Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on November 11, 2003, 03:47:29 PM
-
This guy is a scummbag but he is being held without charge. Unlike the last guy in that other "is this justice thread"
A page about it. (http://www.chargepadilla.org/)
NO JUSTICE HERE: March 26 The government is refusing the judge's order to have Padilla meet with his lawyers, and is appealing the case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.
Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention. This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, and probably a violation of the 6th Amendment. It is also a clearly abominable violation of the democratic traditions of the United States.
Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".
These are frightening accusations, and they may be true. Accusations do not give the President the authority to lock someone away, however. According to the laws and traditions of the U.S., the way to determine who gets imprisoned is through the due process of a trial by jury.
Jose Padilla may be a traitor and a terrorist. But he was not captured in Afghanistan with a gun in his hand. He was arrested at Chicago O'Hare airport. If Jose Padilla can be held without criminal charges, strictly on the say-so of the President, then any American can be. That is tyranny. We must put an end to it.
It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.
Unlike that other thread where the guy was held as a witness and was indeed a witness even though his site claimed otherwise. This guy is not being held as a witness and I see no way this is legal.
-
If Bush and Ashcroft say it's legal, then by god, it must be.
-
Sandman
Why all the fire over the other guy, and none for this guy? This may be against the law.
-
He's being sarcastic.
Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".
Good enough for me!
-
It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.
Can't the Administration just use a high voltage cattle prod to get a confession?
-
Padilla has been accused of plotting heinous acts of terrorism, particularly the setting off of a "dirty bomb". He has been accused of conspiring with members of al-Queda, and planning to scout for that terrorist organization, using the benefits of his U.S. citizenship. President Bush has designated Padilla an "enemy combatant".
they say he's accused but won't formally accuse him.
since when does the president designate who will be locked-up.(since the 2000 elections I guess)
charge him or free him.
the greatest threat to our american way of life is this administration.
-
Capt
I agree about this. But just this and not the rest of the tenbears LDV nexus tin hat BS.
This is wrong. He should be charged or let go. not held in limbo.
-
He's right where he belongs. I'm glad they have him tucked away where dirt bag lawyers can't get at him.
-
Martlet
The guy is a scumbag but you really think it is ok take the right to a fair trail and to be charged with a crime before being jailed is a good thing for this country?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Capt
I agree about this. But just this and not the rest of the tenbears LDV nexus tin hat BS.
That's because you've been tooled, just like the rest of the neo-cons.
Resistance is futile... You shall be assimilated :rofl
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Martlet
The guy is a scumbag but you really think it is ok take the right to a fair trail and to be charged with a crime before being jailed is a good thing for this country?
It completely depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. I can't make a blanket statement like that. In this case, yes. I can see why others wouldn't, though. I, personally, only need to be shown that a person was working with Al Queda. After that, I don't care what happens to them.
Why? Because I do believe this is a war on terror. It isn't a traditional war, where people don their sides uniform. It's different. If someone can show me a person was participating in this war, and was on the other side, then they can hold him for as long as they'd like with no complaint from me. That question has been answered to my satisfaction in this case.
-
Couldn't you guys see which way your country was developing once the government assinated Dennis Weavers family?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Why? Because I do believe this is a war on terror. It isn't a traditional war, where people don their sides uniform. It's different. If someone can show me a person was participating in this war, and was on the other side, then they can hold him for as long as they'd like with no complaint from me. That question has been answered to my satisfaction in this case.
I agree :aok
Just like how Senator Joe McCarthy was good at finding all the commie spies the Russians had birthed here in the US. He saved our country from being over taken by the terror of communism.
Because good ol' Joe could spot a commie just by what they said and how they looked!
Thankfully all those jewish hollywood writers that were black listed weren't able to get their subversive commie message out to our people and brainswash them and convert them to commism.
In times of war... sacrifices have to be made... and during martial law... the constitution protection doesn't apply... it's for the good of the country...
We should stop all anti-regime debate and support meine fruer..eh.. president.. because he's doing what's right to protect the nationalism in this country.
Any one the government arrests or suspects must be guilty...
just like Richard Jewel the Olympic bomber,
and those 40 drug dealers in Tulia Texas - they were arrested, found guilty by a jury and then put into prison, then the liberals got involved and prooved the police falsified everything... the prosecutors were duped...any one knows that black people in Texas are criminals... eventually.... might as well throw them in jail before they commit any crimes.
And worse of all are the several hundred people released from prison after DNA evidence proved they were innocent.... obviously, the liberals were tampering with the evidence and switched it.
If GWB and the goveronment says someone did something wrong... that's good enough for me! Lock them up, throw away the key!
-
Seeker
You should back a statement like that up with some links and info.
I have no idea who this weever fellow is. But if you are one of the tin hat conspericy wackos or just a moron like nexus don't bother.
-
When we stop protecting the scumbags... we are on the road to not protecting YOU!
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Seeker
You should back a statement like that up with some links and info.
I have no idea who this weever fellow is. But if you are one of the tin hat conspericy wackos or just a moron like nexus don't bother.
Ruby Ridge.
-
Ahh ok
Hmm I will have to go read that one. But didnt the guy kill a fed first? Or was that another case?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Ruby Ridge.
Jose Padillo was bringinig Branch Dividian literature to the CIA at Ruby Ridge? :confused:
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Jose Padillo was bringinig Branch Dividian literature to the CIA at Ruby Ridge? :confused:
-Sik
In a ryder truck full of explosives!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
In a ryder truck full of explosives!!!
I don't get it...
Oh... ROFL!
-Sik
-
Personal attack
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
You should back up your ignorance with some education.
That's because YOU are the ignorant uninformed moron wearing the Rush Limbaugh propellar hat! :rofl
Read a book... read a newspaper... you might have a clue as to what's going on in the world outside of the nematode cesspool you swim in. :aok
Pot, meet kettle
-
LOL nexus is on ignore... I could care less what a tool like him thinks.
