundreds at GITMO who CAN'T be released because their country will not take them back or will persecute them when they do.
Yea, this is really freakin' wonderful.
2

Steve Real,

Columbia, USA 13/06/2008 13:33:01
Magna Carta Libertatum
The Great Charter of Freedoms

1. FIRST
We have granted to God,
and by this our present Charter have confirmed,
for US and our heirs forever,
that the Church of England shall be free.
She shall have all her whole Rights
and Liberties inviolable.

We have granted also,
and given to all the Freemen of our Realm,
for US and our heirs forever,
these Liberties under-written,
to have and to hold to them and their heirs,
of US and our heirs forever.

29.
No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned,
or be disseised of his Freehold,
or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled,
or any other wise destroyed;
nor will We not pass upon him,
nor condemn him,
but by lawful judgment of his peers,
or by the Law of the Land.

We will sell to no man,
we will not deny or defer to any man
either Justice or Right.

Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum
(We command that you have the body)

We command you, that the body of A.B.
in Our prison under your custody detained,
as it is said,
together with the day and cause of his taking and detention,
by whatsoever name the said A.B.
may be known therein, you have at our Court ...
to undergo and to receive that which
our Court shall then and there consider
and order in that behalf.
Hereof in no way fail, at your peril.
And have you then there this writ.

(Magna Carta - written 1215 A.D.)

P.S.
People forget how many millions of Americans who sacrificed to preserve these laws (including the US Constitution). Millions died in WW2 to preserve these laws and this administration folded under the pressure like a cheap paper suit.

They are Imperialists nothing more and nothing less.

See ya!
3

Carolyn 1,

13/06/2008 14:06:11
Congress has the constitutional right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the War on Terror. (which it may be forced to do now)

the law: " The Suspension Clause provides that "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington DC and its attempts to attack other targets in the United States qualify as an Invasion. It has killed more Americans than any other incursion of enemy forces onto US soil in our history, since the War of 1812.

4

Carolyn 1,

13/06/2008 14:07:35
@2
If you're saying SCOTUS is becoming imperialist, I agree.
If you're saying alQaeda is imperialist, I agree.
5

,

13/06/2008 14:29:27
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

My opinions count for more than yours,

because I'm special 13/06/2008 14:57:54
I think it's quite clear who the idiot is here, Moreen.
7

My opinions count for more than yours,

13/06/2008 15:00:12
"Al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington DC and its attempts to attack other targets in the United States qualify as an Invasion. It has killed more Americans than any other incursion of enemy forces onto US soil in our history, since the War of 1812."

And how many Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? More to the point, how many human beings have died there.

Unwrap yourself from the flag and open your eyes, for crying out loud!
8

howard sutherland,

bahamas 13/06/2008 15:15:33
#6

Since some far left wing radical Judges who seem to think it's their job to make laws rather than interrupt them, some of the murdering animals who do not have those rights will now have them afforded them. Thank you for volunteering to be the idiot.

9

My opinions count for more than yours,

because I'm special 13/06/2008 15:39:01
Another brilliant post from a semi-literate intellectual dwarf.

"their job to make laws rather than interrupt them"

After that I lost intrest.
10

,

13/06/2008 17:05:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 13/06/2008 18:28:57
This opinion by the five opens up more attacks on American soil to kill more Americans. This was a big mistake.
Carolyn1 is right. Our national security is at stake..Maybe keeping them in regular maximum security prisons would be a better idea. How long do you think these convicts would last? Maybe this is best. I'm sure our taxes would only have to pay for them for a short amount of time if they were in the general population.
12

,

13/06/2008 18:55:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 13/06/2008 19:12:04
What the ruling means is that a large segment of the 270 detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay may have to be let go because soldiers in battle cannot possibly be expected to accumulate the sort of evidence that is expected in a civilian arrest.
“The level of due process they [the federal courts] require,” said David B. Rivkin, a lawyer who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan administration, “will be impossible to meet and therefore will result in the release of a substantial number of enemy combatants.”
Detainees will be able to call witnesses and demand to see classified information, putting a tremendous strain on the court system and the Justice Department. They will shop for liberal jurisdictions to bring their cases. When capturing terrorists, our own soldiers will be burdened with accumulating the amount of evidence required by law enforcement. “America is at war with radical Islamists,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent, adding that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Taking the unusual step of summarizing his opposition from the bench, he went on to say: “The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.”
Already, as Justice Scalia pointed out, 30 detainees released from Guantanamo by an order of the Bush administration have allegedly “returned to the battlefield.” One detonated a suicide bomb in Iraq in May. Another resumed his post as a Taliban commander and murdered a United Nations engineer and three Afghan soldiers. Still another murdered an Afghan judge.
The Supreme Court has shifted the balance of power to the terrorists who are determined, as FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, to wipe us out with a nuclear device.



14

Cerberus,

Hades 13/06/2008 19:17:51
Strange, but the comments on the article Gtmo prisoners... have all been pulled. I would refute any suggestions that such action was due to Lyne/palm Beach making seriously deranged, plain incorrect and fascist comments. There should be freedom of speech, even if it's fascists talking.

A few years ago, the USA outlawed the execution of the mentally ill.

A few years ago, the USA outlawed the execution of juveniles.

Now we see signs of further enlightenment in that the USA now allows prisoners to a fair trial.

On the subject of GITMO prisoners I suggest reading this report about the prisoners:

http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf

"A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data"

The report contains many details but the summary is:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably.

Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% -- are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody.

Is this not the type of horrific
15

,

13/06/2008 20:02:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Cerberus,

Hades 13/06/2008 20:29:45
Never, ever, use that word. I also have a copy of the thread b4 it was pulled. No f-words.

I'm sure you are thinking of some other thread and wouldn't deliberately lie about such trivial things.

17

DaddyChow,

Ground-0 13/06/2008 20:39:14
Could we just air-drop them all into the farthest region of Afghanistan with 5 gallons of water a box of matches, 25 lbs. of pork ribs and a ghetto-blaster loaded with nothing but Christine Aguilera and call it a day? Seems very humane.
18

57Nomad,

california 13/06/2008 21:41:51
#9 Ops

Ops said:

"Another brilliant post from a semi-literate intellectual dwarf.
"their job to make laws rather than interrupt them"
After that I lost intrest."

I'd like to point out that you didn't give the entire quote. Because of that you have inadvertently reversed the posters meaning.

What the poster said was that it was the justices seem to think it is 'their job to make laws rather than interrupt them.' The poster is entirely correct and I cannot understand your response to him.

