Lets see how the justice system works: high value terrorist ordered released.

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Surprised this wasn't posted in here:

Essentially all of his confessions came from EITs which will not hold up in court, so we are releasing a terrorist. That is unless someone stands in and holds him from release (which all of the liberals on this board should be against).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704841304575138013356640710.html


A suspected al Qaeda organizer once called "the highest value detainee" at Guantánamo Bay was ordered released by a federal judge in an order issued Monday.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi was accused in the 9/11 Commission report of helping recruit Mohammed Atta and other members of the al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany, that took part in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Military prosecutors suspected Mr. Slahi of links to other al Qaeda operations, and considered seeking the death penalty against him while preparing possible charges in 2003 and 2004.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Mr. Slahi's petition for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him. The order was classified, although the court said it planned to release a redacted public version in the coming weeks.

etc...
 

Raid

macrumors 68020
Feb 18, 2003
2,143
3,909
Toronto
I don't think anyone likes the idea of a dangerous person out on the streets. But I tell you what, I really would hate it if they could lock people up (you, me, them, anybody) for long periods of time without the burden of proof that (I, you, them) are dangerous.

Bring forth the evidence in court and let the judges rule, not the guys with guns that tell us to beware.
 

it5five

macrumors 65816
May 31, 2006
1,220
1
New York
Just think, if he hadn't been tortured, and was given a fair trial, he might be in custody for a long time.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Just think, if he wasn't tortured, he might still be in custody today.
Unfortunately we will have to release a real criminal and put lives back in danger in order for you to get your point across...

Any bets on whether the Administration steps in on this one?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I don't think anyone likes the idea of a dangerous person out on the streets. But I tell you what, I really would hate it if they could lock people up (you, me, them, anybody) for long periods of time without the burden of proof that (I, you, them) are dangerous.

Bring forth the evidence in court and let the judges rule, not the guys with guns that tell us to beware.
Exactly my thoughts.
 

AP_piano295

macrumors 65816
Mar 9, 2005
1,076
11
If we can imprison and tortore people indefinitely w/o the supervision of a just legal system then we might as well quit fighting the "terrorists" today because we are they.
 

it5five

macrumors 65816
May 31, 2006
1,220
1
New York
Unfortunately we will have to release a real criminal and put lives back in danger in order for you to get your point across...
That's what you get when you flout international law. Maybe next time the United States can demonstrate that it is able to play nice, and won't torture suspected terrorists. The Bush administration and its desire/willingness to torture is solely to blame for this.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Unfortunately we will have to release a real criminal and put lives back in danger in order for you to get your point across...
The Bush administration and its desire/willingness to torture is solely to blame for this.
The entire criminal justice system is premised on the idea that it is better to let 100 guilty people walk to be certain 1 innocent person does not go to jail.

It was obvious as it was happening that what GWB and his administration were doing would prevent any real criminal justice occuring. I think that's part of why they were so against any type of criminal trial.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
The entire criminal justice system is premised on the idea that it is better to let 100 guilty people walk to be certain 1 innocent person does not go to jail.

It was obvious as it was happening that what GWB and his administration were doing would prevent any real criminal justice occuring. I think that's part of why they were so against any type of criminal trial.
Thats our criminal system for our own citizens.. not for war criminals trying to blow up strategic targets inside the country.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Why do you think Obama will do anything?
Because he has already tainted any trials that we hold by saying that none of these high value terrorists will be unleashed regardless of outcome.

Your illusion of this justice system might be coming through pink tinted glasses, its a political game.. we close gitmo and we keep another place open across seas, same ****, different name.
 

Macky-Mac

macrumors 68030
May 18, 2004
2,589
1,142
so the only "evidence" was what they got him to say by torture and they had nothing else?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Because he has already tainted any trials that we hold by saying that none of these high value terrorists will be unleashed regardless of outcome.
Well, he doesn't have that power. That rests with the judicial branch.

