Linda asks…
Can you believe that Obama wants to try the terrorists in criminal court and not military court?
Can you believe that Obama wants to try the terrorists in criminal court and not in military courts? Can you think of ONE example of a terrorist who has been convicted in a criminal court? Except for these of course: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2712445.stm "Richard Reid, the man known as the shoe bomber, has been sentenced to life in prison at a court in Boston. " WTC Garage bomber Ramzi Yousef sentenced to life in prison: http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/08/yousef.update/ A judge Thursday sentenced the man convicted of masterminding the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and an airplane bombing in 1994 to life in prison without parole. The judge further recommended that he spend the sentence in solitary confinement. Ramzi Yousef's full sentence -- life in prison plus 240 years -- follows two separate New York trials. WTC Garage bombers convicted: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/05/nyregion/explosion-twin-towers-4-are-convicted-bombing-world-trade-center-that-killed-6.html?pagewanted=1 A Federal jury yesterday convicted all four of the men on trial in the bomb attack that killed six people at the World Trade Center last year WTC Garage bombers sentenced to life in prison: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/nyregion/trade-center-bombers-get-prison-terms-of-240-years.html?pagewanted=all "The four men convicted of bombing the World Trade Center were sentenced yesterday to prison terms that assure they will remain in custody for the rest of their lives. To do that, Judge Kevin T. Duffy imposed the extraordinary sentence of 240 years on each of the men -- Mohammed A. Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad M. Ajaj -- and said they would have no possibility of parole." http://fas.org/irp/news/1998/04/980403-bomb.htm A PALESTINIAN MAN CONVICTED LAST YEAR OF BOMBING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER IN NEW YORK IN 1993 THAT KILLED SIX PEOPLE AND WOUNDED AT LEAST ONE THOUSAND OTHERS WAS SENTENCED TODAY (FRIDAY) TO 240 YEARS IN PRISON AND ORDERED TO PAY A STIFF FINE. EYAD ISMOIL FLED TO JORDAN AFTER THE BOMBING WHERE HE WAS ARRESTED IN 1995. SIX MEN ARE NOW IN PRISON FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK. Blind Cleric Omar Rahman sentenced to life in prison: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/18/nyregion/sheik-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-in-bombing-plot.html "Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman was sentenced yesterday to life in prison for plotting a series of bombings and assassinations..." "Under Federal guidelines, inmates sentenced to life must serve their full terms..." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12615601 ALEXANDRIA, Va. - U.S. Judge Leonie Brinkema sent Zacarias Moussaoui to prison for life Thursday, to "die with a whimper," for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A day earlier, a jury rejected the government's case to have Moussaoui executed, deciding instead to sent him to prison for life without a chance of parole. Joe B. I have to apologize. It appears the intent of my question zoomed WAY above your head.
Our pick of the answers:
After the shoe bomber, Congress passed a law that made it legal for the President to hold terrorists as enemy combatants and try them in military tribunals. Before that, the tribunals were questioned for their legality, so the civilian route was widely used. It does not need to be used anymore. And should not be because the chance of these murderers getting off on a technicality is high. On October 17th, 2006, such a bill was passed: The Military Commissions Act of 2006. According to the Council on Foreign Relations: "This legislation gives the US president authorization to set up military commissions to try enemy combatants, and sets some limits for their interrogation and prosecution based on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Defendants may not invoke the Geneva Conventions during trials or file habeas corpus petitions in federal court, and cannot prevent hearsay evidence from entering the court. Defendants may receive the death sentence." The Supreme Court has said that such Congressional approval is constitutionally sufficient for the continuance of the tribunals.
Lisa asks…
did president bush deserve to have shoes thrown at him?
when was the last time someone attacked you verbally or physically? was it justified or not? now, George bush didn't verbally or physically attack the man that threw his shoes at him to make him retaliate in anger, but yet the mere presence of president bush and of the war he has got involved in in Iraq and afganistan was enough to make him attack him. but is that the right way to make a point? that man was obviously upset and angry because of what is going on his own country between his people the British and Americans. he wants them to leave and let his own people sort out their problems but the Americans and British wont. so it looks like the fighting and killing will go on until either side gets tired of fighting and concedes. and once again the question will be asked...was it worth it? what were they fighting for? isn't there enough food clothing and houses to keep people satisfied? aren't those things more important? i can understand the afghans and Iraqi peoples anger... after all if someone walked into your home and turned it upside down wouldn't you feel upset? but if you then took action in the form of violence and you took the life of the intruder you would be accountable to the court of law and the family of that person would be left bereaved and heartbroken. yet that is what Britain and American troops have done to Iraqi and afghan families in the name of democracy. which is why we can understand why that man felt so incensed in the presence of George bush.
Our pick of the answers:
Compared to the excrement that's been thrown at him by his OWN people -- especially Democrats -- shoes should be a welcome change. Tee Hee !
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
If you're interested, read more here womens shoes
No comments:
Post a Comment