Consequently, there is now some reason to suspect that
the "semi-literate intellectual dwarf" is you and not the poster you were referring to.
19

57Nomad,

california 13/06/2008 21:59:49
#14 C

C said:

"2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban."

The poster omitted to include that this report was written by the attorneys for two of the terrorists. Since this is the case the report is biased on the face of it and every word in it must be viewed with that in mind. Also the post did not include the following excerpt from the report.

"The CSRT Summary of Evidence
provides no way to determine the difference
between “unidentified/none alleged” and
“other” and no explanation for why there are
separate categories for both “al Qaeda and
Taliban” and “al Qaeda or Taliban.”
If, after four years of detention, the Government is unable to determine if a detainee is either
al Qaeda or Taliban, then it is reasonable to conclude that the detainee is neither."

The last sentence it telling. Here it is again:

"If, after four years of detention, the Government is unable to determine if a detainee is either
al Qaeda or Taliban, then it is reasonable to conclude that the detainee is neither."

This is an astonishing conclusion. It is not supported by the facts and it is not supported by the report. It is simply a couple of lawyers doing what lawyers often do. They simply make a claim with nothing to support it but their own imaginations.

The poster would be well advised to be careful of his sources and not to assume that the poster is the only one familiar with the documents he refers to.
20

Cerberus,

Hades 13/06/2008 22:23:17
Is there some kind of magnet for USA pretentious people on this site?

The poster would be well advised that any clown with a semblance of mental activity can easily read my comment and ascertain, without any difficulty to a rational mind, that the data given is a summary and that the poster gave the link.

Obviously checking sources is an novel experience for you and you require some validation for conducting it.

Well done, Nomad person. Congratulations.

Now, prove them wrong. Unless, of course you have better/more accurate data.

Facts are chiels that winnea ding.

Arrogant prat.

21

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 13/06/2008 22:36:40
I would estimate a possible reason why the other thread had all comments removed is because there were several posts that showed some url links documenting that secret prisons & torture systems do exist. free speech is just an illusion in reality.

thats why I like these 2 lines from the Kris Kristoferson song 'me & bobbie Mcgee':

"Freedom's just another word for nothing' left to lose:
Nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free."

thats how our illusive 'freedom' is that so many ameicans take such pride in. It only existed when we were poor from a material point of view. Now we have material goods and our ownership of such and place in the economic food chain can be destroyed if we exercise our freedom by even talking about these things and so we don't have freedom any more.

here's an example. Just in the last 2 days there was an article in USA Today that said 1 suspect was kidnapped from UK and put in a secret prison in Morocco where the torturers used the technique of slicing his genitals with a surgeon's knife. the guy did admit to being a terrorist under this technique, but there is no other evidence against him at all.

Now thats a fantastic story, but it was told in America's largest circulation daily newspaper. It won't be repeated over & over again on tv. and so many people will presume it to be false. Other newspapers won't print it. So many stories are like that, they get printed once in a significant paper and then are taboo after that. Why? because the journalists all work for 1 of 6 corporations and to nurture their careers they know they must be careful.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-10-torture_N.htm

as a typical average American feels any such story would be repeated ad nauseum on tv if it were true, he feels this story is false and anyone who speaks of it is a kook. we're free to speak, but its extremely taboo to do so and people are so blinded - unless it is the politically correct story-line of cou
22

Carolyn 1,

13/06/2008 23:35:14
The point is this:
During World War II 400,000 prisoners were detained on American soil.
NONE received habeas corpus.
Why change the interpretation of the constitution for these terrorists?

These GITMO detainees now have more rights than US military officers.
They have more rights than any enemy taken prisoner in the history of war.

This war will never end.
There will never be a truce with negotiations between nations and an exchanging of prisoners.
There will never be a peace treaty.

With those terms, realistically, how can the US government release these dangerous radicals into general population- they still want to kill peaceful citizens! In their mind the war will never be over until either they are dead, or we are dead. Next will be the arguments as to where we can legally jail them for their crimes. Another trip to SCOTUS.

Last month a former Gitmo detainee killed a group of Iraqi soldiers when he blew himself up in Mosul. he was someone the military thought it was safe to release.
23

Carolyn 1,

13/06/2008 23:53:04
7 My opinions count for more than yours,


My statement:
"Al Qaeda's attacks on New York and Washington DC and its attempts to attack other targets in the United States qualify as an Invasion. It has killed more Americans than any other incursion of enemy forces onto US soil in our history, since the War of 1812."

To which you answered with a snappy retort:
And how many Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? More to the point, how many human beings have died there."

The point is this:
The US government is set up as a system of checks and balances.
SCOTUS over-ruled the US congress, and the constitution, and procedures in earlier wars; it granted prisoners of war from foreign soil the same rights as US citizens.

As part of the procedure of checks and balances between the branches of US government,
for the United States Congress or the President to OVER-RULE the SCOTUS decision it only has to determine if the US was attacked in an act of war.

Your answer in #7 actually quantifies and proves the existence of the threat and reality of the war, an argument that Congress will use to prove that this is a war.

You told ME to Unwrap myself from the flag and open my eyes??
You're clueless. Completely 100% clueless.
24

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 00:36:02
19 nomads

Sorry, I had to leave the pc for a while.

You arrogantly critisise only one point from that summary and you even manage to demonstrate your ignorance on that point.

Read the conditional expression again and you will see that it's perfectly valid.

Read the five statements and revel in your country's fascist behaviour. Or do something about it. Whatever you do, stop trying to justify the abuses your government conducts, it makes you and people like you a laughing stock in the world. Being an arrogant prat is one thing, being a dimwit with your head buried up your sanctimonious rear end while your government slaughters and tortures is quite another.

You tell me how many have been detained there and how many have been prosecuted for terrorism against the USA.

Then tell me what right YOU will have to critisise other nation states when they detain and torture folk from the USA; detained because they are suspected of terrorism by association to US government.







25

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 00:50:49
Caroline

Your thinking is good but there are some flaws to your logic.If I may......

a/ There is no, and never has been, any full proof of the existence of AQ. It's a collective term so flexible as to be rationally meaningless. "Someone who dislikes US foreign policy and believes in the teaching of Mohamed" is not a valid criterion.

b/ There is no, and never has been, any valid evidence that OBL was responsible for the tragic events on 911. If there had been, the USA government would have given them to International Courts and the Taliban would have handed the man over; as they offered on two occassions.

c/ Your view that human rights laws are nulled when in a state of war is sound. Except for one key component: the definition of the war. You say "War on Terrorism". By any rational analysis you would then be required to define 'war' and 'terrorism'. Here you come to another flaw in you argument: by definition (OED) the US government IS a terrorist organisation and also it actively supports terrorists around the globe; including allowing them to reside in the US.
26

Carolyn 1,

14/06/2008 01:59:19
#25
It's of some relief to know that Hades, where you reside, is a different planet.