Your illusion of this justice system might be coming through pink tinted glasses, its a political game.. we close gitmo and we keep another place open across seas, same ****, different name.
Perhaps.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
A suspected al Qaeda organizer once called "the highest value detainee" at Guantánamo Bay was ordered released by a federal judge in an order issued Monday.
These incredulous legal decisions, especially made during wartime when our American soldiers are fighting on our behalf on two separate theaters of battle, trouble me greatly. The judge that rendered such insanity, U.S. District Judge James Robertson, doesn't seem troubled that we are now fighting a war and in his mind we "lack legal grounds to hold" the enemy. Wow! Imagine this same judge on the beach at Normandy, warming 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions not to detain the enemy lest we run afoul the enemy's legal rights! More concerning to me, however, is apparently this judge seems to think that the enemy, terrorist Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who is accused of helping recruit terrorist Mohammed Atta, is 1) subject to US law despite not being a US citizen, and 2) somehow, during wartime, to be released to threaten more Americans, which doesn't seem to trouble Judge James Robertson. Incredulous!
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,986
These incredulous legal decisions, especially made during wartime when our American soldiers are fighting on our behalf on two separate theaters of battle, trouble me greatly. The judge that rendered such insanity, U.S. District Judge James Robertson, doesn't seem troubled that we are now fighting a war and in his mind we "lack legal grounds to hold" the enemy. Wow! Imagine this same judge on the beach at Normandy, warming 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions not to detain the enemy lest we run afoul the enemy's legal rights! More concerning to me, however, is apparently this judge seems to think that the enemy, terrorist Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who is accused of helping recruit terrorist Mohammed Atta, is 1) subject to US law despite not being a US citizen, and 2) somehow, during wartime, to be released to threaten more Americans, which doesn't seem to trouble Judge James Robertson. Incredulous!

Sounds to me like a judge completely detached from politics and instead doing his job without bias. What a shame.
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
These incredulous legal decisions, especially made during wartime when our American soldiers are fighting on our behalf on two separate theaters of battle, trouble me greatly. The judge that rendered such insanity, U.S. District Judge James Robertson, doesn't seem troubled that we are now fighting a war and in his mind we "lack legal grounds to hold" the enemy. Wow! Imagine this same judge on the beach at Normandy, warming 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions not to detain the enemy lest we run afoul the enemy's legal rights! More concerning to me, however, is apparently this judge seems to think that the enemy, terrorist Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who is accused of helping recruit terrorist Mohammed Atta, is 1) subject to US law despite not being a US citizen, and 2) somehow, during wartime, to be released to threaten more Americans, which doesn't seem to trouble Judge James Robertson. Incredulous!
well the US have to make up their minds:
either they officially declare war for once and call enemy combatants such, treat them according to POW laws and then can have military tribunals
or
don't declare war, treat terrorists as criminals, treat them like civil prisoners and have normal judges

currently the US doesn't declare war (opposed to WW2 so your analogy falls flat right there), doesn't rate terrorists as either combatants or criminals, doesn't treat them like either normal prisoners or POWs,and still want military tribunals


hardly how the self proclaimed "beacon of democracy" should behave

and since you claimed WW2 ... it was also the prime example of a system running away with not caring for "legal rights" and disregard for human life with no barrels hold on death penalty
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,992
Republic of Ukistan
These incredulous legal decisions
You may find them incredible, but I very much doubt that they could be incredulous.

especially made during wartime when our American soldiers are fighting on our behalf on two separate theaters of battle
It is not wartime, nor is wartime an excuse. Your soldiers, like ours, are not fighting on your behalf. They are supposed to be participating in an international police action. In Iraq they are not even fighting. In Afghanistan they are supposed to be supporting a legitimate national government. Misstating the premise makes your subsequent assertions worthless.

Incredulous!
I refer you to my first point. First rule for effective pompous bombast is to acquire a dictionary. Veritas or inanitas, the choice is yours.
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
It is not wartime...
If you deny reality the rest of your post suffers. Just saying... There are in fact differing legal considerations and applicabilities based solely on whether nations are at war. To deny this, as you did, makes your point irrelevant in this instance, as incredulous as that may seem to you! Should you wish to revise and amend your assessment of war -in Iraq and Afghanistan between Coalition Nations and Al Qaeda/terrorist entities - your point could be pursued further.