Author Topic: Commite a crime... you're a terrorist. (Read 1020 times)

NATEDOG · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2004, 04:19:51 PM »

the ones in Cuba are war criminals.

MJHerman · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2004, 04:48:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NATEDOG
the ones in Cuba are war criminals.

I thought they were "unlawful combatants", or has the terminology of covenience shifted again to skirt along "inconvenient" legal principles?

War criminals are entitled to due process like, oh I don't know, a trial, a lawyer, etc. Better be careful what you start calling them.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #17 on:** June 17, 2004, 04:57:07 PM »

Paranoid raving lunatic liberals, just keep in mind that he is watching....

[SIZE=8]YOU[/SIZE]

muckmaw · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2004, 05:11:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MJHerman
I thought they were "unlawful combatants", or has the terminology of covenience shifted again to skirt along "inconvenient" legal principles?

War criminals are entitled to due process like, oh I don't know, a trial, a lawyer, etc. Better be careful what you start calling them.

Let's let them out and you can call them "Neighbors".

VOR · « **Reply #19 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:06:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
Sheesh,

Where have you guys been all your lives?

The term "terroristics threats" has been around many many years, and is used by law enforcement to describe the action of a person threatening physical violence towards another, where the action could be considered possible by virtue of immediacy or location.

It is not new, has nothing to do with Bush, or labeling a person a terrorist, and was used long before 9/11.

I repeat, Sheesh.

dago

Thanks Dago, I just didn't have the heart to tell em. This reminds me of the woman who had the "Blue Bonnet Plague".

VOR · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:07:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
a Bushism?

Not quite...see above.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #21 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:11:43 PM »

I sware some of you act like 9/11 never happend and wont ever happen again.

Example
Isnt blowing up a building to incite feer terrorism....isnt threatening to do the same a "terrorist threat" So why should I not be charged accordingly for doing either act.

I'm not saying this woman did this but Cmon...get real

Not even a half assed troll BTW

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:17:06 PM »

I think Dune or another lawyer can explain it better, but "terroristic threats" is a legal term which has been in state and local law way before Dubya got elected. Hell my uncle was arrested for that back in 1985 or so. Don't let that spoil the tinfoil-hat party though. Deth to Amreeka, Deth to Boosh!!!

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:17:41 PM »

Ah hell, Dago beat me.

VOR · « **Reply #24 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:22:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think Dune or another lawyer can explain it better, but "terroristic threats" is a legal term which has been in state and local law way before Dubya got elected. Hell my uncle was arrested for that back in 1985 or so. Don't let that spoil the tinfoil-hat party though. Deth to Amreeka, Deth to Boosh!!!

My favorite was the bit about how fast people pucker up when their dogma is threatened.

SOB · « **Reply #25 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:27:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
What do you mean it's not relevant. You posted the definition of the word. Why post the definition, if it doesnt mean the same thing in both situations to you?

If this person is judged to be a "terrorist", what makes her different than the "terrorist" held in Cuba in your eyes?

Your first question has been answered by others. Your second question is just stupid.

Nash · « **Reply #26 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:32:58 PM »

Gee... It was just a question - I haven't heard the term before, is all.

Getting to see Dago (of all people) whip himself into an admonishing frenzy and the peanut gallery backslapping over it (as if there was any question of that happening - what was yer daisy chain link again, funked?), made it well worth it though I reckon.

I shoulda known better. Had it really been a Bushism it woulda been along the lines of "terroristicle thrats".

VOR · « **Reply #27 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:43:18 PM »

Not trying to hurt yer feelers, Nash. I just watch too much "Cops" is all. Sometimes you can learn some neat legal-ese.

"Terroristicle thrats" = +2points on the rebound shot

Arlo · « **Reply #28 on:** June 17, 2004, 06:54:30 PM »

The legal definition and concept of one person terrorizing another as well as the legal term "terrorist threat" (or "terroristic threat") has been around for a long time. It has absolutely nothing to do with organized terrorism, the war on terrorism, home defense, the Bush administration, Osama Bin Laden, AlQiera, the WTC, Cuban detainees or the price of tea in China.

"But it's all about the guvment infringing on our personal freedoms in the name of nashunal seecuritee!"

Staga · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2004, 07:40:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NATEDOG
the ones in Cuba are war criminals.

So they already were in the court and were convicted? Good for them

How long sentences did they got and what were the crimes ?