The latest terrorists from Gitmo, let's call them thugs, to go before the court pleaded guilty and asked to be executed. Their petition was denied.
27

SouthernGent,

14/06/2008 02:01:28
Bear in mind, of the many prisoners being held at gitmo that are not deemed dangerous, they are still there because their country of origin refuses to take them back. As a matter of fact, no country out there wants them, but no other country is ever mentioned in these articles. Much easier to bash the US.
28

,

14/06/2008 02:32:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Linus,

at arm's length 14/06/2008 03:03:03
#28 Harry "Dingy" Reid,
It takes one to know one. Oh, and check your English, try 'an idiot' not 'a idiot'.
30

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 03:14:34
Caroline

Hades is not a different planet. Instead of critisising by such childlike remarks, try to engage in discussion and develop your arguments and opinions. Unless you have no desire to do that and simply want to pretend you are rational by writing comments full on words but low on logic and veracity.

The latest thugs (somewhat defeats your own rather skewed argument) pleaded guilty and asked to be executed?

You will be referring to the ramblings of a man who had been tortured and illegally held in prison by the US government? The man who was evidently insane, by both his actions and his words? The man who wanted to be a martyr. One man, evidently insane.

Will you please tell me a/ how many people have been detained there and how many have been convicted b/ you seem to enjoy law. I know the US to be a legally civilised country. An aspect of such enlightened legal practice is the principle of Burden of Proof. Where is the proof that OBL orchestrated 911?

If my questions above are so simple, answer them. You seem to have spent considerable time and effort in constructing your thesis so surely, as a rational human, you will be interested in fully answering out those points (and the ones in the comment above) as they are key.

Mr. Reid, LA

Fascinating. A credit to your parents, eduction and nation.
31

iuris dea ,

14/06/2008 03:51:24
#30
Cerberus, Hades

Thank you, my education is superior, and so is my nation which provided the opportunity.

But you sir, are not worth debating for your lack of education. Pounding your chest is not an improvement. Perhaps Hades, when the heat dies down, can find the means to provide an education to its citizens/occupants. Good luck on that.

As for the law, I agree, it can be fascinating at many levels. It is obvious you do not comprehend the legal foundation of habeas corpus. May I suggest that you read the law before you pretend to know it and rip it apart.


32

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 14/06/2008 04:05:16
regarding the evidence against Osama Bin Laden on the September 11 events - there is no evidence. We should all agree on this point because no evidence has been given us by anyone.

A US journalist diligently pursued the matter with the FBI. He inquired why it was that Osama Bin Laden is not on their infamous 'top ten wanted' list. Finally, a public relations officer communicated in writing to the journalist and said that there is no evidence against Osama Bin Laden on the September 11 crimes.

Cererbus is right that the US is in fact gathering evidence from the torture process. People experienced in torture know that this evidence is of no value. People will say anything to stop the torture. Yet this evidence is actually being presented in court.

Americans should remember Padilla, an American born American, tortured in a private prison on a military base in the US and he lost his mind. His lawyers reported that he was like a piece of furniture, and extremely subservient to his captors to where he agreed with absolutely everything they said. The torture technique used was extreme sensory deprivation over a long period of time combined with prolonged sleep deprivation.

oh, and Hades is not a planet. it is a religious or mystical concept just like 'by the rivers of babylon' is a religious concept.
33

Linus,

at arm's length, 14/06/2008 04:07:08
Cerberus,
As you can see, you're dealing with the all knowing American public, they are right, the rest of us are wrong. There are the good ones of course, the ones that didn't vote for Bush, but they are not the majority. I think that the arrogance so typical of what we, the rest of the world have come to recognize, in Americans, is coming out here.
57Nomad would be leading the pack there, he really is convinced that there is nothing beyond the US borders, and if there is something else there, let's go in and kill everybody there and claim it for ourselves. He firmly believes that they need not answer to anybody, remember the illegal invasion of Iraq, deemed illegal by the UN, well, they went there and are still there, killing everybody and claiming it for themselves. Bush also has the nerve to say, "If you're not with us, you're against us", the epitomy of arrogance, and echoed by 57Nomad.
Apparently the rest of the world is not entitled to opinions, we're not flying the right flag, no Stars and Stripes, therefore we're deemed as inadequate and are expected to let them steamroll us.
34

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 14/06/2008 04:25:35
It is a national characteristic of America to be arrogant about their country. Americans also are less likely to dislike arrogant people than other nationalities. But much of the arrogance we see displayed here by the pro-war Americans is a defense mechanism. Its a way of sheltering themselves from the truth. Many Americans choose to shelter themselves from the truth through ignorance as well. The truth being that our government is setting our foreign policy so that we are the 'bad guys' on the world stage. Recall events such as the murders in 1993 at Waco, TX and other similar events where the US government showed the Americans who was boss. Recall that our president was murdered in 1963 and that the government couldn't do a decent investigation into it and in fact lied blatantly about it. We have had many people murdered by the powers that be over a long period of time. There's been an enormous centralization of power in the media. The media can march in absolute lock-step on any issue at any time and everyone here in America has seen it. and so many Americans being trained in the fine art of idolatry are so impressed by that - meaning they'll believe anything they're told by the media, they'll feel anything they're taught to feel, they'll shape their sensibilities to conform to what they're told to conform to.

land of the free home of the brave not any more.

but we're still the Americans and we'll never change.
35

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 14/06/2008 05:05:18
Cerberus,..I took the time to get the spelling right.btw.. mine is L_Y_N_N_E..there for you to see.
Nothing, I repeat, Nothing was removed because of what I wrote..More than likely it was removed because of the defamatory language YOU used.
36

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 14/06/2008 05:07:45
Oh yes..if someone used the I word..you know that tiny country surrounded by large countires that want her destroyed...they (Scotsman) would probably remove all the comments.
37

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 14/06/2008 05:08:11
*countries*
38

American,

14/06/2008 05:24:23
#33-linus-"they are right, the rest of us are wrong"-- Now you've got it, but not ALL of you are wrong.
39

