ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: O

  1. #1
    ...[
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

  2. #2
    ...[
    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

  3. #3
    Oh davdah calm down. I unfortunately had the pleasure of watching Faux News yesterday while waiting for a new set of tires to be put on my car.

    They had Rudy Guilani going on just like you saying it's an act of war and they should be treated as POWs etc. Thing is, Bush tried very hard to stop them leaving the military justice system and yet the Supreme Court kept ruling that access to lawyers etc should be allowed. The legal military defense has more restrictions than a civilian court. Overruling Bush meant that it was already strengthening the military defense system.

    To continue what Bush tried to do will fail because of challenges to the Supreme Court. Locking them up without trial is un-American so what's left to do??

    More than half have already been released to home countries or any country that will take them. We only have the government's word they are terrorists. The evidence is largely kept secret. How can you say they did it without examining the evidence?

    Under civilian law NYC is an obvious choice for venue because the attacks took place there. I guarantee you, you won't be able to sneeze in NYC during the trial without the authorities knowing about it LOL

    Innocent till proven guilty davdah remember?
    "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

  4. #4
    There are two things to note here.

    What's wrong with the Civil Court?

    How can someone be captured as suspected of masterminding 911 and render Civil court incapable of proving their guilt?

    What punishment higher than death penalty exists?

    Wouldn't Civil court be able to impose it if the suspect was found guilty?

    If anything, the SMK trial will put an end to many conspiracy theorists rantings out there.

    The posters of the article (linked by davdah) claim that "Oh, but this guy will be tried in court where all the classified info must be released".

    That's a rubbish. The only person classified info will be released to is the Judge, not the public. The defendant will only get a summary, without details, and will be given an opportunity to answer to the charges and allegations based on such short summary.
    Remove that minimum requirement and i can prove you that davdah plotted to jump into the time machine to eliminate Lincoln.


    As to the right to an attroney.
    Attorneys don't make guilty people innocent. They are there to make sure that the guilt is proven beyond any doubt, without stitching up a case out of the thin air.

    That Eric Holder decided to bring the case to NYC court is actually a bold move and shows his confidence that they've got the person guilty as charged.
    http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

    "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

  5. #5

  6. #6
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    Oh, this will be a fiasco alright. There are a few errors in your assumptions. One being the burden of reasonable doubt in reaching the conclusion of guilty or not, not any doubt. The judge will only decide what evidence is admissible. He, along with the jury and viewing public will see and hear it. The jury decides his guilt, not the judge. The defense will, by it's nature, go after evidence that through speculative reasoning render doubt. And of course it will be all the classified material they know can't be released. By the mere mention of it's existence puts people in unnecessary danger. I think the rights of the defense attorneys should mirror the amount of thought and compassion they are displaying for the victims of 9-11. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No, davdah, when classified info introduced by prosecution it's not being released to public.
    Only summary is given to the defendant.

    Now take this minimum requirement away and i can prove that you raped Indira Gandhi because "so I heard some people say". And you won't even know it. You will just get guilty verdict. Because we can't be compassionate to someone who raped that nice lady. How about that?

    Your argument is illogical.
    It has no bearing on KSM since that guy must be guilty enough for administration to bring him to NYC.
    It would highly undermind govs case if they refused to charge him in public court.
    http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

    "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

  7. #7
    Here we have it. Brit exposes himself as a pro-terrorist.

    He does not believe that the terrorists at Gitmo are terrorists. He thinks they are innocent.

    This is why immigrants are bad for America, they are either evil or stupid.

    And, Brit, prisoners of war may be held for the duration of the conflict. So, yes, they can be held indefinately.

    And, Brit, we used military tribunals for Japanese and German war criminals, terrorists, and spies.

    So you are wrong again.

    And, not, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the military commissions established by Congress are unconstitutional. All it said was that military commissions must be established by legislation.

    Please go home before you immigrants destroy my country.

    Oh, I forgot, the UK is already a Muslim hellhole.

    I guess that explains why Brit came here, to destroy us like he destroyed his own country.

  8. #8
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, davdah, when classified info introduced by prosecution it's not being released to public.
    Only summary is given to the defendant.

    Now take this minimum requirement away and i can prove that you raped Indira Gandhi because "so I heard some people say". And you won't even know it. You will just get guilty verdict. Because we can't be compassionate to someone who raped that nice lady. How about that?

    Your argument is illogical.
    It has no bearing on KSM since that guy must be guilty enough for administration to bring him to NYC.
    It would highly undermind govs case if they refused to charge him in public court. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



    You really think 'summary' isn't going to be exploited by the defense? What defines summary? What is left out? Would the omissions be enough, if known, to provoke a not guilty verdict? Those will be arguments of the defense. That is the picture the defense will create. Take away the requirement of full disclosure and you can never prove guilt, only reasonable doubt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I have read about cases where that "summary" was enough to convict someone in a court of law, so defense will not be able to "provoke non-gulty verdict" if summary has good factual basis.
    It is the judge who makes verdict and is given full access to decide the case. And it is defendant who gets summary, to answer charges and allegations in it.
    I don't see why this shouldn't work in case of SKM and likewise.

    But i can't imagine how would you be able to prove your innocence if somebody brought you to court on charges of raping Indira Gandi and convicted as guilty without even telling you what were you there for.
    http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

    "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

  9. #9
    I can see another davdah vs OldE argument starting here LOL

    Davdah, for someone who doesn't like anything that smacks of Big Brother, if we did what you want, we'd be convicting potentially innocent people on hearsay evidence in secret. They would be branded as Enemies of the State. 1984 sound familiar?

    The Falklands War was a conventional war fought over land rights. This is an ideological/religious war started by a bunch of extreme brainwashed idiots who think the true path to Islam is by blowing up non-believers (innocent) people. I certainly don't agree with them. But to not allow them to be tried in a relatively open court as Bush tried to do makes a mockery of the US claiming the high moral ground.

    As to the argument of National Security ie. we don't want to let the terrorists know what we are doing to stop them, consider this. 911 happened more than 8 yrs ago. The tactics used back then by the CIA, FBI etc are very likely to be different to what is used now. Al Queda try to stay one step ahead. It's a cat and mouse game always evolving. To me, any evidence on the tactics used will be out of date now. Since Bin Laden still exists (as far as we know) one can assume Al Queda already knows about the tactics the CIA used back then.
    "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

  10. #10
    Just imagine the complaints if the case were moved to San Francisco?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: