T1B

Tom In VA wrote:You're on a roll dude. What else you got in the hopper ?

mvscal wrote:

OCmike wrote:Coupla things here:
My experience with military justice is that you better have video of someone else doing the crime or you're fucked.

What bullshit. Go fuck yourself, handwringer.

mvscal wrote:

OCmike wrote:Torturing them at Gitmo

Nobody was tortured at Gitmo, you ignorant dipshit.

...the charges against the defendants were only defined as "crimes" after they were committed and that therefore the trial was invalid as a form of "victors' justice".

Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(Chief US prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."
Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."
The validity of the court has been questioned for a variety of reasons:



One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. The Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, proposed the partition of Poland between the Germans and the Soviets (which was subsequently executed in September 1939); however, Soviet leaders were not tried for being part of the same conspiracy. Instead, the Tribunal falsely proclaimed the Secret Protocols of the Non-Aggression Pact to be a forgery. Moreover, Allied Powers Britain and Soviet Union were not tried for preparing and conducting the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and the Winter War, respectively.

In 1915, the Allied Powers, Britain, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging, for the first time, another government (the Sublime Porte) of committing "a crime against humanity". However it was not until the phrase was further developed in the London Charter that it had a specific meaning. As the London Charter definition of what constituted a crime against humanity was unknown when many of the crimes were committed, it could be argued to be a retrospective law, in violation of the principles of prohibition of ex post facto laws and the general principle of penal law nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.

The court agreed to relieve the Soviet leadership from attending these trials as war criminals in order to hide their crimes against war civilians, crimes that were committed by their army that included "carving up Poland in 1939 and attacking Finland three months later." This "exclusion request" was initiated by the Russians and subsequently approved by the court's administration.

The trials were conducted under their own rules of evidence; the indictments were created ex post facto and were not based on any nation's law; the tu quoque defense was removed; and some claim the entire spirit of the assembly was "victor's justice".The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value". Article 21 of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) Charter stipulated:
"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations"

The chief Soviet prosecutor submitted false documentation in an attempt to indict defendants for the murder of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk. However, the other Allied prosecutors refused to support the indictment and German lawyers promised to mount an embarrassing defense. No one was charged or found guilty at Nuremberg for the Katyn Forest massacre.[47] In 1990, the Soviet government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.

Freda Utley, in her 1949 book "The High Cost of Vengeance" charged the court with amongst other things double standards. She pointed to the Allied use of civilian forced labor, and deliberate starvation of civilians in the occupied territories. She also noted that General Rudenko, the chief Soviet prosecutor, after the trials became commandant of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. (After the fall of East Germany the bodies of 12,500 Soviet era victims were uncovered at the camp, mainly "children, adolescents and elderly people.")

KC Scott wrote:We need to Fry some towelheads for 9-11. Doesn't really matter which ones, or how we try 'em to get 'em to the gurney.

Martyred wrote:
Fry towel heads on a gurney?

Unconventional, but...could work.

mvscal wrote:
Where?

You are far more likely get a fair trial there than in any civilian court.

KC Scott wrote:We need to Fry some towelheads for 9-11. Doesn't really matter which ones, or how we try 'em to get 'em to the gurney.

and have no doubt - there's only one way any trial, military or Civilian will end

poptart wrote: Even if we want to assume that the outcome is given, one which I, having seen TOO many strange things happen in our court system, wouldn't bet a lot on, we are in danger of a LOT of damage being done through the process of civilian court for 9/11 terrorists.

poptart wrote:Don't you have a country to worry about?

No matter how fucked America is, it will always look back and see Canaduh firmly attached to it's hind tit.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

mvscal wrote:

OCmike wrote:Torturing them at Gitmo

Nobody was tortured at Gitmo, you ignorant dipshit.

This guy just slipped in the shower? I'm sure his statements are clear and reliable...


And this guy is just being unsociable, not joining in the glee club rehearsal....


And this guy is just abusing the "field weight loss program" offered at our taxpayer expense


Why do we even provide these guys with inversion racks? All they do is hang around and manipulate the liberal media!


Sure, allowing these prisoners a "performance art night" at Gitmo seemed like a good idea...until the artsy-fartsy expressionism wave came along..sheesh!

OCmike wrote:I think you miss my point. I think that these guys should be put on trial to protect me and you. It bothers me (but doesn't surprise me) that Barry hasn't repealed any of the expansion of Prez powers that Bush put into place. I'm not normally a tinfoil hat wearer, but there's waaaaaaaaay too much power in DC right now, especially with the leftest lefty EVER currently in the big house.

It will suck and it will be a circus, but this is the US-fucking-A and we put people on trial in this country. Even if they are public pissers, serial killers, or mass murderers, we have to prove that they did what we say they did.

mvscal wrote:
Because he's an idiot. Personally, I will be stunned if they don't walk.

KC Scott wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Because he's an idiot. Personally, I will be stunned if they don't walk.

You're kidding right? They fried McVeigh and the DC Sniper just went down last week.

These high profile / terror cases have only one conclusion - and OJ doesn't qualify under that scenario

Mikey wrote: Because Barry O'Muslim is actually a terrorist sympathizer who just wants to impress the world with how much he really hates America.

Tell me you knew.

Mikey wrote:Because Barry O'Muslim is actually a terrorist sympathizer who just wants to impress the world with how much he really hates America.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Tom, explain how invading Iraq and destroying it on a scheme of lies and fear-mongering somehow represents a policy of "kindness" over weakness. And explain how our our similar wanton slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan for eight years is somehow showing "weakness." Oh, sure you could point out that our desperate constitution-gutting lurch to fascism in America is obviously a sign of weakness. That's true. And the fact that our government is basically controlled by the likes of this criminal is a certainly a sign of great weakness..

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And explain how our our similar wanton slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan.....

Tom In VA wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Tom, explain how invading Iraq and destroying it on a scheme of lies and fear-mongering somehow represents a policy of "kindness" over weakness. And explain how our our similar wanton slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan for eight years is somehow showing "weakness." Oh, sure you could point out that our desperate constitution-gutting lurch to fascism in America is obviously a sign of weakness. That's true. And the fact that our government is basically controlled by the likes of this criminal is a certainly a sign of great weakness..

Not surprisingly, you totally missed the point. The question is, do you do it on purpose or is it something based on diet or genetics ?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: What point?

Tom In VA wrote:...while the rest of the world has evolved in terms of their treatement of women, criminals, children, and goats;...

mvscal wrote:You neglected to mention the fact that he is undeniably guilty. Or are you attempting to suggest that KSM is not a high ranking member of AQ who was deeply involved in planning the 9/11 attacks and was just some poor schlub grabbed off the street?

mvscal wrote: I suppose you and the Mikes can be excused for not thinking this thing through...

mvscal wrote:

OCmike wrote: If he was arrested by Pakis, why do you think that charges will be dismissed based on him not being Mirandized?

He was arrested by the Pakis, but has been in our custody for quite some time and there's a lot more to it than not being Mirandized. Even a tard like Moving Fail could get this weak shit tossed without breaking a sweat.

You don't try scum like this in a court of law. If he has no further use to us, then stand him against a wall and shoot him.

OCmike wrote:JMak, I am agreeing with the concept of an open trial because we don't arrest people in this country, not charge them or try them, and jail them forever. That's arcane Sharia bullshit.

Having fair trials protects the same from happening to you. Don't think it could happen? How quickly did Bush shift gears on the wiretapping bill to include domestic spying?

All of the Lefties should also be asking why Champ Change hasn't repealed any of the expansion of powers Bush put in place to monitor Americans.

Take a look at what's going on in England right now. We're right on their heels.