Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Did he have a trial

Posted By: gourdpainter on 2008-10-11
In Reply to: So your in favor of a creep who tazered a child to be allowed - to roam the streets with a gun?

that found him guilty?  Did I miss something? 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Hello, unless there has been a verdict in a trial, it IS only an accusation.

nm


This admin. doesn't ALLOW itself to be put on trial.
What a copout! - it's only accusations! And that's all it's ever likely to be because this administration with the help of its corrupt and partisan congressional majority simply refuses to allow any independent inquiry into its crooked dealings. Let's not pretend that we actually have a balance of power in the federal govt. sufficient to allow normal due process to occur. So go on with your just accusations simpering - try these crimes in an international court and see how long they stay that way.
I should have said Lunsford *investigation*, not trial...sm
I don't think that crumb cake has had his trial yet.
They haven't been brought to trial yet....(sm)
because a) some of them would be innocent and would have to be set free, and b) Bush obviously had no plan for those who would be found guilty.  Actually, about half of them haven't even been charged yet, much less had a trial.  I honestly think the whole point of Gitmo is torture.  I think that Bush actually thought it was a viable means for gaining information, which has been proven to be incorrect.  Basically, the longer they can keep them there, the longer they can torture.
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor



Aaron Glantz, OneWorld USFri Aug 25, 8:57 AM ET



SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.


Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.


Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.


He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.


Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.


Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.


The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.


Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.


That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.


The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.


Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.


Saddam Hussein. © Radio Netherlands Wereldomroep This week, the Iraqi government began to try the former dictator for crimes connected to his ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds. According to Human Rights Watch, which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, Saddam's Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month period in 1988.


Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.


Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.


In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.


Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.


The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.








trial date set for muzzammil hassan
The "moderate Muslim" who beheaded his wife right here in New York because she served him with with divorce papers and an order of protection. And it's only second degree murder????

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hN-I2OcI1NDn2q5_0TXl11ZhirEQD98JV2080
No free pass - they will be locked up awaiting trial

The President wants the detention center closed within a year. Now the search is on to find new places to hold detainees while they await trial.


One of the places under consideration is Fort Bragg. It's not hard to image the base being considered a possibly site to relocate Gitmo detainees. In the past, Bragg has sent PAO teams and military police units to the detention center in Cuba.






North Carolina congressman David Price says the center should have been shut down long ago.

"it's just unacceptable to have that facility remaining open with people detained indefinitely with no resolution of their cases, no rights at all to even know what they're accused of," he offered.


But Price isn't sure that Bragg should be a serious consideration.


"It will have to be a very high security facility and my understanding of Fort Bragg is there is nothing like the kind of facility that would be required, but I don't know. I'm not going to presume what facilities will be chosen," he said.


Price is right. Right now, soldiers awaiting trial at Fort Bragg on a variety of charges are held in the Cumberland County detention center. Folks who live in Fayetteville have mixed views about bringing suspected terrorists to the community.


"That can be kind of scary actually... having that type of element here in our homeland and where we live," Offered resident Marco Clark.


"Well, we've got to put them some place and in that case Fort Bragg wouldn't be a bad idea," said David McCune.


Military leaders have a year to figure out where they're going to put the detainees. Sources say Camp Pendleton, Charleston Naval Base, and Fort Leavenworth might be better choices than Fort Bragg. Leavenworth may be the number one choice because it's the military's only maximum security prison.


We'll discuss that crime when Bush et al are done with their trial.
nm
Interesting trial story - warning, kind of racy



This woman, Phyllis, is a friend and former
co-employee of a very good friend of mine.  My friend went to her trial on
Monday.  We'd been following this for the past year.  I was surprised
they found here guilty so easily, but I guess rules are rules.  Now
remember,
Phyllis is a retired teacher from Fox Valley Technical
College and her description was that the guard kept touching her breasts and
crotch over and over like she was enjoying it.  Now bear in mind that this
guard was investigating the privates of a 62-year-old gray-haired retired
schoolteacher from Appleton at the Appleton, Wisconsin airport - a very
small airport.  Wondered what you all thought --- as for me I'm
undecided.  I see this made the national headlines.

 

 

Woman Convicted of Groping Screener



GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) - A woman who was upset over
being searched bodily at an airport was convicted Tuesday of assaulting a
security screener by grabbing the federal officer's breasts.


A federal jury heard the case against retired
teacher Phyllis Dintenfass, who also allegedly shoved the screener during the
search at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton in September 2004.


Dintenfass, 62, faces up to a year in federal prison
and $100,000 in fines. The judge set sentencing for Nov. 1.


12px>On Monday, Transportation Security Administration screening supervisor
Anita Gostisha testified that Dintenfass activated metal detectors at a
checkpoint, and she heard Dintenfass say she thought the problem was bobby pins
and barrettes in her hair.



Gostisha said she took the woman to another
screening area, where she used a handheld wand. Gostisha said she was following
protocol when she also performed a ``limited pat-down search.''



Gostisha said she was using the back of her hands to
search the area underneath Dintenfass' breasts when the woman lashed out at her.



``She said `How would you like it if I did that to
you?' and slammed me against the wall,'' Gostisha testified. ``She came at me
and grabbed my breasts and squeezed them.''



Distenfass claimed she acted in self-defense.



``I said, 'What are you doing? No one's done that to
me before,''' she said. ``And she kept going ... for what felt like an
interminably long time.''



Dintenfass denied shoving Gostisha, but admitted
putting her hands on the agent's breasts.



``I was mortified that I had done that,'' she said.
``I was reacting to what felt like an absolute invasion of my body.''



U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said TSA officers
perform a vital service and are entitled to protection from assault.


really, remember the OJ trial and the riots, Rodney King, etc. This is a larger scale
s
Like the Nuernberg Trial after WWII or the Internat'al criminalThe Hague Court..sm
what good does it make to show the torture picture to the public? None.