# Army Col. James Pohl



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

Finally, someone in the US military willing to stand up against the stupidity of Barack Obama and do what he was sworn to do... protect this country. Hopefully more in the military will take a stand and do the same when it comes to the safety of american citizens.



> *Judge Rejects Obama Bid to Stall Gitmo Trial*
> 
> SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- A military defense attorney says a Guantanamo judge has rejected an Obama administration request to suspend the war-crimes trial of the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing.
> 
> ...


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

America shows it's greatness, when Americans stand up :smt1099


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

For anyone following along at home, an arraignment isn't a trial. 


> Arraignment is a common law term for the formal reading of a criminal complaint, in the presence of the defendant, to inform him/her of the charges against him or her. In response to arraignment, the accused is expected to enter a plea.


 Link


> In law, a trial is an event in which parties come together to a dispute present information (in the form of evidence) in a formal setting, usually a court, before a judge, jury, or other designated finder of fact, in order to achieve a resolution to their dispute.


Link

It looks interesting in a newspaper, but according to what's stated in the article, there really isn't a conflict here.

If Army Col. James Pohl was trying to stick it to Barry, I think the story might be that a Colonel in the US Army disobeyed the Commander in Chief.



> Hopefully more in the military will take a stand and do the same when it comes to the safety of american citizens.


So, you're suggesting that the military ought to disregard their Commander in Chief if they don't agree with his policies? You might want to think that one through a little more. It doesn't make for a well disciplined fighting force.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> So, you're suggesting that the military ought to disregard their Commander in Chief if they don't agree with his policies? You might want to think that one through a little more. It doesn't make for a well disciplined fighting force.


The military is sworn to protect us ,the American citizens, and the Constitution of the United States against all enemies...foreign and domestic. We are also at war, which was declared by congress...

As for a well disciplined fighting force... You're right, now watch that force splinter under Obama. Remember your history... it's going to come in handy over the next few years. This president wants to give terrorist who want to kill you and me Constitution rights as if they were American citizens... Do you really think this is going to go over well with the military...? Here's your answer... *See original post*

Here's another news flash... While some in the military support their new COC... most do not. Of course, I'm only going by what people that I know feel about him who's in the military. Which in that case... 100% can't stand the guy.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> The military is sworn to protect us ,the American citizens, ...


Nope. 


> I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Link
Just to defend and abide by the Constitution, and obey superiors - including the President, even if its Barry. I think you'd have a hard time finding any active military who are advocating for treason.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> Nope.
> Link
> Just to defend and abide by the Constitution, and obey superiors - including the President, even if its Barry. I think you'd have a hard time finding any active military who are advocating for treason.


We'll see...


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> This president wants to give terrorist who want to kill you and me Constitution rights as if they were American citizens...


Not American Citizens, but rather POWs or some other regulated entity - not just label them "Enemy Combatants" which is a made up term that's supposed to allow us to circumvent the Constitution, US Law and International Law.

One alternative to the current situation is that we could hold them as POWs which would allow us to keep them confined until the end of the conflict. I think we can agree that its likely the War on Terror is going to last as long as the War on Drugs, so these guys could in practice be held indefinitely in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Do you think Barry is looking to put these guys in a half-way house in a suburban neighborhood???



> *See original post*


Back to the original post, an an arraignment isn't a trial, so the whole article is a non-issue.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

kev74 said:


> Do you think Barry is looking to put these guys in a half-way house in a suburban neighborhood???


maybe you should ask this guy...

Link

We didn't put German POWs in American prisons back in WWII... why should we start now.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

js said:


> maybe you should ask this guy...
> 
> Link
> 
> We didn't put German POWs in American prisons back WWII... why should we start now.


Murtha is trying to get a billion dollar prison built in his district along with a few hundred federal jobs.



js said:


> The article doesn't mention anything about a trial... nor did I mention anything about a trial... It only mentions the arraignment process in which the judge wants to see go through.


It says the Obama administration requested a suspension of War Crime Trials. Two cases (likely trials) were suspended. An arraignment is continuing.

The article also contradicts itself.


> Judge Rejects Obama Bid to Stall Gitmo _Trial_
> 
> SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- A military defense attorney says a Guantanamo judge has rejected an Obama administration request to suspend the war-crimes _trial_ of the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing.
> 
> ...


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

*edited prev. post... (didn't word it right... and was talking about Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri only. Here is his background...LINK )

Well, as I said... we'll see.