Linus,

at arm's length 14/06/2008 06:25:23
#38 American,
Your name says it all.
40

Linus,

at arm's length 14/06/2008 06:55:03
Wally,
It's truly refreshing to see an American like yourself stand up and admit the wrongdoings of your government. I'm assuming that you're an American, since you're reporting from the USA. You also seem to be well informed about the doings of the American people and their government, again leading to the assumption that you are an American. You will no doubt be deemed a traitor by many of the commentators here, for how could you possibly say something bad about the good old USA, even if everything you're saying is correct. It's good to see that you have the 'gonads' to stand up against popular belief and opinion, let's hope that more like you come to the forefront and stand up to be counted. For now, you're an obvious minority, but because of you , more will open up and support you. It's also good to know that you have the rest of the world supporting you, because the rest of the world is getting tired of the same old bullying tactics the States are so INFAMOUS for.
41

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 14/06/2008 06:58:12
Jose Padilla..
Alias(es) Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah
Penalty trial in civilian courts
Status Sentenced to 17 years and four months in prison.
José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists. Padilla was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and was detained as a material witness until June 9, 2002, when President Bush designated him an illegal enemy combatant and transferred him to a military prison, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to trial in civilian courts. Padilla was held for three-and-a-half years as an "enemy combatant" after his arrest in 2002 on suspicion of plotting a radioactive "dirty bomb" attack. That charge was dropped and his case was moved to a civilian court after pressure from civil liberties groups. On January 3, 2006, he was transferred to a Miami, Florida, jail to face criminal conspiracy charges. José Padilla was found guilty of all charges against him on August 16, 2007, by a federal jury, which found that he conspired to kill people in an overseas jihad and to fund and support overseas terrorism. He was widely described in media as a suspect of planning to build and explode a "dirty bomb" in the United States, but he was not convicted on this charge.
He was scheduled to be sentenced on December 5, 2007, but his sentencing was postponed to January due to the death of a family member of the judge scheduled to sentence him. On January 22, 2008, Padilla was sentenced by Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to 17 years and four months (or 208 months) in prison. His mother, Estela Ortega Lebron was relieved but announced that they would appeal the judgment: "You have to understand that the government was asking for 30 years to life sentence in prison. We have a chance to appeal, and in the appeal we're gonna do better."[1] Padilla is serving his sentence
42

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 14/06/2008 07:00:39
continued..for Wally

We have a chance to appeal, and in the appeal we're gonna do better."[1] Padilla is serving his sentence at the high-security Supermax prison ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado.

He was not tortured, nor dis he lose his mind.
You are the one who has.
43

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 09:12:22
L-Y-N-N-E

Defamatory language that I used?

I think you will find that you rather bizarrely wrote:

"It's Europe who better worry. It's Europe that has Paris burning, and it's Europe that has Londonistan, no go zones, your lawmakers saying Sharia law is ok, along with your clerics. You dolts really believe if that everything stopped tomorrow, you would be all right? Nothing will happen? They will leave you alone? You are nothing more than appeasers and apologists for the terrorists and they count on you to fight their fight...before they hit you..before they outnumber you...before they outvote you.
Spain is lost to them because of train bombs. Holland and Belgium have been hit. You ignore 50,000 victims of torture and murder by Saddam and his regime.. We liberated millions. Yet, you sit there in your armchairs and have the gall to call Bush (it wouldn't have mattered who was in office) a war criminal.
Your opinions mean nothing..NOTHING. With your history of Chamberlain and appeasement, no one expects anything different.I am hoping (as you hope for hits on the US) that one day you will all wake up, and after your conversions, you will all be speaking Arabic. That's what cowards deserve."

So I, and others, replied politely pointing out the historical and factual errors in your distinctly strange outburst. I did ask if you were on medication. No offense was meant. It's just that in a few lines of text you demonstrate a bewildering lack of education and knowledge.It reads like a mindless rant from someone on medication and alcohol.

I simply cannot comprehend your comment at 36. Yes, you did use the word -Iran-. Here: you wrote - "Iran had more human rights groups after them about executing minors, and today they executed a 17 year old. That's how much they care."

I spent time attempting to educate you about the US law which, if you were being reasonable, you obviously do not know(why critisise Iran?). I pointedly replied -

"I agree with you tha
44

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 09:13:06
continued-

"I agree with you that such actions are awful. Did you know that boy killed a ten year old?

Did you also know that between 1979 and March 2005 only five of 190 nations have executed juveniles: Rwanda, Pakistan, Barbados, Bangladesh, and the U.S.A.

By perverse similarity the US senate made a 5-4 decision on March 1, 2005: they decided to ban executing minors. So 3 years ago the US stopped this. Do you know that juveniles in the USA are not allowed jury by peer? Even the Iranians manage that.

Do you agree that raping a 15 year old Iraqi boy prisoner is even more awful?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/16/usa.iraq

You do know, one assumes, that the States only recently abolished executing the mentally ill?

In the States how often do the police simply shoot the juveniles dead, instead of giving them a fair trial?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5554/is_200502/ai_n21846762

2000 juveniles in States prisons on life sentences.

Before the new law and after December 31, 2004, 71 persons were on death row for juvenile crimes. These 71 condemned juveniles constituted about 2% of the total death row population of 3,487. Although all were ages 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes, their current ages range from 18 to 43. They were under death sentences in 12 different states and had been on death row from 4 months to 24 years. Texas had by far the largest death row for juvenile offenders, holding 29 (40%) of the national total of 72 juvenile offenders.

Most black."

By the way- You are visiting a Scottish web site but you feel you can write: "I gather you must be one of the 47% of Scots whose mind is going, and becoming demented." (from the deleted comments of yesterday.) Defamatory language?


iuris dea

-Thank you, my education is superior, and so is my nation which provided the opportunity.-

Would you kindly explain? What nation and what opportunity?

You wrote - It is obvious you do not comprehend the lega
45

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 09:13:38
continued-

You wrote - It is obvious you do not comprehend the legal foundation of habeas corpus. May I suggest that you read the law before you pretend to know it and rip it apart.-

I never mentioned Habeas Corpus. However, a basic comprehension of the term is in the title itself. If I didn't mention Habeas Corpus, why would you write such a comment? Ripped it apart? You will find (by simply reading the comments) that I did not "rip it apart".

