Food for thought

Watch this short exchange (don’t pay attention to the shock headline) and judge it on the legal basis and the facts

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/17/oreilly-trials-constitution/

Article 3, Section 2:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Food for thought”

  1. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    I have to look at this further. It seems to me that these rights are soley for American citizens. That said, if the constitution calls for it then I would stand down and accept it. I don’t recall seeing or hearing CNN or NPR libs make this argument. Nor have I heard Holder or Obama say that is the reasoning behind the decision. Holder certainly has an opportunity here to make a constitutional argument.

  2. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    It’s a fascinating topic. I see Graham’s point of course. However, if bin Laden were given rights…then basically so what? Millions of people have been found guilty after having their rights. Give him a lawyer–so what? It may come down to a technicality of “did we declare war”? Can you declare war against an organization…or a person? I don’t know. Bush made a tactical decision in NOT declaring war. I’m sure he weighed the options. What if someone orders a hit from another country on a US citizen? He is brought back to the US to face justice right? If someone orders a hit aganst 25 people, same thing. What if the KGB (if it still exists) orderd a hit on a President? He’d be brought here, right? Is attempted assassanation a war crime? I don’t know man. But it is fascinating. I do know that lots of combatants were tortured under the CIA’s watch. Can you imagine if bin Laden were tortured? Wouldn’t that screw up the case if he confessed under torture? I think if bin Laden were given rights, and a lawyer, etc. He’d still fry…and we would have done it the right way.

  3. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    I haven’t looked at the constitutionality of this yet but instinctually I don’t think foreigners should enjoy the same rights as citizens. I also think that our legal system is set up for crimes committed by citizens and on citizens. You have institutions that protect their rights, have a criminal investigation with evidence compiled legally. I just don’t think you are going to have the ability to do this properly in say Pakistan. I still think this is a colossal mistake and if things go south, will jeopardize Obama’s presidency and legacy. There is a precedent set with military tribunals. I just don’t understand why they are doing this. I frankly don’t want to air our mistakes that we may have made in a court setting like this. I’m all for fully disclosing what we did with prisoners. Just not in this venue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: