Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 59

Thread: WikiLeaks founder appeals detention order

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    that's just internet hits and is not reflective of the total number of people that are denied bail on numerous charges across the USA.
    come on now, did you really feel you needed to say that... btw i was more specific in my search than you... but i didnt include usa so youčll see ausie british south african whatever in there... i just did it quick to make a point for blue... there are tons of examples...



    ok so anyways... we did see the same vid... exept i have the 39 minute uncut version where you watch the guys on the ground come up and clear the site... so maybe there was cameras there, i cant say forsure, but i know i saw weapons and i can show you where... also the guy aims an rpg at the chopper... ok some could argue that it was a telephoto lens and he was taking pictures and it just looked threatening but wasnt... only problem is, when the troops got there they pulled an rpg out from under his body....

    i dunno much about the story, so im gonna check it out and get back to ya... i havent heard any opinions, all i have seen is the raw 39 minute video with zero context...

    but i wasnt horrified by what i saw... ive seen much much worse.... there are vids of soldiers using civies as target practice and laughing and cheering... none of that happened here...
    Last edited by Syn7; 11-30-2010 at 01:16 PM.

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    This is true that the rape allegations just happen to surface now and it looks suspicious. But it shows whats great about the US system, everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. And a conviction is never guaranteed simply because "she said", just ask William Kennedy Smith or the Duke lacrosse team.
    Unless, of course, one is accused of terrorism. Then one can be shipped off to Guantanamo or Bagram without recourse. President Obama has even asserted the power to indefinitely detain those acquitted of terrorism charges, whether by a jury trial or military commission. Alternatively, an innocent person can be kidnapped and shipped off to be tortured (see: Khalid El-Masri, Maher Arar). Another thing that can be done is to be put on a hit list (see: Anwar al-Awlaki). So, I guess your triumphalist claim is in error. Not everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. At least, not anymore.
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    This is true that the rape allegations just happen to surface now and it looks suspicious. But it shows whats great about the US system, everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. And a conviction is never guaranteed simply because "she said", just ask William Kennedy Smith or the Duke lacrosse team.
    what if you are peerless??? or your peers are bigots and idiots... maybe only one quarter are racist douchebags, but atleast half are a waste of skin on brain tissue for myriad of other reasons...

    i pis$ on american justice... what a joke... just cause they get it right sometimes doesnt mean its ok all the times they get it wrong...

    how can you have an unbiased jury in a rape case? or esspecially a child rape case... or terrorism, or any other highly emotional crime that causes fear panic and hatred...

    and canadas system is a joke too, but its ten times more just than american justice... the proof is in the numbers man... canada has a significantly lower crime rate, per capita, than the US... esspecially with violent crimes... yall say our laws are weak, and they are to a large extent, but they are head and shoulders above yours...
    Last edited by Syn7; 11-30-2010 at 03:21 PM.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Unless, of course, one is accused of terrorism. Then one can be shipped off to Guantanamo or Bagram without recourse. President Obama has even asserted the power to indefinitely detain those acquitted of terrorism charges, whether by a jury trial or military commission. So, I guess your triumphalist claim is in error. Not everyone accused is guaranteed a jury trial by his peers. At least, not anymore.
    I was referring to American citizens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans, not foreign nationals.

    Can you show an example of an American citizen (not in the military) being denied a jury trial?

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    what if you are peerless??? or your peers are bigots and idiots... maybe only one quarter are racist douchebags, but atleast half are a waste of skin on brain tissue for myriad of other reasons...

    i pis$ on american justice... what a joke... just cause they get it right sometimes doesnt mean its ok all the times they get it wrong...
    Courts have defined what "peers" means. I believe it's as simple as people from your part of town, put simply. Of course the accused has the right to ask to move the trial and also to strike a certain amount of potential jurors.

    No one gets it right 100% of the time, but we have our share of safeguards; the Miranda warning, the right to a lawyer even if indigent, trial by jury, no double jeopardy, a lengthy appeals process, etc. I believe Ben Franklin said something to the effect of 'It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted', but I'mnot sure of the exact words or if it was Frnaklin, but I've heard if referenced multiple times relating to the US justice system.

    As to a trial by your peers, I saw a comic once that had a guy in court yelling, 'I demand a jury of my peers'. The next picture was a group of 12 guys wearing prison stripes with balls and chains attached to their ankles standing in the jury box.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    I was referring to American citizens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans, not foreign nationals.

    Can you show an example of an American citizen (not in the military) being denied a jury trial?
    it can happen to an american citizen... its already happened to a canadian citizen... the US insisted canada waive his rights and they did...

    and now we have this new portland somali kid... who wants to be this kid doesnt get anywhere near a fair trial like any other american citizen...

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    I was referring to American citizens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans, not foreign nationals.

    Can you show an example of an American citizen (not in the military) being denied a jury trial?
    Um...Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen and he has been marked for death without the benefit of a trial.

    Oh, and the US Constitution also protects the rights of non-citizens in US custody.

    The 5th Amendment:

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    Note that is says "person" not "citizen."

    The 6th Amendment:

    "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

    Note, there is no distinction for citizen and non-citizen.
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    it can happen to an american citizen... its already happened to a canadian citizen... the US insisted canada waive his rights and they did...
    So has it happened to an American citizen? I clearly asked that question, and your reply was 'it can happen'. That's not the question. The question is; has it happened?

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Um...Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen and he has been marked for death without the benefit of a trial.
    We've been over this before on this site. Courts have said this is ok, as he is openly committing treason, ie taking up arms against this country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Oh, and the US Constitution also protects the rights of non-citizens in US custody.
    Have the courts said it does? I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them.

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    We've been over this before on this site. Courts have said this is ok, as he is openly committing treason, ie taking up arms against this country.
    Yes, we have discussed this, and he has only been accused of being a terrorist. Nothing has been proven, nor has there been any evidence that he has taken up arms. Regarding treason, he is entitled to a trial.

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    Have the courts said it does? I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them.
    Rasul v. Bush
    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
    Boumediene v. Bush
    Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding
    Yick Wo v. Hopkins

    From the last case:

    The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China… . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws… . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Yes, we have discussed this, and he has only been accused of being a terrorist. Nothing has been proven, nor has there been any evidence that he has taken up arms. Regarding treason, he is entitled to a trial.
    Accused or not, courts have sided with the Gov't on this.

    As to a trial, the guy knows what he's been accused of and he has not chosen to turn himself in and receive the jury trial he is entitled to. He isn't being denied a trial, he is avoiding one.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
    I've only researched this one so far, and it does not reinforce your argument:

    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    Accused or not, courts have sided with the Gov't on this.
    Really? "I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them."

    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    As to a trial, the guy knows what he's been accused of and he has not chosen to turn himself in and receive the jury trial he is entitled to. He isn't being denied a trial, he is avoiding one.
    Um...because he knows that if he shows his face there is a good chance he'll be assassinated. Hence the concept of a "hit list."
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    I've only researched this one so far, and it does not reinforce your argument:

    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen being detained indefinitely as an "illegal enemy combatant." The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.
    Fair enough, he was a citizen.
    Last edited by Reality_Check; 12-01-2010 at 02:52 PM.
    1bad65, you make me laugh. Dare I say it? You seem to be suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome).

    "I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." - John Wayne

    Clearly you want President Obama to fail, or else you wouldn't bring up every little thing you can to try and discredit him and his Administration. You seems to be actively hoping for failure.

    Perhaps you can take a lesson from The Duke.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Really? "I believe not, but if you have some cases/decisions that say it does, feel free to post them."
    If Obama had ordered an illegal hit on a US citizen, he would have been impeached. Look, case law was referenced in the past thread, do I really have to prove the same assertion twice?

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    Um...because he knows that if he shows his face there is a good chance he'll be assassinated. Hence the concept of a "hit list."
    Get real. Plenty of people who fear being killed turning themselves in do it all the time. You get a lawyer and he escorts you to the police station. Or you contact the press and do it. The guy is obviously running from justice, can you at least admit that?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •