• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber

Actually, that is just your twisted view on what "us guys" have said. It's not my fault you are confused.

I'm no longer confused, it's obvious, we are not allowed to post threads discussing Obma and Islam in anyway because the only reason we are doing so is to advance our bigotry.

It's okay Redress.
 
The Bush Administration wasn't that concerned about the prospect of not being able to use that evidence because it was usable until the MCA of 2009 banned it.

Well...that's true, but there was a reason for that. The rules for military commissions were originally setup under GW Bush, but they were changed initially around 2007/08 (if I remember the timeframe correctly) right when the pictures from Abu Grab were leaked. Led by Sen. McCain, the "rules of evidence" and much more where military commissions are concerned were changed as a result of both the nation's outcry to halt torture in this country and in sending suspected terrorist abroad for interrogation, and also to allow prisoners the opportunity to hear (some) evidence levelled against them which under the old rules much of the evidence which was marked w/some form of security classification (usually "SECRET") could not be presented in court.

Because of actions the Bush-Cheney Administration took pertaining to torture, judicial rules of evidence for military commissions and a host of other things too complicated to go into detail here, the rules for military commissions have changed at least 2 times since initially enacted under the Bush-Cheney administration.

Again, this isn't a slam on GW Bush...not really, but things he did during his presidency where these military commissions are concerned are starting to impact the Obama Administration's ability to hold military commissions w/o double- and triple-checking legal proceedings as well as the laws that govern same. But you don't have to take my word for it. Read the book, "Takeover: The Empirial Presidency," by Charlie Savage and judge for yourself. It's a very facinating read.

Keyword: Signing Statements...:ssst:
 
Last edited:
So, holding him indefinitely with no charges even "contemplated" is suddenly all perfectly sensible, rational, and logical . . . because it's Obama?

Yep, all those Democrats and activist groups screaming over Bush holding terrorists indefinitely have gone fishing.

It's like they never screamed at all.
 
Well...that's true, but there was a reason for that. The rules for military commissions were originally setup under GW Bush, but they were changed initially around 2007/08 (if I remember the timeframe correctly) right when the pictures from Abu Grab were leaked. Led by Sen. McCain, the "rules of evidence" and much more where military commissions are concerned were changed as a result of both the nation's outcry to halt torture in this country and in sending suspected terrorist abroad for interrogation, and also to allow prisoners the opportunity to hear (some) evidence levelled against them which under the old rules much of the evidence which was marked w/some form of security classification (usually "SECRET") could not be presented in court.

The Abu Ghirab photos were leaked in 04, and most of the changes to detainee policy made by the DTA and various MCA's were designed as responses to SC decisions that limited the authority of Art. III courts to hear habeas claims, not as responses to abuse per se.

Because of actions the Bush-Cheney Administration took pertaining to torture, judicial rules of evidence for military commissions and a host of other things too complicated to go into detail here, the rules for military commissions have changed at least 2 times since initially enacted under the Bush-Cheney administration.

Again, this isn't a slam on GW Bush...not really, but things he did during his presidency where these military commissions are concerned are starting to impact the Obama Administration's ability to hold military commissions w/o double- and triple-checking legal proceedings as well as the laws that govern same.

I don't think that's really the case - again, if the government wanted to continue to use the same procedures in the military tribunals that it had originally planned on using, it would be free to do so to the extent that the courts would go along with it. Nothing about Bush's actions really changed that. The only thing that changed the procedures was Congress's decision to change the procedures.
 
Last edited:
I read my source. Read it and weep bub.

And that means Obama is behind a conspiracy? Do your research bub, this is exactly like your Iraqi War cost threat, its full of BS.

The real story here isn't that the trial has been halted for a time, its that after 9 years we still haven't figured out how to deal with terrorist suspects and captured terrorist leaders. We can't figure out if we want it in a military or federal court, we can't figure out what kind of evidence can and cannot be allowed. For example from your article:
But critics of military commissions say the Nashiri case exemplifies the system's flaws, particularly the ability to introduce certain evidence such as hearsay statements that probably would not be admitted in federal court. The prosecution is expected to rely heavily on statements made to the FBI by two Yemenis who allegedly implicated Nashiri. Neither witness is expected at trial, but the FBI agents who interviewed them will testify, said Nashiri's military attorney, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes. "Unlike in federal court, you don't have the right to confront the witnesses against you," he said.

