Comments on: Russ Wants To Testify http://rightvoices.com/2006/01/05/russ-wants-to-testify/ in all matter of opinion, our adversaries are insane. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:20:40 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: FrmrArtyOffcr http://rightvoices.com/2006/01/05/russ-wants-to-testify/comment-page-1/#comment-213014 FrmrArtyOffcr Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:28:32 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/?p=3674#comment-213014 Wanna hear a good reason on why this is a load of organic fertilizer? Isn't NSA under DoD? The same thing with the DIA. Seeing as they are NOT under DOJ, it's a pretty good argument that they aren't even covered under the 4th amendment seeing as they are not pursuing information for a criminal indictment but rather intelligence to conduct a war. The only mention of the military in the bill of rights is that the US government will not forcibly billet soldiers in private homes. Want to make a LOT of Democrats and civil libertarians apoplectic? Agree with them that the intelligence gathered isn't allowable in a criminal trial, therefore any suspected terrorists captured due to intelligence collected by the NSA has to be immediately turned over to the military and face a military tribunal followed by imprisonment in Leavenworth or execution for being an ununiformed combatant. That is exactly what is proscribed by both US and international law to be done with saboteurs and spies. The truck driver planning on blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge is a Saboteur and is therefore subject to execution after a military tribunal. The Islamofascists who cased those buildings on Wall Street for a terror attack are spies and the normal punishment for being a spy is execution. Now if these morons have attorneys that want to fight their convictions on the grounds of inadmissable evidence, not a problem. The proper US DOJ response is to agree that the intel didn't belong in a criminal court, it was better suited to military tribunal wherein classified information could be discussed freely and the judges would be experts in the field not a layman from the street. The defendent would be also subject to execution or life imprisonment. We'd only have to legally execute one or two until the objections to the intell being submitted as evidence will stop. Wanna hear a good reason on why this is a load of organic fertilizer? Isn’t NSA under DoD? The same thing with the DIA. Seeing as they are NOT under DOJ, it’s a pretty good argument that they aren’t even covered under the 4th amendment seeing as they are not pursuing information for a criminal indictment but rather intelligence to conduct a war. The only mention of the military in the bill of rights is that the US government will not forcibly billet soldiers in private homes. Want to make a LOT of Democrats and civil libertarians apoplectic? Agree with them that the intelligence gathered isn’t allowable in a criminal trial, therefore any suspected terrorists captured due to intelligence collected by the NSA has to be immediately turned over to the military and face a military tribunal followed by imprisonment in Leavenworth or execution for being an ununiformed combatant. That is exactly what is proscribed by both US and international law to be done with saboteurs and spies. The truck driver planning on blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge is a Saboteur and is therefore subject to execution after a military tribunal. The Islamofascists who cased those buildings on Wall Street for a terror attack are spies and the normal punishment for being a spy is execution. Now if these morons have attorneys that want to fight their convictions on the grounds of inadmissable evidence, not a problem. The proper US DOJ response is to agree that the intel didn’t belong in a criminal court, it was better suited to military tribunal wherein classified information could be discussed freely and the judges would be experts in the field not a layman from the street. The defendent would be also subject to execution or life imprisonment. We’d only have to legally execute one or two until the objections to the intell being submitted as evidence will stop.

]]> By: Robert http://rightvoices.com/2006/01/05/russ-wants-to-testify/comment-page-1/#comment-212810 Robert Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:14:54 +0000 http://rightvoices.com/?p=3674#comment-212810 If this guy blew the whistle first (before he was let go) he might have at least an assumption of credibility (initially). But another loser with an axe to grind? Another Richard Clarke? He should be put in prison if he discloses anything that compromises national security. If this guy blew the whistle first (before he was let go) he might have at least an assumption of credibility (initially).

But another loser with an axe to grind? Another Richard Clarke?

He should be put in prison if he discloses anything that compromises national security.

]]>