I do find it amusing though, coming from someone who I bet is the most ignored on this board or if not the most ignored WAY up on the list.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It is essential that Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime.
Whitout a doubt one of the dumbest statements I have read on this bb so far.
-
Hortlund: Whitout a doubt one of the dumbest statements I have read on this bb so far.
That's what the principle of "habeas corpus" demands - which we have enshrined in our Constitution. After all, what is the point of defending our freedoms from some guys if we have to let other guys destroy them in the process?
miko
-
Hortlund
Why do you think that is stupid? The government is not allowed to just hold US citizens and charge them with a crime.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
LOL nexus is on ignore... I could care less what a tool like him thinks.
Is there an Ignore/snore ratio on this BBS? I'd like to see it.
By the way the phrase is "I couldn't care less" you dolt.
And of course you care... because you responded and I trolled you in... :aok
PHISH!!! Hook... Line... and sinker. :rofl
You're the fool who's been tooled!
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Is there an Ignore/snore ratio on this BBS? I'd like to see it.
By the way the phrase is "I couldn't care less" you dolt.
And of course you care... because you responded and I trolled you in... :aok
PHISH!!! Hook... Line... and sinker. :rofl
You're the fool who's been tooled!
You are truly representative of your party. Congratulations.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Hortlund: Whitout a doubt one of the dumbest statements I have read on this bb so far.
That's what the principle of "habeas corpus" demands - which we have enshrined in our Constitution. After all, what is the point of defending our freedoms from some guys if we have to let other guys destroy them in the process?
miko
Already long before 9-11 and long before the Fla recount, you had special provisions in your law allowing certain Federal agencies to hold citizens on certain charges, under certain conditions "outside" normal laws. Nothing new with that...nothing strange with it either. So sorry, troll somewhere else.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You are truly representative of your party. Congratulations.
Party? You mean LaRouche is out of prison?
Thought you were ignoring me? :aok
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Already long before 9-11 and long before the Fla recount, you had special provisions in your law allowing certain Federal agencies to hold citizens on certain charges, under certain conditions "outside" normal laws. Nothing new with that...nothing strange with it either. So sorry, troll somewhere else.
You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Party? You mean LaRouche is out of prison?
Thought you were ignoring me? :aok
Is English your first language? Can you read?
-
Martlet
If you keep posting his posts, I end up seeing them, and then he gets to look dumber when he thinks I read them on my own and not through you.
Just let his crap drop lol.
-
Hortlund: Already long before 9-11 and long before the Fla recount, you had special provisions in your law allowing certain Federal agencies to hold citizens on certain charges...
Right - on certain charges. He has not been charged, you idiot - that's the whole point of this thread.
Nobody here claims he is innocent. Let them charge him and prosecute him.
, under certain conditions "outside" normal laws. Nothing new with that...
Nothing constitutional either.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/b]...
Do you see any exceptions listed there for non-military personnel, you dolt?
miko
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Is English your first language? Can you read?
No English is not my first language.... it's one of many that I am illiterate in.
If you were referring to me being a democrat... I am not.
I'd rather belong to LaRouche's radical party then be with Democrats or Republicans.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Do you see any exceptions listed there for non-military personnel, you dolt?
Maybe this would be a good time for you to ponder over the phrasing "due process of law" and its implications...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Maybe this would be a good time for you to ponder over the phrasing "due process of law" and its implications...
Or better yet, we can all read the 14th amendment to the US constitution.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Or better yet, we can all read the 14th amendment to the US constitution.
-Sik
lol, never mind, the due process clause isn't nearly as usefull as it might have been :)
-Sik
-
He is being held as a combatant. A pretty good read on it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/01/findlaw.analysis.hilden.padilla/
It's best to avoid the web sites with the "victims" name as the header. I've found they tend to be a bit biased.
Can't say I agree with the decision, though doing it any other way would mean they could not legally get information from him. I do like CNN's hint to "torture". :rolleyes:
Basically, you don't have to press charges when you capture the enemy. I do believe everyone from all sides is going to aproach this one very cautiously... not out of fear of the administration but out of fear of precident.
BTW... Kudos to the "Oh yea... well how about THIS guy!?!" aproach. Keep trying boys.... eventually you'll find a single incident that uncovers the reign of terror that is the Bush administration's violations of everyone's civil rights.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
He is being held as a combatant. A pretty good read on it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/01/findlaw.analysis.hilden.padilla/
It's best to avoid the web sites with the "victims" name as the header. I've found they tend to be a bit biased.
Can't say I agree with the decision, though doing it any other way would mean they could not legally get information from him. I do like CNN's hint to "torture". :rolleyes:
Basically, you don't have to press charges when you capture the enemy. I do believe everyone from all sides is going to aproach this one very cautiously... not out of fear of the administration but out of fear of precident.
BTW... Kudos to the "Oh yea... well how about THIS guy!?!" aproach. Keep trying boys.... eventually you'll find a single incident that uncovers the reign of terror that is the Bush administration's violations of everyone's civil rights.
MiniD
The fact that he is labelled as a combatant doesn't mean that holding him without trial, charge, counsel, etc. is constitutional.
I'm not a U.S. constitutional scholar or expert, but I assume that the President only derives his authority from the Constitution which, by definition means that he cannot exercise any authority which conflicts with the Constitution, including labelling someone in such a way that the Constitution does not apply to that person.
In a western liberal democracy, the rule of law is supposed to prevail. Some pretty bad precedents can be set when exceptions are made to that general principle. It may have been a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who once said that hard cases make for bad law....which was not an excuse but rather a somewhat sombre observation on his part.
Just my two cents.
-
It completely depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident. I can't make a blanket statement like that. In this case, yes. I can see why others wouldn't, though. I, personally, only need to be shown that a person was working with Al Queda. After that, I don't care what happens to them.
Why? Because I do believe this is a war on terror. It isn't a traditional war, where people don their sides uniform. It's different. If someone can show me a person was participating in this war, and was on the other side, then they can hold him for as long as they'd like with no complaint from me. That question has been answered to my satisfaction in this case.