I did try to engage Caroline in rational debate by challenging her thesis. I'm sure you understand the word rational; with you having a superior eduction.
46

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 09:24:02
Wally

I concur with Linus' comments at 40.
47

Linus,

at arm's length 14/06/2008 10:03:54
Lynne and 57Nomad,
I'm sure that all the Americans are proud to have the pair of you representing them at this forum. The meaning of the word 'arrogance' needs to be redefined on account of you two. The two of you are convinced that everything your country does is justified simply because you are the mighty USA. well guess what, in the bigger picture, on a global front, you are minorities, and the rest of the world could bring you to your knees in a very short time, but the rest of the world is trying to deal with their own internal problems, something you guys seriously need to do. How many high school shootings have occurred in your country? How many racial murders take place there? Why is it that you believe you're all entitled to carry guns? Why is the illegal drug trade thriving in your country? Why do most serial killers and mass murderers live and operate in your country?, and yes, they are American citizens. Why do you think that you are being targeted by extremists and terrorists? It is because you have more problems than any other country in the world, and you are considered to be bullies, and bullies get what they deserve, hello 9-11. That was a sad event, a criminal act, but you brought it on yourselves, and if your attitudes don't change, the next attacks will dwarf 9-11, make no mistake about it. The rest of us can feel the pulse of the world, as to where you and the likes of you live in your little bubble, well, that bubble is about to burst, again. Try to consider that there is a whole world beyond your borders, filled with people who don't like what you and your government are doing, try to get that through your thick heads and red necks.
48

iuris dea ,

14/06/2008 12:22:27
44 Cerberus,Hades

More chest pounding from you and still no knowledge of American law.

I do not know from which country or which 'sources' you have gathered your opinions of the United States, and they ARE opinions because they are not factual. In the United States the justice system is comprised of a series of interconnecting although separate court systems. There is Federal, State and District. There are also Family courts. Juvenile Courts. Civil, etc..

Juveniles are heard in juvenile courts.
To be heard in an adult court a juvy case has to be presented before a judge to give cause as to why the child should be tried as an adult. There are various reasons: the crime was especially heinous is one consideration and the most relevant.

The US uses a separate juvenile system because there are laws in place that seal the juvenile record. This protects the child, etc...
49

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 12:41:27

iuris dea

More insincerity from you. If you bother to actually read the comments above to which you refer, you will clearly see that I was referring to dialogue between L-Y-N-N-E and myself from yesterday. If you bother to interpret the text above you will see that she cast aspersions about Iran executing a 17yo (who had killed a 10yo) and I pointed out the facts detailed above.

No "chest pounding" in the slightest. Simply showing L-Y-N-N-E some facts about US law, all taken from US government web sites.

Now, do you actually have an opinion on anything of consequence or do you simply make tedious remarks about other commentators?
50

,

14/06/2008 12:52:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
51

The Universal Curmudgeon,

Vancouver, Canada 14/06/2008 13:31:25
The next "interesting" legal question is going to be whether the acts that the "detainees" are accused of committing are "criminal". If the acts AREN'T "criminal", then the trials aren't "criminal trials" and, since the right to a speedy trial only applies to "criminal trials" (see the ACTUAL wording of the Constitution of the United States of America) and that would mean that the "detainees" don't have any "constitutional right" to a speedy trial.

Of course, that would place the United States of America in the "interesting" position of being a country where you can be executed for something that isn't a "crime" but only a "breach of administrative regulations".
52

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 14/06/2008 13:35:10
Linus in 40:

I am American.

I draw a distinction between the United States and the American nation though. The United States is the government that rules the nation. I do not put any faith at all in the concept of democracy or the idea that 'we the people' rule. I do not think the foreign policy or much else the US government does represents the will or the interests or the values of the people of country at all.

IMHO the democracy ideology is a complete fraud. our country is ruled over a clique that happens to be very evil. unfortunately, our people can't comprehend this. They buy the democracy ideology and some of them thus seek to support this clique blindly.

I've advised people from ROTW (rest of the world) that it is unlikely the US leadership will be modified satisfactorilly. The people who rule do rule more or less with an iron fist. It is likely that Obama will be a big disappointment to them. Remember, Clinton bombed countries too. Obama is basically a war-monger if you take him seriously. He only differentiates himself slightly in policy prescription. The 1 thing in his favor on this regard is that he did give a strong anti-war speech in 2002. but thats the way the ruling clique works. They raise up people as opponents, all along controlling the opponents. They give the people choices, all choices they control.

If Obama truly is the rebel that we hope for, then he'll be under severe attack. As you can see what happened to John F. Kennedy in 1963 that is a very serious matter.

You should be aware & realize that much of the leadership clique of Europe & Britain support the same things as the leadership clique of the US. Your peoples don't have the control over your leadership cliques that you desire either. Our country is just used as the enforcer for this New World Orde clique that is global, but your countries have leadership involved in it also.

I'm sure that the US will distinguish itself in doing particularly n
53

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 14/06/2008 13:36:02
I'm sure that the US will distinguish itself in doing particularly nasty things in future years and that the ROTW (rest of the world) will grow to hate us even more than today. The Americans were given a nation that was a particularly good & spectacular nation compared to the others. and the Americans know this in their hearts. So when a very evil clique is in leadership, this is something they cannot comprehend. As our greatness is turned to evil purposes we simply cannot deal with this. the result for many is denial, ignorance or arrogance as I've said. But through it all we Americans are not the ones in charge here is what I tell you.

If you didn't grow up here and don't know much about our history, then you just wouldn't really understand the American mindset on these matters
54

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 14/06/2008 13:43:41
regarding Lynne's spamming of junk info on Jose Padilla - I read the statements by Padilla's lawyers, I followed that case and read much since he was arrested. He was born in New York of mexican descent. His sole crime was that he converted to muslim faith, he moved to an arabic country, took an arabic muslim wife and was planning on attending a camp in afghanistan which he understood to be a camp for developing his muslim faith.

When they first arrested him they said on our national news that he was a horrible terrorist planning on setting off nuclear weaponry inside the US. But those accusations were dropped before he went to trial. It took about 4 years for them to bring him to trial. That whole time he was in a military prison where severe sensory deprivation was done on him. He did in fact lose his mind, I have put up url links to his lawyer's statements here before.

17 years in jail because he signed up to go to a camp described as developing his muslim faith in afghanistan. He never even attended. But he got 17 years because he enrolled. He was arrested when he came back to the US to visit family. Never even made it to Afghanistan, we don't even know if he ever would have.
55

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 14/06/2008 13:52:43
regarding the assertions above that the US is attacked because people hate our policies: There are many who do hate us because of some policies, and many who would like to attack us, but the actual attacks are far over-rated.

The terror event of 1993 at WTC in New York was due to an undercover FBI agent inside a group of muslims who convinced them to do the attack and then led them in that attack. The undercover FBI agent testified under oath at the trial that he did this and that he himself in fact made the bomb and set the bomb in place. He testified that he asked his FBI handler if he could use fake explosives instead of real ones and that he was instructed to use real explosives.