Your problem isn't against the Obama administration its against the entire Justice department and this DoD/DoJ freud over who gets the charge and manage these court cases. Do you remember KSM, the key they were going to try in New York, he was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks? He still hasn't been convicted of anything, and he's been in our capture since 2003. The Cole bomber has been in our capture since 2002.

So I agree Obama should be doing something to get this crap moving, but so should the DoD, DoJ, and so should the Bush administration for the 6 years they held these people. If you're going to assign blame assign it where it is due.
 
washingtonpost.com



Does the Obama Admin have a plan? Do they have a clue here?

They found out he was a Black Panther member, and seek to reunite him with his lost brethren.

Holder calls us cowards. Can we say these people are ideological and incompetent? Too incompetent to be running the country and protecting us from enemies and invaders foreign and domestic?

.
 
Obama will do anything he can to protect Arabs whether they be terrorists or not.............this is outrageous........

He's not protecting them.

He didn't release him Navy...

They just can't convict him because evidence is thin atm.

Or should we convict him in a phony trial... that sounds as American as Stalin.
 
He's not protecting them.

He didn't release him Navy...

They just can't convict him because evidence is thin atm.

Or should we convict him in a phony trial... that sounds as American as Stalin.

No, Obama and Co. changed the rules, and are now realizing they shot themselves in the foot when it comes to these terror trials.
 
No, Obama and Co. changed the rules, and are now realizing they shot themselves in the foot when it comes to these terror trials.

Yeah **** eh.

Wouldn't want anyone to have an actual trial. That's un-amer... oh wait ****!
 
Yeah **** eh.

Wouldn't want anyone to have an actual trial. That's un-amer... oh wait ****!

That's a pointless post Jet. Facts are, Obama changed the rules of the game, and when they went to try this guy, and others, realized that they assed themselves out of a trial. You can rant on with silly hyperbole all you want, doesn't change the fact that Obama's people are realizing they cannot try some of the people in Gitmo because they negated the evidence against them. DOH!
 
That's a pointless post Jet. Facts are, Obama changed the rules of the game, and when they went to try this guy, and others, realized that they assed themselves out of a trial. You can rant on with silly hyperbole all you want, doesn't change the fact that Obama's people are realizing they cannot try some of the people in Gitmo because they negated the evidence against them. DOH!

But you're way too stuck on proving how TOLERANT you are you are jumping to conclusions without evidence.

Those are your words...

If there was clear evidence... it wouldn't be a problem now would it?

In case I forgot, we don't allow evidence obtained through torture methods into a court of law do we?

And wait just a damned second... I thought it was innocent until proven guilty? Or are we just throwing that out the window too...

I'm not terrorist sympathizer so don't go there. But I do believe all men, including these ones deserve a fair trial... and their case heard by a jury.

But I shouldnt' forget this is all shrouded in politics, and we dare not give a suspected terrorist a trial because hey, they don't deserve one.

The amount of people that turned out to be innocent at Gitmo should tell you that we need to start finding out who is and isn't and NOW!
 
That's a pointless post Jet. Facts are, Obama changed the rules of the game, and when they went to try this guy, and others, realized that they assed themselves out of a trial. You can rant on with silly hyperbole all you want, doesn't change the fact that Obama's people are realizing they cannot try some of the people in Gitmo because they negated the evidence against them. DOH!

They didn't actually change the rules, the rules have been changing since they first started this idea of a military trail. But one thing that has stayed pretty constant is the outlaw in these trails, and America in general, is that evidence by torture cannot be used.
 
Those are your words...

If there was clear evidence... it wouldn't be a problem now would it?

In case I forgot, we don't allow evidence obtained through torture methods into a court of law do we?

And wait just a damned second... I thought it was innocent until proven guilty? Or are we just throwing that out the window too...

I'm not terrorist sympathizer so don't go there. But I do believe all men, including these ones deserve a fair trial... and their case heard by a jury.

But I shouldnt' forget this is all shrouded in politics, and we dare not give a suspected terrorist a trial because hey, they don't deserve one.

The amount of people that turned out to be innocent at Gitmo should tell you that we need to start finding out who is and isn't and NOW!

What are you blathering on about?

They changed the rules of evidence. It's like this, imagine you and I were detectives mmkay? And ten years ago we bust a guy for murder. Our evidence was blood spots. Now we didn't have DNA sampling and the blood wasn't enough to get a DNA sample today.

The guy goes for an appeal, only before his appeal, it's ruled that Blood Evidence without DNA is no longer admissible. DOH! Wed' have to scramble to figure out how to try the guy.

That's pretty much what's going on here, only the rules were changed for political gain, and only now is it biting them on the ass.
 