I agree with what you are saying but the problem is it hasn't been 'shown'. in this country the legal way to 'show' someone was doing something that is illegal, is to get an inditment and make your case in court. then the accused can deffend themselves against your acusations.
as it is nothing has been 'shown' just claimed.
you may find the acussation alone to be proof. I don't. I find accusations that the gov't isn't willing to take to court extremely suspect. if it's true they can prove it, if they can't then, officially, it never happened. thats one of the main pillars our whole system of justice is built on.
aside from this guys inocence or guilt this sort of procedure is a huge threat to our way of life. legally, once we acept this, whats to stop the sitting president from just declairing all of his political adversarys 'enemies of the state' (says he knows it, doesn't want to prove it, just trust him).
this is a bigger threat to the security of america than al-Queda.
btw- it's been my experience that most people who ask that you trust them without proof, can't be trusted.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
The fact that he is labelled as a combatant doesn't mean that holding him without trial, charge, counsel, etc. is constitutional.
Actually... it does. It makes all the difference in the world. Unfortunately, there isn't a clear cut guideline for establishing the enemy combatant status. It's really why this is dragging on so long.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
this is a bigger threat to the security of america than al-Queda.
Well, at least you have your perspectives in order... 9-11 and the anthrax letters sure proved that :aok
-
Mini D
I am not anti Bush, though I see this as very questionable.
The otherguy was a straw man, I brought this one up cause there are valid issue to discuss and I did not do it to just bash the admin.
What wrong with discussing this?
-
Hortlund: Maybe this would be a good time for you to ponder over the phrasing "due process of law" and its implications...
The only implication is that he must be charged - with treason in this case. You see any other implications?
Sikboy: Or better yet, we can all read the 14th amendment to the US constitution.
14th amendment is no help here. The section about due process refers to the States only, not the federal government.
It's the 5th amendment issue.
miko
-
Originally posted by Mini D
He is being held as a combatant. A pretty good read on it:
The article points out the dilema the government faces very well.... thanks for the link!
However, the consititution is the foundation of law and authority in this country. And government is created from and takes action based upon it's authority.
The executive branch cannot override that authority through executive orders, nor can the congress by passing an act.
The appropriate legal course of action is a constitutional admendment to have a limited bill of rights in times of war.
However, until that course of action is taken... the government must obey the law. The government arbitrarily putting labels on people to ursurp the authority of the constitution is a dangerous precedence.... and is not constitutional.... this is the debate making it's way to the supreme court.
The courts have in the past deferred to the president and congress in times of war... that's why they tend to be silent on these matters... such as during WWII and the internment of Japanese Americans. Doesn't mean what they do is right or legal.
-
Not much wrong with discussing this, but the same group that posted the other thread is now in this one trying to make the same points, while completely ignoring the fact that they've consistantly been wrong and uninformed on these situations to date.
Of course, the same group is also over here saying "he did it... nothing else matters" like that's any better.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by miko2d
14th amendment is no help here. The section about due process refers to the States only, not the federal government.
It's the 5th amendment issue.
Yeah, I retracted 2 minutes later lol.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually... it does. It makes all the difference in the world. Unfortunately, there isn't a clear cut guideline for establishing the enemy combatant status. It's really why this is dragging on so long.
MiniD
Sorry, I really have to disagree.
The only power afforded to the President is that which he derives from the Constitution. If what he does is (a) beyond the authority given to him or (b) is not constitutional, then the act is unlawful.
I find it hard to believe that the drafts of the Constitution ever intended that, if a President would take an action that in and of itself would be unconstitutional (i.e., detention without charge), the President could make that action "constitutional" by simply declaring, in effect, that the Constitution does not apply in those circumstances. Such a turn of events is precisely the kind of tyranny (in the sense of rule by decree) that your forefathers were trying to escape from.
-
Hortlund: Well, at least you have your perspectives in order... 9-11 and the anthrax letters sure proved that
Americans suffered worse casualties voluntarily for the cause of freedom and individual rights.
We can live while being attacked. We cannot possibly be invaded and occupied, let alone disarmed by outsiders.
It's our own government that the Founding Fathers told americans to watch carefully.
They even said specifically about trading essential liberty for temporary safety but what would you know about that?
miko
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Not much wrong with discussing this, but the same group that posted the other thread is now in this one trying to make the same points, while completely ignoring the fact that they've consistantly been wrong and uninformed on these situations to date.
Of course, the same group is also over here saying "he did it... nothing else matters" like that's any better.
MiniD
It's all dependent on your comfort level. The guy is a known thug. He's been trouble since childhood. I'm completely comfortable with the gov't also naming him as a terrorist and explaining why. If it were someone else, I may feel differently. With him, I think the system is working perfectly.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Hortlund: Well, at least you have your perspectives in order... 9-11 and the anthrax letters sure proved that
Americans suffered worse casualties voluntarily for the cause of freedom and individual rights.
We can live while being attacked. We cannot possibly be invaded and occupied, let alone disarmed by outsiders.
It's our own government that the Founding Fathers told americans to watch carefully.
They even said specifically about trading essential liberty for temporary safety but what would you know about that?
miko
What he said :D
-
It's all dependent on your comfort level. The guy is a known thug. He's been trouble since childhood. I'm completely comfortable with the gov't also naming him as a terrorist and explaining why.
if all that's true then what is stopping them from proving it in court? if it is truely an 'open and shut case' then maybe they should open it so they can shut it.
sort of a '**** or get off the pot', situation as i see it.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if all that's true then what is stopping them from proving it in court? if it is truely an 'open and shut case' then maybe they should open it so they can shut it.
sort of a '**** or get off the pot', situation as i see it.
Who knows. Maybe they are getting more information from him. If he underwent training of bomb building, he must have some decent contacts.
Maybe they lost him.
Maybe they accidentally killed him.
