RedDotRedState
-
@ Your definition, while it may be the same, is not the proper one for our discussion. It's a reporting definition, nothing more.
about 6 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Slightly...yes, but again, you're sidestepping the larger point. Do you believe that was the right decision?
about 6 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Your missing my point. When was the definition 1st adopted - that was the major part of the question.
about 6 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ ...his rights, or had a court order to search and seize his property, or detain him, ect...
about 6 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ ...giving him these rights (which he does not constitutionally have), you risk having him freed because no one read him...
about 6 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ ...of a reason alone. You realize that very little evidence against them would be admissible in civilian courts. So, by...
about 6 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ "Could be...legal" ? Of course it's legal. And the best place to try them. The rules of evidence and discovery are enough...
about 6 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Excuse me...."decided"...
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Just read his opinion. Jeesh! The court also decide that Jap Americans could be held in camps back in WWII. Was that right?
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Then will you please tell me, Mr. "I've studied terrorism", when was the term legally defined and how?
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Huh? Actions are irrelevant to what they were. You are showing that you have almost 0 understanding of the law.
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ The information of who they "represent" is actually irrelevant - legally that is.
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ *HEADSLAP* Of course not, but Roberts sets up the historic precedent quite clearly.
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Bush didn't "expand" diddly squat - he just applied existing case law to a new type of enemy that had not been legally defined.
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ "Just showin it started w/ Bush" was your comment on military tribunals to handle foreign combatants.
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ So, FDR's treatment of these people is very relevant.
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ ...civilian clothing, so they were not uniformed soldiers - which is the closest thing to a "terrorist" we have as a legal def.
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ Once again, you don't get it. You claimed Bush was the first to set up tribunals, which is false. 2nd, the 'spies' were in...
about 14 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ So what? It has nothing to do with this case. Clinton decided to prosecute the attack as a criminal action. We weren't at war.
about 15 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
-
@ ...terrorists to file a habeas petition. Read the dissenting opinions, there were 4 of them. That will present the law as well.
about 15 hours ago
from TweetDeck
in reply to Otiscorner
|
- Name Ken Pritchett
- Location Alabama
- Web http://reddotinar...
- Bio I'm a Conservative Christian that wants to return to our Founding Principles. Physicist, Hunter, Survivalist, #TCOT, Running For U.S. Senate in 2010.
|