What are you blathering on about?

They changed the rules of evidence. It's like this, imagine you and I were detectives mmkay? And ten years ago we bust a guy for murder. Our evidence was blood spots. Now we didn't have DNA sampling and the blood wasn't enough to get a DNA sample today.

The guy goes for an appeal, only before his appeal, it's ruled that Blood Evidence without DNA is no longer admissible. DOH! Wed' have to scramble to figure out how to try the guy.

That's pretty much what's going on here, only the rules were changed for political gain, and only now is it biting them on the ass.

Except instead of blood samples we have evidence that was literally beaten out of the person. This is AMERICA damn it. We are better than this. We're supposed to be the good guys, don't ever under-estimate the power of the morale high ground. Putting the message out that the rules change, and your rights change, if we SUSPECT, as everyone is only suspect until proven guilty, you of being a terrorist, sends a bad sign to the world and goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for.
 
Whatever dude, you're bleeding your heart for a man that helped plan the deaths of American's. I know that fact eludes your righteous outrage that he was "waterboarded", but it's scant consolation to the families of the dead.

The real truth is, Obama and Co want to try him under Federal Law, and the methods to capture the guy don't meet those guidelines. There will be no trial for this man, we can't do it under the new system, and if we go ahead with the older guidelines people like you scream and cry about this scums rights.

What about the rights of those he helped murder? Oh that's right, criminals and terrorist rights are more important to folks like you.
 
Whatever dude, you're bleeding your heart for a man that helped plan the deaths of American's. I know that fact eludes your righteous outrage that he was "waterboarded", but it's scant consolation to the families of the dead.

So no innocent until proven guilty...

Me and him aren't bleeding out our hearts.

For me it's this: If you allow it to happen to one person, you can do it to many more.

You always howel, Less government this, less government that, yet in your fear after 9/11 you let the government do whatever they wanted, illegal search and seizures, illegal wire tappings all in the name of Anti-Terrorism.

Now almost a million people could have access to every single thing about you, including what Porno you enjoy.

How long before this monstrosity of a government security operatus is turned against the people themselves? Do you think it couldn't happen?

So less government.... when..... it's convenient for you to say so.

The real truth is.

Dying to hear this.

What about the rights of those he helped murder?

They have the right to have justice served, not a show trial for political expediency.

Oh that's right, criminals and terrorist rights are more important to folks like you.

All mens rights are important, not just the ones you deem convenient at the time.
 
I am not suprised that Mr. Obama has halted the prosecution of the Islamofascist Nazi's.

If I were sympthetic to extremist Islam, an-in-the-closet-Muslim with *no cajones* to come out as a devout beleiver, and an anti-Semite I would stop the prosecution of this Islamic swine as well. Then again ... the boy president has two more years in which to attempt to subject America to Sharia Law.

As before, this *homosexual* will not submit. Mohammed is a pedophile who had sex with underage girls and the Qu'ran is a book of *HATE* which seeks to murder gays and lesbians.
 
This is just wrong, It doesn't surprise me one bit, everything about this administration is inept, and incompetent.
 
This is just wrong, It doesn't surprise me one bit, everything about this administration is inept, and incompetent.

tell us what you believe should have been done instead
 
He's not protecting them.

He didn't release him Navy...

They just can't convict him because evidence is thin atm.

Or should we convict him in a phony trial... that sounds as American as Stalin.

Then by this argument, as there is no evidence, he SHOULD BE released.

But no one's calling for that. Why not?
 
Then by this argument, as there is no evidence, he SHOULD BE released.

But no one's calling for that. Why not?

Shhhh!!! He's against "Torture" but indefinite incarceration without evidence is A-OK.
 
Shhhh!!! He's against "Torture" but indefinite incarceration without evidence is A-OK.

I'm not. Technically speaking yes he should be released immediately.

But since he'll be a terrorist to you always, he deserves the right to a trial by jury to determine his guilt or innocence.

Not that even that will matter to you if he's found innocent...
 
Shhhh!!! He's against "Torture" but indefinite incarceration without evidence is A-OK.

you've confused him with bush....no wait...bush was FOR torture AND indefinite incarceration. what a silly thread.
 
I'm not. Technically speaking yes he should be released immediately.

But since he'll be a terrorist to you always, he deserves the right to a trial by jury to determine his guilt or innocence.

Not that even that will matter to you if he's found innocent...

What does "technically speaking" mean here? Should he be released, or shouldn't he?
 
Back
Top Bottom