I'm comfortable with any of those reasons.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if all that's true then what is stopping them from proving it in court? if it is truely an 'open and shut case' then maybe they should open it so they can shut it.
sort of a '**** or get off the pot', situation as i see it.
Part of the concern is that any evidence/testimony would reveal information which is essential to National Security (i.e., intelligence sources, etc.). I can see the concern there, but the result is you end up with secret trials:
"We have evidence against you"
"But I didn't do anything"
"But we have all this evidence that you did"
"Show me"
"Sorry, can't do that...National Security interests....telling you could put at risk the intelligence sources that helped us get this evidence and hinder them from getting similar evidence that against other people that we wouldn't show to those other people either.....but trust us, we've got all this great evidence"
"So how do I clear my name?"
"You have to convince us that our evidence is wrong"
"But you won't let me see the evidence"
"Trust us"
If it wasn't so serious it would make for a great Monty Python routine.
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
I find it hard to believe that the drafts of the Constitution ever intended that, if a President would take an action that in and of itself would be unconstitutional (i.e., detention without charge), the President could make that action "constitutional" by simply declaring, in effect, that the Constitution does not apply in those circumstances. Such a turn of events is precisely the kind of tyranny (in the sense of rule by decree) that your forefathers were trying to escape from.
Actually, the constition was not written to handle combatants in times of war. The Geneva convention tends to cover that. That is why I found CNN's "torture" comment so funny.
Despite what you think... this situation is something that has fallen between the cracks. That is precisely why it has dragged on so long. As a combatant, he forfeits the rights of citizenship. This is clear. The question comes in defining "combatant" and exactly where the line between the rights of citizenship and the treatment as combatant exist.
MIniD
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Part of the concern is that any evidence/testimony would reveal information which is essential to National Security (i.e., intelligence sources, etc.). I can see the concern there, but the result is you end up with secret trials:
There are special courts for protecting secrets... the prosecutions of the Pollard (he spied for Israel - our ally) and Aldrich Aimes are an examples.
The same can be done in this case... but it's not because the Bush Administration wants to have the option of torture and coerchion in order to extract information... it's understandable... but it makes America become it's own enemy and it becomes no better than the terrorist it is fighting.
Torture doesn't work against someone who is innocent.... they'll make up something just to stop the torture.
-
Actually, the constition was not written to handle combatants in times of war. The Geneva convention tends to cover that. That is why I found CNN's "torture" comment so funny.
actually he's only a combatant by the same deffinition he is 'guilty', bush's declaration.
he wast in uniform or pulled off a battle field. ( I realise that this type of war doesn't really fit the old deffinitions) but at the very least he should have actively been involved in combat before you could classify him a combatant. the only way you could acurately put him in that catagory would be to prove it, in court.
as it is bush is just using one declaration to explain the legality of another declartation.
-
That's the problem apathy... there isn't an established means for "proving someone is a combatant" in court or otherwise. I do believe there will be before long. Right now, alot of people are trying to apply guidelines that weren't written to cover this situation. None of them fit well... thus the cracks.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Actually, the constition was not written to handle combatants in times of war. The Geneva convention tends to cover that. That is why I found CNN's "torture" comment so funny.
Despite what you think... this situation is something that has fallen between the cracks. That is precisely why it has dragged on so long. As a combatant, he forfeits the rights of citizenship. This is clear. The question comes in defining "combatant" and exactly where the line between the rights of citizenship and the treatment as combatant exist.
MIniD
Perhaps part of the problem that I have understanding all of this is that, as a Canadian, I have no experience with the concept of constitutional rights and/or the rule of law only applying to citizens. I believe that is something unique to the U.S., and may be a function of judicial decisions there. I have to plead ignorance on all of that, simply because I don't know.
What is also alien to this Canuck is the concept that the legal protections afforded to any person can be revoked by decree, i.e., simply by labelling someone something and thereby throwing him into legal limbo.
If someone could point me to a U.S. court decision where the concept of "enemy combatants" is discussed by the court I would be grateful, if for no other reason than to read some more on the history of the concept. I imagine that there were a few cases during WWII?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
actually he's only a combatant by the same deffinition he is 'guilty', bush's declaration.
he wast in uniform or pulled off a battle field. ( I realise that this type of war doesn't really fit the old deffinitions) but at the very least he should have actively been involved in combat before you could classify him a combatant. the only way you could acurately put him in that catagory would be to prove it, in court.
as it is bush is just using one declaration to explain the legality of another declartation.
So we can't arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in combat? What about terrorists? We have to wait until they commit the act before we can arrest them? If not, then we have to charge them as soon as we arrest them? Now we are back at exposing national security interests.
-
The way you describe this implies that they just walked up to someone and said "combatant... no rights". Please research a little and find out what led up to this (his) "status". It is not as clear cut as you seem to imply.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
There are special courts for protecting secrets... the prosecutions of the Pollard (he spied for Israel - our ally) and Aldrich Aimes are an examples.
The same can be done in this case... but it's not because the Bush Administration wants to have the option of torture and coerchion in order to extract information... it's understandable... but it makes America become it's own enemy and it becomes no better than the terrorist it is fighting.
Torture doesn't work against someone who is innocent.... they'll make up something just to stop the torture.
Personally, I don't buy the whole "they want to detain him without counsel so that they can torture him" argument that some people scream at the top of their lungs. I have enough faith in Americans to believe that they know what is "right" or "wrong" and that, in the majority of cases, an American would find it hard to torture another person.
My objection, if you can call it, is more from the legal side of things and what is "fair" and "right". I also think that it sets a very bad precedent, and tends to taint the "freedom" that the President is always trying to promote overseas.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So we can't arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in combat? What about terrorists? We have to wait until they commit the act before we can arrest them? If not, then we have to charge them as soon as we arrest them? Now we are back at exposing national security interests.
I'm just going to get out of this thread. It just turned into a complete waste of time.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm just going to get out of this thread. It just turned into a complete waste of time.
MiniD
agreed
-
Originally posted by miko2d
The only implication is that he must be charged - with treason in this case. You see any other implications?