The terror event of 1995 in Oklahoma was the same. Documents released by the FBI and other federal law enforcement people document this, many undercover agents were within the group that did this. Timothy McVeigh himself is likely to have been an undercover agent. One witness to his execution insists that he was still breathing after being pronounced dead. And we have 100% proof from more than 1 angle & source that the damage to that building was primarilly done by bombs inside the building, not from the 2 truck bombs that witnesses saw and physical evidence documents did exist. Government & media say there was only 1 truck bomb.

The same thing is true of the sept 11 events. They were not as they appeared. It was contrived. It is done as an excuse to provoke war, to justify police state and radical political changes.

We're up against tremendously evil forces. We're witnessing the limitations of mankind's ability to take care of his own affairs. What it means is that we need our creator. and if we have any sense, then we'll seek that.
56

iuris dea ,

14/06/2008 14:24:10
49 Cerberus, Hades
Surely the ignorant button which you have attached to your sorely pounded chest must be flashing alerts by now to stop pounding.

Protecting the child is not insincere. The courts go to great length to seal the records of kids so upon reaching adulthood, they have the chance for a fresh start. Evidently you did not grasp that concept so I will expand it for you. The juvy cases are closed to provide privacy for the minor. There is no jury because that would negate the privacy. Instead there is a bench trial- this means the judge, who is a juvy judge, sits for the case and makes the final ruling based upon presentation from both the prosecutor and the defendant. Also, of the 50 states, each state has it's own definition of minor; some states define adult as 16, others at the age of 17 and others at the age of 18. States rule over state law not federal.

You condemn the US for its human rights record.
(What a layered up sandwich of falsehoods that is. Americans enjoy the highest and most freedom in the world. More than the UK.)
Fact:
In 365 years, in the vastness of ALL 50 states, 363 were executed who were under 18 at the time of their crime(s).
As for the human rights record, or more correctly the lack of it, it is interesting that you do not list China as an offending country.

As for the peculiar retort in reference to Habeas Corpus, this article is about a ruling of Habeas Corpus so any discussion is rooted in that law. It is a fact that the US wrote the Habeas Corpus to get relief from the King of England.

A further correction and enlightenment of your ignorance, you have not posted any links to a government site although you state you have.
57

Wally,

By The Rivers Of Babylon (USA) 14/06/2008 16:16:41
I think that anyone who boasts that the US justice system is good or superior is insane. We jail far more people than any other nation on a per capita basis. Over 95% of the people convicted of crimes did not get trials. We have a system of 'plea-bargaining' where trials are precluded. The accused person is given a choice of a very short prison sentence if they plead guilty or else face trial and risk a very long prison sentence. The accused people know how unjust the system is, how lies are normal and falsification of evidence, how good evidence is excluded by judges, how the whole system works basically to 'railroad' them to the prison cell and they plead guilty even when they're innocent. We have people being executed that are not guilty. we have huge abuses of prisoners in our jails including rapes of prisoners not only tolerated by the guards, but encouraged in some cases. We have inadequate medical care for the prisoners in many jails. We have inadequate food sometimes. We have abuse of prisoners by the jailers. We have poor people getting jail sentences for possession of small quantities of drugs while rich people can have large quantities in their possession and get no jail. We have police officers planting evidence on people. We have police abusing the citizens commonly.

About 3 years ago in Georgia a man had an epileptic fit, people near him called '911' to summon an ambulance. Instead the police came. They ordered the man to stop his fit as they were trying to handcuff him and he wouldn't cooperate. He wouldn't stop his fit. They tasered him. then they got him cuffed and down to the police station. Then his epileptic fit continued. Again he wouldn't stop when he was ordered to. They tasered him like 5 times in 3 minutes. The manufacturers of tasers tell the police not to repeatedly taser as it can kill. The police who were trained on this matter did it anyway. The man died. Tasered to death because he had an epileptic fit.
58

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 18:02:24

iuris dea

Some flaws to your otherwise superb argument...

a/I didn't express any sentiment or opinion about 'protecting the child'.

b/ You say, "You condemn the US for its human rights record. " when I did no such thing.

c/You say, "Americans enjoy the highest and most freedom in the world. More than the UK.)" Is that so? I tend to think that you only think that because you have told it so often but I couldn't care less. The point I was making to L-Y-N-N-E was that Iran's execution of a 17 yo is hardly an unheard of occurrence in the US of A.

d/Habeas Corpus: it was you who misinterpreted my comments. I couldn't care less what you think. By the way, you talk of the King of England relating to US law. Then you speak of "A further correction and enlightenment of your (my) ignorance". The fact that you don't even understand why i'm laughing my head off at your lack of eduction only makes it better for me. (BTW: you are posting on a Scottish web site: a clue, Sherlock.)

e/You say, "A further correction and enlightenment of your ignorance, you have not posted any links to a government site although you state you have." - No I didn't state that at all; as anyone who can read English will explain to you.

If you are an example of US eduction and culture, I suggest a serious overhaul of US eduction and culture. You can't read, you can't interpret, your understanding of history is bizarre and you're extremely obnoxious.

But you are fun. LOL

59

American,

14/06/2008 19:07:13
#17-daddychow-That's a wonderful idea! It will solve the problem to where their own countries dont want them back and to where they dont want to return to their own countries for fear of torture.
60

American,

14/06/2008 19:12:23
#39-linus-Thank you. And I wear the name proudly!
61

American,

14/06/2008 19:17:26
#40-linus-Of course we complain about our govt. and their wrong doings--mostly wrong doings by the looney left!! And FYI- wally has a bit of a mental problem, so it goes to figure that you would think he's someone who you can relate to.
62

American,

14/06/2008 19:25:38
#47-linus-"It is because you have more problems than any other country in the world"-I was unaware of that fact! Maybe lynne, nomad, & myself should pack up and move to sudan, somalia, afghanistan, haiti, cuba--although cubans are now allowed to have luxuries like toasters--or mexico (I'm sure several million of illegal immigrant mexicans can give us hints on how to sneak over borders-possibly get govt assisted welfare where ever we end up).
63

iuris dea ,

14/06/2008 21:51:23
58 Cerberus, Hades


a) But you did.
please refer to post @#44

b)But you did.
please refer to your visionary rant at #44
"By perverse similarity the US senate made a 5-4 decision on March 1, 2005: they decided to ban executing minors. So 3 years ago the US stopped this. Do you know that juveniles in the USA are not allowed jury by peer? Even the Iranians manage that." (That is Not a true statement FYI)

c)Incorrect.
The last execution of person, who was a minor at the time of his crime, was five years ago for a conviction of a double murder plus rape, assault, etc.
In 35 years 23 kids have been executed in a large cocuntry. The UK has executed far more than the US, and is much less populated.

d)FYI I'm Scottish, lol. And you still have no accurate concept of American law and you obviously don't care. Fact is, that the the Habeas Corpus was written to oppose English control of the 13 colonies in America..
It is also obvious you have not been there and are envious. LOL.

e) But you did.
Please refer to #49 where you said: "No "chest pounding" in the slightest. Simply showing L-Y-N-N-E some facts about US law, all taken from US government web sites."

