This guy is a real jewel

[hopalong]

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-repeats-threat-veto-us-defense-bill-221601947.html

93 to 7 in a vote and he knows better!!!!!!!!OR thinks he does!!!
Kinda like one poster on here that tries to force his opinion on the rest of us///his know it all attitude... no names mentioned..

EH?

 

[TSR]

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-repeats-threat-veto-us-defense-bill-221601947.html

93 to 7 in a vote and he knows better!!!!!!!!OR thinks he does!!!
Kinda like one poster on here that tries to force his opinion on the rest of us///his know it all attitude... no names mentioned..

EH?

Have you compared the sentences of those tried in a public courtroom to those tried under a military court?? Wonder how they compare???

 

[hypocritexposer]

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-repeats-threat-veto-us-defense-bill-221601947.html

93 to 7 in a vote and he knows better!!!!!!!!OR thinks he does!!!
Kinda like one poster on here that tries to force his opinion on the rest of us///his know it all attitude... no names mentioned..

EH?

Have you compared the sentences of those tried in a public courtroom to those tried under a military court?? Wonder how they compare???

they seem to reveal what you want to hear, if water boarded, like obama promised to do away, less if questioned in a more transparent situation like a public court of law trial, and no information is gained if you just assassinate them without trial........like obama has decided to do......



Which would be the best of the 3 options, if your goal was to find out about future attacks?

 

[TSR]

The question was........... comparing the sentences recieved under the military to those sentences when tried in a public court. All those other things COULD have taken place prior to the trials of the accused individuals in order to get info.

 

[Steve]

The question was........... comparing the sentences recieved under the military to those sentences when tried in a public court. All those other things COULD have taken place prior to the trials of the accused individuals in order to get info.

the military tends to be much stricter for similar crimes... we hold our own to a higher standard,..

the military can often avoid the double jeopardy issue and try the person with "non-judicial punishment" and can take away more from a person then just a conviction..

add in if a soldier/sailor gets convicted in a civilian court he often has additional charges brought by the service.

most at Gitmo if they could get tried in a civilian court would get life without parole, I would say with a less restrictive trial structure the terrorist could expect life without parole from the military, not because they couldn't get a death penalty, but for political reasons and pressure..


for the record.. I am against closing Gitmo..and for the military's custody of the detainees.. as prisoners of war, illegal combatants, ect.

But I am also against the military being in charge of the criminal investigation, interrogation, trial and penalty..

it just sets a bad standard that our troops could face a trial and execution in the next war..



BTW there is no reason in the world stopping them from setting up a legal transparent federal civilian court in Gitmo... location shouldn't be the issue..

 

[TSR]

The question was........... comparing the sentences recieved under the military to those sentences when tried in a public court. All those other things COULD have taken place prior to the trials of the accused individuals in order to get info.

the military tends to be much stricter for similar crimes... we hold our own to a higher standard,..

the military can often avoid the double jeopardy issue and try the person with "non-judicial punishment" and can take away more from a person then just a conviction..

add in if a soldier/sailor gets convicted in a civilian court he often has additional charges brought by the service.

most at Gitmo if they could get tried in a civilian court would get life without parole, I would say with a less restrictive trial structure the terrorist could expect life without parole from the military, not because they couldn't get a death penalty, but for political reasons and pressure..


for the record.. I am against closing Gitmo..and for the military's custody of the detainees.. as prisoners of war, illegal combatants, ect.

But I am also against the military being in charge of the criminal investigation, interrogation, trial and penalty..

it just sets a bad standard that our troops could face a trial and execution in the next war..



BTW there is no reason in the world stopping them from setting up a legal transparent federal civilian court in Gitmo... location shouldn't be the issue..

My focus was on the prisoners such as the detainees. I agree with your final statement. The reason I asked the question was because the other day on C-Span I saw Sen. Feinstein making such a comparison. And as you said/implied the civilian courts gave life sentences to all the terrorist tried (at least in her examples ) while the military gave sentences of 2-3 yrs. I was :shock:

 

[hypocritexposer]

The question was........... comparing the sentences recieved under the military to those sentences when tried in a public court. All those other things COULD have taken place prior to the trials of the accused individuals in order to get info.

the military tends to be much stricter for similar crimes... we hold our own to a higher standard,..

the military can often avoid the double jeopardy issue and try the person with "non-judicial punishment" and can take away more from a person then just a conviction..

add in if a soldier/sailor gets convicted in a civilian court he often has additional charges brought by the service.

most at Gitmo if they could get tried in a civilian court would get life without parole, I would say with a less restrictive trial structure the terrorist could expect life without parole from the military, not because they couldn't get a death penalty, but for political reasons and pressure..


for the record.. I am against closing Gitmo..and for the military's custody of the detainees.. as prisoners of war, illegal combatants, ect.

But I am also against the military being in charge of the criminal investigation, interrogation, trial and penalty..

it just sets a bad standard that our troops could face a trial and execution in the next war..



BTW there is no reason in the world stopping them from setting up a legal transparent federal civilian court in Gitmo... location shouldn't be the issue..

My focus was on the prisoners such as the detainees. I agree with your final statement. The reason I asked the question was because the other day on C-Span I saw Sen. Feinstein making such a comparison. And as you said/implied the civilian courts gave life sentences to all the terrorist tried (at least in her examples ) while the military gave sentences of 2-3 yrs. I was :shock:

Who ultimately controls the military trials?