At some point there's going to be a breaking point.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

of course... here's a reality check. So maybe it's a little easier to understand Army Col. James Pohl's position... I don't know... maybe he's actually using his brain... Something Barack Obama has yet to do.



> *Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

> an an arraignment isn't a trial


Correct. It's the pre trial arguments. plea is given and the date for a trial is set.

I don't know if you've ever been arraigned but you can still walk in in shackles and go back to your cell no different than when ya went in the only difference is you know when your court date is and weather it will be for sentencing (given a guilty or no contest plea), or when the big trial for those pleading not guilty. Now if you do plead no contest or guilty the sentencing phase can happen right then and there. So I guess in that aspect and can actually be seen as a trial. or more like a sentencing hearing. At any rate the court is taking action. If someone files a motion to stop any court action the judge can deny that request and go on with the pre trial and/or sentencing hearings. They have to reschedule for a not guilty plea for defense council to work on their case some more. THis only has to be what the judge sees as a reasonable time. Being the nature of these peoples offenses and the lack of any defense witnesses they can decide to move along in as little as 24 to 48 hours.

Being one that has been through the court system in more than one state it all pretty moves the same way. Some states do not allow a no contest plea (A plea of admitting to the facts of the case but wanting to have time to explain how or why the acts that got the defendant into the system). but they all pretty much to the same. This is a military trial and if I do remember correctly they allow a no contest plea. Any plea besides an innocent plea can have the pre-trial turn to actual trial right then if both sides do not object.

That being said the judge in question could have bucked directly against the executive order and went along with the trial. I do not know if he knew the plea before hand or not. That is really the only hurdle they had to jump.


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

DevilsJohnson said:


> That being said the judge in question could have bucked directly against the executive order and went along with the trial. I do not know if he knew the plea before hand or not. That is really the only hurdle they had to jump.


Since the request from the Justice Department (not an Executive Order) was to suspend trials for the detainees, and since the proceeding being debated isn't a trial, there is no bucking of the system, no sticking it to Barry and no disobeying the President.

The whole story is a non-issue.


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

So.what if the man not on trial says I'm guilty..then the decide to pronounce sentence now? what is that?

You've never been to court have you?


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

DevilsJohnson said:


> So.what if the man not on trial says I'm guilty..then the decide to pronounce sentence now? what is that?
> 
> You've never been to court have you?


I've seen enough court cases, both criminal and civil and taken enough law classes to know the difference between an arraignment and a trial.

If this scum bag were to plead guilty at the arraignment, there would be no trial and there would be no violation of the Justice Department's request.


----------



## kg333 (May 19, 2008)

kev74 said:


> Not American Citizens, but rather POWs or some other regulated entity - not just label them "Enemy Combatants" which is a made up term that's supposed to allow us to circumvent the Constitution, US Law and International Law.
> 
> One alternative to the current situation is that we could hold them as POWs which would allow us to keep them confined until the end of the conflict. I think we can agree that its likely the War on Terror is going to last as long as the War on Drugs, so these guys could in practice be held indefinitely in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.


Problem is they aren't POWs, as they do not meet the definitions contained in article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. "Enemy combatants" seems a sufficiently accurate, if general, term.

However, I believe they do fall under the "above-mentioned persons" in Article 3 of the same, which requires humane treatment, and "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

KG


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

So then say the scum bags plead out and the sentence them to ...whatever and do all that right on the spot. The president can't get bent because they did not have a trial?

LOL..Man..I'd like to see that.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

an update...



> *Next step unclear as judge defies Obama on Guantanamo*
> 
> The chief judge of the Guantanamo war court, Army Col. James Pohl, on Thursday spurned a request from President Barack Obama to freeze the military commissions there, and said he would go forward with next month's hearing for an alleged USS Cole bomber in a capital terror case.
> 
> ...


----------



## DevilsJohnson (Oct 21, 2007)

Sounds to me like Col. Pohl is just trying to clear out the camps as per the Big O's desire. He's just gonna do a little run em all through court first.:smt083


----------



## kev74 (Mar 22, 2008)

Well, that was a bit more informative than the first article!

I have a feeling Col. Pohl is about to start collecting on his military pension.


----------



## MLB (Oct 4, 2006)

While I certainly understand the Col.'s point of view, I don't believe that directives coming down the chain of command are generally up for debate.


----------