Ex Parte Vallandigham, 68 U.S. 243 (1863)
Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
If someone could point me to a U.S. court decision where the concept of "enemy combatants" is discussed by the court I would be grateful, if for no other reason than to read some more on the history of the concept. I imagine that there were a few cases during WWII?
Ergo the problem...
Bush Administration is claiming US Courts do not have jurisprudence because:
1. These people are enemy combants.
2. They are not being held on US soil
Thus the Supreme court case that will be decided next year.
here's a few links that may be helpful.
"Judicial review does not disappear during wartime but the review of battlefield captures in overseas conflicts is a highly deferential one," said the opinion of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/enemy.combatants/
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/06/us0612.htm
"Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana-born Saudi, was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan in late 2001. The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in its January 8 ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said that because it is "undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat," there is sufficient basis to detain him without some normal constitutional protections. Hamdi is being held at a U.S. military brig in Norfolk, Virginia."
http://www.useu.be/Terrorism/USResponse/Jan0903RulingEnemyCombattent.html
The first step is to prove that Federal courts have Jurisprudence over GITMO.
There's no question that individuals caught on a battle field are enemy combants...
Those caught on American soil with out weapons in hands... what are they?
During WWII they were spies... sumarily tried and could be shot
-
Originally posted by miko2d
They even said specifically about trading essential liberty for temporary safety but what would you know about that?
More than an ex-soviet citizen?
-
So we can't arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in combat? What about terrorists? We have to wait until they commit the act before we can arrest them? If not, then we have to charge them as soon as we arrest them? Now we are back at exposing national security interests
no, not at all. you can still arrest them. you just have to say what you are arresting them for, what evedence you have to suport your suspissions and give them a chance to refute your alagations in court.
the thing is that you can't just declare that certain groups have less rights, and then use nothing but further declarations to prove who is in the group.
in other words it hasn't been proven that he is a 'combatant', so until that is proven the other declarations don't really have much meaning.
this rule by declaration set up completely negates our checks and ballances. what's next? declair other branches of the gov't combatants and set up a dictatorship.
I know these are outrageous extremes that are not likely to come up (hopefully there would be a revolution before it got that far), but the point is that if we allow these cases to stand they become precedent that further interpritations of law will be based on them.
the right to know waht you are being held for and face the acusers and evidence against you is critical to any free society.
-
More than an ex-soviet citizen?
my guess it would give that person a fairly clear view of the cost of trading your freedom for the percieved safety of unchecked gov't power
-
Hortlund: More than an ex-soviet citizen?
And what would necessarily make a dumb scared pro-socialist swede more knowlegeable about the liberty/safety trade-off than an ex-soviet citizen that tried both and made a concious choice?
capt. apathy: my guess it would give that person a fairly clear view of the cost of trading your freedom for the percieved safety of unchecked gov't power
Actually, it may contribute to the personal motivation. The knowlege of such matters comes from studying the historical and philosophical writings. One does not really have to experience the horrors of a totalitarian state or to live in a free state in order to gain understanding that Founding Fathers had.
A marxist ideologue like like Hortlund who subscribes to the polylogism theory of concience may not care about it but for the rest of us the path to learning is open. Pick up a damn book or dozen and read what comes out of trading liberty for safety.
Ex parte Vallandigham 68 U.S. 243 (1864)
In 1863, soldiers arrested, tried and found guilty Democratic Sen. Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio for violating Army orders against public expressions of Confederate sympathies. He had denounced the War and the Administration at home and in Congress. President Abraham Lincoln banished Vallandigham to rebel territory. He returned and appealed the action in the Supreme Court.
The Court held, unanimously, that it had no jurisdiction over appeals from military courts.
So the army can arrest and punish a person - even an elected politician - for what he thinks and says. The army can make laws on what people can say - I thought it was only Congress that could make laws. What's so constitutional about this case?
We know that Linkoln jailed and held without charges thousands of his political opponents. That's what we would want to prevent, not encourage.
Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)
We have a bunch of germans who are not citizens of US to disembark from a german sumbarine in 1942 carrying a supply of explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices and wearing German Marine Infantry uniforms.
Without delving into details, I'd say they had a much better case to hold those people than they have with Jose Padilla.
miko
-
Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) - I don't know the details of this case, but your brief summary suggested that the German sailors/marines in question were in uniform. If that was the case, they should have fallen under the Geneva Convention.
But again, I don't know the facts and haven't read the judgment.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Seeker
You should back a statement like that up with some links and info.
I have no idea who this weever fellow is. But if you are one of the tin hat conspericy wackos or just a moron like nexus don't bother.
Actaully I think he meant Randy Weaver and the incident at Ruby Ridge in Idaho where Federal Marshalls and FBI agents shot and killed Mr. Weavers 14 yr old son in the back as he was running for the cabin and shot Mr. Weavers wife while she was in the cabin holding an infant.
-
Sounds like to me they are treating this guy like a POW and not a civilian criminal. In the former case I think the military has the right to hold him as long as they like.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
shot Mr. Weavers wife while she was in the cabin holding an infant.
They had to shoot, the infant was loaded.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by miko2d
And what would necessarily make a dumb scared pro-socialist swede more knowlegeable about the liberty/safety trade-off than an ex-soviet citizen that tried both and made a concious choice?
I wouldnt know miko, since Im neither dumb or scared or pro-socialist.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
We have a bunch of germans who are not citizens of US to disembark from a german sumbarine in 1942 carrying a supply of explosives, fuses and incendiary and timing devices and wearing German Marine Infantry uniforms.
Without delving into details, I'd say they had a much better case to hold those people than they have with Jose Padilla.
FFS read the damn judgement the next time before talking out of your ass.
Haupt was a US citizen.
All except petitioner Haupt are admittedly citizens of the German Reich, with which the United States is at war. Haupt came to this country with his parents when he was five years old; it is contended that he became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the naturalization of his parents during his minority and that he has not since lost his citizenship.
Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war. Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, [317 U.S. 1, 38] guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war. Cf. Gates v. Goodloe, 101 U.S. 612, 615 , 617 S., 618. It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.
-
read the damn judgement the next time before talking out of your ass, Hortlund.
It is as an enemy belligerent that petitioner Haupt is charged with[/b] entering the United States, and unlawful belligerency is the gravamen of the offense of which he is accused.
What part of "charged with" don't you understand?
Charging the damn Padilla, that's all we want, as an emeny belliegrent or otherwise.
Elfie: Sounds like to me they are treating this guy like a POW and not a civilian criminal. In the former case I think the military has the right to hold him as long as they like.
If they pick you up in a US airport (not in combat) without weapons, explosives, uniform or any other proscribed material and call you a POW, does that mean they can hold you forever without pressing charges or seeing a lawyer?
Actually, it does not matter what you think or even what they think because US Constitution is quite specific on that matter.
Im neither dumb
You are very dumb.
You think that an opinion that "Padilla be either freed or charged with a crime" - which is shareb by million americans, including noted legal schoolars - is "the dumbest statement".
You think that an opinion about supremacy of habeas corpus widely shared by US and UK population is a "troll".
Even if those opinions are mistaken, you reaction towards them as if you heard them the first time rather than them being quite common betrays your stupidity.
Also, you keep illustarting your case for not pressing charges against Padilla by citing examples where charges are prominent - "hold citizens on certain charges" and "charged with". Isn't that stupid?
or scared
Well, at least you have your perspectives in order... 9-11 and the anthrax letters sure proved that
Sorry, I misspoke. I meant "coward", not "scared".
Your perspectives are obvious - you would lose your liberties rather than risk 9-11 and anthrax. You are a coward that may not be scared at the moment.
...or pro-socialist
:rofl
Come to think of it. Your entries of late contain no content beyong "it's a troll", "it's dumb" or quoting inappropriate crap that has nothing to do with your position.
Just like Martlet. I should probably stop wasting my time on your posts.
miko
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
Perhaps part of the problem that I have understanding all of this is that, as a Canadian, I have no experience with the concept of constitutional rights and/or the rule of law only applying to citizens.
Sure you do. From the Charter.
"Democratic Rights
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sure you do. From the Charter.
"Democratic Rights
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."
OK. Now show me where the reference to Canadian citizenship appears as a pre-requisite in Sections 7 to 13, which is what we are talking about here.
-
JUSTICE (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050301/ts_nm/rights_padilla_dc)
-
"Padilla is believed by the government to have betrayed his country by conspiring with al Qaeda members, not to have joined a foreign arm to fight against the United States. As a result, it seems that the government should be charging Padilla with treason, not claiming he is an "unlawful combatant."
Think that sums it up for me. He is an American he deserves his rights. He may be innocent for all we know. Doubtful, but still the possibility exists. He is an American citizen. If you think declaring him an unlawful combatant is right then you dont believe in trials or judges for any Americans. He has as much a right to have his day in court as the BTK killer.Charge him with treason, let him have his day in court, then string him up by his (#)% until he expires.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
"Padilla is believed by the government to have betrayed his country by conspiring with al Qaeda members, not to have joined a foreign arm to fight against the United States. As a result, it seems that the government should be charging Padilla with treason, not claiming he is an "unlawful combatant."
Think that sums it up for me. He is an American he deserves his rights. He may be innocent for all we know. Doubtful, but still the possibility exists. He is an American citizen. If you think declaring him an unlawful combatant is right then you dont believe in trials or judges for any Americans. He has as much a right to have his day in court as the BTK killer.Charge him with treason, let him have his day in court, then string him up by his (#)% until he expires.
or untill some ACLU lawyer uses a technicality to set him free and he ends up killing thousands in an attack. IMHO he did join a foreign army to fight against the US. The problem here is that the rules of warfare in this case are unconventional. The enemy does not have a state....he doesnt wear a uniform....he has no "border". Hence the rules change.
But that's just me. I do agree this is in fact a slippery slope. Thanks for the follow up sandy.
-
Can he be charged with treason?
-
Constitutionality of it aside,I guess I just can't understand why, if the administration has valid evidence against this guy, they wouldnt want to charge and try him.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they dont have the evidence, that's the chilling part.
shamus
-
It's not justice yet. A federal court ruled in 2003 that Padilla must be released, he's still in custody.
I find it amazing that the US passed powers allowing the executive to lock up citizens without trial with so little fuss.
-
i say let the guy go ,but make him promise not to blow anything up.
after he kills a couple hundred people they can arrest him for breaking his promise, if they can find him.
and wile they try to find him, you people can come on here and whine about how bush had him but let him go and now bush can't find him.
-
Hell... why even bother with trials for anyone in this country? Only guilty people are ever arrested.
-
If they have evidence give him a trail, if not holding a US citizen is bad news.
Letting the government have this kind of power is bad news for everyone.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
He's right where he belongs. I'm glad they have him tucked away where dirt bag lawyers can't get at him.
How can someone as anti-American as you wrap himself in the flag?
You feel more comfortable living in a police state? Move to Singapore and take your hero with you.
Here in the United States, we respect our freedoms and the Constitution that preserves them for us all.
-
Originally posted by greentail
How can someone as anti-American as you wrap himself in the flag?
You feel more comfortable living in a police state? Move to Singapore and take your hero with you.
Here in the United States, we respect our freedoms and the Constitution that preserves them for us all.
You're confusing anti-Americanism with anti-terrorism.
Why do you support criminals?
Edit: I won't even get into the fact that it's a 16 month old quote.
-
This guy wasnt captured on a battlefield. He either needs to be charged or let go. If he had been captured on a battlefield I would be ok with it.
-
Perhaps the battlefield was the city he was captured in?
Does a place become a battlefield only after an attack has taken place, or when an attack is intended to take place?
Just because he was taken into custody here doesn't mean it wasn't on a battlefield.
Just something to think about, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this one.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You're confusing anti-Americanism with anti-terrorism.