However, the careful wording of the ruling from the Justices allows for this to go back to congress and use The Suspension Clause.


64

Cerberus,

Hades 14/06/2008 22:53:05

iuris dea

Superb, bravo!

a/ I just checked. No mention of protecting the child.

b/ Didn't condemn the US

c/--------what's the point. Reading that makes me realise that you obviously cannot read English and have zero knowledge of the United Kingdom. "The UK has executed far more than the US, and is much less populated." Unbelievable. So totally ignorant and dumb.

d/You are Scottish? I very much doubt that for, if you were, you would fully comprehend the gross stupidity and historical inaccuracy of your assertion regarding US law and 'the English King'.

e/I said that I posted data FROM US government web sites. You really should learn to read before you comment.

Anymore? LOL
65

iuris dea ,

15/06/2008 02:34:08
I quote:

The Habeas Corpus Act
"Responding to abusive detention of persons without legal authority, public pressure on the English Parliament caused them to adopt this act, which established a critical right that was later written into the Constitution for the United States."

http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm

Whereas great delays have been used by sheriffs, gaolers and other officers, to whose custody any of the King's subjects have been committed for criminal or supposed criminal matters, in making returns of writs of habeas corpus to them directed, by standing out an alias and pluries habeas corpus, and sometimes more, and by other shifts to avoid their yielding obedience to such writs, contrary to their duty and the known laws of the land, whereby many of the King's subjects have been and hereafter may be long detained in prison, in such cases where by law they are bailable, to their great charges and vexation:
II. For the prevention whereof, and the more speedy relief of all persons imprisoned for any such criminal or supposed criminal matters; ...

That whensoever any person or persons shall bring any habeas corpus directed unto any sheriff or sheriffs, gaoler, minister or other person whatsoever, for any person in his or her custody, and the said writ shall be served upon the said officer, or left at the gaol or prison with any of the under-officers, under-keepers or deputy of the said officers or keepers, that the said officer or officers, his or their under-officers, under-keepers or deputies, shall within three days after the service thereof as aforesaid and shall then likewise certify the true causes of his detainer or imprisonment,
66

iuris dea ,

15/06/2008 02:52:35
64 Cerberus, Hades

The Hades chest-pounder said: "e/I said that I posted data FROM US government web sites. You really should learn to read before you comment. "

You did NOT post government web sites.
Name one site.
What is ironic is that you're even too stupid to know it.

You really are no more than a chest pounder without the brain to stop beating yourself. Everything you say is empty of truth.
67

Cerberus,

Hades 15/06/2008 03:20:17
LMAO

68

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 04:53:50
#24 C

C said:

"You arrogantly critisise only one point from that summary and you even manage to demonstrate your ignorance on that point."

I 'arrogantly criticize only one point.' Pointing out that the report you rest your lame assumptions on was written by attorneys for the terrorists is arrogant? I see. But, C, the report WAS written by attorneys for the terrorists. Here is the substantiating footnote taken directly from the paper.

"* The authors are counsel for two detainees in Guantanamo."

To presume that these two men have not framed their report in ways that benefit their clients is not only ridiculous but it would be unethical legal practice if they didn't.

If you call that arrogant how do you explain this:

"The data are obviously limited.5 The data are framed in the Government’s terms and therefore are
no more precise than the Government’s categories permit."

Here the two attorneys explicitly state their contention that the data from the government was biased. So, if the governments data are under a cloud because it was written by the government, then they have laid the predicate for presuming bias in their own interpretation of those data because they have a vested interest in presenting the most favorable view of their clients.

Pretty arrogant of them, don't you think?

Here is another gem.

"The poster would be well advised that any clown with a semblance of mental activity can easily read my comment and ascertain, without any difficulty to a rational mind, that the data given is a summary and that the poster gave the link."

You have me at a disadvantage when it comes to the mental activity of clowns, a condition with which you have long personal experience, so I give you that point. Nonetheless your link has little meaning because it refers to a report that you yourself imply is suspect because of the vested interest of the attorneys for the terrorists who authored it.

Thinking you can intimidate anyone with t
69

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 04:56:13
#24 C

C said:

"You arrogantly critisise only one point from that summary and you even manage to demonstrate your ignorance on that point."

I 'arrogantly criticize only one point.' Pointing out that the report you rest your lame assumptions on was written by attorneys for the terrorists is arrogant? I see. But, C, the report WAS written by attorneys for the terrorists. Here is the substantiating footnote taken directly from the paper.

"* The authors are counsel for two detainees in Guantanamo."

To presume that these two men have not framed their report in ways that benefit their clients is not only ridiculous but it would be unethical legal practice if they didn't.



If you call that arrogant how do you explain this:

"The data are obviously limited.5 The data are framed in the Government’s terms and therefore are
no more precise than the Government’s categories permit."

Here the two attorneys explicitly state their contention that the data from the government was biased. So, if the governments data are under a cloud because it was written by the government, then they have laid the predicate for presuming bias in their own interpretation of those data because they have a vested interest in presenting the most favorable view of their clients.

Pretty arrogant of them, don't you think?

Here is another gem.

"The poster would be well advised that any clown with a semblance of mental activity can easily read my comment and ascertain, without any difficulty to a rational mind, that the data given is a summary and that the poster gave the link."

You have me at a disadvantage when it comes to the mental activity of clowns, a condition you experience constantly, so I give you that point. Nonetheless your link has little meaning because it refers to a report that you yourself imply is suspect because of the vested interest of the attorneys for the terrorists who authored it.
#58 contd.

Thinking that you can intimidate anyone with
70

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 04:58:18
#58 contd.

Thinking that you can intimidate anyone with the continual insults weakens what ever case you might be able to cobble together. You are substituting insults and contempt in place of a reasoned argument and it shows. You have been wrong about everything so far. All the bombast in the world isn't going to change that.