 

[TSR]

the military tends to be much stricter for similar crimes... we hold our own to a higher standard,..

the military can often avoid the double jeopardy issue and try the person with "non-judicial punishment" and can take away more from a person then just a conviction..

add in if a soldier/sailor gets convicted in a civilian court he often has additional charges brought by the service.

most at Gitmo if they could get tried in a civilian court would get life without parole, I would say with a less restrictive trial structure the terrorist could expect life without parole from the military, not because they couldn't get a death penalty, but for political reasons and pressure..


for the record.. I am against closing Gitmo..and for the military's custody of the detainees.. as prisoners of war, illegal combatants, ect.

But I am also against the military being in charge of the criminal investigation, interrogation, trial and penalty..

it just sets a bad standard that our troops could face a trial and execution in the next war..



BTW there is no reason in the world stopping them from setting up a legal transparent federal civilian court in Gitmo... location shouldn't be the issue..

My focus was on the prisoners such as the detainees. I agree with your final statement. The reason I asked the question was because the other day on C-Span I saw Sen. Feinstein making such a comparison. And as you said/implied the civilian courts gave life sentences to all the terrorist tried (at least in her examples ) while the military gave sentences of 2-3 yrs. I was :shock:

Who ultimately controls the military trials?

Maybe a more pertinent question is "Why are there such differences in the sentences?"

 

[hypocritexposer]

My focus was on the prisoners such as the detainees. I agree with your final statement. The reason I asked the question was because the other day on C-Span I saw Sen. Feinstein making such a comparison. And as you said/implied the civilian courts gave life sentences to all the terrorist tried (at least in her examples ) while the military gave sentences of 2-3 yrs. I was :shock:

Who ultimately controls the military trials?

Maybe a more pertinent question is "Why are there such differences in the sentences?"

why not answer my question first, and then I will answer yours?

 

[TSR]

Iknow there are/can be civilian lawyers in a military court proceeding but in regard to "who controls it"....... Imust admit, I don't know. Tell us.

 

[hypocritexposer]

Iknow there are/can be civilian lawyers in a military court proceeding but in regard to "who controls it"....... Imust admit, I don't know. Tell us.

who's in charge of the Military?

 

[Steve]

"Why are there such differences in the sentences?"

it may be a difference in the crimes and magnitudes of the crimes,..
the location of the crime,, NYC vs Afghanistan battlefield, and the collected evidence.

Late last month, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") released a chart listing terrorism-related convictions obtained in federal court since September 11, 2001. The chart was provided to Congress as part of the public relations struggle between DoJ, which has championed federal court prosecutions of terrorism suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others detained at Guantanamo Bay, and those who insist that military commissions are the only appropriate forum.

Publication of DoJ's chart was accompanied by substantial press attention. The gross numbers provided by the chart were indeed impressive: the number of persons convicted comes to just over 400; of that number, 150 have been convicted of terrorism offenses, and, as the cover letter to the chart states, more than 240 have been convicted of other offenses "where the investigation involved an identified link to international terrorism." Twenty-five defendants have been sentenced to prison terms in excess of 20 years, and 12 have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

Whereas DoJ's chart lists only convictions, the TTRC lists all cases, including acquittals, dismissals (by the government as well as by courts), and mistrials.

http://centerlineblog.org/2010/04/22/terrorist-trials-a-list-of-convictions-vs-an-analysis-of-prosecutions/

the Bush administration released similar information, including a list of 330 suspects published in The Washington Post in 2005.

so under bush's watch 330 were convicted.

under Obama 60 were convicted and just over 10 were not?

over 400-150 = -240 = over 10?

400 - 330 = 70 - over 10 = under 60.

but since Bush's list was in 2005., unless terrorism took a three year break.. he was bound to get a few more convictions before Holder made his sense Sept 11 conviction list..

so how few of the convictions does Holder actually deserve credit for?

 

[Steve]

Three Convicted in Terror-Related Cases Later Granted U.S. Citizenship by Obama Administration

Three people convicted of crimes as a result of a terrorism-related investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) were later naturalized as U.S. citizens by the Obama administration, according to federal auditors.

The March 2011 audit (released on April 21, 2011) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs, shows that three individuals were among "defendants where the investigation involved an identified link to international terrorism but they were charged with violating other statutes [not directly related to terrorism], including fraud, immigration, drugs, false statements, and general conspiracy charges," referred by DOJ as Category II terrorism-related cases.

The three individuals in question can be found in a DOJ list of unsealed terrorism-related investigations conducted from Sept. 11, 2001 through Mar. 18, 2010. There are 403 defendants on that list

"One of the individuals was naturalized in late 2009. The other two were naturalized in 2010,"

In explaining why the individuals were allowed to become naturalized U.S. citizens, USCIS indicated that "the convictions were outside of the [five year] statutory period, were not aggravated felonies, and resulted in no prison time for the defendants; all required background checks were conducted and resolved with appropriate law enforcement agencies; and no national security, public safety, or other grounds of ineligibility existed."

one must really wonder why they weren't deported after their conviction.


I doubt a military tribunal would have ended with being granted citizenship..