No. You're confusing freedom with security. If you are too scared to handle living in a free society, there are plenty of police states in the world. Pick one and go. Don't ruin things for the rest of us.
Why do you support criminals?
[/B]
He is a citizen of the United States. In the U.S. there is a presumption of innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps you should move to Europe? They operate on a presumption of guilt. A person has to prove his innocence once accused.
This "gentleman" has not been charged, much less found guilty of a crime. He is NOT a criminal.
You want to live in a society where the government can lock you up indefinitely for any reason? Perhaps you'd enjoy living in the People's Republic of China. You don't seem cut out to handle life in the the U.S.
Edit: I won't even get into the fact that it's a 16 month old quote.
Have you changed your mind since then?
-
Originally posted by greentail
No. You're confusing freedom with security. If you are too scared to handle living in a free society, there are plenty of police states in the world. Pick one and go. Don't ruin things for the rest of us.
Afraid to handle a free society? I'm afraid of your idea of a free society. Coddle the criminals and let the terrorists roam free. If you'd like to live with criminals, don't ruin things for the rest of us. Go to prison.
He is a citizen of the United States. In the U.S. there is a presumption of innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps you should move to Europe? They operate on a presumption of guilt. A person has to prove his innocence once accused. This "gentleman" has not been charged, much less found guilty of a crime. He is NOT a criminal.
He's not? Have you looked at his life? He's actually quite the criminal. Even before he started hanging out with terrorists. Odd that you are so anxious to see him on the streets.
You want to live in a society where the government can lock you up indefinitely for any reason? Perhaps you'd enjoy living in the People's Republic of China. You don't seem cut out to handle life in the the U.S.
I have no problems with terrorists being held indefinitely. I'm not surprised that you think plotting with terrorists isn't reason enough to be held. Perhaps you'd enjoy living in Iran. You don't seem cut out to be an American.
Have you changed your mind since then?
No, my opinion stays exactly the same. I have no problem holding terrorists who happen to be US Citizens until the information that would be revealed in a trial is no longer a factor. I do think 3 years is excessive, though.
Like I said. You know you're just looking to cry when you have to go back over a year to did up something to cry about. Then, when you find it, you don't discuss it. You throw a tantrum.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Afraid to handle a free society? I'm afraid of your idea of a free society. Coddle the criminals and let the terrorists roam free. If you'd like to live with criminals, don't ruin things for the rest of us. Go to prison.
He's not? Have you looked at his life? He's actually quite the criminal. Even before he started hanging out with terrorists. Odd that you are so anxious to see him on the streets.
I have no problems with terrorists being held indefinitely. I'm not surprised that you think plotting with terrorists isn't reason enough to be held. Perhaps you'd enjoy living in Iran. You don't seem cut out to be an American.
[/B]
Terrorists should be dealt with harshly. This man has been neither tried nor charged.
No, my opinion stays exactly the same. I have no problem holding terrorists who happen to be US Citizens until the information that would be revealed in a trial is no longer a factor. I do think 3 years is excessive, though.
Like I said. You know you're just looking to cry when you have to go back over a year to did up something to cry about. Then, when you find it, you don't discuss it. You throw a tantrum.
You seem to be opposed to habeus corpus. I'm discusing it with you now.
So you are saying that the Constitution is to be ignored when it is convenient for the government to do so?
Do you believe that the Bill of Rights is excessive? Should they be abolished at the whim of any government official? What happens when a government you don't like comes into power? Say the next administration arrests W. on war crimes. Perhaps they would consider any of his public supporters to be accessories to those alleged crimes. How would you feel about the right to a speedy trial then?
You protray yourself as a super patriot. So I am confused when you make posts apparently opposed to our constitutional rights.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Couldn't you guys see which way your country was developing once the government assinated Dennis Weavers family?
randy weaver?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Couldn't you guys see which way your country was developing once the government assinated Dennis Weavers family?
Always wondered how Festus got his job.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Terrorists should be dealt with harshly. This man has been neither tried nor charged.
What's charged or tried have to do with anything? We aren't allowed to hold our enemies in a time of war? We have to try them first? When did this start?
You seem to be opposed to habeus corpus. I'm discusing it with you now.
No, I'm opposed to letting our enemy run free. I'm further opposed to conducting lengthy and expensive trials for each enemy combatant.
So you are saying that the Constitution is to be ignored when it is convenient for the government to do so?
I'm saying when you decide to go fight for the other team, I'm not going to fight for you when you're treated like the enemy. Publicly trying the enemy in a time of war releases information that retards further investigation and puts soldiers at risk. I'm willing to let a terrorist sit in prison for awhile if it prevents attacks and saves lives.
Do you believe that the Bill of Rights is excessive? Should they be abolished at the whim of any government official? What happens when a government you don't like comes into power? Say the next administration arrests W. on war crimes. Perhaps they would consider any of his public supporters to be accessories to those alleged crimes. How would you feel about the right to a speedy trial then?
Arresting someone on war crimes isn't the same as arresting someone for conspiring with the enemy and plotting an attack against the US. It's funny to watch you make that comparison, though, as the defense of your position becomes more desperate.
You protray yourself as a super patriot. So I am confused when you make posts apparently opposed to our constitutional rights.
You portray yourself as a troll. You then go back through over a years worth of comments to find something to troll about. I'm not confused at all. I've got you pegged accurately.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm saying when you decide to go fight for the other team, I'm not going to fight for you when you're treated like the enemy. Publicly trying the enemy in a time of war releases information that retards further investigation and puts soldiers at risk. I'm willing to let a terrorist sit in prison for awhile if it prevents attacks and saves lives.
Thats the point, where is the evidence that he was fighting for the other side, and why is the administration afraid to present it?
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Thats the point, where is the evidence that he was fighting for the other side, and why is the administration afraid to present it?
shamus
They aren't afraid to present it. They've released that he was working with Abu Zubaydah, who the US has in custody and is co-operating.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
They aren't afraid to present it. They've released that he was working with Abu Zubaydah, who the US has in custody and is co-operating.