71

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 16/06/2008 08:46:47
#44 that boy should not have been murdered, and that child should not have been hung. The murder took place 2 years ago..that makes the murderer a 15 year old. They waited to execute him at 17 because of pressure on them..he was still a child when he did this horrible act. A CHILD..and this is an act of inhumanity.
You do not know about our laws and courts, and there is iuris dea has done a great job of trying to explain it to you. Juvenile Courts and family courts are different then Federal, State, and County Courts.
You could stand to learn a thing or two from this person. You are way off base.
72

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 11:02:22
#62 American

Hold on a second. I think minus might have a point there and we shouldn't dismiss it so casually when he says:

#47-linus-"It is because you have more problems than any other country in the world"

Here are just a few of them. A few years ago, the company that made the foam blanks that are then shaped into surfboards closed its doors casting a pall over the entire coast. Fortunately, another company took its place, but it was a damn close call.

Then again he may have been referring to the Spring Break bacchanal that takes place at Lake Havasu every year. Its gotten to be so crowded that speedboat traffic has slowed to a snails pace as you can't swing a bikini top like a helicopter blade without smacking some other shamelessly scantily clad woman in the speedboat next to yours. And what, I ask, is the government doing to alleviate this inconvenience. Nothing, that's what.

Then there is the problem of having too much food and money. Its a plague, I tell you. Chubbiness abounds in the land. Can't we ever have a decent famine like those ancient cultures in Africa have built into their way of life. Some call it starving, others, wiser perhaps, call it 'tough-love dieting.'

And the grimmest omen of all, and this may take a small personal digression to fully explain. I live in the San Diego area. The San Diego Padres broadcast their games on their own channel. The local cable companies all provide this channel as part of their basic package. But, and this is a real problem, I have Dish Network satellite TV. And they DO NOT CARRY THE PADRE'S channel. How messed up and medieval is that? What the hell is wrong with this country?

Also, if you drive from San Diego to Las Vegas you have to sit in traffic for HOURS to get through Riverside County if you leave in the daylight hours. So, we are obliged to leave for Vegas after 8:00 PM, forcing the valley parking staff to work until midnight. Is this right? Is this civilized? Does this not suppo
73

57Nomad,

16/06/2008 11:04:24
#72 contd.

Does this not support Minus' every contention?

You be the Judge!

74

57Nomad,

16/06/2008 11:09:16
its very late here and I'm out of energy. I meant vallet parking, not valley parking.

75

Lynne,

Palm Beach Gardens 16/06/2008 15:11:35
no you didn't you meant valet parking!! lol
76

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 18:14:24
linus said:

"57Nomad would be leading the pack there, he really is convinced that there is nothing beyond the US borders, and if there is something else there, let's go in and kill everybody there and claim it for ourselves. He firmly believes that they need not answer to anybody, remember the illegal invasion of Iraq, deemed illegal by the UN, well, they went there and are still there, killing everybody and claiming it for themselves."

Look, you pathetic lying weasel, do not claim to speak for me, don't put words in my mouth, and do not presume to know what I think. Every so often a new gaggle of dullards gets together and tries to gang up on me or one of the other posters who agree with me. In the end they have all run away with their tails between their stumpy little legs and they were smarter, more well informed, and much better debaters than you are.

If you will go back a year of so in the archives you will find a poster called thatscottishwoman, or TSM. TSM was a self-declared Bolshevik and we agreed on nothing but what month it was. But, her posts were based on a coherent intellectual foundation. It was from this foundation she fashioned her arguments. Consequently her arguments were cogent if not valid. I didn't agree with her, I didn't get along with her, but I respected her because of her thoughtfulness and adherence to the proposition that issues and personalities need not be hopelessly entangled. You do not understand this and seem believe that you can demean a persons arguments by demeaning the person who puts them forth.

I expect that you will not be able to understand this fallacy any more than you can understand that the effect cannot precede the cause, as you are constantly claiming. From now on do yourself and the readers of this forum a favor. If you are going to claim, as you have libelously done to me, that a person is guilty of lusting after blood and treasure, you must cite your substantiating sources.

You, on the other han
77

57Nomad,

16/06/2008 18:15:41
76 contd.

You, on the other hand, have nothing of interest to say. You are entirely without any scholarly or intellectually consistent principals. You put forth no ideas of your own and content yourself with sniping at others from behind your girlfriend Cerebral Hemorrhage's skirts. I would like to use as an example your insistence the it was Roman Catholics who were responsible for the crucifixion of Lord Jesus.

This is a position that could only be held by a lunatic or, well, another lunatic. The fact that there was not one single Roman Catholic on the face of the earth didn't phase you because of your unbelievably ignorant assertion that "nobody knows what was happening 2000 years ago." Of course we do. It is one thing to be ignorant, it is quite another to take to the presses to proclaim that ignorance for one and all to see. When Jesus was crucified Tiberius Caesar was emperor of Rome and was the chief priest of the Roman god Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Any Roman who openly flaunted their disbelief in the gods of Rome or failed to participate in its rituals was automatically guilty of treason and would have been put to death.

Your statements are so far from reality one wonders if you are a grade school kid sneaking on to his mothers computer. Thanking Wally, 'steel doesn't melt' Goofball in Chief of the forum, provides us glimpse into your ability to discern fact from fancy. Wally wears a tinfoil hat. He is our court jester. Yet you, to the astonishment of all, use his posts to support your demented musings.

What do you believe in? What are the principles that guide your thoughts and words? You are happy to attack others beliefs but you don’t ever state your own. Do you have any? I doubt it, but if you do, lets hear them.
78

57Nomad,

california 16/06/2008 18:19:54
#75 Lynne

I did indeed! I plead 3:00 AM and throw myself on the mercy of the court. I hope to God that Sister Margaret Mary didn't read this or I'm in for a knuckle rapping.
79

Cerberus,

Hades 21/06/2008 15:54:14
John Wayne 70

Twas you that failed to read my original comments correctly but I get the feeling that you will be absolutely incapable of accepting a failure. Ego problems?

No tediously long, red-herring infested, comment will replace cognitive/analytical ability and intellectual dignity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SFnvLC83ew

http://www.teambuildinginc.com/tps/031b7.htm
80

iuris dea ,

22/06/2008 17:16:30
#79 Cerberus
I see many days have passed, and the chest-pounder from Hades was never able to prove he knew the difference between the truth and foaming at the mouth.

In reference to the links to the government sites you said you posted and I couldn't read, you're a bold lier who never posted any government web site.

The fact is- you don't know the difference between fact, fiction, and fairy tale.

Ego problems?
team player?
Shall we assume you're just another lemming runing off the cliff?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.