Thats not evidence..thats a statement.
An opening statement by a prosecutor or defense lawyer is not considered evidence until the other side has the opportunity to cross-examine it.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Thats not evidence..thats a statement.
An opening statement by a prosecutor or defense lawyer is not considered evidence until the other side has the opportunity to cross-examine it.
shamus
It doesn't matter what they did at the time, short of a trial. You wouldn't have been satisfied.
-
Bingo.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What's charged or tried have to do with anything? We aren't allowed to hold our enemies in a time of war? We have to try them first? When did this start?
No, I'm opposed to letting our enemy run free. I'm further opposed to conducting lengthy and expensive trials for each enemy combatant.
I'm saying when you decide to go fight for the other team, I'm not going to fight for you when you're treated like the enemy. Publicly trying the enemy in a time of war releases information that retards further investigation and puts soldiers at risk. I'm willing to let a terrorist sit in prison for awhile if it prevents attacks and saves lives.
Arresting someone on war crimes isn't the same as arresting someone for conspiring with the enemy and plotting an attack against the US. It's funny to watch you make that comparison, though, as the defense of your position becomes more desperate.
You portray yourself as a troll. You then go back through over a years worth of comments to find something to troll about. I'm not confused at all. I've got you pegged accurately.
Martlet,
Thank you for proving my point. The Constitution is a meaningless document to you.
Unfortunately, it is also a meaningless document to the present administration.
However, the constitution has survived other attacks upon it, and will survive here, despite people such as yourself.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Martlet,
Thank you for proving my point. The Constitution is a meaningless document to you.
Unfortunately, it is also a meaningless document to the present administration.
However, the constitution has survived other attacks upon it, and will survive here, despite people such as yourself.
(http://dogsnot.net/pics/trolling.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
What's charged or tried have to do with anything? We aren't allowed to hold our enemies in a time of war? We have to try them first? When did this start?
[/B]
1789. Here is a link for you. Read this, you'll be amazed!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
-
Originally posted by greentail
1789. Here is a link for you. Read this, you'll be amazed!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution [/B]
Funny. You didn't answer the question in what you quoted.
(http://dogsnot.net/pics/trolling.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Funny. You didn't answer the question in what you quoted.
(http://dogsnot.net/pics/trolling.jpg)
Your question was "What's charged or tried have to do with anything? We aren't allowed to hold our enemies in a time of war? We have to try them first? When did this start?"
The answer is "1789".
-
Originally posted by greentail
Your question was "What's charged or tried have to do with anything? We aren't allowed to hold our enemies in a time of war? We have to try them first? When did this start?"
The answer is "1789".
Actually, no. That's a false answer.
-
Never mind, Martlet. We know where you stand on civil liberties now (you don't care for them). That makes your previous posts more understandable.
-
Originally posted by greentail
Never mind, Martlet. We know where you stand on civil liberties now (you don't care for them). That makes your previous posts more understandable.
Ahhhh. Now that you realize your argument is complete crap, it's "never mind".
Just slink away, troll, just slink away. Perhaps you should just dump this account now and start yet another shades.
-
Whatever happened to presumed innocent? What happened to the burden of proof having to be given by the government?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Whatever happened to presumed innocent? What happened to the burden of proof having to be given by the government?
Nothing. You're confusing criminal law, which Padilla also violated and was punished in accordance with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Enemy Combatants.
-
That is correct, you may be punished by decree now in this country provided that you are accused of the proper thing.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
That is correct, you may be punished by decree now in this country provided that you are accused of the proper thing.
shamus
That's correct. If you are a treasonous terrorist, you can be locked up indefinitely.
Thankfully.
-
That's correct. If you are a treasonous terrorist, you can be locked up indefinitely.
I think the point is, if your government claims you're a treasonous terrorist, you can be locked up indefinately.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I think the point is, if your government claims you're a treasonous terrorist, you can be locked up indefinately.
If they claimed mother teresa was a treasonous terrorist, I'd be a little concerned.
If they claimed a chicago gang banger with a rap sheet as long as my truck, who changed his name to mohammed and moved to the middle east to train with al al qaeda was a terrorist, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.
-
It's very simple really, we have differing views.
I believe everyone in this country is entitled to due process under the law, you dont, we are never going to convince each other :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
It's very simple really, we have differing views.
I believe everyone in this country is entitled to due process under the law, you dont, we are never going to convince each other :)
shamus
I believe everyone is entitled to due process under the law also. Holding someone as an enemy combatant is legal.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I believe everyone is entitled to due process under the law also. Holding someone as an enemy combatant is legal.
Acording to the administration it is, according to the last federal court ruling in this case it is not.
Ok Im out take your last word :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Martlet
That's correct. If you are a treasonous terrorist, you can be locked up indefinitely.
Thankfully.
lol I don't understand. Treason is a crime. That kid from california got a trial and he was caught on the battlefield. So your ok with the government just rounding up whomever it says are terrorists and then locking them up and throwing the key away, with absolutely no evidence ever being presented to justify it? Is that what you are saying is ok? Because that is not ok. That to me is the terrorists winning. Turning us against ourselves. I would rather risk a bomb every now and then, than the government locking up citizens at its own discretion.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
lol I don't understand. Treason is a crime. That kid from california got a trial and he was caught on the battlefield. So your ok with the government just rounding up whomever it says are terrorists and then locking them up and throwing the key away, with absolutely no evidence ever being presented to justify it? Is that what you are saying is ok? Because that is not ok. That to me is the terrorists winning. Turning us against ourselves. I would rather risk a bomb every now and then, than the government locking up citizens at its own discretion.
Apparently you have a reading problem. That same question was already posed to me and answered. I'll post it again just for you.
What I said was:
If they claimed a chicago gang banger with a rap sheet as long as my truck, who changed his name to mohammed and moved to the middle east to train with al al qaeda was a terrorist, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it.